Christians - the LDS christ

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm sorry folks I feel the same as Maize...I read the thread and a lot of you are somewhat off the topic but the thread flow has seemed to still have the OP in question as such..I have seen where some questions posted have NOT been answered and this IS a place for debate so how about this: We remember to be more kind to each other and we try to answer questions posted to the best of our ability. Non-LDS please remember to keep in mind of who a real Christian is cuz a lot of you are starting to sound VERY UN-Christian. Same goes for the LDS Christians!


Let's try to just stick to the OP and be nice OK??

I would say only victor has stuck to the topic.

Terry____________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[Aqualung]

I agree. Except A_E has also stuck to the topic, seeing as how he hasn't said anything.

 

[fromthe heart]

What's wrong with the LDS christ? A_E keeps insisting that LDS and christians follow a different christ. Is this true? If so, which is following the "wrong" christ?

bumping up Op just for the sake of throwing the ideda back in the mix...A E was in the topic so this to me says that A E was placed in this position by Aqualung. Perhaps if we all just re-read the thread and answer unanswered questions then this will work itself out?

I personally see this argurmenatively from both sides and both have valid questions.

 

[Aqualung]

Why did you delete dan's post? I thought it was a good one. After all, if Endless thinks Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then we ahve two christs. And dan was answering that criticism.

 

[Endless]

We have told you about a billion times that someone can be somebody else's literal father without having sex.

And i have told you a billion times that that Jesus was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events - in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. Any mortal son is born to a mortal Father via sexual intercourse - it is the normal and natural course of events. Without having sex can hardly classify Jesus as being begotten and conceived in the natural and normal course of events can it.
I believe i'm making a correct point here, can you not even attempt to see that in order for Jesus to be begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events it couldn't have been anything other than sexual intercourse to start the whole thing off - otherwise it wouldn't have been natural or normal, nor would it have been in the same way any mortal son is born to a mortal father.

I am interpreting it to simply mean "half the genes came from the father."

And the normal and natural way in which this occurs is via what? ....yes - sexual intercourse. Making the Morman doctrine a contradiction, because Mary would not be a virgin.

BTW, endless, are you christian?

:biglaugh:If i said 'yes' would that mean anything to you? Would i be a Morman? Would i be a JW, would i be a Christian Wicca, what does the word Christian mean to you?
In answer to the question - yes i am a Christian, i follow Christ.

Non-LDS please remember to keep in mind of who a real Christian is cuz a lot of you are starting to sound VERY UN-Christian.

Fromthe heart,
I think perhaps you will appreciate that at the present time the word 'Christian' can mean anyone who says they follow 'a' Christ. So the definition of Christian is at present meaningless . The Christ of the Bible called the pharasees of his days 'broods of vipers', 'whitewashed tombs', blind and leading people to hell. I don't think we've quite passed the 'UnChrist-like' stage just yet But point taken, civil debates and patience in order.

 

[fromthe heart]

Why did you delete dan's post? I thought it was a good one. After all, if Endless thinks Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then we ahve two christs. And dan was answering that criticism.

I think I explained that...although it was a good response it was off topic and I requested to stay on topic please.

 

[fromthe heart]

To those who would like to continue to discuss the deleted subjects please start a new thread...this one is now closed for the night!

 

[fromthe heart]

I have reopened this thread...I expect the OP to be the matter of your discussion as promised...Thank you very much!

 

[Squirt]

But what i am saying is that Morman descriptions of how Jesus was conceived cannot allow Mary still to be a Virgin - unless the normal course of events was not followed (as you believe) but then you contradict your own doctrine. So you believe the truth, but cannot from your doctrines explain what was said. You have still to answer my last question - the one i put to you, Dan and Aqualung. It remains unanswered because it cannot be answered without agreeing that God had sex with Mary - the logical conclusion from that is that Mary could not have been a Virgin. Therefore in this section Morman doctrine is incorrect.

It is not and never has been "Mormon doctrine" that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus Christ. Brigham Young made a statement which could possibly be interpreted as you have interpreted it, but it doesn't have to be.
According to Elder James E. Talmage, in his book, Jesus the Christ, "the statements from Church leaders indicating that Jesus was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events should be understood that God works through natural means in everything that he does. At times, his works like the Virgin Birth may seem to defy natural laws as man knows them. In those cases, we should understand that "[our Heavenly Father beget Jesus of a virgin] not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof"

Personally i prefer the Biblical account of how the Holy Spirit (biblical definition, not Morman definition) caused Mary to become impregnated and so be a virgin with child. Is that so hard to accept - i find it far better than the morman doctrine of this father God in flesh coming down to do the job himself inline with the natural course of events. From what you believe SoyLeche you would be better believing the Biblical account, because it makes much more sense - and Mary is actually a Virgin at the end. Were those prophets falliable - did they make a mistake and there was something 'mystical' (ie unnatural) about the conception of Jesus?

The only problem here is that the Biblical account does not say that "the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become impregnated." It simply doesn't say that. Again, according to LDS scholar, John Walsh, "If Jesus is truly the Son of God the Father, then what part did the Holy Ghost play in his miraculous conception? The Father used the power of the Holy Ghost as an agent, or enabler, so that a virgin could give birth to his Son. The specifics are beyond our knowledge and possibly our comprehension."

