LDS Christmas card, Christian? you decide!

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

That book missed so many points so much…

Well you will have to work a little harder to demonstrate this if you wish to convince the rest of us.

Anyway, he’s wrong about the first use of “Trinity.” It was circa 181 AD, by Theophilus of Antioch, in his letter to Autolycus.

Not really. For space reasons I cut out his footnote.

1. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3, 11, 12. Theophilus of Antioch used a slightly different term (trias) in Ad Autolycum, 2.15, written at the end of the second century.

The difference between Tertullian’s and Theolphilus’s conception of God is briefly explained here by Barry Bickmore.

Thanks,
fool

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

I want to raise the point that while ‘puzzleannie’ may have mistated her case, the fact is that there are real and substantive differences between the traditional understanding of the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and so forth and the core teachings of the LDS Church.

What you mean is the “traditional understanding” of apostate Christianity regarding “the divinity of Christ, the Trinity” etc. Well, I quite agree that there are differences between the two; but we are not in the business of comparing Mormonism with apostate Christianity. We compare LDS teachings with that of the Bible; and there are no disagreements between teachings of the LDS Church and the doctrines taught in the Bible.

Mormonism couches their theology in very traditional language, . . .

You mean “traditional language” of apostate Christendom. We do no such thing! Heaven forbid that we should try to “couch our theology” in the traditional language of apostate Christendom! In fact, we do not “couch” the language of our theology at all. Our theology is already “couched” in the revealed language of scripture, which is the language of the Bible. That is where it originally came form. It is God who is the Author of both.

. . . their beliefs resemble traditional teachings in some notable but superficial ways, . . .

I would go further. I would say that their beliefs do not “resemble the traditional teachings” of apostate Christendom at all—only in so far as the teachings of apostate Christendom, in any degree, resemble the teachings of the Bible.

. . . but the fact is that even a casual reader should quickly grasp that there are real differences between the authentic Christian faith of history . . .

You mean “authentic Christian faith” of apostate Christianity. That is what that means.

. . . and the faith of Mormonism.

And I certainly agree!

The differences are so great that I do not think it is entirely unfair to say that Mormons believe in ‘a different God, a different Jesus, and a different gospel’.

Again, I find it hard to disagree. LDS don’t believe in the God of apostate Christendom, the Jesus of apostate Christendom, and the gospel of apostate Christendom. The God we believe in is the God of the Bible, the Jesus we believe in is the Jesus of the Bible, and the Gospel we believe in is the gospel of the Bible. I have no doubt there are vast differences between the two!

In that sense, the LDS Church can be said to be not at all a Christian faith, . . .

You mean an “apostate” Christian faith. Agreed!

. . . and Mormons can be excluded from the definition of whom is a Christian.

You mean “apostate” Christian. Agreed!

Keep in mind that I am using the word ‘Christian’ here in a restricted theological sense. If one is speaking in much broader, general terms, of course one would say that Mormonism deserves to be called a ‘Christian’ denomination.

Oh that’s very kind of you! Do give me a break will you? Mormons don’t need any of that from you.

Although some both within the Mormon faith and outside it have suggested it is on it’s way to becoming a faith truly apart from Christianity, . . .

You mean apostate Christianity. I think that it is already “truly apart from that”! It has been “apart from that” ever since it was created!

. . . in the way that Buddhism is distinguished from Hinduism, Christianity from Judaism.

I don’t know how correct that comparison is; but it certainly is “apart form it”!

That aside–it is unfair, as the OP of this thread suggested, to deny that Mormons are not very devoted to their own peculiar version of Jesus Christ. That was the point of my initial criticisms of the Original Post which initiated this thread.

I don’t recall that that was her criticism. She hadn’t said anything about LDS not being “very devout to their own peculiar version of Jesus Christ”. So what exactly was the purpose of you post anyway?

amgid

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by amgid
You mean apostate Christianity. I think that it is already “truly apart from that”! It has been “apart from that” ever since it was created!

Twelve times you used that accusation in just one post.
You are correct about one thing; mormonism, being “created” less than 200 years ago certainly does set it apart from the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mom of 5:

This card was not a “December” card as one poster suggested, it had “merry christmas” in the message. This card was in the card company’s web site in the Christmas card section.

