Let’s keep the below passage from Isaiah in mind.
Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.



1 Nephi ch4

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
38 And it came to pass that we took the plates of brass and the servant of Laban, and departed into the wilderness, and journeyed unto the tent of our father.

Question 1.
2 Nephi ch2
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

If these Nephite people had the law wouldn’t they know God told Adam and Eve to multiply? It would seem to contradict the book of Genesis where God told Adam and Eve to multiply. Can you explain?

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Question 2.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

26 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.

10 And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses.

This one is ripe with questions. But I’ll ask just a few.

If they had the law wouldn’t they have known they needed a Levite to be a priest?  
Were Jacob and Joseph levites?
And who was Nephi to consecrate them as such?
How did they offer sacrifices without a Levite priest?

Why were they building multiple temples when God only commissioned a temple in one location?

48 And so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name:


Question 3.
Alma 7:10
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Micah 5:2
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

John 7:42
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Who is right? Micah or alma?


From what I’m seeing, according to Isaiah, there doesn’t seem to a whole lot of light in Ol’ Joe Smith.

I'm not a member of the LDS, but if I were, I would not answer you because here in your parting shot, you flippantly state your bias. You have come to your conclusion and don't appear to actually want an answer.

I was taught he was a heretic. Isaiah says what it says. From  my reading of the Book of Mormon thus far it seems to be that  I was taught correctly. This is a religious discussion forum. Can I not ask about what seems to be clear contradictions between the scripture and the BoM? Idk why but it seems you have a axe to grind with me and keep popping into the lds threads to attack rather than offer a answer for the question.

It sure sounds like OP has already made up their mind about the issues brought up.  So I would avoid an answer as arguing with someone who has already made up their mind is a waste of my time.

I'm not saying OP is right or wrong about their bias or conclusions..I am saying I don't see any point in responding.  OP has every right to their interpretation and beliefs.

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon acknowledge the possibility of incorrect translation or other scrivener’s errors in existing Christian Scripture?

Somebody more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the LDS church expressly espouses the view that there are errors in the Christian Bible.

On the issue of whether Mormons should be considered Christians, here's a relatively brief video that breaks it down nicely.

The Bible is full of contradictions, if you look at it without faith. Same with Latter-Day scriptures. But in this particular instance, I don't see any sort of contradiction... We believe that Adam fell. We understand Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply, which they did.

The fall of Adam... Link




The prophet Lehi was called directly by God to be a prophet, and would have had the authority to perform Gods ordinances. The "priesthood" existed in the Book of Mormon times and with Church leaders in the Book of Mormon. Lehi (Book of Mormon), Gideon (Bible), and Samuel (Bible) were from the same Tribe of Israel. Not Levites. But Gideon, Samuel, and Lehi were all true prophets.

We believe the Temple is sacred and important to God and followers of Christ are meant (as Christ did) to worship in the Temple.

As followers of Christ in the Latter-Days The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints builds Temples, and practices Temple worship.

Lehi was a Jew, and would have been familiar with Temple worship, and took the practice with him. There was more than one Temple for Jews back then. Biblical archeology has turned up multiple Jewish Temples from the time period. Worshipping in Temples is consistent with Gods teachings for His people to worship in Temples.




First, Bethlehem is in the "land of Jerusalem." This is considered a literary "evidence" of the truth of the book of mormon... "land of Jerusalem" is an ancient phrase that gives authenticity to the Book of Mormon... Link

Smith had no idea that "land of Jerusalem" was an ancient phrase, and this is an evidence of the Book of Mormons authenticity...







Smith would not have known that Biblical archeology would turn-up several ancient Jewish Temples. Smith would not have known that "land of Jerusalem" was an ancient phrase.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saintss considers the Bible to be the word of God... Link




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. We are not post-creed "Christians" but we do follow the teachings of Christ. I consider myself to be a follower of Christ. I consider myself a Christian.

"More than one God"... Your video author (Dougherty) has no idea about the difference between pre-creed "Christian" beliefs and post-creed "Christian" beliefs.

The argument of "more than one God" was argued in the time of the early creeds. It was used against followers of Christ back then...

From another one of my posts on this subject:




.





"Christians do not believe you can become a God." Holy crap. Yes they do, well at least they did in the pre-creed Church. Holy crap.



"Christians" --today-- have left that early Christian teaching. But deification was a Christian teaching before the early creeds. Its also in the Bible, which she discounts. She acknowledges there is scripture on it, ignoring that not only is there scripture, there is also historical precedent.

.





"They believe God was once a human being just like us." That is false. That is not an official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The origin of God is speculation and postulation.  While we --clearly-- practice and believe in the clearly-scriptural, and clearly-historical teaching of "deification" we only know that God The Father is an immortal, eternal being. His origin is speculation and postulation. And His origin is not found in codified official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.


.






The need for Prophets... The scriptures are clear that we --need-- Prophets. There will be true prophets for the people of God to follow. And, tragically, there will be false prophets who misconstrue, mis-state, and mis-represent the truth of The Church of Jesus Christ.


.





The need for Temple worship... Christ worshipped  in the Temple. He defended it, and worshipped in it. So do we. Christs followers continued to worship in the Temple --after-- Christs ascension.



The followers of Christ worshipped in the Temple after the ascension of Christ. So do we, as His followers.

Biblical archeology has discovered several Jewish Temples. The "only -one- in Jerusalem" thing was more than likely a political position, rather than "Biblical truth" since several Temples have been discovered.

.





"Christians don't do Temples." Uh, Christ worshipped in the Temple, He defended the Temple. His followers worshipped in the Temple after His ascension, and Temple worship has been an important -thing- to the followers of God from early in the Bible. That rates a full holy cow on the holy cow scale.


.




"Christians don't believe there are restrictions on food." Every not-Latter Day Saint Christian I know has restrictions on what they put into their body. They might not draw a hard-line like we do, but they don't "drink to excess," they try to eat healthy, and they consider (as we do) their body to be creations of God. Our teachings on health is not usually criticized, as most other "Christians" respect this teaching. Whitmer left The Church, and made unflattering statements about the early Church, and Smith. Whitmers statements might be historically interesting, but not acknowledging that Whitmer had left The Church, and disavowed Smith is something to consider in the historical sense.


.
.
Only Christ holds the priesthood? Eh? Er? Christ established a Church when Christ was on the earth. That Church was meant to last. That Church had His authority, and His leaders. His leaders could baptize in His name. The New Testament is clear that Christs Apostles performed ordinances in His name after His ascension.



.






.
"Christians do not believe the Bible is true as long as it is translated correctly." There is not much daylight between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other followers of Christ on this subject. We all want to see the --original-- writings of the Prophets and Apostles those records just don't exist.

The comment, "lets look at the early Greek translations. Lets look at the early Hebrey translations" is a common phrase among all faiths.

The Bible being translated correctly is an important thing for all believers. Dougherty criticizes Latter-Day Saints for believing the Bible needs to be translated correctly, but does not give the Bible version that is translated correctly. Some are better translations than others. She does not acknowledge that we believe the Bible to be scripture.

.






"Feelings are the truth." That is an absolute mis-statement and mis-understanding concerning the truths of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The truth is the truth. God is the source of all truth.


.





"Christians are allowed to test what they believe [members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] are not allowed to look, they call it, "anti-[Church of Jesus Christ] literature." I answer antagonists to truth all the time. I answer critics to The Church all the time. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints encounter antagonists to our teachings in Christ all the time. At the Temple open-house in Indy, antagonists to truth passed-out antagonistic literature and used megaphones to attack our religion. While the Mayor and Chief of Police (among others) were taking a tour. Kind of funny. But yeah, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints encounter antagonists, and answer critics. Some more than others. But Look at what I am doing now...

Members of The Church are encouraged to read the scriptures, study Gods word, seek answers to difficult questions, and seek answers from God on difficult faith questions.

Antagonists to The Church often mis-represent, mis-state, and sometimes openly lie about our beliefs and our truths. But there are faithful and honest answers to criticisms of our religion.


.
"Saying you just have faith is not enough." According to the Bible, "faith" is very important for followers of Christ. We follow Christ. Faith is hard when confronted with criticisms and antagonisms. But faith is --indeed-- "enough" for followers of Christ. If the question is based on faith and religious belief, then the answer is faith.




.






"The Book of Mormon has no evidence to support it at all." Just like the Bible, which has to be taken with faith. So does the Book of Mormon. Faith. Dougherty just spent a minute attacking faith. Unbelievable. She is just taking a page from the atheism playbook. Her diatribe against the Book of Mormon is just a replicated argument from atheists against the Bible.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepts the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Through faith. "Walking the streets of Jerusalem" does not prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not prove Christ worshipping in the Temple, or Christs baptism, or Christ defending the Temple. The --teachings-- of the Bible have to be taken with faith.

An atheist would destroy her "mountains of evidence" about the Bible statement. And a faithful Latter-Day Saint will see tremendous, tremendous evidence of the Book of Mormon in America. Because there is insurmountable evidence to those who have --faith-- (something she just railed against), while someone without faith will never believe.



.





"Christians believe the Bible is true." So does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Still no version which is the most correct Bible. But it is still a statement that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would agree with. We also believe the Bible is the word of God.



.
"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] have a different Jesus and a different gospel." Our teachings are more in-line with the pre-creed Church. They are also in-line with the Bible. The pre-creed Church believed God and Jesus were separate, and Christ was subordinate to God. Something we believe, but most other "Christians" reject.

We believe in and follow Jesus Christ.


.





"Jesus is one of many Gods." We believe Jesus is Gods son. But also eternal and a God. "Jesus is one of many Gods" is a mis-representation and a mis-statement concerning the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The argument that followers of Christ in the pre-creed sense are "polytheistic" is an argument that has existed since the time of the early creeds. And Jews consider other "Christians" to be "polytheistic.


.





"Jesus is Lucifers brother."  We believe that God created us all, including Satan. Satan rebelled against God and Christ, and spreads evil, mis-represents truth and attacks the followers of God. Christ --on the other hand-- is our savior. We worship Jesus Christ.

.
"You have to obey the commandments; you have to do Temple work..." Christ taught in John 14:15 to keep His commandments. Christ also worshipped in the Temple. Keeping His commandments, serving Him, proselytizing in His name, worshipping in the Temple... That is all Christs teachings and example from the Bible. Following Christ in the pre-creed Church was not easy. Following Christ in the Latter-Day Church is sometimes not easy.



.






"You have to do the works of [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] in order to be saved." Christ established a Church when He was on the earth. That Church could baptize in His name. His followers worshipped in the Temple after His ascension. We believe we are His Church today. Baptism? We have the authority and authorization to baptize in His name. Same as the early Church.



.





"The end game of their gospel is to become a God." That was the end-game of the pre-creed Church as well. Deification is an ancient belief. It is found in the Bible, and it is found in the historical teachings and practices of the pre-creed Church.



.
"This is not stuff they tell you at your doorstep, by the way." Teaching what people can accept is a teaching of Jesus Christ. Christ taught not to throw pearls before swine. Christ also taught that milk should come before meat in the gospel. That is found in the Bible.



.
Smith taught a different gospel? Smith had no idea that the pre-creed Church believed or practiced anything contrary to what other Churches practiced at the time. Christ being seperate from God and subordinate to God is found in the Bible, and it is found in the pre-creed Church. For her to say that what Smith taught was not-"Christian" would discount the first 300 years of Christianity. Christ being separate from God the Father and subordinate to God was the prominent belief for the first 300 years of Christianity. What we believe is found in the Bible.



.
"What most [members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] say what they believe not through facts or evidence or critical analysis most of them say its because of their testimony." This attack makes no sense to me. We are taught --in the Bible-- to have faith. This is kind of weird to me because Dougherty is --essentially-- attacking and criticizing faith.

