My beliefs as a Christian Latter Day Saint

[jkmtwo]

What makes a christian a christian?

Jude
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

It's the faith that was once established, and has never ceased to be, and will never cease to be, until the king of all of creation returns. The church, stands today without spot or blemish as it did then, and the bride of Christ, will not, nor can she be seduced by a false prophet like Joseph Smith, you ain't a christian dude, not even close, you follow a perversion of the truth.

Christ's death purchased my justification, my sanctification, and my glorification, anything that adds or detracts from him and his finished work on the cross is straight from the pits of hell.

Believe the gospel, and not false prophets.

[Nerd42]

What makes a christian a christian?

Jude
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

It's the faith that was once established, and has never ceased to be, and will never cease to be, until the king of all of creation returns.

I agree.

The church, stands today without spot or blemish as it did then, and the bride of Christ, will not, nor can she be seduced

If you look back into history, she was, in fact, seduced by false doctrines, according to those who started the Protestant Reformation.

[jkmtwo]

You make the foolish mistake of assuming that just because someone calls themself a christian then they must be, many false Christians get seduced by false prophets, and false doctrines.

Scripture told us this would happen, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 John 2:19, the true church, the true bride, will never be seduced, because the true church is built by Christ and not by human hands, Matthew 16:18, and John 10.

By the way, you agree with my statement that the Christian faith was once for all delivered, amazingly enough, you go to a church that added a bunch of stuff about 1700 years after Jude was written, so you say you agree, but your actions say you lie.

[Nerd42]

You make the foolish mistake of assuming that just because someone calls themself a christian then they must be, many false Christians get seduced by false prophets, and false doctrines.

No, I do not, in fact, make this mistake. From post 1, I have consistently said that Christianity is a specific doctrinal belief system, not a spiritual condition or word of praise for someone's piety. A Christian is one who professes the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and/or C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity definition. Anyone who fits any one of those three definitions is a Christian and agrees with the main points in the other two. Anyone who does not is not a Christian. The same standard applies to whether any church is a Christian church or not.

Scripture told us this would happen, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 John 2:19, the true church, the true bride, will never be seduced, because the true church is built by Christ and not by human hands, Matthew 16:18, and John 10.

1 Timothy 4:!, together with Matthew 11:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:3. 1 John 2:19 and other references show that the church can and does fall away.

As for Matthew 16:18, it does not say that the church will never fall away. It says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. This is right after the keys of the kingdom are given. What does it mean for a gate to prevail against someone? It means they try to get in, but cannot because it is locked. What does a key do? It unlocks things. Christ gives the keys of the kingdom so that the gates of hell can be opened and people can be gotten out. (as is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19 and in the Apostle's Creed)

By the way, you agree with my statement that the Christian faith was once for all delivered, amazingly enough, you go to a church that added a bunch of stuff about 1700 years after Jude was written, so you say you agree, but your actions say you lie.

I agree that the faith (not all possible divine revelation, but the faith) was once and for all delivered unto the Saints by Christ, which is the proper meaning and interpretation of what this reference in Jude actually says. It was not delivered by the writers of the gospels or by Paul or James or John or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or Joseph Smith Jr. or Joseph Smith III or Nephi or Moroni or anybody else, but only by Christ. All these others are only correct insofar as they point to Him.

[linkbolt]

C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity definition.

My point of contention is that C.S Lewis does not take a firm stance on the Gospel and seems to celebrate a type of Ecumenicalism, that puts every one under one umbrella of Christian unity but neglects the Gospel, which is the Power of God for Salvation.

Creedial beliefs make Christians not the Gospel. 

linkbolt

[jkmtwo]

No, I do not, in fact, make this mistake. From post 1, I have consistently said that Christianity is a specific doctrinal belief system, not a spiritual condition or word of praise for someone's piety. A Christian is one who professes the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and/or C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity definition. Anyone who fits any one of those three definitions is a Christian and agrees with the main points in the other two. Anyone who does not is not a Christian. The same standard applies to whether any church is a Christian church or not.

Where on earth did you get the idea that the apostle's creed and the nicene creed, are the standard of a true christian, can you affirm the Athanasius(sp?) Creed? How about the 3 forms of unity, can you affirm the Chicago statement? Even if you can, it does not make you a christian, because you are in rebellion to scripture, and are following a false prophet. BTW, Lewis was a heretic as well, great writer, I believe he was a genuine christian, but he was a heretic, so the fact that you agree with him at a 90% clip, doesn't really make you look that great.

1 Timothy 4:!, together with Matthew 11:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:3. 1 John 2:19 and other references show that the church can and does fall away.

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force- Matthew 11:12

 This verse doesn't say anything about the church, unless you assume that the kingdom is the church, even still, it says nothing about the church following false prophets.

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction- 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Ok, the word apostacy, means to fall away from the faith, you would be classified as the apostate, if you are saying "let no one deceive you" is proof, I am not saying that a christian can not be deceived, most certainly, many in the body of christ are deceived in many things, my assertion is, that the body of christ can not be seduced, that is, enter into an intimate relationship, or follow after a false prophet. Joseph Smith's followers were false Christian's who left true churches, and their first love, to follow after the dictates of a man who had been seduced by demons. They were never Christians, if they were then why did they leave what they already had. Again, as John said "they went out from us, because they were never of us".

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us- 1 John 2:19

Notice how I cited this same verse in the post you responded to, why, because read what it says, "They went out from us" left the church, "but they were not of us" why would he say this, the next line says why he said that "for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" his proof that they were not in the church was that they left the church, this is not talking about the church falling away, it's saying the exact opposite, John is saying had they ever been of the church, they never would have left. READ THE TEXT.

As for Matthew 16:18, it does not say that the church will never fall away. It says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. This is right after the keys of the kingdom are given. What does it mean for a gate to prevail against someone? It means they try to get in, but cannot because it is locked. What does a key do? It unlocks things. Christ gives the keys of the kingdom so that the gates of hell can be opened and people can be gotten out. (as is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19 and in the Apostle's Creed)  

You just unwittingly made my point for me, by the way, you also mad a good arguement for calvinism.

 I agree that the faith (not all possible divine revelation, but the faith) was once and for all delivered unto the Saints by Christ, which is the proper meaning and interpretation of what this reference in Jude actually says. It was not delivered by the writers of the gospels or by Paul or James or John or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or Joseph Smith Jr. or Joseph Smith III or Nephi or Moroni or anybody else, but only by Christ. All these others are only correct insofar as they point to Him.    

My question is this, answer this if you will, earlier in the thread you said that you and I suppose your branch of the LDS, followed the origional teachings of Joseph Smith, but not his later teachings, now by what standard do you make this distinction, and does it not seem at least troublesome to you that someone who was so inconsistent, is the very person that you follow, how do you know that he was right in the beginning, and wrong later, what if he was right later and wrong before, how do you decide? You are basing your eternal destiny on the testimony of a man, who you admit later on was wrong.

I haven't even gotten into how the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible's teaching, as well as history.

[linkbolt]

I haven't even gotten into how the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible's teaching, as well as history.

It doesn't matter there has been a long winded thread on it...just trust me it won't matter.

linkbolt

[jkmtwo]

I didn't think it would

[Nerd42]

No, I do not, in fact, make this mistake. From post 1, I have consistently said that Christianity is a specific doctrinal belief system, not a spiritual condition or word of praise for someone's piety. A Christian is one who professes the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and/or C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity definition. Anyone who fits any one of those three definitions is a Christian and agrees with the main points in the other two. Anyone who does not is not a Christian. The same standard applies to whether any church is a Christian church or not.

Where on earth did you get the idea that the apostle's creed and the nicene creed, are the standard of a true christian, can you affirm the Athanasius(sp?) Creed?

I think so. On first reading it's English translation on Wikipedia, I think I can accept that confession, or at least the ghist of it, to be basically true. Not as a definition of Christianity however. I have met a few Christians who aren't strict Trinitarians - at least not intellectually, and they think the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit and the Comforter are somehow separated entities, yet the understand the doctrine of the atonement and are Christians even though they hold this unorthodox view of how the Holy Ghost works. I would say that those in this group who are members of the RLDS church do not hold RLDS theology but are still Christians.

How about the 3 forms of unity, can you affirm the Chicago statement?

No, definitely not. I think acceptance of the Chicago statement has nothing to do with the essential definition of Christianity as it was composed in 1978 and it's absurd to claim that we only settled and decided on what a Christian is and is not at such a late date. Nor can one claim that the Chicago statement is a reaffirmation of what is taught either in the Bible or in the earlier creeds I have mentioned. The three forms of unity are Calvinist-exclusive, and to make them the essential definition of Christianity would be as absurd as my trying to claim that the Epitome of Faith (probably the only comparable document to a creed or confession in the latter day saint tradition) is the essential definition. The only reason I admit such a late document as Mere Christianity is that I think it's main points are essentially the same as the early creeds and it is just clarifying them in modern language. Anything new or original that might have crept in in Mere Christianity doesn't belong in the definition.

BTW, Lewis was a heretic as well, great writer, I believe he was a genuine christian, but he was a heretic, so the fact that you agree with him at a 90% clip, doesn't really make you look that great.

*shrug* I don't care whether other people think I am a heretic. I only care whether the doctrines I believe in are true or not. Lewis was the single greatest Christian writer and apologist of the 20th century and if he's my company in being a heretic, I think I am on fairly solid ground and in the best of company.

