Christians - the LDS christ

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok, now that we've got that settled, which of our christs is the more biblical?

The one that does not need further revelation from 20th century prophets and another testament. It is simply nonsensical to think that the LDS Christ is more biblical when you need two more documents that have no discernable historical, theological, or hermeneutical connection to the Bible to redefine and reinterpret it.

edit to clarify...
Disconnections:
1) Historical - there is no historical connection between Joseph Smith and the apostles. The interpretation of Jesus Christ of the Bible was put into creedal form by disciples of the apostles who wrote and preserved the New Testament. Later followers created later creeds, codifying what Christians believe about God.

2) Theological - Smith's revelations and later ones have no connection with any interpretation of the New Testament. That is, we just can't read the New Testament and learn that Jesus was a spirit child of a literal father, and early Christianity was not polytheistic.

3) Interpretative - Later revelations by LDS leaders are not interpretations of the NT or OT, and they can directly contradict these Scriptures. How can such revelations be "more biblical" when they aren't a product of interpretation, and then Mormons want to reinterpret the Bible based on these revelations?

I have no doubt that the LDS Christ can be found in the New Testament after every word is redefined. We've been reading the NT for 2000 years and we haven't found the LDS Christ in the NT.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or not. It's hard to read people sometimes when you can't see their faces or body language. You started out a sentence by saying that "LDS are Christians." You ended that same sentence by saying that "they have to choose a different name." I don't know whether to be amused or insulted. Just what name would you suggest, by the way?

Well I'm not insulting anyone if that's what you mean. You can be amused if you want to be, but that isn't my intent, either.

It's not my job to name the LDS Christ, they did it themselves. LDS follow the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and not the Jesus Christ of traditional Christianity. The LDS Christ is who the LDS say that he is, and the Christ of Christianity is an entirely different person with a different role. Our theology is completely different, that's all, so it simply makes no sense to both be called "Christians" when the name denotes that the group holds similarities that simply are not there. BTW, I am perfectly happy with the title "LDS Christian" because it does denote devotion to someone other than the Christ of Christianity.

There are many Christian denomenations, but the denomenations at least share a traditional understanding of God and humans that differs drastically from LDS beliefs.

 

[dan]

The one that does not need further revelation from 20th century prophets and another testament. It is simply nonsensical to think that the LDS Christ is more biblical when you need two more documents that have no discernable historical, theological, or hermeneutical connection to the Bible to redefine and reinterpret it.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to me.

You don't agree with the Catholic church and yet you stand fiercely by their interpretation and canonization of scripture? You believe they were authorized to put the Bible together and decide that it was all there ever could be, but you don't feel your religion is their offspring? That's nonsensical.

 

[dan]

There are many Christian denomenations, but the denomenations at least share a traditional understanding of God and humans that differs drastically from LDS beliefs.

I prefer to base my faith on truth and not on tradition. You may do as you wish, but keep in mind that your "traditional Christianity" is marked by intolerance, murder, rape, theft, avarice and many of the greatest abominations that this earth has ever been witness to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I prefer to base my faith on truth and not on tradition. You may do as you wish,

Mormonism is a tradition.

but keep in mind that your "traditional Christianity" is marked by intolerance, murder, rape, theft, avarice and many of the greatest abominations that this earth has ever been witness to.

Mormonism is a tradition that is similarly marked by intolerance, murder, rape, theft, avarice and many of the greatest abominations that this earth has ever been witness to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to me.

You don't agree with the Catholic church and yet you stand fiercely by their interpretation and canonization of scripture? You believe they were authorized to put the Bible together and decide that it was all there ever could be, but you don't feel your religion is their offspring? That's nonsensical.

Do you have any evidence for this? Are you able to re-arrange my posts to show something that is nonsensical or remotely comparable to trying to say that the LDS Christ is biblical when you must superimpose data that is 20 centuries removed from the text?

 

[Squirt]

The one that does not need further revelation from 20th century prophets and another testament.

If there was, in fact, an apostasy, as was prophesied there would be, a restoration would be necessary. "Further revelation" would merely restore that which was lost. I realize that you don't believe such an apostasy took place at all, but your argument that restored truth is less valid than ancient truth doesn't hold water. Truth is constant. If it is tainted by falsehood, it must be restored.

Disconnections:
1) Historical - there is no historical connection between Joseph Smith and the apostles. The interpretation of Jesus Christ of the Bible was put into creedal form by disciples of the apostles who wrote and preserved the New Testament. Later followers created later creeds, codifying what Christians believe about God.

Yes, later followers created creeds which described what was believed by Christians in the 4th, 5th and later centuries. I find little similarity between what the Bible has to say about God and what the Athanasian Creed has to say about Him. What, may I ask, was wrong with the Bible that further clarification was required?

