Uncomfortable Doctrine

[xanmad33]

I notice that you merely complain but post absolutely nothing that supports your allegation and I propose that the reason that you merely allege instead of offering evidence is that you can't.

... and by the way, the JOD is not doctrinal.

What was my complaint? I don't recall that one...

I have covered the irreconcilable differences at length, in post's past. You may like to go read them? IDK? I didn't feel it was warranted in my last response. But I assure you I can, and I have. (That is why I wrote that some LDS here have conceeded that very fact)

Having beliefs that are not in the bible is not the same as having beliefs that are contrary to the bible.

True, but I was referring to the beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. (becoming "gods" etc.--)

I am going to assume that you believe in the Trinity... It's not in the bible and in fact did not reach it's current form until after 400CE.

Actually your right, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is.

The oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity--Hope that helped :)

... I would be interested to know where you get the idea that true beliefs must be found in the bible. Such a belief itself is not in the bible and God has never said a word about it... so where did you come up with the idea?

Actually such a belief IS in The Bible, in many places..

2nd Timothy 3:16 is a great example: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

But you already knew that right? I mean after all, You ALREADY believe the Bible to be a source of truth, correct?

Joseph Smith even understood the importance of reconciling his words to The Bible.

[richlittell]

Hello candyprpl,

This is not a contest at all.

On the contrary.IT is not about what I don't agree with in regards to LDS teachings,

IT IS ALL ABOUT WHAT THE LDS DON"T AGREE ABOUT CONCERNING LDS TEACHING.

A simple look back over the last 10 or so pages on this one thread ( A sermon given by your first prophet (JS) and his teachings about God ) would without question display this enormous contradiction and differences among LDS ( NOT ME ).

God bless,

Carl

There you go again Ceeboo, bringing up the same point that we have answered over and over for you.

We LDS Mormons do ALL agree on principles of salvation--the JS discourse is not canon nor relevant to our salvation:

The King Follet is a great read and serious food for thought, but as I and others have said, it is not pertinent to our salvation, so we are free to understand it, misunderstand it, or even reject it.

...Unlike how many may perceive, we do not live in a church that tries to control our lives and our minds, we are quite free to take our little brains anywhere soever we choose--it's called free agency ... So I can stand face-to-face with Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Moses, and any other great prophet and disagree with them all I want, so long as we are not talking about issues relevant to our salvation. .. We don't mind disagreeing with each other on issues not relevant to our salvation, so why should you care?

We often disagree about things, so what? Have you never disagreed with a mother, father, son, friend, fellow parishioner, or even priest? Would you not love them just the same?

We all love each other the same regardless of some extraneous positions we take on issues outside of canon and not relevant to our salvation.

So, what's your point? I don't see a problem, and fail to understand yours.

[xanmad33]

So far as they are translated correctly, yes, although we hold modern revelation (the General Conference talks) to be most relevant to our needs of today.

And who decides what was translated correctly? Has the BOM been reliably translated into German? French? Or do we need a disclaimer on them?

****So General Conference Talks are doctrine?

(I hold that we are all Christians---protestant, Catholic, and LDS--- but you can choose to disagree). So it is a moot argument for any one to discourse with me as if I have never studied out these things for myself. There is nothing blasphemous neither in our canon nor our way of life.

I think maybe you have misunderstood.... I was reaching out to Ceboo because I understand his point. He was explaining his beliefs and how he feels like some Mormon beliefs are blasphemous when compared to his. I was not discoursing with you as if you are ignorant I promise! Sorry if it came out that way!

It's not that I am "choosing to disagree" that a Mormon is not a Christian but let me put it another way...

Can an LDS church call a Protestant "bishop"? No. Can a Protestant attend church at the Temple? Nope.

LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.

I'm not sure what you mean. I take the position that the Book of Mormon and D&C etc.. are necessary to have a fuller understanding of the Bible. There are no Doctrines taught in the church's canon that are contradicted in the Bible, though you might say we have additional beliefs, but those beliefs are not disputed in the Bible either, if you study it as a whole. All our teachings point to Christ as our one and only Savior, and salvation can come by no other way but through him.

I had read and studied my Bible many times over, from my days as a child until adulthood, before I ever knew there even was an LDS Church. I came to the LDS church, in fact, because they were teaching about the things I read and understood from the Bible, unlike the churches that I grew up in.

No one should label any others' religion blasphemous unless they have a clear knowledge that these people or their teachings are intentionally attempting to destroy truth and righteousness. Everything our church teaches inspires people to do good, and to better themselves, and to serve one another, and humankind, and to live the example Christ set for us. I love the sermon on the mount more than anything else from ALL the scriptures combined--that is from the Bible.

I don't think anyone called Mormons blasphemous, I do know that some have said according to the Bible's teachings and according to their faith it does seem or feel blasphemous... Not the same thing...

And to your point "no one should label any others' religion blasphemous"

Would you hold your own religion to that same statement?

Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).

[xanmad33]

There you go again Ceeboo, bringing up the same point that we have answered over and over for you.

We LDS Mormons do ALL agree on principles of salvation--the JS discourse is not canon nor relevant to our salvation:

We often disagree about things, so what? Have you never disagreed with a mother, father, son, friend, fellow parishioner, or even priest? Would you not love them just the same?

We all love each other the same regardless of some extraneous positions we take on issues outside of canon and not relevant to our salvation.

So, what's your point? I don't see a problem, and fail to understand yours.