1 Timothy 4:!, together with Matthew 11:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:3. 1 John 2:19 and other references show that the church can and does fall away.

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force- Matthew 11:12

 This verse doesn't say anything about the church, unless you assume that the kingdom is the church, even still, it says nothing about the church following false prophets.

I do assume that the kingdom is the church. The violent took it by force when the church became the dominant political military power and we saw the formation of the Holy Roman Empire.

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction- 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Ok, the word apostacy, means to fall away from the faith, you would be classified as the apostate, if you are saying "let no one deceive you" is proof, I am not saying that a christian can not be deceived, most certainly, many in the body of christ are deceived in many things, my assertion is, that the body of christ can not be seduced, that is, enter into an intimate relationship, or follow after a false prophet.

If the parts can go, so can the whole.

Joseph Smith's followers were false Christian's who left true churches, and their first love, to follow after the dictates of a man who had been seduced by demons.

That remains to be seen. I will grant that Brigham Young was probably involved with demons, but do not believe this was the case with Joseph Smith Jr.

Notice how I cited this same verse in the post you responded to, why, because read what it says, "They went out from us" left the church, "but they were not of us" why would he say this, the next line says why he said that "for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" his proof that they were not in the church was that they left the church, this is not talking about the church falling away, it's saying the exact opposite, John is saying had they ever been of the church, they never would have left. READ THE TEXT.

I think you are making a distinction which is not there.

As for Matthew 16:18, it does not say that the church will never fall away. It says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. This is right after the keys of the kingdom are given. What does it mean for a gate to prevail against someone? It means they try to get in, but cannot because it is locked. What does a key do? It unlocks things. Christ gives the keys of the kingdom so that the gates of hell can be opened and people can be gotten out. (as is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19 and in the Apostle's Creed)  

You just unwittingly made my point for me, by the way, you also mad a good arguement for calvinism.

The fundamental assertion of Protestantism, by which all the Protestant churches feel they are at liberty to disobey the edicts of the Pope and the Catholic priesthood, is that the Catholic priesthood either lost or never had the keys of the kingdom which they claim to have. The claim in Latter Day Saintism that the Catholic priesthood had lost their keys is not a new claim. Not at all. The new claim is that the keys are restored. I cannot understand how Protestants continually try to cut off the branch that they sit on by re-asserting the authority of the Catholic church over them the minute Latter Day Saints bring up the same argument that their own founders used to justify the Reformation.

I agree that the faith (not all possible divine revelation, but the faith) was once and for all delivered unto the Saints by Christ, which is the proper meaning and interpretation of what this reference in Jude actually says. It was not delivered by the writers of the gospels or by Paul or James or John or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or Joseph Smith Jr. or Joseph Smith III or Nephi or Moroni or anybody else, but only by Christ. All these others are only correct insofar as they point to Him.

My question is this, answer this if you will, earlier in the thread you said that you and I suppose your branch of the LDS, followed the origional teachings of Joseph Smith, but not his later teachings, now by what standard do you make this distinction, and does it not seem at least troublesome to you that someone who was so inconsistent, is the very person that you follow, how do you know that he was right in the beginning, and wrong later, what if he was right later and wrong before, how do you decide? You are basing your eternal destiny on the testimony of a man, who you admit later on was wrong.

First, there is no point in history at which we can point to and say that Joseph Smith Jr. lost his way at this point and all his doctrinal teachings after that point are no good. We think he's a sinner, just like everybody else, and hold him to the same standard we hold the murderers Moses and Saul/Paul. (Even though, unlike them, Smith never killed anybody) These "later teachings" were not really taught by Smith but were attributed to him by the false prophet Brigham Young and his followers, whose apostate doctrines stand in direct opposition both to Smith's original teachings and to Christianity in general. And since I think it is likely that Young and company were involved with demons, and since academia and the public both seem willing to believe a chimera of what Young and company said and what Smith's critics said about what Smith's doctrines were and disregard the testimony of Smith's own (legitimate) family members, it is little wonder to me that you find the same traces of the Brighamite apostasy in what you regard as Smith's original teachings. But I say it is not so. The original doctrines are those actually found in the Book of Mormon and the Lectures of Faith and not in the Pearl of Great Price and other Brighamite apostate texts.

I haven't even gotten into how the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible's teaching, as well as history.

I am totally open to hearing any instance where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in such a way that no possible reconciliation can be found. Such an instance would disprove the Book of Mormon. Note, however, that I do not accept the extra-Biblical doctrines of Biblical inerrancy or all-sufficiency, so you'd have to demonstrate this in a clear and undeniable way, not by some slight of hand trick from some obscure passage, the meaning of which could be easily misunderstood or slightly mis-stated. Also, you must actually compare the Bible itself, in context (not some book of commentary on it or some individual's or church's private interpretation or any other book) to the Book of Mormon itself, in context. (not some book of commentary on it or some individual's or church's private interpretation or any other book) None of these intellectually dishonest practices of trying to represent the Book of Mormon as being something it's not or saying something it doesn't say, if you please.

As for history, as I've explained before, I don't think we really know enough about ancient America for the Book of Mormon to be really falsifiable. This means that I can't scientifically prove it, but neither can you scientifically disprove it. The best I could do from a scientific perspective is show probabilities, and I don't think you or anyone else is prepared to accept an argument for anything of the kind from probability.

[Livingprose]

I admire your faith Nerd42. Not too many christians are operating under this kind of legitimate faith in God, that they would believe even if its not proveable. Bless you =)

[Nerd42]

I admire your faith Nerd42. Not too many christians are operating under this kind of legitimate faith in God, that they would believe even if its not proveable. Bless you =)

Welll ... I appreciate your goodwill, but I think many of them actually do believe in things they know aren't provable. Most super naturalists of every kind are. As Lewis pointed out in Miracles; A Preliminary Study, whether you are going to believe that any particular miracle occurred or not depends primarily on the philosophy you hold before you approach particular instances of alleged miracle. I think most sincere Christians (those who are being intellectually honest in their profession of the essential definition, see above) are operating based on faith, and faith is belief in that which you cannot prove, based upon a reason for hope. Christianity is, for the great majority of people who didn't, like Thomas, actually put their hand in the side of our Lord and feel His wounds, a faith-based belief system, and not a provable one.

In other words, I think (or at least I hope) you've got the same kind of faith in the Bible.

But faith is not belief in nonsense, against sense. If one could show that the RLDS position is absolute nonsense, then to have faith in it would also be nonsense and thus, false. In the aforementioned book, it says, "We can attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense."

[Livingprose]

Well, some people here attribute miracles to the Devil, so I'm not sure if even using that was best.

[jkmtwo]

I think so. On first reading it's English translation on Wikipedia, I think I can accept that confession, or at least the ghist of it, to be basically true. Not as a definition of Christianity however. I have met a few Christians who aren't strict Trinitarians - at least not intellectually, and they think the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit and the Comforter are somehow separated entities, yet the understand the doctrine of the atonement and are Christians even though they hold this unorthodox view of how the Holy Ghost works. I would say that those in this group who are members of the RLDS church do not hold RLDS theology but are still Christians.  

Do you understand why creeds came about? Creeds came about as a way to expose heretics. So when you say that you can affirm the "ghist" of it, understand that the language is the "ghist", in other words, a creed is not meant to give you an overview of a doctrine, it is meant to give you the specific minutia of a doctrine, so if you can not affirm the very specific details of a creed, then you can not affirm that creed. And using the ignorance of Christians as a way to wiggle yourself into a view of the trinity that you like, is not a defense, and it doesn't make you a trinitarian, it makes you a heretic just the same.

No, definitely not. I think acceptance of the Chicago statement has nothing to do with the essential definition of Christianity as it was composed in 1978 and it's absurd to claim that we only settled and decided on what a Christian is and is not at such a late date. Nor can one claim that the Chicago statement is a reaffirmation of what is taught either in the Bible or in the earlier creeds I have mentioned. The three forms of unity are Calvinist-exclusive, and to make them the essential definition of Christianity would be as absurd as my trying to claim that the Epitome of Faith (probably the only comparable document to a creed or confession in the latter day saint tradition) is the essential definition. The only reason I admit such a late document as Mere Christianity is that I think it's main points are essentially the same as the early creeds and it is just clarifying them in modern language. Anything new or original that might have crept in in Mere Christianity doesn't belong in the definition.  

Mere Christianity is not a credal statement of the faith, it's a book, and a decent book, but it gives a very surface level understanding of christianity, no wonder why you like it, because it gives you the leadway to wiggle yourself in. Oh, and Lewis is far from the greatest apologist of the 20th century, I mean, I disagree with Norman Geisler, and William Lane Craig on so much as far as certain doctrines go, but Lewis couldn't do either one of those guys laundry.

I will hold my comments on the Chicago statement

I do assume that the kingdom is the church. The violent took it by force when the church became the dominant political military power and we saw the formation of the Holy Roman Empire.  

Again, that wasn't the church, even if you assume that the kingdom is the church, which is fine, it certainly is a possiblity, He (Jesus) is not talking about the holy roman empire, CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT, he is talking about the martyrdom of John the Baptist, as well as the martyrdom, that the church would go through, read the rest of the chapter, Jesus makes this doubly clear a couple of verses later in the parable of the children in the marketplace.

If the parts can go, so can the whole.  