Well we will have to agree to disagree here . Most LDS would determine if something is a Christmas card or a seasonal card by the artwork and not its inscriptions.

The LDS gentleman that I was in contact with several years ago on another forum told me that the LDS believe that a “white lie” to get someone to do a good thing, (convert) is not bad since it leads to the conversion, (a good thing).

This “LDS gentleman” doesn’t speak for all LDS. Thank you for noting this below.

I had asked him why LDS do not advertise the fact that the King James bible they send out on request, does not tell the recipient that the BOM is included in that blible.

You appear to mistaken on this. The BOM has never been printed in the KJV that is offered for free. At best, some people who order the KJV agree to be visited by two church representatives and only if that meeting goes well will they be offered a free Book of Mormon in addition to their free KJV.

I do not suggest that all LDS believe it is o.k. to omit facts,

Amen to this. I would say that very few LDS will intentionally omit facts. I for one have been entirely candid on just about every LDS discussion that I have participated in over the last 12 months on this board.

The fact that a little thing as a Chrismas card tries to tell the Joseph Smith story rather than the story of Jesus birth does seem to suggest that Joseph Smith and Jesus are on the same plane in LDS belief system.

No informed mormon would put Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ on the same plane. I am not even convinced a non-informed mormon would do so either. I have never seen it happen in 175+ years of LDS writing or oral traditions.

I hope that we will all enjoy a blessed Christmas with family and friends. It seems that no matter what religion people proclaim to believe in, Christmas is a time when all want to be a part of this beautiful celebration. Welcome one and all.

Love and peace

Thank you. This is a very positive note to end on.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Rich,

Thanks for your response to the LDS Christian scholar that I quoted. I think this is a good opportunity for us to learn from each other and compare are perspectives of early Christian history. I hope we will not accuse some one of deception just because their perception differs from ours.

catholic-rcia:

Here is what one LDS scholar, Stephen Robinson, Ph.D Duke , has said about the Trinity.

**I have to point out a few errors here, I am not a scholar. Just a Christian. **

Fair enough. I will refrain from making any arguments from authority. Instead I will try to deal with the facts and reasoning presented.

non-LDS Christians usually define the term trinity ambiguously

?

I think that Dr. Robinson has the entire range of Christian teaching in mind here, in which the teachings about the nature of God vary from denomination to denomination. Even within a denomination there is going to be a discrepancy between educated theologians and the common person in the pews. Even in regarding the well defined Catholic teachings, Robinson’s observations are not far off the mark in the Catholic encyclopedia on The Blessed Trinity (as always, any time I try to understand Catholic teachings, I joyfully will accept correction and/or additional perspective):

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (Const., “De fide. cath.”, iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege.Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.

They habitually?

, and most often unconsciously?, equate the biblical teaching on the nature of the Godhead with the later philosophical statement formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451-the Nicene Creed.

This has been my observation too, but this may just be an LDS Christian thing. I think informed LDS are much more sensitive to the nuances of say, the Nicene Creed. We know how to parse that statement down into individual parts, some of which we agree with and some with which we don’t. Generally speaking the parts we agree with have solid Biblical backing and the parts we don’t are seen as post-NT elaborations. Some non-LDS Christian may be in the “habit” of reading the Bible through the lens of later creeds and hence would not be as sensitive to the nuances that LDS Christians are. The situation changes when a non-LDS Chrisitian does become aware of such. Then the real discussion can begin .
[cont]

 

[my4ducks]

Excuse my ignorance. But why would it matter if the content of the card was Christian? LDS, as stated before, do not believe in the sole divinity of Christ. That is what makes a person a Christian, believing in the “unique divinity” of Christ. Christ and JS share equal divine status in the Morman religion. So I don’t understand why one would be shocked that there wasn’t a “Christian” message inside. Yes, they show their love for Jesus by having more paintings of Him in their temples and centers, then most Christian religions, but that devotion does not make them Christian especially since they don’t believe in His “UNIQUE” Divinity.

God wants us all to love and accept each other. Bare witness to His divine word and teachings and you will give Him great pleasure. Always.

 

[mormon_fool]

catholic-rcia:

It is well known that this was to define what Christians have always known prior to 451 A.D. It was to put an end to Heresy that had, and was popping up. It’s that Simple. An honest study shows this clearly.