Speaking for myself, I think a huge problem comes from the fact that the FOUNDER of your religion has made some pretty heavy statements about things I would consider matters of eternal salvation and Joseph Smith himself claimed they WERE!

******* " I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

That was just a taste! This sermon is chock FULL of "new revelation" How do LDS NOT consider this a matter of eternal consequence when your first prophet said as much?!

[richlittell]

And who decides what was translated correctly? Has the BOM been reliably translated into German? French? Or do we need a disclaimer on them?

There is not a reputable Bible scholar around who will claim that we have the Bible in its purest form. And yes, even Mormon himself admitted there might be errors in the Book of Mormon itself, because they are the records made by men trying to do God's work, but men make errors. However, I think neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon have any serious errors when it comes to the basic issues of salvation, such as faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, his atonement etc... And yes, the Book of Mormon in other languages sometimes go through a second or third revision. This is not different than Bible translations to other languages, not to mention the different English Bible versions offered to the world these days (I mean, New Living, New International, Modern Reader's Bible, New American Bible, American Standard Version etc....

****So General Conference Talks are doctrine?

Yes

I think maybe you have misunderstood.... I was reaching out to Ceboo because I understand his point. He was explaining his beliefs and how he feels like some Mormon beliefs are blasphemous when compared to his. I was not discoursing with you as if you are ignorant I promise! Sorry if it came out that way!

I may have been a tad too strong in my position, as the word blasphemous has very serious meaning to me.

It's not that I am "choosing to disagree" that a Mormon is not a Christian but let me put it another way...

I don't think anyone called Mormons blasphemous, I do know that some have said according to the Bible's teachings and according to their faith it does seem or feel blasphemous... Not the same thing...

It was implied. They are the same to me and my understanding of the terms.

And to your point "no one should label any others' religion blasphemous"

Would you hold your own religion to that same statement?

Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).

While that is a strong statement, he did not use the term blasphemous--look it up especially in a Mormon dictionary, them's harsh words.

Nevertheless, our early leaders were quite fervent in their days. I haven't heard such a thing ever come out in our Sunday lessons and certainly never at a General Conference in my 20 years with the church, and there is no such direct comment in our canon. We are free to accept or refuse Orson Pratt's viewpoint, as I stated earlier, many times, we are free to disagree with our leaders on issues that are not canon nor specific directions for our times. I think all things worldly are the "whore of Babylon" and for me that would NOT include any person who is sincerely attempting to live by Christian principles (Christian or not).

[Vort]

Interesting contribution, " taken from several different sources " to me, IMHO, that would speak volumes to it's credibility. It ( the several different sources ) reminds me of why IMHO, the NT and earthly life and lessons of Jesus Christ is SOLIDLY cemented to ALL who will hear and listen to the TRUTH, and LIGHT that he BOLDLY professed.

Agreed.

It is also interesting to me that the claims of JS that are witnessed by large numbers of people are " not accepted "

I am aware of no claims of Joseph Smith that were witnessed by large numbers of people but which are not accepted. Maybe you're confusing caution about interpretation or accuracy of records with unwillingness to accept true doctrine.

or only " speculation "

Has someone said that the Follett sermon was "only speculation"?

quote]or " confusing to so many LDS "

Many LDS doctrines are confusing to others and even to Church members, such as continuing revelation, resurrection, the atonement, and other LDS doctrines. The fact that they are "confusing" is really neither here nor there.

and the claims of JS that were witnessed by a mere few or none are SOLID in the LDS eyes.

is right. I have no idea what you're saying here.

[xanmad33]

There is not a reputable Bible scholar around who will claim that we have the Bible in its purest form.

I never said we have the Bible in it's PUREST form, but no matter because The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it.

Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents!!! NOTHING!

The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.

And yes, even Mormon himself admitted there might be errors in the Book of Mormon itself, because they are the records made by men trying to do God's work, but men make errors. However, I think neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon have any serious errors when it comes to the basic issues of salvation, such as faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, his atonement etc... And yes, the Book of Mormon in other languages sometimes go through a second or third revision. This is not different than Bible translations to other languages, not to mention the different English Bible versions offered to the world these days (I mean, New Living, New International, Modern Reader's Bible, New American Bible, American Standard Version etc....

You tell me then why the BOM is considered the "Most Correct Book"?

Am I clear that what you are essentially saying is that both books are of equal trustworthiness?

Yes you are right many revisions are normal but why do Mormons put a disclaimer on the Bible for that, but not on the BOM???

Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).

While that is a strong statement, he did not use the term blasphemous--look it up especially in a Mormon dictionary, them's harsh words.

From wiki: "The Whore of Babylon is one of several Christian and Rastafarian allegorical figures of supreme evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Whore is associated with the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation by connection with an equally allegorical kingdom.

That's pretty damning!!! You don't consider the Antichrist blasphemous!? wow...

Nevertheless, our early leaders were quite fervent in their days. I haven't heard such a thing ever come out in our Sunday lessons and certainly never at a General Conference in my 20 years with the church, and there is no such direct comment in our canon. We are free to accept or refuse Orson Pratt's viewpoint, as I stated earlier, many times, we are free to disagree with our leaders on issues that are not canon nor specific directions for our times. I think all things worldly are the "whore of Babylon" and for me that would NOT include any person who is sincerely attempting to live by Christian principles (Christian or not).

You said earlier that general conferences are considered doctrine...so the fact that this was EVER said means that it IS in fact doctrine correct?

[pam]

What was my complaint? I don't recall that one...

