NationStates Jolt Archive

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.

Well, so does Islam...

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.

Qualifying factor:

Jesus Christ is lord and saviour... died on the cross, rose three days later and returned to heaven to sit with the Father, from whence he will return. One must choose to follow (believe in) christ to be saved.

These are things Jesus said/did, and are linchpins of christianity. IF the above faiths mentioned in the original post include the basic tenets of Christianity, then yeah, they may be called Christian.

Umm....Scientologists? No way!

Qualifying factor:

1) You are either mentally deranged.

2) Or you are like a hypochodriac, you tell yourself god exists so much, heck you start to believe in it yourself!

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?As a non-Christian, I'd count the Scientologists out because of their practices. I don't think they can be considered a religion, but should be labeled as a cult.

Qualifying factor:

1) You are either mentally deranged.

2) Or you are like a hypochodriac, you tell yourself god exists so much, heck you start to believe in it yourself!

1)You are either mentally deranged in thinking that you can't be judged

2)Or you are like a little kid hiding in your room after stealing a cookie from the jar, hoping that by being out of sight of Mom will mean that she'll forget your transgression and that you'll go unpunished.

hehe

Qualifying factor:

1) You are either mentally deranged.

2) Or you are like a hypochodriac, you tell yourself god exists so much, heck you start to believe in it yourself!

You've been warned about your trolling in other threads, yet you still continue? Do yourself a favor; if you want to be on this site for a long period of time, and read what you actually type before you his the "Post" button.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs.

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.

The Mormons claim they are Christian. Some other Christian denominations (including one to which I used to belong) do not consider the Mormons to be Christian, though. So I guess it's a matter of your definition of "Christian".

They're sufficiently Christian for me to call them Christian. As are Jehovah's Witnesses. Scientologists, though, are not, and don't claim to be.

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?

Mormons are Christians in much the same way that Christians are Jewish. Mormonism is based in Christianity, just as Christianity is based in Judaism. However, another prophet and another set of divine revelations have been added in Mormonism, essentially making it a new religion (unless, of course, Christianity itself is simply a subset of Judaism - something that could be argued).

Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the Christian faith, albeit with very different interpretations than most Christians.

Scientologists have no connection at all to Christ, at least not in what part of the religion they will tell you before you start donating thousands of dollars. Do you know something we don't?

Mormons are Christians in much the same way that Christians are Jewish. Mormonism is based in Christianity, just as Christianity is based in Judaism. However, another prophet and another set of divine revelations have been added in Mormonism, essentially making it a new religion (unless, of course, Christianity itself is simply a subset of Judaism - something that could be argued).I disagree with your interpretation of Mormonism there...
Mormons are to Catholics (and most other Christians) as Catholics (same as before) are to those of the Jewish faith. This, I assume, you take from the fact that Christians add a couple books to the Tora, while Mormons add another couple books to the Bible (I've actually been around a Mormon that told a Jew that Mormons were closer to Jews than normal Christians and got that pointed out to them quite clearly :D ).
But, Mormons are still Christians. If Jews called themselves Abrahamites, Christians would also still be Abrahamites, since they also base themselves on Abraham.
Mormons call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, do they not? Makes them Christian, since they are still based on the Jesus Christ being the son of God. (They drop the LDS in German, actually, it's just "Kirche Jesu Christi" on their nifty name tags)

As a non-Christian, I'd count the Scientologists out because of their practices. I don't think they can be considered a religion, but should be labeled as a cult.

Almost all religions started out as cults, Christianity in particular. There's really no difference between the two.

You might be mixing up Scientology with First Church of Christ, Scientist, (AKA Christian Science) which is very Christian and rejects medicine in favor of miraculous healing, from what I gather. Scientologists are anti-Christian.

Almost all religions started out as cults, Christianity in particular. There's really no difference between the two.A religion is a faith, while a cult is based on abusing and milking people they've duped into "believing". This means that some churches in Christianity or otherwise are "cults" in my eyes. But mainstream religion is not.

Mormans add to the bible and that is why most Donominations consider them none christian.

I'm Baptist. I am a reformed Morman. coverted to Baptist about 2 years ago.

and to the guy who states that christianality started from cults. Apsolutly wrong.

I'm in colege right now learning about the Christian faith to become a Youth Pastor.

it's athiests who call Christinality a "cult" and all other religions "cults" that give good friendly Athiests bad Names.

One of the essential beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus is God in flesh, and that his death redeems us from sin. JW teaches that Jesus was a created being (not God, more like a super-angel I think) and that he didn't actually die (Islam teaches this as well).

I believe Mormonism is considered non-Christian by the mainstream denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Orthodox) because they teach polytheism (there are an infinite number of gods, each creating their own worlds and subsequently new gods) and see the trinity as three gods in sort of one office called the godhead.

Both of these are really vaguely remembered stuff from books and articles on religious movements I've read... if any of it's wrong, forgive me - but those are some of the things that set them apart from the generally-accepted Christian doctrine.

Really, the short answer to your very simple question is:

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?

Only to themselves, only to themselves, and no.

Mormons are Christians in much the same way that Christians are Jewish. Mormonism is based in Christianity, just as Christianity is based in Judaism. However, another prophet and another set of divine revelations have been added in Mormonism, essentially making it a new religion (unless, of course, Christianity itself is simply a subset of Judaism - something that could be argued).

Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the Christian faith, albeit with very different interpretations than most Christians.

Scientologists have no connection at all to Christ, at least not in what part of the religion they will tell you before you start donating thousands of dollars. Do you know something we don't?

I don't know that I know something you don't, but I'm unclear (scientolgists are a confusing lot).

When I lived in Florida a friend of mine was dating a scientologist. HE wanted to research it (which was not easy by any means). He managed to get a few tapes of L. Ron Hubbard talking about it and he did make references to Jesus although it was unclear as to whether these were tie-ins or simply anecdotes.

That's why I ask. They are ver beguiling.

I disagree with your interpretation of Mormonism there...
Mormons are to Catholics (and most other Christians) as Catholics (same as before) are to those of the Jewish faith. This, I assume, you take from the fact that Christians add a couple books to the Tora, while Mormons add another couple books to the Bible (I've actually been around a Mormon that told a Jew that Mormons were closer to Jews than normal Christians and got that pointed out to them quite clearly :D ).

It isn't just about adding a couple of books. Mormons claim a whole new set of revelations - a whole new book of divine guidance - above and beyond that which Christianity recognizes. They have a new prophet who changed the way of thinking and introduced things above and beyond that which Christ taught.

For this reason, Mormons are Christians, ie., part of Christianity in the exact same way that Christians are Jewish. Now, one could certainly say that all Christians are Jewish, as Christianity was an added revelation on top of that in Judaism. In the same way, one could say that Mormons are Christianis with an added revelation on top of that given by Christ.

However, most people would not call Christians followers of Judaism. And, for the exact same reason, most people would not call Mormons followers of Christianity.

But, Mormons are still Christians. If Jews called themselves Abrahamites, Christians would also still be Abrahamites, since they also base themselves on Abraham.

And yet Abrahamites call themselves Jews. Thus, the words are interchangeable. You are basically agreeing with me here, by saying that Christians are Jews.

One of the essential beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus is God in flesh, and that his death redeems us from sin. JW teaches that Jesus was a created being (not God, more like a super-angel I think) and that he didn't actually die (Islam teaches this as well).

First off, Islam does not teach that Christ did not die, but that is another story altogether.

Secondly, the "non-Christian" beliefs you describe here were part of the early church. In fact, the divinity of Christ was not "settled upon" until hundreds of years into the existence of the church. Thus, if this is was JWs believe, it hardly excludes them from Christianity. They are simply following a form of Christianity that existed in the earliest days, but was rejected by mainstream followers.

I believe Mormonism is considered non-Christian by the mainstream denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Orthodox) because they teach polytheism (there are an infinite number of gods, each creating their own worlds and subsequently new gods) and see the trinity as three gods in sort of one office called the godhead.

I'm pretty sure that Mormonism is monotheistic. However, I do know that the big "bitch" (for lack of a better word) is that in the Bible is states that this is the final word of god and any books written after are no good. Thus the book of Morani (their bible with additions) is invalid.

Now we will disregard the evidence that Joseph Smith took psycho-tropic drugs and wrote the book of Morani on the advice of a "rainbow lizard", and see how the extra book jibes with the general Christian ideals.

As a non-Christian, I'd count the Scientologists out because of their practices. I don't think they can be considered a religion, but should be labeled as a cult.

But isn't a cult a small group people following a leader in the divine? Jesus had a group just like that.

First off, Islam does not teach that Christ did not die, but that is another story altogether

Maybe, but as I recall Islam teaches that Christ was not really crucified.

Secondly, the "non-Christian" beliefs you describe here were part of the early church. In fact, the divinity of Christ was not "settled upon" until hundreds of years into the existence of the church. Thus, if this is was JWs believe, it hardly excludes them from Christianity. They are simply following a form of Christianity that existed in the earliest days, but was rejected by mainstream followers.

You make it sound a little like the meeting here went like this:
Pope - Alright guys,are gonna say that Jesus is God or not?
Jerry - Sure, yeah
Bill - Eh... I don't care
Pope - Oh come on Bill, a simple yes or no...
Bill - fine... Yes... whatever
Juan - You know, I disagree based on the context of-
Jerry - Shut up Juan
Bill - Yeah, shut up
Pope - Yeah, you're so excommunicated.
Juan - You all suck.

I would think the early Christian church would have had a bit more respect for scholarship - and that they interpretation they "settled upon" was the one they felt best fit with the texts available to them.

Regardless, the point you make is a good one. The doctrines which the JW's now practice do coincide with some early Christian practices now considered heretical (maybe "incorrect" would be a less charged word) by the mainstream Church. From a non-mainstream-Christian point of view, you could argue that they fall within Christian doctrinal boundaries, but it looks to us like they're on the other side of the fence.

I'm pretty sure that Mormonism is monotheistic. However, I do know that the big "bitch" (for lack of a better word) is that in the Bible is states that this is the final word of god and any books written after are no good. Thus the book of Morani (their bible with additions) is invalid.


God in Mormonism is complicated. He was a man on another planet, where he lived a virtuous life and thus became a god in the celestial heaven, and received his own planet. The most virtuous Mormons are promised the possibility of becoming gods themselves, thus, in this theology an infinite number of gods exist, though only one is directly accessible. Actually, that sounds pretty cool... a better word might be "disagreement."

I'm not sure that the Bible claims that all future revelation is false, but it does require that Scripture can only be added to by a messenger from God whose teachings are verified by the performance of miracles. But it's a big book and I haven't finished it yet, so I can't say for sure.

Jesus in Scientology

Jesus in scientology is regarded as a "Clear," along with several others (Buddha maybe?). Clears are higher incarnations of life than us Pre-Clears, without those pesky engrams. Clears probably don't have to be audited either...

Maybe, but as I recall Islam teaches that Christ was not really crucified.

Nope. The only thing they teach any differently from Christianity is that they teach that Christ was a prophet, not a messiah, and certainly not God. They also teach that he was not ressurrected.

You make it sound a little like the meeting here went like this:
Pope - Alright guys,are gonna say that Jesus is God or not?
Jerry - Sure, yeah
Bill - Eh... I don't care
Pope - Oh come on Bill, a simple yes or no...
Bill - fine... Yes... whatever
Juan - You know, I disagree based on the context of-
Jerry - Shut up Juan
Bill - Yeah, shut up
Pope - Yeah, you're so excommunicated.
Juan - You all suck.

I would think the early Christian church would have had a bit more respect for scholarship - and that they interpretation they "settled upon" was the one they felt best fit with the texts available to them.

First off, there was no pope in the early church.

Second, the interpretation they "settled on" was "settled on" by a majority-rules type vote. Yes, there was discussion. In fact, there is still discussion. One of the reasons for the East-West schism in the church was a difference in interpretation over just how Christ could be God.

However, the fact remains that some of the early church did not think that Christ was God. Some of them believed that Christ really was God, but that the OT God was actually a fallen angel of sorts. Some of them believed other things. What became the consensus may or may not have more backing, if you looked at all available Scripture and all available teachings of the time. What matters is that it was what the majority believed and the majority were teaching. Does that make the minority "less Christian" than the majority? They were trying to follow Christ's teachings to the best of their ability, same as anyone else.

Regardless, the point you make is a good one. The doctrines which the JW's now practice do coincide with some early Christian practices now considered heretical (maybe "incorrect" would be a less charged word) by the mainstream Church. From a non-mainstream-Christian point of view, you could argue that they fall within Christian doctrinal boundaries, but it looks to us like they're on the other side of the fence.

You say "us" as if you speak for all Christians. I can assure you that you do not. From any kind of rational point of view, a group attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they understand them are no more or less Christian than you or I. I believe that the JWs are misled in much of what they believe. Of course, I believe that all of us are misled in much of what we believe. Thus, they are no more or less Christian than I.

But isn't a cult a small group people following a leader in the divine? Jesus had a group just like that.Not by my definition. A cult consists of a leader or an elite that use their followers to gain power and money for selfish reasons, accompanied by brainwashing and other indicators.

personally as an athiest I can really see the links between judaesim, christianity and islam (in all the many types)

generally I think to be one of these religions you have to have one god (officially at least) and then to tell which you are in is up to commandments and which saints/profits/sons of god/heretics you listen to depending on your point of view

personally as an athiest I can really see the links between judaesim, christianity and islam (in all the many types)

generally I think to be one of these religions you have to have one god (officially at least) and then to tell which you are in is up to commandments and which saints/profits/sons of god/heretics you listen to depending on your point of viewThey also have the same holy book. Some just add stuff on...

differences in the religions:

christianity:
God: the trinity,father son and holy spirit, kinda thing.
sacred text: the bible
afterlife: heaven or hell
worldview:monotheistic

jehovahs witness:
God: jehovah(same god as christianity)

afterlife:heaven(only the 144000 chosen ones can go unlike in christainity where everyone who believes can go)
earth(for everyone who believes but wasnt chosen)
nothing(for people who die)

sacred text: the bible(like christianity), new world translation(there additional scripture)

worldview: monotheistic

also they do not celebrate anything?

mormonism:
God:God of the bible, men become gods when they die

afterlife: those who are worthy will recieve there own planet. others can be sent to the 3 different levels of heaven depending on there worthiness. those who are not worthy of heaven go to spirit prison until they can be saved and sent to heaven.

worldview: polytheistic

sacred texts: the bible, the book of mormon, the doctine and covenants, the pearl of great price.

scientology:
God: any and every god exists, everyone can find there own path to spiritual awareness.

afterlife: your spirit is immortal and is reincarnated at your death.

worldview: pantheistic:

sacred texts: all writings by Ron Hubbard its founder

scientologies beliefs are actually closer to buddhism

so theres the basic difference

differences in the religions:

christianity:
God: the trinity,father son and holy spirit, kinda thing.
sacred text: the bible
afterlife: heaven or hell
worldview:monotheistic

jehovahs witness:
God: jehovah(same god as christianity)

afterlife:heaven(only the 144000 chosen ones can go unlike in christainity where everyone who believes can go)

Wait, you are telling me that Augustine wasn't Christian? That Calvin wasn't Christian? That those who now follow Calvin's teachings (strict Presbyterians) aren't Christians?

I've got news for you, the idea of predestinationism is nothing new - and quite a few Christians have believed in it. Not all have put a strict number on it (and the JWs have pretty much dropped the number now anyways, since there are more than 144000 JWs), but predestinationism has been a part of the church for quite some time.

earth(for everyone who believes but wasnt chosen)

The idea that hell will exist on Earth is also nothing new

Almost all religions started out as cults, Christianity in particular. There's really no difference between the two.
Between Christianity and Scientology?
Err, I don't think that Christians believe that all suffering is caused by the souls of dead aliens (slaughtered by Xenu millions of years ago) sticking to our bodies and that when they are removed we gain superhuman powers, or that they believe in 'auditing' and the Tone Scale, or that psychiatrists are the ultimate evil...

There is a bit of a difference.

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.
Given that Scientology revolves around expunging the ghosts of aliens who were murdered thousands of years ago by an evil warlord named Xenu...I'm guessing it's not Christianity.

Wait, you are telling me that Augustine wasn't Christian? That Calvin wasn't Christian? That those who now follow Calvin's teachings (strict Presbyterians) aren't Christians?

I've got news for you, the idea of predestinationism is nothing new - and quite a few Christians have believed in it. Not all have put a strict number on it (and the JWs have pretty much dropped the number now anyways, since there are more than 144000 JWs), but predestinationism has been a part of the church for quite some time.



The idea that hell will exist on Earth is also nothing new
Im not saying that these are new ideas or old ideas. im also not saying that people dont bend anyone religion a little bit. this is the basis of these religions. I personally dont agree with predestinationism but I will agree that some christians do.

Given that Scientology revolves around expunging the ghosts of aliens who were murdered thousands of years ago by an evil warlord named Xenu...I'm guessing it's not Christianity.
um.... I think you have the wrong scientolgy. Im not even sure if that could be a serious religion. sounds more like a video game.

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most widely accepted fictional events in history, and due to its "significance" it tends to have at least of superficial effect upon most emerging religions or spiritualist belief systems, particularly in today’s globalized world. This significance is not due to the actual death of Jesus, which could have easily been passed over by history, but due to his followers converting, conquering and subjugating a large portion of the world (Paul was the actual founder of Christianity, not Jesus, who probably did not exist as he is described. I would remind you all that this was a time of malnourished superstitious people and of rulers who openly proclaimed their divinity. The time Jesus supposedly existed was a time of chaos, instability and several would be saviors.)

Islam holds Jesus up as a prophet, not a savior. Mohammed is of greater significance (an interesting side note, Mohammed was said to have ascended after his death). In some ways Islam’s adoption of Jesus is similar to Christianities adoption of the Old Testament (or a rewritten version of it), to give their newly emerging religion (cult at the time) a history so as to more effectively deal with competing belief systems.

The Unarians hold Jesus was a reincarnated alien being.

So, no the use of the idea of Jesus by other (vastly different) belief systems is not a qualifying factor.

um.... I think you have the wrong scientolgy. Im not even sure if that could be a serious religion. sounds more like a video game.
Nope. Check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Operating_Thetan_levels_and_the_Xenu_incident)

Though I agree, not perhaps the most credible of religions. It might well make a reasonable video game at that, though I prefer strategy games myself.

I believe Jehovas witnesses are viewed as a cult of christianity by the (catholic) church. I dont think scientoligy has anything to do with christianity, or even if it has a consistent doctrine. I know it involves stuff about aliens, beyond that I have no idea.

No...Mormonism is not considered a Christian religion......and this is why:

Christians believe in ONE God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8; 45:5)...but the LDS church believes in many gods (And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3))....now if someone wants to comment on the possible idea that these "gods" were the Trinity...let me explain the differences in LDS and Christian views on that...

The Christian view of the Trinity is as follows: The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three, eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This means that there is still only ONE God....NOT THREE!! The LDS view on the trinity is as follows: The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)

Christians also believe that God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15)...the LDS Church teaches differently: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)

Christians believe that God is a spirit without flesh and bone (John 4:24; Luke 24:39)....LDS teach that God is made of flesh and bone: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10)
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

Christians believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23)...LDS believe otherwise: "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115) "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547)

Christians believe that Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17). The LDS believe that Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

Christians believe that The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is not a force. He is a person. (Acts 5:3-4; 13:2)....the LDS believe Mormonism distinguishes between the Holy Spirit (God's presence via an essence) and the Holy Ghost (the third god in the Mormon doctrine of the trinity). "He [the Holy Ghost] is a being endowed with the attributes and powers of Deity, and not a mere force, or essence (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 144)

Christian's believe that salvation is the forgiveness of sin and deliverance of the sinner from damnation. It is a free gift received by God's grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23) and cannot be earned (Rom. 11:6)....LDS believe that salvation has a double meaning: universal resurrection and . . . "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79

Christian's believe that salvation (forgiveness of sins) is not by works (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:21)...the LDS believe "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79)

Christian's believe that the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses....the LDS see it differently: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church

A HUGE difference between Christians and LDS is how each defines Christian terminology:

BIBLE
LDS - The Bible is correct only as far as it is correctly translated. It is basically trustworthy. It is the only one of the four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) that is not considered infallible.
Christian- the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

SALVATION
LDS - Simple bodily resurrection. It does not simply mean forgiveness of sins. Jesus died for universal resurrection.
Christian - Forgiveness of sins with the result of a present new life and in the future eternal life with God (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:23; Rom. 10:9-10).

HEAVEN
LDS - Divided into three Kingdoms: Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. The Celestial is for perfect Mormons, the Terrestrial is for moral people and lukewarm LDS, and the Telestial Kingdom is for everyone else.
Christian - The dwelling place of God (1 Kings 8:30). Christians go to heaven.

KINGDOM OF GOD
LDS - Celestial heaven.
Christian - All the believers of Christ (Matt. 13:41-43).

HOLY GHOST
LDS - "A spirit man. He can only be at one place at one time... " (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, p. 359.) The Holy Ghost is contrasted with the Spirit of God which is the influence of the Godhead that fills the immensity of space which enables God to know what is going on. It is likened to electricity."
Christian - Third person of the Trinity. Same as Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

ETERNAL LIFE
LDS - Exaltation (exaltation to a Mormon means obtaining Godhood) in the Celestial Kingdom.
Christian- Forgiveness of sins and life eternal with God (John 17:3; Rom. 6:23).

GODHEAD
LDS - An office held by three separate Gods: the Father who is a god; Jesus who is a god; and the Holy Ghost who is a god.
Christian- God Himself, not an office. Three persons in one God. A Trinity: The Father; the Son; and the Holy Spirit.

JESUS
LDS - Spirit brother of Satan. A god in the Godhead. He is Jehovah of the O.T. compared to Elohim being the Father. He was the first spirit child to be born to the Father and Mother gods.
Christian- Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

ATONEMENT
LDS - The sacrifice of Christ that made resurrection possible along with the possibility of our earning forgiveness of sins.
Christian- The substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. He died for OUR sins (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 2:2).

PRE-EXISTENCE
LDS - We existed in heaven with God our (literal) Father before we became human.
Christian - We did not exist before we came to earth (1 Cor. 15:46).

GOSPEL
LDS - The laws and the ordinances of the Mormon church.
Christian - The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Here is a skit that I think illustrates the differences between th LDS church and the Christian church:

Matt: Hi. How's it going? Are you talking to this guy about Mormonism?
Mark: Yes, we are. We've given him some literature to read and were about to explain what we believe to him. Are you a Mormon?
Matt: No. But do you mind if I listen to the conversation?
Mark: Not at all.
Mark: As I was saying Peter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is only one God, that there is a Trinity, and that we are saved by grace.
Peter: That's great. I was wondering if you guys were Christian or not. I've heard different things about you and my preacher last year said that your church wasn't Christian.
Mark: Oh yes, we are definitely Christian. We believe in the same Jesus and God as you do. We believe the Bible is God's word just like you. Usually the people who don't think we're Christian don't know what we believe and have only listened to anti-Mormon stuff. But, we are Christian. We believe in the Jesus of the Bible, in His Father, and in salvation by grace.
Peter: That’s great. You guys sure sound Christian to me.
Matt: Excuse me, can I interject something here?
Mark: Of course, go ahead.
Matt: Peter, so you think they are Christian because they say they believe in one God, in the Trinity, and salvation by grace?
Peter: Yep. They are Christians.
Matt: Could I run something by you real quick?
Peter: Sure.
Matt: I'd like you to tell me if you think this is Christian. What if I said that I believed that god used to be a man on another world and he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world. And, that when he became a god, he raised his wife to goddess hood. So, god then has a goddess wife. They both have physical form. And what if I added that they both came to this world and produce spirit children in heaven. These spirit children then inhabit babies during birth and that each of them has the potential to be like god and become gods of their own worlds? What would you think of that if I said it that way?
Peter: Well, I don’t know. It doesn’t sound like anything I’ve heard in the Bible. I guess I’d have to disagree with you.
Matt: Okay, and what if I said that I believed that god and his wife produced Jesus and the Holy Ghost in heaven and that the three of them are three gods and that together they form the one Godhead known as the Trinity? What would you think of that?
Peter: Well, I know that isn't what the Bible teaches so I would disagree with you again.
Matt: Well, Peter, that is what Mormonism teaches.
Peter: No way… come on. It does not.
Matt: Okay Mark, is what I said true?
Mark: Well, not exactly. You've worded it in such a way to make it sound bad.
Matt: Okay then, why don't you tell him what you believe in your own words?
Mark: We believe in God the Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ who is our savior. We believe we have the potential to be like Heavenly Father and return to him one day.
Matt: Peter, did what he just said jive what I said Mormonism teaches?
Peter: No. They are different.
Matt: Which is true, Mark?
Mark: Well, there are some things that are difficult to understand and you don't just go telling them to people until they've learned all the basics. You’re taking things out of context.
Matt: I don't see why you just don't tell them the whole thing up front? Tell them you believe you can become a god and that there is a goddess mother in heaven?
Mark: Matt, I think you’re being very rude and contentious. I don’t feel the spirit of God here.
Matt: I don’t mean to be contentious. But I do intend to simply tell Peter what Mormonism teaches. Is that okay?
Mark: You don’t understand Mormonism. You are taking everything out of context.
Peter: Matt, you aren't serious are you? Where'd you get this information?
Matt: I got it from Mormon writers. Mark, you said you believed in one God, right?
Mark: Yes, we believe in only one God.
Matt: Let me ask you. Is Jesus a member of the Trinity?
Mark: Yes.
Matt: Is Jesus a god?
Mark: Yes.
Matt: Then that means there are two gods, right?
Mark. There is only one God. We believe in only one of them.
Matt: You just said that Jesus is a god. He with the father makes two gods. And also, isn't the Holy Ghost a god, too?
Mark: Yes.
Matt: Then that is three gods. And, there is the wife of Heavenly Father, right? That makes four. So, isn’t it true that what you are saying is that you believe that many gods exist but you serve and worship only one of them.
Mark: I do not appreciate the manner in which you are discussing this. I feel the spirit of contention here. I think we should leave.
Matt: My apologies Mark. I mean no offense, but I believe you are trained to respond in such a way that is misleading. I'd appreciate it if you would correct me and show me where I am wrong when I say something.
Peter: I'm interest in knowing what the truth is here. Can we continue?
Mark: I'd like to, but I don't like the manner that he is presenting this. It is degrading and insulting. Why don't you leave?
Peter: I'd like him to stay.
Matt: I apologies for being blunt, but I don't know any other way to get the point accross. We are talking about the fundamental nature of God. He can't be described in generic, vague terms. We need to know what you mean by the term "God" as compared to what we mean as Christians. I propose to you that they are not the same. You use the same words, but not the same definitions.
Mark: I disagree. We believe in the same God you do.
Matt: Well, I don't think so. The Bible says that God has always been God (Psalm 90:2) and that God doesn't even know of any other gods (Isaiah 44:6,8). In Mormonism, god is an exalted man from another world, right?
Mark: Well, technically that is correct, but there is more to it than that.
Matt: Like what?
Mark: For one, we believe in eternal progression and the right of God’s children to become like him. After all, the Bible says we are children of God and that we are to become perfect as heavenly father is perfect.
Matt: See, you are making my case for me. We don’t mean the same thing by the words used here. In Christianity, being God’s children doesn’t mean there is a mother goddess who’s married to God the Father and they produce spirit children. Instead, it is speaking of adoption (Romans 8). Also, being perfect (Matt. 5:48) does not mean becoming a god, but loving all people as God does. It is clear when you read the context of Matt. 5:43-48. Also, when Christians speak of God, they mean a single being called God, not one of three gods in the godhead. They don’t mean a god who used to be a man on another world and has a goddess wife. The beliefs are radically different.
Mark: Look. I think you’re rude and wording things to make us look bad.
Matt: How? Were you going to tell Peter here these things? Or were you going to tell him about loving God, believing in salvation by grace, and let him think you mean something different than you do? That isn’t right.
Peter: Is this true Mark? Do you guys really believe there is a goddess mother in heaven?
Mark: Well, it isn’t taught as official doctrine by the church.
Matt: But do you believe it?
Mark: .....Yes.
Matt: If it isn’t taught as official church doctrine, then why do you believe it?
Mark: It isn’t officially taught, but it only makes sense that if we have a Father, that we’d also have a mother.
Matt: Perhaps it makes sense on the human level. But spiritual truth is determined by the Bible, not by human feelings or logic. The Bible states that there are no other gods beside God. In fact, God says that he doesn’t even know of any other gods (Isaiah 44:6,8). Now, if he has a goddess wife, wouldn’t he know about her?
Mark: There you go twisting things again?
Matt: How am I twisting this? I am applying biblical statements to our conversation.
Mark: I think you’re rude and I don’t want to talk about this anymore.
Peter: No, please don’t go. This is very interesting. Matt, perhaps you could be gentler in your approach.
Matt: Mark, I apologize for any rudeness. I am not trying to be mean. Can we continue?
Mark: Since Peter asked, sure.
Matt: Well then, why don’t you state what you believe to Peter.
Mark: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The LDS Church states that Jesus is the Son of God, the Creator of the universe, and the savior and redeemer of the world. How much more Christian can you get than that? I know, and I will know for the rest of my life, that the LDS Church is a Christian Church.
Peter: That sounds pretty good. But is it true that you believe God came from another planet?
Mark: He didn’t originate on another world. He’s eternal. We believe in eternal intelligences. God simply resided on another world before coming here.
Matt: But doesn’t Mormonism teach that God used to dwell on another world, as a man, and that he became a God through exaltation and is now the God of this earth?
Mark: Yes.
Peter: What?
Mark: We believe in eternal progression. We believe we are capable of being like Heavenly Father. We teach that as man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.
Peter: So you’re saying you believe you can become a god?
Mark: Yes, we believe we all have that potential?
Peter: But it doesn’t teach that in the Bible.
Mark: Actually, it does. The Bible says that we are to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.
Peter: Really? I didn’t know that.
Matt: Hold on a second. I already mentioned that that verse, which is Matt. 5:48, is not about becoming a god. It is about love. Mark, may I use your Bible and can we read the context?
Mark: Sure [reluctantly].
Matt: Here it is in the King James version. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
So you see? It is dealing with loving all people equally. Not becoming a god.
Mark. But Jesus said, "Ye are gods."
Matt: That was John 10:34 which is a quote from Psalm 82:6. In John 10:30, Jesus had claimed to be one with God and the Pharisees got upset with Him and wanted to kill Him. He defended His position by quoting Psalm 82:6. In that Psalm, God is mocking the religious leaders of the day who had the power of life and death over their subjects. God says in the very next verse, "Nevertheless, you will die like men." In addition to that, Mark, your own apostle, James Talmage says in his book, Jesus the Christ, on the bottom of page 501, that that verse is not about becoming gods, but about the improper use of power by the religious leaders... just like I said. Check it out for yourselves.
Mark: I suppose you’ve got an answer for everything.
Matt: Hardly, there is much I don’t know. But I do know that the Bible teaches that God said there is only one God, not more than one. Would you like to see the verses...
Mark: No, that’s okay. I think it’s time for us to leave. The contention here is too strong.
Matt: Well, before you go, I’d like to say one last thing. You stated that you believe in God, the same God that I believe in. Yet, you believe he came from another world and has a goddess wife. I don’t believe that and from what I see, the Bible doesn’t teach it. So, they aren’t the same then are they.
Mark: I suppose not.
Matt: Then, why would you use the same words we use to speak to some like Peter here? Isn’t that misleading him.
Mark: Time to go.
Matt: Okay, I’ll see you later I hope.

