For Glenn Beck, his own Cross of Gold
posted at 7:10 pm on September 5, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael
Standing before the Democratic National Convention in 1896, William Jennings Bryan delivered what would be the most important speech of his life. For years he’d argued that American farmers were being crushed by debt due to the country’s inflation-busting, de facto gold standard. A bimetallic standard that included silver, he bellowed, would provide the necessary monetary growth needed to make rural debt repayments easier. Like most of Bryan’s speeches, the religious overtones were inescapable, but unlike most of his speeches, this one would endure.
“Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
When he concluded,
…Bryan stretched out his arms in a Christ-like manner for five seconds, while the crowd remained quiet. According to the New York World, at that point everyone seemed to go mad at once and shrieked and rushed the stage. The New York Times commented that “a wild, raging irresistible mob” had been unleashed.
Bryan would go on to take the Democratic nomination for President.
Whatever you might think of William Jennings Bryan’s progressive politics — and I’m sure Glenn Beck would be hesitant to invite a comparison — there’s no doubt that a common element between the perennial Presidential candidate and Beck, his latter-day conservative counterpart, exists: the populist joining of religion and politics in a period of economic anxiety. For Bryan, the seemingly inescapable clutches of rural debt pushed a national conversation about the basis of our monetary policy; for Beck, the seemingly inescapable clutches of public debt is pushing a national conversation about the basis of our fiscal policy.
And in both cases, religion plays an important role in explaining their central figures’ rhetorical appeals. Bryan was a fervent Presbyterian congregant whose opponents described as a religious fanatic surrounded by left-wing anarchists. Beck is a fervent Mormon convert whose opponents describe as a religious fanatic surrounded by… right-wing radicals.
While sharing the same rhetorical means, Bryan and Beck starkly diverge on their policy objectives. Long gone is the Cross of Gold, whose investment as a valuable metal Beck advertises daily. Beck sees America as facing what amounts to a Cross of Debt, a national albatross weighing on the futures of his children and all of our children. Inflation is the problem, not the solution, and year after year of profligate Congresses only makes the devaluation of the American dollar all the more an acute problem.
Beck’s Restoring Honor rally was stunningly (and unexpectedly) apolitical in its tone, but its religious principles no doubt advance the ball for restoring fiscal order to our federal government, among other responsibility-related causes. And his message is entirely consistent with another closely related movement. Many causes are subsumed into the Tea Party coalition, but fundamentally they boil down to this: the retrieval of national greatness through the resurrection of personal responsibility as an ennobling and socially important value. To Tea Partiers, the power of faith — whether in ourselves, in an infinite power from which men and women draw strength, or both — is what will bring our country, and ourselves, Home.
In fact, that Christian revivalism is re-entering the public square through the person of Beck should fascinate everyone. Bryan’s Presbyterianism had long been considered within the mainstream of American religion, yet, Beck’s Mormonism has not always been so accepted, as at least one Presidential candidate appreciated. Who would have predicted two years ago that one of the most powerful Christian leaders in the country — a role that is secondary, I might add, to Beck’s role as a pundit — would be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? To recall one of the more favorite call-backs around Hot Air, you know who that benefits? I think you do.
How Beck’s Restoring Honor rally will be interpreted by history, only time will tell, but Beck’s political and religious imprint on the American landscape, at least for the near term, seems undeniable. Beck doesn’t seem to have any illusions about his own role in the larger movement in which he’s a part; indeed, Bryan’s failure as a candidate did not negate the very real power that he commanded during the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th, and Beck seems to understand that he can be more useful outside of elected office than by trying to get into it.
I have no desire to be president of the United States. Zero desire. I don’t think that I would be electable. And there are far too many people that are far smarter than me to be president. I’d like to find one with some honor and integrity. I haven’t seen them yet, but they’ll show up.
Of course, only we can answer those prayers.
—–
Oh, and another thing: I’m on Twitter.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Glenn can support RomneyCare without abandoning his libertarian belief.