Do you have a bibliography of what works should be read in an honest study? I would include now Catholic David Waltz review of an LDS book:

Bickmore then cites Henry Bettenson, who says, "‘subordinationism’ . . . was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."14 I fully concur with this assessment and will add that when one closely examines the doctrine of God and Jesus Christ in the early church fathers of the second and third centuries, one is hard pressed to find Trinitarianism�what one does find is diversity. Note what R. P. C. Hanson has to say: "Finally, what is this Christian midrash ? What are its contents? The Gnostic formulae of Ignatius? The angel-Christology of Hermas? . . . or the economic Trinity of Irenaeus and of Tertullian? The modalistic monarchianism of Callistus and Zephyrinus? The graded Trinity of Origen?"15 And John Henry Newman writes,
If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian. . . . Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity. . . . Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.16

Yet with all this diversity among the pre-Nicene, one point of theology remains constant: subordinationism.

**

So who is Stephen Robinson speaking to here?

**

I think his primary audience are LDS and anyone willing to give the Are Mormons Christians? question a fair hearing.
**

Maybe to those who may not know the Apostles Creed?

**

I personally don’t find anything objectionable about the Apostle’s Creed, even if its date of origin is disputed by Christian scholars.**

What is his motive other than trying to confirm to others that do not know that God is God? Just look at the word Trinity. It is a beautiful word.

**

His motive appears to be show that it is unfair to judge whether Mormons are Christians are not based on adherence to post-Biblical Creeds. Holding LDS to later orthodoxy and not the early Christians can not be done without employing a double standard. This seems like an easy-to-follow argument with no ulterior motives.

**

Just look at the word Trinity. It is a beautiful word.

**

Well as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If by “the doctrine of the Trinity” one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, (One in being) then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. (This is not an honest statement- only the words are the same, that it) It is as simple as that.

I disagree that it follows that fully divine persons must have the same Being. Individuals can share nature without being the same being. We have all been invited by Peter to “partakers of the divine nature”. Robinson is trying to make a simple statement, not one that views things through a post-biblical philosophical lens. **

Is it? Can you not see the deception here? God does not deceive in this manner.

**

Neither does Dr. Robinson. I hope we can all be careful about putting words in other’s mouths and being so distrustful. Obviously a healthy dose of skepticism is in order, though. I will respectfully decline to search for catholic deception. As I said earlier I would rather refute ideas with facts and logic. Now I hasten to add, without ad hominem.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

my4ducks:

Excuse my ignorance. But why would it matter if the content of the card was Christian? LDS, as stated before, do not believe in the sole divinity of Christ. That is what makes a person a Christian, believing in the “unique divinity” of Christ. Christ and JS share equal divine status in the Morman religion. So I don’t understand why one would be shocked that there wasn’t a “Christian” message inside. Yes, they show their love for Jesus by having more paintings of Him in their temples and centers, then most Christian religions, but that devotion does not make them Christian especially since they don’t believe in His “UNIQUE” Divinity.

God wants us all to love and accept each other. Bare witness to His divine word and teachings and you will give Him great pleasure. Always.

Nice post and elaboration on the “unique” divinity concept. I agree that Christ’s divinity is unique. So no, JS and Christ do not share “equal divine status”.

 

[flameburns623]

amgid:

What you mean is the “traditional understanding” of apostate Christianity regarding “the divinity of Christ, the Trinity” etc. Well, I quite agree that there are differences between the two; but we are not in the business of comparing Mormonism with apostate Christianity. We compare LDS teachings with that of the Bible; and there are no disagreements between teachings of the LDS Church and the doctrines taught in the Bible.

You mean “traditional language” of apostate Christendom. We do no such thing! Heaven forbid that we should try to “couch our theology” in the traditional language of apostate Christendom! In fact, we do not “couch” the language of our theology at all. Our theology is already “couched” in the revealed language of scripture, which is the language of the Bible. That is where it originally came form. It is God who is the Author of both.

I would go further. I would say that their beliefs do not “resemble the traditional teachings” of apostate Christendom at all—only in so far as the teachings of apostate Christendom, in any degree, resemble the teachings of the Bible.