I have covered the irreconcilable differences at length, in post's past. You may like to go read them? IDK? I didn't feel it was warranted in my last response. But I assure you I can, and I have. (That is why I wrote that some LDS here have conceeded that very fact)

True, but I was referring to the beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. (becoming "gods" etc.--)

Actually your right, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is.

The oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity--Hope that helped :)

Actually such a belief IS in The Bible, in many places..

2nd Timothy 3:16 is a great example: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

But you already knew that right? I mean after all, You ALREADY believe the Bible to be a source of truth, correct?

Joseph Smith even understood the importance of reconciling his words to The Bible.

Let me interject something here. LDS beliefs are: We Believe in God the Eternal Father and in HIS Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe in a Godhead. That God, his Son and The Holy Ghost are three separate beings. No, we don't actually use the word "trinity" as some would define it. But we don't believe the "trinity" as a meaning for different words for God.

[john doe]

Okay guys, let's cool our heels and our heads or this thread will get closed. Let's try to keep the conversation genial, please.

[Misshalfway]

Hello Misshalfway,

It sounds as if you are done sharing with me:( I am indeed sorry to see that )

Because I always try and respond to all who post me, I will offer this to you for ( maybe the last time )

It is probably a weakness I have in being direct ( sorry as it obviously offended you ) But when it comes to beliefs and teachings ( not personal things ) I can see no better way to communicate with eachother. I would add that I wished many LDS posters here were more direct and clear when offering Non LDS information as to what it is that they teach and when it is that their LDS prophets are teaching things that are " really teachings ".

It is my very humble opinion that if the LDS were in fact more direct atleast one could measure, digest, consider, and possibly continue a conversation on a number of different levels that may be beneficial to all. In this instance, I would suggest, we have spent days ( several pages on this thread ) "completly stuck" and filled with LDS contradiction over a JS teaching ( King Follet ) that I still am enormously confused as to why LDS ( NOT ME ) do not fully accept. I already knew ( days ago ) what I thought of the King Follet teachings and what it claims about God, what I STILL DO NOT KNOW IS WHAT LDS BELIEVE ABOUT THEIR OWN TEACHINGS??:confused:

You think I need you to be wrong so badly??

I am not sure what that implies but I think I understand your need to suggest it:confused:

At any rate, I feel I am beating a dead horse.

God bless,

Carl

Truthfully, I think we have spent days trying to get YOU unstuck. :)

Do all Catholics....I mean every one....understand your doctrine perfectly enough to recount everything in perfect harmony on something so prone to confusion as a message board? Is there even the tiniest possibility that some corners of your doctrine are questioned and debated?

I don't know why you feel like folks here haven't been direct about our beliefs. I think we have been more than direct and I think for the most part people have tried to present our beliefs in a way that wouldn't make you feel attacked or insult your beliefs. I know it gets fuzzy at times from both sides. But on the balance, I think everyone has tried. What exactly haven't we tried to answer in direct terms?

And for the record, I am not offended. Just tired. It has been a long thread....and a long day. So, if you could forgive me that, I would appreciate it.

Good luck with the thread. I predict its days are numbered.

And I add an apology to Fiona. I don't know.....she certainly got lost somewhere there in the mix.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Misshalfway

[justamere10]

Truthfully, I think we have spent days trying to get YOU unstuck. :)

Do all Catholics....I mean every one....understand your doctrine perfectly enough to recount everything in perfect harmony on something so prone to confusion as a message board? Is there even the tiniest possibility that some corners of your doctrine are questioned and debated?

I don't know why you feel like folks here haven't been direct about our beliefs. I think we have been more than direct and I think for the most part people have tried to present our beliefs in a way that wouldn't make you feel attacked or insult your beliefs. I know it gets fuzzy at times from both sides. But on the balance, I think everyone has tried. What exactly haven't we tried to answer in direct terms?

And for the record, I am not offended. Just tired. It has been a long thread....and a long day. So, if you could forgive me that, I would appreciate it.

Good luck with the thread. I predict its days are numbered.

And I add an apology to Fiona. I don't know.....she certainly got lost somewhere there in the mix.

With respect for the right of those who are not members of the LDS Church to hold whatever beliefs they choose, and to express them civilly and respectfully on this board, I agree with your views.

I think that many times Latter-day Saints are held to a different standard and unjustly criticized when we disagree with each other about this or that. How many Catholics for example are familiar with everything the popes and other church leaders have said or written for the last 180 or so years, or would be expected to be? If they all knew what the popes said, would they all agree with what was said?

The media often records that Catholics and members of other religious denominations disagree with each other about this and that, that's only human. Recently one or two archbishops publicly warned one or two Catholic politicians to not take communion because they disagreed with some official Catholic doctrine as interpreted by those archbishops.

It is my opinion that Latter-day Saints should only be held accountable for what is in their canon, the Articles of Faith, and in official statements from the First Presidency of the Church. (In my opinion general conference addresses are not "doctrine" if doctrine is defined as canon. But there we go again, why can't we all know everything there is to know about everything, and all agree on what we know?)

One thing all faithful Saints do know is that Jesus is the Christ, the Book of Mormon is another testament of Him, and that Joseph Smith is God's chosen and anointed Prophet of this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Of that I bear my own personal testimony and witness.

[Guest ceeboo]

To all my new LDS friends,:)

I ( ceeboo ) would like to start this post with a sincere apology to anyone I may have offended along the way. I am truly sorry and hope anyone who was offended by anything I posted will accept my apology.