If you believe in state rights and that each state, rather than the federal government, to make choices about the kind of services it will provide the people, that is ok. Conservative Samizdat on September 5, 2010 at 11:39 PM
Neither States nor states should have the right to a man’s property for any reason other than in support of national security and our justice systems. Those are the only two government services for which no effective pay per service alternative is possible. That still leaves a lot of government in place (but smaller) indirectly supporting it (foreign services, customs, the IRS, the EPA, congress etc…), but state run healthcare is not one of them.
elfman on September 6, 2010 at 12:56 PM
oops, should have put that in quotes…
elfman on September 6, 2010 at 12:57 PM
I heard a radio lib saying that Beck was coming off as if he thinks he’s a preacher… in touch with God… And complaining about that as if it was the worst thing ever.
-
I yelled (yes, really) at the radio… “did you miss Obama’s campaign?”
-
RalphyBoy on September 6, 2010 at 1:00 PM
no they don’t. and the rest of christianity doesn’t buy their claim.
the mormons can proclaim their ‘christianity’ all they want, the rest of christianity ain’t buying it.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 1:06 PM
I’m probably the least (or perhaps the most) qualified here to judge this. I more or less believe in Objectivism, an atheistic ideology.
From my perspective, there are too many similarities between traditional Christianity and Mormonism to carve them out as anything other than Christian. The Council of Nicea was composed of men, not apostles. Unless there’s a clear contradiction with known scriptures of the apostles, one religion’s interpretation of them is just the opinion of men. Not all opinions are equal of course, but reason (or God in your belief system) rather than the majority should be the judge. I haven’t studied the differences, but what I’ve seen presented on a couple of threads here does not convince me that Mormons are anything other than Christians.
elfman on September 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM
you may be convinced they are christian, but the christian churches, including the lutheran and catholic churches don’t buy it.
doesn’t that tell you something?
why don’t you try convincing those churches that they are wrong? good luck.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM
and why do the mormons want to be called christian anyway??
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=36f48949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
why do they want to be associated with a bunch of ‘heretics’ in their opinion?
their doctrines are distinct from christianity.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 2:08 PM
It’s not the fault of Mormons that you can’t read Hebrew, dude. In the Hebrew Bible, the entire host of heaven is called “the sons of God.” That’s the actual Hebrew translation, later changed in the KJV and NRSV to “host of heaven.” If you believe in Lucifer, then you believe he’s part (or was part) of the host of heaven, hence a “son of God.”
Good Solid B-Plus on September 6, 2010 at 2:18 PM
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Boy if anything makes me want to be associated with you, it’s your Christian love; your rant and your judgement! We will never be able to get rid of this crowd with bigots like this! You believe in the apostle nicea and we don’t. We believe that G-d sent his only begotten son, as G-d said.
Thanks elfman for trying to take a neutral position. This is what killed many early Mormons and the prophet we hold dear. Nothing has changed! It’s kind of like the Muslims holding grudges for millenia.
I don’t care if you don’t think we are Christian, but I care that you will hold it against me and not vote out this monstrosity we have in the oval office. It apparently is better to have a religion that cuts off heads than a religion that believes in loving your neighbor, and expects us to help others, no matter what the religion. I have seen you with a megaphone screaming at us as we go to conferences and as young couples get married. Loving !
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM
It’s not my job. And to a degree, it’s not even the job of Mormons.
I’d be shocked if many Christians didn’t believe Mormons were not Christian. Politics in belief systems isn’t limited to religions. Objectivism is just as bad.
Regarding the quote, what inspired any Christian sect to incorporate if it wasn’t a belief that they had the “only true” interpretations. Granted, most don’t write it down as scripture, as an addition to what is the Bible, but that’s another issue.
Like I said, I haven’t researched this so there may be enough to carve them out, but I haven’t seen it. As you can guessed from my beliefs, watching two clearly good organizations who promote the Bible and Christ as their savior argue over who are the true Christians seem to me to be among the least productive and reconcilable endeavors I can imagine, but I understand that its members have to do it. It’s too bad.
elfman on September 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM
John 17:20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
John 21:15-17 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: …Feed my sheep.
