Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

[Sergg]

It makes sense that you have one god that is more important than the others, but just the fact that there are three gods there, and probably countless gods before them, (ie our grandfather in heaven, our great grandfather in heaven) and I suppose that the mother in heaven is also a god?

Yes, Doctrine and Covenants and Temple ordenances seal women also as Priestesses and Queens, goddesses...

[JohnnyRudick]

Monotheistic in that we worship one God, the Eternal Father; His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Polytheistic in that we believe that there are other Gods, just as Christ said so Himself in the New Testament, and Paul taught in his epistles.

For all intents and purposes, we are polytheistic when it comes to our beliefs. However, we are very monotheistic when it comes to our worship.

Well, I must say we have quite a pile of puddin; here;-)

I love your answers.

They are good enough for me;-)

We like the poor one who is stumbling at the "stick" of Ezekiel (I answer this elsewhere) can get ourselves bogged down wondering just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or even if they should dance at all:-]

Hummmmm

It seems that most all Christiandumb declares the Schizophrenic God of Nicia counsel.

We on the other hand insist on the Scriptural account of God backed up by what we have seen and heard.

Yes, we have many different ways off describing what we call the Godhead, yet we know Elohim is the Father(kicks us off mainly in the first part of Genesis). Jehovah (Jesus) is the Son(and deals with us throughout the rest of Scripture). And The Holy Ghost is a person of spirit and we are not told the particulars of this individual.

It is fairly uniform that we pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

I can find no problem with it.

Jesus says to pray to the Father in His name.

That should settle it.

If we get off track, just read the instructions and get back with the program;-)

These are the revealed words of God to us and the world.

I think this is sufficient to get us into enough trouble in this world.

I am a simple man.

A simple mind.

Getting simpler all the time.

I did strain at gnats back in the 80's.

Got tired of swallowing camels by the 90's.

Wish I was as smart then as I am now.

Wish I had now the mind I had in the 70's:-].

Sheesh!!!

Later,

Bro. Rudick

[Sergg]

It seems that most all Christiandumb declares the Schizophrenic God of Nicia counsel.

I bet you would acknowledge the harshness (and also ignorance) of a reply to this sentence of yours as ,

"It seems that most all Mormondumb declares the Eternally-Incestuous-Chain-of-Men Godhead of Smith's wild and contradictory 'first visions'."

So try to be a bit concerned at other Faiths' Creeds. It would be sad trying to see you explain yours away. In fact, it wouldnt look like anything at all for you yourself hold the 'its-enough-for-me' policy respecting any declaration of the Church, so...

I am so glad if you have enough with the thinking done for you. Its just the harsh part of making it known to others that i regret.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Sergg

[Sergg]

Now bear in mind, back then, no one had even conceived the notion of the two being separate beings. I would be inclined to believe that if Joseph Smith wanted to make that story up, he would have done it according to the popular belief of the time. The account would have gone as follows: "Joseph, I am God; hear me roar!"

So for Joseph Smith to give the account he did is truly one aspect that signifcantly adds to the validity of the story. Could Joseph Smith had made the whole thing up and conceived the story from his own imagination? Possibly.

Lol. I forgot to say how historically false this idea in bold from the quote above, is. The very fact is, that if you read (say, a mere 40 pages) Quintin's book Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, you will astonishingly see how, not only it was the common practice to see during this 'hot' period a 'god' in person, but how previous (from 1700's through 1820's) accounts actually presented the same patterns of Smith's:

a mountain or forest

a person praying to be heard amidst all the confusion

God the Father besides Jesus in individual form

a poem or mystic description

a messege (little commanded to build a church; that latter part was an innovation of Smith, though not absolutely his).

History, journals, papers, all are there. Smith was* operating within the fabric of the common people's beliefs.