We do not deny that the Holy Ghost played a role in Jesus' conception. But the fact remains that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ. If you believe differently, then I'd say that it's your beliefs -- not ours -- that are un-Biblical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you want the LDS definitions of these words I would suggest that you go to www.lds.org - then to the link called "The Scriptures" that is on the left side. The Study Helps there will be authoritative. Especially helpful will be the Bible Dictionary (although some of the terms not specifically mentioned in the Bible - like the word premortal existence - might not be there). The Guide to the Scriptures will be very helpful in defining what terms mean to the LDS church as well. The Topical Guide and the Index will point you to instances in the scriptures where the different topics can be found.

SoyLeche,

I have been doing some reading in the dictionary that you recommended. Again, I appreciate the post but I noticed that a similar disclaimer is on the homepage for the dictionary as I see in the EoM.

"This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary."

Is there a more exhaustive dictionary that I can consult that is intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth?

 

[SoyLeche]

SoyLeche,

I have been doing some reading in the dictionary that you recommended. Again, I appreciate the post but I noticed that a similar disclaimer is on the homepage for the dictionary as I see in the EoM.

"This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary."

Is there a more exhaustive dictionary that I can consult that is intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth?

There isn't one that I know of... sorry. The Bible Dictionary is about as close to an authoritative source that I know of to define the terms. The only truely authoritative sources for doctrine are the Scriptures (Bible, BoM, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) - but they don't spend much time defining terms. Also, you are pretty safe with anything published in the Ensign, New Era or Liahona magazines (the Friend as well, but that is for children). Sorry that I can't provide anything else.

 

[SoyLeche]

There isn't one that I know of... sorry. The Bible Dictionary is about as close to an authoritative source that I know of to define the terms. The only truely authoritative sources for doctrine are the Scriptures (Bible, BoM, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) - but they don't spend much time defining terms. Also, you are pretty safe with anything published in the Ensign, New Era or Liahona magazines (the Friend as well, but that is for children). Sorry that I can't provide anything else.

Also, I'm assuming that the disclaimer is for terms like "Sabbath Days Journey" and other more historical terms. I think you are pretty safe with most of what you are looking for - Jehovah, Christ, etc.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There isn't one that I know of... sorry. The Bible Dictionary is about as close to an authoritative source that I know of to define the terms. The only truely authoritative sources for doctrine are the Scriptures (Bible, BoM, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) - but they don't spend much time defining terms. Also, you are pretty safe with anything published in the Ensign, New Era or Liahona magazines (the Friend as well, but that is for children). Sorry that I can't provide anything else.

That makes them easy to redefine as needed, which makes it exceptionally difficult for outsiders and insiders alike to understand what the heck is going on. I've never heard of the Ensign, New Era or Liahona (are they available online?), but I will keep an eye out for them when I see them. I don't see how we can have a fair debate or discussion if we can't even locate authoritative dictionaries or encyclopedias that can give us authoritative definitions.

I have presented three creeds that provide authoritative definitions for what defines a Christian and guides Biblical interpretation. Until you are able to do the same, I don't see how we can continue an intelligent discussion.

 

[Garret]

I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.



During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.



do My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.



In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?



While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.



At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.



So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.



After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.



But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.



It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!



My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.



I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”



He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?



Some preachers and other professors of religion reject account of First Vision—Persecution heaped upon Joseph Smith—He testifies of the reality of the vision.

 

[Garret]

Next to the Great Apostasty. Which started when the apostales were killed and with them the authority and key given to them from God were taken from the eart. The First Vision is so key. It vanishes the confusion of what the God head is. A Father and a Son. It is true. I know it is true. The Holy Ghost has born witness to me of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Faith, Repentance, Baptism by immersion with the proper authority, recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and we must endure to the end. This is true. We must first have faith. Pray to know. No matter what religion you are from do not exept the words of leaders without taking the matter to the lord. Praying to the father in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our mediator to the Father. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the HIS Church. He reigns over it as in the days of his life on this earth. The keys are here, the priesthood is here, devine revelation is here, and the blessings which come with obedience to HIS laws and commandmentts are here. There is not reason to have all this confusion for the truth has been restored. The only way for you to know is to Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts



And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.



And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.



And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.



And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

IT IS TRUE

 

[Garret]

Sorry this was for another thread but I thought it described Why we are Christians and our belief in the Savior of the World.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Woah, hold the horses SoyLeche:

No, you hold yours.

You have not looked up one of these sources, and you have no business touting them as if you have.

All of your quotes are available at http://www.carm.org/lds/lds-shields1.htm. You have no way of knowing if anything really exists in the sources that you use, and you should have named your source. Although you put everything in quotes, you did not list your source, and you clearly tout this stuff as if you actually know it, when in fact, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not.

 

[Garret]

Someone read what I wrote pray about with sincerity really pondering to God if it is true try it

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Someone read what I wrote pray about with sincerity really pondering to God if it is true try it

You merely copied stuff from a Mormon website, without listing your source. Do you want to say something else?

http://spishack.com/~cira/oldlair/The_Library/History_of_the_Church/Book_1/HOC_1_chapter_001.html

 

[Garret]

Oh sorry the first part is Joseph Smiths words (Joseph Smith History) it is his testimony of what happened. The middle is my part and my testimony. The last is a promise made from a prophet in the Book of Mormon. It is in Moroni 10:4-6. Sorry about not citing stuff. First day I don't know all you rules.
I think to know really know the word of God and the truth you have to do your part. You have to study, ponder, and pray.