I would also like to thank the many LDS members here that have been willing to share their thoughts, minds, and perspectives with me. Among these many, I would like to personaly thank a few by name for the enormous time, effort, and contributions you have made on my behalf. In no certain order and I know I will miss a few names ( sorry )

Vanhin- thank you, bytor- thank you, Misshalfway- thank you, candyprpl- thank you,

A-train, thank you, richlittell- thank you, Pam- thank you, bmy- thank you,Hemi- thank you, HiJolly- thank you, Elphaba- thank you, PC- thank you,

ram- thank you, and the rest- thank you.

It ( for me ) has been a very interesting journey and I do so appreciate the welcome and warmth that so many of you have given me.:)

I am confident that our journey together has run it's course and I hope that some of you will have felt as fortunate and humbled as I do in our journey together :)

If I ever get bored or lonely, I will always know where I can look up my LDS friends and see what the new and interesting topics being discussed are.

I do wish you all well in your personal journeys and will include all my new LDS friends in my prayers.

It truly has been my pleasure to get to know you all:)

May God always be at your sides and his peace overshadow all your pain.

God bless,

Carl

Edited September 7, 2008 by ceeboo

[pam]

Ceeboo don't you DARE leave the site. You are a wonderful person to have here and I've truly enjoyed our joking and banters.

[Still_Small_Voice]

God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

I see no issue with this doctrine Joseph Smith taught. It is taught in the Bible:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis chapter 1

It also reads in the book of John chapter 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.

After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples and said:

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. -- Luke chapter 24

[xanmad33]

I see no issue with this doctrine Joseph Smith taught. It is taught in the Bible:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis chapter 1

It also reads in the book of John chapter 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.

After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples and said:

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. -- Luke chapter 24

There is so much to say with regard to all those verses, context, original language, what the rest of scripture says etc...I'm off to bed so I'll just start here... (an EXCELLENT read btw! :))

quoted from "The oneness of God":

"John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).

In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer - as a play in the mind of a playwright - or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed - as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fulness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. As John Miller says, the Logos is "God uttering Himself." [10] In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, "The Word was God Himself." Flanders and Cresson say, "The Word was God's means of self disclosure"

"In His divine nature, however, Jesus is a Spirit; for Romans 8:9 speaks of the Spirit of Christ. In His divinity, Jesus was and is omnipresent. For example, in John 3:13 Jesus referred to "the Son of man which is in heaven" even though He was still on earth. His omnipresence explains why He could say in the present tense while on earth, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). In other words, while the fulness of God's character was located in the human body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. While Jesus walked this earth as a man, His Spirit was still everywhere at the same time.

Jesus is also omniscient; for He could read thoughts (Mark 2:6-12). He knew Nathanael before He met him (John 1:47-50). He knows all things (John 21:17), and all wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3).

Jesus is omnipotent; He has all power, is the head of all principality and power, and is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10; Revelation 1:8).

Jesus is immutable and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). He is also eternal and immortal (Hebrews 1:8-12; Revelation 1:8, 18). "

[bytor2112]

May I speak of the seven Christs, or, rather, of the one Christ whose works and words are shown forth in seven ways?

We live in a day of contention and confusion, in which Christian people cry, “Lo, here is Christ; or lo, there” (see Matt. 24:23), meaning, “Lo, here is the way of salvation; or lo, there.”

We hear voices of doom and voices of glory. The doctrines and dogmas of the contending sects are at war one with another. We are exhorted to believe in tenets of disagreement and to walk in crooked paths.

The sounds are discordant; the babble is incessant; and the messages are at variance. Surely it is clear to even the most blinded fanatic that opposing religious views cannot all be true.

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions we raise a calm and reasoned voice, a voice that goes forth with the sound of a trumpet, a voice that is carried by the power of the Spirit into the hearts of contrite souls.

It is a voice which speaks the words of eternal life here and now and prepares men to gain immortal glory in the everlasting realms that are to be.

We are the servants of the Lord, and he has sent us to invite all men to come unto Christ and be perfected in him. We are sent to testify of the true and only Christ, of the true and only gospel, of the true and only salvation.

We invite all men to hear and heed our witness. The Christ of whom we preach, and whose witnesses we are, is known in these seven ways:

1. Christ—The Creator

There is a God in heaven—a holy, exalted, perfected, and pure being who is the Father of us all. He is a Holy Man; he has a body of flesh and bones; and he is the Father of spirits.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Firstborn. He came forth as the heir and offspring of the Father. Along with all his spirit brethren he was endowed with agency and subject to law.

By obedience, by righteousness, through faith, over long ages and eons, this Firstborn of the Father, our Elder Brother, advanced and progressed until he became like unto God in power, in might, in dominion, and in intelligence. He became and was “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity.” (Mosiah 3:5.)

Then it was that he, under the Father, became the Creator of worlds without number.

Then it was that the Father ordained and established the plan of salvation—called the gospel of God—whereby all his spirit children, Christ included, would be able to gain mortal bodies, to live in a probationary estate, to die, to be raised in immortal glory, and, if true and faithful in all things, to gain the same glorious exaltation enjoyed by the Father himself.

And then it was that the one who was beloved and chosen of the Father was foreordained to be the Savior and Redeemer, to be the one whose atoning sacrifice would put into full operation all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s great and eternal plan.

2. Christ—The God of Our Fathers

There is one God and Father of us all, one eternal plan of salvation, one way back to heaven. And Jesus Christ is the name given by the Father whereby men may be saved. His is the only name given under heaven—either now, or in ages past, or in eternities yet unborn—whereby salvation comes. (See D&C 18:23; Moses 6:52.)