We are not taught in the Bible to believe through facts and evidence. We are taught to believe through faith. Faith. Faith is important. Faith is critical.

She is attacking faith. Religious belief. I believe the Bible through faith. I believe in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints through faith.

Faith is critical. I cannot fathom any follower of Christ of any variety attacking faith and religious belief in others. That is hard for me to wrap my head around.



.
"The Spirit bore witness to them." The Bible teaches to seek answers to God through prayer, and His Spirit moves in people, and The Spirit can direct people. The Spirit can guide people to truth and testify of truth. That is a belief in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but it is also a belief shared among other followers of Christ. Both pre-creed followers of Christ and post-creed followers of Christ.





.
"Feelings as a compass for truth is a very dangerous thing." We do not use "feelings" as a compass for truth. The Spirit can testify of truth. That is clear. But there are other elements to our belief that she leaves out. Does it reconcile with the scriptures? Do you share it with others? Does it testify of God our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ? Feelings are important, but she mis-represents and mis-states  and over-states our reliance on "feelings." The Spirit of God is described in "feelings" in the Bible, and it is easy to misunderstand or mis-state. But knowledge is also emphasized in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Scriptural teachings, and following God and knowledge from God are also emphasized.

Prayer, and following guidance from prayer is also important in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Something she ignores.



.






"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] is more new-age than it is Christian." Temple worship is an ancient practice. Something we do. That is not "new age." Deification (something she attacks) is not "new age." It is ancient. Following prophets is in the Bible.


.
"There are so many false prophets out there." False prophets will mis-represent and mis-state the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.




.
"The heart is deceptive." The Bible teaches to seek God in prayer, God answers prayer, and the fruits of the Spirit of God are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness." God will lead us and give us direction to him through the scriptures, through prophets, and through answer to prayer and the Spirit of God (peace, love, joy, etc.).





.
"[Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] are told not to trust the Bible, but to trust your feelings." This is an absolutely absurd falsehood Dougherty stated. We trust the Bible as the word of God. Through faith. The fruits and manifestation of The Spirit will bring us closer to God. I --think-- her point is that the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints contradict the Bible, which is a falsehood and misrepresentation on her part. Deification can be found in the Bible. Christ being Gods Son and subordinate to God can be found in the Bible. There is also a clear historical record of these teachings in the first 300 years of The Church after Christs ascension.


.





"Christians believe Christ bore our sins on the Cross, [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] believe Christ bore our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane." This is a mis-representation and mis-statement of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We believe that Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane, and also suffered and died on the Cross.

Link



.
The "cross" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... You find Christ being crucified in pictures and teachings in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We do understand the significance of the cross as the instrument to torture and kill Christ. We understand the cross and its meaning. Us not using the cross is more of a marketing tool, probably, but more and more members of The Church are wearing crosses, and using crosses. A missionary serving in our Ward had a cross necklace. But there is more to the gospel of Christ than the weapon used to torture and kill Christ. And our Churches have a "spire" to signify Christs resurrection over his death. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the cross per se in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We do not consider it an evil symbol. We do not consider it to be a bad symbol. And you will find pictures of Christs being hung on a cross in official Church media.






.
"Christians do not believe you have to work for your salvation." We believe that --continual-- repentance, and continual dedication to Christ, and fulfilling ordinances in His Church are required for salvation. So do Catholics. And if Catholics are not "Christian" then Christianity is in a whole lot of trouble. The scriptures that state that faith without works is dead are true scriptures. So are scriptures that state that we are saved through grace. Both things are true at the same time. And both things are found in the Bible.



.
"There is nothing (Temple work, etc) you can do to make it enough." That is pretty much our teachings. Nothing we can do will be enough. We --in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints-- believe we are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ, not through our "works." Yes... Christ worshipped in the Temple. So do we. Christ was baptized. Ordinances are required. We follow Him, and keep His commandments. But we are ultimately saved through Christs atonement.






.
"Jesus is enough." We believe in Jesus Christ. We follow Jesus Christ. We believe we are saved through Jesus Christ. "His grace is sufficient." Link






.



That was a 25 minute antagonistic video, and it only presented one side... It only presented the antagonistic side to the argument that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows the teachings of Christ. From a post-creed, "evangelical Christian" point of view.

I addressed the principal points Dougherty brought-up against The Church. We do follow Jesus Christ. We do believe the Bible is sacred scripture (even though we do not possess the original writings of the original prophets and apostles.) We do believe in and worship Jesus Christ. But we are not creedal Christians. If you hold us to the standard of post-creed "Christianity" (which is pretty much all what Dougherty did) we don't look so great against the yardstick. Even still, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows Christ.

But if you hold us up against the pre-creed yardstick, we actually look pretty good against it.

It was funny answering the false and misguided representation of our beliefs, and came to the part where Dougherty falsely says that followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are scared of antagonists to truth. That was pretty funny. I am typing away while the youtube antagonistic attack is going and had a chuckle at her complete lack of awareness and objectivity... and complete lack of integrity. She is her own hero. There are objective and truthful answers to antagonistic slights and attacks against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I wish I had time to respond to each argument, but unfortunately I don't. It seems like the majority of your responses boiled down to "we espouse pre-creed beliefs," many of which have been rejected by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations. Stated differently, these amount to significant differences in the beliefs between the LDS Church and mainstream Christian churches about who God and Christ are, the nature of salvation, life after death, the history of believers, and other significant underpinnings of our faiths, regardless of when the beliefs arose. There were many pre-creed heretical teachings that were also explicitly rejected in Scripture, and the fact that a belief lines up with pre-creed theology does not, by itself, support the belief's validity.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Mormons' faith or their love for who they believe Christ to be. The Mormons I've known have been very kind, positive, and friendly people. But the bottom line is that regardless of what people say, a close examination of the teachings of the LDS church shows that although the church espouses certain tenets of Christianity as-expressed in the Bible, the Book of Mormon and other Mormon beliefs adds to those tenets and modifies others to the point that there are fundamental differences in the basic theologies of the LDS church and other Christian denominations. And in my view, these differences are so significant as to amount to an entirely different faith. YMMV.

I have tried to look at how a person lives their life and how they interact with others around them, rather than judging whether I think their religious system is right or wrong.  

I'm not a Mormon, but those Mormons I have met have always treated me well, and seemed to treat those around them well.  I have nothing but positive things to say about the Mormons I have met.

Put yourself in my shoes. I had to watch the video in its entirety, identify each major line of attack against my Christ-centered faith, and give a response.

Defending Christ is no easy chore.

Then I get to the part where the antagonist essentially states, "[Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] won't look at antagonist material to their religious beliefs."

Lol, rofl.

Taking the time to respond to attacks to our Christ-centered religious beliefs is why antagonists won't give one criticism. They make long lists. To make it difficult and time consuming to address each one. And they mix weak and made-up arguments with stronger arguments to try to make it more difficult and time consuming to address the stronger arguments.






Not necessarily.

Many of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are found int he pre-creed Church. Of course the post-creed Church is going to reject the teachings of the early Church.

That Smith didn't know about the pre-creed Church is interesting, and it is an evidence Smith was a true Prophet.

But the antagonist in the video at one point said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can defend our beliefs with scripture, but then the antagonist to truth dismissed that by saying we "cherry pick" scripture to prove our points.

The things that make us "different" than post-creed Christians are indeed found in scripture. But when we point that out, we are accused of "cherry picking" scripture. Then we point to the historical evidence of the teaching in the earliest Church of Jesus Christ, and post-creed Christians dismiss that.

The teachings and practices of the pre-creed Church are important to understanding the teachings of Christ.






We can point to scripture to defend our beliefs. We accept the Bible as the word of God, and many of the things antagonists to truth point-to to say, "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don't follow Jesus Christ" are clearly-taught in the Bible.

The pre-creed Church taught that Christ was subordinate to God, and separate from God, Gods son. That is found in the pre-creed Church. And it is found --abundantly-- in scripture.

The pre-creed Church taught that we would be deified with God. We will share Gods throne is in the Bible. We are the offspring of God is in the Bible. Deification is abundant in the pre-creed Church, and it is abundant in the Bible.

The things post-creed antagonists to truth point to and say, "that is blaspheme!" Are found in the Bible. Then they turn around --when we can show it is in scripture-- "well The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cherry-picks scripture."







Deification is found in scripture.






The followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the tenets and teachings of Christ. Christ taught His followers to be kind, positive, and friendly people.

Christ taught His followers to share His gospel, serve Him and His Church, serve in His Temple, serve others, do good works with faith and in His name, Baptise in His name.

The followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints espouse and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

One not-Latter-Day Saint "Christian" theologian states the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is obsessed with the teachings of Jesus Christ...







It is weird to watch the antagonistic video, and see our beliefs mis-represented. Half-truths of our beliefs presented as factual. Open and obvious lies about our beliefs... By someone who claims to be a "Christian."

That is hard to stomach.

Then the antagonist states that they are motivated by a love for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Eh. Er. Ok. Sure. Lol.

The primary tenets where post-creed Christians find disagreement are our beliefs that are found in the Bible.

Christ worshipped in His Temple, His followers worshipped in His Temple after His ascension. So do we. As followers of Christ.

We believe in Deification. A teaching found in the Bible. There are lots of verses about it. It isn't a cherry-picked doctrine. And it is a teaching found in the earliest "Christian" Church.

We believe Christ is Gods Son and subordinate to the Father. That is found in the Bible. And it is a teaching found in the earliest "Christian" Church.

The standard for truth is Gods word, but there can be disagreement of Gods word. The Bible states to seek wisdom from God in prayer, and that the Holy Spirit will answer prayer, and guide followers of God to truth. If you seek Gods truth, seek God in prayer. If you seek Gods truth, follow the Holy Spirit.

The antagonist down-played the influence of the Holy Spirit for those seeking Gods truth. But seeking God in prayer and following Him through the Holy Spirit is in the Bible.

It's almost as if people from different religions have different beliefs.

If you really want to persecute and attack people of different religions, you should probably be a Muslim.

Nobody is going to tell me if I'm a Christian or not, especially some stupid YouTube video, that's between me and Christ.  

OPs posts definitely do not have Christlike intentions.

With all due respect, I find the attempts to downplay the differences between LDS and other churches' teaching to be a bit disingenuous. You can't point to the similarities between the two systems of faith to justify sweeping the differences under the rug, as if they don't exist.

Let me frame the question this way: what do Mormons believe that other Christians don't?

An example of dishonesty would be claims made in the antagonistic video you posted that do not match actual formal codified teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Another example of dishonesty is the antagonistic video itself. It had no rebuttal posted, and no faithful member of The Church to present counter-arguments. If you are going to ask if members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, ask them. Go to the source. Antagonists to truth will say (as the antagonist in your video said) "I have done all the homework, you can trust me." Then they misrepresent and mis-state our beliefs in an effort to attack them. If you want to know what we believe? Come worship with us. Come to us.

Those "Christian" theologians who actually take the time to talk to us might leave disagreeing with us on points of doctrine. Many acknowledge that what we believe matches Biblical teachings, and ancient Christian beliefs. But most acknowledge that we believe in and follow Jesus Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

No one is downplaying differences between the early-Christian Church and the post-creed Church. The creeds destroyed many sacred and important and central teachings of early Christianity.

No one is downplaying the differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is not a post-creed "Christian" Church and most of the rest of "Christianity" which is mostly "creedal Christians." There are significant differences between early Christianity and post-creed Christianity. There are significant differences between the not-creedal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other "creedal Christians."

There are differences.

Temple worship... Christ worshipped in the Temple. His followers at His time worshipped in the Temple. After His ascension, His followers worshipped in the Temple.