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
…
If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (“Epistle To The Ephesians,” c. 105 A.D.)
…
Not that Joseph Smith was the only heretic/schismatic in the history of Christianity…
pannw on September 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Gee I thought you were proving my point. Read the references that you gave –
If you can’t see it, I can’t explain it.
How about:
Who are the other sheep?
I know, I should let it go!
Adios
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 4:18 PM
rant?? quoting the lutheran church is a rant?? little sensitive aren’t you now?
how do you want to ‘get rid’ of people like me? do you have a FINAL SOLUTION in mind for people like me whom you disagree with??
as far as killing people, ever hear of mountain meadows?? of course not!!
sure does seem to bother you. ‘monstrosity’?? why would you call another human being a monstrosity?
as far as the muslims, at least they don’t pretend to be christians.
You haven’t seen me with a megaphone at any time in my life….you really are a liar.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM
hate to tell you, but this has nothing to do with politics, its about doctrine. christians don’t think muslims are chistians, we don’t think buddhists are christians, nor Jehovahs witnesses, nor mormons.
you haven’t seen it? then you haven’t looked very hard, we disagree on the fundamental nature of God…the trinity…its rather simple…if you don’t believe in the trinity, you’re not a christian.
this isn’t just some little game of who is right and who is wrong….its about defending the faith a rather important topic for any religion, wouldn’t you agree? because if your faith means whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it means nothing.
its not ‘too bad’ its vitally important.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Why not? If it makes sense it should be explanatory.
No, you shouldn’t let it go. We all need to continue searching for the Truth. I do not question your belief in Jesus, even if I question the ‘gospel’ that you follow (as I am instructed to do by Jesus and the Church founded by Jesus upon His ‘rock’, per Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as stated above). So, who do you think the other sheep are? And why would Jesus say He will ‘bring’ the other sheep and create ONE fold if that is not what He means to have? How can you believe the Bible and ignore such blatant warnings regarding false prophets and false gospels? Clearly, what Joseph Smith ‘preached’ is not the same gospel preached by the apostles. How do you reconcile that? How do you explain what Paul wrote in light of it being written so long before the angel, Moroni, supposedly visited Smith?
The fact is, they are contradictions. Both can not be true. One is the gospel preached by the Apostles with the authority and instruction of Jesus, the other is something different. They are not ONE faith, as Jesus calls us to. So, do Mormons trust Jesus or Joseph Smith?
pannw on September 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM
We also teach that Lucifer is YOUR brother. Whaddaya think about that?
Did Jesus teach that? Did he even teach the doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it? He DID identify three persons in the Godhead, but he never insisted that they were one in substance: remember, he was speaking to a crowd that was familiar with polytheism and he wanted to make clear that you can’t single out any of the members of the Godhead for worship they way you can with polytheism.
Many early Christians believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct personages, whereas others figured that was too close to polytheism for their comfort. The current doctrine of the trinity was a compromise hammered out by a bunch of intellectuals long after the apostate church had killed the apostles and God had stopped adding to the Bible, the way he did in the Old Testament with the prophets after Moses.
I can see why a Catholic would insist on the Trinity as a foundational doctrine because it was established within the confines of their authority structure, but a Protestant?
If you’re a Protestant, doesn’t that mean you think something went wrong with Catholicism, that it went apostate at some point?
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM
you missed the part where He said the Father and I are one?? did you miss the part where He said baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
the current doctrine of the trinity is foundational to christianity, and it is as old as the Old Testament…in Genesis 1….
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
who is ‘us’???
the apostate church killed the apostles?? what are you talking about?? the apostles were killed by the roman government…except for John who was exiled.
try history 101.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Christianity splinters 38,000 ways on doctrine. Calling a rapidly growing and disproportionately successful new one “non-Christian” on those grounds looks like politics.
If Muslims and Buddhist accepted the New Testament, didn’t promote significant contradictions with it and believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, I’d call them Christians.
A more accurate analogy would be Sunni and Shiites claiming the other is non-Muslim.