Then you confess the weakness of Christ, that as the Shepperd, in John 10, that we can be plucked from his hand, and notice, I said that Christians can be deceived, but this is not a salvific issue, these are doctrinal issues, these parts do not "go" as you say, they are still held in the hand of Christ, they are still children of God.

That remains to be seen. I will grant that Brigham Young was probably involved with demons, but do not believe this was the case with Joseph Smith Jr.

What is your authority, on what grounds can you say this, I agree BY was in league with demons, and those were most likely the same demons as Joseph Smith.

I think you are making a distinction which is not there.  

I only read the text for what it says, you should do the same, it's called exegesis not isegesis.

The fundamental assertion of Protestantism, by which all the Protestant churches feel they are at liberty to disobey the edicts of the Pope and the Catholic priesthood, is that the Catholic priesthood either lost or never had the keys of the kingdom which they claim to have. The claim in Latter Day Saintism that the Catholic priesthood had lost their keys is not a new claim. Not at all. The new claim is that the keys are restored. I cannot understand how Protestants continually try to cut off the branch that they sit on by re-asserting the authority of the Catholic church over them the minute Latter Day Saints bring up the same argument that their own founders used to justify the Reformation.  

You almost tricked me into cussing with this, we don't believe that the papacy lost it's priesthood, we don't believe in that sort of priesthood, we believe in the priesthood of the believer and the eternal priesthood of Christ, and Christ alone, read Hebrews.

Second, the reformation, didn't have jack didley to do with the papacy, it had to do with justification, the keys are restored, so then I guess that we are the one's who aren't Christians, seeing as how, the keys were given to Joseph Smith, and we don't follow him, so we are the one's who are lost, so then why are you trying to be one of us?

BTW, the keys of the kingdom, are the teaching of the apostles. Who has asserted Roman authority? I assert only the Apostolic authority, found in scripture.

First, there is no point in history at which we can point to and say that Joseph Smith Jr. lost his way at this point and all his doctrinal teachings after that point are no good. We think he's a sinner, just like everybody else, and hold him to the same standard we hold the murderers Moses and Saul/Paul. (Even though, unlike them, Smith never killed anybody) These "later teachings" were not really taught by Smith but were attributed to him by the false prophet Brigham Young and his followers, whose apostate doctrines stand in direct opposition both to Smith's original teachings and to Christianity in general. And since I think it is likely that Young and company were involved with demons, and since academia and the public both seem willing to believe a chimera of what Young and company said and what Smith's critics said about what Smith's doctrines were and disregard the testimony of Smith's own (legitimate) family members, it is little wonder to me that you find the same traces of the Brighamite apostasy in what you regard as Smith's original teachings. But I say it is not so. The original doctrines are those actually found in the Book of Mormon and the Lectures of Faith and not in the Pearl of Great Price and other Brighamite apostate texts.

By what authority do you say this? How are we to know that they are wrong, and you guys are right?

I am totally open to hearing any instance where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in such a way that no possible reconciliation can be found. Such an instance would disprove the Book of Mormon

Alma 7
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.

Jerusalem is not Bethlehem

Alma also records Christians as early as 73 B.C., that doesn't even make sense seing as how Christ didn't even come until about 75 years later, so how a guy had followers before he was even on the scene makes little to no sense at all, and not just that the book of Acts records that the followers of Christ, weren't called Christians until about 40 A.D.

2 Nephi 25:19 "For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh... his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ... For we labor... to persuade... our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

"after all we can do", we are saved after all we can do, so Christs work isn't sufficient for me, I have to do my very very best after that, then if I have done all I can do, God will show me grace, right?

It's just a few, I also noticed that you reject the Chicago statement because it came so late in history, how foolish are you, the Book of Mormon only predates the Chicago statement by about a hundred and 40 years, so what gives, oh I see you are very inconsistant and you like to apply the standard as you see fit.

BTW, biblical inerrancy, is a natural outgrowth of what the bible says about itself, it claims to be the word of God, and God can not lie, therefore it must be inerrant, as well as, sufficiency which was a doctrine that came about because of guys like you, but goes all the way back to the outset of the church, the church only accepted teaching that was in accordance with what the apostles taught, they called this the regula fide(sp?), the rule of faith, this is why certain extra-canonical books did not make the cut for the new testament, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and so on, were not apostles, so their writings were rejected on the grounds that the books all have apostolic authorship.

Oh and the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy predates the Book of Mormon by at least a thousand years, and so does sufficiency, both go back to the earliest period of the church.

I admire your faith Nerd42. Not too many christians are operating under this kind of legitimate faith in God, that they would believe even if its not proveable. Bless you =)  

Who cares if it's a lie right, ah screw it, at least he believes in something.

Nerd42 people like this, don't really love you, they are punching your ticket to hell, bro.

[linkbolt]

@jkmtwo

I like what you said, just not how you said it. Please refrain from suggesting that others are on drugs.


Moderator Note!

linkbolt

[jkmtwo]

I apologize, I will edit all of that out, sometimes I get carried away

[mashmouth]

Hey Nerd--
If I can show you one (1) single false prophecy of Joseph Smith Jr., would you renounce your trust in him and truly place that trust in the Risen Lord of all?

Just one--I have more than one--but just one, well documented, sworn-under-oath-and-by-the-Holy-Spirit(sic) Joseph Smith Jr. false prophecy?
By real, bona-fide Deut. 18:22 standards you could truly renounce your faith in Joe Smith and place it in the God who makes no mistakes?

Careful, brodda--the answer to your question reveals where your true loyalties lie...

One?

[Nerd42]

Well, some people here attribute miracles to the Devil, so I'm not sure if even using that was best.

Yes, there are satanic "miracles" if "miracle" means "supernatural event." We read of some in the Bible. Christ cast out demons remember? Demonic possession would be an example of a satanic miracle.

Hey Nerd--
If I can show you one (1) single false prophecy of Joseph Smith Jr., would you renounce your trust in him and truly place that trust in the Risen Lord of all?

You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if one must renounce Moses to believe in Jesus.

Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make. Having never had a prophet for almost a millennium, I can understand how this misconception has arisen, but we hold different views of what prophecy and divine revelation really are and how they work. A prophet is just like anyone else. They have periods where they're doing the right thing and also periods when they're not. Look at Moses and David and all the rest of them. Were they always right? No.

the God who makes no mistakes?

God makes no mistakes. His servants make mistakes all the time, just like you and I do, and the more responsibility they are given, the bigger mistakes they can make.

I think so. On first reading it's English translation on Wikipedia, I think I can accept that confession, or at least the ghist of it, to be basically true. Not as a definition of Christianity however. I have met a few Christians who aren't strict Trinitarians - at least not intellectually, and they think the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit and the Comforter are somehow separated entities, yet the understand the doctrine of the atonement and are Christians even though they hold this unorthodox view of how the Holy Ghost works. I would say that those in this group who are members of the RLDS church do not hold RLDS theology but are still Christians.

Do you understand why creeds came about? Creeds came about as a way to expose heretics.

Which led to all kinds of evil that have given Christianity a bad name. It's not our job to expose heretics but to preach the truth.

So when you say that you can affirm the "ghist" of it, understand that the language is the "ghist", in other words, a creed is not meant to give you an overview of a doctrine, it is meant to give you the specific minutia of a doctrine, so if you can not affirm the very specific details of a creed, then you can not affirm that creed. And using the ignorance of Christians as a way to wiggle yourself into a view of the trinity that you like, is not a defense, and it doesn't make you a trinitarian, it makes you a heretic just the same.

I hold the doctrine of the Trinity. I only said that I know some people who don't, or who don't in the same way, and yet these people are still Christians, as I don't think this later creed is essential. If we want to insist on exact details of the English versions, then we have de-Christianized all of Protestantism for not accepting the bit about "the Holy Catholic church."

I only said "ghist" because I haven't done an in-depth examination of the creed but only a quick read-through. If there's some little word in there I don't agree with, I haven't found it. I strongly disagree with the Chicago statement however.

No, definitely not. I think acceptance of the Chicago statement has nothing to do with the essential definition of Christianity as it was composed in 1978 and it's absurd to claim that we only settled and decided on what a Christian is and is not at such a late date. Nor can one claim that the Chicago statement is a reaffirmation of what is taught either in the Bible or in the earlier creeds I have mentioned. The three forms of unity are Calvinist-exclusive, and to make them the essential definition of Christianity would be as absurd as my trying to claim that the Epitome of Faith (probably the only comparable document to a creed or confession in the latter day saint tradition) is the essential definition. The only reason I admit such a late document as Mere Christianity is that I think it's main points are essentially the same as the early creeds and it is just clarifying them in modern language. Anything new or original that might have crept in in Mere Christianity doesn't belong in the definition.

Mere Christianity is not a credal statement of the faith, it's a book, and a decent book, but it gives a very surface level understanding of christianity, no wonder why you like it, because it gives you the leadway to wiggle yourself in. Oh, and Lewis is far from the greatest apologist of the 20th century, I mean, I disagree with Norman Geisler, and William Lane Craig on so much as far as certain doctrines go, but Lewis couldn't do either one of those guys laundry.

We have different views of the purpose of creeds or confessions, or at least of what the purpose of creeds or confessions ought to be. I think they ought to clarify doctrines. That's what the Epitome of Faith does. It's not a test of faith nor has it ever been used as such.

and notice, I said that Christians can be deceived, but this is not a salvific issue, these are doctrinal issues

That's what I myself said. The doctrine of the great apostasy deals with the state of the church organization, not the salvation of individual believers.