You mean “authentic Christian faith” of apostate Christianity. That is what that means.

And I certainly agree!

Again, I find it hard to disagree. LDS don’t believe in the God of apostate Christendom, the Jesus of apostate Christendom, and the gospel of apostate Christendom. The God we believe in is the God of the Bible, the Jesus we believe in is the Jesus of the Bible, and the Gospel we believe in is the gospel of the Bible. I have no doubt there are vast differences between the two!

You mean an “apostate” Christian faith. Agreed!

You mean “apostate” Christian. Agreed!

Oh that’s very kind of you! Do give me a break will you? Mormons don’t need any of that from you.

You mean apostate Christianity. I think that it is already “truly apart from that”! It has been “apart from that” ever since it was created!

I don’t know how correct that comparison is; but it certainly is “apart form it”!

I don’t recall that that was her criticism. She hadn’t said anything about LDS not being “very devout to their own peculiar version of Jesus Christ”. So what exactly was the purpose of you post anyway?

amgid

Could I suggest that you employ the tools on this forum to do a web search of my posts. I am scarcely deserving of the heaping mound of sarcasm and venom that your post represents. More often than not, and even in this thread, I have posted favorably towards Mormonism. I have stood four-square for fair-mindedness and reasonableness in dialogue with Latter-Day Saints. In a few cases it has been suggested that I am too ‘nicey-nice’ in how I conduct my own conversations. I would think that you would want to respect that.

So far as the multiple jabs about ‘apostate Christianity’: you are presupposing what you ought to prove. Obviously, if we here thought that we were embracing ‘apostate Christianity’–we would abandon our version of the Christian faith for some more-authentic version thereof. Which might or might NOT be the Salt Lake City brand Mormonism.

 

[mormon_fool]

The rest of catholic-rcia’s scriptural cites show that some parts of the creedal trinity concepts indeed are found in the Bible. Certainly LDS Christians accept all those scriptures without reservation, albeit with interpretations sometimes differing from non-LDS Christians. None of them, however, refute Dr. Robinson’s contention that some of the concepts found in the creeds are not found in the Bible like coequal (“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28) and consubstantial.

Dr. Robinson supports most of his points from accepted Christian scholars.

It is a matter of record that the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is a postbiblical development – it is simply not found in the New Testament. In one of the major Christian treatments of the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesuit scholar Edmund J. Fortman, having examined the various parts of the New Testament individually, notes that “there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts.” He also observes that in the New Testament “nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead,” and that “in John there is no trinitarian formula.” 7 Concerning the letters of Paul, Fortman states:

    These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they     show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.     They give no trinitarian formula. . . but they offer material     for the later development of trinitarian doctrine. . . .     [Paul] has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut     realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much     material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine.     8

After examining all parts of the New Testament, Fortman concludes that the classical doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical:

    There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New     Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in     one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the     three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic     ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there . . .     .The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not     contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any     explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal     divine persons. 9

1. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 14, 16, 29.
   1. Fortman,* Triune God*, pp. 22-23.
   2. Fortman, Triune God, pp. 32, 35.
      
      Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette.
   Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. 12
   1. R. L. Richard, “Trinity, Holy,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15
      vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

flameburns623:

More often than not, and even in this thread, I have posted favorably towards Mormonism. I have stood four-square for fair-mindedness and reasonableness in dialogue with Latter-Day Saints. In a few cases it has been suggested that I am too ‘nicey-nice’ in how I conduct my own conversations.

I can vouch for this! Thanks for your participation.

respectfully :bowdown2:,
fool

 

[Bsix]

Catholic Christmas stuff. Christian? You decide.



A Catholic Christmas ornament.



Another Catholic Christmas ornament.

Moving on. With all due respect, I don’t think that Catholics have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing Mormons for using images of notable figures from our our church. After all, there are literally thousands of examples of non-Christ iconology in the Catholic Church. Take this one for example.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A Catholic Pope card. Christian? You decide.

My point is not to label Catholics as non-Christian. My point is simply to suggest how easy it is to distort and propagandize.

Regards,

Six

 

[catholic-rcia]

I can’t get into a theological discussion on the Nature God. I have to admit I have never in my life read a book from the first page to the Last. I get to bored. My brain does not work that way. If you have some specific simple questions to ask feel free. God is really not that complicated. He just wants us to know Him and then spend quality time with Him. He takes care of the rest.