That Smith in his official accounts(obviously written much later) only highlighted the bad reception of those 'priests' that didnt believe the common people's assumptions of epiphany, doesnt mean that it all went down like that. The matter is that, the Church built on that perception a whole 'pseudo-historical' representation up to this day. I remember reading in 'Our Legacy' (published by the Church for converts...) that in the first reunion there were just a 'handful' of members (7-25). Whereas in Hinckley's account, a little book also titled somewhat like the later, "The truth"(sor something like it), narrating the same story(but an earlier publication) mentioned the same phrase of 'handful', but misteriously added 'and some forty' more people. Wow! And say we actually look at the real documents and testimonies of th etime and find that even those remarks were not factical enough! But they were (and still are) needed; they stress the 'humble' origins , to conscientusly fulfill the BoM prophecy that 'from the little' the Lord 'brigeth' out the 'greater'.

So, the topic of the different roles and focuses of Church production and supression of translations, letters, official statements, whole manuals, etc. is of course, a great and long one.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Sergg

[JohnnyRudick]

I bet you would acknowledge the harshness (and also ignorance) of a reply to this sentence of yours as ,

"It seems that most all Mormondumb declares the Eternally-Incestuous-Chain-of-Men Godhead of Smith's wild and contradictory 'first visions'."

So try to be a bit concerned at other Faiths' Creeds. It would be sad trying to see you explain yours away. In fact, it wouldnt look like anything at all for you yourself hold the 'its-enough-for-me' policy respecting any declaration of the Church, so...

I am so glad if you have enough with the thinking done for you. Its just the harsh part of making it known to others that i regret.

It seems I have read something almost exactly like that.

I was not offended and I am sorry if I may have hurt your feelings at least a little and I apologize.

I was not pointing at anyone in particular just as the writer of a similar verse was not particularly attacking me.

But when you are wrong you are just plain wrong.

I must profess I am wrong on many things.

But where the Scripture is plain I try to let it do the talking for me.

It cuts down the odds at least a little.

Bro. Rudick

[Sergg]

It seems I have read something almost exactly like that.

I was not offended and I am sorry if I may have hurt your feelings at least a little and I apologize.

I was not pointing at anyone in particular just as the writer of a similar verse was not particularly attacking me.

But when you are wrong you are just plain wrong.

I must profess I am wrong on many things.

But where the Scripture is plain I try to let it do the talking for me.

It cuts down the odds at least a little.

Bro. Rudick

Dont worry, I am an atheist. Its just that I didnt want to let you get away with it; just as I would not let anyone get away with something similar against your faith.

For me, attacks and 'name-calling' (though fun) ought to come from somewhere(source, reasoning, a paper, etc.), but not gratuitous.

It becomes a 'habit' and later on it substitutes good thinking and actual discussion (some people, after much time, stop having discussions and start-or end up- madly repeating what they read or is taught to them.

[prisonchaplain]

...There is no way the god of the trinity can be our parent, or our father. We cannot be his offspring. Unless you feel He meant that He is a father like an artist is to a painting, or a sculptor is to a sculture? Then, he will only love us until he makes something better? Surely He is capable of making something that will obey Him. He has done it with everything else but man.

I have no feelings of bitterness or deficiency that God created me, out of nothing, and breathed into me his breath--the breath of life. No, I may not be his off-spring, but I am fearfully and wonderfully made. And, yes, though God is the Great Artist, he'll never discard us for others, because, we do have his image and his breath in us. I do not require a genetic link to place full trust in my God's love for me.

The question may still be asked of God, "Who is man that thou art mindful of him?"

He created this world for us; He gave us dominion over it... just like a parent would do. He must be a glorified, perfected man who is trying to perfect His children! Why else would He bother with such disobedience? Why else would He devise a plan to save man that includes sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer an eternal suffering?

Recalling that the traditional belief is that God created us out of nothing, and breathed the breath of life into us--placing his image in us. That's enough to motivate him to the extravagant love he extends us.

To me, in the trinitarian view of god we are but an ant farm. We are not like him; we can never be like him; we do not have any potential other than what is granted, and that makes him not a parent or father. That makes us just like the elephant, horse, and kangaroo... just a creation.

Yes? No?

God is our Creator, not our assembler. He is our Father-Maker, and we, his masterpieces. He declares his love for us, and has breathed into us his breath, and burnished into us his image. Thus, though I will never indeed be what He is, I will nevertheless be, for all eternity, that which He's created me to be...so glorified that I will judge angels, and will rule and reign with Jesus. It's plenty good, imho.

