My beliefs as a Christian Latter Day Saint

[Nerd42]

(Note: some of this text was cross posted from threads on other forums.)

Yes, I am a Christian and I am a Latter Day Saint. At the same time.

People on other threads have been claiming that this is self-contradictory. My claim is that it is not - that whether my views are true or not, they are at least internally consistent. This thread is for talking about that and explaining what my beliefs are.

I believe in six fundamental principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. These are:

Faith
Repentance
Baptism
Laying on of Hands
Resurrection of the Dead
Eternal Judgement.

These six principles come from the sixth chapter of Hebrews. http://kingjbible.com/hebrews/6.htm

I belong to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) / Restoration Branches movement. You can read our statement of faith here: http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/epitome_of_faith.htm

Our standards of authority are the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the RLDS Doctrine & Covenants up to section 144. (More recent sections are disputed. Section 156 and later are definitely denied by the Restoration Branches movement as contradictory/disjunctive) But for all intents and purposes, I accept that the King James Bible is basically/generally correct/true. It seems to me that there is enough truth just in there that I can't understand why the Christian world is as divided as it is.

Prior to 1844, we (my church) would have been called "Mormons" but then Brigham Young's followers took that name with them when they left for Utah. The RLDS never followed Brigham Young, never went to Utah and never accepted polygamy but still believes that the Book of Mormon is true and teaches what we regard as Joseph Smith Jr. and Joseph Smith III's original doctrines.

In my estimation, the present LDS/Utah/Mormon church isn't a Christian church because their doctrines (which contradict the Book of Mormon and the Bible - if you actually read the Book of Mormon you'll find it's not really a very "Mormon" book) try to redefine who Christ is and destroy the distinction between the Created and the Creator. However, a good number of the individual Mormon people you meet are probably Christians personally because they either don't accept or don't know about these doctrines that their church teaches - particularly new converts to Mormonism. People who are involved in the Mormon temple ceremonies probably aren't Christians. (idolatry)

As for myself and my own church, unlike the Utah Mormons, just about any reasonable definition of what a "Christian" is that includes both Catholics and Protestants would have to include us. We fit three commonly accepted definitions of "Christian" on a basic level (subject to interpretation of course) - the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" definition.

As for my own theology, I tend to agree with C. S. Lewis more than 90% of the time, though of course I'm a Latter Day Saint and he was a member of the Church of England.

So anyways, I thought I'd hang out and meet some people, find out what/how they think. I've found that people (including myself) don't tend to really change what they believe based on internet forum postings (LOL) but the internet can be a great way to meet interesting people and learn more about the world and people's different positions.

I think many Protestant churches have got some of their ideas pretty mixed up. They all believe in Faith and sometimes Repentance but they act like that's all you need, and that's not what I read in the Bible. Jesus taught, and showed by example that you need to be baptized if you want to follow Him. That's why he went to John the Baptist - a man famous for teaching that not only Gentiles but even Jews need baptism - which was a very extreme position in those days. (For more information, see Bob Bobbit's "Why Baptize?" http://www.angelmessage.org/care/Why%20Baptize.htm )

I believe that salvation requires not just coming forward at an altar call and saying some magic words that invite Jesus into your life - you have to actually let Jesus into your life and that means not just sitting there being a pew potato but actually doing something - taking up your cross (figuratively) and actually following Him. Faith is needed, but faith without works is dead. Also, works without faith is dead. You need both and then you are saved by God's grace.

[FenderPriest]

I belong to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) / Restoration Branches movement. You can read our statement of faith here: http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/epitome_of_faith.htm

Not to throw fuel on the fire here (though I'm sure this will), but that is not a Christian confession.  The first line is ambiguous in its agreement with Nicene since it lacks any reference to the unity of substance between the three persons of the Trinity (the major issue involved in the Nicene drafting), and the second and third lines stand in direct contradiction to Scripture.  Line two contradicts the tenor of Biblical teaching, in particular Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-21, especially v. 18.  Line two unnecessarily makes a distinction between the two, and inherently affirms Pelagian teaching.  Line three contradicts the principle of grace: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

While I appreciate the education on the RLDS (I have been curious about them for several years now), it still remains that any confession stemming from the hand of Joseph Smith, Jr. is not a Christian confession in any part of it.

[Nerd42]

I belong to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) / Restoration Branches movement. You can read our statement of faith here: http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/epitome_of_faith.htm

Not to throw fuel on the fire here (though I'm sure this will), but that is not a Christian confession.

That remains to be seen. Do keep in mind that the Epitome of Faith isn't a revelation but is Joseph Smith Jr.'s personal attempt at summing up what makes our church different from other religious groups. It isn't considered a standard of authority - it's just there to help you, who are not familiar with the church, to get a basic, general idea of what it's about. Nobody has to repeat all this in an oath or anything like that.