Again, that’s just an opinion the majority of Christians who also have political reasons to control what is acceptable variations in their religion. If God wanted that criteria, you’d think he’d make it clear when he spoke through men to write the books of the Bible. Instead, the source for the insistence it be a criteria is an opinion promoted and enforced 300 years later as men were struggling for unity and control of Christian doctrine and control of the Christian world
The source of that criteria was not God, Jesus or even one of his apostles as far as I know.
I read that Mormons interpret scripture to mean that God, Son and Holly Spirit are distinct entities that are “one” in their purpose and make up the God Head. From what I’ve seen, the evidence isn’t definitive in ether direction.
As I write this I’m reading that Mormons believe that God was once a man that became God. Is that true?
http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/tp/denytrinity.htm
Now “that” turn Genesis upside down and has implications significant enough in my mind to call them non-Christian.
elfman on September 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Matthew 24
In other words, anyone claiming to be Christ at his second coming is a liar and a fraud, because when Christ returns in his glory, it will be an unmistakable event. His first coming was easy to miss, because He was born a babe like anyone else and walked the earth as a mortal. The second time, He will come in His glory in a manner that no man can imitate.
Matthew 7
If there were to be no true prophets in the latter days, then he would have flat-out said “believe them not” as he did with the false Christs. Instead, he gives them (us) instructions on how to tell the difference between a false prophet and a true one: by their fruits ye shall know them.
Jim Jones was very much a false prophet: he was a criminal who, when the law caught up with him, destroyed not only himself but took his followers with him (and left behind a handy metaphor). Same with David Koresh in Waco: instead of giving himself up to the authorities to protect his flock, he took them with him in the fire.
False prophets always come to this end eventually. Joseph Smith was frequently arrested on trumped-up charges but never used his followers as human shields, nor did he committ suicide to escape the law: he went meekly into jail, knowing that he was innocent, and was murdered by a mob.
1 John 4
Joseph Smith not only testified of Christ, having seen Him with His own eyes, but brought forth a book of scripture that testifies of Christ. Because of the history of the Bible (which has passed through many hands), people very easily write off the story of Jesus, His miracles, His divine Sonship, and His resurrection as after-the-fact hagiography by over-enthusiastic followers. The Book of Mormon was hidden in the ground for millenia and is the testimony of a second nation who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes, touched the wounds in his hands, and became a perfect people (for two generations).
If Satan were influencing Joseph Smith, the last thing he would do is inspire him to produce a testament of Christ, because Satan hates Christ more than anything else; rather, he would have someone produce something that debunked Christ’s mission and divinity.
2 Nephi 29
Do you really think that in these last days before the Second Coming of Christ that God would not seek to establish prophets again to warn those who have ears to hear? Do you really think He means to stop talking for two millenia and never speak again? Does the Bible itself teach that the heavens will be shut up in 100 A.D. and we should expect no more direction?
Please don’t quote Revelation 22: 18-19. John wrote the book of Revelation before he wrote his Gospel, and in the days of John, there was no single volume called “the Bible”; rather, there were many books and epistles floating around, and so this warning applies only to the book of Revelation, not to the Bible as a whole nor to scripture as a whole.
As to whom I trust, I put my faith in Christ. We don’t worship Joseph Smith any more than other Christians worship Paul.
He dicho
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 5:54 PM
I have seen you with a megaphone screaming at us as we go to conferences and as young couples get married. Loving ! I guess it’s hard to understand that too. OK, let me spell it out. I have seen your kind,shouting at families, shouting at children, shouting at brides. Does that make it more understandable?
I guess I don’t understand that I want to get rid of you? No, I just want to work together to get rid of this “monstrosity” in the white house. I guess you like him since you don’t like me to use that reference.
Yes, I know all about the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Did you want me to tell you more about it? It’s not something we are proud of. And no, the President of the Church did not know and would not have approved. You know of course that the bishop that was involved was executed.
It just seems so fundamental when God and Jesus talk about being one and wanting us to be one with them, how does that mean that we are in their body? But again, I am not after you, I will let G-d judge. so please let him judge me.