Many other post-creed Christians mock and deride our Christ-centered worship of Christ in the Temple. Many other post-creed Christians point to our worship of Christ in Temples as a difference between our beliefs and their beliefs.

Our worship of Christ in Christs Temple is a --significant-- difference in our beliefs. We worship in Temples, as Christ did, and we defend our Temples as Christ did.

Baptism, and ordinances... Christ was baptized. We follow Christs example and baptize in His name. Many other "Christians" will say there is no need for ordinances such as repentance and baptism. Many other "Christians" will say that baptism in Christs name is a "work." We consider it a required ordinance to accept Christ and it is done to follow the example of Christ in our Christ-centered worship.

There are --significant-- differences in beliefs between the earliest Christian Church and the post-creed Church. We consider the changes made to the earliest Christian teachings to be acts of apostasy. There are significant differences in beliefs between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and most other "creedal Christian" churches.

What is weird though... Is to see other (usually "creedal Christians") point to our belief in deification (clearly found in the Bible), and Temple worship (clearly -lol, fofl- found in the Bible) and point to those beliefs and say: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints worships Christs in the Temple, and believe in deification, and require baptism, therefore they are not true "Christians." That is absolutely nuts.

No one. No one is saying we are like post-creed Christians. No one is saying post-creed Christians got it right, and we are like them, without any sort of differences. No one is insinuating that or saying that.

What we are saying is: we worship Jesus Christ in The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

People misrepresent our beliefs and lie about our beliefs to try to draw a line between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Jesus Christ.





The problem from your hit-job video you posted is that the antagonist had to ignore certain truths, and had to make up stuff to try to make her point that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not follow Christ.

We don't believe in the Bible? Lie. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. It is included in our canon of scripture.

Why do other "Christians" lie about our beliefs and misrepresent our beliefs in order to make their points against us? We believe the Bible to be the word of God.




For many differences, you have to look at the early Christian Church. The pre-creed Church.

Most of the rest of "modern" Christianity are "creedal Christians." They espouse the teachings and central beliefs of the early creeds.

The early Church was not-trinitarian. The early Christian Church believed God and Christ were separate, and that Christ was subordinate to God. What we believe in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

So if you study and examine the early "Christian" Church you can see many significant differences between post-creed Christianity and early Christianity.

For most of the differences in beliefs, we can point to early Christianity.

Even though there are differences in our beliefs, not-Latter Day Saint "Christian" theologian Webb states that we are "Christian."

Link


So... Are there -significant and extreme- differences in belief and practices between the early Christian Church and post-creed "Christianity?" Yes. The chasm of beliefs between early Christianity and the "Church" and codified belief system that resulted from the early creeds is extreme.

Are there differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other "Christian" denominations? Yes.

That is not really the argument. The argument is: does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? The answer is yes.

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints worship Jesus Christ? The answer is yes.

Do we believe in Christs atonement? Yes. Do we believe he suffered for our sins in Gethsemane and Christ died for our sins on the cross? Yes. Do we believe Christ overcame death, and was resurrected? Yes.

Are we saved and exalted through Christ after following Him with faith and repenting and receiving His ordinances? Yes. Following Christ, serving others, serving His Church, missionary work, worshipping Christ in the Temple... Those are all Biblical mandates. Yes, we do those things that are --clearly-- taught in the Bible.

Do we follow Christ? Yes.

You're dodging the question and trying to point to the similarities between the two again to avoid talking about the differences. I don't think you want to discuss the differences because it would demonstrate that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and other Mormon books create significant deviations from the theology set forth the Bible. Here are just a few, from what I can tell:

-Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, in which God denounced modern Christianity and ordered Smith to restore true Christianity.
-Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is a new revelation of Jesus Christ that contains information and doctrine not found in the Bible or espoused by any other Christian denomination. The additional aforementioned books are also not espoused by any other Christian denomination.
-Mormons believe that God was an exalted man who became a god through good works; this contrasts with the Biblical teaching that God is spirit and was always in existence as he was from the beginning.
-Mormons believe that they can also become gods in a tiered system of heaven through their works and fulfillment of certain church-associated duties on earth; Christians believe that they are only saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and that they cannot attain salvation through their works.
-Mormons do not believe in a triune godhead, but rather believe that God the Father is superior to Jesus Christ; Christians believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are coeternal and coequal members of the same God.
-Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers; again, this contrasts with Christians' understanding regarding Christ's identity as part of God, and their belief that Satan was a fallen angel.

These are just a few of the differences that I can tell. You can tell me (again) that Mormon beliefs don't contrast with early church teachings (as opposed to modern Christian beliefs), but that wasn't the question I posed. The question I posed was whether Mormonism differed from Christian denominations as they exist today.

Does the church teach that God was once a man who came from another planet? That's not biblical.

Does the church teach that God was physically intimate with Mary? Also not biblical

Do you teach that a prophet's prophecies can be "revised"? Also not biblical (with nuance, as I'm aware of the possibility that the Jews misunderstanding the prophecy or expecting different about the Messiah could be brought up here).

This is on the website for the LDS
Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings.

Not biblical. If you want to offer its nuanced, the Bible says that will awaken to eternal torment, not much of a gift.

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior’s Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37–38). Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin.
Not biblical. Baptism does not save, nor is any proper priesthood required to give it the ok. There is no mediator between God and man save for Jesus and all believers become the priesthood.

Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives (see Alma 11:36–37).
Clearly not biblical as it comes from an extra biblical source but also contrary to what the Bible teaches. You're teaching a form of Arminianism at best but one that's divorced of a biblical source.

This rebirth occurs as individuals are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It comes as a result of a willingness “to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days” (Mosiah 5:5).

Again unbiblical twice over.

Salvation from the Second Death. The scriptures sometimes speak of salvation from the second death. The second death is the final spiritual death—being cut off from righteousness and denied a place in any kingdom of glory (see Alma 12:32; Doctrine and Covenants 88:24). This second death will not come until the Final Judgment, and it will come to only a few (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:31–37). Almost every person who has ever lived on the earth is assured salvation from the second death (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:40–45).
Also completely unbiblical. Jesus himself says "narrow is the gate that leads to salvation and few enter in". Revelation speaks of those at the end who will be separated into sheep and goats. The goats to eternal destruction. Jesus says "many will say on that day Lord, Lord...and I will say depart from me I never knew you".

Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:21–24). This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. If the word salvation is used in this sense, no one is saved in mortality. That glorious gift comes only after the Final Judgment.
Completely unbiblical from the "—" onward

If you want to be Mormon, then fine, but it's disingenuous to say your beliefs are the same as any other major accepted Christian sects throughout history. Some of it is outright heresy.

And to approach from another angle, Joseph Smith should be viewed as having no integrity based upon one fact: the temple ceremony has stolen elements from Freemasonry. The first oath Mr. Smith would have taken was to not reveal any secrets or part of that degree to non-Masons but he waited only a few months before bringing it into Mormonism. I'm sure he had some reason he wrote down justifying this but it plainly makes him disloyal and without integrity to a brotherhood that he swore an oath to, and a brotherhood he attempted to use "signs" from to save his own life there at the end.

Either way, he twisted the word of God at every step and his teachings should be called out by every Bible believing Christian. Galatians says (no "scriveners" necessary, just requires someone who can read in Koine Greek) "As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

I support your right to believe as you do, though I feel it in error. But I do not support Mormons calling it Christianity

Edited to add: if you’d like to become a Christian might I point you toward a non biased read of the New Testament, ESV is a faithful and easy to read translation, also some books from writers such as John Owen, John Bunyan, John Calvin, lots of John’s.  And then maybe some good teachers such as RC Sproul, Al Mohler, or others if you’d like some recommendations.

@juni4ling,
Well done!

1 Peter 3:21

The pre-creed Christian Church is an important comparison when talking about Christian beliefs.

If a post-creed "Christian" states that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not true followers of Christ because we believe in deification, for instance.

I would turn-around and say that exclusing the Christians from the first 300 years of Christianity is a bold move, Cotton.





Nuts. Just like  the antagonist in your video who stated --lol, rofl-- that followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints won't address and answer criticisms to our faith in Christ, you arrogantly write that I don't want to discuss differences, when I went through your anti-Latter Day Saint video word for word, and rebutted every one of its major points.

I don't want to discuss differences? I went through your antagonistic video and answered every criticism.

I don't want to discuss differences? I have addressed every one of your points.

Nuts.






Most of them are simply repeated antagonisms from the video.

I assume when you write, "Mormons" you are referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Why don't you use the name of The Church?




Do we denounce post-creed Christianity as apostasy from Christs original Church? Yes. I have repeated that in this thread.



We believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God. And it testifies of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Mormon also testifies that the Bible is true.



That mis-represented teaching repeated here is not found in any codified, canonized source in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Here is your original source for your (repeated) antagonism...



"Mormon Doctrine" sounds like a good source, but it is only a source for "official" teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to antagonists. It --truthfully-- is not an official source.

"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" is not considered official scriptural canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The author of, "Mormon Doctrine," included a caveat in the Book that it did not supersede scripture: "The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works."

The truth... We believe that God is eternal. We believe God is immortal. Jesus lived as a man. That is in scripture. We believe that. God progressed by good works? That is not in official codified teachings.

Here is a clue when dealing with people who state, "mArMaNs bEliEvE _______" Then cite a not-official source for their statement... They are -probably- lying.





This is an example of the shot-gun approach to antagonisms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We do believe that we will be deified with God. That is in the Bible.

So the original antagonists (I have seen the posters online source) have probably got a degree in theology. And unlike average Christians, they have probably studied and looked-at early Christianity. At least I assume that is the case. Many post-creed "Christians" are scared to death of the teachings, beliefs, and practices of the earliest followers of Christ. Many post-creed "Christians" ignore the beliefs and practices of the pre-creed Church.

So they word, "deification" as "believe they can become gods." To confuse someone who has no idea that it is a Bible-based belief, and the pre-creed Church believed it.

Then they hit with tiered system in Heaven, "fulfillment of church duties." And then hit with grace.

Shotgun.

First... We -do- believe in deification. We believe we will be exalted with God, our Heaveanly Father, and we will worship Him forever, and we will share His throne. That is a Bible-based belief. It is also a belief of the pre-creed Church.

Second... Heaven. Degrees. This is a Bible-based belief. "Paul tells of glories like the sun, the moon, and the stars (1 Cor. 15:39–41). He also speaks of the “third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2). Jesus spoke of “many mansions” or kingdoms (John 14:2)." Link

Third... Church associated duties on earth. Christ organized a Church when He was on the earth. Followers of Christ serve each other, minister to each other, and build His Church. As followers of Christ, we do "missionary work" in His name. Serve Christ in His Temple. I am not sure what the antagonists are driving-at here, but serving others in Christs Church is certainly a belief found in the Bible.

Fourth... Saved. We are all saved through Christ. That is a gift Christ has given us. He overcame death, and so all of us will. We are exalted when we repent of our Sins in Christs name and follow Christ. We do believe that following Christ means repentance for our sins and receiving His ordinances. Following Christ with faith is not easy for any true follower of Christ. Exercising and practicing faith is not easy for any true follower of Christ. But we believe, "His grace is sufficient." Link

When antagonists press an issue, but its really at least four questions, they are trying to "shotgun" questions. Trying to make it appear more confusing and more difficult than it actually is. The adversary is the author of confusion. Antagonists to truth will often purposefully try to create confusion about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.




Well, at least your antagonistic source sites that we believe in Jesus Christ.

I do think it is humorous that they can't say, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don't really love Je-.... wait.. that does not work. tRy tHis... gO wItH tHiS... mArMaNs dOnT lOvE jEsUs lIkE wE dO!"