(later edit) As I recall hearing the story, the Epitome of Faith was written in response to requests from people of other churches for a short statement of faith, not as any kind of internal law or teaching.

The first line is ambiguous in its agreement with Nicene since it lacks any reference to the unity of substance between the three persons of the Trinity (the major issue involved in the Nicene drafting),

We're Trinitarians.  There is a unity. You can't mention everything in a short statement like that.

(later edit) ...although there are some baptized members in the Restoration Branches movement who have adopted various crazy ideas about the Trinity. But these people usually have problems with the above stated standards of authority as well, and so their conclusions can be discounted if the RLDS position is what you're evaluating, since theirs is not the RLDS position.

and the second and third lines stand in direct contradiction to Scripture.  Line two contradicts the tenor of Biblical teaching, in particular Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-21, especially v. 18.

Hosea 6:7 in the KJV says, "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." Even the New International Version based translations say, "LIKE Adam" and I agree that we have transgressed LIKE Adam did. But we're not guilty of Adam's transgressions, but only of our own.

The statement that we are not guilty of Adam's transgression isn't meant to deny the teaching that Adam brought sin into the world and Christ removes it again. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" http://kingjbible.com/romans/5.htm This is true, but being "made sinners" or in other words becoming predisposed to sin and being guilty of someone else's sin in addition to your own are two different things.

At the time, (19th century) there was a doctrine going around in Protestant circles that all little babies who are stillborn / die in childbirth immediately go to hell for all eternity for being guilty of Adam's sin. This line in the Epitome of Faith was meant to be a denial of that, not of the whole concept of the Fall of Man. Latter Day Saint revelation has alot to say about the Fall of Man which wouldn't make any sense if we were denying it.

Line two unnecessarily makes a distinction between the two, and inherently affirms Pelagian teaching.

I'm not sure what Pegalian teaching is... you'd really need to explain that.

Line three contradicts the principle of grace: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

We've got a whole thread for that. I suggest you talk about it there: http://www.christiandl.com/index.php/topic,50318.0.html

While I appreciate the education on the RLDS (I have been curious about them for several years now), it still remains that any confession stemming from the hand of Joseph Smith, Jr. is not a Christian confession in any part of it.

Why's that?

It seems to me that you're putting some special significance on the word "confession" which might not have been there in the author's intention. This is just an overview of some beliefs, and it's certainly not comprehensive. Is a "confession" supposed to be something different in your view?

[FenderPriest]

It seems to me that you're putting some special significance on the word "confession" which might not have been there in the author's intention. This is just an overview of some beliefs, and it's certainly not comprehensive. Is a "confession" supposed to be something different in your view?

A confession is an overview of the basic, essential parts of one's beliefs.  I appreciate the clarification on being Trinitarian and will look into that more, though I think your reference to both the Apostle and Nicene creed show the clear ability of intentional minds to put massive, important truths into a small amount of space.  As for the rest of your remarks, by comments still stand.  The imputation of Adam's sin to all of his children has been a long standing, and Scripturally proven doctrine.  I think you have missed the point of the passages cited, especially Romand 5.  What you've presented as a statement of faith is a confession of one's beliefs, and from my reading of it, the statement of faith is not a Christian confession.  That confession will never help anybody seeking to learn the true Gospel of free grace.

[Nerd42]

A confession is an overview of the basic, essential parts of one's beliefs.  I appreciate the clarification on being Trinitarian and will look into that more, though I think your reference to both the Apostle and Nicene creed show the clear ability of intentional minds to put massive, important truths into a small amount of space.

OK, well that's a valid opinion. I don't agree or disagree about how well-worded the creeds I referenced are or not. Far as I'm concerned, I'd only need to fit one of those three definitions to be considered, "Christian".

As for the rest of your remarks, by comments still stand.  The imputation of Adam's sin to all of his children has been a long standing, and Scripturally proven doctrine. I think you have missed the point of the passages cited, especially Romand 5.

Is a particular view of the relationship of guilt to sin part of the essential definition of Christianity? I don't think so. I would see this as one in a range of different views/positions held by Christians. It could be modeled it as a third alternative in the Armenian vs Calvinism debate. I fail to see what it is about this particular issue that makes both Armenians and Calvinists be "Christians" but makes RLDS not Christians. The RLDS position on the relationship between guilt and sin seems to be very nearly in line with what I understand of Armenianism - that individual people choose to sin and aren't made to.

What you've presented as a statement of faith is a confession of one's beliefs, and from my reading of it, the statement of faith is not a Christian confession.

