Christians - the LDS christ

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

It's ok. It was obvious that you were quoting LDS literature. Welcome to RF.

I agree that to really know the word of God and the truth, you have to do your part, but that's not the topic of the thread, and we have to stay on topic.

 

[nutshell]

I encourage everyone (LDS or not) to read the talk at the following link. It was given during the general conference of the Church in April 1998. The author is Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle.

The title of the talk is "Have You Been Saved?" I'm not certain that he gives an explicit definition of what a Christian is, but I feel that in answering the question "Have you been saved?" he comes pretty close.

Please read the talk and lets have an open discussion. Thanks.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/conferences/98_apr/oaks_saved.htm

 

[Squirt]

I encourage everyone (LDS or not) to read the talk at the following link. It was given during the general conference of the Church in April 1998. The author is Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle.

The title of the talk is "Have You Been Saved?" I'm not certain that he gives an explicit definition of what a Christian is, but I feel that in answering the question "Have you been saved?" he comes pretty close.

Please read the talk and lets have an open discussion. Thanks.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/conferences/98_apr/oaks_saved.htm

I remember when he gave that talk. It really would be a good idea for non-Mormons to read it. We Latter-day Saints find ourselves tongue-tied when asked, "Are you saved?" because we don't generally speak of being "saved" in the present tense. People accuse us of using the same terminology as "real Christians" but having different meanings for the same words. If we're guilty of that, it's not due to any intentional deception, but to an understanding of the concept of salavation that varies from the traditional point of view. This article explains how we view salvation. People who have any desire to actually carry on a meaningful dialoge with us on the subject will read it. Those who do not, won't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I remember when he gave that talk. It really would be a good idea for non-Mormons to read it. We Latter-day Saints find ourselves tongue-tied when asked, "Are you saved?" because we don't generally speak of being "saved" in the present tense. People accuse us of using the same terminology as "real Christians" but having different meanings for the same words. If we're guilty of that, it's not due to any intentional deception, but to an understanding of the concept of salavation that varies from the traditional point of view. This article explains how we view salvation. People who have any desire to actually carry on a meaningful dialoge with us on the subject will read it. Those who do not, won't.

That is an excellent article, as a non Mormon I can't fault it.
It makes more sense than the simple belief of many Christians that they are saved so that is that.

Even if you leave out the strictly Mormon scripture in the article, it still rings true.
I think many non Mormons, have trouble Believing your scriptures and the special beliefs that follow from both them and your prophets.

The fact that we do not have the necessary faith to believe them, does not make them untrue; it categorizes them more as unproven.
The difference between the two is your faith.

To say mormons follow a different Christ or are not Christian, is wrong.
That they have a different understanding, of the relationship of God Christ and the holy spirit to many other Christians is true.
That few Christian denominations share an exact understanding of these matters is also true.
Few Denominations share an equal belief between the various creeds;
nor do many individuals, as members of those denominations, believe those same creeds in their entirety.
This does not make them or Mormons any less Christian.

Terry_______________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[James the Persian]

That is an excellent article, as a non Mormon I can't fault it.
It makes more sense than the simple belief of many Christians that they are saved so that is that.

Even if you leave out the strictly Mormon scripture in the article, it still rings true.
I think many non Mormons, have trouble Believing your scriptures and the special beliefs that follow from both them and your prophets.

The fact that we do not have the necessary faith to believe them, does not make them untrue; it categorizes them more as unproven.
The difference between the two is your faith.

To say mormons follow a different Christ or are not Christian, is wrong.
That they have a different understanding, of the relationship of God Christ and the holy spirit to many other Christians is true.
That few Christian denominations share an exact understanding of these matters is also true.
Few Denominations share an equal belief between the various creeds;
nor do many individuals, as members of those denominations, believe those same creeds in their entirety.
This does not make them or Mormons any less Christian.

Terry

This is all quite true. We accept one Creed only, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written, not the wording altered at the Council of Toledo as used by the RCs, nor the 'Athanasian' Creed (which has no relation to St. Athanasios at all but is a late western creed). Both of these Creeds in our view distort the Trinity (granted, to a lesser extent than the Mormon idea of the Godhead) but that doesn't mean I think RCs and other western Christians aren't Christian at all. I believe they have a faulty understanding of the Trinity but I certainly don't believe that God will damn them for it. I believe that the LDS have an even more flawed understanding of God, but again I'm sure that God will not damn those who innocently hold erroneous beliefs. I'm less sure of the fate of someone like Joseph Smith but I can't see his followers as non-Christians or see them as following a different Christ. A Mormon's perception of Christ is quite different but if others' perceptions defined who we were then there would be many, many slightly different copies of all of us running around down here.