Thank you for reading this!! :)

no they aren't. Christains are followers of Christ (believing that Christ and God are one in the same.) They believe that Christ died on the cross for thier sins and that the only salvation is accepting him as your personal savior. If you have made that commitment you will go to heaven and have eternal life with God, if not well you know.....

Mormons believe that Christ and Lucifer are created beings and that they are brothers. They also believe that if you are good when you die you get your own planet to be god on.

Jehovah's witness believe that Christ is a created being and nothing more than a prophet. They believe that when you die if you are good you will come to the new earth and if you are bad you just die.

I am not even going to try to explain Scientology...

Nope. Check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Operating_Thetan_levels_and_the_Xenu_incident)

Though I agree, not perhaps the most credible of religions. It might well make a reasonable video game at that, though I prefer strategy games myself.
ok, that is very strange. I see that it is a portion of there belief system. although this sounds more like childs play or video game to me(sorry for being closed mind, it just souds really irrational, but then again most religions sound irrational so I try to keep away from them.)

ok, that is very strange. I see that it is a portion of there belief system. although this sounds more like childs play or video game to me(sorry for being closed mind, it just souds really irrational, but then again most religions sound irrational so I try to keep away from them.)
Yeah, I couldn't believe it the first time I learned what Scientology is about. The part I mentioned is actually the LEAST INSANE portion of that "religion."

Of course, the Scientologists don't believe that the sun is a chariot drawn by flaming horses. They don't believe in gods that demand we rip the beating heart from a virgin's chest before throwing her off a pyramid. They don't believe in magic zombies, talking snakes, and an "all-good" God who uses statutory rape to create fresh material for blood sacrifices. So at least the last few millenia have gotten us somewhere.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it the first time I learned what Scientology is about. The part I mentioned is actually the LEAST INSANE portion of that "religion."

You never know, they might change it around completely after you donate your first $100,000. =)

Mormans add to the bible and that is why most Donominations consider them none christian.

I'm Baptist. I am a reformed Morman. coverted to Baptist about 2 years ago.

and to the guy who states that christianality started from cults. Apsolutly wrong.

I'm in colege right now learning about the Christian faith to become a Youth Pastor.

it's athiests who call Christinality a "cult" and all other religions "cults" that give good friendly Athiests bad Names.

It is spelled "Mormon", not Morman. Nothing has been added to the Bible since the 4th Century. (The Bible didn't exist until then). The Bible and the Book of Mormon are two separate books - one is the record of the Tribe of Judah, the other is the from a remnant of the Tribe of Joseph.

Next, let's look up the word cult - "In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices."

Doesn't that sound like the church down the street? Since the vast majority of churches are self contained entities, small and controlled by a church board, they would each qualify as a cult. The term Baptist, Methodist, etc denote loose associations and have no direct control over doctrine that is taught.

I believe Mormonism is considered non-Christian by the mainstream denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Orthodox) because they teach polytheism (there are an infinite number of gods, each creating their own worlds and subsequently new gods) and see the trinity as three gods in sort of one office called the godhead.

Actually, the doctrine of "trinity" is not contained in the Bible and was considered heresy by large portions of the Church until it was adopted in the 4th Century by committee.

The concept of deification is completely supported by biblical prophets of the Old and New Testiments and is refered to as "eternal progression". However, if people believe that Mormonism is polytheistic, then they are mistaken. The doctrine of the church is unmistakable - salvation only comes through the atonement of the Savior, that we are children of God, the Eternal Father, and that all truth is revealed through the Holy Ghost.

Thank you, I have often wondered what a Mormon believes, and now I know!

I'm pretty sure that Mormonism is monotheistic. However, I do know that the big "bitch" (for lack of a better word) is that in the Bible is states that this is the final word of god and any books written after are no good. Thus the book of Morani (their bible with additions) is invalid.
There were many books that were considered by the ancient church to be scripture that are not included in the present Bible. Even the order that they are presented today are not the same in which they were written. Revelation was not the last book written. Even so, they were written as separate books, only to be combined later.

In Revelation, John said that no one will add to that book. Since it was a separate document, he was only talking about his work. There is, in fact, a similar prohibition in Dueteronomy.

Now we will disregard the evidence that Joseph Smith took psycho-tropic drugs and wrote the book of Morani on the advice of a "rainbow lizard", and see how the extra book jibes with the general Christian ideals.

You must be talking about the "Salamander Letters." Those were proven to be forgeries. Psychotropic drugs? I've heard a lot of things but not that.

BTW, Moroni is the last book of the BOM, not the whole thing. If you read the BOM, you'll find that it actually complements and proves the Bible to be true. Unfortunately, too many people form an opinion of it without ever reading it. Not what I'd call a valid technique.

God in Mormonism is complicated.
Actually, God the Father for Mormons is pretty straight forward. There's no "one yet three". Jesus doesn't pray to His Father, therefore prays to himself.

He was a man on another planet, where he lived a virtuous life and thus became a god in the celestial heaven, and received his own planet.That's a real misnomer. Mormonism holds that God has created worlds without number and continues to this day. To say that he "received his own planet" is pretty limited, don't you think?

The most virtuous Mormons are promised the possibility of becoming gods themselves, thus, in this theology an infinite number of gods exist, though only one is directly accessible. Actually, that sounds pretty cool... a better word might be "disagreement."
That is the same promise from the New Testiment. That is nothing new. But you're right - beats sitting on a cloud, strumming a harp. That always sounded like it would be OK for the first few days, but then you'd get pretty bored. <g> In Psalms, BTW, the writer says: Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I'm not sure that the Bible claims that all future revelation is false, but it does require that Scripture can only be added to by a messenger from God whose teachings are verified by the performance of miracles. But it's a big book and I haven't finished it yet, so I can't say for sure.
Future revelation is actually predicted by Bible prophets. There is an internal test in the BOM that makes sure that you can find out for yourself that it is true. Everyone should try it.

mormonism:
God:God of the bible, men become gods when they die
Almost correct. See previous post.

afterlife: those who are worthy will recieve there own planet. others can be sent to the 3 different levels of heaven depending on there worthiness. those who are not worthy of heaven go to spirit prison until they can be saved and sent to heaven.
Incorrect. The Spirit Prison and Paradise occur before the final judgement and assignment to one of the 3 kingdoms of heaven. (See NT)
worldview: polytheistic
Incorrect - see the previous post.
sacred texts: the bible, the book of mormon, the doctine and covenants, the pearl of great price.
Correct.

You must be talking about the "Salamander Letters." Those were proven to be forgeries. Psychotropic drugs? I've heard a lot of things but not that.

BTW, Moroni is the last book of the BOM, not the whole thing. If you read the BOM, you'll find that it actually complements and proves the Bible to be true. Unfortunately, too many people form an opinion of it without ever reading it. Not what I'd call a valid technique.

I didn't know, I thought the whole collection was called the book of moroni...my mistake.

I don't know about the salamader letters. I was reading a speculative theological study that pointed this out as the cause of Smith's "divine inspiration". The study was done prior to the Salamander Letters scandal, I'm fairly sure.

I think the one unifying factor I find in these are this:

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientologists are all bound by the tenets of the church to give large sums of money to the church. I read in time magazine that if religion was compared to industry in terms of income it would go:

1) Microsoft
2) Church of Ladder Day Saints
3) Walton Industries
4) Scientology
5) Catholicism

That's just income, not including holdings. If we knew what was in the Vatican Vaults we may see Catholicism rising above.

No...Mormonism is not considered a Christian religion......and this is why:

Christians believe in ONE God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8; 45:5)...but the LDS church believes in many gods (And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3))....now if someone wants to comment on the possible idea that these "gods" were the Trinity...let me explain the differences in LDS and Christian views on that...
OK . . . Go ahead. And I'm going to tell you that you're incorrect in each case. I know LDS Doctrine VERY well. One thing I'm not going to do, tho, is get into a bashing session.
The Christian view of the Trinity is as follows: The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three, eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This means that there is still only ONE God....NOT THREE!! The LDS view on the trinity is as follows: The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
Please show me where the word Trinity occurs in the Bible. It doesn't, if I remember correctly. If you'll think back to the Savior's baptism, all three of them are there, separately. God the Father's voice calls from the sky telling everyone present that Jesus is his son in whom he is well pleased. Then the Holy Ghost comes upon him like a bird landing on his shoulder (a dove, actually). That is three different personages.
Christians also believe that God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15)...the LDS Church teaches differently: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)Don't you believe that Christ is an exalted man, sitting on the right hand of God? Wasn't he where we are now?
Christians believe that God is a spirit without flesh and bone (John 4:24; Luke 24:39)....LDS teach that God is made of flesh and bone: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10)
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38). Those who witnessed the Savior after his resurrection were invited to feel the prints of the nails in his hands and feet and to actually thrust their hands into the wound in his side. That sounds pretty physical to me.
Christians believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23)...LDS believe otherwise: "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115) "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547)I would say that the first statement is part of our doctrine and the second is not. McConkie abandoned that statement as error later in life. We believe most definitely that Christ was born of a Virgin. Period.

Christians believe that Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17). The LDS believe that Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15) We believe and agree with you that he is God in the flesh and was the creator. The second is not true. He regarded God the Father as his father and actually refered to him as "Daddy" on the cross in his greatest dispare. You are totally incorrect about "Gospel Through the Ages."

Christians believe that The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is not a force. He is a person. (Acts 5:3-4; 13:2)....the LDS believe Mormonism distinguishes between the Holy Spirit (God's presence via an essence) and the Holy Ghost (the third god in the Mormon doctrine of the trinity). "He [the Holy Ghost] is a being endowed with the attributes and powers of Deity, and not a mere force, or essence (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 144)Then we agree - he is a person. We don't refer to him as "the third god in the trinity" but as the third member of the Godhead (a term which is in the NT, btw).

Christian's believe that salvation is the forgiveness of sin and deliverance of the sinner from damnation. It is a free gift received by God's grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23) and cannot be earned (Rom. 11:6)....LDS believe that salvation has a double meaning: universal resurrection and . . . "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79 You didn't finish the doctrine. We believe that eternal life only comes through the Atonement of Christ - we could never do it ourselves. We hold that there are two separate portions of the Atonement. 1st, Christ suffered for our sins so we could be washed clean. 2nd, Christ broke the bands of death, so all could be resurrrected. Immortality=/=Eternal Life. Eternal life is living with God forever. Immortality is a free gift that is given to everyone and doesn't include living forever with God.

Christian's believe that salvation (forgiveness of sins) is not by works (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:21)...the LDS believe "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79) As I said above, we are only saved by the Atonement of Christ. We are saved by grace.

Christian's believe that the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses....the LDS see it differently: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church Actually, it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no "Mormon Church." Now, which Bible are you talking about? Are you talking about the Guetenburg (Luther's translation) Bible? Are you talking about the KJV? The IKJV? The NIV? The Septuagint? The Catholic Bible with the Apocropha? There are variations in each of these - which variation do you accept? What did the Church accept before the Bible was put together in its present forms?

A HUGE difference between Christians and LDS is how each defines Christian terminology:

BIBLE
LDS - The Bible is correct only as far as it is correctly translated. It is basically trustworthy. It is the only one of the four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) that is not considered infallible.
Christian- the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Actually, what the above reference says is ALL scripture is good. It says nothing of the Bible, because it didn't exist when the letter was written:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness


SALVATION
LDS - Simple bodily resurrection. It does not simply mean forgiveness of sins. Jesus died for universal resurrection.
Christian - Forgiveness of sins with the result of a present new life and in the future eternal life with God (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:23; Rom. 10:9-10). Incorrect - your reference has completely mistated our doctrine. We believe as you do.

HEAVEN
LDS - Divided into three Kingdoms: Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. The Celestial is for perfect Mormons, the Terrestrial is for moral people and lukewarm LDS, and the Telestial Kingdom is for everyone else.
Christian - The dwelling place of God (1 Kings 8:30). Christians go to heaven.
Once again, your text has mistated what we believe.
KINGDOM OF GOD
LDS - Celestial heaven.
Christian - All the believers of Christ (Matt. 13:41-43). Actually the term is Celestial Kingdom.

HOLY GHOST
LDS - "A spirit man. He can only be at one place at one time... " (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, p. 359.) The Holy Ghost is contrasted with the Spirit of God which is the influence of the Godhead that fills the immensity of space which enables God to know what is going on. It is likened to electricity."
Christian - Third person of the Trinity. Same as Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Once again, the Trinity is not a Biblical concept.

ETERNAL LIFE
LDS - Exaltation (exaltation to a Mormon means obtaining Godhood) in the Celestial Kingdom.
Christian- Forgiveness of sins and life eternal with God (John 17:3; Rom. 6:23). You didn't give a reference for this. You're reference is wrong.

GODHEAD
LDS - An office held by three separate Gods: the Father who is a god; Jesus who is a god; and the Holy Ghost who is a god.
Christian- God Himself, not an office. Three persons in one God. A Trinity: The Father; the Son; and the Holy Spirit. Once again - the confusion of the members of the Godhead is a late-comer of a doctrine.

JESUS
LDS - Spirit brother of Satan. A god in the Godhead. He is Jehovah of the O.T. compared to Elohim being the Father. He was the first spirit child to be born to the Father and Mother gods.
Christian- Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). That is false. Period.

ATONEMENT
LDS - The sacrifice of Christ that made resurrection possible along with the possibility of our earning forgiveness of sins.
Christian- The substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. He died for OUR sins (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 2:2). We believe the same thing.

PRE-EXISTENCE
LDS - We existed in heaven with God our (literal) Father before we became human.
Christian - We did not exist before we came to earth (1 Cor. 15:46). That quote says nothing of the Pre-Mortal Existance
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
But this does:
Jer 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

It didn't say that He knew OF him, but they were aqainted before birth.


GOSPEL
LDS - The laws and the ordinances of the Mormon church.
Christian - The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
No, I disagree. The laws ordinances of the Gospel (not the Church) are important. But the true good news is the death and resurrection of the Savior and how it will allow us to live once again with our Father in Heaven.

Here is a skit that I think illustrates the differences between th LDS church and the Christian church: I've seen this before and it's nothing but bashing.

I think the one unifying factor I find in these are this:

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientologists are all bound by the tenets of the church to give large sums of money to the church. I read in time magazine that if religion was compared to industry in terms of income it would go:

1) Microsoft
2) Church of Ladder Day Saints
3) Walton Industries
4) Scientology
5) Catholicism

That's just income, not including holdings. If we knew what was in the Vatican Vaults we may see Catholicism rising above.
That's Latter-day Saints <LOL>. No, we just tithe. (10%) It's an Old Testament doctrine. But since we don't have a paid clergy and don't finance our buildings, we have more funds to go around for feeding the poor, taking care of the sick, etc.

JESUS
LDS - Spirit brother of Satan. A god in the Godhead. He is Jehovah of the O.T. compared to Elohim being the Father. He was the first spirit child to be born to the Father and Mother gods.
Christian- Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).
That is false. Period.


really? I would say it is more of a half truth.
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

Are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientolgists considered part of the Christian faith?


I'm just curious as each seems to have a connection to Jesus Christ which I think would be the qualifying factor.

I have no time for the 'religion' of scientologists. I'm sorry if that offends any Tom Crusie wanna bes out there but grrr
I've would consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian. I am sure they consider themselves christian-just a more pure or radical form depending on which side of the fence your standing.

I have no time for the 'religion' of scientologists. I'm sorry if that offends any Tom Crusie wanna bes out there but grrr
I've would consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian. I am sure they consider themselves christian-just a more pure or radical form depending on which side of the fence your standing.

Has anyone noticed that no Scientologists have weighed in on this discussion?

Are they not allowed on the internet?

The must be, they have a website that I will label as interesting albeit not at ALL convincing:

scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org)

Next, let's look up the word cult - "In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices."

Doesn't that sound like the church down the street? Since the vast majority of churches are self contained entities, small and controlled by a church board, they would each qualify as a cult. The term Baptist, Methodist, etc denote loose associations and have no direct control over doctrine that is taught.

Actually, no, it doesn't sound like the church down the street, as the vast majority of churches are not considered to be "far outside the mainstream". In fact, only a few churches - usually those that teach something so different that their members are forbidden to attend another church (ie. Primitive Baptist) - would meet that description.

Has anyone noticed that no Scientologists have weighed in on this discussion?

Are they not allowed on the internet?

I doubt that Scientologists dally in political discussions. They are too busy learning the entire history of psychology so that they can claim they know more about it than psychologists. Plus, they are all filthy rich (it's pretty much a requirement to get above like the first rank in the church).

Of course, we should probably be glad that we haven't had any participating. They have a bad habit of suing any non-Scientologist that mentions them at all for libel.

Actually, no, it doesn't sound like the church down the street, as the vast majority of churches are not considered to be "far outside the mainstream". In fact, only a few churches - usually those that teach something so different that their members are forbidden to attend another church (ie. Primitive Baptist) - would meet that description.



I doubt that Scientologists dally in political discussions. They are too busy learning the entire history of psychology so that they can claim they know more about it than psychologists. Plus, they are all filthy rich (it's pretty much a requirement to get above like the first rank in the church).

Of course, we should probably be glad that we haven't had any participating. They have a bad habit of suing any non-Scientologist that mentions them at all for libel.


but we can squirt them in the face like Tom Cruise.

I've often wondered why Hollywood and Scientology are so inexplicably linked. L.Ron's books weren't that great and Battlefield Earth was less than stunning.

but we can squirt them in the face like Tom Cruise.

I've often wondered why Hollywood and Scientology are so inexplicably linked. L.Ron's books weren't that great and Battlefield Earth was less than stunning.

That's an easy question. The main answer is: $$$ Money $$$. To reach any kind of standing rank in their church, you have to have a great deal of money, so they recruit in professions where people are rich.

Then you add the fact that most actors and actresses are not highly educated and are very....um....imaginative people - and it makes sense that there are more of them joining up than, say, Fortune 500 CEOs.

Of course, there may be quite a few Scientologist CEOs, but we just don't hear about them.

JESUS
LDS - Spirit brother of Satan. A god in the Godhead. He is Jehovah of the O.T. compared to Elohim being the Father. He was the first spirit child to be born to the Father and Mother gods.
Christian- Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

really? I would say it is more of a half truth.
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

1st, as I said before, Mormon Doctrine never was considered an authoritative source for Church doctrine. 2nd, the way that the answer is phrased, it would appear that they were equals of some sort. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jehovah was the premortal Christ who organized the Earth and is the father of our salvation. Lucifer was nothing more than a gangster. To say that the two of them are in any way comparable is rediculous. It would be more accurate to say that I'm his equal, which isn't right either. 3rd, yes Christ was the firstborn in the spirit:

Heb 1
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

If he was begotten first, then there must have been more. We know that he was the only begotten in the flesh, so it must have been in the spirit realm.

1st, as I said before, Mormon Doctrine never was considered an authoritative source for Church doctrine. 2nd, the way that the answer is phrased, it would appear that they were equals of some sort. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jehovah was the premortal Christ who organized the Earth and is the father of our salvation. Lucifer was nothing more than a gangster. To say that the two of them are in any way comparable is rediculous. It would be more accurate to say that I'm his equal, which isn't right either. 3rd, yes Christ was the firstborn in the spirit:

Heb 1
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

If he was begotten first, then there must have been more. We know that he was the only begotten in the flesh, so it must have been in the spirit realm.

so let me get this straight the mormon church writes a book called mormon doctrine and that isn't the source for the doctrine of the church?! I am so confused.

Buddha said the only way to find truth is to find within one's self. Do not search for wiseman, but become a sage.

Lao T'ze wrote in the Tao The Ching, to worship is to be worshipped as the only god is man.

Jaredites:

It is interesting to me that the LDS leaders have been known to "abandon" statements that they have made and so forth....what about these quotes? Were ALL of these quotes abandoned, too?

Brigham Young, second prophet and president of the LDS church said, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51).

Brigham Young said, "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.)

Joseph Fielding Smith, stated: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 260).

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19)

Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)

"The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" (Deseret News, October 10, 1866) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 261.

I guess the leaders of the LDS church don't even know their OWN doctrine if you are telling me that the LDS church believes in the virgin birth.

Christians teach that salvation is through grace ALONE...doesn't it make sense that IF you truly love and obey God, then good works will just naturally follow? In Christianity, good works are not a requirement to get into heaven....because FAITH in Jesus Christ IS the way you get to heaven and if you truly have FAITH in Him, then good works will be the fruits of faith. The biggest problem with the idea of being saved by works is that WE can NEVER DO enough good works to be worthy of God. Here are some quotes from LDS leaders and doctrine regarding salvation. I guess they also don't know that the LDS church teaches that salvation is by the grace of God.

"For we labor diligently to write to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do." 2 Nephi 25:23

"And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God." Doctrine and Covenants 82:7

"We can hardly be too forceful in reminding people that they cannot sin and be forgiven and then sin again and again and expect repeated forgiveness. The Lord anticipated the weakness of man which would return him to his transgression, and he gave this revelation in warning. Those who feel that they can sin and be forgiven and then return to sin and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load." LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, explains the above verse in D & C 82:7, (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 170, 360)

MY COMMENT TO ABOVE QUOTE: (I have yet to meet ANY human being that didn't fall short of the perfection of God...and it STATES in the Bible that we are SINFUL and NEED the grace of God to enter Heaven.)

"Many Protestants...erroneously conclude that men are saved by grace alone without doing works of righteousness." Bruce McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 229.

"Mankind [is] damned by [the] 'faith alone' doctrine." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 139.

"A most pernicious doctrine---that of justification by belief alone." Mormon Apostle James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 107.

"I have power to save myself, and if I do not save myself, who will save me? All have that privilege, and naught can save us but obedience to the commandments of God." Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, p. 269.

"Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 81)

"There are some who have striven to obey all the divine commandments, who have accepted the testimony of Christ, obeyed ‘the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,’ and received the Holy Spirit; these are they who have overcome evil by godly works and who are therefore entitled to the highest glory." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 83)

"The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 432.)

"Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 422)

As far as the veracity of the Bible, didn't Joseph Smith also make a translation of the Bible? Yet, for most things, the LDS church still uses the KJV. But wasn't Joseph Smith a prophet of God? Which should mean that his version would be THE version to use, right? Especially since his other books that LDS use as doctrine are free from error, right? As far as myself, I have many different Bibles at home. And they are ALL correct and innerrant. For instance, the difference between the KJV and the NIV is simply the type of language that is used. The NIV version is simply written without all of the thee's and thy's....so for someone of THIS time period, it is easier to read and understand. I also find it interesting that the LDS church uses the KJV, but the KJV is NOT the original version of the Bible, it is a translation that took place in 1611. But it was the most widely USED Bible at the time of Joseph Smith....so my question is what makes the KJV more acceptable to the LDS than a Bible that was translated BY Joseph Smith himself?

Also, Christians believe that Jesus was God from the time that He was born. He didn't "attain" God-hood by being human first and then progressing to "become" God. In John Chapter 1, it is VERY clear that the "Word" was Jesus, and He was also God.

John 1:1-14
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now, what about the LDS doctrine that God was once a man who lived on a earth and became God and now has a wife in heaven who he makes all of us with? I hate to tell you, but those are NOT Christian concepts...and the Bible does not back those ideas up at all.

The idea of the Father and the Son being made of flesh and bone is not supported by the Bible. Groups that teach this rely on their interpretation of such passages as Genesis 1:26, in which God says "let us make man in our image."

They also point to passages in which God or his actions are described in human terms. They take such passages literally rather than in a metaphorical way, thus attributing body parts to God. Exodus 33:11 is one example, where we read that, "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friends." Some other examples are Genesis 3:8; Exodus 33:20, 22-23; 34:5; Deuteronomy 23:12-13; Ezekiel 1:27, 8:2; Habakkuk 3:3-4.

Thirdly, anthropomorphites – those who teach that God has a body – make their claim on the basis that the second Person of the Godhead, the Son of God, was a human being during his incarnate state.

As we proceed, we’ll briefly examine each of these ideas to see why they do not teach the idea that God has a body. But first, let us see what the Bible says about God’s nature and being. In John 4:24, we read, "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." Here Jesus states clearly that God is spirit. Since God is spirit, he does not have a body. By nature, God must be an incorporeal being, and not be limited to existing within a certain size and shape. We should point out that the scripture says God is spirit, not that he has a spirit. Since he is spirit, he lacks parts or a body, entirely.

Jesus himself defined what spirit is – and pointed out that it is different from a human, physical body. After his resurrection, he told his disciples, "Touch me and see; a ghost [Greek, pneuma, "spirit"] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). A spirit does not have flesh and bones. God is spoken of as being invisible, that is, God in his glory does not exist in a body that has shape, as a person who has flesh and bone does. Please see Colossians 1:15, Romans 1:19-20 and 1 Timothy 1:17).