Link

Our belief that God and Jesus are separate, and Christ is subordinate to God is a shared belief with the earliest Christian church...

"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn’t reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father." Link



Jesus is Gods Son. The adversary was once on of Gods creations. We are all Gods creations.

Antagonists to truth try to create confusion here. Somehow trying to elevate the role of the adversary in the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While lowering the role of Gods Son, our Savior Jesus Christ.

An official press release by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on this antagonism...

Link





Well, they are some antagonisms to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you found on a Google search, or whatever.

And you did not look very hard, because most of them are just the same exact problems from your antagonistic video you posted earlier.






I have told you --repeatedly-- that the teachings and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints differ from "creedal Christianity." Most "modern" Christians are "creedal Christians," they believe in the teachings and practices defined by the early creeds.

I have contrasted the teachings and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with differences with post-creed Christianity.

But if the argument is, "are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ?" The answer is yes, we follow Jesus Christ.

I bring up the teachings and practices of the earliest "Christian" Church for historical comparison. It is as frightening as it is real to --horrifically-- witness "modern" (post-creed) "Christians" condemn the practices, beliefs, and teachings of the earliest followers of Christ. The earliest Christian Church is an important historical record and comparison for those who profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That antagonism has already been addressed in this thread. But it isn't Biblical, and it isn't in The Book of Mormon, either.

Or in any other codified, official scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.



The Bible is not clear on where God came from, other than that God is eternal, and immortal. Same as The Book of Mormon and other scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The ultimate origin of God in Latter-Day Saint theology? We believe and understand that God is our Father in Heaven, we believe God is eternal and immortal. But beyond that the origin of God is speculation and postulation.





We believe in the miracle of the virgin birth of our Savior Jesus Christ by Mary...

Link




I am not sure what your point is here. We do not believe that prophets and apostles are infallible. They are capable of making mistakes.

We believe that The Church organized by Christ is a "living" Church. Living, changing, growing. Christs Church is a living Church.

We also do not believe the scriptural canon is closed. The Church may receive more guidance, direction, and scripture from God.

I am honestly not sure what your actual question is. Can a Prophet receive continual revelation, and continual guidance from God? Yes. Are prophets still human and fallible? Yes.

I am honestly not sure what your actual question is...




Those who do not find the truth of Christ and choose to follow Christ suffer. They go to "prison" Link

I am not sure what your issue is here...

Christ overcame death... Biblical.

Those who do not find and follow Christ go to "Hell"... Biblical.

I am not entirely sure what your problem is here... Christ overcoming death is a "Christian" belief. Those who do not find and follow Christ go to "spirit prison" in Latter-Day Saint theology.

Christ paid the price for all to live forever. That is a Christ-centered belief.

I am not sure what your issue is here...






Exercising faith... found in the Bible.

Repentance... found in the Bible.

Following Christ and being baptized in His name... Found in the Bible.

The authority to act in Christs name... Found in the Bible. "18 And aJesus came and spake unto them, saying, All bpower is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and ateach all bnations, cbaptizing them in the name of the dFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 aTeaching them to bobserve all things whatsoever I have ccommanded you: and, lo, dI am with you alway, even unto the eend of the world. Amen." Link



Repentance is required. Repentance requires a change of heart and change of behavior. Repentance as part of the process of accepting Christ... Biblical.

We do not believe that simply declaring a belief in Christ is what is required to be exalted with God.

The Bible is crystal-clear -more- than merely stating a belief in Christ is required from those who are true followers of Christ...

Link




Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost are taught in Latter-Day Scriptures and also the Bible.

Baptism... Biblical. (Do you honestly need a verse?)

Gift of the Holy Ghost... Biblical. (Acts 19:1-7)

Keeping His commandments... Biblical (John 14:21)



Followers of Christ will make and keep sacred covenants is not Biblical? Eh. Er. Ok.

I do not see anything there that is inherently un-Biblical. We believe in making and keeping sacred covenants as followers of Christ. We follow Christ.

Make and keep sacred covenants in the Temple. Temple worship is a Biblical thing.






It is dishonest to say several things you said we believe that we do not actually believe in codified scriptural doctrine.

It is dishonest and disinginuous to mis-state and misconstrue our teachings.

Temple worship is not Biblical in origin? Lol, ok.

If the question is, "do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?" The answer is a simple: yes.




Smith received -some- Temple doctrine as inspiration and guidance from God prior to Smith becoming a mason. The Kirtland Temple was built and used years prior to Smith becoming a mason.

Some of the antagonism directed at Smith over Masonry is due to distrust among "Christians" towards Masonry. We are easy targets, and Masons have been targets through the centuries. They keep their rituals to themselves, and so do we. That adds some level of mystery, and creates opportunity for antagonists to truth to claim we are hiding something.

I respect all the Masons I know, and thing they are all pretty much good people, so they must be doing something right. If I wasn't busy after work with family and Church, I would probably be one myself.

Gospel topics essay on Masonry... Link

This is a great "academic" presentation on this subject... Link




Smith did not "twist" the word of God.

Smith was called as a Prophet in the Biblical sense. And the Bible is clear, there will be Prophets.

Smith taught concepts that were a foreign concept to the post-creed "Christian" world. But concepts that once examined against the pre-creed "Christian" Church were not new, but ancient beliefs.




I think the post-creed "Christian" Church has significant errors that resulted from doctrinal errors contained in the early creeds. But I still think post-creed "Christians" follow Christ as best they can and know how.

That is where it gets weird in discussions like this. "mArMeNs tHiNk mArY gOt pReGnAnT wItH jEsUs!" Well, at least you acknowledge we believe in Jesus.

It is crystal-clear that there are serious, serious doctrinal errors in the creeds that destroyed the early Church. Those areas permeate "modern" Christianity. Those errors are easy to spot in modern Christian beliefs and practices. But I still will argue that post-creed Christians are followers of Jesus Christ, even if they permeate -obvious- doctrinal errors found in the early creeds.

If the question is, "do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?" The simple answer is: yes.

Isaiah Bennet disagrees, Junie.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1330

Dr. Webb agrees, Cav... Link

In trying to create disagreement, Bennet takes some leaps. Dr Webb is kinder, extremely fair, and does not take leaps, and ends up saying that not only do we follow Christ, we are obsessed with Christ. Link

Bennet sees, "...But as with many other Mormon beliefs, their teachings on Christ are a maze of misunderstanding, misdefinition, and misapplication. [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint] scriptures are contradictory, and [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint] prophets deny, redefine, or ignore one another's teachings."

Dr. Webb sees the opposite. A focus on Christ. Webb arrives at the conclusion that we have an extreme focus on Christ. In one of his books he states we don't know were to stop in our focus on Christ. Webb is fair and honest with our beliefs. A good and honorable Catholic. Like my Catholic friends. Fair with our beliefs. I believe it is because both of us hear misconstrued nonsense from protestant Christians about our beliefs.

At least Bennet arrives at a conclusion that we actually -have- teachings on Christ.

"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint] scriptures are contradictory." If you ask an atheist, the Bible itself is contradictory. I don't see contradiction. I see a pretty clear unity. I give the same answer to atheists as I give other people with faith when both groups identify what they see as a "contradiction" in the Bible or Book of Mormon or Latter-Day theology... Perhaps the scripture is misunderstood. Perhaps two verses are speaking about different things. And perhaps a post-creed "view" is being taken on a scripture meaning. All three of those things may be true, and that is creating what someone might view as a "contradiction" where there really isn't one.

"[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint] prophets deny, redefine, or ignore one another's teachings." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a "living" Church. The Church is a -living-, -growing-, -changing- Church. We do not believe the scriptural canon is closed. We believe there is continual guidance and direction from God. -Change- is going to be a -real- thing in a living organism. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is -living- and -growing- closer to Jesus Christ. But identifying -change- in a -changing- organism is meaningless. The Church is a "living" Church with a canon of scripture that is not closed. Catholics in Rome could find an ancient writing from an early Apostle buried in Rome and we would be, "cool, if it truly really is what it is, put it in the scriptures!" That, and we do not believe that our Church leaders are infallible. They are capable of making mistakes. They can make mistakes and also lead us closer to Christ at the same time. Both things can be true at the same time.


We believe Christ is separate from God, and subordinate to God... Beliefs found in the pre-creed Church. Of course Catholics (--THE-- "creedal Christians") are going to disagree. But our belief that Christ is Gods Son, and subordinate to God does not make us not-Christian, just as it does not make the early Christians who believed it not-Christian, either. And you believing and following the creeds makes you wrong, but it definitely does not make you not-Christian for espousing the beliefs of the creeds.

We believe Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus. It is in the Bible, which we consider scripture, and it is in the Book of Mormon, which we consider scripture. "Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus? A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary." Link

Jesus was married? There is nothing in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Latter-Day codified scriptures that state absolutely that Christ was married. Some people, and past (maybe even current) leaders speculate and postulate that Jesus was married. I heard a professor of religion state that pretty much all Jewish men who entered the Temple were married. But it is not in the scriptures or any sort of official teaching.

"The Son—and All Created Things—Pre-Existed from All Eternity" The author is correct to identify that we believe the same thing that the pre-creed Church taught: Christ is Gods Son, and subordinate to God. And it is correct to assume that our teachings are vague on how Christ can be a God with God, and also eternal, immortal, and be Gods Son. All at the same time. I have faith and I believe. That is pretty much my answer. The Bible is clear: Christ is Gods Son. The Bible is also clear: Christ is eternal and immortal. The Bible is further clear: Christ is subordinate to His Father, but also a God with God. Confusing? I have faith and I believe, faith eliminates confusion. Contradictions in scripture? Talk to an atheist, it is all they see in scripture. I see answers. And I have faith.

"The Son Was Made by a Divine Man and Woman" This paragraph did not include any references, where some of the other sections did. This one didn't. Ill tell you why... It is not --really-- based on any set-in-stone codified teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The author walked into the unknown here, and found some speculation and reported it as more than speculation. What we do know... God created everything. How? I have faith. With a woman? That is speculation and postulation. It isn't found in any codified scriptural teaching of The Church. God created everything. That is what we believe. That makes us all sons and daughters of God. I will give the author credit here. He is walking into the unknown, and at least makes it clear (with no use of references). The truth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not --officially-- state the origin of God. God was once a man? Christ was once a man. God had to repent of sin? That is made-up garblygook. God lived, died, and was resurrected? That isn't in Latter-Day Saint scriptural beliefs. The origin of God beyond that God is immortal and eternal is speculation and postulation. How God created all of us is speculation and postulation. It is interesting to see non-scriptural explanations and theories. But it isn't scriptural codified doctrine in The Church.

Navigating the quotes is going to be a bear so let me address things this way. I'll share the ideas I find unbiblical more clearly as I didn't quite communicate it as I intended. The quotes again are what I pulled from the LDS website
"In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings."
The bolded portion is what is unbiblical. If you'd like me to provide scriptural basis for this then I will do so. Not everyone is saved. Everyone will be resurrected yes, but as Daniel say and as is illustrated more fully in Matthew "Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace"


"41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

In reply to your reply of  "Followers of Christ will make and keep sacred covenants is not Biblical? Eh. Er. Ok."
Correct, this is unbiblical. There are no sacred covenants required of a believer save for one, a true belief and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. Can you find any other covenant required in the New Testament of a believer?

Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:21–24). This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. If the word salvation is used in this sense, no one is saved in mortality. That glorious gift comes only after the Final Judgment.
This says that to inherit eternal life requires the above in bold. This is unbiblical. Not one of these things is stated as being required to obtain eternal life or salvation. To address further the "covenant of eternal marriage" this is an example of contradicting the actual words of Jesus "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
As regards eternal life and salvation "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Not a result of what? works. What are covenants and all of the things described above? Works.
And Jesus says
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40).