Every day that I still breathe I give thanks to my Creator, to His Son for revealing my Father to me. When I hear Jesus I hear the Father. I do not occupy myself with Who He is, he is my Creator, He is the Creator of everything that is. He is with me at all times.
I know that part of me that lives in the world and unfortunately that part of me that wants what this world offers. But when I spend time with God the world has no value other than giving a soul a choice to live with its creator for all of eternity, helping other souls to find the same. God is everything that I could ever really want or desire. My whole foundation rest in Him alone, solely. So I have found my self wanting to be centered in Him forever, I have found my Savior that is my only hope in Him accomplishing this for me. For me Mormon Fool Christ is my Porthole Home. He is the path to that Cross on the hill. He is the gate in which we enter into heaven. In the Church he has set up the Sacraments in order for us to remain in Him long enough to make it through this gate.

Jesus was perfect because He allowed the perfect grace of His father to flow through his humanness. Adam could not do this because of temptation from Satan. None of us can do it. Only Jesus. It is what you have been tempted with as well. I have chosen Christ and His Church to get me through it.

Jesus did not seek equality with His Father as He simply was One with His father. Everything he did was because the Father asked Him to do it, nothing did he do for His own gain or Glory. He never once thought about Himself as we do. He came to do “all” for His Creation so that we could be with Him, because of His love for us, because of His love for the Father.

I was once offered all of the same gifts that you have been offered, by your Church and it’s teachings. I already live in the World Mormon Fool, I have no desire to attach it to me and attempt to carry it all into heaven. These things are no longer first in my life. God is.
God Bless

The Father is greater than the Son

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article112.htm

Worldwide Church of God on Trinity, as you know they were very hostile as to the Nature of God, revealed to His Church, through the Holy Spirit. (Hold Fast to Tradition / Very Biblical)

wcg.org/

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

Could I suggest that you employ the tools on this forum to do a web search of my posts. I am scarcely deserving of the heaping mound of sarcasm and venom that your post represents.

I was addressing your post, not you. I was responding to what you had written. My response was appropriate to that.

More often than not, and even in this thread, I have posted favorably towards Mormonism. I have stood four-square for fair-mindedness and reasonableness in dialogue with Latter-Day Saints.

I think that you are right about that, as far as I can recall from reading your previous posts.

In a few cases it has been suggested that I am too ‘nicey-nice’ in how I conduct my own conversations. I would think that you would want to respect that.

Well I don’t know who would want to make that suggestion, and for what reason! But I repeat what I said above. I address each post on its own merits, not on the merits of the poster. Just because you say nice things about LDS most of the time, it does not mean I should let you get away with murder on occasions when you don’t!

So far as the multiple jabs about ‘apostate Christianity’: you are presupposing what you ought to prove.

I could level the same criticism at you. By your “multiple jabs” at Mormonism you are presupposing what you ought to prove.

Obviously, if we here thought that we were embracing ‘apostate Christianity’–we would abandon our version of the Christian faith for some more-authentic version thereof.

Perhaps you would. That is why I said it!

Which might or might NOT be the Salt Lake City brand Mormonism.

If you did, you would have little else left from which to choose an alternative! There is only one viable alternative to Catholicism, and that is Mormonism.

amgid

 

[amgid]

catsrus:

Twelve times you used that accusation in just one post.

As I said to flameburns, my response was addressed to his post. It was appropriate to the post to which it was given.

You are correct about one thing; mormonism, being “created” less than 200 years ago certainly does set it apart from the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago.

Actually, that is not quite what I said. Mormonism IS “the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago”. It is a restoration of that original Church, with the same authority, priesthood, and the keys of revelation for the whole Church (and for the world). Mormonism, however, does indeed remain “set apart” from the apostate Christendom of subsequent centuries, which departed from that original Church.

amgid

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by amgid
Actually, that is not quite what I said.

Let’s read it again.

originally posted by **amgid **
It has been “apart from that” ever since it was created!