That remains to be seen. I will grant that Brigham Young was probably involved with demons, but do not believe this was the case with Joseph Smith Jr.

What is your authority, on what grounds can you say this, I agree BY was in league with demons, and those were most likely the same demons as Joseph Smith.

Brigham Young taught doctrines which contain the same lie that Satan told in the very beginning -that man can become god. This would definitely qualify as "doctrines of demons." But also, I have reason to suspect this due to the instances of miracle attributed to Young especially during the period of his rise to power. As the story goes, he was able to "speak with the voice of Joseph the Martyr" to convince people to follow him after Joseph's death. Far as I'm concerned, this was channeling, as in communicating with demons. The way God would have done that would have been to send Joseph himself if such were needed, just like he sent Moses and Elias and other saints of old in the Bible, not to channel Joseph through somebody else. As I understand it, they retroactively attributed many doctrines to Joseph in this way, and wrote their history as if Joseph had taught them when alive.

Young was deeply involved with the Messianic lodge, or "Masonry" or "Freemasonry" (however you say that) and there are clear similarities between the Mormon temple rituals and those of the Masons. They're basically copied. I have heard that Joseph once attended a meeting of the lodge to see what it was about and repudiated it. Yet they of course claim him to have been a mason of the highest degree, like they do any famous person who ever had anything to do with them.

For a Book of Mormon believer, there's no escaping the obvious correlation that these are exactly the "secret combinations" that the Book of Mormon warns about and condemns over and over. (Both the Freemason rituals and the Mormon temple rituals) The Mormon's response to this is that the rituals are "sacred not secret" which is nonsense - words without any meaning behind them.

I think you are making a distinction which is not there.  

I only read the text for what it says, you should do the same, it's called exegesis not isegesis.

You're not just reading what it says, you're also interpreting what it says.

The fundamental assertion of Protestantism, by which all the Protestant churches feel they are at liberty to disobey the edicts of the Pope and the Catholic priesthood, is that the Catholic priesthood either lost or never had the keys of the kingdom which they claim to have. The claim in Latter Day Saintism that the Catholic priesthood had lost their keys is not a new claim. Not at all. The new claim is that the keys are restored. I cannot understand how Protestants continually try to cut off the branch that they sit on by re-asserting the authority of the Catholic church over them the minute Latter Day Saints bring up the same argument that their own founders used to justify the Reformation.  

You almost tricked me into cussing with this, we don't believe that the papacy lost it's priesthood, we don't believe in that sort of priesthood, we believe in the priesthood of the believer and the eternal priesthood of Christ, and Christ alone, read Hebrews.

To where in Hebrews are you referring? And the Bible teaches of that sort of priesthood.

Second, the reformation, didn't have jack didley to do with the papacy, it had to do with justification, the keys are restored, so then I guess that we are the one's who aren't Christians, seeing as how, the keys were given to Joseph Smith, and we don't follow him, so we are the one's who are lost, so then why are you trying to be one of us?

I am not. As I said in post 1, I am not a Protestant or a Catholic. (Both of which are "Christian") I am a Christian Latter Day Saint.

BTW, the keys of the kingdom, are the teaching of the apostles. Who has asserted Roman authority? I assert only the Apostolic authority, found in scripture.

No you don't. You have no apostles, nor any mechanism for ordaining any. Therefore, you have no Apostolic authority. As I understand it, you only claim the authority of scripture, and only claim the Bible as scripture, and therefore only claim the Bible as authority. Let us not confuse apostolic authority with scriptural authority.

(later edit) My church doesn't have apostolic authority either at the moment, but does have the possibility of fixing that.

First, there is no point in history at which we can point to and say that Joseph Smith Jr. lost his way at this point and all his doctrinal teachings after that point are no good. We think he's a sinner, just like everybody else, and hold him to the same standard we hold the murderers Moses and Saul/Paul. (Even though, unlike them, Smith never killed anybody) These "later teachings" were not really taught by Smith but were attributed to him by the false prophet Brigham Young and his followers, whose apostate doctrines stand in direct opposition both to Smith's original teachings and to Christianity in general. And since I think it is likely that Young and company were involved with demons, and since academia and the public both seem willing to believe a chimera of what Young and company said and what Smith's critics said about what Smith's doctrines were and disregard the testimony of Smith's own (legitimate) family members, it is little wonder to me that you find the same traces of the Brighamite apostasy in what you regard as Smith's original teachings. But I say it is not so. The original doctrines are those actually found in the Book of Mormon and the Lectures of Faith and not in the Pearl of Great Price and other Brighamite apostate texts.

By what authority do you say this? How are we to know that they are wrong, and you guys are right?

About the history or the doctrine? When it comes to the history, it's very much a he-said, she-said situation. But there are much better ground for the doctrine. In additional to the testimony of the holy spirit, there is also the testimony of internal consistency. The LDS/Mormon doctrines and revelations contradict one another. The RLDS doctrines and revelations (at least until some of these came along, which we need to get rid of) do not contradict one another but can all be thought out completely to their conclusions. There is the testimony of 1 John 4:2 reaffirmed in the third book of Nephi. And there are many other testimonies.

I am totally open to hearing any instance where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in such a way that no possible reconciliation can be found. Such an instance would disprove the Book of Mormon

Alma 7
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.

Jerusalem is not Bethlehem

Yes it is, see Jeff Linday's explanation which is a good one although I do not agree with him on some other things. (LDS stuff other than the Book of Mormon)

Alma also records Christians as early as 73 B.C., that doesn't even make sense seing as how Christ didn't even come until about 75 years later, so how a guy had followers before he was even on the scene makes little to no sense at all, and not just that the book of Acts records that the followers of Christ, weren't called Christians until about 40 A.D.

The people in acts certainly weren't called "Christians" until about that time, but Alma takes place in the New World somewhere and Christ was revealed prophetically, according to it. This is only impossible if miracles and prophecy in general are impossible or if Christ didn't really come or if God was incapable of revealing this fact.

2 Nephi 25:19 "For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh... his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ... For we labor... to persuade... our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

"after all we can do", we are saved after all we can do, so Christs work isn't sufficient for me, I have to do my very very best after that, then if I have done all I can do, God will show me grace, right?

This is not a denial of the sufficiency of the atonement. Or at least, not a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the remission of sins. The Bible makes similar statements that are even stronger, if you want to hear them.

It's just a few, I also noticed that you reject the Chicago statement because it came so late in history, how foolish are you, the Book of Mormon only predates the Chicago statement by about a hundred and 40 years,

Which is why I don't claim that belief in the Book of Mormon is a test of one's Christianity or part of the essential definition.

BTW, biblical inerrancy, is a natural outgrowth of what the bible says about itself, it claims to be the word of God, and God can not lie, therefore it must be inerrant,

It may seem natural but it is neither logical nor true, for your inference makes several unjustified a priori assumptions: 1. that the "word of God" refers to the book rather than to the words recorded in the book or to Christ Himself, 2. that the book has been absolutely perfectly preserved (This is a claim of a miracle, but one which I do not think is reasonable) and 3. that the writers of the Bible wrote the perfect words they received from God perfectly. (Another claim of miracle, not in the mind but in the hand, which I do not think is reasonable) 4. that every copier and translator was as infallible as the original author

as well as, sufficiency which was a doctrine that came about because of guys like you,

If that were true, the doctrine would be even more suspect than it is, for then it would be a reactionary argument rather than a positive truth that actually comes from God. (Or wait ... from itself, for assuming all-sufficiency, no information can come from God but the Bible itself)

but goes all the way back to the outset of the church, the church only accepted teaching that was in accordance with what the apostles taught, they called this the regula fide(sp?), the rule of faith, this is why certain extra-canonical books did not make the cut for the new testament, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and so on, were not apostles, so their writings were rejected on the grounds that the books all have apostolic authorship. Oh and the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy predates the Book of Mormon by at least a thousand years, and so does sufficiency, both go back to the earliest period of the church.

I don't think it goes to the earliest period of the church, for the church pre-existed the Bible. Though it did appear fairly early in the post-new-testament church. I think it's a false doctrine.

Who cares if it's a lie right, ah screw it, at least he believes in something.

Yes, that's what worried me about the statement as well.

Nerd42 people like this, don't really love you, they are punching your ticket to hell, bro.

Are you a Calvinist? And if so, how do you reconcile this statement with the doctrine that we can't know whether anyone else is in the elect or not?

[mashmouth]

Hey Nerd--
If I can show you one (1) single false prophecy of Joseph Smith Jr., would you renounce your trust in him and truly place that trust in the Risen Lord of all?

You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if one must renounce Moses to believe in Jesus.

Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make. Having never had a prophet for almost a millennium, I can understand how this misconception has arisen, but we hold different views of what prophecy and divine revelation really are and how they work. A prophet is just like anyone else. They have periods where they're doing the right thing and also periods when they're not. Look at Moses and David and all the rest of them. Were they always right? No.

Okay, nevermind Nerd. You are truly hopeless and there is no hope as you accept as your authority something other than the Word.
In addition, it is impossible to argue any objectivity with you since apparently you only allow your own perspective, or that of your mentors, as the real Theory of Reality.

[Nerd42]

A friend of mine wrote something interesting a while back: (slightly re-edited)

Anyone who is not God can go against God's will.