There are no works required here. Only belief and faith. Works will be seen by those who do believe, but saying that these things are required?

"Celestial marriage is a pivotal part of preparation for eternal life. It requires one to be married to the right person, in the right place, by the right authority, and to obey that sacred covenant faithfully.43 Then one may be assured of exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

Where in the Bible does it say being married in this manner will exalt someone in Heaven? In fact it says something quite different:
"8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." and Jesus himself says "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it"

Regarding temple worship being required, Jesus says "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." The Jewish temple was destroyed ~40 years after the death of Jesus and has never been rebuilt since then. Paul says of the temple "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are." We who are believers in Christ are the indwell temple of God. Scripture makes it plain, why does Smith say differently?

As to my issue with prophets with failed prophets, the Bible is very clear on this matter.
"when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."
And why would we not be afraid of him? Because he's not a true prophet. What did any of the true prophets prophecy that didn't come to pass? Nothing.

As to Mary, I've now read and understand better the LDS stance, or rather, non-stance in a way on the immaculate conception which is rooted in their disbelief in the Trinity. Jesus repeats many times that He and the Father are One. Yes I understand the subordination of the Jesus to the Father is hard to grasp and thus a mystery, and also that the Spirit itself is a mystery, but Scripture is very clear both in Matthew and Luke as to how Mary was made pregnant "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." and "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." There's no mystery (in the general sense) as to what occurred , there's no account as Nephi says that Mary was taken away in the Spirit but that she came to be made pregnant by the Spirit. This of course gets in the way of what, while may not be the "doctrine" of the Mormon church seems to be pervasive in other doctrine enough to reinforce this view, that God was a man so if the Spirit caused Mary to be pregnant then it wasn't really the genetic portion of God that made the Son.

Of course that begs the question, if God were once a man, why would he not just come and do as Jesus did and avoid that whole step in the first place? Or was it because he wasn't a man? "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" This verse shows that God is certainly NOT man. And also "But (he) made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

Simply saying you believe in Jesus means nothing. The Theosophists speak of Jesus is a most disgusting way saying they know his true teachings, and that he was a "secret chief". Hitler spoke of Jesus as it helped his political aims, of course his idea of Jesus has nothing in common with the Biblical Jesus. the Bible says that the demons themselves know and believe in Jesus, yet they do not follow him. And it also says that many will say in that day "‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’, and then Jesus says "I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!"

To sum up my problems with Mormon teachings and their incompatibility with Scripture let me say this: I have no problem with saying that Scripture isn't closed, because I believe the lives of believers themselves is an ongoing unveiling of God's plan. However, when these "revelations" and new books so blatantly contradict clear teachings of the Bible they should be called what they are, heresy, not a further unveiling of Scripture but an outright fabrication. The Catholic teachings of Mary? Heresy. Why? Because when Jesus has someone yell at him "“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” he replies, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” So, their further revelation goes against the very word of the Lord.
And this is my issue with this extra-biblical teaching, it doesn't maintain consistency with what the Bible taught and so goes nearly every issue I have with Mormon teachings. They are antithetical to the teaching of the Bible itself and are backed up only by Smith's own ideas, I would call them fabrications but I don't wish to call the man a liar, but wherever he received these things from they have no root in the Christ of the Bible.


Now let's address the article regarding Masonry because I don't think you quite understood what I was getting at:

I'm a Christian and a Mason. My issue is not with Christian concerns with Freemasonry which I'm also glad to refute though clearly that's not an issue here, rather my issue is with highlighting Smith's character as I charged earlier. He was disloyal even in this small thing. Why would he not be disloyal in great things?

Four months after receiving his degrees he presented the endowment ceremony:
Smith said of his ceremonies:
"This is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties, and key words.”
The bolded portion is almost in the same order as they're listed in the Entered Apprentice catechism. No further proof is needed that he stole this after being initiated.

The article you linked offers as proof that the endowment ceremony isn't of a Masonic origin by saying:
"W. W. Phelps and Lucinda Morgan Harris, both avid anti-Masons—Lucinda having had her first husband allegedly killed over Masonry—had no problems being endowed in the Nauvoo temple. They clearly didn’t believe the temple ceremony was a Masonic ceremony"

How would either of these people, especially Morgan's wife know what is or isn't a Masonic ceremony? The former was an anti-mason and never joined Masonry. The second is a woman. We do not admit women. She would have no idea what is and isn't a masonic ceremony. Her husband was rumored to have been killed by Masons...and it was rumored to moved to Nauvoo and married Smith as well, which is odd since he denied having multiple wives but I digress. The point is they didn't complain that it was masonic because they had no idea what the ceremonies would look like.

When the endowment ceremony was first performed in Nauvoo, it was much longer. As it has been shortened over the years, the Masonic-like phrases have been almost entirely removed
Why would they be removed? I know the answer but why does the article skirt the obvious?

Q. Are there elements in the endowment ceremony that are found in masonry?

A.Yes. There are a few but they have been completely repurposed. Certainly the temple ceremony contains some of the phrases, wording, and symbols that exist within masonry. But, these things, both masonic and biblical, were part of the world Joseph Smith lived in. Just as we use movie language in our speaking, it is not surprising to have some masonic language in the world of Joseph Smith.

The point they miss or are ignorant to is the charge I'm laying against Smith. It SHOULD be surprising that he's using the terms he used. See above "signs" and "tokens". These are words used particularly in the Masonic ceremonies. They are very clearly stolen from Masonry and adapted to Smith's own purposes. He took an oath to not reveal any of these things but apparently oath went out the window in four months time when he decided Masonry fit his purposes.

One thing that the article doesn't mention is what those handshakes and words are. I've watched the hidden camera video of the endowment. Those handshakes? Those are stolen Masonic secrets. Though the names/words are not the the "has it a name" section is almost exactly what takes place in a Lodge. To make it clear, some sections are completely ripped off, portions we make very clear in Masonry are secrets. Those handshakes or tokens are explicitly secret. The article is either unaware or being totally disingenuous about this. I hadn't seen the video I don't believe since becoming a Mason but wow it's barely changed in these aspects. The words given in response where the man behind the veil says "you shall receive it". Also Masonic. So while it's not a full on copy of how a degree is carried out, this portion of the endowment blatantly borrows and steals from Masonry at many turns. Now, this is a digression I'll admit, but other groups who have had their leaders become Masons and then "borrow" things such as this are Wicca, the Order of the Golden Dawn, Theosophy and other pagan rooted occult groups. They didn't find what they wanted in Masonry whether that be power of a temporal or "magical" form so they took what they thought was cool and did their own thing with it.

Again my point here is to show that Smith and his other mormon friends who became Masons took oaths particularly not to reveal these secrets outside of a Masonic Lodge under a symbolic penalty of death, and yet now he passes it off as something revealed to him. In this one thing his integrity shows the character of the man and that he certainly was not beyond making up other things or stealing ideas from others to ball into his own brand of religion.

All of this is to say if you truly trust and believe in Christ then I'm not doubting your salvation. But the LDS Church seems, based on the things presented, to be doing what Paul spoke against, preaching a different Gospel. They seem to do as Jesus said of the scribes and pharisees "They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders" and "shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces" by denying them entrance unless they perform these unbiblical things to attain salvation or exaltation as they deemed it obtainable.

I had worked through over half of your criticisms answered, and accidentally closed the web page. Lol. I will find time tomorrow after work sometime or Tuesday to go through them. Again. Lol.

Everyone is given eternal life… 1 Corinthians 15:22

Some will suffer in “Hell” (we sometimes refer to it as “Outer Darkness) for eternity… Hell Link

What will put them there? Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, Matt. 12:31–32 (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). It is impossible for those who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost to renew them again unto repentance, Heb. 6:4–6. Link



Followers of Christ make and keep sacred covenants with Christ…

Baptism, for instance, is a repeated required ordinance (covenant) in the New Testament… Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)




I am not sure how our doctrinal emphasis on Christ-centered marriage makes us not-Christian, or unbiblical, but ok.

The authority to act in the name of God is found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and members exercise that authority (Priesthood) when they serve others in the Church. The authority to act in the name of God is found in the Bible. And Latter-Day Scriptures.

As for Matt 22:23-30, context is important. The Sadducees, who Christ was answering didn’t believe in the resurrection, and this is a pretty good explanation…



Link




Well, more than belief and faith is required, because the adversary has more knowledge of Christ than I do. All I have is faith. The adversary has openly fought Christ, and tempted Christ in the Bible.

We are saved by grace according to Latter-Day Saint theology… We are justified by our works according to the Bible. We will be judged by our works according to the Bible. But we do not claim that we “earn” our way to heaven.

To be saved, per the Bible, we –have- to…

We have to be baptized. (Mark 16:16)

Pray. Acts 2:21 “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Confess sins. Romans 10:9-10 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Endure to the end. Matthew 10:22 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

The Book of Mormon teaches that we are saved by grace… “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” (2 Nephi 10:24)


Paul is giving advice, probably in the context of doing missionary work (where seeking marital partners is unacceptable). Paul himself (per Bible scholars) was more than likely married (member of the Sanhedrin, which required it).

Pauls teaches the eternal principle of marriage in 1 Corinthians 11:11, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”



The scriptures are plain… The people who followed Christ worshipped in the Temple –after- Christs ascension in the Bible.

The Temple has always been important to followers of God.

Christ taught in His Temple –daily—(Mark 14:49)

After Christs ascension, Christs followers “all that believed” –ALL THAT BELIEVED –AFTER THE ASCENSION—“continued daily with one accord in the Temple.” (Acts 2:41, 44, 46)

Acts 5:19-21 an Angel commands Christs Apostles to teach in the Temple, vs. 44 states they did so –daily--.

Acts 3:1 Peter and John were in the Temple during prayer.

Acts 21:17-18, 26 Paul worshipped in the Temple. Paul received revelation in the Temple.

The pre-creed Biblical “Christian” Church was active in Temple worship. So are we in the Latter-Day Church of Jesus Christ.





Jeremiah 18:7-10… Prophecy is contingent upon the choices of mortals. “7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to apull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, aturn from their evil, I will brepent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do aevil in my sight, that it bobey not my voice, then I will crepent of the dgood, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

There are inaccurate accounts of Latter-Day Prophets and what they actually wrote or said. Sometimes mis-representation and mis-statements are made. And sometimes antagonists are wholly unaware of circumstances that actually fulfilled the prophecy.



Jesus repeats many times that He and His Father are separate in the Bible.

The pre-creed Church believed Jesus was separate and subordinate to God, and the early Church used (what they had of) the Bible as the basis for their beliefs.



In both the Bible and Book of Mormon accounts, Mary –a virgin—is made pregnant with Gods Son in a miracle. A religious miracle that requires faith to believe, and one that involved the Holy Spirit.
Alma 7:10 “…she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel…

I do not see much any real disagreement between the Book of Mormon and Bible on Mary being a virgin at Christs birth.



Jesus lived as a man. That we know for certain. Jesus is, with His Father, a God. Both are eternal and immortal.

I am not certain Latter-Day Scriptures teach the actual origin of God. The Bible teaches God is eternal and immortal. The Book of Mormon, and codified Latter-Day Saint scriptures teach the same.

Jesus lived as a man. He is “God.” He is part of the “Godhead” with God. And He lived as a man.

We are made in the likeness of God. We have the ability to be with God on His throne in the eternities. We believe in the doctrine of deification/theosis. The early Christian Church also believed in deification, and based their belief on the Bible. Link







And to think that just a minute ago you were writing that all you needed was belief. Lol, rofl.

Are you now saying you need more than mere belief? Lol, rofl.



