prisonchaplain

Of course you believe this. You're LDS. The purpose of these posts varies by poster, but I assume those of you who are LDS and engage us "non" folk, are hoping to move us from thinking, "No way...impossible," to "Hmm. not likely, but possible," to "It really could be--let me pray on it with faith an expectation." Thus, you patiently answer our sometimes seemingly challenging questions. Hopefully, in the process, you come to understand some of the misundertandings, the nonunderstandings, and the sometimes intelligent questions your non-LDS friends, neighbors, and perhaps even family have.

AK, YOU were the one who said that the verse MUST be interpreted a certain (LDS) way. BTW, I doubt any of the 200 non-LDS churches would interpret the verse "God = a spirit, those who worship him must do so in spirit and in truth" to mean that either God is other than spirit, or if we are to worship him we must be spirits (only) too. Me thinks your "must" interpretation stands solo against those 200 other "churches-Christian." Are you saying that there is an aspect of our existence which is co-eternal with the Father, and was not made by him??? I've known for a long time that LDS believe in premortal existence, but did not know that that existence was in any way eternal--that there is an aspect of us that is not created by God. The teaching is fascinating and quite different from what I've understood. Food for thought, today AK. You rightly capture my observation that JS offered a set of teachings that had few if any roots in Christian history--including some teachings that, at least in Prof. Robinson's (BYU) view, are not signficantly addressed in the New Testament, either. Ultimately, this all comes back to the veracity of Joseph Smith's revelations and the validity of his restored gospel claims. Either he was righteous, and far more radically enlightened than Martin Luther dared be, or he was something else.

There is none righteous, no not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So, hell is available to everyone. (see Romans 3) True. The Way to the Father is through Jesus. (John 14:6). However, Jesus will not force himself on anyone. Those who reject the love of Christ have Romans 6:23 to fall back upon (the wages of sin is death). You come so close to the universalist heresy here. It says "You cannot out-sin the love of God, so everyone will be saved--even Hitler." They deny the need to "accept Christ" or repent at all. Traveler, I know you do not totally embrace this line, but you must see how closely your remarks resemble it? Why do this? So that you might lead them away from their wicked ways, and into the embrace of God. To turn this teaching into a universal pass out of hell--even for those who died in their sins, unrepentent, is to read into the text something that is not there. Do not misunderstand--nothing I've posted, nor any of the sermons or teachings I've sat under or offered did any such thing. God's heart is broken over a rebellious creation. There's no joy associated with hell on anyone's part. We're near agreement here. I would further argue, though, that to NOT ACCEPT God is to reject him and embrace hell, and that such a choice can be very passive in nature. I think the point where we disagree is death. It is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgement.

Parents and parishioners + common sense + plus a frequently sanitized nursery with well-trained workers would solve most of these problems. So simple, yet these struggles have probably gone on since the infancies of Cain, Abel and Seth.

I don't know what a MIL is, but ??? 12-18 month-olds crying means they need attention from mother. Hugs, changed diaper, 'milk', etc. That is far too young for children to learn manipulation. What they are learning is that when they need help, parents are there. Such security will like prevent future game-playing. IMHO belief in what you said above should be a prerequisite of salvation. (just kidding!) You are right, and get a hearty AMEN from me.

I didn't either. Until about two minutes ago (1:02 AM). Setheus has meant so much to this board ( ). Upon hearing this latest update, perhaps it is time, at long last, to let this soul:

I've already said that this assessment is deficient in my view. God and Satan were not equals hanging out, betting on what the human animals might do in response to negative stimuli. Satan accused Job, and God declared that Job would stand true in the face of adversity. As for the family that died--God will judge and reward/punish them according to his justice--a justice that is pure and true. Snow, it's ironic that you, in somewhat stronger terms, ask the same question Job did: Why Lord? I know our relationship is right--I've been faithful--so why is this stuff happening? Are you there for me? God's answer: creation doesn't advise creator about his world. Job, thankful that God is there and has revealed himself, says, "Amen....lead the way!" God restores his health, his wealth, and vindicates him before his friends and critics. It's an easy assumption that he started a new family that prospered in riches and virtue. It all ends well. Job could accept the death of his family members because he believed God would do right by them. Can we not do likewise? It's the only comfort I can see in the face of so much badness that goes on.