Anyone who cannot go against God's will is part of God.

mashmouth, I think we mean different things when we say "the Word." I would say, "the Word" in reference to Christ Himself and not to any book. And when I say that even people who have the gift of prophecy can make mistakes, this also means that I and anyone in my church is equally (or even more) capable of error.

[jkmtwo]

Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make. Having never had a prophet for almost a millennium, I can understand how this misconception has arisen, but we hold different views of what prophecy and divine revelation really are and how they work. A prophet is just like anyone else. They have periods where they're doing the right thing and also periods when they're not. Look at Moses and David and all the rest of them. Were they always right? No.

Moses and David did not always claim to be speaking prophetically, prophets are and were fallible, prophecy is a gift given through the spirit, not to an individual. That said, yes we have been without a prophet for 2,000 years, but you guys were without a prophet for over 1800 years, so it is also easy to see how you guys would have misconceptions about prophecy and be so desperate for a prophet, but lets see what the bible records of what God says of prophets.

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.? 21 And if you say in your heart, ?How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken??? 22 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.- Deuteronomy 18

God says, that one false prophecy is a reason for a "prophet" to die, God's standard, man's standard- "Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make"- Notice how God is only talking about the prophecy, which God himself defines as a word from him, he is not talking about whether or not this person is a sinner or not, but he is talking directly about false prophecies.

But I am sure you will find a way to ignore this, and reason it away, don't bother responding to this point, just food for you to chew on.

Which led to all kinds of evil that have given Christianity a bad name. It's not our job to expose heretics but to preach the truth.

And exactly how do you presume that we are to know if the one teaching is a heretic or not? Or preaching the truth as you put it, how do we know that?

I hold the doctrine of the Trinity. I only said that I know some people who don't, or who don't in the same way, and yet these people are still Christians, as I don't think this later creed is essential. If we want to insist on exact details of the English versions, then we have de-Christianized all of Protestantism for not accepting the bit about "the Holy Catholic church."  

I affirm the "Holy Catholic Church" if you knew your history you would know that the Catholic in that statement is not speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, which wasn't even in existence yet, but the word Catholic means unified, or universal, the Roman church took the name for itself centuries later.

We have different views of the purpose of creeds or confessions, or at least of what the purpose of creeds or confessions ought to be. I think they ought to clarify doctrines.

That is real post modern of you, it's always nice to redine what you want so that you can have your cake and eat it too, but creeds were what the men who began keeping them defined them as, not what someone who came along 2,000 years later wants to define them as, they were ways that people could learn doctrine, and a way that heretics could be exposed, and before you say that they aren't biblical, creeds are seen all through the new testament, and even the OT, ever heard of the Shemah?

Confessions are a bit different, in that one can affirm all or parts of a confession, I don't affirm all of the WCF, but I affirm in general what it says the bible teaches.

That's what I myself said. The doctrine of the great apostasy deals with the state of the church organization, not the salvation of individual believers.  

READ MY WORDS CAREFULLY.......THE CHURCH WILL NEVER BE APOSTATE!!!!

Individual believers, may believe false doctrines, but this does not make them apostate, Apostacy is a state of an individual believer who leaves the church, who denies the faith, but as for the church, Christ said himself that HE builds the CHURCH, if someone leaves the church, then they are no longer in the church, so if the church were to collectively fall away from the faith, then it would cease being the church, and as John said, they were never apart of the church, that is why they left.

You're not just reading what it says, you're also interpreting what it says.  

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

"They went out from us" does this not mean that someone left?
"But they were not of us" does this not mean that someone did not belong?
"For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" does this not say that those who are apart of the group, will continue?
"But they went out" does this not again say that someone left?
"That it might become plain" does this not mean what it says?
"That they all are not of us"

In other words, someone left, that does not belong, those who do belong, will continue, but they did not belong because they left, and this is clear, because they left.

Interact with what the text says, line by line, concept by concept, and you tell me what it says, and we will see who is interpreting the text, and who is only reading the text.

To where in Hebrews are you referring? And the Bible teaches of that sort of priesthood.  

Read all of Hebrews, it speaks of Christ being the high preist of the faith. And yes the bible does teach a preisthood in the ot, but funny how in the nt, none of the apostles ever refered to themselves as a preist, nor did anyone call them preists, it's amazing how in all of the church offices lined out in the nt preist is absent from all of them.

No you don't. You have no apostles, nor any mechanism for ordaining any. Therefore, you have no Apostolic authority. As I understand it, you only claim the authority of scripture, and only claim the Bible as scripture, and therefore only claim the Bible as authority. Let us not confuse apostolic authority with scriptural authority.  

To claim the authority of scripture is to claim apostolic authority, the authority I am appealing to is that of Peter, Paul and the boys. They are my apostles..Again, I hate to continue to go over this, but the nt is the teachings of the apostles, and that was the authority that the early church used, and appealed to. The books that made it in, were only those which had apostolic authority.

Yes it is, see Jeff Linday's explanation which is a good one although I do not agree with him on some other things. (LDS stuff other than the Book of Mormon)

Bethlehem is about 6 miles south of Jerusalem, and according to the OT, the Messaih would be born in Bethlehem, and according to the NT, he was born in Bethlehem, but according to you he was born in Jerusalem, and according to the book of Mormon, he was born in Jerusalem, and now you wanna tell me that they are the same, so I guess the holy spirit is inconsistent, in some cases he can get it spot on, and in others he jsut gets the same info, generally right.

That's real post modern of you.

This is not a denial of the sufficiency of the atonement. Or at least, not a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the remission of sins. The Bible makes similar statements that are even stronger, if you want to hear them.  

Yeah, sure it does, go ahead and humor me, and rip those statements right out of context.

Which is why I don't claim that belief in the Book of Mormon is a test of one's Christianity or part of the essential definition.  

I was only making the point of your inconsistency.

It may seem natural but it is neither logical nor true, for your inference makes several unjustified a priori assumptions: 1. that the "word of God" refers to the book rather than to the words recorded in the book or to Christ Himself

Again, the bible is inerrant as to what it teaches about the faith, the OT was written by prophets and according to Peter, they were men carried along by the holy spirit, now if you want to make the claim that the holy spirit can teach a lie, then go ahead. As I said, again, the NT is the teaching of the apostles, and Christ himself promised, that the holy spirit would teach the apostles, and help them to recall what they needed to communicate, so again, if you want to make the statement that the holy spirit is teaching lies, and falsehoods, then go ahead.

2. that the book has been absolutely perfectly preserved (This is a claim of a miracle, but one which I do not think is reasonable) and 3. that the writers of the Bible wrote the perfect words they received from God perfectly. (Another claim of miracle, not in the mind but in the hand, which I do not think is reasonable)  

WAIT WAIT WAIT I seem to remember you saying this....

This is only impossible if miracles and prophecy in general are impossible or if Christ didn't really come or if God was incapable of revealing this fact.

Lets look at what else you believe

You believe that Joseph Smith, had a visit from an angel, either named Moroni, or Nephi, depending on which time you were listening to Joseph Smith, who was once a prophet who God raised from the dead and made an angel, and this angel led him to some golden plates, which were written in a language, that we don't even know what it was, or whether it ever existed, about a people that there is no valid archaeological evidence that they ever existed, and through God's power, and some seeing stones, he was able to accurately translate them, into english, and then the plates magicly disappeared. Oh and after they were seen by a few people.

Now you uphold that this is the restored gospel over and against, the bible, even though you will not admit that, but in order to claim the book of mormon you have to throw dirt on the bible, and say it was not accurately preserved.

Even though, we have a constistant testimony, dating back to it's writers, we have a consistant line of documentation of translation and transmission, for two thousand years, and even the most ardent anti-biblical scholars will say that whatever inconsistancy there is from the origional text and today's text, is not substantial to the christian faith, and would affect no doctrine.

And you say that for me to claim that God has miraculously preserved the bible, is

a claim of a miracle, but one which I do not think is reasonable

REALLY?

and 3. that the writers of the Bible wrote the perfect words they received from God perfectly.

So you are at least willing to admit this about Joseph Smith as well?

Are you a Calvinist? And if so, how do you reconcile this statement with the doctrine that we can't know whether anyone else is in the elect or not?  

You guessed correctly, before I respond to your wrong assumption as to what Calvinists believe, I want to thank you for revealing that one can tell a Calvinist from an Arminian, by their evagelistic zeal, and want not to see others in hell, this should shut up those Arminians who say that we don't care about the lost.

As for knowing or not knowing the elect, scripture gives us many clues as to who the elect are, but even still, we do not believe that just because someone is lost that they are not elect, God works on his time table, not ours, so I proclaim the truth, whether or not you will hear it or not, because God may yet save you.

However, if you do not repent, and turn to Jesus Christ only, for your salvation, then I can say without a doubt that you most certainly are not elect.

[mashmouth]

Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make. Having never had a prophet for almost a millennium, I can understand how this misconception has arisen, but we hold different views of what prophecy and divine revelation really are and how they work. A prophet is just like anyone else. They have periods where they're doing the right thing and also periods when they're not. Look at Moses and David and all the rest of them. Were they always right? No.

Moses and David did not always claim to be speaking prophetically, prophets are and were fallible, prophecy is a gift given through the spirit, not to an individual. That said, yes we have been without a prophet for 2,000 years, but you guys were without a prophet for over 1800 years, so it is also easy to see how you guys would have misconceptions about prophecy and be so desperate for a prophet, but lets see what the bible records of what God says of prophets.