So you agree with me that there is more than simply professing belief in Christ?

You agree with me that enduring, prayer, repentance, and baptism is required also?



I assume when you write “Mormon teachings,” you are referring to the mainstream Latter-Day Saint movement religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

I see foundational agreement between the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and ancient Biblical beliefs and practices.



I see agreement and doctrinal compatibility between the Bible and the Book of Mormon and Latter-Day teachings and beliefs.



I disagree with Catholics on many points of doctrine. They are the –original- “Creedal Christians” and they get a lot wrong. The problem here isn’t that they get things wrong. It is that they get things wrong and I still consider them to be “Christians.”

Even if you think I get things wrong, I still believe the Bible is the word of God, and still believe in and worship and follow Jesus Christ.



Smith was called as a prophet in the Biblical sense, and brought forth scripture in the Biblical sense. Smith testified of Jesus Christ, and brought forth scripture that testifies of Jesus Christ.

The Church restored through Smith: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.



Restoring Temple worship so followers of Christ could worship Christ in the Temple was an important aspect of Smiths calling as a Prophet of God in the Biblical sense.

There are active and faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who are Masons. You might want to speak with one. They would be better at addressing this question that I am. This is an interesting article on the brotherhood of Latter-Day Saint and not-Latter Day Saint Masons in Utah…Link

The academic article that respects both Latter-Day Saint history and Masons on this subject… Link



I think the early creeds created a different gospel. Temple worship, deification, and the importance of ordinances and covenants was very important in the early Church. The early creeds destroyed those doctrinal concepts. So much so when members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints say, “we worship Christ in the Temple, just like early Christians did, and just like Christ did.” Antagonists say, “see that makes them not-Christian.” Nuts.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is centered in Jesus Christ.

I don't look down on "creedal Christians," and I don't question their "Christian" beliefs, even if they espouse wrong teachings that resulted from the creeds.

But if the question is do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the teachings of Christ, believe in and worship Christ, and believe they are saved through Christ? The answer is yes.



Arguing with antagonists to the Church is like arguing with scribes and pharisees sometimes.

Christ worshipped in the Temple. So do we.

Christ was baptized. We also baptize people.

Temple worship… Biblical. Baptism… Biblical. Enduring to the end… Biblical. Repentance… Biblical. Marriage... Biblical.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes the Bible is the word of God. It is part of our scriptural canon along with the Book of Mormon and Latter-Day teachings. We use it in our worship, scripture study, and religious teachings.

I’m sure this point has already been brought up at some point in this thread, but it’s worth repeating:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!  Galatians 1:8

Clearly, Paul and the other NT writers, whose writings the LDS church claims to espouse, condemn the acceptance of any other gospel than the one they originally preached. If the LDS church accepts Scripture as the Word of God, how can it be that a new gospel which differs from the one that the apostles preached is not accursed? Doesn’t that foreclose on the possibility of post-Bible “revelation” and “prophecy?”

Moreover, why did none of the Old or New Testament prophets have anything to say about the future coming of a new revelation from Joseph Smith? Surely, if we needed to be on the lookout for someone like him, we would’ve been told to do so. But we weren’t, and instead we were specifically warned by multiple NT authors and Jesus himself to be wary of false prophets who would come to distort the Gospel and the Word. And with all due respect, after testing the spirits by examining the evidence (including evidence from official LDS sources), I cannot come to another conclusion other than Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and his teachings have duped millions into a false idea about God, Jesus, the plan for salvation, and how we are to live our lives.

I don’t say these things to exalt myself over anyone or to stir up controversy or offend; I just want people to know the Lord and his Word as they truly are, because I am convinced that we are saved by unmerited grace and that a changed life is evidence of the legitimacy of our faith, and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Bible is the sole means to salvation. I’m a sinner like everyone else, and I’m not the smartest or most knowledgeable or experienced guy in this thread. But I do not say these things on my own authority; I point to the Lord’s Word as the basis for what I claim. I am convinced of who the Lord is and what His plan is for me and the rest of humanity, and I rest in His power.

Except BoM says they wouldn’t have had kids unless they fell. They were clearly given the command to multiply before the fall.


Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The above passage would indicate she was already able to conceive hence the words “greatly multiply”





First Samuel was a Levite.(1 Chronicles 6:28)

Can you show me one example of a prophet entering the holy of holies and performing the duties of the high priest!

As to your comments about the early church worshiping at the temple. Those were Jews, apostles and early Christian Jews preaching the word to other Jews in the place that was the Jewish center for worshiping God, the God of their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The gentile believers under Paul’s ministry didn’t go to Jerusalem for temple worship or pop in at the local synagogue. Show me one example of gentile Christians engaging in temple worship. You’re taking Jews preaching to Jews in the early part of the church and trying to apply that to us today.



So finding an obscure document that happens to have the words Land of Jerusalem makes the BoM and Smith’s prophesies valid?

I have to give the Kangaroo credit for one thing: his willingness to come here and cordially battle opponents who will not be swayed is amazing. If Mormon works can get you into Mormon heaven, this thread alone probably has him half way home. At least as far as planet Kolob.

@leib109 and AR15thur wow you guys covered a lot in your posts. Gonna have to finish reading your responses so I don’t repeat anything you guys have covered in this one if I start a new one.

All op learned from reading the Bible is how to ask questions like a pharisee.

You evade so much.

Does the LDS church teach that marriage is required to obtain eternal life? yes or no. If yes then a) it's not biblical and b) that stance is counter to the very words of Paul and Jesus, the former who you tried to explain away, though you did so poorly and unconvincingly. Perhaps Paul was married but had been widowed, it's never said and doesn't matter because Jesus at no point says that marriage is required for entering into eternal life and in fact says to the contrary on at least occasions as I noted regarding eunuchs and marriage in heaven. Why are these things ignored?

There are multiple verses saying the believer is now the Temple. Yes, Jesus worshipped in the temple, when he died everything changed.

You've still missed or ignored my entire point about Masonry. Smith stole and shared things he swore not to share with anyone outside of  Lodge. He has no integrity and showed his hand plainly in this matter. Find a Mason you know and ask him how similar the endowment handshakes and language are and ask yourself if this was some revelation of Smith's or just him breaking a solemn oath. I know the answer.

One of the sacred covenants in the endowment is (see bold)"Obedience; sacrifice everything for Christ and the church; chastity; consecrate time, talents, and possessions to the building up of the church and the establishment of Zion; keep key words, signs, and tokens learned in the temple confidential But those signs and tokens are stolen (yes stolen) from Masonry. So what does that mean for Smith and his own covenant in this matter?

Also, as I was doing some further reading about the above I discovered that the LDS Church also has "signs" and "penalties" to go along with their covenants. The signs (unsurprisingly) and penalties are almost exactly the same. Smith didn't even try, he just straight up stole Masonic secrets/signs/penalties changing very little in the process.

I've already read pages trying to explain this away, that the Masonic rituals were originally Christian rituals, or that it was God's work to put these things in front of Smith so he could use them, etc. All that may make sense as to why he used them (I charge that it doesn't, especially the first explanation) but the one actual fact we can pull from this is that Smith made oaths to not reveal these things and waited all of about 3 weeks to spill the beans. Is this the mark of an honest man? No. In no way. That's half the point of Masonry, to show that we can be trusted. Smith apparently forgot to glean this important detail during his burglary of the ceremonies.

Regardless, I'm not here to tell you Mormonism is wrong but rather to say that it doesn't jive with any other Christian theology on a number of points and that Smith has no integrity/showed himself to be untrustworthy based on his betrayal of Freemasonry so I have zero reason to trust his stories about finding brass plates, Moroni, etc. and do wonder why he had to interpret things by a stone in a hat when no such thing is ever shown in the history of the rest of the Bible.

Funnily enough, almost all the issues I have with Mormonism are things Christ addressed with Pharisees and Saducees regarding marriage, extra-biblical laws and covenants, works being what leads to salvation rather than grace, etc.

On the issue of Temple worship:

“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

“Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”  John 4: 19-24

In other words, God can be worshipped anywhere because he is omnipresent Spirit. Temple worship as some sort of requirement or preference has been rendered obsolete by Jesus' coming and the new covenant.

Amen

The early creeds created a “different” gospel. Most modern “Christians” can draw a direct line to the creeds as the basis for their beliefs.

The early creeds created a “different” gospel… But yet, I consider “creedal Christians” to still be “Christians.”

That is what is weird in this discussion.

Your antagonistic video stated that we believe in deification, worship Christ in Temples, and believe that  we must be baptized and “endure to the end” after conversion to Christ. All of those things are part of the gospel. All of those things are –clearly—in the Bible.

Angels? God uses angels to teach His word, and carry out His purposes… “From the beginning down through the dispensations, God has used angels as His emissaries in conveying love and concern for His children.” Link








I see a different gospel and a corruption of the original gospel in the early creeds.

I do not see a different gospel in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

If you doubt our claim that the Bible is part of our canonized scripture, you can look for yourself… Link



You are telling me that you read the Bible, and see no mention of the use of Prophets? Eh. Er. Ok.

Amos 3:7, “Sure the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Jeremiah 23:23 “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?”

Luke 1:70 “As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have since the world began.”

In the King James version of the Bible, for example, only a few individuals (other than Christ) are prophesied of by name. These include Isaac, son of Abraham (see Gen. 17:19); Josiah, a righteous king of Judah (see 1 Kgs. 13:2); Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isaiah’s son (see Isa. 8:1–3); Cyrus, king of Persia (see Isa. 44:28); and John the Baptist (see Luke 1:13). Smith, a prophet, isn’t mentioned by name? Neither are most other Prophets and Apostles in the Bible.

It was the religious leaders in Christs time who opposed Christ the hardest. The very same people who claimed to read and understand the scriptures. The Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees claimed to know the scriptures but rejected Christ. Some traditional “Christians” follow the same pattern today in rejecting living prophets who testify of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.







There will be true prophets who testify of Christ. Smith testified of Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. And the Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints bears withness of Christ.

The video you posted misrepresented teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It presented half-truths and portrayed the teachings an beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a dishonest, false, and inaccurate way. That is an example of a false-prophet.

There are true prophets who testify of Christ, and bring forth scripture to testify of Christ… Smith

And there are false prophets who misrepresent the word of God and prophets… Many antagonists to truth.



That does not make sense in the context of the video you posted, or the antagonistic website you cut-and-pasted from. The entire purpose of the video was to mis-state and mis-represent the Christ-centered teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a one-dimensional, one-directional attack on our Christ-centered teachings and beliefs.




We are saved by grace. Not by works. We are saved by grace when we –follow- Christ. Following Christ means following His example, and being baptized and worshipping Him in the Temple... Something your video attacked followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for doing. Even though the Bible is clear that the Temple is an important part of the beliefs of the followers of God from the beginning.

Following Christ also means repentance and enduring to the end, per the Bible.





If you sincerely want to learn about the Christ-focused, Christ-centered teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, come and worship with us. Not-Latter Day Saint “Christian” professor of religion Dr. Webb did that, and his whole view of us changed from making fun of us in his lectures to defending us as true followers of Christ… Link



This is what is weird about this kind of discussion. I am supposed to take your sincerity (after you posted a clearly antagonistic video, and cut-and-pasted from an antagonistic website). I answer each line of your attacks on my faith in Christ.

I state repeatedly that I follow Christ, and consider myself a true follower of Christ. I state repeatedly that I accept the Bible as the word of God. But you continually try to attack my faith in Christ, and I have shown where you have used misrepresentations and falsehoods to try to destroy my faith in Christ. If you are sincere in trying to understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints come and worship with Christ with us. Sing hymns about Christ with us. Ask us -your- questions you have about our faith in Christ.