[prisonchaplain]

Wait, wasn't Christ conceived in the womb of Mary and given birth to? How can traditional monotheistic beliefs hold true to the notion of a God that was not birthed? Wait! Before you respond with, "That was just the body he had on this Earth," let me say this. Acts 1:11 testifies that the same "Christ shall come again in like manner as ye have seen him go." So if He is in the same temporal body at His second coming, that He was given at the time of birth, wouldn't that constitute a being that is made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), meaning that he was given birth to?

You refer to the Incarnation. God became flesh and dwelt among us. And, it is true that Jesus retains his body, though glorified. Nevertheless, in Jesus, we do not have the creation of a new God, but the transformation of the Son of God. Philippians 2 says he did not consider equality with God something he had to hold on to. Instead, he humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels, for our redemption. So, yes, Jesus was born of a virgin. But, no, God the Son did not begin on that day.

[applepansy]

I am a simple man.

A simple mind.

Getting simpler all the time.

I did strain at gnats back in the 80's.

Got tired of swallowing camels by the 90's.

Wish I was as smart then as I am now.

Wish I had now the mind I had in the 70's:-].

Sheesh!!!

Later,

Bro. Rudick

This made me smile. I can relate.

thanks,

applepansy

[applepansy]

Lol. I forgot to say how historically false this idea in bold from the quote above, is. The very fact is, that if you read (say, a mere 40 pages) Quintin's book Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, you will astonishingly see how, not only it was the common practice to see during this 'hot' period a 'god' in person, but how previous (from 1700's through 1820's) accounts actually presented the same patterns of Smith's:

a mountain or forest

a person praying to be heard amidst all the confusion

God the Father besides Jesus in individual form

a poem or mystic description

a messege (little commanded to build a church; that latter part was an innovation of Smith, though not absolutely his).

History, journals, papers, all are there. Smith was* operating within the fabric of the common people's beliefs.

That Smith in his official accounts(obviously written much later) only highlighted the bad reception of those 'priests' that didnt believe the common people's assumptions of epiphany, doesnt mean that it all went down like that. The matter is that, the Church built on that perception a whole 'pseudo-historical' representation up to this day. I remember reading in 'Our Legacy' (published by the Church for converts...) that in the first reunion there were just a 'handful' of members (7-25). Whereas in Hinckley's account, a little book also titled somewhat like the later, "The truth"(sor something like it), narrating the same story(but an earlier publication) mentioned the same phrase of 'handful', but misteriously added 'and some forty' more people. Wow! And say we actually look at the real documents and testimonies of th etime and find that even those remarks were not factical enough! But they were (and still are) needed; they stress the 'humble' origins , to conscientusly fulfill the BoM prophecy that 'from the little' the Lord 'brigeth' out the 'greater'.

So, the topic of the different roles and focuses of Church production and supression of translations, letters, official statements, whole manuals, etc. is of course, a great and long one.

From the Preface of "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman:

"Two hundred years should be long enough to gain a perspective on Joseph Smith. Over the years, hundreds of books and articles have been written on every detail of his life. . . . Yet, it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Joseph Smith's character or his achievements. The multiplication of scholarly studies and the discovery of new sources have only heightened the controversies surrounding his life. The central difficulty is that Joseph Smith lives on in the faith of the Mormons, like Abraham in Judaism, or Muhammad in Islam. Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on their teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Moronism -- and they produce a large amount of the scholarship -- have to justify their decision to leave. They cannot countenance evidence of divine inspiration in his teachings without catching themselves in a disastrous error. Added to these combatants are those suspicious of all religious authority who find in Joseph Smith a perfect target for their fears. Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments."

For me believing in Joseph Smtih came by the same process as believing in my Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost. To try to explain belief in God to an atheist is impossible because we don't come from the same place. To add Joseph Smith to the mix just makes it more difficult.

You have to believe in God first. Line upon line, precept on precept.

applepansy

[Hemidakota]

Teancum reading on what has already been presented, referring back to the original statement, "there is no common ground between those who received PERFECT KNOWLEDGE and those who believe in the Trinity."