What do you mean by "Christian"? I've defined pretty clearly what I think "Christian" means, but you haven't really said whether I'm right about that or not. Is it possible that someone might disagree with you and still be a Christian? To what extent can they disagree?

That confession will never help anybody seeking to learn the true Gospel of free grace.

*shrug* I never said it would. The Epitome of Faith wasn't meant to convert people but just to explain some things, and it may be doing a very poor job because of the author's fallibility and how our language has shifted over the more than 150 years that have passed since it was written.

What converts people to the gospel is the Holy Spirit and if you're looking for a statement of beliefs that is meant to help convert people besides the Bible itself, it is the Book of Mormon. If you're looking for a short creed that's supposed to convert people, we simply don't have one. It's not short, it's not simple and it's not what you'd expect.

As C. S. Lewis wrote:

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that (censored) twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys' philosophies—these over-simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simpler either."

(C. S. Lewis wasn't a Latter Day Saint of course, but the principle applies to Latter Day Saintism.)

[toddm]

So, you believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit are fully and equally co-eternal with the Father? That they are 3 persons in one being? If you are Trinitarian, then how do you reconcile this belief with Joseph Smith's vision of 2 distinct personages in the form of Father and Son?

Do you agree that Heavenly Father was once a man and has progressed to godhood?

How can you affirm the Bible as the Word of God and deny the fact that Jesus said the church would never go into total apostasy (Matthew 16:18)?

Christians affirm that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE - you do not affirm this as per your confession of faith and your posts on this board.

[Nerd42]

Oh, I didn't see your post, ToddM until today. Don't know why this didn't show up back in July. Well, I'll reply anyways

So, you believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit are fully and equally co-eternal with the Father? That they are 3 persons in one being? If you are Trinitarian, then how do you reconcile this belief with Joseph Smith's vision of 2 distinct personages in the form of Father and Son?

I don't understand how the Mormons arrive at the conclusion they arrive at from this account, which says nothing about the Father and the Son being separate entities, merely that they are represented in the vision as two personages. I don't see how else they could be represented whether the Trinitarian doctrine is true or not, based solely upon how our eyes work.

Do you agree that Heavenly Father was once a man and has progressed to godhood?

Most certainly not! The RLDS church has never accepted that for it was first introduced by Young and company in Utah.

How can you affirm the Bible as the Word of God and deny the fact that Jesus said the church would never go into total apostasy (Matthew 16:18)?

Matthew 16:18 does not say that the church will never go into apostasy. (not sure what you mean by "total") It says, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

What does it mean when a gate prevails against someone? It means an attempt has been made to open the gate, yet it remains locked. This idea that the gates of hell shall not prevail is linked directly to Christ giving the keys of the kingdom unto the priesthood, so that they can open the gates and get people out through the ordinances of the church. (Baptism in particular)

I don't understand how people can not believe in the apostasy when it's prophesied of so many times in the Bible and can be shown so clearly in history. The early Protestants in particular, recognized the apostasy of the Catholic church, hence the Reformation.

Christians affirm that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE - you do not affirm this as per your confession of faith and your posts on this board.

James did not affirm this. He wrote, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." That's the only time the "faith alone" doctrine is mentioned in the Bible.

[linkbolt]

I think that there are some very essential and very relevant questions that have to be asked before, considering a proposed denomination...Christian.  

What is the Gospel, in that what does it mean and what does it teach?

What makes a Christian...Christian?

Nerd42, unfortunately you are at a disadvantage due to the workings of the Mormon Church and although you proclaim a separation and restoration of the "True Latter Day Faith", there is an issue of contention with regards to the form of Christianity that RLDS, FLDS, LDS etc...adhere to. Due to this your confession should clearly define what a Christian is and what you believe about the Gospel. These day's saying "I'm Christian, because I believe in Christ" is not enough, just as belief in The Trinity is not enough, in that it does not express any particular stance, because one cannot infer, what that statement means to yourself.

For example, both Roman Catholics and Reformed folk, believe in Christ; however, you'll find that "What" Calvinists believe about Christ differs greatly from what Roman Catholics believe. They will both proclaim the Gospel and belief in Christ however "they" have different idea's of what that means. More specifically the issue at hand is always the Sufficiency of Scripture and the Sufficiency of Grace, with regards to the Gospel.
 