In 1 Timothy 6:15-16 we are told that God "alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." Not only is God invisible, but he exists in pure light, not something that would be possible for a flesh and bone body to do.

It is certainly true that God in Christ became incarnate and came to exist as a human being, with a real body. Also, this body, now in a glorified state, continues to exist. However, this is true only of the Son, and only after his incarnation. Since God has existed eternally, and neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became incarnate – and since the Son throughout eternity was (and continues to be) spirit, the obvious conclusion is that God does not have a body as part of his nature as God. That is to say, a bodily state is not the state in which God has existed from eternity. God has existed in eternity as pure spirit, even though in the Son, he chose to take on human nature in addition to his non-corporeal nature.

The Son in his incarnate state as Jesus took on the form of a human being. We read in Philippians 2:5-8 that "Jesus Christ: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross." He did not have a body in eternity past – he had to take on this form.

The book of John is a confirmation of the fact that Jesus existed as God in a glorified state before his incarnation – before becoming a human being (John 1:1, 14). He became flesh – he was not already flesh. God took on the form of a human being in his Son, Jesus Christ, in order to communicate directly with us and to complete our redemption.

What of those passages that seem to speak of God in human terms? Those are called anthropomorphisms, that is, descriptions of God’s being, actions and emotions put in human terms. Though God is without a body, his acts for his people are said to be by "his mighty arm" (Exodus 15:16). God is also pictured as having a face, hands, fingers and a back (Psalm 27:8; 10:12; 88:5; Deuteronomy 9:10; Exodus 33:23). As well, God is described as talking, walking, laughing, and weeping. Such anthropomorphisms are poetic symbols or metaphors representing that which would otherwise be indescribable, because God in his being is invisible and unknown. Such symbols of God’s being are condescensions to us – put in words that we can understand. We have to have some way of describing God’s relationship to us. The only way this can occur is through symbols that are understandable to our finite minds and experience.

Consider that it would be logically impossible for God to be a six-foot-four inch (or whatever height and weight) individual with a body of flesh and bone. Unless God were a hermaphrodite – having both male and female sexual organs – the scripture that is sometimes cited as "proof" of God having a human-shaped body – would be reduced to an absurdity. Genesis 1:27 has God saying that he created both males and females in his image.

The nature and size of the universe itself tells us that it would be impossible that a God made in the image of humans could create, maintain and control the universe. How could God, as a human-sized being, direct a universe of 10-12 billion light years across? He would be incomprehensibly dwarfed by the universe, as we humans are. Yet, precisely the opposite is said of God – that the universe cannot contain him (2 Chronicles 2:6).

Literal anthropomorphism, as mentioned earlier, makes God in our image and forgets that we are made in his image – which has reference not to shape, size or composition, but to something of his spiritual qualities. Human beings have been given the ability to reason and to express many divine qualities, such as communication, invention and the creation of new things, but only from existing materials. God has also given humanity dominion and stewardship over his creation, which shows humanity's place as ruler and king, much like God. This is the meaning of God creating us "in his own image," not that God is like humans in having bodily parts and shape.

[Paul explains that literal anthropomorphism is a dangerous and pagan doctrine that we should avoid. He explains what happened in human philosophy and religion: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:21-23).

No, the word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is quite clear in the Bible....the word "Bible" doesn't occur in the Bible, either. "Trinity" is a word used by Christians to express the doctrine of the unity of God as consisting of three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.
There is only one God; but He consists of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.

Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture. With the introduction out of the way, Bible verses will be given in discussion of the Trinity.

1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).

5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see: Luke 22:42; John 5:36; John 20:21; 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" (Romans 11:33-34)

Now I can go through and cite MANY places where the LDS doctrine states all of the things that I have in my first post...but do have things to do other than this today...and this post is already very long. Though, I do think that I have hit the more important factors of LDS vs. Christians. And for the record, I have studied the LDS church at great lengths because I did wonder about whether it's claims of being the ONLY true Christian church were true. But the more I studied, the more contradictions I found and I have ASKED many missionaries questions, but I have yet to still get a straight answer on some basic questions. Why is that?

Jaredites:

It is interesting to me that the LDS leaders have been known to "abandon" statements that they have made and so forth....what about these quotes? Were ALL of these quotes abandoned, too?

Brigham Young, second prophet and president of the LDS church said, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51).

Brigham Young said, "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.)

Joseph Fielding Smith, stated: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 260).

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19)

Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)

"The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" (Deseret News, October 10, 1866) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Sal Lake City, Utah 84110, Bookstore at 1350 South West Temple. 1982, page 261.

I guess the leaders of the LDS church don't even know their OWN doctrine if you are telling me that the LDS church believes in the virgin birth.

Christians teach that salvation is through grace ALONE...doesn't it make sense that IF you truly love and obey God, then good works will just naturally follow? In Christiantiy, good works are not a requirement to get into heaven....because FAITH in Jesus Christ IS the way you get to heaven and if you truly have FAITH in Him, then good works will be the fruits of faith. The biggest problem with the idea of being saved by works is that WE can NEVER DO enough good works to be worthy of God. Here are some quotes from LDS leaders and doctrine regarding salvation. I guess they also don't know that the LDS church teaches that salvation is by the grace of God.

"For we labor diligently to write to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do." 2 Nephi 25:23

"And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God." Doctrine and Covenants 82:7

"We can hardly be too forceful in reminding people that they cannot sin and be forgiven and then sin again and again and expect repeated forgiveness. The Lord anticipated the weakness of man which would return him to his transgression, and he gave this revelation in warning. Those who feel that they can sin and be forgiven and then return to sin and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load." LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, explains the above verse in D & C 82:7, (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 170, 360)

MY COMMENT TO ABOVE QUOTE: (I have yet to meet ANY human being that didn't fall short of the perfection of God...and it STATES in the Bible that we are SINFUL and NEED the grace of God to enter Heaven.)

"Many Protestants...erroneously conclude that men are saved by grace alone without doing works of righteousness." Bruce McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 229.

"Mankind [is] damned by [the] 'faith alone' doctrine." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 139.

"A most pernicious doctrine---that of justification by belief alone." Mormon Apostle James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 107.

"I have power to save myself, and if I do not save myself, who will save me? All have that privilege, and naught can save us but obedience to the commandments of God." Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, p. 269.

"Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 81)

"There are some who have striven to obey all the divine commandments, who have accepted the testimony of Christ, obeyed ‘the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,’ and received the Holy Spirit; these are they who have overcome evil by godly works and who are therefore entitled to the highest glory." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 83)

"The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 432.)

"Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, page 422)

As far as the veracity of the Bible, didn't Joseph Smith also make a translation of the Bible? Yet, for most things, the LDS church still uses the KJV. But wasn't Joseph Smith a prophet of God? Which should mean that his version would be THE version to use, right? Especially since his other books that LDS use as doctrine are free from error, right? As far as myself, I have many different Bibles at home. And they are ALL correct and innerrant. For instance, the difference between the KJV and the NIV is simply the type of language that is used. The NIV version is simply written without all of the thee's and thy's....so for someone of THIS time period, it is easier to read and understand. I also find it interesting that the LDS church uses the KJV, but the KJV is NOT the original version of the Bible, it is a translation that took place in 1611. But it was the most widely USED Bible at the time of Joseph Smith....so my question is what makes the KJV more acceptable to the LDS than a Bible that was translated BY Joseph Smith himself?

Also, Christians believe that Jesus was God from the time that He was born. He didn't "attain" God-hood by being human first and then progressing to "become" God. In John Chapter 1, it is VERY clear that the "Word" was Jesus, and He was also God.

John 1:1-14
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now, what about the LDS doctrine that God was once a man who lived on a earth and became God and now has a wife in heaven who he makes all of us with? I hate to tell you, but those are NOT Christian concepts...and the Bible does not back those ideas up at all.

The idea of the Father and the Son being made of flesh and bone is not supported by the Bible. Groups that teach this rely on their interpretation of such passages as Genesis 1:26, in which God says "let us make man in our image."

They also point to passages in which God or his actions are described in human terms. They take such passages literally rather than in a metaphorical way, thus attributing body parts to God. Exodus 33:11 is one example, where we read that, "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friends." Some other examples are Genesis 3:8; Exodus 33:20, 22-23; 34:5; Deuteronomy 23:12-13; Ezekiel 1:27, 8:2; Habakkuk 3:3-4.

Thirdly, anthropomorphites – those who teach that God has a body – make their claim on the basis that the second Person of the Godhead, the Son of God, was a human being during his incarnate state.

As we proceed, we’ll briefly examine each of these ideas to see why they do not teach the idea that God has a body. But first, let us see what the Bible says about God’s nature and being. In John 4:24, we read, "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." Here Jesus states clearly that God is spirit. Since God is spirit, he does not have a body. By nature, God must be an incorporeal being, and not be limited to existing within a certain size and shape. We should point out that the scripture says God is spirit, not that he has a spirit. Since he is spirit, he lacks parts or a body, entirely.

Jesus himself defined what spirit is – and pointed out that it is different from a human, physical body. After his resurrection, he told his disciples, "Touch me and see; a ghost [Greek, pneuma, "spirit"] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). A spirit does not have flesh and bones. God is spoken of as being invisible, that is, God in his glory does not exist in a body that has shape, as a person who has flesh and bone does. Please see Colossians 1:15, Romans 1:19-20 and 1 Timothy 1:17).

In 1 Timothy 6:15-16 we are told that God "alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." Not only is God invisible, but he exists in pure light, not something that would be possible for a flesh and bone body to do.

It is certainly true that God in Christ became incarnate and came to exist as a human being, with a real body. Also, this body, now in a glorified state, continues to exist. However, this is true only of the Son, and only after his incarnation. Since God has existed eternally, and neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became incarnate – and since the Son throughout eternity was (and continues to be) spirit, the obvious conclusion is that God does not have a body as part of his nature as God. That is to say, a bodily state is not the state in which God has existed from eternity. God has existed in eternity as pure spirit, even though in the Son, he chose to take on human nature in addition to his non-corporeal nature.

The Son in his incarnate state as Jesus took on the form of a human being. We read in Philippians 2:5-8 that "Jesus Christ: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross." He did not have a body in eternity past – he had to take on this form.

The book of John is a confirmation of the fact that Jesus existed as God in a glorified state before his incarnation – before becoming a human being (John 1:1, 14). He became flesh – he was not already flesh. God took on the form of a human being in his Son, Jesus Christ, in order to communicate directly with us and to complete our redemption.

What of those passages that seem to speak of God in human terms? Those are called anthropomorphisms, that is, descriptions of God’s being, actions and emotions put in human terms. Though God is without a body, his acts for his people are said to be by "his mighty arm" (Exodus 15:16). God is also pictured as having a face, hands, fingers and a back (Psalm 27:8; 10:12; 88:5; Deuteronomy 9:10; Exodus 33:23). As well, God is described as talking, walking, laughing, and weeping. Such anthropomorphisms are poetic symbols or metaphors representing that which would otherwise be indescribable, because God in his being is invisible and unknown. Such symbols of God’s being are condescensions to us – put in words that we can understand. We have to have some way of describing God’s relationship to us. The only way this can occur is through symbols that are understandable to our finite minds and experience.

Consider that it would be logically impossible for God to be a six-foot-four inch (or whatever height and weight) individual with a body of flesh and bone. Unless God were a hermaphrodite – having both male and female sexual organs – the scripture that is sometimes cited as "proof" of God having a human-shaped body – would be reduced to an absurdity. Genesis 1:27 has God saying that he created both males and females in his image.

The nature and size of the universe itself tells us that it would be impossible that a God made in the image of humans could create, maintain and control the universe. How could God, as a human-sized being, direct a universe of 10-12 billion light years across? He would be incomprehensibly dwarfed by the universe, as we humans are. Yet, precisely the opposite is said of God – that the universe cannot contain him (2 Chronicles 2:6).

Literal anthropomorphism, as mentioned earlier, makes God in our image and forgets that we are made in his image – which has reference not to shape, size or composition, but to something of his spiritual qualities. Human beings have been given the ability to reason and to express many divine qualities, such as communication, invention and the creation of new things, but only from existing materials. God has also given humanity dominion and stewardship over his creation, which shows humanity's place as ruler and king, much like God. This is the meaning of God creating us "in his own image," not that God is like humans in having bodily parts and shape.

[Paul explains that literal anthropomorphism is a dangerous and pagan doctrine that we should avoid. He explains what happened in human philosophy and religion: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:21-23).

No, the word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is quite clear in the Bible....the word "Bible" doesn't occur in the Bible, either. "Trinity" is a word used by Christians to express the doctrine of the unity of God as consisting of three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.
There is only one God; but He consists of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.

Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture. With the introduction out of the way, Bible verses will be given in discussion of the Trinity.

1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).

5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see: Luke 22:42; John 5:36; John 20:21; 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" (Romans 11:33-34)

Now I can go through and cite MANY places where the LDS doctrine states all of the things that I have in my first post...but do have things to do other than this today...and this post is already very long. Though, I do think that I have hit the more important factors of LDS vs. Christians. And for the record, I have studied the LDS church at great lengths because I did wonder about whether it's claims of being the ONLY true Christian church were true. But the more I studied, the more contradictions I found and I have ASKED many missionaries questions, but I have yet to still get a straight answer on some basic questions. Why is that?
awesome post.

they don't know the current answer because they keep having to adjust thier doctrine to avoid paradoxes and contradictions.

Smunkeeville:

Why thank you for the compliment!! :) I have yet to find an LDS leader, missionary, or believer that can answer for the contradictions in their teachings. It seems strange to me that the ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH would have so many doctrines and leaders that contradict each other. If the true church was indeed lost, and God chose Joseph Smith to restore it, then wouldn't make sense that there be NO contradictions in this "restored church" because it IS "RESTORED"? So, trust me, you aren't the ONLY one who is confused by how contradictory the LDS doctrine is. :)

Qualifying factor:

1) You are either mentally deranged.

2) Or you are like a hypochodriac, you tell yourself god exists so much, heck you start to believe in it yourself!
U neednt be ignorant. You may not believe it but you can at least be respectful. I suspect u'd want ur views respected and i suggest u do the same to others.

Well, I'm holding the non-christian card myself, but From what I gather I would say LDS and the witnesses would be considered christian. Because of the whole jesus thing. But under no circumstance should scientology be christianity.

I don't think scientology believes in jesus, infact their whole philosophy of Earth is a little wonky. I'm pretty sure it goes something like this:

The world was created as some sort of prison for people who lived along time ago, they were political prisoners who were fighting against some Xenu guy (or somehting like that). All of these people were strapped to a volcano and it was exploded with hydrogen bombs. Now Earth was created and our souls are the conjunction of various souls form these political prisoners. And I think the purpose of scientology is to remove all of the souls except one. I think this is called dianetics... or something like that.

Now for what might be considered trolling: Scientology was created by a rather dumb science fiction writer named L Ron Hubbard. Apparently he was in the military and had several huge screw ups. Commited bigamy, became addicted to perscription drugs, and stated the problem with China is that it has to many "chinks" in it. Now it is slightly odd that he created this "religion" a around the time he stated
Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.

There are various other instance during interviews and what-not where he states that the best way to make money is to start a cult or religion.

WOW what a leader.

Since the creation of scientology it has been at various "wars" with the internet (people discrediting them so they sue them) and psychology (in 1966 hubbard started an "all out war" with psychiatry). And then there was operatiuon snow white. Unlike real religions, which I would not call scientology, it maintains power through bullying people and using celeberties DAMN YOU TOM CRUISE!

Anyway for some cultish activities of scientology you can read this article about the woman that the church of scientology killed

http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artScientology.article_8

So to the point, mormans and jahova witnesses have christian tendencies, but in no way is scientology to be considered christianity, because it is not a religion, it is a cult.

Well, that wasn't as trollish as I though it might be, or at least I don't think so.

Uhh.. why would Mormons not be Christians? Checklist please?

1.Do they beleive in god?
Yes
2.Do they beleive in Jesus dying for our sins, or somehow cleansing our sins?
Yes
3.Do they beleive that man can be saved from sin somehow?
Yes
4.Do they accept bible as truth?
Yes

Christian, plain and simple!

Note:I'm no Christian major, so feal free to add whatever you want here!
Note2:I dislike Mormons too, but they're still Christians.

Uhh.. why would Mormons not be Christians? Checklist please?

1.Do they beleive in god?
Yes
2.Do they beleive in Jesus dying for our sins, or somehow cleansing our sins?
Yes
3.Do they beleive that man can be saved from sin somehow?
Yes
4.Do they accept bible as truth?
Yes

Christian, plain and simple!

Note:I'm no Christian major, so feal free to add whatever you want here!
Note2:I dislike Mormons too, but they're still Christians.

Not so, the description of a true Christian is set out in Scripture, and it is to these requirements that we must test a religion by.

ARE THERE ANY MORMONS, JEHOVAH's WITNESSES or SCIENTOLOGISTS HERE TO MAKE A DEFENCE OF THEIR RELIGION?

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists simply cannot be classified as a denomination, or be part of, the Christian Church. There are fundamental differences in the doctrines taught by these groups. Let me explain:
1) The Mormons:
Claim that the Bible is not the only sacred text; they have the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Commandments (Doctrines and Covenants). They claim that the Bible is incomplete and is not completely reliable. This belief is contradictory to traditional Christian teaching; "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-8.
What this says is that any teaching contradictory to the Bible is not the word of God. the contradictory teaching of the Mormons is over a number of things; they claim Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, was a polygamist, they believe that anyone can become a god (polytheistic) and that we as humans are saved through good works (hence the door knocking).

2) Jehovah's Witnesses
-Do not consider Jesus as the Son of God (a major doctrine in Christian teaching)
-Claim that Jesus is actually Michael the archangel
-Because Jesus isn't God, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot pray to Jesus; and anyone found doing so is disassociated from the organisation.
-Deny the existence of hell
-Have to work for salvation (Christianity teaches that you are saved by grace)

3) Scientology
'Salvation in Scientology progresses from personal ignorance and bondage to matter into gnostic enlightenment and freedom from the MEST body and universe. At an ultimate cost of tens of thousands of dollars, one is progressively "saved" from engrams by knowledge (Scientology beliefs) through good works (Scientology auditing and practice, etc.) to arrive at the highest state of "operating thetan." ' (from http://www.mustardseed.net/html/toscientology.html)

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that salvation is a free gift. One is redeemed from sin on the principle of grace, simply through faith in Christ's atonement (Eph. 2:8-9; John 6:47; Heb. 11:1; 1 John 2:2).

-Scientology denies the deity of Christ
- claim that Salvation comes through an extremely expensive process of mind games; and it categorically denies the existence of the God of the Bible, Heaven, and Hell. To a Scientologist, Jesus Christ was just another nice guy who unfortunately was wrongfully put to death, and whose story ends at that death.
Scientology believes that there are multiple Gods and that some gods are above other gods.
Scientology believes in the inherent goodness of man and that “It is despicable and utterly beneath contempt to tell a man he must repent, that he is evil.” On the other hand the Bible teaches that man is a sinner and the only hope for him is that he repent of his sins and acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Savior.

I hope after reading this long response all will understand that the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists are groups separate from Christianity because they teach aspects that are contradictory to Christ's teachng. Any group that does so cannot be considered Christian. Just because they have Jesus doesnt mean they teach that he is the same as he is in the Bible; hence: definately not Christian groups. How can they be Christian when they don't teach the word of Christ?

so let me get this straight the mormon church writes a book called mormon doctrine and that isn't the source for the doctrine of the church?! I am so confused.

That's where you're mistaken - It was neither written nor endorsed by the Church. If it were published by the Church, it would have been published by Deseret Book.

Jaredites:

It is interesting to me that the LDS leaders have been known to "abandon" statements that they have made and so forth....what about these quotes? Were ALL of these quotes abandoned, too?


This is a typical tactic of Anti-Mormons - assault the Mormon with pure volume. I'm sorry, but I don't have any web sites that I can go to where I can just cut and paste at will. I answered your first group of questions, you couldn't refute the answers and then went to another web site and cut and pasted another volume of acusations. I'm sure that you've leaned heavily on the Tanner's web site. You should do better than that. The tanners are well known liars who take people's money to run down someone else's religion. They use half-truths (which are the blackest of all lies) and feed the curiosity of the unlearned.

I have neither the time or the inclination to go through each of these allegations in your latest tome. If you want to go through them one by one and discuss them, I'd be happy to. It takes you minutes to cut and paste this tripe - it takes me hours to answer them.

You say that Church leaders abandon statements from the past - no, not true. If it is doctrine, then it remains doctrine.

As I said in my earlier post: I'll discuss, but I won't stand for Mormon bashing. If you want a point by point discussion, fine. But I'm not going to try to respond to tidal waves. You're not trying to enjoy a discussion, you're trying to win an argument by pure weight.

As long as I know, the Jehova's Witnesses proceed with a radical and literal reading of the Bible.

It really depends on who you ask. I consider both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian since they both accept Jesus as their savior and seek to follow his teachings. However, both are among the least desireable branches of Christianity to be in and it would be best for them if they moved to a different denomination. But they do not stop being Christian just because they disagree on so many other issues, the essential thing is still there.

As for Scientology, it has no resemblance to Christianity whatsoever and I have no clue why anyone would think it does.

It really depends on who you ask. I consider both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian since they both accept Jesus as their savior and seek to follow his teachings. However, both are among the least desireable branches of Christianity to be in and it would be best for them if they moved to a different denomination. But they do not stop being Christian just because they disagree on so many other issues, the essential thing is still there.

As for Scientology, it has no resemblance to Christianity whatsoever and I have no clue why anyone would think it does.


After further research, I think we can drop Scientology from this discussion. Apparently they like to use the imagery of Christianity (they have a lot of crosses on their site) and even mention that they feel Jesus and Buddha were some form of pre-Scientologists. But other than that...no connection.

Carry on with J.W./Mormon debate...it's still interesting.

I am kinda getting annoyed with the nonchristains who are saying that mormons and jehovahs witnesses are Christian.
If you aren't a Christian it is very hard to understand what Christain really means.
I am aware of non christain religions that do mention Jesus, as a prophet. In my experience with LDS and JW, they don't as a whole really understand Jesus' sacrifice and what salvation really is (in a Christain sense) I am not saying that there aren't some born-again believers in the LDS or JW churches, just that on a whole the denominations aren't Christain. At the very least they may be considered protestant but, I only say that because they are obviously not Catholic.

Let's go over this again: The Mormons:
Claim that the Bible is not the only sacred text; they have the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Commandments (Doctrines and Covenants). They claim that the Bible is incomplete and is not completely reliable.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that it contains the only scripture, quite the opposite. Other scripture, that is not contained in the present canon, is quoted. There were other books that were revered by the ancient church that didn't make the final cut, and there are references in the OT that prophesy of the coming of new scripture in the last days. We don't claim that the Bible is incomplete, it is what it is. As far as reliable, it depends on the translation.

This belief is contradictory to traditional Christian teaching; "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-8.
We believe that there have been parts of the Gospel that have been lost, so we hold that we're not teaching another Gospel, it's just that you don't have the whole thing.
What this says is that any teaching contradictory to the Bible is not the word of God. the contradictory teaching of the Mormons is over a number of things;
they claim Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin,
Wrong - check out the Book of Mormon:

Alma 7: 10
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

was a polygamist,
Wrong - not even close
they believe that anyone can become a god (polytheistic)
Don't you believe that God wants us to inherit all that he has and that we can be co-inheritors with Christ?
that we as humans are saved through good works
James 2:
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

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

(hence the door knocking).
No, that's not why; it is to spread the truth.

I am kinda getting annoyed with the nonchristains who are saying that mormons and jehovahs witnesses are Christian.

Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you must be a non-Christian, eh?

If you aren't a Christian it is very hard to understand what Christain really means.

Even if you are a Christian, it is hard to understand. In the end, the only one who knows exactly what following Christ means is Christ. The rest of us are still trying to figure it out.

I am aware of non christain religions that do mention Jesus, as a prophet. In my experience with LDS and JW, they don't as a whole really understand Jesus' sacrifice and what salvation really is (in a Christain sense) I am not saying that there aren't some born-again believers in the LDS or JW churches, just that on a whole the denominations aren't Christain.

And you claim to fully understand Jesus' sacrifice and what salvation really is? Wow, what an arrogant claim.

I am kinda getting annoyed with the nonchristains who are saying that mormons and jehovahs witnesses are Christian.
If you aren't a Christian it is very hard to understand what Christain really means.
I am aware of non christain religions that do mention Jesus, as a prophet. In my experience with LDS and JW, they don't as a whole really understand Jesus' sacrifice and what salvation really is (in a Christain sense) I am not saying that there aren't some born-again believers in the LDS or JW churches, just that on a whole the denominations aren't Christain. At the very least they may be considered protestant but, I only say that because they are obviously not Catholic.

I think the main problem is that many Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons consider themselves Christian. If they do, and you don't...well therein lies the schism that brought me to raising the question in the first place.

Jaredites- just curious how long have you been in the church of latter day saints?

Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you must be a non-Christian, eh?



Even if you are a Christian, it is hard to understand. In the end, the only one who knows exactly what following Christ means is Christ. The rest of us are still trying to figure it out.



And you claim to fully understand Jesus' sacrifice and what salvation really is? Wow, what an arrogant claim.
1) that isn't what I said. I am refering to the people who say I am not a Christain but this is what I think....
I don't presume to be able to pick Christains and nonchristains out of a line up or anything but when you start out with I am not a Christain I think it is pretty safe to assume...
2) I agree, but some of these off shoots of Christainity don't understand basic concepts, and then if it doesn't fit with what they want they misinterpret the Bible.
3) I never meant to imply that I am all knowing, I re-read what I typed and it did sound arrogant. I apologize for the misunderstanding, what I meant to say is that a Christain who has a personal relationship with Jesus has a better chance of understanding the enormity of his sacrifice than someone who either a) doesn't even believe he existed or b) doesn't believe that his dying on the cross was sufficient for salvation (the faith plus works crowd)

I think the main problem is that many Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons consider themselves Christian. If they do, and you don't...well therein lies the schism that brought me to raising the question in the first place.

I've never met a Latter-day Saint who didn't consider himself a Christian. It is central to all that we do.

Jaredites- just curious how long have you been in the church of latter day saints?

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 33 years. I joined when I was 18.

1) that isn't what I said. I am refering to the people who say I am not a Christain but this is what I think....
I don't presume to be able to pick Christains and nonchristains out of a line up or anything but when you start out with I am not a Christain I think it is pretty safe to assume...
2) I agree, but some of these off shoots of Christainity don't understand basic concepts, and then if it doesn't fit with what they want they misinterpret the Bible.
3) I never meant to imply that I am all knowing, I re-read what I typed and it did sound arrogant. I apologize for the misunderstanding, what I meant to say is that a Christain who has a personal relationship with Jesus has a better chance of understanding the enormity of his sacrifice than someone who either a) doesn't even believe he existed or b) doesn't believe that his dying on the cross was sufficient for salvation (the faith plus works crowd)

1) Many theologians are not christians. They are scholars on religion as a whole entity. Not necessarily adhereing to one, or for that fact, any faith.

2) Misinterpretation is the point of some of the vagueness of the bible. It has been misquoted, ill-translated, and bastardized in any way possible to make it "My Bible" instead of "The Bible".

3) I don't think you sounded arrogant...just passionate about the subject matter. (not that I originally posted any of this but I think we know by now that I heart participation).

4) I have never understood how Jesus dying should have anything to do with the salvation of humanity. It seems like some Zen philiosophies (developed about 500 years before JC's birth) that only through suffering can one find enlightenment.

(the faith plus works crowd)

You mean like James, Christ's own brother? <grin>

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 33 years. I joined when I was 18.

I'm just curious about how the Mormon church feels about it's "cousin" branches that practice things like leaving 14-year old boys on the side of the road in the middle of the night so that the "Elders" can date and common-law marry the 14 year old girls in the community. I figured Jaredites could fill us in on this take.

I'm trying to find the Time or Newsweek article where I read this in an online form. So I will edit this in a bit.