[JohnnyRudick]

Dont worry, I am an atheist. Its just that I didnt want to let you get away with it; just as I would not let anyone get away with something similar against your faith.

For me, attacks and 'name-calling' (though fun) ought to come from somewhere(source, reasoning, a paper, etc.), but not gratuitous.

It becomes a 'habit' and later on it substitutes good thinking and actual discussion (some people, after much time, stop having discussions and start-or end up- madly repeating what they read or is taught to them.

Whoa.

I have no hostility using the term "Christiandumb" or any other playful usages of our colorful language.

I just did not twist the knife as you did in your example of "How would you like. . ."

There are those who are merely "dumb" about the truth of the Restored Church and the Scripture that surrounds it.

God sends His missionaries to them to help them walk in the Light He has brought them.

Then there are those of whom God says "willingly are ignorant" and trust in "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

I am not so tender about their feelings but as you say. to clutter the air with so much heat and so little light helps no one and I regret I went there.

Bro. Rudick

go

Then

[JohnnyRudick]

Teancum reading on what has already been presented, referring back to the original statement, "there is no common ground between those who received PERFECT KNOWLEDGE and those who believe in the Trinity."

This brings back to mind of my earlier comments about the Scitzoid account of who God is of the Council of Nicea.

The hatred of those people against the plain people of the mountain villages who believed in a begotten son of an Eternal Father does not earn any of my respect.

And the god that they came up with to supplant it?

One who talks to himself, answers himself and is besides himself?

We can have no commonality with such people.

Bro. Rudick

[Traveler]

I will interject my thoughts into this discussion.

1. Since the Council of Nicea until Joseph Smith, it is my opinion that no one in the annals of history spoke with authority concerning the nature of G-d. All was speculation, mostly from interpretation of diverse versions of ancient scripture based in variant social, political and even religious culture from the one making the speculation.

2. All references to G-d in the ancient scriptures prior to the fall of man are plural and all references to G-d since the fall of man are singular. I believe that this is a paramount issue concerning the nature of G-d but is seldom understood or explained outside of LDS circles. Non-LDS (Trinitarian) attempts at explanation appear to me to be shallow and attempts at justification of a point of view rather than of discovery or understanding.

3. I believe the fall of man is central to understanding the nature of G-d and the G-dhead as explained in the scriptures. This is because the fall of man separated man from the society of heaven and that G-d that presides over all of that society. We are told that man requires a mediator G-d (Jesus Christ) in order to have any dealings with the King of the society of heaven.

4. For Christians the Scriptures clearly differentiate G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. To fail to differentiate G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost in our worship is a clear error in understanding the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

5. The Mediator is singular according to scripture – there is one and only one mediator between man and the Father (king) of the society of heaven. This mediator is the only means that man can be saved from the fall – which is the separation from G-d the Father the king of that heaven society. The term “mediator” requires someone between or in the middle. To define the Mediator and G-d the Father as the same “one” singular individual is a mockery of scripture and terms used in scripture to explain this relationship. With this understanding of a mediator and the ancient concept of a kingdom, Suzerain and servant vassal (mediator) the scriptures are explicitly clear with such phrases as “I am the only true G-d”, “There are no other G-ds”, “Besides me there is no G-d”, “Before me there is no other G-d and after me there is no other G-d”. In general it is very common for a servant vassal within the ancient scope of their roll and purpose within the kingdom to speak for the Suzerain in the first person. This did not ever mean that the Suzerain and the servant vassal was ever the same individual.

6. I find it interesting that the Biblical Scriptures refer to Satan as a fallen g-d (g-d of this “fallen” world). I see no reference to Satan as a fallen angel. Again Trinitarian attempts at an explanation seem to be attempts to justify the Trinity rather than come to an understanding of what the scriptures communicate about G-d and his society (kingdom) of heaven.