There is one everlasting gospel, one Mediator between God and men, one alone who came to reconcile fallen men to their Maker. All men in all ages are saved by the same power, the same laws, the same Savior. And that Savior is Christ.

It is written: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:8.) He is the Lord Jehovah; he is the Great I AM; and beside him there is no Savior.

He is the God of Adam and of Enoch and of Noah and of all the Saints who were before the flood.

He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and of all Israel. He is the Holy One of Israel, the God of all the prophets of all the ages. It was by faith in his name that they performed all their mighty works.

He was the God of the Jaredites and the Israelites and the Nephites. Moses, “esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt” (Heb. 11:26), chose to follow him.

He is the one who parted the Red Sea at Moses’ word, who stopped the sun and the moon when Joshua spoke, who raised from death the widow’s son because Elijah desired it.

All of the prophets, all of the patriarchs, all of the ancient Saints worshipped the Father in his holy name and in no other way.

All true believers, all of the faithful from Adam to this hour, all those who through faith have wrought righteousness and gained salvation—all, without exception, have taken upon themselves his name and have followed him with full purpose of heart.

He is our God and he is the God of our fathers!

3. Christ—The Promised Messiah

For four thousand long years—from the day Adam was cast out of Eden to the day John baptized at Bethabara—all of the prophets and all of the Saints looked forward to the coming of the Messiah.

They talked and taught of Christ; they preached and prophesied of Christ; they centered their lives and all of their hopes in the promise of his coming.

They knew that as God’s Son he would be born of a virgin, that he would work out the infinite and eternal atonement, that immortality and eternal life would come by him.

All of their doctrine, all of their ordinances, all of their worship linked his name with that of the Father himself.

The whole law of Moses, with all its types and shadows, testified of the one who would come to save his people. For instance, on the Day of Atonement the high priest placed the name of Jehovah upon a goat and sacrificed it for the sins of the people in similitude of the sacrifice Jehovah himself would make when he was lifted upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

4. Christ—The Mortal Messiah

Our Blessed Lord was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea. In so doing, he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Philip. 2:7.)

As a man he lived a perfect life, conforming to the will of the Father in all things.

He taught the gospel, organized the Church, and called others to the ministry.

He healed the sick and raised the dead and performed many mighty miracles.

He was rejected of men, condemned by the evil powers that then were, and crucified upon a cruel cross.

5. Christ—The Crucified Yet Risen One

We speak now of the Christ who came into the world to die, to die upon the cross for the sins of men. And we speak also of the Christ who came to rise again from the dead, of the Christ who, in glorious immortality, invites us to follow him in life and in death and in life again.

In Gethsemane he bowed beneath a load none other could bear. There he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he bore the sins of us all on conditions of repentance. (See Luke 22:44.)

Again, on Calvary, during the last three hours of his mortal passion, the sufferings of Gethsemane returned, and he drank to the full the cup which his Heavenly Father had given him.

In the garden and on the cross he paid the ransom and finished his atoning work. Early on the morning of the third day he burst the bands of death and came forth from the tomb to inherit all power on earth and in heaven.

There is no language to extol the wonders of his works and all that he has done for us. As our Advocate and Intercessor he now dwells eternally in the heavens.

Can we not hear his voice say to us:

“Reverently and meekly now

Let thy head most humbly bow.

Think of me, thou ransomed one;

Think what I for thee have done

With my blood that dripped like rain,

Sweat in agony of pain. With my body on the tree

I have ransomed even thee.”

(Hymns, no. 280.)

6. Christ—Today’s Messiah

We bear witness not alone of the Christ who once was, but of the Messiah who now is and who yet shall be.

We speak not alone of a dead Christ who was known to them of old, but of a living Savior who leads his people today as he did anciently.

We rejoice not alone in a people who had the gospel in ancient days and who worked miracles and gained salvation, but in a gospel that now is and in a people who glory in the same gifts of the Spirit that were poured out upon their fathers.

Thanks be to God, the day of restoration has commenced. These are the times of restitution of which all the ancient prophets spoke. (See Acts 3:21.)

Thanks be to God that the heavens have been rent, that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, that revelation and visions and gifts and miracles abound among the true Saints.

Thanks be to God that in our day many have seen the face of his Son and that he has poured out the gift of his Spirit upon an even greater number.

This is the day when the knowledge of the true Christ and of his everlasting gospel is being preached among men for the last time.

This is the day in which the Great God is sending forth his word to prepare a people for the second coming of the Son of Man.

This is the day in which the Church of Jesus Christ has been organized anew and given the commission to administer that holy gospel by which salvation comes.

7. Christ—The Millennial Messiah

And now in words of soberness we announce that the Lord Jesus, the Everlasting Christ, the Savior who was and is and is to be, shall soon come again.

Just as surely as the son of Mary came to dwell among his fellowmen, so shall the Son of God come, in all the glory of his Father’s kingdom, to rule among the sons of men.

In that dread day the world that now is shall end; wickedness will cease; every corruptible thing will be consumed. And the glory of the Lord will shine daily upon all men from the rising of the sun until it sinks in the western sky.

Those among us who abide the day of his coming shall find joy and peace everlasting. The faithful Saints shall live and reign with him on earth for a thousand years and shall then go on to their celestial rest.

The second coming of the Son of Man will be a day of vengeance and burning and sorrow for the wicked and ungodly.

For those who love the Lord and live his law it will be a day of peace and triumph and glory and honor—the day when the Lord comes to make up his jewels. (See Mal. 3:17.)