The only problem is that if we carry the definition of God as purely a spirit being from the first part of the verse to the second, one must conclude that only a purely spirit being can worship God, and since we have physical bodies we must either shed them or be prevented from worshiping God in mortality. There is nothing in this verse that keeps those of us WITH spirits from worshiping Him who IS spirit. If the Father CREATED the Son, then the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. He is absolutely subordinate. He is the creation of the Father. But if Jesus gets his start from one who had no start, then he's not of the same nature or essence. If I understand this correctly, Jesus may have become immortal, but he is forever subordinate to the Heavenly Father, in that he is a created being. LDS writer B.H. Roberts recognized the divergence here with not only Christianity but all religions. In his book, Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. iii-iv, he describes the Father and Son as two Gods involved in creation, and he says that the revelation of Joseph Smith challenged the views of God held by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans.

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the Sacrament is similar to the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion). If so, I'm a bit surprised at all the "Go ahead, they'll learn from it," approach. My tradition treats the elements as symbolic, and we're hardly a "high church" movement. Nevertheless, the ceremony is one of very few sacrements we have. There are biblical warnings about not partaking in a casual or unworthy manner--that some have become sick or even fallen asleep (a euphemism, me thinks) for doing so. If I'm not mistaken, we generally would not encourage children who have not been baptized to participate. They can learn by watching, and approach it when they are old enough to understand and willfully join in. Just my humble opinion, though.

Thanks--you just saved me over $200! I have been toying with buying LOGOS ($500) or Biblesoft Advanced Library ($200--EBAY), but your source will be good enough for me for now. It looks very easy to use, also. I downloaded using dialup, and everything went fine. You DSL and cable users will be up and running in minutes! Thanks AGAIN!

I suppose my disagreement with this first section, explains everything. Whether hell is an actual lake of fire, or is actually composed of fire and brimstone, is perhaps not so important. But, that hell is real, painful in every way, and this it is a place of punishment, not decision-making, seems quite clear in any but the most allegorical of interpretations. I disagree. The Laodiceans considered themselves believers, but were spit out for their lukewarmness. Many will say on the day of judgment, "Lord, Lord," but Jesus will reject them, saying he knew them not. Passiveness, pride and delusion are but three of the many pathways to hell. The torment is described as being everlasting. And, it is judgement. The offender does not get to choose his/her sentence. I don't know what you are describing here, but it is not a "hell" many would recognize. I frankly fear that some sinners will be deluded into thinking that this is so. Hell is a place of punishment and agony. Scripture tells us that on that great and glorious day everyone will bow and recognize that Jesus is Lord. It will be a day of rejoicing or tremendous sorrow, but no one will rejoice at going to hell. It is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgement. This kind of talk could delude many into a sense of complacency. The rich man who found himself in torment couldn't even get a drop of water, much less a reprieve. Furthermore, he was not allowed to warn his family. His time was done, his fate sealed. Such is the nature of hell. BTW, I'm no "fire and brimstone" type preacher. Very few ministers relish sermons on this subject. But, as C.S. Lewis correctly observed, however distasteful, or even detestable we may find the teaching, it's in the Book. Rather than try to make it palatable, we need to see what God would have us to do with this hard truth.

Perhaps you are ultimately agreeing with me here--at least on my basic proposal. I've not suggested a particular doctrine that we need to agree with, here (well, perhaps the notion of everlasting physical/emotional/spiritual torment in hell...but I'm not sure we disagree about that, at least generally). Rather, my simple point is that individually, and corporately, when approaching the Word of God, we not seek what makes sense or seems fair, but simply what God is actually saying. Once we have assurance about that, we can consider how best to live it, explain it, and proclaim it. Error comes when we try to downplay or aggressively repackage God's truths. I agree with your words here. My point, though, was that all believers who are found to be righteous by God will end up in the same kingdom (heaven). There may be degrees of reward, but only one kingdom. I probably would argue even more aggressively than you about the one straight and narrow path, since I do not believe that non-Christians will inherit any heavenly kingdom at all. BTW, the way is narrow, not because only a few are allowed, but because there is only one way--Jesus. Also, the way to embrace Jesus is through the humility of repentence and surrender. Many are not willing to humble themselves, and thus be lifted up. I'm not sure I'd say it was according to their obedience, since they both achieved the same percentage increase. Rather, the five-talent steward had already proven himself faithful in smaller things, and thus was given more responsibility. Also, I'm not so sure the rewards were different--rather the level of responsibility was. Both were obedient, and both earned the favor of the Master. Both were on the same team. God's mercy "justifies" us. There's the justice. Christ took the punishment, he paid the price--he satisfied the demands of justice. All that I do AFTER receiving Christ's mercy is out of gratitude, not repayment. Gnostics would have said the same thing. You can know--come in and see. But, you couldn't get in unless you joined. If we start from the scriptural assumption that none of us is worthy, all have entered by grace, the entry into the Kingdom is the big gift for all of us. Within that kingdom of grace, there will be varying rewards, according to faithfulness, etc. Additionally, I would imagine that the type and degree of work we are given will depend on the level of responsibility we showed in our earthly existence.