7. The concept of Satan being a g-d is a most important notion from scripture. The scriptures tell us that Satan intended to over though G-d as the sovereign of G-d of heaven. This is important in understanding the difference between having G-d the Father as one’s sovereign or King verses Satan. Let me give one example: With G-d the Father as one’s sovereign (according to scripture) the only way to obtain mercy is to be merciful, the only way to obtain forgiveness is to forgive. Satan on the other hand would have it that the only way to obtain mercy is to recognize him as the sovereign and the only way to obtain forgiveness is once again – to recognize him as the sovereign.

8. It is the nature of G-d the Father to allow us to select which G-d we will have as our sovereign – him or Satan. If we want to “worship” G-d the Father as our G-d, we must do so by covenant to be obedient to his commandments. If we want to worship Satan we do so by recognizing him as the sovereign giver of all things including mercy and forgiveness – which is given only to those that recognize him. Being merciful and forgiving to others has no bearing or meaning to Satan – only to G-d the Father. The Father would have us be like him in every way; even to inherit his station – Satan would have us unlike him and cannot allow anyone to inherit his station.

We are in the process of learning how to choose and enjoy which is our G-d.

The Traveler

Edited January 19, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

This brings back to mind of my earlier comments about the Scitzoid account of who God is of the Council of Nicea.

The hatred of those people against the plain people of the mountain villages who believed in a begotten son of an Eternal Father does not earn any of my respect.

And the god that they came up with to supplant it?

One who talks to himself, answers himself and is besides himself?

We can have no commonality with such people.

Bro. Rudick

(Using my most clinical, monotone, professional voice): If you believe this is the case, why the confusion when traditional Christians say your beliefs are not "Christian?" Christianity as defined at least from the Council of Nicea onward, has no commonality with your beliefs--or so you say. If so, why the frustration? To use marketing terminology, the brandname "Christian," has been marked by trinitarian theology for so long, and by firm monotheism--why try to grasp on to a logo that you have no commonality with?

[JohnnyRudick]

I will interject my thoughts into this discussion.

1. Since the Council of Nicea until Joseph Smith, it is my opinion that no one in the annals of history spoke with authority concerning the nature of G-d. All was speculation, mostly from interpretation of diverse versions of ancient scripture based in variant social, political and even religious culture from the one making the speculation.

2. All references to G-d in the ancient scriptures prior to the fall of man are plural and all references to G-d since the fall of man are singular. I believe that this is a paramount issue concerning the nature of G-d but is seldom understood or explained outside of LDS circles. Non-LDS (Trinitarian) attempts at explanation appear to me to be shallow and attempts at justification of a point of view rather than of discovery or understanding.

3. I believe the fall of man is central to understanding the nature of G-d and the G-dhead as explained in the scriptures. This is because the fall of man separated man from the society of heaven and that G-d that presides over all of that society. We are told that man requires a mediator G-d (Jesus Christ) in order to have any dealings with the King of the society of heaven.

4. For Christians the Scriptures clearly differentiate G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. To fail to differentiate G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost in our worship is a clear error in understanding the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

5. The Mediator is singular according to scripture – there is one and only one mediator between man and the Father (king) of the society of heaven. This mediator is the only means that man can be saved from the fall – which is the separation from G-d the Father the king of that heaven society. The term “mediator” requires someone between or in the middle. To define the Mediator and G-d the Father as the same “one” singular individual is a mockery of scripture and terms used in scripture to explain this relationship. With this understanding of a mediator and the ancient concept of a kingdom, Suzerain and servant vassal (mediator) the scriptures are explicitly clear with such phrases as “I am the only true G-d”, “There are no other G-ds”, “Besides me there is no G-d”, “Before me there is no other G-d and after me there is no other G-d”. In general it is very common for a servant vassal within the ancient scope of their roll and purpose within the kingdom to speak for the Suzerain in the first person. This did not ever mean that the Suzerain and the servant vassal was ever the same individual.

6. I find it interesting that the Biblical Scriptures refer to Satan as a fallen g-d (g-d of this “fallen” world). I see no reference to Satan as a fallen angel. Again Trinitarian attempts at an explanation seem to be attempts to justify the Trinity rather than come to an understanding of what the scriptures communicate about G-d and his society (kingdom) of heaven.