2) Theological - Smith's revelations and later ones have no connection with any interpretation of the New Testament. That is, we just can't read the New Testament and learn that Jesus was a spirit child of a literal father, and early Christianity was not polytheistic.

You are assuming that the Bible is a complete and infallible record of everything God ever said or did or wants us to know. The Bible doesn't even claim to be any of these things.

[quote3) Interpretative - Later revelations by LDS leaders are not interpretations of the NT or OT, and they can directly contradict these Scriptures. How can such revelations be "more biblical" when they aren't a product of interpretation, and then Mormons want to reinterpret the Bible based on these revelations?[/quote]Which LDS interpretations do you believe contradict the scriptures? It would be easier for me to refute this accusation with a few examples?

I have no doubt that the LDS Christ can be found in the New Testament after every word is redefined. We've been reading the NT for 2000 years and we haven't found the LDS Christ in the NT.

Really? Well, you obviously haven't looked very hard. He's pretty much on every page, and if you weren't so determined to win this debate, you'd be able to find a great many significant things about Him on which we agree.

 

[Squirt]

It's not my job to name the LDS Christ, they did it themselves. LDS follow the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and not the Jesus Christ of traditional Christianity. The LDS Christ is who the LDS say that he is, and the Christ of Christianity is an entirely different person with a different role. Our theology is completely different, that's all, so it simply makes no sense to both be called "Christians" when the name denotes that the group holds similarities that simply are not there. BTW, I am perfectly happy with the title "LDS Christian" because it does denote devotion to someone other than the Christ of Christianity.

We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Creator of our universe and everything in it, the Jesus Christ who was born in Bethlehem to a young virgin, who lived an absolutely perfect life, established a Church, taught a gospel of love and forgiveness, died an agonizing death to atone for our sins and was raised from the dead three days later, granting all those who would come to Him eternal life. I'm sorry if you see that theology as "entirely different" from yours.

I am every bit as entitled to call myself a Christian as you are. It is beyond me how you can say it is not your intention to insult. I can't help but wonder how thoughtless and insensitive you would be if you were actually putting forth the effort to do so.

You and I don't seem to be able to make even the slightest headway in finding common ground. For some reason, I was naive enough to think that we might, with some effort, be able to do so. Regardless of what you may think, I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that the same individual died for your sins as died for mine, and that the same God who hears and answers your prayers hears and answers mine. I think your exclusionary attitude hurts Him deeply and will win very few new followers to "traditional Christianity."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If there was, in fact, an apostasy, as was prophesied there would be, a restoration would be necessary. "Further revelation" would merely restore that which was lost. I realize that you don't believe such an apostasy took place at all, but your argument that restored truth is less valid than ancient truth doesn't hold water. Truth is constant. If it is tainted by falsehood, it must be restored.

There is no proof that anything is lost or that LDS doctrine is true. Being that LDS doctrine contradicts a reasonable interpretation of the text and the testimony of those who preserved it, what the LDS have done can hardly be called a restoration. We can't say that something is restored, but we can plainly see that something is added that doesn't match what was previously there.

Yes, later followers created creeds which described what was believed by Christians in the 4th, 5th and later centuries. I find little similarity between what the Bible has to say about God and what the Athanasian Creed has to say about Him. What, may I ask, was wrong with the Bible that further clarification was required?

The creeds were written by those who preserved the writings of the NT. There is an important connection to the apostles and thus to Jesus Christ himself that simply is not there with LDS prophets. Being that there is no other connection - theological or interpretative, it is illogical to think that a propesy that has no connection has a connection to Christ or the apostles.

You are assuming that the Bible is a complete and infallible record of everything God ever said or did or wants us to know. The Bible doesn't even claim to be any of these things.

I assumed, written, nor have argued no such thing. Can you find such an assumption in any of my posts?

Really? Well, you obviously haven't looked very hard. He's pretty much on every page, and if you weren't so determined to win this debate, you'd be able to find a great many significant things about Him on which we agree.

I interpret the NT for a living. The LDS Christ isn't there.

I'm not trying to win a debate. I have won the first part, and victory is at hand for the second part. Hinkley himself said that LDS follow a different Christ, which is precisely what I have argued from the beginning, and why this thread exists in the first place. I have an excellent argument that the LDS Christ is not more biblical than the Christ of Christianity - in fact, that is part of LDS doctrine.