And so now, knowing whereof we speak, having a sure knowledge born of the Spirit, we raise our voices in praise and testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose witnesses we are.

Our faith is centered in the true and living Christ, who is our Friend, our Lord, our God, and our King and whom we serve in worshipful adoration.

We know he is God’s almighty Son, that he has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, and that all who believe in him, as he is now revealed by living prophets, shall be saved with him in the kingdom of his Father.

We invite all men everywhere, all men of every nation and kindred and tongue and people, to come unto Christ and be perfected in him.

We invite all men to come and worship the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And as the Lord’s agents, acting for and on his behalf, we promise all who pursue this course—working the works of righteousness—that they shall have peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. -Elder Bruce R McConkie

[richlittell]

I never said we have the Bible in it's PUREST form, but no matter because The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it.

Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents!!! NOTHING!

...

Not sure where you gather all your facts, but I can tell you love the Bible, as do I, tremendously, as I tried to point out earlier.

It is not now or ever my intent to "prove" the Book of Mormon or the Bible as perfect or imperfect or true or untrue or anything other than what I said we believed they are--- words of God written down by men doing their best to record God's message of hope and salvation. I have also stated that in all our scriptures, they point to Christ, they speak of Christ, and they inspire us to do good.

That was your initial question to me wasn't it? That what are the "issues" that we view as relevant to salvation and what do we consider canon and does one book have any value over another?

I have answered those the best I can.

You tell me then why the BOM is considered the "Most Correct Book"?

Am I clear that what you are essentially saying is that both books are of equal trustworthiness?

Yes, so far as they are translated correctly.

Yes you are right many revisions are normal but why do Mormons put a disclaimer on the Bible for that, but not on the BOM???

Not sure what you mean about disclaimer, but as I said, even Mormon, the original author of the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith if you think the BofM a false work) admits there may be errors. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem---that's a pretty big error. We don't try to hide it. However, when we add the context of all our scriptures together against this one point, it is very simple to deduce that there was obviously an error in transcription, translation, or prior knowledge of geography on the authors part, and that, rather, Christ was born in Bethlehem.

The Bible has similar errors (from our perspective, not yours, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise) and for us all the scriptures together complement each other. That is what I was referring to when you initially asked me about what our canon is, and whether or not we hold one book of canon above another. As I tried to indicate, many, like myself, love the Bible and find great comfort in its specific teachings.

From wiki: "The Whore of Babylon is one of several Christian and Rastafarian allegorical figures of supreme evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Whore is associated with the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation by connection with an equally allegorical kingdom.

That's pretty damning!!! You don't consider the Antichrist blasphemous!? wow...

The wiki is not part of our canon. I personally, as stated before, feel that Babylon represents the wickedness of the world, and the whore of Babylon could be interpreted to mean any of many wicked organization that have existed throughout history that seeks the misery of mankind in one form or another through the control of wealth and power and the subjugation of others. I do not agree with Pratt, at least not as you may interpret it. As I stated earlier, I do NOT believe that the "whore of Babylon" would apply to any one or group who is trying to live by Christian principles.

You said earlier that general conferences are considered doctrine...so the fact that this was EVER said means that it IS in fact doctrine correct?

Not correct. In the first place, you may be one up on me here because I would have to see the context in which that was spoken. I'm not sure, in those initial days, what proceeding he was speaking at, and I'm not sure which proceedings were considered official and which were not in those days. Most importantly, however, as I pointed out earlier, we believe in Modern revelation which takes precedence (or attempts to clarify) the scriptures according to the times in which we live, and the most recent General Conferences have the most relevance to us now,and I haven't in 20 years heard any of our leaders teaching about "the whore of Babylon" being Protestants and Catholics , but rather, I have heard them consistently encourage us to seek harmony with our Christian brothers and sisters and with all the peoples of this world.

[Snow]

What was my complaint? I don't recall that one...

No need to pretend; you know full well because I quoted you in the post you just responded to; specifically you complained: "To a Christian (myself), this statement is completely false, it's probably also one reason I think maybe Ceboo said what he did. One simply cannot in good conscience truly reconcile Mormon doctrine's found in the POGP, D&C, BOM, and J&D (not to mention countless prophets who have "heard" countless revelations from God) to The Holy Bible."

1. You complained that to a Christian (the statement) was false. Newsflash: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are Christian.

2. You then make the deliberately inflammatory and completely FALSE statement that one cannot reconcile LDS doctrine to the bible. Its untrue. I, a Christian can reconcile them without difficulty.

I have covered the irreconcilable differences at length, in post's past. You may like to go read them? IDK? I didn't feel it was warranted in my last response. But I assure you I can, and I have. (That is why I wrote that some LDS here have conceeded that very fact)

I don't think you have done any such thing as there are no reconcilable difficulties between The Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible. We accept it all. Every word. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION that may not reconcile. Christians are not bound by your interpretation, in fact it is completely inconsequential.

True, but I was referring to the beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. (becoming "gods" etc.--)

Pure malarky, the bible does not contradict theosis in the least. The Bible in fact implies it in a number of places. The teaching, that man might become god, was a fundamental teaching and understanding of the ancient Christian Church... a doctrine that was lost and then restored by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Actually your right, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is.

The oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity--Hope that helped :)

No that doesn't help and it completely untrue. The late invention of the Trinity is more than merely a notion to describe the different designations of God. It stipulates that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically one being all comprised of the same substance... something that is not found in the Bible... as you are about to demonstrate by not being able to reference anything from the Bible that speaks to that.