I don't want to be over-dramatic, but such is the thinking that has led to so many heresies. Adam and Eve thinking it not fair that God would deny them the pleasing-looking fruit, Cain angered that the innovations in his sacrifice were not accepted by God, and in more modern times, Charles Taze Russell, unable to embrace the doctrine of hell, eventually founding the precursor to the modern Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. How many have lost their faith at the seeming unfairness of a child succumbing to sickness, a loved one lost to a drunk driver, etc. 57% of Jews do not believe in God. Why? The Holocaust. No, no. If a doctrine seems to make God unfair, it may require added scrutiny. But our attitude must be, "God, what are you saying here? What would you have me know, understand, believe, and do?" We dare not go further, "God, this just isn't right! Show me how to make it more palatable. In fact, let me dig through your Word, and corral it, so it is pleasing in my own eyes." AK, I know you are not suggesting this last approach. My fear is that if our first response to hearing something from God we do not like is, "Let's fix it," we will quickly find ourselves headed towards heresy. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes," Scripture tells us, concerning the last days. No, that is not the point. The point is God is God, and He gives everyone a good deal. Nobody will be cheated. His love and mercy is extravagant. Some will be forgiven much more than others. Some will serve much less time, much less hardship, etc. than others. We'll all end up in the same kingdom. There ain't no such animal as "just enough." In the parable you cite, the fellow who buried his talent was cast into outer darkness. The fact that he returned what he gave--thinking it 'just enough'--only enraged the Master. The other two stewards both doubled their talents. Consider to the Laodiceans (Rev. 3). The lukewarm believers were cast out--rejected. They were not true believers. True believers will give their all. You can have justice! I don't want it. Justice means hell for us all--there's none worthy, no not one. I want God's mercy and grace. I dare say, all who enter the kingdom of God are recipients of mercy, not justice. Another poster--Jason I believe--suggested that there are gnostic nuances with LDS spirituality. Without prying, I'll tell you that to the outsider, LDS Temple practices (sacred to you, secret to us) do carry that sense. I don't say this as criticism, but simply as a note of interest (there aren't too many anti-Gnostic ministries, at least not that I know of). Yeah, but the setting straight is such fun (why should dentists have all the good times??? ). Seriously, a key different that is worth highlighting is that non-LDS believe that we'll all be in the same heavenly kingdom, regardless of levels or degrees of reward. I did not dare edit or shorten this section. Thank you for sharing so personally in this venue. Sadly, but importantly, you truly do have a better taste of hell than most. My only addition to your point is that we fool ourselves if we think that hell will be less difficult than what AK, and so many others experience in this existence.

I have to start here, because this thought--that a doctrine appears to make God unjust--is the core issue of this string. C.S. Lewis is right--it's either true or not, and our faith must comply with God's revealed truth, no matter how unfair it may seem at first glance, through our "dim glass" (ref. 1 Cor. 13--we see through a glass, dimly). First, to verify your summary--the parable of the laborers in the field, some hired in the morning, some at noon, some at 3:00, and some one hour before the close of day--where all are paid the same wages, and the early workers are told not to complain, because they got what they were promised, and it's not there's to be concerned with how much the master pays the later workers. As for incentive for obeying God, how about relationship and gratitude? My God sent his Son to die for my sins. I can't possibly begin to pay him back. But, out of thankfulness, I pray that the Spirit of God will so fill me that I might live a life worthy of his great sacrifice. BTW, I do believe that within the one heaven, those who've been martyred, and those who have produced the 100-fold harvests will be recognized. However, I love the story as to how this might happen. We bring our gifts (lives, sacrifices, hardships, good works, etc.) before the Master. They are placed in the fire. That which is worthy comes out as gold. That which is not, as chaffe. We then bring our gift to him. Who wouldn't want to bring a precious gift of thanksgiving? While none will be shamed, for all at least embraced Christ's love, those who 'gave it all' will receive their rewards 100 times over. We have wandered into an area of speculation, but I believe many Christians could imagine within heaven, varying rewards based on one's faithfulness, sacrifice, obedience, etc. I don't disagree about guilt being painful. However, I'm trying to ascertain whether you believe hell is physical place, where the suffering will be physical, as well as emotional and spiritual. I don't want to be morbid, but, if hell is real, it is a place to be feared. God is smarter than us, and I fear that sometimes we (and I am lumping all branches of Christianity here) downplay the horror of hell, by describing it in purely emotional, psychological terms: separation from God, a place of guilt and regret, etc. I gotta go with the old country preachers on this one: hell's hot and heaven's real.