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Yes, its true. But earlyChristians taught that concept. Its called Theosis.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 6:18 PM
Yes, its true. But early Christians taught that concept. Its called Theosis.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM
we split on non-fundamentals…its called diversity…the various denominations agree on the essentials.
no it wouldn’t.
no its not. you want christians to accept everyone who calls themselves a christian…we do not do that. sorry. it has nothing to do with politics. catholics and protestants agree on the trinity…so do the orthodox..all christians agree on the fundamentals.
now you sound like a mormon apologist. the doctrine of the trinity is absolutely clear in the scripture. the nature of God is fundamental.
yes they do. the mormon concept of God is totally different than the christian concept of God.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 6:24 PM
oh you’ve seen ‘my kind’ huh? you sound like a typical racist. but then the mormon church does have a history of racism.
and what does ‘my kind’ shout?? hmmm?? I’d really like to know!!
do you call him a monstrosity because he’s black?
I’m not judging you..I’m just stating a simple fact that the rest of christianity does not buy the mormon claim to being christians.
christians are part of the body of Christ, which is the church…doesn’t mean we become gods ourselves.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM
If you want to read some quotes by early Christians on the subject of Theosis, read here and here.
Heck, even the Greek Orthodox teaches a form of Theosis (but they don’t agree with the LDS approach to theosis.)
Does that make the Greek Orthodox faith not Christian!?
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Yes. We believe that we are literally the offspring of God, members of the same species, and those of us who follow His path can inherit His same glory.
Romans 8
C.S. Lewis picked up on this, declaring that God’s project with regard to his actual children is to make us into “little Christs”; otherwise, why talk about being “joint-heirs with Christ.”
It turns out that reproduction is the name in the next life, just as it is in this life. We are the offspring of God, and we are currently undergoing a phase in our upbringing where we must choose between the Light of God and darkness (and everything in between). If we pass this test, we will be co-heirs with Christ in inheriting all that God has.
Or do you have a better explanation for that passage?
Only Christ is authorized to say what is and is not Christian, and I don’t recall that he ever insisted that we get our theology right to be called by His Name. Rather, he said in John 3
Jesus and His apostles taught this truth and none else. This doctrine was so simple that the Jews, who had everything wrapped around the axles in that era with their hair-splitting, could not comprehend it.
As for whether we are Christian, I say again, we are not Protestants, but what else would you call a Church that hews to the doctrine that we must be born again to see the kingdom of God if not Christian?
Alma 5
Is Jesus pleased when His putative followers spend all their time deciding who is and is not in the Fold of Christ? Is it your Christian duty to draw lines where Christ has not drawn them or make exclusions that Christ has not ordered you to make? By what authority do you or your preachers declare these things?
We LDS claim to be Christ’s official Church, the same Church that existed during the time of the apostles but was destroyed by widespread apostasy (partly because the teachings of men, from Greek philosophy, crept into the early church; yes, this is historical fact, taught me by a devout Catholic professor of the history of ideas, who pointed out that neoplatonism was not to be found in the Bible but was nevertheless true).
But although we make this claim, we don’t seek to wrest the term “Christian” from any sincere believer who wants to use it. We don’t spend our time deciding who is and is not going to hell. (We don’t believe that if you’re not Mormon you’ll go to hell.)
By our fruits ye will know us: Glenn is producing either figs or thistles, and if figs, then the tree is good, because Jesus said that you cannot gather figs of thistles.
Or was Jesus wrong?
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM
That’s not true. There are plenty of Christian Churches who don’t believe in the traditional trinitarian concept of God.
Early Christians weren’t in agreement on the concept of the trinity:
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 6:36 PM
did you read your own link???
Modern nontrinitarian Christian denominations include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Unitarians, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostalism and Iglesia ni Cristo. But most Protestant and Orthodox denominations do not consider the nontrinitarian groups to be Christian[3].
the rest of christianity does NOT consider mormons to be christians…unless you decide to change your doctrine and leave the kindgom of the cults, as the worldwide church of God did, you will never be considered a christian by the rest of christiantiy.
and given that you think the rest of us are apostate and you are the only true church why do you want to be called christians anyway??