4) I have never understood how Jesus dying should have anything to do with the salvation of humanity. It seems like some Zen philiosophies (developed about 500 years before JC's birth) that only through suffering can one find enlightenment.
I have some verses that may help in explaining the situation, if you have a clearer question I may be able to come up with a better answer I say may because you know I am not very good at explaining much of anything without getting jumped on because of wording or subject/verb agreement stuff (not that you have ever jumped on me for that stuff and I thank you)

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
ie no one is perfect, everyone has screwed up at one time or another (or like me just about everyday, oh who am I kidding every few hours)
Romans 6:23a "...The wages of sin is death..."
Sin has an ending. It results in death. We all face physical death, which is a result of sin. But a worse death is spiritual death that alienates us from God, and will last for all eternity.
Romans 6:23b "...But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." There is hope.
Romans 5:8, "God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!" When Jesus died on the cross He paid sin's penalty. He paid the price for all sin, and when He took all the sins of the world on Himself on the cross, He bought us out of slavery to sin and death!

It was an enormous sacrifice for Jesus, who was without sin, to die a horrible death for us. He paid a debt that he didn't owe, and we owed a debt we didn't want to pay.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Well, according to the Mormon's own account of their history (at least according to my own recollection)... it would be hard to consider them Christians as they claim their roots derive directly from the family of Abraham. The only other major faith to claim that is Islam (Ishmael). Christianity has laid it's beginnings, basically, from the first coming of Jesus, which places them in the thick of the Roman Republic/Empire. This would technically place Mormonism in the same distinction as Islam.

It was an enormous sacrifice for Jesus, who was without sin, to die a horrible death for us. He paid a debt that he didn't owe, and we owed a debt we didn't want to pay.


I'm not big on verses to begin with...they can by re-interpreted for anything really.

But how was Jesus without sin. Isn't he quoted as saying during that whole stoning incident, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...nay even I am not without sin." ?

what I meant to say is that a Christain who has a personal relationship with Jesus has a better chance of understanding the enormity of his sacrifice than someone who either a) doesn't even believe he existed or b) doesn't believe that his dying on the cross was sufficient for salvation (the faith plus works crowd)

You said that you are "kinda getting annoyed with the nonchristains who are saying that mormons and jehovahs witnesses are Christian. Well, I'm REALLY tired of you calling me NON-CHRISTIAN! You haven't proven yourself to be a Christian, but you have certainly proven yourself to be a flame baiter.

I was hoping to have a pleasant conversation, but you wanted to argue and belittle me and 12,000,000 other people.

Well, according to the Mormon's own account of their history (at least according to my own recollection)... it would be hard to consider them Christians as they claim their roots derive directly from the family of Abraham. The only other major faith to claim that is Islam (Ishmael). Christianity has laid it's beginnings, basically, from the first coming of Jesus, which places them in the thick of the Roman Republic/Empire. This would technically place Mormonism in the same distinction as Islam.

An interesting point. And from a historical, not theological literature perspective as well. Nice to see.

You mean like James, Christ's own brother? <grin>
James is not writing about how to become a Christian, but rather how to act like one. Having all the correct beliefs about God will hardly suffice: even demons believe in God. Real, life-giving faith should produce motion, and James minces no words in describing the specific spiritual actions expected of Christians.
Christian thinkers, notably Martin Luther, have struggled to reconcile the message of James with that of Paul, who so firmly warned against slavish legalism. But Paul never belittled holy living. When he wrote to carousers, such as his letter to the Corinthians, he railed against immorality as strongly as James.
Evidently, James' readers were not even flirting with legalism. They lived at the other extreme, ignoring the laws that God had clearly revealed. James had a simple remedy: "Do not merely listen to the word .... Do what it says." (1:22)

You should be careful about taking things in the Bible out of context

You said that you are "kinda getting annoyed with the nonchristains who are saying that mormons and jehovahs witnesses are Christian. Well, I'm REALLY tired of you calling me NON-CHRISTIAN! You haven't proven yourself to be a Christian, but you have certainly proven yourself to be a flame baiter.

I was hoping to have a pleasant conversation, but you wanted to argue and belittle me and 12,000,000 other people.
I am confused as to when I was flame baiting.
I never called you a nonchristian I believe I did say that I do believe there are some Christains in LDS and JW
How would I prove myself to be a Christain to you?

If you could please quote where I said something to offend you and make you feel like I was belittling you I would be happy to reread what I wrote and apologize if necessary.

I'm just curious about how the Mormon church feels about it's "cousin" branches that practice things like leaving 14-year old boys on the side of the road in the middle of the night so that the "Elders" can date and common-law marry the 14 year old girls in the community. I figured Jaredites could fill us in on this take.

I'm trying to find the Time or Newsweek article where I read this in an online form. So I will edit this in a bit.

All of these people, if they ever were members of the Church, have been excommunicated. We do not recognize any of these other religions - they claim "this or that" but they have nothing in common with us. We do not tolerate child abuse in any form. People who do that are immediately reported to the police. As Christ himself said:

Matt. 18: 6
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

I'm not big on verses to begin with...they can by re-interpreted for anything really.

But how was Jesus without sin. Isn't he quoted as saying during that whole stoning incident, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...nay even I am not without sin." ?



John 8:6....But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

hope that helps out.

Well, according to the Mormon's own account of their history (at least according to my own recollection)... it would be hard to consider them Christians as they claim their roots derive directly from the family of Abraham. The only other major faith to claim that is Islam (Ishmael). Christianity has laid it's beginnings, basically, from the first coming of Jesus, which places them in the thick of the Roman Republic/Empire. This would technically place Mormonism in the same distinction as Islam.

Christ's own lineage was traced all the way back to Abraham, through his son Judah. God renewed his covenant with Abraham that all of the nations of the world would be blessed through his seed. Abraham's son, Isaac, was the inheritor of that blessing, not Ishmael. There is another religion that makes the claim to be the inheritors of the blessings of Abraham: The Jews. I see no problem there.

John 8:6....But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

hope that helps out.


Interesting...she called him sir...a word derived from sire that didn't come into play until the Middle Ages.

The bible beguiles my sometimes with it's ability to be translated into something that never could have been said.

But thank you for the input...now I'm not misquoting in the future.

All of these people, if they ever were members of the Church, have been excommunicated. We do not recognize any of these other religions - they claim "this or that" but they have nothing in common with us. We do not tolerate child abuse in any form. People who do that are immediately reported to the police. As Christ himself said:

Matt. 18: 6
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

So it is somewhat the same thing.

These people claim to be LDS or Mormon, you as a Mormon say they are not.

You say that Mormon's are Christians, but a chritian says you aren't.

Same thing isn't it?

You should be careful about taking things in the Bible out of context

I would argue that I do nothing of the sort - Christ gave another two commandments when he was asked what was the greatest commandment. You know what it was so I won't reprise it here. But remember, it was not a suggestion, it was a commandment. He also said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my Father is Heaven is perfect." That wasn't just for show, either.

Faith is an action word - it is shown by actions, not by what is between one's ears. We show our faith by following the commandments as well as we can. But we can never follow them close enough to save ourselves - we are saved by the Grace of Christ. Even professing Christ as your savior is an action. You believe that action saves. I agree - I just think it needs to be followed through with by following the commandments.

It ocurrs to me that since I accept Christ as my personal savior and redeemer, I'm just as much as a Christian as you are. If I'm wrong about the LDS Church, then I am no worse off. I have completed the minimum requirements for eternal salvation, just as you have. If I am right, then my son and daughters will make sure that your temple work gets done in your behalf. <grin>

I would argue that I do nothing of the sort - Christ gave another two commandments when he was asked what was the greatest commandment. You know what it was so I won't reprise it here. But remember, it was not a suggestion, it was a commandment. He also said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my Father is Heaven is perfect." That wasn't just for show, either.

Faith is an action word - it is shown by actions, not by what is between one's ears. We show our faith by following the commandments as well as we can. But we can never follow them close enough to save ourselves - we are saved by the Grace of Christ. Even professing Christ as your savior is an action. You believe that action saves. I agree - I just think it needs to be followed through with by following the commandments.

It ocurrs to me that since I accept Christ as my personal savior and redeemer, I'm just as much as a Christian as you are. If I'm wrong about the LDS Church, then I am no worse off. I have completed the minimum requirements for eternal salvation, just as you have. If I am right, then my son and daughters will make sure that your temple work gets done in your behalf. <grin>


Is it true that Mormons believe that only Mormons go to heaven, other faiths go to purgatory or a lesser heaven, and anyone without faith goes to hell?

So it is somewhat the same thing.

These people claim to be LDS or Mormon, you as a Mormon say they are not.

You say that Mormon's are Christians, but a chritian says you aren't.

Same thing isn't it?
I would say no, it isn't. A member of the Church is one who has been baptized by one who has authority. When they are baptized, their names are then put on the rolls of the Church.

If they wish to become members of the Church, they will need to exercise faith, repent of what they have done, and be baptized.

If they were originally members of the Church and did these things and were excommunicated, then they can apply for rebaptism after a lengthy repentence process.

The Church retains the right to remove anyone from the Church who violates these moral laws. If one is not on the roles of the Church, they are not members of the church. This isn't open for much interpretation. You're either on the list of 12,000,000 members or you're not. These people are not.

All this discussion is so aimless. Lets get something straight here:

Christian = follower of Christ

Both JW and LDS follow Christ although their teachings vary a great deal from the mainstream of Christianity. However, the essential thing to be defined a Christian is that you follow the teachings of Christ, it does not matter that you misinterpret a great deal of things as long as you follow the teachings of Christ you are a Christian.

Interesting...she called him sir...a word derived from sire that didn't come into play until the Middle Ages.

The bible beguiles my sometimes with it's ability to be translated into something that never could have been said.

But thank you for the input...now I'm not misquoting in the future.
yeah it is from the KJV they often replaced pronouns with ones that were more familiar I really like the NIV better. I would like to thank you, I know that we have often disagreed in other threds, but you have remained civil (as I try to do) it makes the whole debate more enjoyable. :)

1)You are either mentally deranged in thinking that you can't be judged

2)Or you are like a little kid hiding in your room after stealing a cookie from the jar, hoping that by being out of sight of Mom will mean that she'll forget your transgression and that you'll go unpunished.

hehe
You cant just tell someone that they will be judged and punished by someone high and mity, i dont endorse a god who punishes or makes you suffer for not following. not even god has the right to judge us.

Is it true that Mormons believe that only Mormons go to heaven, other faiths go to purgatory or a lesser heaven, and anyone without faith goes to hell?

No, it isn't. First off, only God makes that call.

Let's talk about Africa about 1000 years ago to illustrate the example. There were probably millions of people on that continent and none of them had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, much less accept him as their savior.

We perform baptisms in our temples where people are baptized in their place. While they are awaiting the final judgement, they are taught the Gospel in the Spirit World, just as Christ did during his three days there. If they accept the teachings, then they can be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. If they do not accept, then they will be assigned to one of the two other kingdoms.

But we not only perform baptisms in their behalf, we also seal their families together forever so their marriage and family bonds don't have to end at death. It is a joyous thing. That is our goal - to be with our families forever, living in Heavenly Father's presence.

yeah it is from the KJV they often replaced pronouns with ones that were more familiar I really like the NIV better. I would like to thank you, I know that we have often disagreed in other threds, but you have remained civil (as I try to do) it makes the whole debate more enjoyable. :)

And thank you too! Civility is really the cornerstone of debate. Even though we disagree it's really no reason to not be nice to each other.

No, it isn't. First off, only God makes that call.

Let's talk about Africa about 1000 years ago to illustrate the example. There were probably millions of people on that continent and none of them had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, much less accept him as their savior.

We perform baptisms in our temples where people are baptized in their place. While they are awaiting the final judgement, they are taught the Gospel in the Spirit World, just as Christ did during his three days there. If they accept the teachings, then they can be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. If they do not accept, then they will be assigned to one of the two other kingdoms.

But we not only perform baptisms in their behalf, we also seal their families together forever so their marriage and family bonds don't have to end at death. It is a joyous thing. That is our goal - to be with our families forever, living in Heavenly Father's presence.


Interesting concept. So after people die, Jesus attempts to make them Mormon?

I'm a little unclear on the Baptism idea. Mormonism hasn't been around for 1000 years, but regardless. Do Mormons do "baptism in absentia" for all Non-Mormons?

I would argue that I do nothing of the sort - Christ gave another two commandments when he was asked what was the greatest commandment. You know what it was so I won't reprise it here. But remember, it was not a suggestion, it was a commandment. He also said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my Father is Heaven is perfect." That wasn't just for show, either.

Faith is an action word - it is shown by actions, not by what is between one's ears. We show our faith by following the commandments as well as we can. But we can never follow them close enough to save ourselves - we are saved by the Grace of Christ. Even professing Christ as your savior is an action. You believe that action saves. I agree - I just think it needs to be followed through with by following the commandments.

It ocurrs to me that since I accept Christ as my personal savior and redeemer, I'm just as much as a Christian as you are. If I'm wrong about the LDS Church, then I am no worse off. I have completed the minimum requirements for eternal salvation, just as you have. If I am right, then my son and daughters will make sure that your temple work gets done in your behalf. <grin>

very good post. I understand your postition better than I did before. I do agree with the fact that if you are truly following Christ you must follow his commandments and the fact that you can never really do enough to save yourself.
when I said the thing about the faith plus works crowd I was refering to the people who try to say that you need works to get into heaven and that just discounts Jesus' entire role in the church.

Christians think i may be a devil worshiper if i pay dues to the old gods we had in england, they worshiped the land and fertility and had a mutual respect for each other. why would jesus want them to burn in hell? and why do they mistake it for devil worship?

very good post. I understand your postition better than I did before. I do agree with the fact that if you are truly following Christ you must follow his commandments and the fact that you can never really do enough to save yourself.
when I said the thing about the faith plus works crowd I was refering to the people who try to say that you need works to get into heaven and that just discounts Jesus' entire role in the church.

And I have to apologize for the tone of my posts. I hope you can forgive my feistiness.

Balipo:

Here is the problem. You will not find an answer to this question in a forum because one side will always say one thing and the other will say the opposite...and neither side will ever say, "Oh, okay you are right." It's interesting to me that EVERY Christian denomination out there agree that both JW/LDS aren't Christian, and yet they all accept each other as Christian churches. There are very good doctrinal reasons why JW's/LDS are not considered Christian. There are very specific criteria that make up a Christian church and both JW's and LDS don't meet those criteria. My suggestion to you is research it using the library or looking online. Look at ALL sides, the JW/LDS believer side, the Christian believer side, and the ex-JW/LDS side (they offer truths that go beyond anything that I could ever say about the two religions). Then make up your own mind. That is what I did. And I found a whole lot of contradictions, changed Christian definitions and twisted Scripture (as in them twisting Scripture to mean what they want it to and not what it actually means).

For instance, the LDS change the definition of the word "virgin". When LDS teach about the Virgin Birth of Jesus, they do not mean the same thing we do as Christians and they know this. According to the LDS, God the Father, who has a body of flesh and bones (since he was a man), came to earth and had a physical sex with Mary, his own daughter and begot Jesus' physical body.

"If none but gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. "(Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211)

The LDS feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had SEX with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the LDS 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:

"For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).

In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin. By "Virgin birth", the LDS mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!

That is NOT HOW Christian churches DEFINE the virgin birth. Mary didn't have SEX with ANYONE. The Bible is quite clear that the Holy Spirit came upon her and planted Jesus within her. And if someone wants to say that the Holy Spirit could've had sex with Mary, it is the LDS claim (look at the above quotes) that the Father had sex with her, not the Holy Spirit....the funny thing is that the LDS contradict themselves yet again because if you look in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 7:10: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Then they contradict themselves again with this:

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19)

Remember, the LDS church believes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, so if the Father conceived Jesus with Mary by sex, then the Holy Spirit couldn't have ALSO been the one to help conceive the child.

This is just ONE of many examples where I have seen contradictions. I have also seen these kinds of contradictions in the JW religion, but this post is getting very long and I need to go run an errand. If you wish to seek the answers out, there are numerous places to find information. But like I said, hear ALL sides and research ALL sides before you decide what you think about the LDS/JW religions.

Christians think i may be a devil worshiper if i pay dues to the old gods we had in england, they worshiped the land and fertility and had a mutual respect for each other. why would jesus want them to burn in hell? and why do they mistake it for devil worship?

Because in the Christian belief anything "pagan" = devil worship.

That is NOT HOW Christian churches DEFINE the virgin birth. Mary didn't have SEX with ANYONE. The Bible is quite clear that the Holy Spirit came upon her and planted Jesus within her.....
lol! god raped mary then told her she was pregnant

Christians think i may be a devil worshiper if i pay dues to the old gods we had in england, they worshiped the land and fertility and had a mutual respect for each other. why would jesus want them to burn in hell? and why do they mistake it for devil worship?
Jesus doesn't want anyone to burn in hell. He died on the cross to try to stop that from happening.

I do realize that by what you described that you aren't really worshiping the devil but there is a verse in the Bible that states that if you aren't worshiping God that you are worshiping the devil, and that is why you might get some critizism from Christians. Also there is the little matter of the first commandmet in the ten commandments

not attacking just explaining

And I have to apologize for the tone of my posts. I hope you can forgive my feistiness.
mine too.

would it be rape if someone plants a baby in you without permission and tells you your pregnant?
did god rape mary? :eek:

Balipo:

Here is the problem. You will not find an answer to this question in a forum because one side will always say one thing and the other will say the opposite...and neither side will ever say, "Oh, okay you are right." It's interesting to me that EVERY Christian denomination out there agree that both JW/LDS aren't Christian, and yet they all accept each other as Christian churches. There are very good doctrinal reasons why JW's/LDS are not considered Christian. There are very specific criteria that make up a Christian church and both JW's and LDS don't meet those criteria. My suggestion to you is research it using the library or looking online. Look at ALL sides, the JW/LDS believer side, the Christian believer side, and the ex-JW/LDS side (they offer truths that go beyond anything that I could ever say about the two religions). Then make up your own mind. That is what I did. And I found a whole lot of contradictions, changed Christian definitions and twisted Scripture (as in them twisting Scripture to mean what they want it to and not what it actually means).

For instance, the LDS change the definition of the word "virgin". When LDS teach about the Virgin Birth of Jesus, they do not mean the same thing we do as Christians and they know this. According to the LDS, God the Father, who has a body of flesh and bones (since he was a man), came to earth and had a physical sex with Mary, his own daughter and begot Jesus' physical body.

"If none but gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. "(Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211)

The LDS feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had SEX with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the LDS 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:

"For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).

In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin. By "Virgin birth", the LDS mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!

That is NOT HOW Christian churches DEFINE the virgin birth. Mary didn't have SEX with ANYONE. The Bible is quite clear that the Holy Spirit came upon her and planted Jesus within her. And if someone wants to say that the Holy Spirit could've had sex with Mary, it is the LDS claim (look at the above quotes) that the Father had sex with her, not the Holy Spirit....the funny thing is that the LDS contradict themselves yet again because if you look in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 7:10: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Then they contradict themselves again with this:

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19)

Remember, the LDS church believes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, so if the Father conceived Jesus with Mary by sex, then the Holy Spirit couldn't have ALSO been the one to help conceive the child.

This is just ONE of many examples where I have seen contradictions. I have also seen these kinds of contradictions in the JW religion, but this post is getting very long and I need to go run an errand. If you wish to seek the answers out, there are numerous places to find information. But like I said, hear ALL sides and research ALL sides before you decide what you think about the LDS/JW religions.


I understand, and believe me since the initiation of this post i have done more research. Although, on a side note, people leaving any church, be it LDS, JW, Christian, Scientologist, Catholic, etc, seem to be surpressed and unable to get their words out.

I know that this discussion can go on forever.

Basically, my question is who makes the call? I'm sure many will answer, god. Who makes the call for those that don't believe in god?

It's like christianity is a club but no one is exactly sure who the members are.

would it be rape if someone plants a baby in you without permission and tells you your pregnant?
did god rape mary? :eek:
is there a point to this??

btw God didn't just get Mary pregnant and tell her later. He sent her a messanger, she had the option to refuse. I can post the verses to prove it if you are interested, but I suspect you are just interested in starting a fight, so this will be my last response unless you have something more useful to add to the current debate. (which isn't about Mary and Jesus)

It's interesting to me that EVERY Christian denomination out there agree that both JW/LDS aren't Christian, and yet they all accept each other as Christian churches.

No, that is not true. There are Christian denominations that either accept or dont take a stance on JW/LDS being Christian. Likewise, there are some denominations that do not accept other denominations as being Christian (specially denominations like Catholic). So, you are wrong on both counts.

No, that is not true. There are Christian denominations that either accept or dont take a stance on JW/LDS being Christian. Likewise, there are some denominations that do not accept other denominations as being Christian (specially denominations like Catholic). So, you are wrong on both counts.

Actually, being raised Catholic and learning better when I was old enough, Catholics generally accept other religions as Christian. The are viewed as outside of the true power of god on earth in the form of the papacy.

I think that is just as much a load of doodee as the rest of religion, but still, they do accept all Christian religions.

LazyHippies:

Which Christian churches do you know of that accept the LDS/JW's as being Christian? I would like them listed please.

LazyHippies:

Also, please state the churches that don't accept Catholicism as being Christian. I have been involved in many different Protestant churches and have never been told that Catholics aren't Christian. And the political stuff in Great Britain/Ireland doesn't count, since that is based more on politics than theology.

Actually, being raised Catholic and learning better when I was old enough, Catholics generally accept other religions as Christian. The are viewed as outside of the true power of god on earth in the form of the papacy.

I think that is just as much a load of doodee as the rest of religion, but still, they do accept all Christian religions.

I was reffering more to other denomination's views about Catholics than to Catholic views about other denominations. Post-vatican II Catholicism is very tolerant, but there are still many denominations not tolerant of Catholics.

LazyHippies:

Which Christian churches do you know of that accept the LDS/JW's as being Christian? I would like them listed please.

My church does, I am not going to mention the denomination because I really dont believe in denominations to begin with. I am not going to do research for you, if you want a list you will have to make one. You were the one who made an absolute declarative statement and did not back it up, so you are the one upon whom the responsability of backing it up falls. You were even nice enough to capitalize it, therefore you must be confident enough in your exhaustive search that you can readibly display sources proving your statement.

And the political stuff in Great Britain/Ireland doesn't count, since that is based more on politics than theology.

Hopefully this is nearly over...

LazyHippies:

Also, please state the churches that don't accept Catholicism as being Christian. I have been involved in many different Protestant churches and have never been told that Catholics aren't Christian. And the political stuff in Great Britain/Ireland doesn't count, since that is based more on politics than theology.

Primitive Baptist is one - of course they don't accept anyone but them as being Christian.

While this may have now changed, the Anglican church did not accept "papists" as Christians for a very long time.

At the beginning of the schism, Greek Orthodox churches did not recognize Roman Catholics as Christian, as they had pretty much excommunicated all of them. (Roman Catholics did the same to the Greek Orthodox).

Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists all declared Anabaptists "non-Christians" at one time.

There have always been different sects within Christianity. Some of those have always declared some of the others to be "non-Christian", while some have accepted the possibility of other viewpoints. This has been going on throughout the entire history of the church.

Balipo:

There are many places on the internet that you can find the stories of ex-LDS and ex-JW's. As far as who makes the call of who is Christian and who isn't.....I would think that since the term "Christianity" came from the early Christian church AFTER Jesus' death, and the early church leaders had many councils to define what Christian's believe, that would be a good place to start. Be very careful about the definitions that JWs/LDS use. They make it sound the same but they are VERY different in interpretation.

The Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The "Rule of Faith" as recorded by Irenaeus:

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .

Also, look at HOW Christian's interpret the Bible vs. these other two religions. There are VAST differences. Not to mention the JW's rewrote the Bible to suit their purposes. They won't even look at another Bible when you try to point out the differences. And, interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon is written in King James English, which was not the language of Joseph Smith's day. Any LDS that I have spoken to about this has stated that the King James English is "Biblical language". I don't know HOW that is possible since the original texts of the Bible were Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and the King James version is only one version of many in the WHOLE history of Biblical translation. This is where I would start to find your answers. :)

I would think that since the term "Christianity" came from the early Christian church AFTER Jesus' death, and the early church leaders had many councils to define what Christian's believe, that would be a good place to start. Be very careful about the definitions that JWs/LDS use. They make it sound the same but they are VERY different in interpretation.


Actually, you have your history all wrong. Early Christians did not invent the word Christian. The word Christian was invented by the Romans as a way to characterize Christ's followers as a dangerous political group with Christ as the head. The word included all followers of Christ. It was not just used to reffer to the ones we know as Christians today but also to the Gnostics whose unusual beleifs about the Demiurge and the evil Jehovah have been all but lost to time. It then became a derogatory term associated with all manner of crime. It was only decades later that Christians proudly accepted the name given to them as a badge of honor instead of a derogatory term.

Dempublicents1:

I wasn't stating that historically other Christian denominations haven't had the "I'm Christian and you are not" argument. But who NOW sees it that way? I will be attending a school where ALL Christian denominations are seen as Christian and no one is "wrong" for being part of a different denomination.

Balipo:

There are many places on the internet that you can find the stories of ex-LDS and ex-JW's. As far as who makes the call of who is Christian and who isn't.....I would think that since the term "Christianity" came from the early Christian church AFTER Jesus' death, and the early church leaders had many councils to define what Christian's believe, that would be a good place to start. Be very careful about the definitions that JWs/LDS use. They make it sound the same but they are VERY different in interpretation.

Also, look at HOW Christian's interpret the Bible vs. these other two religions. There are VAST differences. Not to mention the JW's rewrote the Bible to suit their purposes. They won't even look at another Bible when you try to point out the differences. And, interestingly enough, the Book of Mormon is written in King James English, which was not the language of Joseph Smith's day. Any LDS that I have spoken to about this has stated that the King James English is "Biblical language". I don't know HOW that is possible since the original texts of the Bible were Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and the King James version is only one version of many in the WHOLE history of Biblical translation. This is where I would start to find your answers. :)

As a developer...I don't always trust what is out there on the internet. To be honest, some people just put-up sights of crap with little integrity (surprising isn't it)

I did read an interesting book written by 2 women who left the JW's. It was rather enlightening. The behavior there is very cult like.

I wouldn't argue that JW's and LDSers interpret the bible differently, so do groups of Christians or everyone would always be "on the same page".

This has been a very interesting discussion to follow. I doubt there will be a resolution, like so many other issues involving religion.

Actually, you have your history all wrong. Early Christians did not invent the word Christian. The word Christian was invented by the Romans as a way to characterize Christ's followers as a dangerous political group with Christ as the head. The word included all followers of Christ. It was not just used to reffer to the ones we know as Christians today but also the Gnostics whose unusual beleifs have been all but lost to time. It then became a derogatory term associated with all manner of crime. It was only decades later that Christians proudly accepted the name given to them as a badge of honor instead of a derogatory term.

Good point.

Dempublicents1:

I wasn't stating that historically other Christian denominations haven't had the "I'm Christian and you are not" argument. But who NOW sees it that way? I will be attending a school where ALL Christian denominations are seen as Christian and no one is "wrong" for being part of a different denomination.

I listed one NOW for you - Primitive Baptists. They think that everyone other than themselves are not Christian.

LazyHippies:

I won't refute that the Romans came up with the term "Christian". I was only saying that early Christian leaders defined "Christian" to mean what it does TODAY in present context.

Dempublicents1:

I'll do some research on them because I have honestly never heard of the denomination. :)

Dempublicents1:

I'll do some research on them because I have honestly never heard of the denomination. :)

Most people haven't. To my knowledge, they only exist in the rural South. They pretty much don't let other people into their church, and their members are strictly forbidden from attending any other church - so they don't get out much. I'm not sure how much info you'll find on them without knowing someone who attends or has at some point attended a Primitive Baptist church.

Balipo:

I'm not asking you to blindly trust what is on the internet. I go by this general rule: If you find similar stories on 10 or more sites, then there is a good possibility that the information is mostly true. There are MANY ex-LDS/JW stories out there on the internet. Read them for yourself. That is the only way you will know if you believe their accounts of the churches they belonged to.

LazyHippies:

I won't refute that the Romans came up with the term "Christian". I was only saying that early Christian leaders defined "Christian" to mean what it does TODAY in present context.