Ray, is hell hot or not? Is the Lake of Fire real or figurative? Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, or is hell merely a place of regrets? Thank you. While I agree with this, I'm wondering if you're willing to go further? Is hell hot? Is it torment? Is a place of painful punishment, or merely one where sinners regret their rejection of God? I think a fair compromise would be for you both to come over the the A/G. Ray could continue to enjoy the leading of the Holy Spirit, he'd get a lot more enjoyment out of the singing (we not only have 'mechanical instruments'--we 'jam for Jesus'), and Christos could find a good melding of ancient doctrinal tradition with very contemporary religious practice. Hey...this dreaming thing is kinda catchy!

Yes, that's right. The latter part is more speculative. It may be that once we are glorified we may be able to see the Father and Holy Spirit. However, it is our understanding that they are spirits, without corporeal essence. Furthermore, it is difficult for non-LDS believers to fathom a God that is limited by a physical body, and yet omnipresent. You're probably well aware of the most common passage used by non-LDS to explain why we believe the Father to be a spirit being. John 4:23-24: 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. KJV There is actually an excellent discussion on this whole matter of "the image of God,"--one that encompasses the Genesis 1:26-27 passage as well, in the book How Wide the Divide. However, to offer a very short summary: Non-LDS: The image of God references God's character, power, glory, attributes, not his physical characteristics, since He is spirit. LDS: I recall several examples Prof. Robinson used to insist that the "image of God" phrase ALWAYS refers to physical characteristics in biblical writings, and so should be understood in the same way when referring to God the Father. Bottom-line: That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, to non-LDS believers, does not mean that the Father created the Son. We believe Jesus is co-eternal, co-equal with the Father in essence. I believe Prof. Robinson (LDS scholar at BYU) signed on to the summary that LDS embrace subordinationism--that the Son is subordinate to the Father in essence or nature, because the Father created him. I stand ready to be corrected, however.

So would they appear as three separate beings or not? How would they appear? Since non-LDS Christians believe the Father is spirit and not corporeal, the question is interesting indeed. Yet, we are told that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Ghost also is Spirit. So my best off-the-cuff answer, minus theological terminology, is that we experience the three, yet probably only visibly see Jesus. Jesus did say that when we see him we see the Father. Ontology simply means essence, or essential. So, as I said before, the key difference along this line is that the LDS view of God is three very distinct individual personages that are united in purpose and will. The trinitarian view is that the three, while distinct persons, are ESSENTIALLY one God. Where this becomes an important distinction is that trinitarians believe that humans are eternally different in kind--that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unique, unequaled, and have never been otherwise--not before time, nor afterwards. There are three persons, but only Jesus would appear in the polaroid. (Next part said in my best Jack Nicholson voice) Are we clear??? (You're supposed to answer in your best Tom Cruise voice, "Crystal."). I'll stick with mathematics, since I scored a 12 percentile on the ASVAB artistic portion. 1 X 1 X 1 = 1 The Father X The Son X The Holy Spirit = The one true and living God. Their totality is one, and they each represent the godhead, yet each has his individual place in the equation. Maybe this helps. To draw the distinction, I'd represent the LDS view as follows: 1 + 1 + 1 = one godhead familial deity. While each represents the godhead, the unity is corporate, not essential. These are separate beings, and the Father is of superior essence over the Son and the Spirit.