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 6:40 PM
I read my link.
However, these non-trinitarian groups have every right to insist they are Christians.
Where do people and religious organizations get the power/ability/authority to draw the lines as to who is Christian and who isn’t when such line never existed in early Christian times?
That line was established in Christian councils via debate and voting 300 or more years after the original Christians died off.
Even early Christian followers/writers did not agree on the trinity but they all followed Christ to the best that they could.
Finally, if the bible is so clear and obvious about the doctrine of the trinity…why are there disagreements about it with early Christians, at the Christian councils and today? If its so clear, you’d think the issue wouldn’t be contentious one.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 6:49 PM
with as many disagreements as the catholics have with the protestants and the orthodox, and the protestants within themselves doesn’t it tell you something that they all agree mormons are not christians?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM
you can call yourself whatever, doesn’t mean the rest of us will accept it.
where do you get the power to call yourselves christians? those churches are part of the historic christian faith…yours is not and never has been.
you can babble on and on about supposed early ‘christians’ doubting the trinity…they had heretics in that time too you know.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Funny, I never even thought of color, your mention was the first time it was mentioned or thought of. The men I see are white, white, white and they call young brides “whores”, as they drag the Book of Mormon (another testament of Christ) on a string through the gutter. They refuse to move when the brides come out of the Temple to have their picture taken and try to ruin their day. I have never seen a black man or woman out there shouting at us. I think those who are posting would back me up.
Obama and his administration are monstrosities because of what they are doing to our country. Guess you don’t listen to Glenn either. Our children and their children will be indebted all of their lives for what he is doing to us and the money he is squandering. Not exactly a Christian way to govern.
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM
The LDS Church teaches beliefs that were held by many early Christians.
Notice that before the post-Biblical creeds were hammered out centuries after the time of Christ, the “orthodox” view was that Christ was subordinate to the Father, contrary to the current doctrine of the Trinity.
That is the historical Christian faith. Early Christians would not recognize current mainstream Christianity today.
Are you calling early and well known Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ignatius and others who taught the non trinitarian view of God…heretics?
Wow.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 7:08 PM
I definitely believe that God still communicates with us. I am even inclined to accept things like private revelation in the form of apparitions or interior locution. I tend to believe in the apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima and Lourdes (possibly Medjugorje), the interior locutions to Saints such as Faustina, Padre Pio etc… But most importantly, I believe He still instructs us through His Church. All of these other personal ‘communications’ lead TO the Church, to unity. There is nothing in them that contradicts the gospel proclaimed by Jesus through His Apostles and handed down through the Church and Sacred Scripture. Any ‘revelation’ that creates disunity or leads one away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus, can only be false and not of Christ. Why would He establish a Church, ordain a priesthood at Pentecost, breathing into them the Holy Spirit, give them the instruction to go out and teach the gospel, promise that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, and then let it fall into error? I’m sorry, but He wouldn’t. It would not make sense. Jesus does not create confusion. He does not contradict Himself.
“These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good Word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the Truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
Joseph Smith was not the innocent martyr you portray. He was a polygamist, thief, dabbler in divination, shot two or three men, etc… How many states did he get arrested in? How many wives did he have? You will know them by their fruits. Satan himself quotes scripture, you know? And twists it to suit his purposes. I’m Not saying mormonism is satanic, but it does go against Christ’s own words and leads people away from His Church. That’s not good. No schism is.
Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
That’s all fine and convenient, but it doesn’t change the fact that if your gospel is different from the gospel taught by the apostles and found in Sacred Scripture, then it is false and as Saint Paul warned, it should be anathema. For example, your views on the Trinity are in error. The Truth was taught by the Apostles and understood in the early Church as Jesus instructed them. It was also recorded in Sacred Scripture. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” – 1 John 5:7 Jesus would not contradict Himself.
“For the scheme of the mysteries of the Church and the Catholic faith is such that one who denies one portion of the Sacred Mystery cannot confess the other. For all parts of it are so bound up and united together that one cannot stand without the other and if a man denies one point out of the whole number, it is of no use for him to believe all the others.” St. John Cassian (“On The Incarnation,” early 5th century A.D.)