Sure you did.

originally posted by amgid
Mormonism IS “the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago”. It is a restoration of that original Church

“That original church” ***IS ***" the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago".
Mormonism was created by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. That’s a historical fact which no amount of twisting 2000 year old scripture, nor adding to it, can refute.
Christ told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He established. (Matt. 16:18) By mormonism’s claim that that entire Church fell into apostasy immediately after the death of St. John, it is claiming Christ a liar. That is a mortal sin on the soul of anyone and everyone who makes that particular claim.
Further, it makes a liar of St. Paul who wrote the Galatians (Gal.1:8) that “Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that one be accursed” (Take heed! Is not the bom called “another gosple of Jesus Christ”?)
You state that your using the term “apostate christianity” is “acceptable” and “appropriate” to a post.
I submit that it is, not only UNacceptable but entirely uncharitable, especially considering the people to whom your are addressing the term.
As far as the Christmas Card with JS on the front, that is certainly acceptable and appropriate - to send to a fellow mormon.

 

[flameburns623]

amgd:

flameburns623:

Obviously, if we here thought that we were embracing ‘apostate Christianity’–we would abandon our version of the Christian faith for some more-authentic version thereof. Which might or might NOT be the Salt Lake City brand Mormonism.

If you did, you would have little else left from which to choose an alternative! There is only one viable alternative to Catholicism, and that is Mormonism.

ROTFL. Yes I know LeGrand Richards says that in his LDS book A Marvelous Work and A Wonder. But it totally disregards the vast array of Christian denominations out there and the various sorts of claims they make. For one thing, it disregards the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy and how they explain the continuance of apostolic succession. For another it totally disregards what the Reformers explained about how apostolic succession worked. Finally–it ignores the several score of LDS denominations which compete with SLC for claims upon the mantle of Joseph Smith.
amgd:

I was addressing your post, not you. I was responding to what you had written. My response was appropriate to that.

I think the tone of your response was entirely inappropriate to what I had written. I invite you to re-read my post again. I don’t resent the fact that you responded. I resent the arrogant and insulting tone in which you responded. My post was dispassionate, carefully considered, and analytical; not spiteful nor angry in tone. Yours however was quite intemperate, inconsiderate, and harsh. I admire the LDS Church, it’s people and organization, despite having left it for specific reasons. Obviously, you remain a faithful member of the LDS Church, and as such wish to defend it from criticism. I can and do respect that; please respect that I feel differently about the truth-claims of Mormonism.

My point was that I seldom if ever am unfair or disrespectful, towards Mormons or towards anyone else at this forum. You therefore were neither goaded by the specific post to which you chose to respond nor–to my recollection–by any prior history of incediary behavior on my part. If you felt you needed to make a response, you could have responded with the same measure of courtesy that I showed in the post to which you were responding, the same tone with which I–so far as I can recollect–always employ in discussing this issue. I am, after all, pursuing dialogue, not disputatiousness. A bit of winsomeness and polite interaction on your own part would not only be fair to me but would probably make a better impression upon others who read these exchanges.

 

[ese]

catsrus:

Let’s read it again.

Sure you did.

“That original church” ***IS ***" the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago".
Mormonism was created by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. That’s a historical fact which no amount of twisting 2000 year old scripture, nor adding to it, can refute.
Christ told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He established. (Matt. 16:18) By mormonism’s claim that that entire Church fell into apostasy immediately after the death of St. John, it is claiming Christ a liar. That is a mortal sin on the soul of anyone and everyone who makes that particular claim.
Further, it makes a liar of St. Paul who wrote the Galatians (Gal.1:8) that “Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that one be accursed” (Take heed! Is not the bom called “another gosple of Jesus Christ”?)
You state that your using the term “apostate christianity” is “acceptable” and “appropriate” to a post.
I submit that it is, not only UNacceptable but entirely uncharitable, especially considering the people to whom your are addressing the term.
As far as the Christmas Card with JS on the front, that is certainly acceptable and appropriate - to send to a fellow mormon.

I must say I am impressed, all this over a christmas card, personally, if you think a christmas card is not in the right spirit, oh well,as far as it being christian is in the eye of the beholder, in this case the sender.

As for mormonism it is the creation of primarily Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and a host of others.

It’s so easy to figure out a child could do it. First of all the mormon scriptures of the LDS church contradict each other, secondly the BOM can not be refuted, why you say, because there isn’t another to compare it to, the original and only copy was taken back.

