Christians:LDS Members are Christian!

[dorcas3000]

Find something in the Book of Mormon you don't like and ask me if it's LDS doctrine. I'll say, "Absolutely!" On the other hand, if something can't be found in one of our "Standard Works," it's not doctrine. It may have validity, but if it can't be verified through the Standard Works, it's one man's opinion, right or wrong. This shouldn't be at all difficult for anybody with any intelligence at all to understand.

Find something in the Bible that you don't like and ask me if it's Christian doctine. I'll say, "Absolutely!" On the other hand, if something can't be found in the Bible, I can't take it as absolute truth. It may have validity, but if it can't be verified through the Bible, it's one man's opinion, right or wrong. I find this easy to understand, and I have only moderate intelligence.

 

[Squirt]

Find something in the Bible that you don't like and ask me if it's Christian doctine. I'll say, "Absolutely!" On the other hand, if something can't be found in the Bible, I can't take it as absolute truth. It may have validity, but if it can't be verified through the Bible, it's one man's opinion, right or wrong. I find this easy to understand, and I have only moderate intelligence.

You're okay, dorcas. I could really learn to like you.

 

[Squirt]

What is the role of modern prophesy, if not to clarify old doctrines and create new ones?

That would be the role of modern prophesy.

Does the President and the Quorum only interpret old doctrines and not create new ones?

New doctrines are occasionally revealed. When sustained by the membership of the Church, they are added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[mormonman]

You know, my girlfriend sent me a bunch of LDS jokes, and I think one might be rather fitting for this discussion:
A true story: It was a hot afternoon when the air conditioning went out in the Tabernacle during General Conference. President Hinckley stood up to address the sweating congregation and said, "It's warm. We're sorry. But it's not as warm as it's going to get if you don't repent!"
Contributed by President Gordon B. Hinckley
I don't think Hell is very hot, it's a place where REAL bad people suffer for denying the Holy Ghost. So was President Hinckley teaching false doctrine? No. President Brigham Young's comment might have been the same way. The saints at that time probably knew Brother Joseph on a personal level. They knew of his faith and courage. To us, and them especially, it would be an amazing goal to try to live up to his legacy, to have his faith and courage, and to have his blessing going into the Celestrial Kingdom. Was President Young's statement meant to be taken literally? No. You know how the saints can know these things? We have the Holy Ghost to guide us. He testifies of the truth of all things, including the church and the words of our prophets.

 

[dan]

What is the role of modern prophesy, if not to clarify old doctrines and create new ones?

Does the President and the Quorum only interpret old doctrines and not create new ones?

Doctrine does not change. It is always the same, but it is meted out to us line upon line, precept upon precept. Occassionally we receive new information concerning our times, but it never contradicts other doctrines. Modern revelation is to give us God's will in our times. No doctrine is changed, but church administration does change, and we need authoirty to do that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

New doctrines are occasionally revealed. When sustained by the member ship of the Church, they are added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Thanks.

 

[dan]

Oh, are you of the type that subscribes to the Catholic church's 16th century anti-Reformist notion that tacking Revelation on to the end of the Bible will hem the tide of any new scriptures or doctrines stealing their members and (more importantly) their money? You do know that that's where the idea of a closed canon came from, don't you? You're not so naive to think that it's been that way all along, are you? You claim to have such a firm grasp on history, so this must be known to you.

 

[No*s]

Hi, No*s. When I saw Mormonman's post and your response, I just couldn't bring myself to jump into the debate -- as much as I wanted to. I find that these posts in which ten or fifteen points of doctrine are all presented at once are just too overwhelming for either side to do be able to to justice to their point of view. Would you consider a one-on-one debate with me on two or three of these issues, maybe some that tie very closely together, where we could actually get into them in some depth instead of just superficially? I'll be watching for your answer. If you aren't interested, I guess I'll just sit here on the sidelines and watch the :slap: between you and Mormonman.

You have a point. We can't cover that many adequately. If we have a one-on-one, then we would have to start with something pretty basic. We don't even look at our basic authorities the same way , and that's a pretty basic issue. There are other basic issues (some that I'm sure you could name). After getting the basics out of the way, we could proceed to more complicated doctrinal disagreements.

 

[Squirt]

You have a point. We can't cover that many adequately. If we have a one-on-one, then we would have to start with something pretty basic. We don't even look at our basic authorities the same way , and that's a pretty basic issue. There are other basic issues (some that I'm sure you could name). After getting the basics out of the way, we could proceed to more complicated doctrinal disagreements.

Actually, I think that the Latter-day Saints have far more in common with Catholicism than they do with Protestantism. I'm not quite sure where we stand in comparison to Orthodoxy. I'd feel pretty comfortable debating any of the basic issues regarding the Godhead/Trinity. I probably won't be on the forum much today, though, but if you'd like to come up with a topic and run it by me, that would be fine.

 

[No*s]

Actually, I think that the Latter-day Saints have far more in common with Catholicism than they do with Protestantism. I'm not quite sure where we stand in comparison to Orthodoxy. I'd feel pretty comfortable debating any of the basic issues regarding the Godhead/Trinity. I probably won't be on the forum much today, though, but if you'd like to come up with a topic and run it by me, that would be fine.