No, the word Christian today really does continue to be defined as the Romans originally defined it, as those who follow Christ. In fact, here are some dictionary definitions:


Chris·tian Audio pronunciation of "christian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.


christian

the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers
of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were
known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints,"
"believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name
"Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but
three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).



Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

So, you see Christian really does continue to mean the same thing it always has, someone who follows Christ.

Dempublicents1:

Yeah, I live in Canada...so I wouldn't have any reference to them.

LazyHippies:

No, what I was saying is that when the early church leaders met through councils, they defined exactly what "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus" meant by laying it out in SPECIFIC and EXACT terms. Please don't put words in my mouth. You know perfectly well what I meant originally and now you are just arguing semantics.

Dempublicents1:

Yeah, I live in Canada...so I wouldn't have any reference to them.
yeah well they are all over the place where I live, they drive me nuts :rolleyes:

LazyHippies:

No, what I was saying is that when the early church leaders met through councils, they defined exactly what "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus" meant by laying it out in SPECIFIC and EXACT terms. Please don't put words in my mouth. You know perfectly well what I meant originally and now you are just arguing semantics.

But they did not agree. All of Christianity has never been in agreement. In the early church there was the split between the Gnostics and the followers of Paul. Paul also speaks about the followers of various others quarreling. When the attempt to consolidate the Christian faith in the council of Nicaea was made, there was no consensus found and it ended in the excommunication Arius and the others who disgareed and the outlawing of Arianism. Then during the protestant reformation, there was the break from Catholic church. After that came various splits with some people identifying themselves as Calvinist and others as Lutherans or Anabaptists. Even today there continues to be disagreement. As you can see, there has never been agreement about what one needs to do to be a good Christian, therefore you cannot make an honest claim that Christianity has already decided what constitutes the proper following of Christ.

All of those things aside, the fact remains that the sentence you quoted says OR not AND. Which makes your whole point moot even if you were able to prove that Christians are in agreement about what constitutes following Christ (which you cannot).

It's been fun guys! I really do have to go and run some errands now. But I do encourage everyone to do their own research. If you don't come to the same conclusions that I do, then so be it. I'm not here to persuade someone to see the world the way that I do. I'm only here to give you my perspective on things!! Have a good one!! Cheers!! :)

LazyHippies:

Both Protestant and Catholic churches use and recite the Nicene Creed and Apostle's Creed to this day. And that was all I ever referred to. Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that throughout history there hasn't been dissention among the ranks, but there are some VERY BASIC commonalities and they have always been there.

LazyHippies:

Both Protestant and Catholic churches use and recite the Nicene Creed and Apostle's Creed to this day. And that was all I ever referred to. Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that throughout history there hasn't been dissention among the ranks, but there are some VERY BASIC commonalities and they have always been there.

That is also not true. Some protestants use and recite the Nicene Creed, but not all do. The Southern Baptists, for example (one of the largest denominations in the US) does not recite the Nicene creed and does not believe in any creeds at all. You cannot say protestants recite the Nicene creed, because they dont do so as a rule, some do and some do not.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am trying to illustrate why what you said is not true. You said that Christians defined what constitutes following Christ, but that is not true. Some Christians defined it and the ones who werent in agreement were excommunicated, that is hardly indicative of a decision made by all of Christianity. So, the fact remains some Christians have defined it a certain way and some have defined it differently.

Therefore, your statement remains untrue and the definition stands, a Christian is a follower of Christ and there is no consensus on exactly how best to follow Christ. As long as you attempt to follow Christ you can be classified as a Christian just like the Gnostics were always classified as Christians despite believing in an evil God that does not even remotely resemble the current Christian belief (in fact they continue to be reffered to as "the Gnostic Christians" to this very day).

LazyHippies:

No, what I was saying is that when the early church leaders met through councils, they defined exactly what "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus" meant by laying it out in SPECIFIC and EXACT terms. Please don't put words in my mouth. You know perfectly well what I meant originally and now you are just arguing semantics.

First of all "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ" is defined quite clearly without anyone else having any say in it at all.

As for the early church leaders (and most of this wasn't done in the early church anyways, we are talking about several generations later) deciding what the religion based on the teachings of Christ should be - wouldn't Christ himself be the only one who could truly be sure of that?

LazyHippies:

Well, firstly, I don't consider Gnostics to be Christians...and all of the fundamentalist Christian churches also don't believe that Gnostics are Christians, but that is a whole other debate for another time. And secondly, in Canada we don't have an over abundance of Southern Baptists....so I am only going by what I know to be fact with all of the other churches that I have attended here (and that is MOST of them). Please understand that I am only well-versed in the Christian denominations that are dominate her in Canada. I am finding what you have to say very informative, but because of the way I was raised and what I consider to be standard Christian teaching based on the Bible, I will always be hesistant to accept a faith as Christian if they don't adhere to the basic priciples of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. That is HOW every church that I ever belonged to has defined what Christianity means in terms of being a follower of Christ. And both creeds are based on Biblical truths and teachings.

Well, firstly, I don't consider Gnostics to be Christians...

There you go making determinations you aren't qualified to make again. Since when does the definition of a word rely upon your personal considerations?

and all of the fundamentalist Christian churches also don't believe that Gnostics are Christians,

Of course they don't. Fundamentalists don't believe anyone who disagrees with them are Christians.

I am finding what you have to say very informative, but because of the way I was raised and what I consider to be standard Christian teaching based on the Bible, I will always be hesistant to accept a faith as Christian if they don't adhere to the basic priciples of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.

So you base the word "Christian" on a single interpretation of Christ's teachings, instead of on the teachings themselves?

That is HOW every church that I ever belonged to has defined what Christianity means in terms of being a follower of Christ. And both creeds are based on Biblical truths and teachings.

Based on - key words there. The teachings of JWs are based on Biblical truths and teachings. They just look at it differently than you (and those who follow the creeds) do. That doesn't make it any less based on the teachings of Christ - it just means that you came to different conclusions.

Dempublicents1:

One can only profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if they actually FOLLOW the complete teachings of Christ...and the LDS and JW's don't...If I could find no repetitive contradictions in these two religions, then I would whole-heartedly agree that they were both Christian, but not only do their beliefs contradict the Bible, they have both repeatedly contradicted their OWN doctrine....Again, there is a reason WHY Christian churches don't consider them to be Christian. Please do your OWN research on the JW/LDS churches. Until you do, you have no basis for debate. Find the WHOLE story of their beliefs. I ask you, go to google and find 10 stories about ex-LDS and 10 stories about ex-JW's and tell me that these people's experiences don't sound "cultish" to you. Please, I am not asking you to take me at my word. And you are free to come up with your own conclusions. I am not asking anyone to see it the way that I do.

LazyHippies:
And secondly, in Canada we don't have an over abundance of Southern Baptists....so I am only going by what I know to be fact with all of the other churches that I have attended here (and that is MOST of them).
I feel I have to point out that Southern Baptist and Primitive Baptists are two completely different denominations.

Smunkeeville:

I realize that...but thank you!! In Canada, there are mostly just Baptists....not Southern, or Primitive.

Dempublicents1:

One can only profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if they actually FOLLOW the complete teachings of Christ...and the LDS and JW's don't...If I could find no repetitive contradictions in these two religions, then I would whole-heartedly agree that they were both Christian, but not only do their beliefs contradict the Bible, they have both repeatedly contradicted their OWN doctrine....Again, there is a reason WHY Christian churches don't consider them to be Christian. Please do your OWN research on the JW/LDS churches. Until you do, you have no basis for debate. Find the WHOLE story of their beliefs. I ask you, go to google and find 10 stories about ex-LDS and 10 stories about ex-JW's and tell me that these people's experiences don't sound "cultish" to you. Please, I am not asking you to take me at my word. And you are free to come up with your own conclusions. I am not asking anyone to see it the way that I do.

You were doing so good. You admitted the limits of your knowledge on this topic and it looked like we had reached a good understanding of each other, then you come out and spew this garbage. :headbang:

My knowledge of the Latter Day Saints is limited. Although I have a good friend who is a former Mormon, he stopped practicing long ago, so it doesnt really come up in conversations although he has mentioned if he ever returned to Christianity it would be to the Mormon religion.

However, I am very knowledgable about JWs because my best friend is a practicing JW. The JW teachings are based on 100% bible. This is what distinguishes them from all other major denominations, they have made a tremendous effort to eliminate all tradition from their beliefs. Try to mention that the bible its self is a tradition and their arguments break down, but thats beside the point.

Lets take the divinity of Jesus for example, since this is the thing that most people complain about when discussing JWs. A non-JW protestant or Catholic Christian believes in the tradition of the trinity established in the councils of constantinople and nicaea. The JWs however, renounce all tradition and start from scratch, therefore they ignore the councils and go straight to the bible. In the bible, there is little evidence of the trinity. The bible is clear that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, that through him all things were made, and that no one can get to the father except through him, so the JWs believe this. But the trinity is not mentioned in the bible as it is a concept that evolved over several hundred years of Christian tradition. Because JWs reject tradition, they reject the concept of the trinity and they view Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as separate beings.

There are many other examples, of course. The point is that the JW religion is based entirely on scripture. They have made a conscious effort to reject all tradition and anything outside of scripture, and this sets them apart from everyone else. I am not saying they are correct in their interpretations, I do not believe they are (which is why I am not a JW myself), but I cant deny the fact that their entire religion is based exclusively on the bible.

LazyHippies:

The JW Bible is not the Bible that Christians use. There are MANY differences. They have re-written the Bible to their OWN means. Every Christian Bible has been interpreted right from the original texts and all of them say EXACTLY the same thing, just in slightly different language. If you don't believe me that the JW Bible and the Christian Bible are very different, then please do your research and bring me back some evidence. Again, go to google and look up ex-JW stories and see what they teach for yourself. If you are not willing to do that much, then I can't really discuss this further with you because you have NO understanding HOW the JW's really differ from Christians.

LazyHippies:

The Bible is very clear. There is ONE God. But the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. I have already stated why the term "Trinity" is used in Christian theology. Here is what I wrote about the Trinity in a previous post:

No, the word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is quite clear in the Bible....the word "Bible" doesn't occur in the Bible, either. "Trinity" is a word used by Christians to express the doctrine of the unity of God as consisting of three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.
There is only one God; but He consists of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.

Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture. With the introduction out of the way, Bible verses will be given in discussion of the Trinity.

1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God: The Father is God: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2. The Son is God: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16 (The One who indwells is the Holy Spirit - Romans 8:9; John 14:16-17; Acts 2:1-4).

5) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see: Luke 22:42; John 5:36; John 20:21; 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see: John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" (Romans 11:33-34)

LazyHippies:

The JW Bible is not the Bible that Christians use. There are MANY differences. They have re-written the Bible to their OWN means. Every Christian Bible has been interpreted right from the original texts and all of them say EXACTLY the same thing, just in slightly different language. If you don't believe me that the JW Bible and the Christian Bible are very different, then please do your research and bring me back some evidence. Again, go to google and look up ex-JW stories and see what they teach for yourself. If you are not willing to do that much, then I can't really discuss this further with you because you have NO understanding HOW the JW's really differ from Christians.

Sorry, but in this you are again misinformed. JWs use the same bible we do. They have their own translations taken from the earliest available texts. If you dont believe me, you are free to pick up a JW bible and compare it to your own. In fact, they will provide you with a free bible if you ask them. No, Christians do not have bibles taken from the original texts because the original texts no longer exist. No one has bibles translated from the original texts.

Edit: Ill make it easier for you. Here is a link to an online version of their bible. Read it to your heart's content and see if its the same as yours or not. http://watchtower.org/bible/

LazyHippies:

I have read the JW Bible and I have even pointed out the differences to MANY JW's....and they have NEVER had an explanation for the differences except, "Our translation is the TRUE translation".....yet, Hebrew and Greek language scholars have SHOWN that their translation is full of errors. Do your research....I have been studying both the JW's and LDS for over 10 years now, so I HAVE done much research on them....and I have done it using both their church sources and outside sources.

LazyHippies:

I have read the JW Bible and I have even pointed out the differences to MANY JW's....and they have NEVER had an explanation for the differences except, "Our translation is the TRUE translation".....yet, Hebrew and Greek language scholars have SHOWN that their translation is full of errors. Do your research....I have been studying both the JW's and LDS for over 10 years now, so I HAVE done much research on them....and I have done it using both their church sources and outside sources.

umm...yeah...you have been studying it for 10 years and are so knowledgable on this topic that you couldnt even point out one difference now. Sorry, try again. You hear that? its the sound of the respect you were earning from me flying away. Lying tends to do that.

LazyHippies:

Jehovah Witness Bible:

John Chapter 1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Christian Bible:

John Chapter 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


See the difference, the JW's state that Jesus was a god, not God. Little difference, but BIG implications. Thanks for giving me a link to the JW Bible so I could show you ONE of the many differences.

LazyHippies:

While you were writing your last post, I was writing out an example....so please don't jump to conclusions

LazyHippies:

For your interest, here are a list of the JW Bible translators and their qualifications:

1.)Franz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:

21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.

Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.

Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic

2.)Gangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.

3.)Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.

4.)Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.

5.)Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languages

6.)Schroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.

I feel I have to point out that Southern Baptist and Primitive Baptists are two completely different denominations.
sorry if I sounded jumpy, it is just like people try to lump us together and we believe totally different things. For example they claim that the southern baptists are too liberal with thier teachings.(I assure you we are very conservative, one of the early fundamentalist movements in the south) that and I had one tell me today that I was going to hell.
not nice, not nice at all :mad:

Smunkeeville:

No worries!! So do the Primitive Baptists and the Southern Baptists come from the same roots, or are they totally unrelated to each other? Just curious! :)

LazyHippies:

Jehovah Witness Bible:

John Chapter 1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Christian Bible:

John Chapter 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


See the difference, the JW's state that Jesus was a god, not God. Little difference, but BIG implications. Thanks for giving me a link to the JW Bible so I could show you ONE of the many differences.

The difference there is in how the English translations have replaced God's name with the word God. Jehovah's Witness bibles do not replace the tetragrammaton with the word "God" they replace it either with the word "Jehovah" which is one of the ways to pronounce God's name. Once you realize that that verse does not mention God, it become easy to see why they translate it in that way. These things can get really confusing with modern English translations because they choose to omit God's name. If you want to talk about how bad translations are, you can start by explaining why the non-JW bibles purposefully obfuscate God's name. Luckily you do not have to because if you own an NIV and you read the foreword it tells you why right there, because of custom (tradition).

LazyHippies:

The first chapter of John is what JW's use to show that the Trinity does not exist....and they can only show that BECAUSE they have re-worded the Bible. I have had JW's at my door take out their Bibles and show me this passage and explain to me how they refute the idea of the Trinity. The only way that passage can mean that the Trinity doesn't exist is if the Word is Jesus and God is God. Then I go and get my Bible and show them how my Bible differs from their's....and John isn't the only place that their Bible is re-worded....instead of wanting to talk with me further, they usually leave. You can say what you want and believe what you want, but I can tell that you have done very little research on the subject...so I am going to leave this lovely discussion and spend some quality time with my husband. If you want more examples of how the JW's have re-worded the Bible, I'm sure you can do the research. Bye!! :)

Smunkeeville:

No worries!! So do the Primitive Baptists and the Southern Baptists come from the same roots, or are they totally unrelated to each other? Just curious! :)
well originally we were all just baptists (around 1609 to some where mid 1845 when the southern baptists were formed) but certain issues of the day seemed to split the church into smaller groups. You can visit the Southern Baptist Convention at www.sbc.net (http://www.sbc.net)
and the primitive baptists at www.pb.org (http://www.pb.org)

Smunkeeville:

Thanks for the info!! I'll check out those sites. :)

LazyHippies:

I was just thinking and I thought that I would point something out to you. If the JW's only use the word "Jehovah" when mentioning God, then who created the earth in these verses? By the way, these verses are taken right from the website that you provided earlier:

Genisis
1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. 3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. 6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day. 9 And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so. 10 And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that [it was] good. 11 And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 12 And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.

And if the JW's didn't mean that "the Word" was Jesus (which Christians also believe), then what does this passage mean a little bit later in John 1:14?

John
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

I'm just curious.

Dempublicents1:

One can only profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if they actually FOLLOW the complete teachings of Christ...and the LDS and JW's don't...

And who are you to determine what the complete teachings of Christ are? Because what you really mean here is "If they actually follow my personal interpretation of Christ's teachings...and the LDS and JW's don't..."

If I could find no repetitive contradictions in these two religions, then I would whole-heartedly agree that they were both Christian, but not only do their beliefs contradict the Bible, they have both repeatedly contradicted their OWN doctrine....

Ok, you've just described every Christian church in history.

Again, there is a reason WHY Christian churches don't consider them to be Christian. Please do your OWN research on the JW/LDS churches. Until you do, you have no basis for debate.

Been there, done that.

Find the WHOLE story of their beliefs. I ask you, go to google and find 10 stories about ex-LDS and 10 stories about ex-JW's and tell me that these people's experiences don't sound "cultish" to you.

There is nothing inherent in the definition of Christianity that excludes cults. The early churches were just as "cultish" as either of these denominations.

Every Christian Bible has been interpreted right from the original texts and all of them say EXACTLY the same thing, just in slightly different language.

This is a horribly and completely incorrect statement. Very few Bibles have been translated directly from original text. The most common, the KJV, has been translated through at least 3 languages, depending on the exact book. Many others are actually based on the KJV and simply translated into "more modern" English.

Jehovah Witness Bible:

John Chapter 1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Christian Bible:

John Chapter 1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


See the difference, the JW's state that Jesus was a god, not God. Little difference, but BIG implications. Thanks for giving me a link to the JW Bible so I could show you ONE of the many differences.

Considering what a small difference that is when coming from a translation of an ancient language, it isn't that surprising a difference. Yes, it does have great theological significance, but it is purely a product of translation.

How can you be certain that your translation is correct? Have you spoken to the original writer?

Dempublicents1:

The translations that I use are Christian and they all say the same exact thing.

The beginning of the NIV Bible says:

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working DIRECTLY from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

The beginning of the King James Version states:

Translated out of the ORIGINAL TONGUES: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty's special command.

In the Good News Bible it says:

The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their first task was to understand correctly the meaning of the ORIGINAL.

In the New Living Translation it says:

The translators of the Old Testament used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as their standard text....

The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament...

You see, these Bibles all are based on a direct translation of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts.

Dempublicents1:

Many Hebrew and Greek language scholars have shown that the JW Bible is full of mistranslation and errors. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research.

You native English speakers should work out your Bible properly. In Chinese, the Bible only has two translations, one translated by Biblical scholars in the 19th century in China from the English versions, and much more recently, in the late 20th century, by modern Chinese scholars from the texts closest to the original.

What I want to say is, language changes with time. What may have been reasonable in the past may not be today. That's why translating the Bible must continue as languages progress.

One more thing, when doing such a large project as translating the Bible, the Word of God, doing it without God's permission and overseeing may make the translation deviating dangerously from God's own will. How many versions of the Bible are like this, I don't know, but it's essential that before you read and trust any Bible, you need to know it's origin.

This is just ONE of many examples where I have seen contradictions. I'd like to take a stab at this. There has been much speculation here about LDS saying that God had sex with Mary. There is nothing that says that anywhere. We have several people in prominent places who have wondered out loud or have written their opinion on this subject.

I can tell you that the Church's stand on this is that Mary is the mother of Christ and she conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. To say that our theologians say this or that is a bit silly since we have no theologians who give us the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

The manner of conception of the Savior is none of my business and has no effect on my salvation.

I'd like to take a stab at this. There has been much speculation here about LDS saying that God had sex with Mary. There is nothing that says that anywhere. We have several people in prominent places who have wondered out loud or have written their opinion on this subject.

I can tell you that the Church's stand on this is that Mary is the mother of Christ and she conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. To say that our theologians say this or that is a bit silly since we have no theologians who give us the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

The manner of conception of the Savior is none of my business and has no effect on my salvation.
Given that historical documents suggest that Mary was, at the very most, 14 years of age when she was impregnated, don't you think that's a little relavent? Yes, I know that social rules at the time were different than they are now, but shouldn't God do what is right regardless of the laws of man? Do you really want to be "saved" by a God that raped a 14 year old girl? Doesn't that impact your "salvation" just a little bit? I would think it's more than a small point, to know whether God is a rapist.

<snip>
You see, these Bibles all are based on a direct translation of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts.

I'm sorry, but I must make a rather perdantic definition. No modern translation is made from the original texts, they are made from the origional languages. The original texts are long gone.

I'm sorry, but I must make a rather perdantic definition. No modern translation is made from the original texts, they are made from the origional languages. The original texts are long gone.

That is true but they are from the earliest possible texts. And they are compared with as many early texts as possible.

Dempublicents1:

One can only profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if they actually FOLLOW the complete teachings of Christ...and the LDS and JW's don't...
Please enumerate those teachings of Jesus Christ that I don't follow (Please DO NOT cut and paste three pages of quotes from some Anti-Mormon site, just give me a list of those that I don't believe in. I guarentee you that you will be wrong in every case).

Please do your OWN research on the JW/LDS churches. Until you do, you have no basis for debate.

No, actually until you get off those sites that are set up by "ex-mormons" and those who make money smearing us (they're usually one in the same) and go to a place run by a member of a church who explains what we REALLY believe, then you have no basis for debate. You have come up with some of the most rediculos stuff here. Your research involves the equivalent of "going to a Budhist to find out what Baptists believe." That is not the way to go. Do you go to Jewish sites to find out what Presbyterians believe? Of course not!

Find the WHOLE story of their beliefs. I ask you, go to google and find 10 stories about ex-LDS and 10 stories about ex-JW's and tell me that these people's experiences don't sound "cultish" to you.

Of course they do! I've read them and they're complete horse squeeze! We don't treat people that way. We treat them with love and respect. Why would we treat anyone differently? Do you think that 12,000,000 people would stick around if they were mistreated? In 33 years, I've never seen it and the Church is the same where ever you go. As I said above, these people are, many times, making a dime from these. If you don't believe that, look at the Tanners. They make LOTS of money from the "stuff" they put out. They also sneak into temples with recording devices (they tresspass - against the law anywhere) and record temple sessions (the ceremonies are copyrighted everywhere in the world - once again against the law). They church goes to court to protect its rights, Tanners counter-sue and lose EVERY TIME. But they still put out the same stuff and people like you continue to believe it. They are evil law-breakers, not Christians as they profess.

Please, I am not asking you to take me at my word. And you are free to come up with your own conclusions. I am not asking anyone to see it the way that I do.
I already have, have looked at the WHOLE picture, and have formed my opinion.

umm...yeah...you have been studying it for 10 years and are so knowledgable on this topic that you couldnt even point out one difference now. Sorry, try again. You hear that? its the sound of the respect you were earning from me flying away. Lying tends to do that.

The only studying that he is doing is Google searches.

The only studying that he is doing is Google searches.

Between google searches and Wikipedia you can find a bunch of great information. There is also Lexis-Nexis if you have access to it.

sorry if I sounded jumpy, it is just like people try to lump us together and we believe totally different things. For example they claim that the southern baptists are too liberal with thier teachings.(I assure you we are very conservative, one of the early fundamentalist movements in the south) that and I had one tell me today that I was going to hell.
not nice, not nice at all :mad:

These Primitive Baptists (so-called) sound an awful lot like Quakers prior to the start of the 20th century.

Dempublicents1:

Many Hebrew and Greek language scholars have shown that the JW Bible is full of mistranslation and errors.

Compared to what? There are no original manuscripts. The original texts were mostly written in Hebrew (OT) and Aramaic (NT). Some of the epistles (letters) were possibly written in Latin (letter to the Romans), in Greek (Letter to the Thessolonians), etc.

Compared to what? There are no original manuscripts. The original texts were mostly written in Hebrew (OT) and Aramaic (NT). Some of the epistles (letters) were possibly written in Latin (letter to the Romans), in Greek (Letter to the Thessolonians), etc.

And many of the stories of the Bible (NT) were oral tradition. Compiled under Constantine in the 5th Century AD and edited to make Christianity more appealing to the Roman masses, who at the time were not convinced of their Emperor's decision.

Many scholars believe that this why miracles of Jesus are in the bible. He had to have "god-like" abilities in order for traditional Romans to see him as a savior.

Still many Romans didn't accept the first part of the bible (OT) until 700 A.D. and it wasn't truly combined until 100 years later. This was in Latin, a form of mass still celebrated to this day.

But to go back to the beginning...how accurate can things be when passed down from generation to generation orally?

Between google searches and Wikipedia you can find a bunch of great information. There is also Lexis-Nexis if you have access to it.

Yes there are. Unfortunately, not all are documented like Wikipedia. I just looked up the article on Joseph Smith. It is VERY good. Balanced - still talks about some of the controversy, tho. That's fine. The problem is still that the Anti-Mormon sites can put in whatever they want and not have to pass any peer review.

These Primitive Baptists (so-called) sound an awful lot like Quakers prior to the start of the 20th century.
Yeah one of thier big problems with the Southern Baptists that I keep hearing is that we believe in separation of church and state. I keep trying to tell them that it is best for the church that way, but they don't listen.... :rolleyes:

Yes there are. Unfortunately, not all are documented like Wikipedia. I just looked up the article on Joseph Smith. It is VERY good. Balanced - still talks about some of the controversy, tho. That's fine. The problem is still that the Anti-Mormon sites can put in whatever they want and not have to pass any peer review.

So can the Mormon sites.

Yeah one of thier big problems with the Southern Baptists that I keep hearing is that we believe in separation of church and state. I keep trying to tell them that it is best for the church that way, but they don't listen.... :rolleyes:


I think a lot of people misunderstand seperation of church and state. The idea is that America is a country of religious freedom (we will disregard some of the glaring oversites, like we have only ever had 1 non-protestant president ever and he got shot).

The idea is to allow people to practice freely without impinging on other's beliefs. I think that is not unreasonable. I don't feel that I should have to go to a hockey game or something and have to stand out in the crowd because I'm not praying. Bad example, but I think you get the gist.

Compared to what? There are no original manuscripts. The original texts were mostly written in Hebrew (OT) and Aramaic (NT). Some of the epistles (letters) were possibly written in Latin (letter to the Romans), in Greek (Letter to the Thessolonians), etc.

The Aramaic uses the Hebrew character set so you could say Hebrew Ezra and Daniel are the only books that I know of with strong Aramaic overtones

Now about the NT … while Jesus may have spoke Aramaic I believe the original NT was written in Koine Greek. Not Aramaic

As far as I know none of the original text was written in Latin, that was just the first translation

I think a lot of people misunderstand seperation of church and state. The idea is that America is a country of religious freedom (we will disregard some of the glaring oversites, like we have only ever had 1 non-protestant president ever and he got shot).

The idea is to allow people to practice freely without impinging on other's beliefs. I think that is not unreasonable. I don't feel that I should have to go to a hockey game or something and have to stand out in the crowd because I'm not praying. Bad example, but I think you get the gist.
yeah my main thing though is that if the church is involved with the government then the government will be involved with the church and that could make it bad on the church. okay I didn't explain that well....

yeah my main thing though is that if the church is involved with the government then the government will be involved with the church and that could make it bad on the church. okay I didn't explain that well....

I have to argue this slightly...

The government is involved with the church. The church gets tax breaks, which in my opinion is unfair. It may be a reversed involvement but there it is.

I have to argue this slightly...

The government is involved with the church. The church gets tax breaks, which in my opinion is unfair. It may be a reversed involvement but there it is.
true... I wasn't very clear.
The Government also imposes things like fire codes on churches, these things don't really worry me much (unless I am in a paranoid mood)
It just bothers me that there are some denominations that want to legislate a religion, and force people to pray at school and teach the bible in public schools and such, and I try to explain that if the church had that much control over the government it would be really easy for the government to start shutting down churches it didn't think folllowed thier vision, in which case a lot of churches would be in trouble....
If a ultraconservative group (ie primative baptists) took over the rest of us would be screwed
likewise if a more liberal church (ie United Church of Christ) took over well... then the more conservative churches would be screwed
it just doesn't sound like a good idea freedom wise for church and government to intermingle any more than they have to.
I don't think I did much better explaining this time either though.. sorry.

So can the Mormon sites.