7. The concept of Satan being a g-d is a most important notion from scripture. The scriptures tell us that Satan intended to over though G-d as the sovereign of G-d of heaven. This is important in understanding the difference between having G-d the Father as one’s sovereign or King verses Satan. Let me give one example: With G-d the Father as one’s sovereign (according to scripture) the only way to obtain mercy is to be merciful, the only way to obtain forgiveness is to forgive. Satan on the other hand would have it that the only way to obtain mercy is to recognize him as the sovereign and the only way to obtain forgiveness is once again – to recognize him as the sovereign.

8. It is the nature of G-d the Father to allow us to select which G-d we will have as our sovereign – him or Satan. If we want to “worship” G-d the Father as our G-d, we must do so by covenant to be obedient to his commandments. If we want to worship Satan we do so by recognizing him as the sovereign giver of all things including mercy and forgiveness – which is given only to those that recognize him. Being merciful and forgiving to others has no bearing or meaning to Satan – only to G-d the Father. The Father would have us be like him in every way; even to inherit his station – Satan would have us unlike him and cannot allow anyone to inherit his station.

We are in the process of learning how to choose and enjoy which is our G-d.

The Traveler

Excelent.

Thanks;-)

[JohnnyRudick]

(Using my most clinical, monotone, professional voice): If you believe this is the case, why the confusion when traditional Christians say your beliefs are not "Christian?" Christianity as defined at least from the Council of Nicea onward, has no commonality with your beliefs--or so you say. If so, why the frustration? To use marketing terminology, the brandname "Christian," has been marked by trinitarian theology for so long, and by firm monotheism--why try to grasp on to a logo that you have no commonality with?

I have no "frustration" on this subject and I know of no one who does.

We only cling to the Church of our Lord and our claim is it is a restoration of the True Church set up by Jesus and the Apostles.

Predating the council of Nicea

Acts 11:26

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto

Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled

themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the

disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

These people the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints know that they well understood the plural nature of the Godhead.

It was the Council of Nicia that took this doctrine away and supplanted it with the Romish view.

The Church has proclaimed that even Adam understood the need of submitting to the Lord's Christ.

Moses 6:52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and testify to all this by being baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

and

Moses 6:57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Just as Moses understood the nature of Christ, that there would be two of them.

Moses 6:7 Now these same priesthoods, which was in the beginning, the priesthood of God and the priesthood of Satan, shall be in the end of the world also. The Lord's Christ and the Christ of Satan, both proclaimed by mighty angels.

It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that is the Christian Church, The Church of the Lords Christ.

All others are would be copies.

Doctrine and Covenants 23:7

And, behold, it is your duty to unite

with the true church, and give your language to exhortation

continually, that you may receive the reward of the laborer.

Amen.

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

(Using my most clinical, monotone, professional voice): If you believe this is the case, why the confusion when traditional Christians say your beliefs are not "Christian?" Christianity as defined at least from the Council of Nicea onward, has no commonality with your beliefs--or so you say. If so, why the frustration? To use marketing terminology, the brandname "Christian," has been marked by trinitarian theology for so long, and by firm monotheism--why try to grasp on to a logo that you have no commonality with?

Maybe one way I can explain is to ask you to do something.

Imagine for just a moment, what if Joseph Smith wasn't lying about his first vision, and he is right? WHat if he really helped restore Christ's church to the earth?

Try to imagine what it was like for the early saints who were persecuted and kicked out of their homes, had lands stolen, and watched their friends and family members die becuase other Christians didn't think they were Christian.

What if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints IS the restored Church of Jesus Christ on the earth?

To exclude that group as Christians seems rather silly, doesn't it?

It's not that it bothers me that they call themselves Christian, because if they believe in Christ I gladly grant them that label. I don't care that they believe in a trinity or whatever else. They believe in Jesus Christ, and that is the definition of Christian.

Do we believe in Jesus Christ?

So, to me, it seems rather ironic that, if we are indeed the restored Church of Christ on the earth, that they exclude us from their definition, when we don't exclude them from ours.

Now, does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Na, not to me. I'm just trying to help you understand why some may get upset that "Christians" choose to not call us Christian.