I don't want to force you into a corner; however, it would easier, if you could plainly tell us what you believe a Christian is and what makes one? More so, you should also realize that there are many of us here who believe, that the Scriptures dictate what is and what is not a Christian, thus the scriptures are the only Authority for determining such, if at all possible in your appeal, please remember that this is what we will be looking for, while you share your faith with us.  I'm asking and even implore you to do so, that way there is clarity and a good foundation to start from. Finding something you and others mutually respect and cherish and believe in, should others understand you and your faith, better.


linkbolt  

[Nerd42]

I don't want to force you into a corner; however, it would easier, if you could plainly tell us what you believe a Christian is and what makes one?

That is an excellent question and I don't think that should back anyone into a corner, though I think I've already answered it. I agree that simply saying you "believe in Christ" doesn't, by itself, make you a Christian.

A Christian is someone who professes the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Christianity is a professed belief system, not a mode of behavior, state of salvation or spiritual condition. It is not for us to say who is and is not a true and sincere follower of Christ - only whose doctrines are within the range of Christian thought and whose aren't.

There are three definitions of Christianity that I recognize: the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" definition, all of which are, I believe, just three different wordings of the same idea. If it can be shown that a church's doctrinal position fits any one of those, then it also fits the main idea of the others and is a Christian church.

This position on what a Christian is isn't coming out of Latter Day Saint-ism - it's based on the premise that any reasonable definition of "Christian" has to include both Catholics and Protestants, and it's basically the same criteria used within mainstream churches to decide which churches are Christian and which aren't as far as I know.

[linkbolt]

@ Nerd42,

More specifically, I would really like to know what you believe the Gospel teaches and if you believe the Gospel to be the foundation, for Christian Birth, if you will?

I believe you've provided good answers; however, I believe creeds mean something different to everyone and I can only know for sure, that the Gospel is the unifying factor for all Christians, which is why I ask. To say you believe in the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith and not state, what you believe those doctrines to be, is much the same as saying you're a Christian, without expressing what you believe is a Christian or makes a Christian...Christian. 

I would also, like to add that "I believe" the creeds served a different purpose in times past and do not hold the same authority today. In a nutshell, the creeds where formulated to differentiate between Paganism and the rising "Christian Gnostics" of the day. Given that there are many denominations, which adhere to the creeds in our modern era; however, completely disagree on the teachings of the Gospel,(which I believe is essential to the Christian Faith)then we shouldn't go by the creeds as an all encompassing definition rather one which carries with it a general precept.

It is not for us to say who is and is not a true and sincere follower of Christ - only whose doctrines are within the range of Christian thought and whose aren't.

I totally agree.

I look forward to your answer.

linkbolt

 

[iamlowsound]

Nerd, one thing that I believe you are missing from CS Lewis in Mere Christianity, is when he asserts that the bible is the final authority.  There is no other book that is held as high as the bible.  Since you hold the book of Mormon as the same standard as the bible, then you are, by CS Lewis`, definition, not a Christian. 

[dendau]

Nerd42,

Do you believe as all elders within the mormon church believes, that there exists millions of gods each within their universe?

Do you believe that god the father had sex with mary and therefore gave birth to Jesus?

Do you believe that if you faithfully continue as a mormon then you will become a god within your own universe?

If you do, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

[Nerd42]

Nerd, one thing that I believe you are missing from CS Lewis in Mere Christianity, is when he asserts that the bible is the final authority. There is no other book that is held as high as the bible.  Since you hold the book of Mormon as the same standard as the bible, then you are, by CS Lewis`, definition, not a Christian.

If he says that in Mere Christianity then I have indeed missed it. But I have the electronic text which I have searched for the word "Bible" and the most relevant passage I can find in it is in this part:

All these pictures of light or heat are making it sound as if the Father and Son were two things instead of two Persons. So that after all, the New Testament picture of a Father and a Son turns out to be much more accurate than anything we try to substitute for it. That is what always happens when you go away from the words of the Bible.

In 19th century language, "Two Persons," would have been expressed as "Two Personages" as it was in Joseph Smith's account cited earlier by ToddM. You may claim that Smith's vision was false on other grounds, but it doesn't make sense to criticize it on the grounds that Smith claimed to have seen "two Personages" of the Father and the Son, nor does it make sense for the Mormons to claim that this means the Father and the Son are entirely separate. The first I'd ever heard of that doctrine was from a Mormon on the Internet. I'm not enough of a historian to know when exactly it showed up but I bet it wasn't until after the schism in 1844.

I suppose you could say that the RLDS position goes away from the words of the Bible because we don't include the Song of Solomon in the canon. Interestingly enough, there are only 65 books in an RLDS Bible.

More specifically, I would really like to know what you believe the Gospel teaches and if you believe the Gospel to be the foundation, for Christian Birth, if you will?

I said that the six fundamental principles of the gospel are faith, repentance, baptism ect in post 1. I don't mean to criticize but this question is so vague that I'm not sure exactly what I am answering.