"When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine" [Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.]

Actually such a belief IS in The Bible, in many places..

2nd Timothy 3:16 is a great example: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

Wrong. Timothy says nothing about the Christian Bible as currently constituted, whether it be the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible or the Ethiopian Bible - all of which contain different sets of books. At the time Timothy was written there was no New Testament and so it couldn't possibly have referred to the New Testament and the author of Timothy had no idea that one day Timothy itself would become canonized. The Christian bible would take hundreds of years to develop into what it is today.

Again - nothing in the Bible says that only the Bible is the word of God and God has never said so either.... but I challenge you to show otherwise... I'll wait.

But you already knew that right? I mean after all, You ALREADY believe the Bible to be a source of truth, correct?

Joseph Smith even understood the importance of reconciling his words to The Bible.

Irrelevant. The point is not whether the Bible contains the word of God but rather if the Bible either is the sole source of God's word or whether it speaks to the issue... which it obviously does not.

[Snow]

Yes you are right many revisions are normal but why do Mormons put a disclaimer on the Bible for that, but not on the BOM???

The transmission of the Book of Mormon is much simpler, regardless the same notion applies to both tomes.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe the Bible to be the correct word of God, even if translated (edited, redacted, canonized, copied, transmitted and translated) incorrectly?

I imagine that you are in complete agreement with the "disclaimer... are you not?

From wiki: "The Whore of Babylon is one of several Christian and Rastafarian allegorical figures of supreme evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Whore is associated with the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation by connection with an equally allegorical kingdom.

That's pretty damning!!! You don't consider the Antichrist blasphemous!? wow...

Yeah... and??? You disagree with Elder Pratt? So what... so do I.

You said earlier that general conferences are considered doctrine...so the fact that this was EVER said means that it IS in fact doctrine correct?

I don't know what the poster said but what you say they said is incorrect. Our doctrine is contained in our canon. Conference talks may be true but they are interpretation of doctrine, not the creation of doctrine.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Snow

[Iggy]

Hi Iggy,

You have IMHO, the second best avatar on this forum ( the first is the screen licking cow thing, it is truly AWESOME ) sorry, I forgot who has that avatar.

I would assume ( to be fair ) that your post was speaking to other LDS and not me.

God bless,

Carl

Beefche has the cow-lick- thanks re: my avatar. I just love Calvin.

I was talking to you as well as to the LDS members of this forum. Yes I know you are RC- but the fact still remains that Joseph Smith, through revelation from God, RESTORED Christ's true church here on earth. He did not invent or create this religion. I can't seem to find your post that I had originally posted to- I know you did not use invent or create- but they are what came to mine when I read your post.

I read through the entire post and not one LDS member corrected that misconception - so I felt compelled to.

I know you believe differently. That is okay.

[richlittell]

BTW, anyone curious, our official stance on the Bible is given here at the LDS newsroom

Reverence for the Bible - LDS Newsroom.

I don't know what the poster said but what you say they said is incorrect. Our doctrine is contained in our canon. Conference talks may be true but they are interpretation of doctrine, not the creation of doctrine.

Hi Snow,

In all fairness to xanmad, I had listed the General Conference talks as part of our canon, along with the Bible and BofM, DC, etc.. I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).

[xanmad33]

No need to pretend; you know full well because I quoted you in the post you just responded to; specifically you complained: "To a Christian (myself), this statement is completely false, it's probably also one reason I think maybe Ceboo said what he did. One simply cannot in good conscience truly reconcile Mormon doctrine's found in the POGP, D&C, BOM, and J&D (not to mention countless prophets who have "heard" countless revelations from God) to The Holy Bible."

1. You complained that to a Christian (the statement) was false. Newsflash: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are Christian.

2. You then make the deliberately inflammatory and completely FALSE statement that one cannot reconcile LDS doctrine to the bible. Its untrue. I, a Christian can reconcile them without difficulty.

A complaint is an expression of displeasure. Not an expression of opinion

And to your "newsflash" , I pointed out earlier a very real fact that seems ignored

Do Mormons consider Christians Mormon? Can I attend Temple? Can my pastor speak at your church? No!.... LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.

That's just a fact

I don't think you have done any such thing as there are no reconcilable difficulties between The Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible. We accept it all. Every word. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION that may not reconcile. Christians are not bound by your interpretation, in fact it is completely inconsequential.

Regardless of "what you think" Its a fact.

Pure malarky, the bible does not contradict theosis in the least. The Bible in fact implies it in a number of places. The teaching, that man might become god, was a fundamental teaching and understanding of the ancient Christian Church... a doctrine that was lost and then restored by the Church of Jesus Christ.

How bout you show me that in the Bible, maybe start a new thread, make it all about proving Mormon beliefs in the BIble, just a thought...

No that doesn't help and it completely untrue. The late invention of the Trinity is more than merely a notion to describe the different designations of God. It stipulates that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically one being all comprised of the same substance... something that is not found in the Bible... as you are about to demonstrate by not being able to reference anything from the Bible that speaks to that.

Please don't tell me what I do or do not believe. Again the oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. Believe it or not, that is my belief

Wrong. Timothy says nothing about the Christian Bible as currently constituted, whether it be the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible or the Ethiopian Bible - all of which contain different sets of books. At the time Timothy was written there was no New Testament and so it couldn't possibly have referred to the New Testament and the author of Timothy had no idea that one day Timothy itself would become canonized. The Christian bible would take hundreds of years to develop into what it is today.