LDS leaders know that the LDS Christ isn't in the Scriptures or in traditional Christianity, which is why LDS must have the Book of Mormon and other distinctively Mormon literature in order to redefine all of the words in the NT so that LDS can find their Christ there. Without more material - using non-biblical methods - the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints simply is not present in the NT or in any apostolic/patristic literature. Hense the need for LDS to say that there was an apostocay. Such an apostacy simply makes no sense because the very ones who wrote and preserved the literature of the NT would be the very people who were against it. It would be like saying that Joseph Smith and all of the LDS church preserved his writings and thoughts, but don't believe that what he said is true. :areyoucra

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Creator of our universe and everything in it, the Jesus Christ who was born in Bethlehem to a young virgin, who lived an absolutely perfect life, established a Church, taught a gospel of love and forgiveness, died an agonizing death to atone for our sins and was raised from the dead three days later, granting all those who would come to Him eternal life. I'm sorry if you see that theology as "entirely different" from yours.

That is not the full definition of traditional Christianity nor LDS doctrine.

I am every bit as entitled to call myself a Christian as you are.

The word Christian denotes connection to the Jesus of traditional Christianity that LDS do not follow. The LDS definition of Christ is 2000 years removed from Christ and the founding of his church. No slinter groups in the first century held LDS views, so if there was an apostate church that Jesus established, there was no remnant that had LDS beliefs. That is a real problem when LDS claim to have restored anything.

It is beyond me how you can say it is not your intention to insult. I can't help but wonder how thoughtless and insensitive you would be if you were actually putting forth the effort to do so.

I am arguing very objectively and I am making a sincere effort not to offend or insult. I am staying on topic. I am simply presenting a view that is not your own. It is not my responsibility if you are offended by my argument. Being on topic, I am not attacking anyone, making fun of their beliefs, nor have I engaged in personal abuses such as what you have just said "I can't help but wonder how thoughtless and insensitive you would be if you were actually putting forth the effort to do so."

You and I don't seem to be able to make even the slightest headway in finding common ground. For some reason, I was naive enough to think that we might, with some effort, be able to do so. Regardless of what you may think, I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that the same individual died for your sins as died for mine, and that the same God who hears and answers your prayers hears and answers mine.

With this phrase framed between two ad hominims, I'm not sure if I should respond.

I think your exclusionary attitude hurts Him deeply

I have said nothing like this about you or any Mormons, either.

and will win very few new followers to "traditional Christianity."

Such would be against the rules of RF.

 

[dorcas3000]

Jesus built His Church "on a foundation of prophets and apostles," He being "the chief cornerstone." If the prophets and apostles were martyred and their words rejected, the very foundation of Christ's Church was destroyed. Yes, the cornerstone remained, but what structure can possibly be expected to remain standing without its foundation?

Well, we can obviously expect that the apostles would have died eventually. Most prophets do ;-) And yes, their words were rejected but not by everyone. Saying that since the apostles were martyred the church foundation was destroyed is like saying, "Since Jesus was crucified, obviously no one believed him to be the Savior." I'm not understanding your logic. I will agree though that once Christianity became an 'official religion' a lot of true doctrine went out the window. That's why I believe it's important to immerse ourselves in scripture, rather than the traditional doctine of the church. I suppose we could digress about the birth of the canon, but I'm assuming LDS believes in the authority of NT scripture despite all that. If not, well then we have a problem.

Well, it's actually Joseph Smith, not John Smith.

Oh man I feel dumb for that one. So sorry to associate your religion with Pocahontas!!!!

I think I've already explained the need for a living prophet. The "extra scriptures" aren't really "extra" at all. There are many "books" mentioned in the Bible that can't be found in the Bible. They were obviously "scripture" to the people to referred to them. And in John (I believe, though I'd have to check to make sure), we are told that Jesus said and did so many things during His lifetime that were not recorded, that all of the books in the world could not hold them. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. It is a record of a remnant of the house of Israel who were taught by their prophets that a Messiah would come to redeem them of their sins. What is there to object to about "extra scriptures" that testify of Jesus Christ?

If we should be quick to accept alternate testimonies of Christ, why then don't we accept the Gospel of Thomas for example? *wink wink*

I understand what you're saying about prophets in the NT church, but scriptures in the NT talk more about false prophets than a need for living prophets. TONS more. This makes me automatically question any 'new' doctrine that is contrary to what is blatant in scripture. So what makes JOSEPH Smith so authoritative, that he can add to the canon of scripture?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jesus built His Church "on a foundation of prophets and apostles," He being "the chief cornerstone." If the prophets and apostles were martyred and their words rejected, the very foundation of Christ's Church was destroyed. Yes, the cornerstone remained, but what structure can possibly be expected to remain standing without its foundation?

Not all the prophets, apostles, and their disciples died at the same time. We can see historically that the apostles actually trained people to take their place after they died. We have letters from Clement of Alexandria (trained by Paul), Polycarp (trained by John), Ignatius (trained by Polycarp), Ireneaus (trained by Ignatius) - if my memory is correct concerning who trained who. None of these fellows had LDS doctrine, by they were upset when they saw others abandoning the teachings of the apostles and tried to correct various problems (none of which resembled LDS theology). No record exists of the LDS's version of the events.