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.? 21 And if you say in your heart, ?How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken??? 22 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.- Deuteronomy 18

God says, that one false prophecy is a reason for a "prophet" to die, God's standard, man's standard- "Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make"- Notice how God is only talking about the prophecy, which God himself defines as a word from him, he is not talking about whether or not this person is a sinner or not, but he is talking directly about false prophecies.

But I am sure you will find a way to ignore this, and reason it away, don't bother responding to this point, just food for you to chew on.

Hello brother, seems I have a partner in this thread...lol

"President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that if the government, which received into its coffers the money of citizens for its public lands, while its officials are rolling in the luxury at the expense of its public treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is an old granny anyhow; and I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunger and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrated a foul and corroding blot upon the fair name of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life."

Joesph Smith Jr. History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 394 May 1843

The United Stated never apologized, and as we see, the government still stands today.

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene."

Joseph Smith Jr. History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189

Jesus never did return by 1891, 56 years later; either the Holy Spirit made an error, or the man in claiming to prophesy by the Holy Spirit did.

Nerd42--there are two. For more, you can visit carm.org.  Look under Mormonism, which, unfortunately doesn't differentiate out your particular sect. However, the information from prior to 1844 is still the same.
He has compiled a wonderful website over there that you would be edified to read.

May God grant favor for your journey.

[Nerd42]

Let me tell you a story real quick so you know what I'm talking about when I say someone can have gifts of the spirit at one time, but not have them at another time but think they do. There was a man who had the gift of tongues on many occasions and the local congregation would know he had the gift of tongues because another whom he had not met with and didn't even know would stand and translate what was said. One day he stood up in prayer service as though he had the gift of tongues but what came out his mouth was a stream of gibberish, fully unintelligible. The elder whose job it was to preside over the service stood up and said with a loud voice, "SIT DOWN, THIS IS NOT OF GOD!" And the man was immediately silenced and chastised and fell into his chair. And somehow the service tried to carry on like a normal prayer service.

A week or two later (so the story goes) he stood up in prayer meeting and confessed that somehow the Devil had gotten ahold of him that day and that if he had been having a spiritual experience that it was not of God and that it was of the other side and he thanked the elder for stopping him and told the congregation that he was trying to repent of some terrible sin(s) that had gotten into his life. Many months later, he had a legitimate gift of tongues once again, just as before.

Now, the idea I have been attempting to express and get through to you is that all the gifts of the spirit work like that. The gifts of the spirit, though perfect, must come through fallible men, and the results may therefore also be fallible, not because God makes mistakes, but because anyone may fall into temptation at any time. I remember hearing somewhere that Joseph once got into a fight with Emma during the translation of the Book of Mormon and found that God would not help him translate any more until he was reconciled. In the Book of Mormon itself, gifts of the spirit work this way, for example the brass ball sent by God in 1st Nephi that only works according to the faith of the people who are using it and it stops working when they rebel and tie up Nephi, but when they repent it starts working again.

I suppose in short, what I'm saying is that the gifts of the spirit are not digital. They're analog.

Anyway, no, one single false prophecy does not a false prophet make. Having never had a prophet for almost a millennium, I can understand how this misconception has arisen, but we hold different views of what prophecy and divine revelation really are and how they work. A prophet is just like anyone else. They have periods where they're doing the right thing and also periods when they're not. Look at Moses and David and all the rest of them. Were they always right? No.

Moses and David did not always claim to be speaking prophetically, prophets are and were fallible, prophecy is a gift given through the spirit, not to an individual.

How can a gift be given but not to an individual? Even when a gift is given to a group, it's really being given to the individuals in the group. I'm not sure what this sentence even means.

That said, yes we have been without a prophet for 2,000 years,

Whoops my bad ... why did I say "a millenium" when I was thinking "two milleniums"

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.? 21 And if you say in your heart, ?How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken??? 22 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.- Deuteronomy 18

God says, that one false prophecy is a reason for a "prophet" to die

You're placing a good deal of interpretation on this verse, assuming it is a commandment and not a prediction or warning, (It says "shall die" which you are interpreting to mean "shall be put to death" which are very different things) that "death" is literal in Deuteronomy when it isn't literal in Genesis, and assuming that all revelations are prophecies. (They're not.) Most actual prophecies in latter day saint revelation are really promises, in an "if-then" form: If the saints do such-and-such, then this will be the result. What I've run into is that people will quote only the result, and ignore the condition(s). There are a good many such revelations in which the saints didn't hold up their end of the bargain, and so the prophecy didn't "come true" as it said that what it said would only come to pass under certain conditions. (And sometimes the conditions are implicit rather than explicitly stated. Alot of latter day revelations are more like marching orders than weather forecasts) Furthermore, given the example above about how gifts of the spirit work, one false prophecy would show not that all previous ones were false - that they had all been false from the beginning, but only that there was something wrong going on at that point, and that all later ones are therefore suspect. Some of the RLDS prophets in the latter 20th century have given false revelations and just as you say, we need not fear them. But you're disregarding a whole other side of how gifts of the spirit work in your eagerness to trap and/or expose any possible falsehood.

Which led to all kinds of evil that have given Christianity a bad name. It's not our job to expose heretics but to preach the truth.

And exactly how do you presume that we are to know if the one teaching is a heretic or not? Or preaching the truth as you put it, how do we know that?

1 John 4:2 is the rule.

I hold the doctrine of the Trinity. I only said that I know some people who don't, or who don't in the same way, and yet these people are still Christians, as I don't think this later creed is essential. If we want to insist on exact details of the English versions, then we have de-Christianized all of Protestantism for not accepting the bit about "the Holy Catholic church."  

I affirm the "Holy Catholic Church" if you knew your history you would know that the Catholic in that statement is not speaking of the Roman Catholic Church,

Some Roman Catholics would disagree.

which wasn't even in existence yet, but the word Catholic means unified, or universal,

And if that's all it means, then I'd agree with it as well.

We have different views of the purpose of creeds or confessions, or at least of what the purpose of creeds or confessions ought to be. I think they ought to clarify doctrines.

That is real post modern of you, it's always nice to redine what you want so that you can have your cake and eat it too, but creeds were what the men who began keeping them defined them as, not what someone who came along 2,000 years later wants to define them as, they were ways that people could learn doctrine, and a way that heretics could be exposed, and before you say that they aren't biblical, creeds are seen all through the new testament,

The creeds in the Bible did not have the purpose of exposing so-called "heretics" but were only there so people could learn doctrine.

READ MY WORDS CAREFULLY.......THE CHURCH WILL NEVER BE APOSTATE!!!!

Read the Bible carefully. Yes it will.

Individual believers, may believe false doctrines, but this does not make them apostate, Apostacy is a state of an individual believer who leaves the church, who denies the faith, but as for the church, Christ said himself that HE builds the CHURCH, if someone leaves the church, then they are no longer in the church, so if the church were to collectively fall away from the faith, then it would cease being the church, and as John said, they were never apart of the church, that is why they left.

Christ did build the church. And restored the church. I think the claim that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means "the church shall never fall away" is incorrect interpretation however.

No you don't. You have no apostles, nor any mechanism for ordaining any. Therefore, you have no Apostolic authority. As I understand it, you only claim the authority of scripture, and only claim the Bible as scripture, and therefore only claim the Bible as authority. Let us not confuse apostolic authority with scriptural authority.  

To claim the authority of scripture is to claim apostolic authority,

No, it's not. To claim the authority of apostles - real living ones - is apostolic authority. To claim the authority of scripture is to claim scriptural authority.

the authority I am appealing to is that of Peter, Paul and the boys. They are my apostles.

No they aren't, for you have never met them.

Yes it is, see Jeff Linday's explanation which is a good one although I do not agree with him on some other things. (LDS stuff other than the Book of Mormon)

Bethlehem is about 6 miles south of Jerusalem, and according to the OT, the Messaih would be born in Bethlehem, and according to the NT, he was born in Bethlehem, but according to you he was born in Jerusalem, and according to the book of Mormon, he was born in Jerusalem, and now you wanna tell me that they are the same, so I guess the holy spirit is inconsistent, in some cases he can get it spot on, and in others he jsut gets the same info, generally right.

You are completely ignoring whatever I say, and obviously have not read the few paragraphs of explanation I linked to at all. It makes no sense to expect me to read whatever you have to say if you don't do the same in turn.

This is not a denial of the sufficiency of the atonement. Or at least, not a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the remission of sins. The Bible makes similar statements that are even stronger, if you want to hear them.

Yeah, sure it does, go ahead and humor me, and rip those statements right out of context.

I don't think you're serious in wanting to know, so what's the point.

I was only making the point of your inconsistency.

I don't see how I've been inconsistent.

It may seem natural but it is neither logical nor true, for your inference makes several unjustified a priori assumptions: 1. that the "word of God" refers to the book rather than to the words recorded in the book or to Christ Himself

Again, the bible is inerrant as to what it teaches about the faith, the OT was written by prophets and according to Peter, they were men carried along by the holy spirit, now if you want to make the claim that the holy spirit can teach a lie, then go ahead.

No, I most certainly don't mean to imply that. If something turns out to be false then we do know it is not of God. However, this is not the same as saying that one false prophecy retroactively makes all previous ones false also, which is what you've been asserting.