I believe you've provided good answers;

Well, thank you very much.

however, I believe creeds mean something different to everyone and I can only know for sure, that the Gospel is the unifying factor for all Christians, which is why I ask. To say you believe in the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith and not state, what you believe those doctrines to be, is much the same as saying you're a Christian, without expressing what you believe is a Christian or makes a Christian...Christian.

Well, the creeds contain the statement that there is only one God. So you can't be a polytheist and believe in the creeds. This type of logic (based on a presumption of absolutes) applies to just about every statement in them.

The only real disagreements I can see between the RLDS position and the creeds center around the meaning of the word "Catholic" (a part of the creed that some would say all Protestants are in violation of) as well as the statement "Begotten, not made." If Isaiah 45:11 is referring to Jesus, the phrase "and His maker" would indicate that "maker" is an appropriate relational term between the Father and the Son after all, despite what the creed says. RLDS revelation hasn't said anything about this issue at all as far as I know - this objection to the creed hinges on just that one verse in Isaiah and on nothing else. I know some RLDS people who believe very strongly that this verse is referring to Christ (I'm inclined to think they're right but am unsure) and I talked to somebody a while back who thinks it's referring to David or somebody, and I'd have to say all these people are still Christians. I don't think those teeny details are essential parts of the creed or have anything to do with the intentions behind the statements.

I would also, like to add that "I believe" the creeds served a different purpose in times past and do not hold the same authority today. In a nutshell, the creeds where formulated to differentiate between Paganism and the rising "Christian Gnostics" of the day. Given that there are many denominations, which adhere to the creeds in our modern era; however, completely disagree on the teachings of the Gospel,(which I believe is essential to the Christian Faith)then we shouldn't go by the creeds as an all encompassing definition rather one which carries with it a general precept.

As I understand it, the one of the major theological objections to Mormonism (post-1844 LDS) coming from both you guys (Protestants) and from us (RLDS) is that it's a throwback to gnosticism. Within Mormonism is a teaching that secret hidden knowledge (found in Mormon temples) is what enables you to enter the Celestial kingdom rather than Christ's free and open gift.

[Nerd42]

Do you believe as all elders within the mormon church believes, that there exists millions of gods each within their universe?

No. Sorry, Mormon friends, I don't want to offend anyone, but that's a lie of the Devil. (Not your statement - but what you say the Mormon elders teach) It's the exact same lie that Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Do you believe that god the father had sex with mary and therefore gave birth to Jesus?

No. The Book of Mormon says right in 1 Nephi 3:61 (RLDS numbering system - it'll be different chapter and verse in an LDS book) "And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms." It says, "virgin" several times referring to Mary, asserting the reality of the virgin birth just like in the Bible. This is one of the many cases of Mormonism directly contradicting what both the Bible and the Book of Mormon clearly teach. Mormonism is not "the theology of the Book of Mormon" at all. It's the theology of the Mormon church. There is a significant difference.

Anti-Mormon apologists for Protestantism will often post a list (There are several different versions of this) of 30-40 items they perceive as contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. All of these that I've ever seen are either not actually in the Book of Mormon, not actually in the Bible or else they are reconcilable. They'll then list 10 to 20 contradictions between what the Book of Mormon teaches and what the Mormon church teaches. Nine times out of ten, these are right on the money. I believe that the Book of Mormon's position in all these ("right on the money") cases is right and the Mormon church's position is wrong.

Do you believe that if you faithfully continue as a mormon then you will become a god within your own universe?

No. And I'm not a Mormon. I'm RLDS.

If you do, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

If I did believe those things, I wouldn't be a Christian. There are many individual Mormons who don't believe those things, but the Mormon church does teach them. (If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate any Mormons who could correct me on this) Therefore, there are many individual Mormons who are Christians and don't personally believe those parts of Mormonism, but the Mormon church of Utah is not a Christian church. (And I'm pretty sure that even the Mormons would agree that the FLDS neo-polygamists aren't Christians) There are also other Latter Day Saint churches that are still Christian churches, because they don't accept the teachings of Brigham Young and his ilk and they still hold to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.



I think I should say right now that this thread isn't an evangelistic crusade on my part to convert you all to being Latter Day Saints. I find it hard to believe that people get converted away from the religion they've already got to some other religion based solely upon the faceless words of some person they've never met in an internet forum. The goal here is greater understanding, so that at the end we can walk away, each knowing, "This is what these people agree on and this is what they disagree on." I think a discussion along those lines could be very constructive and educational for all involved. So everyone please try to keep a reasonable, rational tone with mutual respect even when you disagree. (Not saying you haven't - this is a preemptive reminder to everyone including myself and no one in particular)

[mashmouth]

Great discussion folks! I am a former LDS member from my naive teen years, so I have not a little baggage.  However, do not let this dissuade you from my point I will make.