You keep accusing me of "antagonism," but I'm only defending the faith that the LDS Church is attempting to corrupt and trying to steer others away from its heretical and false teachings. I have no doubt that members of the LDS Church ascribe to the Bible, but you cannot give me a convincing argument that the LDS Church's teachings are in harmony with the Bible and do not contradict it. And of course there were prophets in the OT who prophesized about the coming of Jesus, but they all pointed to Jesus and only Jesus, and his disciples (including those who had personally witnessed him) repeatedly stressed that the gospel they shared was the only true gospel and that any other gospel, whether coming from angels or man, was accursed. Joseph Smith's "revelation" fits squarely within the definition of heresy. You keep trying to cloak its doctrines in legitimacy by analogizing them to "pre-creedal Christianity," but the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible does it anticipate Joseph Smith's teachings, nor does it allow for the possibility of a new gospel other than the one that Peter, John, Paul, and others preached (Islam falls into the same issue for the same reason).

At this point, there's no point in trying to convince you. I have no doubt of the sincerity of what you believe, but the sincerity of faith in an object does not establish the legitimacy of the object of faith. I really hope you come to understand the truth, and I'll be praying for that.

This is the kind of Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee “gotcha” question that I think you think is making a point, but only creates distrust and makes people question if your motive is truth or if your motive is some sort of “gotcha” Pharisee argument.

In both the Bible and Latter-Day Saints theological sources, Adam and Eve do not procreate until after the fall. So while you see a Scribe/Pharisee/Saducee type “gotcha” here, I honestly don’t see one.

“We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

We join with other Christian believers in our belief that Christs grace and atonement was necessary after the fall...



While I think your Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee point here is that our belief in the Bible and belief in the "fall" somehow distances ours beliefs from Christ... The complete opposite is true. We believed that Christ paid the price for all of us to overcome the fall. Our belief here is not -really- unique. Most other "Christians" have a belief in Christs atonement for the fall of Adam and Eve. I don't really see a "gotcha" Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee argument here... Our belief on this topic is founded and centered in Christ...








Christ himself was not a Levite. Jesus Himself was not a Levite, and yet He was a priest.

Five Old Testament prophets who were apparently not Levites are mentioned in connection with the offering of sacrifices:
1.Joshua (Ephraimite) - Josh. 8:30-31; 24:30
2.Samuel (Ephraimite) - 1 Sam. 1:1-2, 20; 2:18; 7:9-19; 11:14-15
3.Elijah (Gad or Manassah) - 1 Kings 18:31-38; 17:1
4.David (Judah) - 1 Chron. 16:2; Matt. 1:2-6
5.Solomon (Judah) - 1 Kings 3:2-3; Matt. 1:2-6

Samuel wasn’t a Levite, he was an Ephraimite… “We may be surprised to find that a careful reading of 1 Chronicles 6:16-29 demonstrates that Samuel is not actually described as being in the line of Levi at all! Every person mentioned in those verses is explained as being either the son of someone, or as having children with their names listed. The ancestry of everyone in the genealogy can be traced back to Levi… with one exception: Samuel.” Link


Some who doubt point to contradictions in the Bible on Samuels ancestry. The not-Latter Day Saint link corroborates Latter-Day Saint Bible scholars on Samuels ancestry… “Consistent with the convention of genealogies throughout the Hebrew Bible, the brief genealogy that launches the story of Samuel’s birth identifies Samuel’s ancestors as Ephraimites” Link





These were followers of Christ, “Christians” worshipping Christ in Christs house.

Acts teaches, “all that believed” –ALL THAT BELIEVED, THE COMMUNITY OF “CHRISTIANS” THERE— “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the atemple.” Acts 2:41-44

Paul –a Christian—Acts 22:17-18 was given a vision in the Temple.

These were followers of Christ. True early “Christians” who worshipped in the Temple.

But the end question here for followers of Christ: Did Christ worship in His Temple? Yes.

At that point, the answer for followers of Christ is: Do as Christ did, and worship Christ in His Temple.

We do that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Followers of Christ worshipped in the Temple after Christs ascension. Christ worshipped in the Temple during His ministry. We do today.

The authority to worship Christ in His Temple is done with the same power as was used in the Bible: the authority to act in the name of God... The priesthood. The power is on the earth today. Followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can worship Christ in His Temple today. A true miracle.





You presented an antagonistic question, and I gave a faithful response.

For those who believe, there is no shortage of “evidence” that the Book of Mormon is true.

From the antagonistic video earlier in the thread, the antagonist stated she knew the Bible was true because she could walk in Jerusalem, but the Book of Mormon was not true because there was zero evidence of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon could only be taken with faith. That is laugh out loud funny.

Smith knew where Jesus was born. Exactly where. That antagonists think they have a Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee “gotcha” here is kinda funny. What Smith did not know was what “land of Jerusalem” meant. And that it included Bethlehem. Yeah, it is an “evidence.” But I take the Bible with faith, the same way I take the Book of Mormon: faith.

It is just really, really weird to see other believers say out loud that they don’t have to have faith, but followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can only follow Christ with faith.

Man I don't know how you have the energy to keep up with the constantly moving goalposts!

Every time you conclusively shut down a point, they respond with a new, different version.

Obviously there will never be either side who "wins" but it would at least be intellectually honest if these guys who make points that are shown to be wrong or at least reasonable doubt, would admit as much before changing the goalposts.

The absurdity of Christians attacking other Christians' faith never fails to surprise or disappoint me.

Under that logic, you probably would’ve had a problem with Paul, Peter, and John attacking Gnostics and Hedonists in the early Church.

It is an interesting discussion. And I always learn something from these kinds of things.

The truth is that Christ presented truth to the Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees and they (many who witnessed Christ perform miracles) still moved the goal-posts, and continuously came back with more antagonisms towards Christs truth.

It is an interesting discussion and I always learn something from these kinds of discussions.



Christ taught truth to those who rejected it.

When I was on my mission, the majority of people I taught rejected it. I don’t necessarily think that “works” get members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints into “heaven.”

But being a Missionary, and teaching truth is one of the things followers of Christ do.

No. You move the goal posts, and instead of searching for answers and searching for truth, you are like a Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee, you are searching for “gotcha” errors you can exploit to reinforce your false premise.

Evade? No, I answer every question I am asked. Evade? The opposite is true. When you end up on the opposite side of truth, you should re-evaluate your goals.



So, I explained it, but your position is that even though I explained it, I did it poorly and unconvincingly. Eh. Er. Ok. That is moving the goal posts.

You asked a question, I answered it. With Biblical precedence. And you then move the goal posts. “I am not convinced!”

That is like the antagonistic video that was posted earlier in the thread where the antagonist was like, “they will pick and choose Biblical scripture to prove their points!”

Then went on, to say we don’t have any Biblical scriptures to prove our points. Eh. Er. Ok. Moving the goalposts is an antagonistic thing. Moving the goalposts is a Scribe/Pharisee/Sadducee thing.

Does the Bible teach eternal marriage: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 11:11.

If the question is, does the Bible teach eternal marriage? Then the answer is: Yes.

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 11:11.

If the question is, does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach what is taught in 1 Cor 11:11? Then the answer is: Yes.
Link




They are not ignored. Paul was giving advice to a group more than likely engaged in Missionary work, and finding a spouse and worrying about marriage during missionary work is inappropriate. The same advice is given to Missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today. “Lock your hearts.”

Christ was speaking to enemies who did not believe what Christ was teaching. They were not searching for truth. They were searching for error. Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees. You can understand that, right? There are verses in the Bible that promote and support marriage.



It is not uncommon in Utah and the Mountain West to find marital advice given in marriages performed by evangelical Christians where advice is given using Latter-Day Saint terminology, and the marital covenant uses Latter-Day Saint terminology. I have seen evangelical ministers marry for, “time and all eternity.” Not the usual, “till death do us part.” There is not much daylight between our teachings on marriage and evangelical Christians on this matter. I have seen Bible-believing Christians use our terminology in marriage ceremonies.



Christ worshipped in the Temple, and was Baptized. Nothing changed in that regard due to his sacrificial death. Followers of Christ can worship in the Temple, just as Christ did. Followers of Christ can be baptized by one with authority, just as Christ was. Christs sacrificial death did not eliminate Temple worship by Christs followers…

Daily Temple worship by (all of) Christs followers in Acts 2:41-46… After Christs death…

Christs Apostles were commanded by and angel to teach in the Temple, and they obeyed this order –daily- in Acts 5:19-41… After Christs death, resurrection, and ascension.

Peter and John in the Temple during prayer in Acts 3:1… After Christs death, resurrection, and ascension.

Paul received a vision while in the Temple worshipping Acts 22… After Christs death, resurrection, and ascension.



I have not missed your point, I just don’t have anything to add. I have read academic works that are respectful to Masons and Latter-Day Saint beliefs and have come-away with an understanding I am comfortable with. If you are uncomfortable, that is on you. I posted sources I thought you might like, but that is all I can do.

One of the most important aspects of Smiths calling as a Prophet was to bring-back Temple worship. Temple worship is of ancient origins, followers of Christ were able to worship in the Temple, and Smith was directed by God to restore Temple worship.

Smith had high integrity, was abused (as were early Christians) for his beliefs, and gave his life for his beliefs. Joseph Smith Jr. (churchofjesuschrist.org) Link



Masons keep some things to themselves. Out of respect for their traditions and beliefs.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints keep some aspects of Temple worship to themselves. Out of respect for our beliefs, but also due to the sacred nature of the Temple.

Christ defended the Temple. So do we.

Some history on the endowment… Link

Masons keep things in their hearts? Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints keep things in their hearts as well. Keeping things in your heart is a Bible-based teaching…

Luke 2:19 "But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart." Keeping sacred things in your heart is a Bible-based belief.



I am sure your “further reading” was open minded and a search for truth. Lol, rofl.

There are faithful Latter-Day Saints who are Masons, and have no problem with Smith restoring the ancient Temple for Christ-centered worship in the Latter-Days. And there were faithful Latter-Day Saints Masons who were there when Smith restored the Temple. None of them had a problem with it. There are some powerful testimonies from them that Smith truly restored the ancient Temple.

And there were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who were excommunicated and or left The Church of Jesus Christ after going to the Temple with Smith. Who also happened to Masons. They never claimed Smith stole anything, and some were hostile towards Smith…

Link






Smith was commanded by God to restore the ancient practice of Temple worship so that followers of Christ could worship Christ in the Temple in the Latter-Days. Smith did what he was commanded to do.

In the posts I have read online that are pro-Mason, and friendly towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it seems that there are significant doctrinal and significant system and process differences between Mason practices and Latter-Day Saint Temple worship.

My only advice for you is to speak to a Mason who is a faithful and active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints if you ever get the chance. They would probably be able to help you better than I can.

Link





The early creeds destroyed many aspects of early Christian beliefs. Many of those beliefs the creeds destroyed are what modern Christians point-to to say that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not-Christian. Which is weird.

We follow the teachings of Christ. We believe the Bible is scripture. I am not sure what else to say.




Stone in the hat? Taken against how knowledge was received in the Bible by, “casting lots,” using a stone for revelation is understandable.

Link

There are stories in the Bible that are hard to believe. They have to be taken with one thing… Faith. Same with the restoration of the teachings of Christ found in The Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter-Days… It takes faith.

Smith was not perfect; we don’t claim he was infallible in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We worship the only perfect person in the Church: Jesus Christ. Smith on the other hand, admitted on several occasions to be a human capable of making mistakes. On the same token, he was a prophet of God in the Biblical sense. There were prophets in the Bible who were not perfect. Moses (among other Biblical prophets) made mistakes. Smith made mistakes. But Smith was a prophet of God in the Biblical sense.

The Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees rejected Christs message at the time because they had already formed their judgement and opinion. They had righteous indignation towards Christ. They considered Christ to be blaspheming what they thought was their version of truth. I see a lot of similar lines of thinking in how you approach The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the prophet Smith. You want to find fault. You want to find things that reinforce your already-established views. You act very-much like the Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees from the Bible…

The point is that antagonists approach The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the same manner, attitude and style as the Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees did towards Christ. Not truly seeking answers. Not truly seeking truth. Trying to find fault. Trying to find and create error.

The Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees had "Righteous indignation” towards Christ. They searched for reasons to hate Christ. They did not search for reasons Christ was right. They searched for reasons Christ was wrong. They nit-picked, worked to create and find error, and hated Him so much they wanted Him killed.



Marriage is justified, and considered sacred in the Bible.

It is good Biblical advice not to consider marriage when doing missionary work. Marriages for “this life” won’t last past the resurrection. But, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor 11:11) is crystal-clear Biblical teaching that corresponds to Latter-Day beliefs.



The Temple is not “extra-Biblical.”

Baptism is not “extra-Biblical.”

Followers of God have been a “covenant” people from the beginning, the “Abrahamic covenant.” Followers of Christ are the “covenant” people today…

Galations 26-29
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all bone in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Followers of Christ are a "covenant" people.





The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has Christs Temples, the authority to act in Christs Temples, and the authority to baptize in Christs name… And the Church teaches we are saved through Christs grace…



Per the Bible, in order to be “saved” we need to be baptized, have faith, pray, confess sins, and be baptized. A long list of things that we have to “do.”

BAPTISM… Mark 16:16… “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

PRAYER… Acts 2:21… “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

CONFESS SINS… Romans 10:9-10… “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

ENDURE… Matthew 10:22… And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved

The scriptures in the Bible are true that state we are saved through grace. The scriptures in the Bible that state we are saved when we repent, be baptized, and endure… Are also true. Its -all- true.

Sure.

No disagreement.

God can be worshipped anywhere.

God can be worshipped anywhere. The followers of Christ can worship Christ and remember and ponder on the teachings of Christ in their hearts anywhere. That is not an unfamiliar concept to faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

You don’t have the slam-dunk argument here that I think you have.

God can be worshipped anywhere in Latter-Day Saint theology. “To worship God is to give Him our love, reverence, service, and devotion.” Link

We can worship anywhere. In our homes. We can have a prayer in our hearts at work, wherever. At Church. Wherever. We can worship anywhere. And, like Christ in the Bible, and the followers of Christ in the Bible; we can worship in the Temple. Both things can be true at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Both things can be true at the same time.



Christ –came- and worshipped in the Temple. And Christ made a point to defend the sacred nature of the Temple in his ministry. Christ protected and defended the Temple in His ministry. The Temple was made obsolete by Christ? Not by a reading of the Bible.

And it certainly was not rendered obsolete when Christ was killed as Christs followers met and worshipped in the Temple. Visions were received in the Temple… After Christ was killed.

Why are we having this discussion and while those who claim to follow Christ are demeaning the (obviously) “Christian” practice of worshipping Christ in Temples?… apostasy in the Church destroyed sacred practices and the creeds abolished early “Christian” teachings.

The opposite is true, and I have outlined where you and your sources are wrong.

The opposite is true… We believe the Bible is the word of God, and we worship Christ, and we spread the message of Jesus Christ. Link

I served my Mission in Australia, and met people who had been baptized “Christian” at birth but their first contact with the Bible and with teachings of Christ were with me, a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My sister, a Missionary in Japan, taught most people their first teachings of Jesus Christ.

Teaching the importance of worshipping Christ in Temples is not heretical. Temple worship is deeply embedded in Biblical teachings.

Teaching the importance of Baptism in Christs name, and enduring to the end… Biblical teachings.

Teaching that Christ organized a formal Church with formal structure and hierarchy and His authority… Biblical teachings.




Moving the goalposts.

Antagonists: “Worshipping Christ in the Temple ended at Christs death!”

Me: Um, have you actually –read- the Bible? Its -actually- in there…

Antagonists: “I am not convinced!”



But yet modern Christians know very little about the pre-creed Church and knowingly or unknowingly ascribe to the early creeds that destroyed early Christianity. The creeds created “another gospel.” But yet, I still consider “creedal Christians” to be “Christian.”

The prophets in the Old Testament taught many important things and pointed to Jesus Christ.

The Apostles in the New Testament taught many important things and pointed to Jesus Christ.

The Book of Mormon mentions Jesus Christ more than the Bible. The Book of Mormon prophets point to Jesus Christ.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints points to Jesus Christ… “We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.” Link



Smith had no idea about the concepts and ideas that existed in the pre-creed Church. The religions of Smiths day were all “creedal Christian” Churches. That Smith didn’t know that deification was a Bible-taught pre-creed doctrine is a testament that Smith was a true prophet.

Smith had no idea that the pre-creed Church believed the clearly-Biblical teaching that God and Christ were separate, and Christ was subordinate to God. No other Church of any real numbers taught that at the time.




We have many things in common with post-creed Christianity. And we have many things in common with Islamic religions. There are significant similarities with both major religious groups.

But there are significant differences as well.

With most “Christians” we can identify creedal beliefs that have been accepted as foundational “Christian” beliefs. And we disagree with them on those issues. We still maintain some similarities. We worship Christ. So do they. We have Christ-based ordinances like Baptism. So do many post-creed “Christian” Churches. We believe we are saved through Christs grace and atonement. So do most other “Christians.” We believe in the importance of scripture, of “Prophets.” Most other Christians believe the same, with the Bible. There are as many similarities with other “Christians” as there are differences in our Christ-centered faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

With most Islam followers we share some beliefs. They believe in the importance of family. So do we.  Link There are significant differences as well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes we are united with God through Christs atonement. Muslims disagree. "According to the Quran, he was not crucified, but was rather saved by God." Link



Likewise. Except if you do have a sincere desire to learn more of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, come and worship Christ with us. Ask –your- questions directly to faithful members.
I have no problem addressing questions or concerns.



That is some sith-lord stuff there. Your antagonist video you posted early said pretty much the same thing, then made up a bunch of stuff we don’t actually believe in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The funniest part of the antagonist video you posted –and probably the most dangerous part, to Christians, regardless of religion—was the part where your antagonist stated that faithful followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are required to have faith, and our following of Christ could only be proven with faith but the antagonist didn’t need faith because she could “walk through streets in Jerusalem.”

The problem with antagonists when they stop focusing on seeking truth-- is they will strike at any target they see as a target of opportunity, and if they have to shoot-through something important they will do it. Faith is important. Attacking faith is beyond wrong.

Faith is important –and required for being saved—in –any- “Christian” denomination. I need faith in Christ. But so does every other follower of Christ. But if we believe you and your hit-job video-- you don’t need faith. Since you can walk in Jerusalem. Seriously. You posted the video.

Let me tell you how I know you are wrong. When you are attacking faith, you are in the wrong. If you are attacking faith while you think you are (somehow, weirdly) defending the Bible, you are in the wrong.

I can believe the Book of Mormon is scripture (through faith) in one hand, and believe the Bible is scripture (through faith) in the other. That is not a contradictory thing. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the exact same time.



I really hope that you can come visit and worship with us.

But if you have questions, concerns, antagonisms or criticisms, I am happy to find faithful answers.

I was going to post a rebuttal of each point, but this statement told me all I needed to know. This kind of thinking constitutes a failure of logic, specifically the Law of Non-Contradiction, which posits that A and Not A cannot both be true at the same place and at the same time. As stated above, there are numerous contradictions between the LDS Church's beliefs and biblical Christianity (of which I include Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and non-denominational Christians), one of the most glaring of which is the identity of God the Father. Biblical Christians believe that God is Spirit, that He is eternal, that His qualities always have been as He is now and will be in the future, that He is perfect, etc. LDS members believe that God the Father (or Heavenly Father) was once a man who died, was resurrected, and becamea god. These two statements are inherently contradictory, especially on the issue of God's eternal nature; either Christians' conception of God the Father is correct, the LDS Church's conception is correct, or both are incorrect. This chain of reasoning can be applied to numerous differences between the beliefs of the LDS Church and biblical Christianity.  

So please, don't tell me that both can be true. It's logically impossible.

This argument is essentially that your opponent's argument is self-contradictory, therefore their argument cannot be right.

Your argument works when the other side agrees with you that A is A and Not A is Not A, .....but they also insist that A is also Not A, which cannot be true.

However, your conclusion rests on assumptions which are disputed and which you have failed to conclusively establish as objectively true.

If "biblical christianity" is A, you conflate "your interpretation of biblical christianity" with "biblical christianity", which you use as the foundation for your critical analysis and ultimately your conclusion that one is A and the other is Not A.

The other side of the debate doesn't accept that your A is actually A.

So if they see both LDS beliefs and biblical christianity as A, then your argument fails because their views are not self-contradictory.


In other words, all you've established here is that you disagree with your opponent here about whether LDS beliefs contradict biblical christianity.

Which is the crux of the debate, right?

You can't win the debate by saying your opponent's view contradicts your own, therefore they are wrong.

Which is what you're trying to say.

You're misinterpreting my argument. In this particular argument, I did not assert that Biblical Christianity was true; I said that the argument that LDS beliefs line up and do not contradict the beliefs of Biblical Christianity is logically flawed. As I stated above, using the example of the faiths' different conceptions of God's identity, either Biblical Christianity's teachings are factually correct, the LDS Church's teachings are factually correct, or neither is factually correct. In other words, the notion that the LDS Church's teachings are in harmony with Biblical Christianity's on this foundational underpinning of theology (and many others) is unsupported by logical reasoning.

Revelation 22:19


And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I don’t want to find fault rather Smith found fault with what the Bible and it’s ways and decided to make his own way.

You still miss the point about him giving away direct Masonic secrets he learned less than a month before putting those grips and signs in the endowment ceremony. Those grips and signs aren’t found anywhere outside of masonry aside from groups who stole them from masonry. He swore an oath three times and then broke it almost immediately.

To hinge eternal life on marriage in a verse wholly out of context and which ignores the same author saying it’s better for some to remain unmarried is beyond ludicrous. It’s akin to jehovahs witnesses fixating on the 144,000 number in revelation and basing so much of their beliefs on things like that.

You ignore the multiple verses about the temple no longer being a building.

I don’t know. Again I’m not saying Mormonism is wrong. But I am saying it has very little in common with Christianity aside Jesus being part of the theology. The theology itself bears no resemblance to any other Christian denomination.

Edited to add: I had a bet with myself that you would bring up the Ummim and Thummim. That was for making decisions. Not interpreting scripture. Also having read his direct attacks on people in the church in the D&C, hoo boy smith was a manipulative man.

Sorry, but you're misunderstanding what I said.

I didn't say you said "biblical christianity was true".

I said you claim that "biblical christianity and lds beliefs are mutually exclusive." Which you did.  

But what is actually true is that YOUR INTERPRETATION of biblical christianity and LDS beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Which is accurate.

But that's just rewording the argument that "we disagree about what biblical christianity is."

Since LDS members have a different interpretation than you about what "biblical christianity" is. And their interpretation isn't inconsistent with their LDS beliefs.

So again, you're essentially saying "gotcha! Your interpretation contradicts my interpretation, therefore you lose this argument because of the Law of Noncontradiction!"

That's not how this works.

And I'm not even disagreeing with your religious ideas. Just your flawed application of logical reasoning that doesn't account for biased assumptions that undermine your entire premise.

I'm not sure whether you're unable or unwilling to see your own biased assumptions here, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.