As I said, again, the NT is the teaching of the apostles, and Christ himself promised, that the holy spirit would teach the apostles,

What Christ promised is that the holy spirit would be with us (His saints) always.

2. that the book has been absolutely perfectly preserved (This is a claim of a miracle, but one which I do not think is reasonable) and 3. that the writers of the Bible wrote the perfect words they received from God perfectly. (Another claim of miracle, not in the mind but in the hand, which I do not think is reasonable)  

WAIT WAIT WAIT I seem to remember you saying this....

This is only impossible if miracles and prophecy in general are impossible or if Christ didn't really come or if God was incapable of revealing this fact.

Lets look at what else you believe

You believe that Joseph Smith, had a visit from an angel, either named Moroni, or Nephi, depending on which time you were listening to Joseph Smith, who was once a prophet who God raised from the dead and made an angel,

Smith had a visit from Christ and the Father first, and met Moroni later.

Smith may have erred in describing Moroni as an "angel." Moroni didn't describe himself as an angel, and Smith made the assertion based on Moroni's appearance. The statement is not meant to inform us on the subject of angelology. It simply didn't occur to Smith that angels and deceased saints may be different kinds of beings and when the argument that this may be so is presented to us, we have no answer for it. We don't claim to know whether angels are deceased saints or whether angels may be some other completely different non-human order of created being, and do not defend the assertion that Moroni was an angel, only that he was a deceased saint sent as a messenger by God. If that makes him an "angel" then he's an "angel" but if an angel is something different, then calling him an "angel" was a mistake. Different RLDS people hold different views on angelology, but fortunately it's not anywhere near an essential, salvation-affecting issue so we don't argue about it much.

I don't remember ever hearing of Smith being visited by Nephi. Where did you hear of that?

and this angel led him to some golden plates, which were written in a language, that we don't even know what it was, or whether it ever existed, about a people that there is no valid archaeological evidence that they ever existed, and through God's power, and some seeing stones, he was able to accurately translate them, into english, and then the plates magicly disappeared. Oh and after they were seen by a few people.

Only if the Ark of the Covenant also "magicly" disappeared.

Now you uphold that this is the restored gospel

No. This is the story of how we came to know certain things about the restored gospel.

over and against, the bible, even though you will not admit that,

You have yet to show that any doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is contrary to any doctrine taught in the Bible.

but in order to claim the book of mormon you have to throw dirt on the bible, and say it was not accurately preserved.

I don't think that is throwing dirt on the Bible. I think what you and other mainstream Christians have done is to make an idol out of the Bible and cling to it rather than to what it's about, rather like the Pharisees and Sadducees clinging to the law rather than realizing what the law is for.

And you say that for me to claim that God has miraculously preserved the bible, is

a claim of a miracle, but one which I do not think is reasonable

Now, hold on a minute. I do think that it's a miracle that the Bible was preserved as well as it has been. But I don't think the Bible has been preserved perfectly, and the small differences between current translations even are enough to establish different and competing doctrines. The differences between the Biblical text now and the autographs is probably of a greater magnitude than that, as it only takes the removal of one word ("not") to change the meaning of an entire chapter. The way we're supposed to understand correct doctrine is through the Holy Spirit and we are to ask God for ourselves whether anything and everything in the scriptures is true, which is why we're not as greatly concerned with linguistic minutia as you are, though knowing the original Greek New Testament can certainly furnish additional insights. Everyone who lacks wisdom can ask of God, and that's what both the Bible and the Book of Mormon say, so it is how Latter Day Saints approach the Bible and any other scripture.

and 3. that the writers of the Bible wrote the perfect words they received from God perfectly.

So you are at least willing to admit this about Joseph Smith as well?

He admitted it about himself! (that he or his scribe may not have copied everything down exactly perfectly, though he thought he'd done a better job than anyone in the world to date)

Are you a Calvinist? And if so, how do you reconcile this statement with the doctrine that we can't know whether anyone else is in the elect or not?

You guessed correctly, before I respond to your wrong assumption as to what Calvinists believe, I want to thank you for revealing that one can tell a Calvinist from an Arminian, by their evagelistic zeal,

No, that is not how I could tell you. It was simply by your philosophical assumptions. And I'm not here to evangelize, but to exchange ideas and learn about people's different theological perspectives through contrast. (How are they the same, how are they different)

and want not to see others in hell, this should shut up those Arminians who say that we don't care about the lost.

I would not want to make any such accusation against Calvinists. Only against their idea of god.

As for knowing or not knowing the elect, scripture gives us many clues as to who the elect are,

Ah, well then you would probably disagree with Linkbolt then because I think he thinks we can't know who else is in the elect but can only know whether we, ourselves, are in the elect.

However, if you do not repent, and turn to Jesus Christ only, for your salvation, then I can say without a doubt that you most certainly are not elect.

That's just what the Book of Mormon says, except it would probably use the term "saved in the Kingdom of God" rather than "elect"

[Nerd42]

"President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that if the government, which received into its coffers the money of citizens for its public lands, while its officials are rolling in the luxury at the expense of its public treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is an old granny anyhow; and I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunger and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrated a foul and corroding blot upon the fair name of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life."

Joesph Smith Jr. History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 394 May 1843
The United Stated never apologized, and as we see, the government still stands today.

In 1976, Missouri Governor Christopher S. Bond formally apologized for the treatment of Mormons in Missouri and officially rescinded the "Extermination Order." There is no guarantee that the passage in this book is accurately quoting Smith, but even so, your statement that the government never apologized is not true.

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene."

Joseph Smith Jr. History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189

Jesus never did return by 1891, 56 years later; either the Holy Spirit made an error, or the man in claiming to prophesy by the Holy Spirit did.

This is a conditional statement and you are ignoring the conditions.

In the revelation given through Joseph Smith Jr. at Fishing River on June 22, 1834, it is said, "I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now:" (in 1834!) "but behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I require at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them, and are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom: and Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom, otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself; and my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer." Your earlier statement said "should." Things which should happen don't always happen. As this other revelation says, the reason the Lord hasn't returned yet is because the saints haven't learned obedience, according to Smith's revelations. This situation is still going on.

The Universe is not deterministic. Your assumption that what "should" happen is what always happens is a Calvinist assumption which Latter Day Saints don't share. Example: RLDS church law says that branches should be organized under the direction of an apostle or the first presidency. Well, maybe that should happen but it doesn't quite often, but if the church was functioning properly then what should happen would, or else we'd rescind that law.

Nerd42--there are two. For more, you can visit carm.org.  Look under Mormonism, which, unfortunately doesn't differentiate out your particular sect. However, the information from prior to 1844 is still the same.

Actually, it is not the same. Many books have been printed about that period even by people in the church containing much false information.

[jkmtwo]

Let me tell you a story real quick so you know what I'm talking about when I say someone can have gifts of the spirit at one time, but not have them at another time but think they do. There was a man who had the gift of tongues on many occasions and the local congregation would know he had the gift of tongues because another whom he had not met with and didn't even know would stand and translate what was said. One day he stood up in prayer service as though he had the gift of tongues but what came out his mouth was a stream of gibberish, fully unintelligible. The elder whose job it was to preside over the service stood up and said with a loud voice, "SIT DOWN, THIS IS NOT OF GOD!" And the man was immediately silenced and chastised and fell into his chair. And somehow the service tried to carry on like a normal prayer service.  

Here again we see a fundamental and foundational error that you make regarding the gifts of the spirit, as though one must be completely holy in order to experience them, David wrote scripture, and even prophesied, during and directly after one of the most sinful periods of his life, God punished him, but still spoke through him, as well as Moses, Moses was speaking for God when he hit the rock in the wilderness the second time, yet he was punished by God, eventhough God still made water come from the rock.

Isaiah stood before God, and confessed to being a sinner, but he was already a prophet. Prophecy is God speaking through man, now I would like to know, where on earth, well I guess I can guess, where you get this idea of prophecy, you will not find anything even close to this kind of reasoning within the Bible, no we find this coming from mormons so that you can claim Joseph Smith to be a true prophet. Furthermore I would like to know when he stopped speaking for God, and when he was being sinful, because as I understand it, he revised D&C shortly before he died.

How can a gift be given but not to an individual? Even when a gift is given to a group, it's really being given to the individuals in the group. I'm not sure what this sentence even means.  

My point was not that the gift is given to a group, my point is that prophecy is a gift not given to an individual, as in this particular person is worthy, but that the gift is God speaking, and regardless of the individual, we are all unworthy, but God speaks, through an individual, for the edification of the whole.

Whoops my bad ... why did I say "a millenium" when I was thinking "two milleniums"

As opposed to you guys who went 1840 years without a prophet, I guess that would have no bearing on you guys being thirsty for a prophet

You're placing a good deal of interpretation on this verse, assuming it is a commandment and not a prediction or warning, (It says "shall die" which you are interpreting to mean "shall be put to death" which are very different things) that "death" is literal in Deuteronomy when it isn't literal in Genesis, and assuming that all revelations are prophecies.

2 things, number 1, your interpretation of the text, has got to be the most foolish thing I have ever heard, because if you are drawing a line between when God tells Adam and Eve that they will die, and this passage, then I suppose that you are saying that prophets who never get a prophecy wrong don't die, what about Isaiah, he dided, what about Elisha, he died, so prophets who never get a prophecy wrong never die? I hope you are not foolish enough to be saying this.

2, read what the text says, read it,

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.?  