[JohnnyRudick]

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one

casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he

followeth not with us.

Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that

is not against us is for us.

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe one way I can explain is to ask you to do something.

Imagine for just a moment, what if Joseph Smith wasn't lying about his first vision, and he is right? WHat if he really helped restore Christ's church to the earth?

Try to imagine what it was like for the early saints who were persecuted and kicked out of their homes, had lands stolen, and watched their friends and family members die becuase other Christians didn't think they were Christian.

What if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints IS the restored Church of Jesus Christ on the earth?

To exclude that group as Christians seems rather silly, doesn't it?

If I were to assume all the above, and if the Prophet asked for my counsel, and if I truly believed there was NO COMMONALITY (this is my sticking point, btw), then I would suggest that the Church renew it's commitment to the label MORMON, and declare that Mormonism is the restoration of true Christianity. I'd further advise a bit less concern about what Nicene Christianity thinks about our use of the adjective "Christian."

It's not that it bothers me that they call themselves Christian, because if they believe in Christ I gladly grant them that label. I don't care that they believe in a trinity or whatever else. They believe in Jesus Christ, and that is the definition of Christian.

Do we believe in Jesus Christ?

Back to my sticking point. Your argument is that there is indeed some commonality between LDS and trinitarians. Granted, the dispute over God's nature is very serious, and must not be covered over. But, the difficult discussions are worth having precisely because we both agree much (commonality) and disagree much.

So, to me, it seems rather ironic that, if we are indeed the restored Church of Christ on the earth, that they exclude us from their definition, when we don't exclude them from ours.

I know you'd prefer the title "heretical Christians," because it at least offers the hope of shared faith. On the other hand, do believers really have much fellowship with "heretics?" Those that insist "Mormons aren't Christians," generally will not fellowship with any who claim Christ but have distinctly different beliefs. On the other hand, those willing to dialogue are increasingly doing so, in a spirit of truth and trust in God to bless all Christ-centered conversation.

Now, does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Na, not to me. I'm just trying to help you understand why some may get upset that "Christians" choose to not call us Christian.

I actually do understand the upsettedness...because there is indeed some commonality. If there was none...it really wouldn't matter at all, imho.

[Islander]

PC:

Why should a politically motivated compromise have such weight and importance when it comes to the things of God? Why should such an important issue like "describing" the nature of God rest in the hands of a few led by an unbaptized political ruler? Again, for the uninformed, the settlement in Nicaea was neither inspired not holy. It was forced by the emperor, so I fail to see why we should attribute such an authority to it.

I could care less, but the bare facts are that the Nicaea Council had as much authority as the Eastern Orthodox Church whom soon after decided they did not want to dance to the song of the church at Rome. Who appointed anyone modern denomination to be the arbiter of Christianity?

I think it is pure spite and animosity that drive those that will contend that Latter day Saints are not Christians. For almost 200 years we have proclaimed that Christ lives, that He stands at the right hand of the Father, that He directs the affairs of His Church and sits at the head thereof. But somehow that testimony does not count. The fact is that the claim of the Restoration is so bold and the last two centuries so compelling that it is threatening. Unfortunately some are more concerned with self preservation than truth.

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." 2 Ne 25:26

Edited January 20, 2009 by Islander

[Justice]

then I would suggest that the Church renew it's commitment to the label MORMON, and declare that Mormonism is the restoration of true Christianity.

It's interesting that you mention this because the Church has recently began to do this. We actually have a web site called mormon.org now.

But, there is a fundamental difference. We are asked to take upon us the name of Christ, not Mormon. So, even though we use the term Mormon to be differentiated, it's just not quite the same. I think you genuinely understand.

It's also interesting to note that the term Christian was given by Jews, or at least by those who didn't believe in Christ. That seems an easy pill to swallow. Afterall, they were given the name of the One they claimed to follow, even if it was a mocking term. They were saying "We are Messiah-nists, and you are Christians, because you don't believe in the Messiah as foretold in the scriptures."

The same happened of the term Mormon. It was given by derision, but it was given by those who claim to beleive in Christ (or the Messiah). It was meant to say, "You claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but you can't because you believe differently than we do."