The bible has been translated from it’s original many times over and if compared it could be counted on as relyable, Although the one the mormons use has 7 books missing from the original canon of the bible.

These 7 books were taken out by an apostate catholic priest, who although had legitimate claims against the CC took it upon himself to change scripture to suit his own theology, which is a

no no.

In the LDS D&C it can be proven that Joseph Smith is a false Prophet, by using the bible’'s qualifications for a true prophet.
A true prophet has to be right 100% of the time which Joseph Smith wasn’t. To refute this by saying other prophets were not right 100% of the time doesn’t prove Joseph Smith to be a true prophet, it only proves other prophets were also not true prophets also.

The true Killer of Mormonism is the Pearl of Great Price…

Here we have a con aritist at his best, buying scrolls taken from an egyptian mummy and trying to pass it off as scripture is a lu-lu…

His translation abilities can now be put to the test with actual and authenic scrolls that he used in his translations, The LDS church still has them and anyone can look at them if they are willing to honestly look for the truth.

Unknown to Joseph Smith, In 1822 the rosetta stone was deciphered, what is the rosetta stone you say, it’s a key to translate greek to Egyptian hyroglyphys and visa versa.

Story

With this information in hand I don’t see what keeps people in mormonism,well I take that back, I was told by a good friend of mine that even if mormonism was proven wrong he would never leave it because he had committed his life to it,I really pity him and pray for him.

 

[amgid]

“That original church” IS " the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago".

“That original church” WAS “the Church established by Christ 2000 years ago”. Then it went apostate, and had to be restored.

Mormonism was created by Joseph Smith in the 19th century.

Mormonism was created by God through Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Joseph Smith was a prophet of the Lord, and an instrument in His hand to bring about the restoration of His Church on earth. Although it was “created” in the 19th century, nevertheless it is a restoration of the true Church of Christ which was established 2000 years ago.

That’s a historical fact which no amount of twisting 2000 year old scripture, nor adding to it, can refute.

The real “historical fact” is the one I have just described above, which no amount of “burying your head in the sand” can refute.

Christ told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He established. (Matt. 16:18) By mormonism’s claim that that entire Church fell into apostasy immediately after the death of St. John, it is claiming Christ a liar. That is a mortal sin on the soul of anyone and everyone who makes that particular claim.
Further, it makes a liar of St. Paul who wrote the Galatians (Gal.1:8) that “Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that one be accursed” (Take heed! Is not the bom called “another gosple of Jesus Christ”?)
You state that your using the term “apostate christianity” is “acceptable” and “appropriate” to a post.
I submit that it is, not only UNacceptable but entirely uncharitable, especially considering the people to whom your are addressing the term.
As far as the Christmas Card with JS on the front, that is certainly acceptable and appropriate - to send to a fellow mormon.

All the points you have raised have already been discussed and refuted on this board before. I don’t think there is any need to go through that all over again here at the present time.

amgid

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

ROTFL. Yes I know LeGrand Richards says that in his LDS book A Marvelous Work and A Wonder. But it totally disregards the vast array of Christian denominations out there and the various sorts of claims they make. For one thing, it disregards the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy and how they explain the continuance of apostolic succession. For another it totally disregards what the Reformers explained about how apostolic succession worked. Finally–it ignores the several score of LDS denominations which compete with SLC for claims upon the mantle of Joseph Smith.

I would say that is a matter of opinion.

I think the tone of your response was entirely inappropriate to what I had written. I invite you to re-read my post again. . . .

Thank you for your comments. I generally tend to be harsher in my response to our critics that other LDS tend to be. That is because experience with anti-Mormons has taught me that way. You may be sincere in thinking that you didn’t deserve do be as harshly responded to as I did. But after rereading your original post, as well as my response to it, I believe that my response was in general appropriate to your post. You seem to think that by being “nice” to LDS most of the time, that allows you the license for the occasional jibe. I can’t agree. I think that the real cause of your resentment is that you weren’t able to have it your way. It seems that you aren’t accustomed to that. I am afraid that is a fact of life in a discussion forum. As I said before, I respond to each post according to its merits, not the merits of the poster. My response was appropriate to your post.

amgid