In Deut. 18:12 we are clearly told what a prophet of Yahweh will be like.  It is obvious that a prophet will never, ever make a false prediction or statement when concerned with the Spirit of God, or God's commands.  In Jeremiah, we see a distinction made between the prophets who, like in Moses' time, prophesied in the name of false gods, and those that spoke in the name of Yah and were false prophets (see:  Jer. 14:14-15, 23:16, 21:27, 30:33, 27:9f, 14:16, 28:15:17, 29:8f, 21:32, 37:19).  Interestingly, Jeremiah prophesied that these latter guys would not die pretty deaths.
The point is that Joseph Smith Jr. made a variety of major theological statements, and each and every one was made under the pretense of "God saith..." in not so many words.  (Coincidentally, Joseph Smith Jr. was gunned down in a jail cell with a gun in his hand, re: Jer. 14: 14-15, though this is neither here-nor-there...)

This is major difficulty for the person holding Smith up as an authority--let alone his writings, i.e. BOM, D&C, etc.--as some major 'predictions' that Smith made were terribly and utterly false (see the ancient civilization over in New York state and the location of Zion in Missouri for two theo-rooted examples that are empirically falsifiable).

I trust that, until these problems with the life and statements of Joseph Smith Jr. are resolved--and I don't see them as resolvable--we need not venture over into disputable authoritative texts that you bring up, Nerd42, with all due respect.  
As the founder of Mormonsim, pre-or post-1844 schism, he is demonstrably false regardless of some doctrinal positions to which he or his fans adhere.  Thus, what ever he wrote does not belong next to the Authority of the Bible.

Besides, being a Christian is not nodding 'yes' at all the right spots anyways.  I suspect I am not the only one on this forum post that would agree with this statement.

[linkbolt]

Nerd42,

   I don't want this to be an encounter that ends up in debate, therefore I will present the question once more differently, if you do not understand what I'm asking I respect that; however, please note that you leave many here at a disadvantage, being that you have not provided a definition of the Gospel. Right now every other discussion is secondary, until we can arrive at a definition of what you believe the Gospel teaches and if this same Gospel creates Christians.

What does the Gospel teach?

Is the teaching of the Gospel what makes Christians?

linkbolt

[d1sturbanc3]

What does the Gospel teach?

I thought I asked this question, but it must being gone with the down-time of the board.

The Gospel is the arrival of Christ's kingdom to the Earth so that those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah will have their sins transferred to Him who died to satisfy the requirement of the Law. Jesus was resurrected as a sign of victory over sin and death; this sign and Holy Spirit was given as promise of eternal life.

The main issue with the Mormon or rather the Catholic is the belief in Justification by both faith and works. The gospel never contain any mention of having to be "good,"  to receive Jesus. The correct interpretation on Romans 3 and James 2 is that we do good works as the result of the gospel, not the vice where we receive the Jesus because of the good work. If one preaches  that works must enter the requirement of salvation, the loss of true essence of the gospel occurs.

[Nerd42]

I don't want this to be an encounter that ends up in debate, therefore I will present the question once more differently, if you do not understand what I'm asking I respect that; however, please note that you leave many here at a disadvantage, being that you have not provided a definition of the Gospel. Right now every other discussion is secondary, until we can arrive at a definition of what you believe the Gospel teaches and if this same Gospel creates Christians.

What does the Gospel teach?

That fallen man can be redeemed through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Is the teaching of the Gospel what makes Christians?

Yes.

In Deut. 18:12 we are clearly told what a prophet of Yahweh will be like.

I think you mean it says what a prophet of God will not be like.

9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

If Joseph Smith Jr. were any of those things then that would certainly make him a false prophet.

It is obvious that a prophet will never, ever make a false prediction or statement when concerned with the Spirit of God, or God's commands.  In Jeremiah, we see a distinction made between the prophets who, like in Moses' time, prophesied in the name of false gods, and those that spoke in the name of Yah and were false prophets (see:  Jer. 14:14-15, 23:16, 21:27, 30:33, 27:9f, 14:16, 28:15:17, 29:8f, 21:32, 37:19).  Interestingly, Jeremiah prophesied that these latter guys would not die pretty deaths.

Look, that is just way too many references to look up just to make the point that there are false prophets in the book of Jeremiah.

The point is that Joseph Smith Jr. made a variety of major theological statements, and each and every one was made under the pretense of "God saith..." in not so many words.  (Coincidentally, Joseph Smith Jr. was gunned down in a jail cell with a gun in his hand, re: Jer. 14: 14-15, though this is neither here-nor-there...)