James

 

[jeffrey]

I think if you follow Christ's two rules, you are a Christian. My wife will argue that, because she does not want to labeled as a Christian because of the way so many Christians act. And like I've said sooooo many times before, Christ works differently in each person. I know what and how Christ works in me, but it is not for me to tell others how Christ works in them. By me telling someone that "that's not the way Christ wants you to be", or "your beliefs are wrong", is in, my opinion, insulting Christ. I disagree with alot of the Morman beliefs, but by saying that, I'm saying they are wrong for me. But if that is the way Christ has opted to reach certain people, Who am I to say Christ is wrong?
Look at the parable of the good sam. Someone showing love for someone who's beliefs are totally different then yours. Doesn't mean you have to grasp their ideas and concepts, just grasp them and love them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I remember when he gave that talk. It really would be a good idea for non-Mormons to read it. We Latter-day Saints find ourselves tongue-tied when asked, "Are you saved?" because we don't generally speak of being "saved" in the present tense. People accuse us of using the same terminology as "real Christians" but having different meanings for the same words. If we're guilty of that, it's not due to any intentional deception, but to an understanding of the concept of salavation that varies from the traditional point of view. This article explains how we view salvation. People who have any desire to actually carry on a meaningful dialoge with us on the subject will read it. Those who do not, won't.

How can we have meaningful conversation when we can't even have meaningful and authoritative definitions for our words?

Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are undefined in the article, as well as many other terms that I have highlighted in red. There is no authoritative place for me to go to gain more information so that I can interact responsibly with this document and understand its meaning and debate it. I can't interact responsibly with Scripture because of this: "Relying upon the totality of Bible teachings and upon clarifications received through modern revelation." It's simply not fair that they can add clarifications and I can't, and there is evidently no consensus as to what anything actually means.

"Believers who have had this required rebirth at the hands of those having authority have already been saved from sin conditionally, but they will not be saved finally until they have completed their mortal probation with the required continuing repentance, faithfulness, service, and enduring to the end."

"Latter-day Saints affirm that those who have been born again in this way are spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Jesus Christ (see Mosiah 5:7; 15:9­13; 27:25). Nevertheless, in order to realize the intended blessings of this born-again status, we must still keep our covenants and endure to the end. In the meantime, through the grace of God, we have been born again as new creatures with new spiritual parentage and the prospects of a glorious inheritance."

Now I understand how LDS can say that we are spirit childrenwithout sexual intercourse, when LDS scriptures clearly say the opposite. Being "born again" is spiritual rebirth here on earth, and the sex thing is for pre-mortal existence. ("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers all of the children of God").

"Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the "fulness of salvation" (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979­81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we use the word salvation to mean "exaltation," it is premature for any of us to say that we have been "saved" in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead."

What is all this about?

 

[SoyLeche]

Could you provide your definition of Christ, God and the Holy Spirit? I have given you everything I can think of, and apparently it isn't good enough. Could you provide an example of what is good enough?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could you provide your definition of Christ, God and the Holy Spirit? I have given you everything I can think of, and apparently it isn't good enough. Could you provide an example of what is good enough?

The creeds define who God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are, and there are plenty of sources out there that can give you an authoritative idea of what Christians believe.

Can you imagine how irritating it is to start a discussion on something, have references, and the person be able to refer to the trump card - "this is not intended to be authoritative" - yet the material is produced by the very people that it represents, and there is no such document that is authoritative?

We can't just read the Scriptures and come to conclusions, because neither of our views are direct products of the Scriptures. They are interpretations. Of course, I can defend that the normative Christian interpretation is both intellectually and historically defensible whereas the LDS approach depends on a 20th century re-defining of everything.

However, if we can't even produce something for me to argue against - authoritative LDS interpretations - then we can't discuss it...

 

[SoyLeche]

The creeds define who God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are, and there are plenty of sources out there that can give you an authoritative idea of what Christians believe.

Can you imagine how irritating it is to start a discussion on something, have references, and the person be able to refer to the trump card - "this is not intended to be authoritative" - yet the material is produced by the very people that it represents, and there is no such document that is authoritative?

We can't just read the Scriptures and come to conclusions, because neither of our views are direct products of the Scriptures. They are interpretations. Of course, I can defend that the normative Christian interpretation is both intellectually and historically defensible whereas the LDS approach depends on a 20th century re-defining of everything.

However, if we can't even produce something for me to argue against - authoritative LDS interpretations - then we can't discuss it...

I've told you, for me at least, if you find it in the scriptures or printed in either the Ensign or the Liahona, I'll accept it as authoritative.

 

[Aqualung]

I think if you follow Christ's two rules, you are a Christian. My wife will argue that, because she does not want to labeled as a Christian because of the way so many Christians act. And like I've said sooooo many times before, Christ works differently in each person. I know what and how Christ works in me, but it is not for me to tell others how Christ works in them. By me telling someone that "that's not the way Christ wants you to be", or "your beliefs are wrong", is in, my opinion, insulting Christ. I disagree with alot of the Morman beliefs, but by saying that, I'm saying they are wrong for me. But if that is the way Christ has opted to reach certain people, Who am I to say Christ is wrong?
Look at the parable of the good sam. Someone showing love for someone who's beliefs are totally different then yours. Doesn't mean you have to grasp their ideas and concepts, just grasp them and love them.