Again - nothing in the Bible says that only the Bible is the word of God and God has never said so either.... but I challenge you to show otherwise... I'll wait.

First, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is to claim to believe in the Bible and claim to hold it just as dearly as the BOM, believeing it's words are true, but at the same time to blast it as if it's a totally contaminated book, not worthy to live by...

How about instead of me pointing out all the thousands of inconsistancies of the BOM, and rebuttaling with pages and pages of Biblical scholars on the subject, I just offer you a quote from one of your own...

"Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:

"Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:

"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change"

It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59)

Irrelevant. The point is not whether the Bible contains the word of God but rather if the Bible either is the sole source of God's word or whether it speaks to the issue... which it obviously does not.

If you believe in the Bible, which you say you do, and it obviously came WAYYYYY before the BOM or D&C etc...

Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible? Shouldn't you bring all claims BACK to the Bible to see if they are truly in sync with what God has already revealed?

Heres a link to an earlier thread that coveres much of this Bible debate :)

www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/10132-some-questions-mormons-5.html

Edited September 7, 2008 by xanmad33

[xanmad33]

Not sure where you gather all your facts, but I can tell you love the Bible, as do I, tremendously, as I tried to point out earlier.

It is not now or ever my intent to "prove" the Book of Mormon or the Bible as perfect or imperfect or true or untrue or anything other than what I said we believed they are--- words of God written down by men doing their best to record God's message of hope and salvation. I have also stated that in all our scriptures, they point to Christ, they speak of Christ, and they inspire us to do good.

That was your initial question to me wasn't it? That what are the "issues" that we view as relevant to salvation and what do we consider canon and does one book have any value over another?

I have answered those the best I can.

In 1835 Joseph Smith also said it was necessary to have a correct idea of God's character, perfections and attributes if you wanted faith in God unto life and salvation.

I was wondering where you get those particular ideas, cosidering they are matters of eternal salvation...

Yes, so far as they are translated correctly.

Is this also the case for the rest of your cannon? BOM? D&C ETC.?

Not sure what you mean about disclaimer, but as I said, even Mormon, the original author of the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith if you think the BofM a false work) admits there may be errors. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem---that's a pretty big error. We don't try to hide it. However, when we add the context of all our scriptures together against this one point, it is very simple to deduce that there was obviously an error in transcription, translation, or prior knowledge of geography on the authors part, and that, rather, Christ was born in Bethlehem.

The Bible has similar errors (from our perspective, not yours, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise) and for us all the scriptures together complement each other. That is what I was referring to when you initially asked me about what our canon is, and whether or not we hold one book of canon above another. As I tried to indicate, many, like myself, love the Bible and find great comfort in its specific teachings.

Why does the Mormon church place a disclaimer on the Bible in other languages but they do no such thing for the BOM?

The wiki is not part of our canon. I personally, as stated before, feel that Babylon represents the wickedness of the world, and the whore of Babylon could be interpreted to mean any of many wicked organization that have existed throughout history that seeks the misery of mankind in one form or another through the control of wealth and power and the subjugation of others. I do not agree with Pratt, at least not as you may interpret it. As I stated earlier, I do NOT believe that the "whore of Babylon" would apply to any one or group who is trying to live by Christian principles.

I'm sorry but what exactly DOES it mean? When your apostle Orson Pratt calls Catholics and Protestants the "Whore of Babylon"? Maybe you can enlighten me...

Not correct. In the first place, you may be one up on me here because I would have to see the context in which that was spoken. I'm not sure, in those initial days, what proceeding he was speaking at, and I'm not sure which proceedings were considered official and which were not in those days. Most importantly, however, as I pointed out earlier, we believe in Modern revelation which takes precedence (or attempts to clarify) the scriptures according to the times in which we live, and the most recent General Conferences have the most relevance to us now,and I haven't in 20 years heard any of our leaders teaching about "the whore of Babylon" being Protestants and Catholics , but rather, I have heard them consistently encourage us to seek harmony with our Christian brothers and sisters and with all the peoples of this world.

I'll just quote ritchlittle here:

"In all fairness to xanmad, I had listed the General Conference talks as part of our canon, along with the Bible and BofM, DC, etc.. I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).

[xanmad33]

The transmission of the Book of Mormon is much simpler, regardless the same notion applies to both tomes.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe the Bible to be the correct word of God, even if translated (edited, redacted, canonized, copied, transmitted and translated) incorrectly?

I imagine that you are in complete agreement with the "disclaimer... are you not?

Why does the Mormon church NOT place the same disclaimer on the BOM?

Yes, I do believe the BIble is the correct word of God. The Bible has been tested and tried for THOUSANDS of years and there has never been one single provable falshood in the WHOLE book. This is an amazing book, as your Mormon scholars at BYU have so eloquently stated (outlined in my last two posts)

There are plenty of websites that list the archeological evidences as well as the amazing history of the Bible if one were so inclined...

Further....How can you take some of the BIble and not all other parts?

How do you decide what IS correct?

You being a Mormon obviously BELIEVE in the BIble as stated repeatedly, so what parts do you NOT believe in? And how do you come to those conclusions?

I don't know what the poster said but what you say they said is incorrect. Our doctrine is contained in our canon. Conference talks may be true but they are interpretation of doctrine, not the creation of doctrine.

Again, I would like to point to richlittles post on this....

[a-train]

Jeffrey R. Holland at the May 2008 General Conference:

Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. [emphasis added]

D&C 68:4

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

-a-train

Edited September 7, 2008 by a-train