This act of self defense was not in any way inconsistent with Smith's stated principles. If there was an angry mob outside coming to murder me, I'd do the same thing. I can of course come back with Luke 13:34.

This is major difficulty for the person holding Smith up as an authority--let alone his writings, i.e. BOM, D&C, etc.--as some major 'predictions' that Smith made were terribly and utterly false

OK there's several issues here I think you're ignoring.

1. Latter Day Saint theology takes free will as part of it's premise. As it says in 1 Timothy 4:1, it is quite possible to have once been of the faith but later leave and follow deceiving spirits. A prophet is just like everybody else in terms of being a fallen sinner, and just like everyone else can still rebel, reject God and use his free will to work against the Kingdom. So it is quite possible that a legitimate prophet could make true statements early on but later make false ones because of a later rebellion. Therefore, one false statement does not a false prophet make.
2. Not every statement made by Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophecy. Just like the rest of us, the man had his own opinions and predictions about the future. Joseph was perhaps not as careful as he should have been in always placing an "I think" before his words, but unless it can be specifically shown that this was specifically a revelation with strong evidence from both Utah and non-Utah sources that it really was put forward by Smith, it's not relevant.
3. Not every statement attributed to Smith was really made by Smith. The history of the 1830-1844 period is nowhere near as cut and dry as academia and the Mormon church make it out to be. It depends largely on who you want to believe - the testimony of Brigham Young's followers or the testimony of Joseph Smith Jr.'s own family members - Emma Hale Smith and Joseph the III. These two groups present conflicting narratives of what went on in the early movement, and the traditionalist RLDS maintain that the truth of what really happened is what Emma and Joseph the III said and not what the Utah Mormons said. We accuse the Utah Mormon sources (Not the present day historians but their sources) of rehearsing a false narrative and practicing historical revisionism to strengthen their succession claims.

(see the ancient civilization over in New York state

The claim is not that the ancient civilization existed in New York State - merely that it's records were buried there. Smith claimed that the ancient civilization existed in the New World somewhere and didn't say specifically where, but believed that the american indians were among it's descendants. Present day Book of Mormon believing scholars think the historical setting of the Book of Mormon is in central america.

and the location of Zion in Missouri for two theo-rooted examples that are empirically falsifiable).

On what basis do you claim this is false?

I trust that, until these problems with the life and statements of Joseph Smith Jr. are resolved--and I don't see them as resolvable--we need not venture over into disputable authoritative texts that you bring up, Nerd42, with all due respect.

I've only brought up the Book of Mormon as an authority on what the Book of Mormon says (as opposed to books about it) and of course as an authority on what the RLDS position is. This is, I believe, appropriate.

Besides, being a Christian is not nodding 'yes' at all the right spots anyways.  I suspect I am not the only one on this forum post that would agree with this statement.

*shrug* If we try to make Christianity out to be something other than a doctrinal belief system, it becomes a useless word. (The introduction to Mere Christianity makes this argument very compellingly)

[Nerd42]

The Gospel is the arrival of Christ's kingdom to the Earth so that those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah will have their sins transferred to Him who died to satisfy the requirement of the Law. Jesus was resurrected as a sign of victory over sin and death; this sign and Holy Spirit was given as promise of eternal life.

I agree.

The main issue with the Mormon or rather the Catholic is the belief in Justification by both faith and works.

Being a Christian doesn't make you right about everything. As I said, my definition of Christianity is based on a premise that any reasonable definition of Christianity must include both Catholics and Protestants. The claim that I am a Christian is based on an assertion that any reasonable definition which includes both Catholics and Protestants will end up including the RLDS position as well. If you don't consider Catholics to be Christians - if Protestants are the only real Christians to you - then you'll probably not consider the RLDS to be a Christian group either.

KJV James 2:24 says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

And, of course, KJV Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"

It seems to me that the position that you need both faith AND works is a reasonable interpretation that holds both these scriptures to be equally true. Salvation is not of works - You aren't good in order to be saved but are saved so that you can be good. But if you aren't good you aren't saved. You may not agree with this interpretation, but it doesn't make sense to protest that it's blatantly unBiblical.

The gospel never contain any mention of having to be "good," to receive Jesus.

Of course not. Neither does RLDS theology. If we were already good, we wouldn't need Jesus.

(later edit) When I speak of "good" here, I am referring to the total moral/ethical perfection demanded by God as in Matthew 5:48. I believe that man is capable of doing many good things of his own free will, but that none can achieve this total perfection without the atonement of Christ. You can do alot of good things on your own, but you can't truly be totally good, without any sin whatsoever, without Christ taking your sin away.