The following is my summary of key differences as taken from How Wide the Divide?, by Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Seminary) and Stephen E. Robinson (BYU), "Christ and the Trinity, Joint Conclusion" (pp. 141-42) Again, these are their conclusions offered in my words: 1. How separate are the three persons of the Trinity? Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY. LDS believe that they are one "in mind, will and purpose," but that the Father and Son, in particular have separate corporeal essences. Since the Holy Ghost is noncorporeal, my guess is that Spirit is seen as also being a distinct essence. 2. Have they always been essentially and entirely deity? Evangelicals believe that there is a universal difference in kind between human and divine. LDS believe they are one species. They believe Christ reconciles humans to the Father, and make it possible for us to become what he is. 3. Non-LDS Christians believe that the Father and Son, in particular, are co-eternal and co-equal--that the Father's superior authority is based on relationship, not essence (ontology). LDS believe that Christ is subordinate to the Father, though divine. Evangelicals believe this to be a compromise of Christ's deity. Question two being the easiest. I'm sure you can find many good definitions, but here's the "official" statement from my church. I believe the link takes you to our Statement of Faith. #2 refers to the Godhead. http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fun.../sft_full.cfm#2

Pushka, you were right. "God in three persons, blessed Trinity." That from the song, Holy Holy Holy. Maybe this will help. Trinitarianism: Father X Jesus X Holy Spirit = one God. Jesus only: Jesus + Jesus + Jesus = One God, who shows up in three different ways (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). LDS: Father + Son + Holy Spirit = one "Godhead family."

Actually, I'll have to leave it to the monarchial modalists to explain themselves on this one. If I'm understanding your contention quickly, you are refuting refuting the concept of one in three, not three in one. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, yet one God. So, the Father could bare witness of the Son, as well as the Son baring witness of himself. They would be two persons, yet they remain the one true and living God. Again, the Son is saying that He seeks the Father's will rather than his own. He also says the one Way to the Father is through the Son. Your struggle is against those monarchial modalists who claim that Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit. You make want to check the United Pentecostal Church's website for their explanations. They openly admit that they DENY the Trinity, in favor of the very modalism you speak of. http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp Once again--three persons, one God. Persons can stand next to each other. It is monarchial modalism you are refuting (one person, three modes), not trinitarian theology. This one does require a bit more explanation--but just a bit. Jesus, as a good son, submits (obeys) his Father. Jesus is not speaking to superiority of essence or being, but of position. The Father is in a position of leadership. But, as is the order of nature, the Son would, of necessity, be of the same, or equal, essence as the Father. Animals beget animals, humans beget humans. So, any essential Son of God, would be truly God. Bottom-line: The contradictions you point out seem to be aimed at the monarchial modalist heresy, popularly known as "Jesus Only." It argues that Jesus is the one person of God, and that he reveals himself in three modes (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This is not trinitarian teaching, and is rejected by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mainstream Protestant, and Evangelical churches. This very issue caused a significant rift in the Pentecostal movement. Those who embraced the false teaching are known as Oneness Pentecostals. They enthusiastically reject the Trinity. You can google the United Pentecostal Church to discover their defense of the teaching. http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp With the simple understanding of Trinity as three persons, one God, it seems that most of the contradictions you perceived are easily (and honestly) explained.

Judgement. Punishment. Hell. Eternal damnation. Horrific words and phrases. A concept difficult to digest. LDS theology has mitigated this teaching, by resigning to hell–or the outer darkness–only the most reprobate and apostate. Nevertheless, the idea that even one human soul would have to spend an unending eternity in hell is one that needs explanation, and perhaps even defending. C.S. Lewis is known to have said that while he find the doctrine of hell detestable, the question to ask is: “Is it true? I'd argue that if hell is true, we’d best digest and embrace what this reality does to our beliefs. Scripture does seem clear on the matter: Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Matthew 25:46 God, “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; Romans 2:6-9 God is just: He will pay back trouble to shoe who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 And the devil, who deceived them was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:10 Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 All verses are from the New International Version. My own thought on the eternal nature of hell: Jesus is not like us. His memory is beyond time, and it does not fade. Therefore, his life of suffering and rejection on earth, his beatings, and those moments of separation from the Heavenly Father–these are all burned into his memory for all eternity. In effect, Jesus lives hell for us for all eternity. He took eternal hell and damnation upon himself at Calvary. Those who reject his love and forgiveness must thus take the everlasting punishment upon themselves.

Is there a right answer, here, Ray? Are you implying that God wants all women to stay home? Is there liberty in this area? In other words, is this choice over whether or not the wife is to work one that God allows the family to make, or has he preordained that women should stay at home unless starvation beckons? But, what if the time away from home working provides subsidiary income for the family and allows mother to get some mental stimulation and break--thus making her more capable of parenting when she is home? Maybe the Heavenly Father would be very pleased in such a circumstance?