The Church has a correlation committee that scours all official church websites for inaccuracies. That is our peer review. We tell people what we believe on these sites, we don't tell them that the Baptists are wrong because they believe (fill in the blank).

Sites run by members are on their own. But they catch all sorts of personal grief from friends if they print any inacurracies. We always try to be truthful. Not everyone is, but the vast majority are.

We stand by www.lds.org and www.mormon.org and www.familysearch.org

true... I wasn't very clear.
The Government also imposes things like fire codes on churches, these things don't really worry me much (unless I am in a paranoid mood)
It just bothers me that there are some denominations that want to legislate a religion, and force people to pray at school and teach the bible in public schools and such, and I try to explain that if the church had that much control over the government it would be really easy for the government to start shutting down churches it didn't think folllowed thier vision, in which case a lot of churches would be in trouble....
If a ultraconservative group (ie primative baptists) took over the rest of us would be screwed
likewise if a more liberal church (ie United Church of Christ) took over well... then the more conservative churches would be screwed
it just doesn't sound like a good idea freedom wise for church and government to intermingle any more than they have to.
I don't think I did much better explaining this time either though.. sorry.


Oh no, you did a great job explaining.

I agree with your point to. That's exactly why seperation of church and state must happen. I even believe that the whole "Ten Commandments" in the court house should be overturned. If I was Muslim I'd be offended.

The Church has a correlation committee that scours all official church websites for inaccuracies. That is our peer review. We tell people what we believe on these sites, we don't tell them that the Baptists are wrong because they believe (fill in the blank).

Sites run by members are on their own. But they catch all sorts of personal grief from friends if they print any inacurracies. We always try to be truthful. Not everyone is, but the vast majority are.

We stand by www.lds.org and www.mormon.org and www.familysearch.org

I have to disagree slightly. At lds.org you can find several articles ripping into other faiths. I think I posted one here the other day. I'll have to look it up.

Oh no, you did a great job explaining.

I agree with your point to. That's exactly why seperation of church and state must happen. I even believe that the whole "Ten Commandments" in the court house should be overturned. If I was Muslim I'd be offended.
Yeah I never really did get that whole thing either, I mean if you know the ten comandments then why do you need a monument? It's not like that it being there is going to cause someone to change thier mind about religion or something.
Besides they wouldn't want a big statue of Buddah outside the state capitol and fair is fair.

Yeah I never really did get that whole thing either, I mean if you know the ten comandments then why do you need a monument? It's not like that it being there is going to cause someone to change thier mind about religion or something.
Besides they wouldn't want a big statue of Buddah outside the state capitol and fair is fair.

That depends on the buddha...if it was the Joyful Buddha who is fat, holding money and laughing...that probably isn't the image they want... ;)

I have to disagree slightly. At lds.org you can find several articles ripping into other faiths. I think I posted one here the other day. I'll have to look it up.

I'd like to see that. I'm there right now and don't see anything.

I'd like to see that. I'm there right now and don't see anything.

I will look it up and get back to you. At the moment it seems NationStates is not the only website I am having a problem with!

EDIT: Nevermind...the information I saw was from a seperate website.

Design wise though I must compliment lds.org on the look. Very whitespace intensive and easy to navigate. Though their seach is awful.

Jaredites:

Just so you know....I HAVE done much reseach that isn't on the internet....I have gone to wards and spoken with bishops and missionaries, I have read most of the LDS books that they consider Scripture and various other books that have been written by LDS leaders. You know, you can attack me all you want, but at one time I was seriously considering being baptized into the LDS church....which was also BEFORE I ever had the internet...so I did my research on the LDS the old fashioned way and went to the library, spoke with bishops and missionaries and read any information (including all of the Mormon Scriptures...because I find that it is best to go to the source) that I could find...neutral, pro and against. I have ACTUALLY spoken to a few ex-LDS, in fact, when I was a picture framer, I actually worked with an ex-LDS....and NONE of the stories that I have heard from an ex-LDS has ever favored the LDS side in the slightest....the sad thing is that the ex-LDS that I worked with now doesn't believe in God at all because she felt SO lied to by the LDS....Do I use the internet as a great tool now to do research...YES!...But a)I don't take any information at face value b) If I do find out something new(which is rare), I always make sure that I can verify it before I use it for anything....and I still have many resources at home that I pull from for information, too. So think what you want....but I know different. :)

Jaredites:

Just so you know....I HAVE done much reseach that isn't on the internet....I have gone to wards and spoken with bishops and missionaries, I have read most of the LDS books that they consider Scripture and various other books that have been written by LDS leaders. You know, you can attack me all you want, but at one time I was seriously considering being baptized into the LDS church....which was also BEFORE I ever had the internet...so I did my research on the LDS the old fashioned way and went to the library, spoke with bishops and missionaries and read any information (including all of the Mormon Scriptures...because I find that it is best to go to the source) that I could find...neutral, pro and against. I have ACTUALLY spoken to a few ex-LDS, in fact, when I was a picture framer, I actually worked with an ex-LDS....and NONE of the stories that I have heard from an ex-LDS has ever favored the LDS side in the slightest....the sad thing is that the ex-LDS that I worked with now doesn't believe in God at all because she felt SO lied to by the LDS....Do I use the internet as a great tool now to do research...YES!...But a)I don't take any information at face value b) If I do find out something new(which is rare), I always make sure that I can verify it before I use it for anything....and I still have many resources at home that I pull from for information, too. So think what you want....but I know different. :)I am now serving in a bishopric for the 4th time. I have never seen anyone lied to by the church, a bishop, or a missionary. I have, however seen people who claimed it. In reality, they transgressed and refused to repent. The only thing that was left to do was to excommunicate them - that released them from their covenants. These people tend to be VERY bitter and throw their resentment at the church rather than realizing that they have done it all to themselves.

I've also seen people who come to the bishop for welfare assistance and were turned away because they thought it was their birthright. Rather than cleaning the chapel or helping with the grounds keeping, they wanted a check written straight to them for a certain amount. It doesn't work that way. They too went around saying horrible things about the church - not one bit was true (these people later came back and became one of our strongest families). We accepted them back with open arms, no strings attached.

Well, what did the missionaries and bishops recommend you do to figure out if what they were saying was true?

I am now serving in a bishopric for the 4th time. I have never seen anyone lied to by the church, a bishop, or a missionary. I have, however seen people who claimed it. In reality, they transgressed and refused to repent. The only thing that was left to do was to excommunicate them - that released them from their covenants. These people tend to be VERY bitter and throw their resentment at the church rather than realizing that they have done it all to themselves.

I've also seen people who come to the bishop for welfare assistance and were turned away because they thought it was their birthright. Rather than cleaning the chapel or helping with the grounds keeping, they wanted a check written straight to them for a certain amount. It doesn't work that way. They too went around saying horrible things about the church - not one bit was true (these people later came back and became one of our strongest families). We accepted them back with open arms, no strings attached.

Well, what did the missionaries and bishops recommend you do to figure out if what they were saying was true?


Well then you have just met someone (me) who has by the catholic church

Well then you have just met someone (me) who has by the catholic church
I'm sorry to hear that. But I was speaking of the LDS Church. Nonetheless, that must have been painful.

Jaredites:

The missionaries and the bishops told me to read their scriptures and pray sincerely to know in my heart if the LDS was the true church and that all of the doctrines were true. I did that SINCERELY because IF the LDS faith was true, then I truly wanted to be a part of that....and I have never felt that what the LDS teaches is completely true and I prayed a lot while I was actively studying the faith....so I investigated ALL sides of the LDS church, for, against and neutral....and came up with a whole lot of things that, to this day, a bishop or missionary or believer has never been able to directly answer for me. I would never accept ANY religion (including any church that I have been a part of) at face value, so why would I accept the LDS church without doing ALL of the research? Listen, I am not an LDS hater, in fact a few of my closest friends are LDS....and if I sound that way, I'm sorry. I am just a little more than frustrated with studying a religion in depth that proclaims to be true and coming up with a whole lot of questions/contradictions that no one seems to want to answer directly....instead of giving me an answer, the church leaders have always just told me, "I can see how you would see it that way, but I think you need to pray about it further.".....that isn't an answer, that is diverting the question. As far as my friend who worked with me, she left the church WILLINGLY after her dad started to do some research in their church library and found all sorts of things that didn't add up to him and things that he didn't know that the LDS church taught....so he left the church first....he tried to share what he found with his family, which split up his marriage....his kids started to do their own research and soon followed him and left the church....and his wife left the church eventually, too. Now my friend believes that ALL religions are a bunch of bunk and thinks that God is just a fairytale.

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier. Here's our Articles of Faith:

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by eimmersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Jaredites:

I am very familiar with the LDS Articles of Faith.....but many of my questions still go unanswered....because there are many things about the LDS church that aren't stated in the Articles of Faith. I would be more than willing to ask one question at a time to you if you are willing to answer them for me.

I'm sorry to hear that. But I was speaking of the LDS Church. Nonetheless, that must have been painful.
Yes it was … specially when it was by two or three priests and a bishop
Its always great to be told that going to therapy will send you to hell

Yes it was … specially when it was by two or three priests and a bishop
Its always great to be told that going to therapy will send you to hell
My gosh! I'm so sorry! I can't imagine.

Jaredites:

I am very familiar with the LDS Articles of Faith.....but many of my questions still go unanswered....because there are many things about the LDS church that aren't stated in the Articles of Faith. I would be more than willing to ask one question at a time to you if you are willing to answer them for me.

Sure, fire away.

And many of the stories of the Bible (NT) were oral tradition. Compiled under Constantine in the 5th Century AD and edited to make Christianity more appealing to the Roman masses, who at the time were not convinced of their Emperor's decision.

Many scholars believe that this why miracles of Jesus are in the bible. He had to have "god-like" abilities in order for traditional Romans to see him as a savior.

Still many Romans didn't accept the first part of the bible (OT) until 700 A.D. and it wasn't truly combined until 100 years later. This was in Latin, a form of mass still celebrated to this day.

But to go back to the beginning...how accurate can things be when passed down from generation to generation orally?

The New Testament was not written centuries later, it was written during the first century.
Here are a couple references:
wikipedia on the new testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament)
and
from christiananswers.net, footnote #2 (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html#2)

I am sure with more time I could come up with many more cites, but I must get back to work.

Bottom line, no time for myths and legends to form between Christ's death, resurrection, and the writing of the NT. The earliest creed mentioning Jesus' resurrection is generally dated to within 3-7 years of the events, not hundreds of years.

And the miracles were necessary for anyone to believe that He was the Messiah. He repeatedly said so Himself,as well as repeatedly claiming to be God (that is why they kept threatening to stone Him, because they understood what He was saying, and that if not true, was the gravest form of blasphemy!).

The Aramaic uses the Hebrew character set so you could say Hebrew Ezra and Daniel are the only books that I know of with strong Aramaic overtones

Now about the NT … while Jesus may have spoke Aramaic I believe the original NT was written in Koine Greek. Not Aramaic

As far as I know none of the original text was written in Latin, that was just the first translation

Original texts don't really apply here. Let's talk about the Gospels. The writers who took down what the Savior said and did more than likely wrote in either Aramaic or Hebrew. That was the local language. There were copies of copies of copies made. The "oral tradition" just doesn't make it here. There are some clues to back this up.

For example:

Matt. 19: 24

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a arich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Mark 10: 25

25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Luke 18: 25

25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Many have tried to explain away this eye of the needle as an entry-way through the wall around Jerusalem. Serious scientists and historians have come to the conclusion that there was no gate named as such. There is a better explanation.

The words camel and rope are near homomyms in Aramaic. A rope going through the eye of a needle makes much more sense if you're trying to convey difficulty.

Other NT books were written in the language of the target audiences. If it was a letter to the Saints in Rome, it was written in Latin.

The instructions contained in them were copied for hundreds of years until the 4th century were they were consolidated into one book. It happened that the greatest number of members of the Church spoke either Latin or Greek and they had the existing copies that were used for consolidation.

There were translation errors, transmission errors, some things were omitted by unscrupulous clergy. But by and large, the texts remained intact.

Jaredites:

Cool, okay....my first question...I know that Joseph Smith did his own translation of the Bible, called the JSV...yet, I know that the LDS church uses it very little and the KJV is considered the official Bible version to use.....but if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then why would his translation not be considered THE OFFICIAL AND ONLY translation to use?...from what I have been told and have researched, his other works are considered free of error....The KJV, not the JSV, is what missionaries and bishops have always pulled out to illustrate their beliefs to me. I don't get it. Here is what I have found on the internet (simply because it is close at hand to me) on the JSV from http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents, which I do believe is an LDS site:

"Following are selected portions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Version of the Bible (JST). The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding. The passages selected for the Guide should help improve your understanding of the scriptures regardless of the language into which they are translated.

Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another."

So, I don't get it. Why use the KJV, if the JSV is completely inspired by God and is considered the restored truth? If the JSV Bible is truly inspired by God and is fully restored truth, then why is it not used as the official Bible in the LDS church? I know that the KJV that the LDS use usually have footnotes that contain some of the JSV, but why isn't the JSV considered to be the more "correct" Bible to use ALL of the time, instead of the KJV. Shouldn't the KJV not be used by the LDS because it is one of the Bible versions that the LDS consider to have lost truth and meaning since the original authors? Hence the reason why Joseph Smith was told by God to translate the Bible into the JSV. If you could FULLY explain this to me, that would be great!! Thanks!! :)

Jaredites:
So, I don't get it. Why use the KJV, if the JSV is completely inspired by God and is considered the restored truth? If the JSV Bible is truly inspired by God and is fully restored truth, then why is it not used as the official Bible in the LDS church? I know that the KJV that the LDS use usually have footnotes that contain some of the JSV, but why isn't the JSV considered to be the more "correct" Bible to use ALL of the time, instead of the KJV. Shouldn't the KJV not be used by the LDS because it is one of the Bible versions that the LDS consider to have lost truth and meaning since the original authors? Hence the reason why Joseph Smith was told by God to translate the Bible into the JSV. If you could FULLY explain this to me, that would be great!! Thanks!! :)
There's two answers here. The first is that Joseph didn't get to finish it before he was murdered in Carthage jail by the Illinois militia. Second part is that the Church doesn't own the copyrights to it. That is owned by the Community of Christ.

We use the KJV, which is an OK version, not the best (Joseph actually prefered Luther's transaltion, but not too many people at that time spoke German and there needed to be an English translation.) We so, however, use excerpts from it in the footnotes.

Our edition of the KJV has the best footnotes and superscripts I have ever seen in an edition of scripture. Some of the pages have a third taken up with footnotes. Each chapter has a superscript hitting the major points. We also have a Bible dictionary and a topical guide included in each.

I had the opportunity ot meet with one of the scholars who worked on the Bible dictionary. They spent years on it, then went thru an extensive review process. Sure makes it easy to write talks and papers.

Now that I think about it, we do use a portion of the JSV (also known as the Inspired Version). We have the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, which is a compilation of the corrections that were made to Genesis.

Here's a copy of it:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4992/InspiredVersion/

(Note: The copyright says 1991 Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - They now call themselves the Community of Christ)

Jaredites:

I would understand NOT BEING ABLE to use the JSV AT ALL due to copyright issues, but I know that there are quite a few footnotes in the LDS KJV that quote the JSV, and you said yourself that the Book of Moses is the corrections from Genisis. So why is the LDS church allowed to use those parts and not the rest? It just doesn't make any sense to me, since one of the reasons you gave was that:

"Second part is that the Church doesn't own the copyrights to it. That is owned by the Community of Christ."

And the site that you gave me to direct me to a copy of the JSV says this:

"**Note: This is not published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the original manuscripts remained in the possesion of Emma H. Smith upon the death of Joseph Smith, Jun. and she never went west.**"

So if the original manuscripts remained with the Community of Christ, then how can the LDS use ANY of it in their Scriptures, even just in footnotes?

Also, exactly what parts did Joseph Smith not complete in the JSV? I took a quick look at the link you provided for me and when I have a bit more time (I'm looking after a two year old right now) I will be able to read through some of it and look at the changes. I have only ever been able to look at a LDS KJV, so I look forward to looking at this version. But in that quick look, I did notice that the only book that is missing is Song of Solomon. But isn't being able to use MOST of the restored true version of the Bible (the JSV) as the official Bible, better than a using Bible that is full of changes and errors (the KJV). As far as I have been able to find as to the history of this that I know is from an LDS source is this from http://scriptures.lds.org/bdj/jsphsmth:

"A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work. Some parts of the translation were published during his lifetime."

So this is what I don't get. The JSV was something that Joseph Smith was told by God to do...and God directly inspired him to restore the Bible to it's original meaning, right? Did God first give Joseph Smith revelations that were full of errors and then have to go back and tell Joseph to correct them? If that isn't what happened, then why would Joseph Smith have needed to work on revisions and modifications for over 10 years AFTER most of the translation was complete, especially since it only took him 3 years to do MOST of the translation. In the above quote it says that a MAJOR portion of the work was completed by 1833, so wouldn't it then be more accurate to use it INSTEAD OF the KJV, even though it is not complete. Not to mention, would God have given a task for Joseph Smith to complete if Joseph Smith was never to fully finish the task? Didn't God specifically pick Joseph to restore the church? So then wouldn't it make sense that God would MAKE sure that the Bible was fully restored and completed, too? If the Bible was never fully restored, then how can the LDS church be fully restored? If the church was indeed lost and the Bible had lost most of it's meaning, then I wouldn't think that the church could be fully restored until EVERYTHING was restored, including the Bible. It's like taking a broken antique chair and restoring everything but a little piece of the armrest and calling it FULLY restored, when in fact it is still missing a part.

Also, does the Community of Christ only use the JSV, or do they also refer to other Bible versions? I don't know much about the Community of Christ, other than the fact that they are an LDS branch-off that decided not to follow Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith. And the little bit of information that I have been able to find states that they also use more recent translations of the Bible, but I haven't been able to find specifics, or make sure that this information is factual. If you know anything about this, that would really help.

Thank you for your patience with me. The LDS church has been a fascination to me ever since the Osmond Boys (Second Generation Osmonds) came to my hometown to sing when I was 14....though, I didn't start seriously studying the LDS faith until I was 16 and had met one of my friends who is LDS. Ever since then, it seems I've just had question upon question that I don't seem to be able to find many complete answers for. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help.

Jaredites:

I would understand NOT BEING ABLE to use the JSV AT ALL due to copyright issues, but I know that there are quite a few footnotes in the LDS KJV that quote the JSV, and you said yourself that the Book of Moses is the corrections from Genisis. So why is the LDS church allowed to use those parts and not the rest? It just doesn't make any sense to me, since one of the reasons you gave was that:

"Second part is that the Church doesn't own the copyrights to it. That is owned by the Community of Christ."

And the site that you gave me to direct me to a copy of the JSV says this:

"**Note: This is not published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the original manuscripts remained in the possesion of Emma H. Smith upon the death of Joseph Smith, Jun. and she never went west.**"

So if the original manuscripts remained with the Community of Christ, then how can the LDS use ANY of it in their Scriptures, even just in footnotes?
There is a doctrine of fair use, but I don't know if that's the case here. In thee book of Moses you'll notice that there's a date given for each chapter (chapter 1 - June 1830, chapter 2 - June-Oct 1830). These may have taken from the original notes. JS-Matthew has a subscript that states "An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23:39 and chapter 24." It would appear that these were taken from manuscripts still in the possession of the Church.

Also, exactly what parts did Joseph Smith not complete in the JSV? I took a quick look at the link you provided for me and when I have a bit more time (I'm looking after a two year old right now) I will be able to read through some of it and look at the changes. I have only ever been able to look at a LDS KJV, so I look forward to looking at this version. But in that quick look, I did notice that the only book that is missing is Song of Solomon.
I honestly don't know what was complete and what wasn't. That might have been part of the problem - The church itself might not know what was complete and what wasn't.

I was showing my wife that while looking at it. Someone (I can't remember who) was looking at Joseph's scriptures. He paged throught them and read the notes he had made in the margins. He came to Song of Solomon where Joseph had written "THIS IS NOT INSPIRED". We don't use it in our studies, when I taught seminary, I didn't have any lessons on it.

But isn't being able to use MOST of the restored true version of the Bible (the JSV) as the official Bible, better than a using Bible that is full of changes and errors (the KJV). As far as I have been able to find as to the history of this that I know is from an LDS source is this from http://scriptures.lds.org/bdj/jsphsmth:

"A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work. Some parts of the translation were published during his lifetime."

I just read this in the Bible Dictionary - If it wasn't complete then they wouldn't have used it.

So this is what I don't get. The JSV was something that Joseph Smith was told by God to do...and God directly inspired him to restore the Bible to it's original meaning, right? That's correct.
Did God first give Joseph Smith revelations that were full of errors and then have to go back and tell Joseph to correct them?To say that the Bible is full of errors would be a HUGE exaggeration.
If that isn't what happened, then why would Joseph Smith have needed to work on revisions and modifications for over 10 years AFTER most of the translation was complete? In the above quote it says that a MAJOR portion of the work was completed by 1833, so wouldn't it then be more accurate to use it INSTEAD OF the KJV, even though it is not complete.
Please remember that the Church was going through great persecutions during those years. Joseph and the twelve were extremely busy moving the Saints out of danger. Those years included being run out of Kirtland, Ohio, moving to Nauvoo, Ill, and Far West, Mo, the Mo governor issuing the "Mormon Extermination Order", Joseph and some of his associates being held in the basement of Liberty Jail for 6 months, and Joseph going all the way to President Van Buren for help from the US government (he was turned down). All during this time, he received 33 major revelations, reestablished the Endowment, eternal marriage, and prepared the church for an exodus that wouldn't happen until after his death. Not to mention, he had a wife and children to take care of and a business to support them with. Then, from time to time, he was hauled out of his home in the middle of the night, tarred and feathered, beaten, and nearly killed several times by mobs. Yes, he was busy.
Not to mention, would God have given a task for Joseph Smith to complete if Joseph Smith was never to fully finish the task? Didn't God specifically pick Joseph to restore the church?
I have no doubt
So then wouldn't it make sense that God would MAKE sure that the Bible was fully restored and completed, too? If the Bible was never fully restored, then how can the LDS church be fully restored. If the church was indeed lost and the Bible had lost most of it's meaning, then I wouldn't think that the church could be fully restored until EVERYTHING was restored, including the Bible. It's like taking a broken antique chair and restoring everything but a little piece of the armrest and calling it FULLY restored, when in fact it is still missing a part.
I can see your point, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. There are several books of scripture that aren't available, even if those in the Bible were made whole again (remember, we don't think that the Bible is like Swiss cheese at all. But there were some plain and precious truths lost over the years.) We wouldn't have the Book of Remembrance written by Adam, the Book of Enoch, the complete writings of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or the Book of Joseph.

One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to plug in the holes left by those hundreds of generations. It restores those plain and precious truths while proving that the Bible is true. To say that the whole aim of Deity was to completely restore the Bible, one would have to know the mind of God. He may not have revealed the entire purpose to Joseph. We may not know completely until the end.

God has undertaken projects by way of prophets in the past that seemed to fail - the evacuation of Israel from Egypt to the promised land. Heck, He had to have Moses walk them around in the desert for 40 years to get the Egytian teachings out of their systems (that only happened when the entirety of Israel who had lived in Egypt had died and there was a new generation that had been raised up. In the Bible, Moses apparently reports his own death outside of the promised land - stuck in there by a later writer who didn't understand that Moses was being preserved as a mortal to return at the Mount of Transfiguration to bestow onto Christ the keys of the Gathering of Israel). There are other examples but we're getting very long here.

Also, does the Community of Christ only use the JSV, or do they also refer to other Bible versions? I don't know much about the Community of Christ, other than the fact that they are an LDS branch-off that decided not to follow Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith.
I don't think they do. They're trying to distance themselves from Joseph and the Book of Mormon. They started out as about 80 people who didn't want to leave their houses in Nauvoo. It wasn't the big rebellion that some make it out to be. (80 out of around 10,000 isn't exactly what I'd call a branch-off)

And the little bit of information that I have been able to find states that they also use more recent translations of the Bible, but I haven't been able to find specifics, or make sure that this information is factual. If you know anything about this, that would really help.

I think they probably do use the NIV (New Improved Version <g>) and modernized the language in the Book of Mormon. I've read parts of it and, to me, it looses quite a bit. The new translation has taken out some of the ancient Hebraic chiasmus, not only beautiful to read (it is some of the same form as ancient Beduin poetry) but it also removes, in some cases three or four layers of meaning, pointing to Christ (Chiasmus in the BoM was discovered in the 1980s and the form itself wasn't known until well after Joseph's time; it was used by prophets in ancient times as a prophetic "signature".) I know that they used to have a web site.

Thank you for your patience with me. The LDS church has been a fascination to me ever since the Osmond Boys (Second Generation Osmonds) came to my hometown to sing when I was 14....though, I didn't start seriously studying the LDS faith until I was 16 and had met one of my friends who is LDS. Ever since then, it seems I've just had question upon question that I don't seem to be able to find many complete answers for. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help.Heck, I lived across the street from the Osmond family when I lived in Provo. There was a Roy Rogers restaurant across the street from my apartment where I ran into Donnie and Marie one afternoon. Really nice folks. Then, on a vacation in Hawaii, I ran into their parents - they were serving a mission at the Hawaii Temple Visitors' Center. Very gracious people.

Jaredites:

I would just think that if the Community of Christ church has the copyright for the JSV, then copying it without precise and definite permission would be unlawful. It wouldn't matter if they were transcripts that the LDS had in their possession or not because the LDS wouldn't hold the copyright to them. Are the original transcripts that the LDS church have the EXACT same as the transcripts that the Community of Christ have? If there is a great difference between the portions of the JSV that the LDS use and the JSV the Community of Christ use, then I could see how the LDS could use it? If they aren't the exact same, then the LDS copies would be and earlier and less correct version, wouldn't they?....I'm basing that conclusion to the line on that website that I pointed to earlier because it would make sense that Emma would have taken all of the later and more correct/complete works of the JSV and the LDS church would've only had possession of the earlier transcripts that preceded the changes that he did over the 11 years:

"**Note: This is not published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the original manuscripts remained in the possesion of Emma H. Smith upon the death of Joseph Smith, Jun. and she never went west.**"

As far as the copyright laws: Does the LDS church have any documentation that gives them the right to copy the stuff that they have? I'll give you an example as to why this makes me so confused:

My husband writes scripts (like Joseph Smith wrote the JSV). Okay, so say he gives 10 scenes of a whole script that he wrote to his friend John to read (like how the LDS church would've obtained some of the transcripts somehow). While John is going through the 10 scenes, my husband takes a copy of the WHOLE script and gets it copyrighted, INCLUDING those ten scenes (like how Community of Christ would've had the JSV copyrighted, which is why you say the LDS church CANNOT use the full JSV version). John finishes reading those ten scenes and he likes them so much decides that he is going to photocopy them and distribute them to his neighbors so they can read them, too, but AFTER the copyright has been put on the script, so by law he can't copy the script (which is like the LDS church using portions of transcripts from the JSV even though the Community of Christ has the copyright on it). So if the Community of Christ has given the LDS church permission to use SOME of the JSV, but not all of it, my question is why?

As far as what you found in the Bible dictionary, WHY wouldn't they have used the incomplete JSV? I mean, isn't it better than using a less true Bible like the KJV? And as far as the church being persecuted during the time that Joseph Smith was translating the Bible and all of the rest of it, I do understand the time that it would've taken to do it all. But WHY would God start the very important task of restroring His church and not make sure that the job got done COMPLETELY?

For instance, you brought up the 40 years in the wilderness and Moses not being able to enter the Promised Land. The only reason WHY God deviated from His original plan was because His people lost faith in Him and wouldn't listen. Once God's people heard what the spies had to say about this new land and it's inhabitants, they lost heart and rebelled, refusing to enter Canaan and crying for a new leader who would take them back to Egypt. To punish them for their lack of faith, God condemned all of that generation, except Caleb and Joshua, to perish in the wilderness for 40 years (Num. 14:26-38). All those 20 years old and up would indeed perish in the wilderness with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. And as far as Moses and not being able to enter the Promised Land, it was because of his sin at Meribah, where he misrepresented God as being angry with Israel when He was not, Moses could not enter the Promised Land:

Numbers: 8Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. 9And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. 13This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and he was sanctified in them.