The correct interpretation on Romans 3 and James 2 is that we do good works as the result of the gospel, not the vice where we receive the Jesus because of the good work.

But unless you actually attain the result of the gospel, you're not really "saved." As Jesus Himself said, you have to endure to the end.

[d1sturbanc3]

The correct interpretation on Romans 3 and James 2 is that we do good works as the result of the gospel, not the vice where we receive the Jesus because of the good work.

But unless you actually attain the result of the gospel, you're not really "saved." As Jesus Himself said, you have to endure to the end.

Interesting... If you didn't "stand firm", you didn't believe in the Gospel, but that's my own Calvinistic thoughts coming.

It seems to me that the position that you need both faith AND works is a reasonable interpretation that holds both these scriptures to be equally true. Salvation is not of works - You aren't good in order to be saved but are saved so that you can be good. But if you aren't good you aren't saved. You may not agree with this interpretation, but it doesn't make sense to protest that it's blatantly unBiblical.

I wish I said I came up with that idea, but that's pretty much quoting RC Sproul, Calvin,and Luther. If you agree with my interruption of Justification, welcome to reformed (the dark) side of the force.  

We completely agree that faith itself must be justified by works. A man without good works cannot be saved. But what justifies our righteousness before God is by faith alone, but that faith is not alone. Sola Fide.

[Nerd42]

The correct interpretation on Romans 3 and James 2 is that we do good works as the result of the gospel, not the vice where we receive the Jesus because of the good work.

But unless you actually attain the result of the gospel, you're not really "saved." As Jesus Himself said, you have to endure to the end.

Interesting... If you didn't "stand firm", you didn't believe in the Gospel, but that's my own Calvinistic thoughts coming.

It seems to me that the position that you need both faith AND works is a reasonable interpretation that holds both these scriptures to be equally true. Salvation is not of works - You aren't good in order to be saved but are saved so that you can be good. But if you aren't good you aren't saved. You may not agree with this interpretation, but it doesn't make sense to protest that it's blatantly unBiblical.

I wish I said I came up with that idea, but that's pretty much quoting RC Sproul, Calvin,and Luther. If you agree with my interruption of Justification, welcome to reformed (the dark) side of the force.  

We completely agree that faith itself must be justified by works. A man without good works cannot be saved. But what justifies our righteousness before God is by faith alone, but that faith is not alone. Sola Fide.

There are still significant differences between the RLDS position and the Calvinist/Reformed position. This point about enduring to the end is not the same assertion as the "P" in TULIP which says that the saints will endure to the end - it only says that this is a requirement to be counted as a member of the Kingdom at eternal judgment. Also, I think there's a good chance that we have a vocabulary difference here - that we could be using the same words without really meaning the same thing. Even if not, one point of agreement doesn't make the total positions the same.

[linkbolt]

  I do believe that I have my answer. You and I apparently believe in a different Gospel and by that either you're not Christian or I'm not. The third possibility is that we are both wrong; however, that is very unlikely. Of course this is if, we are in total agreement, that the Gospel is what makes a Christian...Christian. If we are not in uniformity on the centrality of the Gospel, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 
linkbolt

[iamlowsound]

  I do believe that I have my answer. You and I apparently believe in a different Gospel and by that either you're not Christian or I'm not. The third possibility is that we are both wrong; however, that is very unlikely. Of course this is if, we are in total agreement, that the Gospel is what makes a Christian...Christian. If we are not in uniformity on the centrality of the Gospel, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 
linkbolt

You forgot the forth possibility, which is that you are both wrong and you are both still saved.  Perfect theology is not a prerequisite to salvation, therefore you could both be wrong and still be saved.   

[linkbolt]

  I do believe that I have my answer. You and I apparently believe in a different Gospel and by that either you're not Christian or I'm not. The third possibility is that we are both wrong; however, that is very unlikely. Of course this is if, we are in total agreement, that the Gospel is what makes a Christian...Christian. If we are not in uniformity on the centrality of the Gospel, then there is nothing more to discuss.

 
linkbolt

You forgot the forth possibility, which is that you are both wrong and you are both still saved.  Perfect theology is not a prerequisite to salvation, therefore you could both be wrong and still be saved.   

Yes, the issue is a theological one; however I am referring to the centrality of the Gospel and what that means, rather then having a perfect theology, which is secondary. If we can't agree on the Gospel then we certainly have to question whether we are Christian or not.

linkbolt

[Nerd42]

I do believe that I have my answer. You and I apparently believe in a different Gospel

I'm not sure what you mean by that, or what I've said which makes you think that. What do you think the gospel is then?