Here we have God making a statement, and he follows that statement with this statement

And if you say in your heart, ?How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken???  

Why would he make the second statement, if the first is not a command?

Furthermore, the jews viewed this as a command, as evidenced by the rest of the OT, notice how God never says he is angry because they stoned false prophets, sadly, this is one thing that they were very good at, they even got a few true prophets, which did anger God.

Most actual prophecies in latter day saint revelation are really promises, in an "if-then" form: If the saints do such-and-such, then this will be the result.  

Then stop refering to it as a prophecy, and quit refering to Jospeh Smith as a prophet, because the BIBLE is very clear when it comes to what prophecy is.

1 John 4:2 is the rule.  

Satan admits that Jesus came in the flesh, ever listened to much of modern criticism of the bible, most believe that Jesus was a real man, but deny his divinity.

But in context, John is speaking of the gnostic heresy  that Jesus came as a spirit only, which was the Joseph Smith, and Charles Taze Russel of John's day

But also notice what else John says for the full context of what John says
1 John 4
6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Here again we see Apostolic authority

Also earlier in the book, and we have debated this verse, but in context, John says  in Chapter 2 verse 18-19 that those who have left the church are antichrists.

The creeds in the Bible did not have the purpose of exposing so-called "heretics" but were only there so people could learn doctrine.  

AGAIN.....WHAT IS THE POINT OF ENSURING THAT THE CONGREGATION UNDERSTANDS DOCTRINE.....is it not so that they can tell truth from error

1 Timothy 1
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and  a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Read the Bible carefully. Yes it will.  

John 10
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.?

If you read the entire chapter, earlier Jesus talks of a hired hand who watches over the sheep, and sees the wolf(satan) and flees, and the sheep are scattered, but christ then says that he is laying down his life for the sheep, the implication is in the complete context of the whole chapter is that Christ is saying that the sheep can not be scattered because he is not a hired hand.

Christ did build the church. And restored the church. I think the claim that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means "the church shall never fall away" is incorrect interpretation however.  

You offer no valid interpretation, my interpretation, is valid, because it takes into context, he claims to be building the church, i.e., as though it were a building, and as though the gates of hell are seiging the building, he is making a clear point that he is building the church, and that hell can not conquyer the church, i.e. make her turn from it's builder.

No, it's not. To claim the authority of apostles - real living ones - is apostolic authority. To claim the authority of scripture is to claim scriptural authority.  

There are no living Apostles, this office was finished at the close of the NT, and when I assert Apostolic authority, AGAIN I AM ASSERTING THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES.

No they aren't, for you have never met them.  

So you don't ever assert Joseph Smith's writings, you are here asserting his authority to write scripture, yet you, I presume, have never met the man.

You are completely ignoring whatever I say, and obviously have not read the few paragraphs of explanation I linked to at all. It makes no sense to expect me to read whatever you have to say if you don't do the same in turn.  

I didn't ignore you, read what I said, as I said, he claims that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are the same, that to say Jerusalem is Jerusalem the region, and notice that the only authority he cites from this is from 1992, and has since been revised and changed. That claim is no longer valid, that is why his only citation is from almost 20 years ago.

I don't think you're serious in wanting to know, so what's the point.  

You can't prove that point without ripping verses out of context, I am willing to at least entertain your point.

 No, I most certainly don't mean to imply that. If something turns out to be false then we do know it is not of God. However, this is not the same as saying that one false prophecy retroactively makes all previous ones false also, which is what you've been asserting.

And with this as your standard, of course, then anything can be from God, I mean even John Edwards, and Cleo, get one right every now and then, so I guess they are prophets of God whenever they are right

What Christ promised is that the holy spirit would be with us (His saints) always.  

Uh yeah AAAAANNNNNNNDDDD

John 14
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

I know I know, I'm just interpreting, and you have a better more mormon interpretation, that fits your false religion better than the clear reading of this verse.

Smith had a visit from Christ and the Father first, and met Moroni later.

Wow, not even the apostles saw the father, he must have been like the greatest guy ever

Smith may have erred in describing Moroni as an "angel." Moroni didn't describe himself as an angel, and Smith made the assertion based on Moroni's appearance. The statement is not meant to inform us on the subject of angelology. It simply didn't occur to Smith that angels and deceased saints may be different kinds of beings and when the argument that this may be so is presented to us, we have no answer for it. We don't claim to know whether angels are deceased saints or whether angels may be some other completely different non-human order of created being, and do not defend the assertion that Moroni was an angel, only that he was a deceased saint sent as a messenger by God. If that makes him an "angel" then he's an "angel" but if an angel is something different, then calling him an "angel" was a mistake. Different RLDS people hold different views on angelology, but fortunately it's not anywhere near an essential, salvation-affecting issue so we don't argue about it much.  

I really don't care, it's just my point is, well anyone who was paying attention got my point, whether it's true or not, is secondary, the point is that's a much more miraculous story to believe, than to believe that God preserved the bible, especially when one has a mountain of evidence behind it demonstrating that it is acurate, and the other, is well a nice little tale.

I don't remember ever hearing of Smith being visited by Nephi. Where did you hear of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

http://www.mormonfortress.com/nemor2.html

http://mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm

You have yet to show that any doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is contrary to any doctrine taught in the Bible.  

We are not just talking about the book of mormon, we are talking about the whole of what Joseph Smith taught, in the book of mormon, doctrines and covenants, and to that end, there is much to deal with.

We dealt with a couple from The Book of Mormon, I believe you said that you accept doctrines and covenants

D&C speaks of plural God's
Section 121:32; 132:18-20, 37

The Bible says 1 God

D&C says that God has a body
Section 130:22

The Bible says that God is spirit

D&C says that God's word can change
Section 56:4-5

The Bible says his word shall not change

D&C says there is no forgiveness for murder
Section 42:18

The Bible says every sin is forgivable, save 1, blasphemy of the holy spirit

I could go on but I'm tired, and it's late

I don't think that is throwing dirt on the Bible. I think what you and other mainstream Christians have done is to make an idol out of the Bible and cling to it rather than to what it's about, rather like the Pharisees and Sadducees clinging to the law rather than realizing what the law is for.  

We have a pharasee card sighting in isle 5

But I don't think the Bible has been preserved perfectly, and the small differences between current translations even are enough to establish different and competing doctrines.  

Name a specific competing doctrine, based on a translation difference from a valid scholarly translation

As well, translation differences, have more to do with linguistics, and not the preservation of the text itself

The differences between the Biblical text now and the autographs is probably of a greater magnitude than that, as it only takes the removal of one word ("not") to change the meaning of an entire chapter.

This is obviously a statement of someone that knows zilch about the greek language, because if you did you would know, that in english, you can remove one word and change the meaning of a sentence, but this does not translate to the greek, in the greek there are litterally, if my memory serves me correctly, over a hundred ways to say "I love you", depending on word order, various different words, so on, but the statement means the same thing, "I love you", where as in english, we have one way, "I love you", and the vast majority of errors in the NT text are of this sort, even Bart Ehrman(sp?) the most ardent NT critic would refute you on this point. The guy has written plenty of books detailing the errors in the NT text, and he will tell you, there is not one single error that touches doctrine in any significant way.

He admitted it about himself! (that he or his scribe may not have copied everything down exactly perfectly, though he thought he'd done a better job than anyone in the world to date)  

Exactly, at the end of the day the book of mormon is supreme to the bible

Ah, well then you would probably disagree with Linkbolt then because I think he thinks we can't know who else is in the elect but can only know whether we, ourselves, are in the elect.

I highly doubt that he and I have a disagreement on this issue, I can't know specificly if someone is saved or not, but I can have a good idea, based on what the NT tells me, but I would disagree on knowing my own eternal destiny, only because I don't presume to know the mind of God, I could fall away and become apostate, I don't know, and I don't worry about it, regardless, my fate is in his hands and I can't change him, he changes me, so I let him be God, and I trust him and his grace, regardless of me.

That's just what the Book of Mormon says, except it would probably use the term "saved in the Kingdom of God" rather than "elect"  

Ah yes the part about loving God with your whole heart, and all that we can do, then the grace of christ is sufficient for you, why don't you join our team, I promise you a better nights sleep.

It's an awesome thing to know that I am secure in the hands of a sovereign God.

[Nerd42]

I don't have time to respond to everything now but I thought I ought to at least respond to this right away:

I believe you said that you accept doctrines and covenants

D&C speaks of plural God's
Section 121:32; 132:18-20, 37

The Bible says 1 God

D&C says that God has a body
Section 130:22

The Bible says that God is spirit

D&C says that God's word can change
Section 56:4-5

The Bible says his word shall not change

D&C says there is no forgiveness for murder
Section 42:18

The Bible says every sin is forgivable, save 1, blasphemy of the holy spirit

I could go on but I'm tired, and it's late

First of all, you should know that the RLDS Doctrine & Covenants, though it contains some of the same early revelations, is not the same book as the LDS Doctrine & Covenants. I'm pretty sure we don't even have any of those except possibly the one in their section 42, which I can't seem to find in ours at all, (I think it's in there somewhere. Maybe if you were to quote it, I could find it) but which I understand to mean that if a church member commits murder, in cold blood as a church member, (not before) he is blaspheming the holy ghost, for the holy ghost will come to stop him and he can only proceed by blaspheming it. The RLDS Doctrine & Covenants asserts that there is 1 God, that He is spirit and that His words cannot change.