So did God not let Joseph Smith complete his work as a prophet because Joseph somehow let God down? I just don't understand. Please explain why God would not make sure that Joseph Smith would complete the task of restoring the church, including the Bible, if he didn't do something to tick God off. I don't know of any prophet in the Bible that listened to and obeyed everything that God asked of them and wasn't allowed or able to finish God's assigned task to them.

I think it is neat that you used to live so close to the Osmonds! That must've been strange to live by famous people.. :)

Jaredites:
....I'm basing that conclusion to the line on that website that I pointed to earlier because it would make sense that Emma would have taken all of the later and more correct/complete works of the JSV and the LDS church would've only had possession of the earlier transcripts that preceded the changes that he did over the 11 years . . .

. . . As far as the copyright laws: Does the LDS church have any documentation that gives them the right to copy the stuff that they have? I'll give you an example as to why this makes me so confused . . .

. . . As far as what you found in the Bible dictionary, WHY wouldn't they have used the incomplete JSV? I mean, isn't it better than using a less true Bible like the KJV? And as far as the church being persecuted during the time that Joseph Smith was translating the Bible and all of the rest of it, I do understand the time that it would've taken to do it all. But WHY would God start the very important task of restroring His church and not make sure that the job got done COMPLETELY?

. . . So did God not let Joseph Smith complete his work as a prophet because Joseph somehow let God down? I just don't understand. Please explain why God would not make sure that Joseph Smith would complete the task of restoring the church, including the Bible, if he didn't do something to tick God off. I don't know of any prophet in the Bible that listened to and obeyed everything that God asked of them and wasn't allowed or able to finish God's assigned task to them . . .
An answer just came to me. The Book of Lehi (would have been the 1st book in the BoM) was lost. Martin Harris took a copy of it to some locals to show it to them and they wouldn't give it back. Joseph asked the Lord if he should retranslate it. He was told no, that they were changing the copy they had and would use it to discredit him. Then the plates were taken away. Joseph was convinced that he would be destroyed. After some time, the plates were returned to Joseph and he was told that starting with the Book of Nephi would suffice.

I think that the story of the JST is very similar. Emma had a complete breakdown after Joseph died. She had lost every house they had lived in, one of their children died because of the mobs, she had to walk across Missouri in the dead of winter with her children to escape the Extermination Order. It was just too much for her. She took the manuscripts with her and just about everything else.

There was no way that the Church could have verified what the Reorganized Church had published. Any differences between manuscripts and the text would have been real trouble.

At any rate, we don't know what the real reason for retranslating the Bible was. We don't know the mind of God. It may have been to publish it, it may have been for Joseph to know what the orginal writings were. It may have been to sharpen his skills -

When he began translating the BoM, he used the Urim and Thummim. As he got farther into the work, he no longer needed it. He actually read the characters directly off the plates. I don't know if he had something else that he needed to do that was similar to this. When it said that it was an exercise, there must have been something else. But I honestly don't know. I'd have to ask a historian.

But trust me, we do very well with the KJV. Also remember, we still have the last two-thirds of the Book of Mormon still to be published. We have plenty to read already - the Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP.

I think it is neat that you used to live so close to the Osmonds! That must've been strange to live by famous people.. :)
It was kinda interesting. In the apartment I lived in before that, I walked outside to see someone backing down the driveway next door. I went over to the next door neighbor and remarked that the driver REALLY looked like Robert Redford. He told me it was because it was him. He married their daughter. Small world sometimes - especially in Provo, Utah.

Jaredites:

I still don't understand how the church can be fully restored if the translation that God specifically told Joseph Smith to complete was never completed?....or why the LDS church is allowed to use parts of the JSV, but not all of it (I understand about the copyright thing, but I would think that ALL of the JSV would fall under that copyright issue)?...or why Joseph Smith had to go back and revise the transcripts of the Bible that God had already directly inspired him to write? Maybe I'll never get answers to these things, but these are some of the very things that made me uncomfortable with the LDS beliefs....but I do have many more questions, so we can take a break from these ones for a bit...if that is okay?

Of course, in my very first meeting with a couple of the missionaries, I asked the typical question, "Is there proof in the Bible that the BoM is the second testament of Jesus?" And, they took me to this passage in Ezekiel that is supposed to talk about this:

37:15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions: 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

....and I understand by ONLY reading these FEW passages how one could see that the two sticks could be the Bible and the BoM....and if you don't have a basic knowledge of Hebrew.....but if you continue to read the chapter, it says:

"37:18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou [meanest] by these? 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which [is] in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, [even] with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 37:20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 37:21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. 37:24 And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, [even] they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David [shall be] their prince for ever. 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore."

Now, in the tenth century B.C., after the reign of King Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms: a northern kingdom, and a southern kingdom. The southern kingdom was made up of the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and the Levites dispersed among those tribes. The northern kingdom was made up of the tribes of Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulon, and the Levites dispersed among those tribes. In the southern kingdom, the tribe of Judah became dominant. Thus the southern kingdom became known as the Kingdom of Judah. In the northern kingdom, the tribe of Ephraim became dominant. From about 745 B.C., the northern kingdom was often referred to as the Kingdom of Ephraim or Israel. The Israelites, therefore, came to be associated with either Judah or Ephraim.

So, when you read the rest of that whole chapter of Ezekiel, it is very clear that it is referring to the prophesy of unifying the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel that separated after the reign of King Solomon. The account of the separation of these two kingdoms is recorded in 1 Kings from about 11:26-12:24. So how does the LDS church interpret it to mean that the Bible and the BoM will come together as one book? By the way, when I asked the missionaries this, they just said, "I can see how you would see it that way." But they never offered me an explanation, or found out the answer for me. This is one thing that always confused me, so if you could please shed some light on this, that would be wonderful!! By the way, I am enjoying reading your answers (even though at times they have just created more questions and I don't necessarily see it your way) and I do appreciate you taking the time to try to answer my queries.....I just hope that I'm not frustrating you too much! :)

Jaredites:

I still don't understand how the church can be fully restored if the translation that God specifically told Joseph Smith to complete was never completed?....or why the LDS church is allowed to use parts of the JSV, but not all of it (I understand about the copyright thing, but I would think that ALL of the JSV would fall under that copyright issue)?...or why Joseph Smith had to go back and revise the transcripts of the Bible that God had already directly inspired him to write? Maybe I'll never get answers to these things, but these are some of the very things that made me uncomfortable with the LDS beliefs....but I do have many more questions, so we can take a break from these ones for a bit...if that is okay?
I've thought about this a great deal in the last couple of days. He may have actually failed in that commandment, as we all do everyday. But there are those "who lie in wait to deceive." We don't have all of the BoM (1st book was originally Lehi, but there's an interesting story there). So we have what we have. The Adversary (Satan) wins some battles but won't win the war.

Of course, in my very first meeting with a couple of the missionaries, I asked the typical question, "Is there proof in the Bible that the BoM is the second testament of Jesus?"

When I was a missionary, I would show people the same thing. Not proof at all, but it is definitely what Ezekiel was talking about. If they still had questions I would, while going to my knees, say "Let's ask Heavenly Father if that's the truth" and would ask the person to lead the prayer. Some refused, but everyone who asked if that was true, with real intent, and asked with faith, got the same answer, right there on the spot.

And, they took me to this passage in Ezekiel that is supposed to talk about this:

37:15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions:

17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

Yes, I believe that.

....and I understand by ONLY reading these FEW passages how one could see that the two sticks could be the Bible and the BoM....and if you don't have a basic knowledge of Hebrew.....but if you continue to read the chapter, it says:

"37:18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou [meanest] by these?

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which [is] in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, [even] with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

24 And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, [even] they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David [shall be] their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore."

Now, in the tenth century B.C., after the reign of King Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms: a northern kingdom, and a southern kingdom. The southern kingdom was made up of the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and the Levites dispersed among those tribes. The northern kingdom was made up of the tribes of Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulon, and the Levites dispersed among those tribes. In the southern kingdom, the tribe of Judah became dominant. Thus the southern kingdom became known as the Kingdom of Judah. In the northern kingdom, the tribe of Ephraim became dominant. From about 745 B.C., the northern kingdom was often referred to as the Kingdom of Ephraim or Israel. The Israelites, therefore, came to be associated with either Judah or Ephraim.

Yes, that is historical.

So, when you read the rest of that whole chapter of Ezekiel, it is very clear that it is referring to the prophesy of unifying the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel that separated after the reign of King Solomon. The account of the separation of these two kingdoms is recorded in 1 Kings from about 11:26-12:24. So how does the LDS church interpret it to mean that the Bible and the BoM will come together as one book? By the way, when I asked the missionaries this, they just said, "I can see how you would see it that way." But they never offered me an explanation, or found out the answer for me. This is one thing that always confused me, so if you could please shed some light on this, that would be wonderful!!

The revelation is in three parts: showing that Israel will be restored, that the BoM will come forth and be part of that, and that (the last part) Israel will be united in the Last Days (this has yet to come to pass, but is happening right now - the basis is being laid for the 10 Tribes to return).

There is a portion of the BoM where the same thing was revealed:

Jacob 5
7 And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?

11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

12 Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive-tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?

13 And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed—

14 And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

15 And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their arock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?

16 Behold, I say unto you, Yea; they shall be remembered again among the house of Israel; they shall be grafted in, being a natural branch of the olive-tree, into the true olive-tree.

17 And this is what our father meaneth; and he meaneth that it will not come to pass until after they are scattered by the Gentiles; and he meaneth that it shall come by way of the Gentiles, that the Lord may show his power unto the Gentiles, for the very cause that he shall be rejected of the Jews, or of the house of Israel.

18 Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

19 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, spake much unto them concerning these things; yea, I spake unto them concerning the restoration of the Jews in the latter days.

20 And I did rehearse unto them the words of Isaiah, who spake concerning the restoration of the Jews, or of the house of Israel; and after they were restored they should no more be confounded, neither should they be scattered again. And it came to pass that I did speak many words unto my brethren, that they were pacified and did humble themselves before the Lord.

IOW, it is talking about the Last days and what is still to occur.

By the way, I am enjoying reading your answers (even though at times they have just created more questions and I don't necessarily see it your way) and I do appreciate you taking the time to try to answer my queries.....I just hope that I'm not frustrating you too much! :)

No problem, they're good questions.

And here I thought this thread was dead.

For the record, I don't think that fighting over the interpretation of a religious text really qualifies. You are just saying "I read as this" versus "I read it as this".

Try finding facts outside the religious texts to support an argument.

Jaredites:

Okay here are some of the problems that I have with interpreting the passage in Ezekiel the way that the LDS does:

Firstly, Ezekiel was told to WRITE upon two sticks. We know that Ezekiel was not the only author of the Bible...nor did he write the BoM....so I don't think that God would've asked EZEKIEL to WRITE on two sticks, unless he meant that EZEKIEL HIMSELF was to LITERALLY write on two sticks. I see this as being God telling Ezekiel to physically WRITE on two REAL sticks to illustrate to the people that the two nations (Ephraim and Judah) would one day be united as one. On one he was to LITERALLY write, "For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions" and on the other he was to literally write, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions"

Secondly, Ezekiel knew the difference between a stick and a scroll. In Ezekiel 3:1-3 it says:

3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll. 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

The roll is a scroll or a book. The reason why I know this is because the Hebrew word originally used in that passage is "megillah", which means "scroll". But the Hebrew word "megillah" is not used in Ezekiel 37 when Ezekiel talks about the sticks.

Thirdly, the Hebrew word that is used in Ezekiel 37 is "ets", which means wood, tree or stick, pieces of wood, the gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax. In the Old Testament, this Hebrew word or similar derivatives are used 300 times. It is translated “stick” only 14 times in the entire Old Testament, 8 times it occurs in Ezekiel’s passage. It is the only word that is translated stick in the Bible, but it is also translated “planks.” and 100 times it means “wood” or “timber” It is translated “planks” in Ezek.41:25 and as “timber” in Ezek.26:12. It is mostly translated “tree” 163 times as it is in Ezek.36:30. But it is NEVER translated as “scroll.” The Hebrew words for scroll, roll, book, or writing, include Sepher, Dabar, Sephar, and Siphrah, megillah. None of the Hebrew words for scroll or book were used in Ezekiel 37.

Fourthly, the BoM was written on golden plates, not on scrolls. So if this passage was indeed to mean the Bible and the BoM, then shouldn't one of the sticks been golden plates instead? It would have made more sense, don't you think?

Fifthly, in Ezekiel 21-22 God himself clarifies the meaning of the prophesy by saying, "21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all"

It is VERY obvious with the use of the words NATION and KINGDOM, that God was talking to Ezekiel about two separate kingdoms of people that are to become one (the northern and southern kingdoms), not two books to be written and put together as one.

Sixthly, if you read all the way through Ezekiel chapters 34-48, it is very clear that they all speak about Ezekiel prophesying the return of Israel to their land of captivity. The passage of the two sticks is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of these passages. So it does not make sense that Ezekiel would stop dead in the middle of his thoughts about Israel returning to their land of captivity and start talking about the Bible and the BoM. But it does make VERY MUCH sense that he would start talking about Israel (Ephraim) and Judah being a united kingdom again, since it is all in context to what Ezekiel was talking about in the previous and latter verses.

Seventhly, Ezekiel 37 is not the only place in the Bible that God designates that His people write things on wood to symbolize a group of people. In Numbers 17:1-3 it says:

17:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 17:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and take of every one of them a rod according to the house of [their] fathers, of all their princes according to the house of their fathers twelve rods: write thou every man's name upon his rod. 17:3 And thou shalt write Aaron's name upon the rod of Levi: for one rod [shall be] for the head of the house of their fathers.

Eighthly, I don't understand HOW Lehi could be Ephraim's descendant, when in Alma 10:2-3 it says:

2 I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was that same Aminadi who interpreted the writing• which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God. 3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh•, who was the son of Joseph who was sold• into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.

So was Lehi the descendant of Ephraim, or Manasseh? If Lehi was the descendant of Manasseh, then why does Ezekiel 37 refer to Ephraim at all? Wouldn't it make more sense if the passage in Ezekiel read, "For Joseph, the stick of Manasseh, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions"?
But written the way it is, it would be like saying that Jesus is the descendant of Abinadab, who was David's second oldest brother and not of David. But it ALWAYS refers to Jesus being of the line of David, because Joseph is DIRECTLY of the line of David. It just doesn't make sense to me....unless, the name "Ephraim" is referring to the northern kingdom and not the BoM!

Ninthly, I know that the LDS church asks people to pray about the truth about the LDS church and I know that many LDS members testimonies are based on this prayer to find truth. My thoughts on this are:

God never says to pray about truth. He says to search the Scriptures to find truth (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). So, what the LDS church is doing by PRAYING for truth is contradicting the Bible. Second, it doesn't matter what you feel. If what you feel contradicts the Bible, then what you feel is wrong.

In Jer. 17:9 it states: 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

In other words, you cannot trust your heart because your heart lies. If prayer alone were sufficient to determine truth there would not be thousands of different religions.

Thirdly, I know that the BoM in Moroni 10:3-5 says to pray about the truth, but still, the Bible says to study God's word for truth, not pray about it. So they are in contradiction to each other. And yes, I have been told by LDS that James 1:5 supports the LDS belief that you can pray about the BoM:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

I know that the LDS say that because since they believe they're sincere, God will answer them. First of all, the problem with sincerity is that it becomes works of righteousness because the person is saying "Because of my sincerity, God will listen to me." In other words, because of what's IN the person God will look favorably upon him. God does not look into a person and find something good because there is no good in anyone (Rom. 3:10-12 & Eph. 2:3)

Romans 3:10-12 :10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Eph. 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Second, this verse is about wisdom, not about praying to see if the Book of Mormon is true. In James 1:1 it says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." So, the book of James was written to those who were believers and already had the truth. That is why James calls them "brothers" in verse 2. Third, wisdom is the proper use of knowledge, not the acquisition of knowledge. You acquire true spiritual knowledge from the Bible, not your heart. So you shouldn't pray about the truth of the BoM or the LDS church, and you should pray about the truth you've LEARNED from READING the Bible and ask God to teach you more, and how to apply properly what He's already shown you.

Please understand that I am not trying to attack the LDS church. These are all things that I have found over the years that I simply don't understand about the LDS church and I'm hoping that you can give me some insight.

Can you please go through ALL of these issues and systematically address EACH concern that I have? And if you don't know the answer or don't have a response, please be honest with me and tell me that you don't know and if it is not too much trouble, I would like to know if you CAN find an answer for me and maybe tell me at a later date. I must say, so far, you have been the most responsive LDS person that I have ever talked to...so I'm trying to lay all of my concerns out on the table....but I am trying to only deal with ONE major issue at a time so you don't get too overwhelmed...at any time if you find that I'm giving you too much, please tell me and I will try to cut down my responses!! :) Thank you!! :)

Jaredites:

Okay here are some of the problems that I have with interpreting the passage in Ezekiel the way that the LDS does:

Firstly, Ezekiel was told to WRITE upon two sticks. We know that Ezekiel was not the only author of the Bible...nor did he write the BoM....so I don't think that God would've asked EZEKIEL to WRITE on two sticks, unless he meant that EZEKIEL HIMSELF was to LITERALLY write on two sticks. I see this as being God telling Ezekiel to physically WRITE on two REAL sticks to illustrate to the people that the two nations (Ephraim and Judah) would one day be united as one. On one he was to LITERALLY write, "For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions" and on the other he was to literally write, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions"

Secondly, Ezekiel knew the difference between a stick and a scroll. In Ezekiel 3:1-3 it says:

It doesn’t matter here – we are talking about tablets here. That was a completely different revelation.

Thirdly, the Hebrew word that is used in Ezekiel 37 is "ets", which means wood, tree or stick, pieces of wood, the gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax. In the Old Testament, this Hebrew word or similar derivatives are used 300 times. It is translated “stick” only 14 times in the entire Old Testament, 8 times it occurs in Ezekiel’s passage. It is the only word that is translated stick in the Bible, but it is also translated “planks.” and 100 times it means “wood” or “timber” It is translated “planks” in Ezek.41:25 and as “timber” in Ezek.26:12. It is mostly translated “tree” 163 times as it is in Ezek.36:30. But it is NEVER translated as “scroll.” The Hebrew words for scroll, roll, book, or writing, include Sepher, Dabar, Sephar, and Siphrah, megillah. None of the Hebrew words for scroll or book were used in Ezekiel 37.

Easy – the symbols, in this case, weren’t scrolls, they were tablets.

Fourthly, the BoM was written on golden plates, not on scrolls. So if this passage was indeed to mean the Bible and the BoM, then shouldn't one of the sticks been golden plates instead? It would have made more sense, don't you think?

Actually, they were etched on gold alloy plates (otherwise, they couldn’t have lifted them). But we’re talking about symbolism here. It is the symbols, not the actual medium. Just as in Isaiah’s revelation on the trains going to Zion. The wheels are described as (flint) hooves, but they were neither hooves nor flint, they were made of steel. Don’t confuse the symbols with what is being symbolized.

Fifthly, in Ezekiel 21-22 God himself clarifies the meaning of the prophesy by saying, "21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all”

It is VERY obvious with the use of the words NATION and KINGDOM, that God was talking to Ezekiel about two separate kingdoms of people that are to become one (the northern and southern kingdoms), not two books to be written and put together as one.
Those kingdoms haven’t been restored yet. He is obviously talking about something that will happen in the future. The Ten Tribes, for the most part, are still lost.

Sixthly, if you read all the way through Ezekiel chapters 34-48, it is very clear that they all speak about Ezekiel prophesying the return of Israel to their land of captivity. The passage of the two sticks is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of these passages. So it does not make sense that Ezekiel would stop dead in the middle of his thoughts about Israel returning to their land of captivity and start talking about the Bible and the BoM. But it does make VERY MUCH sense that he would start talking about Israel (Ephraim) and Judah being a united kingdom again, since it is all in context to what Ezekiel was talking about in the previous and latter verses.

Actually, Ezekiel does this quite a bit. I’d have to look around for one of my references that talks about this. Ezekiel has revelations embedded in the revelations. But then, it also depends on which level you’re looking at. You are only looking at the first.

Seventhly, Ezekiel 37 is not the only place in the Bible that God designates that His people write things on wood to symbolize a group of people. In Numbers 17:1-3 it says:

This is apples and oranges – the wood rods were taken into the temple and Aaron’s rod (for the Tribe of Lehi) sprouted and produced almonds, signifying that he was the rightful and only high priest as a sign against rebellion by those who claimed to be called of God, but were not called through the authorized channel – called by prophecy by one in authority. (That is how it is done today – if someone feels that (fill in the blank) is what God wants them to do, then they say they are “called by God to (fill in the blank.” But anarchy was never the system that God established on the earth. But that is another discussion.

Eighthly, I don't understand HOW Lehi could be Ephraim's descendant, when in Alma 10:2-3 it says:

Lehi was most definitely a descendant of Manasseh. What this is talking about is a remnant of Ephraim that will be in the last days (now), not about the Nephites or Lamanites.

Ninthly, I know that the LDS church asks people to pray about the truth about the LDS church and I know that many LDS members testimonies are based on this prayer to find truth. My thoughts on this are:

God never says to pray about truth. He says to search the Scriptures to find truth (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). So, what the LDS church is doing by PRAYING for truth is contradicting the Bible. Second, it doesn't matter what you feel. If what you feel contradicts the Bible, then what you feel is wrong.

In Jer. 17:9 it states: 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? [/quote]

This is talking about the Natural Man. Are you saying that God does not give revelation? Here is what James said:

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

So if you need to know if something is true, ask of God. Simple as that. He will give it to all and will not fault you.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

So, if you show no faith in His ability to give wisdom, then you will receive no answer.

In other words, you cannot trust your heart because your heart lies. If prayer alone were sufficient to determine truth there would not be thousands of different religions.

EXACTLY! Christ didn't set up thousands of religions, he only set up one. He is not the god of anarchy! The problem, no one else will dare to ask you to pray to see if it is true.

Thirdly, I know that the BoM in Moroni 10:3-5 says to pray about the truth, but still, the Bible says to study God's word for truth, not pray about it. So they are in contradiction to each other. And yes, I have been told by LDS that James 1:5 supports the LDS belief that you can pray about the BoM:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

I know that the LDS say that because since they believe they're sincere, God will answer them. First of all, the problem with sincerity is that it becomes works of righteousness because the person is saying "Because of my sincerity, God will listen to me." In other words, because of what's IN the person God will look favorably upon him. God does not look into a person and find something good because there is no good in anyone (Rom. 3:10-12 & Eph. 2:3)

No, that is NOT what we say. We don’t believe that we are any more sincere than anyone else (except those I will talk about below). God has made a promise here and if you don’t believe that God either will or can answer, then you have your answer. (I’m going to say this because this really hacks me off) There isn’t a church around that would ask you to pray about which is the true church. They will keep you from doing it as long as they can. Why? Because they’re unsure of the answer. Heck, if people find out that they’re preaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, then their livelihood would go down the drain. When they know that the only thing you have to do is put doubt in the mind of the person asking, then they know that they are safe.

Second, this verse is about wisdom, not about praying to see if the Book of Mormon is true. In James 1:1 it says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." So, the book of James was written to those who were believers and already had the truth. That is why James calls them "brothers" in verse 2. Third, wisdom is the proper use of knowledge, not the acquisition of knowledge. You acquire true spiritual knowledge from the Bible, not your heart. So you shouldn't pray about the truth of the BoM or the LDS church, and you should pray about the truth you've LEARNED from READING the Bible and ask God to teach you more, and how to apply properly what He's already shown you.

No, it says “that giveth to ALL MEN liberally.”

Please understand that I am not trying to attack the LDS church. These are all things that I have found over the years that I simply don't understand about the LDS church and I'm hoping that you can give me some insight.

I know that we’ve covered this ground before, but the only way you’ll know if this is true or not is to experiment on the Word. Read from the BoM. Ponder it in your mind, and pray, asking Heavenly Father if it is true. That is the way I had to do it, that is the way my wife did it, that is the way my son did it. That is the way that EVERYONE has to do it. I can tell you that I didn’t want to become a Mormon. I was happy being a Baptist. But when the answer came, I had no doubt what I had to do. My mind was changed in the blink of an eye. It was at that moment I knew that it was all true.

If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine, we can still be friends. But I want you to know that you can find out if you will just do the experiment.
Alma 32
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

It is EXACTLY the same experiment that Moses gave to the people with the Bronze Serpent. No amount of mental gymnastics will lead you to the truth in this matter, only revelation can.

Can you please go through ALL of these issues and systematically address EACH concern that I have? And if you don't know the answer or don't have a response, please be honest with me and tell me that you don't know and if it is not too much trouble, I would like to know if you CAN find an answer for me and maybe tell me at a later date. I must say, so far, you have been the most responsive LDS person that I have ever talked to...so I'm trying to lay all of my concerns out on the table....but I am trying to only deal with ONE major issue at a time so you don't get too overwhelmed...at any time if you find that I'm giving you too much, please tell me and I will try to cut down my responses!! Thank you!!

My pleasure. But yes, if you could cut it down just a bit, then you’ll be doing me a huge favor. I hope I didn’t miss anything. I’m doing this at work and it’s hard to concentrate when my attention is distracted.

And here I thought this thread was dead.

For the record, I don't think that fighting over the interpretation of a religious text really qualifies. You are just saying "I read as this" versus "I read it as this".

Try finding facts outside the religious texts to support an argument.

Well, if I could get to them from work, I would. But as you see above, we don't really do it that way. We determine what is truth and what is error by revelation. That is why it doesn't matter where you go in the world, the same doctrine is being taught - You can go to Ghana, Bolivia, Germany, or Los Angeles, and you'll never feel like you've walked into an unfamiliar place.

But first, I've gotta get her to read what's there. :p

I render many beliefs as Christianity and or old book religions: mormonism, Judisism, Christianity, and Buddism. To me the practice in all the denominations remains the same regardless of the interpretation of mythology used to support those practices.

All I see is people acting as if their natural self is defective and trying to force themselves to live up to some standard of purity.

Than again I'd be a satanist if only the satanist did a better job at clinging to the reasoning that we are not born defective.

I render many beliefs as Christianity and or old book religions: mormonism, Judisism, Christianity, and Buddism. To me the practice in all the denominations remains the same regardless of the interpretation of mythology used to support those practices.

All I see is people acting as if their natural self is defective and trying to force themselves to live up to some standard of purity.

Than again I'd be a satanist if only the satanist did a better job at clinging to the reasoning that we are not born defective.

I would never say that you were born defective. AAMOF, you were born perfect IMHO. Those who read the scriptures will find that the words "original sin" aren't found there. I believe it is a false doctrine. We are only responsible for what we do, not for what others before us have done.

Well, if I could get to them from work, I would. But as you see above, we don't really do it that way. We determine what is truth and what is error by revelation. That is why it doesn't matter where you go in the world, the same doctrine is being taught - You can go to Ghana, Bolivia, Germany, or Los Angeles, and you'll never feel like you've walked into an unfamiliar place.

But first, I've gotta get her to read what's there. :p

Right, but my point is this:

If you only use religious writings you can support or refute anything. These things are not law or scientific documentation. Every religious acumen is merely conjecture from one person's (or a some people's) point of view. After that it is the reader's interpretation.

I can argue that Shakespeare meant that Juliet's beauty is like light with the line "What light through yonder window breaks?". You could argue that he meant the light was shining upon her and drew Romeo's attention to her approach on the balcony. Since it is just one man's story, and that man is long dead, we'll never know who is right.

ARE THERE ANY MORMONS, JEHOVAH's WITNESSES or SCIENTOLOGISTS HERE TO MAKE A DEFENCE OF THEIR RELIGION?



I've noticed that this conversation seems to be mostly on the Mormon side. Now, I only read to about page 6, so maybe the later pages go more into JW teaching, but I'd like to take the time to say I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm ready to defend my faith within reason. So, ask away.

I've noticed that this conversation seems to be mostly on the Mormon side. Now, I only read to about page 6, so maybe the later pages go more into JW teaching, but I'd like to take the time to say I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm ready to defend my faith within reason. So, ask away.