Of course, one has to wonder, does Christ only have two rules? After all, he preached a lot more than just two rules. But I wouldn't call somebody a non-Christian if they decided to ignore all of his other rules, so long as they thought they were following christ.

 

[SoyLeche]

I've told you, for me at least, if you find it in the scriptures or printed in either the Ensign or the Liahona, I'll accept it as authoritative.

Actually, I'll go a little further. If it is published by the church, not Deseret Book, but by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - then I'll accept it as authoritative.

 

[Apex]

Of course, I can defend that the normative Christian interpretation is both intellectually and historically defensible

I would love to see how you came to this conclusion. Mainstream christian is intellectually deffensible any more then a plethora of other faiths. And historically mainstream christianity which we have is simply the type of christianity which won out over the other forms of christianity (which there were many). Simply saying something is true because it has come through history is not accurate. The losers do not get to write history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've told you, for me at least, if you find it in the scriptures or printed in either the Ensign or the Liahona, I'll accept it as authoritative.

I would like to review this:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm

Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66

And this:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm

Howard W. Hunter, “All Are Alike unto God,” Ensign, June 1979, 72


http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm
Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
From Improvement Era, Aug. 1916, 934–42; capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and spelling standardized. (Reprinted Ensign, April 2002)

 

[SoyLeche]

One more thing - as far as the forum goes, I don't think that, if you were to use the Bible Dictionary or Guide to the Scriptures - or anything from the Ensign - nobody is going to be saying "well, that's just someone's oppinion." They are generally accepted as authoritative. Thinking about it, the disclaimer is probably more of a "definitions subject to change upon further revelation".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would love to see how you came to this conclusion. Mainstream christian is intellectually deffensible any more then a plethora of other faiths. And historically mainstream christianity which we have is simply the type of christianity which won out over the other forms of christianity (which there were many). Simply saying something is true because it has come through history is not accurate. The losers do not get to write history.

I did not say that it was true. It is simply at least related to the original message of Jesus, whereas the LDS message is not. We can know that from a historical review of Christianity.

 

[nutshell]

How can we have meaningful conversation when we can't even have meaningful and authoritative definitions for our words?

Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are undefined in the article, as well as many other terms that I have highlighted in red. There is no authoritative place for me to go to gain more information so that I can interact responsibly with this document and understand its meaning and debate it. I can't interact responsibly with Scripture because of this: "Relying upon the totality of Bible teachings and upon clarifications received through modern revelation." It's simply not fair that they can add clarifications and I can't, and there is evidently no consensus as to what anything actually means.

There is precedent for this LDS practice of not relying completely on the scriptures.
Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

God communicates with us two ways: Through the written word known as scripture and through prophets called of God to proclaim His truth. It's not done through a council.

"Believers who have had this required rebirth at the hands of those having authority have already been saved from sin conditionally, but they will not be saved finally until they have completed their mortal probation with the required continuing repentance, faithfulness, service, and enduring to the end."

"Latter-day Saints affirm that those who have been born again in this way are spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Jesus Christ (see Mosiah 5:7; 15:9­13; 27:25). Nevertheless, in order to realize the intended blessings of this born-again status, we must still keep our covenants and endure to the end. In the meantime, through the grace of God, we have been born again as new creatures with new spiritual parentage and the prospects of a glorious inheritance."

Now I understand how LDS can say that we are spirit childrenwithout sexual intercourse, when LDS scriptures clearly say the opposite. Being "born again" is spiritual rebirth here on earth, and the sex thing is for pre-mortal existence. ("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers all of the children of God").

LDS scripture says nothing of being spirit children through sexual intercourse.

If you read the talk correctly, you will see Oaks agrees with you. Being "born again" is a spiritual rebirth that takes place here on earth. We believe this occurs at baptism "at the hands of those having authority."

"Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the "fulness of salvation" (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979­81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we use the word salvation to mean "exaltation," it is premature for any of us to say that we have been "saved" in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead."

What is all this about?

We believe that we may become like God. We call this exaltation or eternal life.

Romans 8:16-17. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, the heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

Regarding covenants: God has always has always made covenants with his people. This link is a list of all the scriptures with the word covenant.

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=covenant

 

[jeffrey]

Of course, one has to wonder, does Christ only have two rules? After all, he preached a lot more than just two rules. But I wouldn't call somebody a non-Christian if they decided to ignore all of his other rules, so long as they thought they were following christ.

Your missing the point. The rules he gave to you are not the same for me, and visa versa. When you start telling others how to live their lives according to your standards, you are stating that you know more then Christ and his intention for someone else. The 2 rules he gave are the basis for everything else on the path God wants you to lead.

 

[nutshell]

I would like to review this:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm

Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66

Okay, A_E. I've read the first talk and I'm ready for your analysis and/or questions.

 

[mormonman]

The first talk was awesome!!!