It's not that I put a lot of weight on what others call us. In fact, I put none at all. I'm just organizing my thoughts, and frankly, enjoying this discussion with someone who speaks elucidly and can help me understand the "other side" better.

My real feelings about who true Christians are are contained in these verses, and not by which Church they belong to:

Matthew 7:

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good bfruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

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

The object in having a church is so that we may know what the will of the Father is through revelation.

It is by these verses that many LDS members would be called Christian, but many would not. It is by these same verses that many outside the LDS Church would be called Christian, and many would not.

So, for Christians to say "others who believe in Christ and show good fruits are not Christian," is akin to being hypocritical, IMO.

I like the following words, even though I do not know who originally said them:

The Catholic Church claims succession from Peter. So, if it is a true succession then all churches who break away from it are false. If the Catholic church is not ture, then all who break away from it are false, becasue they have broken away from a dead branch. The only possible way to have the truth, if the Catholic church is false, is to have a restoration from heaven, not from man. God has always spoken through prophets and apostles when He revealed or restored any truth to man.

I think the great question everyone should ask themselves is "do we have more scripture?" If the answer is yes, then it should be investigated most humbly and sincerely.

You're a good man, PC, and a Christian.

[applepansy]

I would like to remind everyone that "Mormon" was not a name we gave ourselves. It was the name given to the early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was said with derision and hatred. It still has a negative connotation in many places.

Today, there are times when instead of calling us Mormons we're called "The Church of Latter-day Saints", deliberately leaving out "Jesus Christ".

PC, I think this is part of what is upsetting, at least to me. We as a people have not moved away from being "Mormon" but when other people realize the hurt associated with the word they leave out part of our name. I'd rather be called "Mormon" than "The Church of Latter-day Saints". I don't know that church. I belong to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I'm also proud to be called Mormom because my ancestors paid an awful price for that name, which they didn't choose.

Justice, I agree. All Christians should be identified by their fruits.

applepansy

[Traveler]

(Using my most clinical, monotone, professional voice): If you believe this is the case, why the confusion when traditional Christians say your beliefs are not "Christian?" Christianity as defined at least from the Council of Nicea onward, has no commonality with your beliefs--or so you say. If so, why the frustration? To use marketing terminology, the brandname "Christian," has been marked by trinitarian theology for so long, and by firm monotheism--why try to grasp on to a logo that you have no commonality with?

We find an interesting answer to your question in scripture when the Pharisees asked Jesus to plainly state if he was the “Son of G-d”, the “Messiah” or the “Christ”. In essence Jesus never answered in the manner the Pharisees wanted or expected.

To quote Jesus from John 10:25: “… The works I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.”

The spirit of Christ within me whispers that it is foolish to believe the declarations of lips that would have utterances believed over works and deeds. The scriptures are very plain and secure in warning of evils and deceptions that can come from a tongue – even Satan can lie about who he is declaring himself even G-d; but it is impossible for anyone to lie with their works and deeds (which are the fruits of the true beliefs of one’s heart).

Lets us therefore be aware of our works and deeds and who recognizes and glorifies G-d for the light in such works and deeds – and let us all glorify G-d for the good works and deeds in others. Without such knowledge there are no Christians or unity among those that claim to be the “light” by which the glory of G-d is seen.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

When we say "fellowship" do we mean being "nice" and treating each other wit the respect that says

"I understand what you believe to be true is important to you and I have no problem with you practicing your belief that falls into the Judo/Christian lifestyle" (yeah, I do have my limits on this "live and let live attitude too;-)

Or do we mean that Catholics, Protestants, and people of the Church of Jesus Christ can be allowed to mingle in together in our houses of worship and partake in each others sacraments with no limits or exclusions?

You would be surprised what some people expect in the pursuit of "commonality".

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members

of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them

the members of an harlot? God forbid.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to

an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one

spirit.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with

unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with

unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or

what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God

with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath

said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their

God, and they shall be my people.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be

ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and

I will receive you.

2 Corinthians 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall

be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

Bro. Rudick

Bro. Rudick