 

[dorcas3000]

What, may I ask, was wrong with the Bible that further clarification was required?

What was wrong with the Bible? The fact that the printing press hadn't been invented yet! The NT letters were read allowed to congregations, and weren't available for individual study like today. Creeds were necessary so that all believers would have a foundational element to clarify their beliefs. It makes sense to think that early church leaders would reference such a creed to help people understand their doctrines. They served as an oral tradition when written copies of scripture were unavailable.

Being that we have written scriptures today, however, such creeds are just church history really.

 

[Squirt]

With this phrase framed between two ad hominims, I'm not sure if I should respond.

Neither of my statements was an ad hominim. The first was simply a statement as to how much your attitude hurts me. The second was a statement as to how much I believe it hurts God. Perhaps it would be best if we simply steered clear of one another in the future. I don't see how either of us stands to gain anything by a continued dialogue.

 

[nutshell]

Not all the prophets, apostles, and their disciples died at the same time. We can see historically that the apostles actually trained people to take their place after they died. We have letters from Clement of Alexandria (trained by Paul), Polycarp (trained by John), Ignatius (trained by Polycarp), Ireneaus (trained by Ignatius) - if my memory is correct concerning who trained who. None of these fellows had LDS doctrine, by they were upset when they saw others abandoning the teachings of the apostles and tried to correct various problems (none of which resembled LDS theology). No record exists of the LDS's version of the events.

So the apostles weren't murdered? So there was no confusion over the teachings and administration of the church? You just wrote:

they were upset when they saw others abandoning the teachings of the apostles and tried to correct various problems

So the LDS version that the true teaching was being corrupted is accurate, from your own mouth (or keyboard) no less. Just because these "trained" followers of the true apostles attempted to keep the Church afloat does not mean they succeeded.

By the way, LDS apostles are not "trained." They are ordained by the laying on of hands of one who has authority...just like in the (you guessed it) Bible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the apostles weren't murdered?

I said at the same time. Please re-read my post if you would like to responsibly respond to what I said.

So there was no confusion over the teachings and administration of the church?

Of course there was confusion. We know historically that there were scores of groups that had various beliefs about Jesus. We also know that the apostles and their disciples were unified.

So the LDS version that the true teaching was being corrupted is accurate, from your own mouth (or keyboard) no less. Just because these "trained" followers of the true apostles attempted to keep the Church afloat does not mean they succeeded.

No. The LDS version is not accurate in any way, shape, or form. It is a baseless fabrication of history that cannot be supported by any historical documents.

By the way, LDS apostles are not "trained." They are ordained by the laying on of hands of one who has authority...just like in the (you guessed it) Bible.

I never said anything about LDS apostles. Thanks for sharing this with me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Neither of my statements was an ad hominim.

The opposite is more than a little obvious.

The first was simply a statement as to how much your attitude hurts me. The second was a statement as to how much I believe it hurts God.

Either way, it was off topic and should be deleted.

 

[nutshell]

I said at the same time. Please re-read my post if you would like to responsibly respond to what I said.

I did read your post and whether the true apostles died at the same time or not is irrelevant. The fact is they all died.

Of course there was confusion. We know historically that there were scores of groups that had various beliefs about Jesus. We also know that the apostles and their disciples were unified.

Unified with what? The teachings were already falling apart. I'm sure they did their best to fix things, but you can still see the cracks.

No. The LDS version is not accurate in any way, shape, or form. It is a baseless fabrication of history that cannot be supported by any historical documents.

No. The LDS Church represents the exact same Church with the exact same Priesthood. My personal priesthood line can be traced directly back to Jesus Christ himself.

I never said anything about LDS apostles. Thanks for sharing this with me.

I shared this to point that the LDS church continues the same practice that was established in the Bible.

 

[dan]

No record exists of the LDS's version of the events.

I'm curious what you think the "LDS version of the events" is. Also, you seem to feel the Catholics are the true church. You're basically backing up their claim on the authority, and those letters prove absolutely nothing about who had authority. I can show you a dozen other letters showing a dozen other people claiming to have authority.

 

[dan]

Also, you have three of my posts with actual evidence that have yet to be addressed. You made a baseless claim about historical and intellectual superiority, and you have completely ignored my actual evidence to the contrary. What is your current position? Is it the old "ignore the point until it goes away?" Perhaps it's the "I'm above this kind of argument" method of not having to address it. Maybe you made that statement without having any evidence for it and now you realize you can't defend it? Either way, I'd like you to stand up for what you said by addressing the facts I prsented.