Sure thing. I'll give it some thought and send a PM when I have one to suggest (it would be rather futile to start one until we had basic rules/topic down). I probably won't be on much longer either. I'm a night-man, and even though I don't work tonight...I sitll shouldn't stay up too late (it feels funny to call the day "late" :biglaugh.

*wrinkles forehead and thinks*

 

[Geoffthe3rd]

I do agree with you squirt that Catholicism and Mormonism do seem alot alike in the since of an established priesthood and head (pope for me and prophet for you) and excommunication, but there are many differences.
1. You say that you guys have a different type of Jesus, but that contrasts with one head of body of Christ. I think we agree that the body is the church, but one body does not have two heads going in two different directions because that causes division.
2. If you say your based on the word of God and Jesus, then why do so many points of the Bible and BOM contrast eachother?
3. The bible warns of false prophets and angels who claim to bring the message. Remember Lucifer was an angel of light. Also the Prophet Muhammad (sp) recieved the Quran from the Angel Gabriel and even acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, but i dont see Mormons actively claiming them as the right religion.
4. With the constant "revelations" there is chance for corruption so how can you ever know that what you are hearing is true. If you base it on feeling, then whats to say your just not being over dramatic?
5. Where is the biblical basis for the Book of Mormon? Because if you believe that the Bible is not complete and the creeds are BS then you contradict a NEVER CHANGING God who has established how things should be since the beginning of time
6. There are many historical facts to disprove the book of Mormon
7. I highly doubt that established churches (particularily the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) from ancient times are wrong, especially compared to a religion that began in America that has no historical or biblical backing
8. The Trinity is confusing for many people, but nonetheless essential to basic Christianity.
9. If you believe Christ as God/Man, then you must believe that God, again, is a never changing God, so you must ask why God would continue to give prophets 'revelations' contrary to his earlier teachings?

I greatly admire the enthusiasm of the mormon missionaries, even their moral standards, but again I personally believe that Mormons are not Christians, because they do not follow the historical Christ. Hopefully we can continue this conversation

 

[Squirt]

I do agree with you squirt that Catholicism and Mormonism do seem alot alike in the since of an established priesthood and head (pope for me and prophet for you) and excommunication, but there are many differences.
1. You say that you guys have a different type of Jesus, but that contrasts with one head of body of Christ. I think we agree that the body is the church, but one body does not have two heads going in two different directions because that causes division.

I'd comment on this, but I wasn't sure what you were getting at. Could you explain more fully?

2. If you say your based on the word of God and Jesus, then why do so many points of the Bible and BOM contrast eachother?

How about an example or two? I'm personally not aware of any contradictions.

3. The bible warns of false prophets and angels who claim to bring the message. Remember Lucifer was an angel of light. Also the Prophet Muhammad (sp) recieved the Quran from the Angel Gabriel and even acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, but i dont see Mormons actively claiming them as the right religion.

Yeah, the Bible warns of "false" prophets, not of true prophets. So what's your point? We acknowledge Jesus Christ, not merely as a prophet, but as the Only Begotten Son of God, the Creator of the Universe, and the only means by which we might be reconciled to God. The difference is pretty significant, I think.

4. With the constant "revelations" there is chance for corruption so how can you ever know that what you are hearing is true. If you base it on feeling, then whats to say your just not being over dramatic?

Are you saying that revelations directly from God may possibly be corrupt? Do you believe that God's revelations to the Old Testament prophets may also have been corrupt? How on earth could Jesus Christ's Church be expected to exist in its pure form without a continued line of communication from Heaven?

5. Where is the biblical basis for the Book of Mormon? Because if you believe that the Bible is not complete and the creeds are BS then you contradict a NEVER CHANGING God who has established how things should be since the beginning of time

(1) What exactly do you mean by "the biblical basis for the Book of Mormon"? I'll answer your question when I better understand what you're asking. (2) Does the Bible claim to be complete? If so, where? (3) I have never, ever stated that the creeds were "bull****." Please don't put words into my mouth. (4) How am I contradicting God?

6. There are many historical facts to disprove the book of Mormon

Wrong. There are no historical facts which disprove the Book of Mormon. People have been trying for 175 years to disprove the book and have been unsuccessful for 175 years.

7. I highly doubt that established churches (particularily the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) from ancient times are wrong, especially compared to a religion that began in America that has no historical or biblical backing

Obviously. That's why you're a Catholic. Your Church has been around a long time. It's just not the same Church Jesus Christ established. So are you saying it's impossible for Christ to have restored His Church in America? Why would that be?

8. The Trinity is confusing for many people, but nonetheless essential to basic Christianity.

Was it essential to the Apostles? To Mary? To the first-century followers of Christ?

9. If you believe Christ as God/Man, then you must believe that God, again, is a never changing God, so you must ask why God would continue to give prophets 'revelations' contrary to his earlier teachings?

The only question I must ask is what contrary revelations you're talking about. You really need to become better-educated on Mormonism before you make further inaccurate statements, Geoff.

I greatly admire the enthusiasm of the mormon missionaries, even their moral standards, but again I personally believe that Mormons are not Christians, because they do not follow the historical Christ. Hopefully we can continue this conversation

And what, may I ask, is your definition of a Christian? You see, in talking to you, I'm starting to think that you're the one who isn't a Christian. I'm also starting to think that you haven't always been a Catholic. Am I right?