Okay...since you offered...

Why are JW's (I use it since you did, I try not to offend) required to pay their Kingdom Halls?

Why can't JW's drink wine?

Why do JW's feel the need to constantly proselytize when they also believe only a certain # of people will be brought to heaven?

What makes you think you're right?

Okay...since you offered...

Why are JW's (I use it since you did, I try not to offend) required to pay their Kingdom Halls?

Why can't JW's drink wine?

Why do JW's feel the need to constantly proselytize when they also believe only a certain # of people will be brought to heaven?

What makes you think you're right?

I have no offense writing it out as JW (btw, most people seem to be spelling God's name wrong, so for the record, it's Jehovah).

* Why are JW's (I use it since you did, I try not to offend) required to pay their Kingdom Halls?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are referring to giving money, it's not required.

* Why can't JW's drink wine?

We can. There's no bible law against this. In fact, even Jesus turned water into wine (first miracle). In fact, we can drink any alcohol. The only thing the bible speaks out against is getting drunk.

* Why do JW's feel the need to constantly proselytize when they also believe only a certain # of people will be brought to heaven?

The proselytizing is because Jesus commanded at the end of Matthew to teach the good news to the entire Earth. Yes, we believe that only 144,000 go to heaven, but the rest of humanity has the hope of living on a paradise Earth for eternity.

* What makes you think you're right?

Because everything we believe can be found in the bible. I realize that some people can see the same scriptures I do and find a different interpretation. That's fine. I'm not in this discussion to convert, I'm here to clear up any misconceptions about my religion. So, I look at the JW belief system, and I agree with everything that they believe, as I can see it from the bible.


I'm sure this will get lots of other responses, so feel free to go further if you wish. :)

I'm sure this will get lots of other responses, so feel free to go further if you wish. :)

I'm glad we got a Witness on here. It's always good to hear it from the source.

Right, but my point is this:

If you only use religious writings you can support or refute anything. These things are not law or scientific documentation. Every religious acumen is merely conjecture from one person's (or a some people's) point of view. After that it is the reader's interpretation.

I can argue that Shakespeare meant that Juliet's beauty is like light with the line "What light through yonder window breaks?". You could argue that he meant the light was shining upon her and drew Romeo's attention to her approach on the balcony. Since it is just one man's story, and that man is long dead, we'll never know who is right.

But, if you have a prophet who receives the information directly from the source, as in ancient times, and there's a means by which to verify it (personal revelation), then why do I need outside sources?

The outside sources would only be opinions while the original would then be authoritative.

Jaredites- I have a question that I have been wondering about and since you are in LDS church and have been for a while I thought I should ask.
what is the deal with the magic underwear? I don't know what the term is but you know the white long johns things some mormons wear? can you tell me the story on those? I think I really haven't heard the truth and would like to be more informed esp since my friends make jokes about them if I knew the reasoning maybe I could defend them.

Jaredites- I have a question that I have been wondering about and since you are in LDS church and have been for a while I thought I should ask.
what is the deal with the magic underwear? I don't know what the term is but you know the white long johns things some mormons wear? can you tell me the story on those? I think I really haven't heard the truth and would like to be more informed esp since my friends make jokes about them if I knew the reasoning maybe I could defend them.

We don't talk about them much. Not because we are ashamed about anything, but because they are very sacred to us. We don't talk about them because people make comments about them such as "magic underwear." To mock them is very offensive to us. They are refered to as temple garments. They remind us of our temple covenents. They are of extremely ancient origin, and that's about all I'd like to say about them. There are some things that we just don't talk about outside the temple. But, if you'd like to get prepared, you can go to the temple and find out all about it. <g>

If you haven't been there, you don't understand the significance.

We don't talk about them much. Not because we are ashamed about anything, but because they are very sacred to us. We don't talk about them because people make comments about them such as "magic underwear." To mock them is very offensive to us. They are refered to as temple garments. They remind us of our temple covenents. They are of extremely ancient origin, and that's about all I'd like to say about them. There are some things that we just don't talk about outside the temple. But, if you'd like to get prepared, you can go to the temple and find out all about it. <g>

If you haven't been there, you don't understand the significance.
I am sorry if I offended you. I hadn't ever been given the correct terminology. Thank you for clarifying why I didn't have much information.

I am sorry if I offended you. I hadn't ever been given the correct terminology. Thank you for clarifying why I didn't have much information.

Naw, I understand. No offense taken. I have heard of temple garments being stolen out of laundramat dryers, labeled "Mormon Underwear" with black paint, and displayed in the window. That was pretty bad, as you can imagine.

They are, for us, a shield and a protection. It is another part of the ancient church that was restored. You find types and shadows of them in other ancient religions.

Jaredites:

You really haven't answered any of my questions....you just danced around the issues. I'm trying to explain to you WHY Christian's don't believe some of the things that the LDS does....and I need to know WHY you think that the LDS church is right in their interpretation when so many things point towards how Judaism and Christianity interpret it. By the way, like I said before, when I was studying the LDS faith to see if it was the restored church...I did try it the LDS way and prayed sincerely....but it NEVER felt true or real, in fact it just felt SO wrong because I knew of Biblical truths that contradicted the things the missionaries were saying....and since then I have studied the Bible quite a bit and have found out that we are NOT to pray for the truth to be revealed to us...but we are to only study the Bible and FIND truth. Then we are to take the truth that we have found in the Bible and ask for wisdom in HOW to apply that truth. By the way, you know that I am Christian and until such time as it is proven to me that the BoM is REAL Scripture, I won't count it as such.

One of my biggest problems with the LDS church is HOW deceptive they seem to be....please don't take this the wrong way, but this has been my experience. For instance, how the LDS church views the Virgin birth. Fine, the LDS church says that they believe in the Virgin birth (even though I don't know HOW that is possible when God had physical sex with Mary...and since He is flesh and bone I can only assume that He would have the male parts in order to have physical sex with Mary)....but the Christian view IS NOT that God had sex with Mary AT ALL!! We believe that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and impregnated her by immaculate conception...NO SEX....so, I guess my biggest problem is why doesn't the LDS church approach it a different way? Instead of saying, "Yes, we believe in the exact same Virgin birth that you do." I think that they should say, "We believe in the Virgin birth, but not the way that most Christian's view it...." and then go into the explanation and WHY the LDS church views it that way. See, then it would seem less deceptive. Because I hate it when an LDS says that they see certain things the same way as Christian's, when they don't. Do you see what I mean? I think that I would've been a whole lot more accepting of the LDS church if I hadn't felt like they were trying to tell me that their beliefs are the same as main-stream Christianity...when there are many Christian terms that mean VERY different things to the LDS, than to Christians. Please explain to me WHY the LDS church does this. Again, I'm just trying to understand WHY the LDS church does the things it does.

Jaredites:

Okay, so in our converstations, in a very round about way, we have established that the LDS believe that the BoM is a perfect book that is designed to fill in the information gaps of an incomplete and corrupt Bible, right? And I'm sure that we can agree that the doctrine of the nature of God Himself is perhaps the key doctrine of any religious tradition, right? And I know that the LDS church believes that the Heavenly Father is an exalted man, right? But I don't know of any passage in the BoM where it gives clear and convincing evidence to support the Mormon concept of God. Don't you find it very unsettling that the most perfect revelation known to mankind offers absolutely no evidence to support the distinctive Mormon concept of God, a key doctrine for every religious tradition?

Jaredites:

Here is something else that I have pondered....from the research that I have done I have found out that Joseph Smith was only 14 when he had his first vision and 17 when he had his second. While the Bible records several divine manifestations of God, there is no biblical precedence for so much responsibility being placed on so young a prophet. Yet, Joseph Smith was charged with the responsibility of restoring the church which had been severely corrupted for fifteen hundred years at the tender age of 14!! I ask you to take a moment and to visualize any 14 year old boy that you know....I'll call him Johnny. Honestly, would you place the very lives, eternal futures and fortunes of everyone ever born upon the unprecedented, uncollaborated and highly unique testimony of this 14 year old Johnny that you know?

Jaredites- I decided that I was more curious than I thought about the temple garments. I decided to try to look them up now that I knew what they are called. I am not sure if what I read was true, but since you don't want to/ or aren't able to talk about them I suppose I won't find out either. The page I found did explain why mormons don't talk about them though and I understand, I wouldn't either.

Jaredites:

Now, in regards to this whole praying for truth and revelation idea:

Did you know that there are many homicides that happen each year because "God" tells these people to murder others for this reason and that reason? And they really believe this! Here are some links to cases where people have believed that God revealed to them to perform acts that are strictly against the Bible and most religions:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/18/railway.killer.verdict.01/

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/gods_name.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/22/story_2242_1.html

All of these people and MANY more believed with their WHOLE heart and soul that they were listening to God. But were they? Was God actually revealing to them what He wanted them to do? And how do you know that they didn't hear God tell them to do these things? I know BECAUSE I have SEARCHED the Bible for the truth according to God. But, I guess if you want something to be true bad enough, then it is easy to convince yourself of it being true. Do you see WHY praying for truth is a very dangerous thing, yet? Maybe not.

You see, since I have been in that position across from the LDS missionaries going through all the "lessons" leading up to baptism, I know how enticing it is to have someone tell you that there is a religion out there that is perfect. Not to mention, the LDS followers are so friendly and warm...and if you are a girl, it doesn't hurt that the young men of the LDS church are so clean cut and good-looking. And I'm sure that it would be attractive to a guy to meet so many young ladies that are demure and wholesome. So I can see someone being very attracted to the pretty outside package of the LDS church...especially if they have very little spiritual substance in their life and are searching for their "spiritual stomach" to be filled so to speak. But then, wouldn't that feeling of "wanting it to be true" play into the answer one would get when praying for it to BE true? People can convince themselves of many things when they want it badly enough.

This is why I have a problem with praying for truth. The heart lies, my friend. And I can honestly say that I REALLY wanted to LDS faith to be true at the time of my first meetings with missionaries. Between never feeling a connection to the church that I grew up in (which I'm not a part of anymore) and having a huge crush on one of the missionaries that I was having my meetings with (I was 17 at the time)...I really wanted to feel this, "YES, IT's TRUE!!" response. But I knew that if the LDS church was true, then a little bit of research on ALL sides would just verify that. Instead, all of the research that I did showed me the little and sometimes big inconsistancies that no one has been able to fully explain to me.

I'm sorry if I've overwhelmed you with posts tonight. Please take your time in responding to them. I am truly not trying to pile stuff on you, but I have just been pondering so much stuff about this....and I am afraid that I will forget to share these ponderings with you if I have to write them over a number of days. Please forgive me!! :)

Jaredites:

I found this on bibletools.org about the Hebrew words for "tablet". Interestingly enough, Ezekiel still used the word "ets" in Ezekiel 37 meaning:

"the Hebrew word that is used in Ezekiel 37 is "ets", which means wood, tree or stick, pieces of wood, the gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax. In the Old Testament, this Hebrew word or similar derivatives are used 300 times. It is translated “stick” only 14 times in the entire Old Testament, 8 times it occurs in Ezekiel’s passage. It is the only word that is translated stick in the Bible, but it is also translated “planks.” and 100 times it means “wood” or “timber” It is translated “planks” in Ezek.41:25 and as “timber” in Ezek.26:12. It is mostly translated “tree” 163 times as it is in Ezek.36:30. But it is NEVER translated as “scroll.”" (Quote from my earlier post)

What I found about the Hebrew word for "tablet" on bibletools.org:The technical Hebrew word for tablet, luach, is generally translated in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) as "table." This is used for stone, wood or metal plates or tablets with or without writing. In Isaiah (Isaiah 30:8) where the Revised Version (British and American) translates "tablet," it is contrasted with the "roll" and probably means the wood or waxed tablet. In Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:2, the American Standard Revised Version "tablet," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "table") it perhaps refers to a metal tablet to be erected on a wall, but more likely it refers to the wooden tablet. It is also used in Proverbs (Proverbs 3:3; Proverbs 7:3, the American Standard Revised Version "tablet," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "table") and in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 17:1) figuratively of the writing upon the tablets of the heart, the word being rendered in the Septuagint by the same word (plax) used by Paul (2 Corinthians 3:3, "tables" in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in the same figure. In other cases (Exodus 24:12, etc.) it is used of the tablets of stone containing the Decalogue.

The word gillayon (Isaiah 8:1), which is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "tablet" and in the King James Version "roll," is elsewhere (Isaiah 3:23) translated "mirror," and is thought to mean a blank polished surface for writing, particularly because in later use it means the blank margin of a roll.

The clay tablet is referred to in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:1, English Versions of the Bible "tile"), and its use there for a map of the city has been strikingly illustrated in modern excavation by a tablet map discovered at Nippur (Hilprecht, Explorations, 518). Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:14, the Revised Version (British and American) "deeds," the King James Version "evidences") may also refer to clay tablets, but not surely, since roll deeds were also kept in earthen jars. Job (Job 19:24) is thought by some to refer to the writing on leaden tablets, such as were in very common use in antiquity and in the Middle Ages for the writing of charms and especially curses, but more hold that inscriptions filled with lead are meant here. The plate of pure gold (Exodus 28:36; Leviticus 8:9), engraved like the gravings of a signet, which was on Aaron's miter, may also be properly described as a tablet, recalling the silver treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians and the gold plate on which Queen Helena of Adiabene (Yoma' 37a; Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 334) had engraved a passage from the Pentateuch (Numbers 5:19-22). Bronze tablets (deltos) are several times referred to in 1 Maccabees (8:22; 14:18,27,48).

"Daleth" (daleth or deleth), the Semitic (Phoenician) original from which the generic Greek word for tablet (deltos) is derived (Gardthausen, p. 124, note 1), is perhaps not found strictly in this meaning in the Old Testament. The word is used, however, of two kinds of written documents and in such a way as to suggest that one is the original of, and the other derived from, the "daleth"-tablet. In Deuteronomy 6:9 and Deuteronomy 11:20 it is enjoined that the laws of Yahweh shall be written upon the gates of the houses, and in each case the "daleths" (doors) are meant, since the door-posts are also mentioned, and in 1 Samuel 21:13, where David "scrabbles," it is expressly said to be upon the "doors" ("daleths") of the gate. This practice of writing upon house doors and city gates corresponds to the modern posting of notices on church doors and scoring of tallies on a door by the rural innkeeper; and the name seems to have passed from this great door tablet to the portable tablet. On the other hand Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:23) uses "daleths" (English Versions of the Bible "leaves") for the columns of a roll, obviously transferring the term from the panel form of the folding tablets.

pinakis, or pinakidion, is found in Ezekiel 9:2, Ezekiel 9:11 in the version of Symmachus in place of the "writer's inkhorn," and pinakidion, in Luke 1:63, of the (wooden) tablet on which Zacharias wrote the name of John. Puxion is used several times by Septuagint as the translation for luach, and once (Song of Solomon 5:14) for ivory tablets. Sanis is used as the translation of "daleth" or luach 2 or 3 times in the Septuagint and still oftener in the other versions. The most common Greek term both in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 9:4) and in the Greek Old Testament is plax, most often used of the tables of stone. This, like platos, which is also used for luach in Septuagint, is not recognized in the modern textbooks (Thompson, Gardthausen, Birt).

Don't you think that if Ezekiel meant "scroll" or "tablet", that he would've used the Hebrew words that say "scroll" or "tablet"? But he didn't. He used the word that is translated into "wood" or "stick". I don't think that this was an accident...especially since he illustrates in other passages that he knows the Hebrew words for both "tablet" and "scroll".

Jaredites:

You really haven't answered any of my questions....you just danced around the issues. I'm trying to explain to you WHY Christian's don't believe some of the things that the LDS does....and I need to know WHY you think that the LDS church is right in their interpretation when so many things point towards how Judaism and Christianity interpret it. By the way, like I said before, when I was studying the LDS faith to see if it was the restored church...I did try it the LDS way and prayed sincerely....but it NEVER felt true or real, in fact it just felt SO wrong because I knew of Biblical truths that contradicted the things the missionaries were saying....and since then I have studied the Bible quite a bit and have found out that we are NOT to pray for the truth to be revealed to us...but we are to only study the Bible and FIND truth. Then we are to take the truth that we have found in the Bible and ask for wisdom in HOW to apply that truth. By the way, you know that I am Christian and until such time as it is proven to me that the BoM is REAL Scripture, I won't count it as such.
The ONLY way to find out if it is true is the same way that I did.

One of my biggest problems with the LDS church is HOW deceptive they seem to be....please don't take this the wrong way, but this has been my experience. For instance, how the LDS church views the Virgin birth. Fine, the LDS church says that they believe in the Virgin birth (even though I don't know HOW that is possible when God had physical sex with Mary...and since He is flesh and bone I can only assume that He would have the male parts in order to have physical sex with Mary)....but the Christian view IS NOT that God had sex with Mary AT ALL!! We believe that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and impregnated her by immaculate conception...NO SEX....so, I guess my biggest problem is why doesn't the LDS church approach it a different way? Instead of saying, "Yes, we believe in the exact same Virgin birth that you do." I think that they should say, "We believe in the Virgin birth, but not the way that most Christian's view it...." and then go into the explanation and WHY the LDS church views it that way. See, then it would seem less deceptive. Because I hate it when an LDS says that they see certain things the same way as Christian's, when they don't. Do you see what I mean? I think that I would've been a whole lot more accepting of the LDS church if I hadn't felt like they were trying to tell me that their beliefs are the same as main-stream Christianity...when there are many Christian terms that mean VERY different things to the LDS, than to Christians. Please explain to me WHY the LDS church does this. Again, I'm just trying to understand WHY the LDS church does the things it does.
The only reason that we seem "deceptive" is because people have told you that we are. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If some Baptist says "God is green" does that mean that it is Baptist doctrine? Of course not! But if some Mormon says that God had sex with Mary, then it must be true? Professors of religion will grab onto anything to prove any point that we believe in things that shock the senses. We believe in virgin birth. Period. There are many things that we are quoted as believing that are not true - those things were never said. I found once a list of things of things Joseph and later prophets were accused of saying and they didn't. It is sad, but if you want to believe those people, there is nothing that I can say that will dissuade you. We hear these things all the time and we just shake our heads.

Jaredites:

Okay, so in our converstations, in a very round about way, we have established that the LDS believe that the BoM is a perfect book that is designed to fill in the information gaps of an incomplete and corrupt Bible, right? And I'm sure that we can agree that the doctrine of the nature of God Himself is perhaps the key doctrine of any religious tradition, right? And I know that the LDS church believes that the Heavenly Father is an exalted man, right? But I don't know of any passage in the BoM where it gives clear and convincing evidence to support the Mormon concept of God. Don't you find it very unsettling that the most perfect revelation known to mankind offers absolutely no evidence to support the distinctive Mormon concept of God, a key doctrine for every religious tradition?

Then you haven't read the BoM. You have read excerpts that have been supplied to you rather than reading it, prayerfully, in context. Please read it cover-to-cover. You'll come away with a different opinion.

I find nothing unsettling at all in either the doctrine or where it was revealed.

Jaredites:

Here is something else that I have pondered....from the research that I have done I have found out that Joseph Smith was only 14 when he had his first vision and 17 when he had his second. While the Bible records several divine manifestations of God, there is no biblical precedence for so much responsibility being placed on so young a prophet. Yet, Joseph Smith was charged with the responsibility of restoring the church which had been severely corrupted for fifteen hundred years at the tender age of 14!! I ask you to take a moment and to visualize any 14 year old boy that you know....I'll call him Johnny. Honestly, would you place the very lives, eternal futures and fortunes of everyone ever born upon the unprecedented, uncollaborated and highly unique testimony of this 14 year old Johnny that you know?

Then Joseph, son of Jacob was too young to be a prophet. How about David? What is the statutory age to be a prophet acording to the Bible?

Jaredites:

Here is a document from BYU about the Mary and the virgin birth:

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=169

I will post it here too and highlight the pieces that relate to our conversation:

"What do Latter-day Saints believe about Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Centuries before her birth, Book of Mormon prophets referred to Mary by name in prophecies of her vital mission (Mosiah 3:8). Describing her as "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Nephi 11:13-20) and a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10), they prophesied that Mary would bear the Son of God and was therefore blessed above all other women. Latter-day Saints affirm New Testament accounts of Mary's obedience and faith in God. Doctrinally, Latter-day Saints do not view Mary as the intercessor with her son in behalf of those who pray, and they do not pray to her. They affirm the virgin birth but reject the traditions of immaculate conception, of Mary's perpetual virginity, and of her "assumption." Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ.

abstracted from Camille Fronk, "Mary, Mother of Jesus," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:863–64.
The abstracts on this site have been prepared by BYU Studies staff and interns."

See, from a trusted LDS source it clearly STATES that the LDS church REJECTS the traditions of immaculate conception. If that is not because they believe what is said in the various quotes by various leaders within the church that I have provided WAY earlier in this thread, then what does it mean? The very FACT that the LDS church rejects the concept of the immaculate conception of Mary, means that the LDS and traditional Christian churches DON'T believe in the SAME virgin birth.

Jaredites:

Joseph, the son of Jacob was 17 before he even received his special robe and had his first dream...and when David killed Goliath he was about 20 years old.......both of these ages are a far cry from the tender age of 14....and neither of them were asked to perform a feat as great as restoring a whole entire church that had been lost for fifteen hundred years!

Jaredites:

If you do know of some quotes from the BoM that does support the distinctive LDS concept of the Heavenly Father being an exalted man and so forth, then I'd sure like you to provide them for me.

Jaredites:

Here is a document from BYU about the Mary and the virgin birth:

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=169

I will post it here too and highlight the pieces that relate to our conversation:

"What do Latter-day Saints believe about Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Centuries before her birth, Book of Mormon prophets referred to Mary by name in prophecies of her vital mission (Mosiah 3:8). Describing her as "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Nephi 11:13-20) and a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10), they prophesied that Mary would bear the Son of God and was therefore blessed above all other women. Latter-day Saints affirm New Testament accounts of Mary's obedience and faith in God. Doctrinally, Latter-day Saints do not view Mary as the intercessor with her son in behalf of those who pray, and they do not pray to her. They affirm the virgin birth but reject the traditions of immaculate conception, of Mary's perpetual virginity, and of her "assumption." Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ.

abstracted from Camille Fronk, "Mary, Mother of Jesus," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:863–64.
The abstracts on this site have been prepared by BYU Studies staff and interns."

See, from a trusted LDS source it clearly STATES that the LDS church REJECTS the traditions of immaculate conception. If that is not because they believe what is said in the various quotes by various leaders within the church that I have provided WAY earlier in this thread, then what does it mean? The very FACT that the LDS church rejects the concept of the immaculate conception of Mary, means that the LDS and traditional Christian churches DON'T believe in the SAME virgin birth.



But wasn't the Book of Mormon written a couple of hundred years ago? If so, how is it quoting prophets from over 2000 years ago naming Mary by name? Unless the scripture was written before the fact (as the Bible does many times) it is difficult to take this as a true prophecy. That would be like me swearing I knew the World Trade Center was going to come down on 9/11 back in the early 90s. But having no witnesses. Would you believe me?

Historically, I think it is relatively obvious that Christ was a moral man and a radical Jewish Rabbi. The Jews killed Him because of what He taught by way of cruicifixion. These are the basics of what history tells about Jesus.
The New Testament, being widely accepted by the fundees (fundalmentalist Christians) as the 'God-Breathed Word' would state very simply you have to believe that you are a sinner who could never work his way to heaven (since one sin is enough to condemn you to Hell forever) - Romans 3:23, that God still loves you even though you are a sinner and died as a perfect sacrifice for you because He loved you - Romans 5:8, and that the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ - Romans 6:23. The key point of disagreement with other religions is the point of grace. The Christian holy book tells Christians "by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one may boast . . . " - Ephesians 2:8-9. Most religions, as I understand them, have more of a concept of 'salvation' by works, including Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses . . .

Historically, I think it is relatively obvious that Christ was a moral man and a radical Jewish Rabbi. The Jews killed Him because of what He taught by way of cruicifixion. These are the basics of what history tells about Jesus.
The New Testament, being widely accepted by the fundees (fundalmentalist Christians) as the 'God-Breathed Word' would state very simply you have to believe that you are a sinner who could never work his way to heaven (since one sin is enough to condemn you to Hell forever) - Romans 3:23, that God still loves you even though you are a sinner and died as a perfect sacrifice for you because He loved you - Romans 5:8, and that the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ - Romans 6:23. The key point of disagreement with other religions is the point of grace. The Christian holy book tells Christians "by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one may boast . . . " - Ephesians 2:8-9. Most religions, as I understand them, have more of a concept of 'salvation' by works, including Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses . . .


Well put! And I must say a good argument for whether JW's and Mormons are christian. We may be back on topic here.

But wasn't the Book of Mormon written a couple of hundred years ago? If so, how is it quoting prophets from over 2000 years ago naming Mary by name? Unless the scripture was written before the fact (as the Bible does many times) it is difficult to take this as a true prophecy. That would be like me swearing I knew the World Trade Center was going to come down on 9/11 back in the early 90s. But having no witnesses. Would you believe me?

You bring up a valid point. Not to mention that in all likelihood a Middle Eastern woman will probably not be named Mary (or Maria for that matter).

Though you could say the same about the bible. Written 400 years after Christ's death, who's to say that had any accuracy. These aren't journals, either one. They are edited works by people writing to reflect their times (for the bible, the time of Constantine, BoM the time of Joseph Smith).

Why would anyone assume there was truth in these that hasn't been so distorted as to be completely fictious?

You bring up a valid point. Not to mention that in all likelihood a Middle Eastern woman will probably not be named Mary (or Maria for that matter).

Though you could say the same about the bible. Written 400 years after Christ's death, who's to say that had any accuracy. These aren't journals, either one. They are edited works by people writing to reflect their times (for the bible, the time of Constantine, BoM the time of Joseph Smith).

Why would anyone assume there was truth in these that hasn't been so distorted as to be completely fictious?

But the greek scriptures gives prophecies of the future, even from the time they were written. A good example is the prophecy about the last days in 2 Timothy chapter 3. Whereas the BoM brings up prophecies that were supposedly before they happened, but AFTER the book was written.

Most religions, as I understand them, have more of a concept of 'salvation' by works, including Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses . . .

James states that faith without works is dead. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that we can work our way to salvation, but that our works will come about as our faith builds and the Holy Spirit works upon us.. There is definately salvation by Grace because no man can work past his sins. But we need a good relationship with Jehovah God to receive that grace. Our works will show our appreciation for his Grace.

When people say "salvation by works", they usually mean that we can save ourselves through good works. JWs don't believe this at all. So, if this is what you meant by that... Otherwise, please explain what you mean.

Historically, I think it is relatively obvious that Christ was a moral man and a radical Jewish Rabbi. The Jews killed Him because of what He taught by way of cruicifixion. These are the basics of what history tells about Jesus. History actually tells us nothing about Jesus. The only evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is found in the Gospels and the much later writings of the church fathers, all of which is circumstantial evidence.

Inevitably, someone will mention Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, Seutonius, or a variety of other ancient historians. If you wish to go down that path, I would refer you to this fine collection of posts that deal with the supposed "evidence for Jesus" concerning ancient writers:

No Evidence for Jesus (http://atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275&sid=c409ec6a6130313c97dd87c57c871e5b)

Most religions, as I understand them, have more of a concept of 'salvation' by works, including Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . As I understand it, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both follow the concept of "saved by grace." Islam and Judaism, not so much.

Saritobia:

I am not LDS, nor do I think that the BoM is true Scripture. My post from the BYU site was to illustrate to one of the other people on here who is LDS that the BYU's website says that Mary did not conceive through immaculate conception, which is a very basic Christian doctrine, based on the Bible. For the record, as much as I DON'T believe this to be true, the LDS church believes that the BoM was translated by Joseph Smith from ancient gold plates that an angel named Moroni led him to. So the LDS church does believe that the BoM is an ancient writing. The main story line of the Book of Mormon tells of a migration of an Israelite family from Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian Exile to a land across the ocean (somewhere in the Americas), and of the history of two peoples, the Nephites and the Lamanites, descended from that family. Also, it tells of Christ establishing his church in North America after he was resurrected.