I'm suggesting that Satan accused Job, and that God allowed Job to be a showcase of what a devoted servant to God looks like. And, we continue to learn from this example today. Of course, I'm starting with several presuppositions: that God is just, that servants who suffer will be amply rewarded, that what I'm learning about in the book of Job is not whether or not God is fair, but how to endure in times of suffering. I start with the assumption that God is just, and try to learn from the stories with that as a given. So, the dialogue between Satan and God gives me insight into the joy God takes when his followers endure hardship, but remain faithful and loyal. The Devil loses the argument over my righteousness on that day. How literal or word for word the conversation is, my God is not capricious, nor whimsical--betting the Devil at my expense, if the mood strikes him. Again, I begin with the presupposition that God is just. I start also with the presupposition that Ezekiel and James were inspired in more than the literary sense. So, when they refer to Job as having been through some things and proven true, it means he did and was. I'll not discount the possibility that such is not the case, but it's where I start.

Right or wrong, the question of legality is an open one. Keep in mind too that the purpose of the interrogation is to prevent future terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The justification the government has used is that "enemy combatants" are not traditional uniformed soldiers fighting a straight forward war, but are disguised individuals or small groups, whose intent is to inflict mass casualities on noncombatants, in order to scare the target country into whatever submission is sought (destruction of Israel, reneging on defense treaties with friendly nations, etc.). Since these enemy combatants do not honor the traditional rules of engagement, as enshrined in the Geneva Convention, and since they target civilians, they do require or deserve its protections. The legality and morality of this line of reasoning continues to be debated.

This absolutely makes sense, because the the creeds referenced are incompatible with Joseph Smith's revelations. They could not have both been led by the same Holy Spirit. And, if I understand correctly, the bishops and other church leaders gathered at those conferences where the creeds were developed were unauthorized because they were not ordained by God, and were part of a church that had already wandered into apostasy, according the LDS teachings, correct? Why I mention this is that the bishops were not even claiming to have revelations from God, much less that they were adding to Scripture canon. They were fulfilling their roles as "some called to be teachers, some pastors (leaders/bishops/overseers)..." In a sense, I suppose the LDS teaching would follow that none of the non-LDS teachers/preachers etc. are authorized. I believe there is a phrase about "in the manner of men," or some such verbage, that leads many non-LDS readers to the assumption of physical relationship. It's an easy assumption to make, but also an unauthorized one. I guess I was being a bit thick, and missed the contradiction post. Can you either repost, or give me a post # to go back to? I agree with your distinction, but stick with the assertion that the bishops and leaders at Nicea were fulfilling a teaching and pastoral role--activities that require a lower level of confirmation than adding to the canon of Scripture or claiming to be a modern day prophet, imho. I'm not sure I would say that anyone who does not fully embrace the creeds is a pretender, but I would argue that any Christian who walks with the Holy Spirit should grow in knowledge and truth. Thus, if the claimant embraces heresy and abandons true teachings, there comes a point at which s/he becomes apostate. Again, if they were walking with the Spirit, they should have sensed the warnings and the "NO--flee from the false teaching" promptings of the Holy Spirit. Most churches are very reticent about declaring someone damned, based on doctrine. Instead, they generally declare a parting of the ways, and say the offender has left our "like precious faith." BTW, it would not surprise me if many Christian laypeople, and some clergy, might presumptiously abandon all nuance, and make the dogmatic declaration that such and such a belief is a "damnable heresy." A clarification is in order. My understanding is that the LDS do indeed believe that "unrestored Christians" are Christians. However, the belief continues, saying that most unrestored Christians, like Buddhists, Muslims, and others of sincere faith, will enter a lower heavenly kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom. So, while no "you're not a Christian" statement is ever uttered by LDS, there is an understanding that creedal trinitarians will probably not inherit the highest kingdom, where the Heavenly Father resides. This is the bottom line, imho. However, for non-LDS, the other discussions are necessary, because we are not yet convinced of Joseph Smith's claims. The strength of the other discussions also impact how those claims are evaluated. But here's the flip side. Perhaps it would be good for open-minded folk to examine the claims of the bishops, pastors, teachers of the early Church. Perhaps their fruit is good? One might become convinced that they did indeed have the anointing of God upon them. And, understand, I'm not calling for a review of Catholic church history to see the fruit, but rather to look at the creeds, and to see how they have lasted throughout time, and whether they have added to or confused our ultimate understanding of God.