And now, I hate to run, but I have to go to a cook-out, and am already late.
Happy Labor Day. Peace.
pannw on September 6, 2010 at 7:08 PM
right…when you say things like ‘my kind’ its a racist statement.
its not another testament of Christ…at least not the Christ of the Bible.
how did I drag it through the gutter? please post my exact statement.
again who is THEY???? do you have a link for these dreaded THEY???
I don’t even know what you are talking about.
given the LONG history of racism in the LDS church…
and black people couldn’t become priests until the 1970s…why was the change made? hmmm??
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:11 PM
early heretics you mean.
uh newsflash, christians believe Jesus is subordinate to the Father…but He is God Almighty, the eternal one, creator of heaven and earth…He is subordinate not by nature, but by role.
absolutely.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:13 PM
the rest of christianity does NOT consider mormons to be christians
This claim that “Mormons are not Christians” is to me a relatively recent phenomenon, maybe 20 years old or more. I can remember a time when nobody came after us for “not being Christian,” and when they started, it was very much out of the blue. (Or maybe I was just too young to be aware.)
What seems to have happened is the issue came up among Protestants as to whether to accept LDS baptisms as legitimate, because among Protestants, there was kind of a “baptism exchange”: if you were baptized as a Methodist, then joined a Baptist sect, you could be counted as baptized even if it wasn’t by a Baptist minister.
However, the acrimony against the LDS Church led them to not accept LDS baptisms as legitimate, and the best justification they could come up with is that we’re “not real Christians.”
If you’re interested, please read this comparison of early Christian beliefs with LDS beliefs.
Again I must ask: by what authority do you take upon yourself the job of saying who is a real Christian and who is not? Is there a prophet in your midst who is there to clarify the meaning of an ancient text? Has Christ sent a messenger to instruct us to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or face hell?
Were there prophets of God present at the council of Nicea to guide the formulation of the Creed or was it the work of academics and scholars?
The Roman Catholic Church claims that that prior to his death, Peter passed the keys of the kingdom on to a successor, who passed the keys on to his successor, and so on until the current Pope.
The LDS Church claims that Peter passed the keys on to no one because the church had fallen into apostasy and would “not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts … they heap[ed] to themselves teachers, having itching ears;” and that Peter, James, and John and John the Baptist restored the priesthood line to Joseph Smith.
The Protestants claim that God isn’t in the business of forming official churches; that churches are a human construct, and that as long as a church preaches the True Word of Christ, they’ll be accepted.
Please note that these various sects cannot even agree whether baptism is necessary, because that would give too much legitimacy to Catholicism, which claims to have the sole authority to baptize.
Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity arose from Neoplatonism, which was loath to conceive of Divinity as anything but Absolute Oneness: the mentions of three beings in the NT provided a terrible stumbling block to them, and the doctrine of the Trinity was finally hammered out.
Please tell me why I am beholden to this Creed that was neither taught nor promoted by anyone in Scripture, and that was formulated after God shut the heavens and stopped creating Scripture?
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM
actually I like Beck quite a bit…but when he talks about the spirit…I do wonder what spirit he is talking about.
why would you think Obama would govern like a christian? how many christians do you know LOVE THE MUSLIM CALL PRAYERS????? zero zip nada.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM
again I must ask where do you get the authority to call yourselves christians?? hmmm??? the muslims claim Jesus too!
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM
absolutely
They are not Protestants. That is the only True thing you can say of them with regard to their strain of Christianity.
Again, it is not for you or your ministers to delimit Christianity by using, oddly enough, criteria that includes you but excludes people you don’t particularly like.
Christ is the only one who gets to judge who is Christian and who is not: it is very arrogant to assume that right for yourself
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM
I find it interesting that every cult always comes back to the council of nicea…like there was some big conspiracy to keep you REAL christians out!!
you cannot argue the issues…and you sure aren’t going to get the real christians to accept your doctrines.
again why do you even want to be called christians when you consider the rest of us apostate?? hnmmmm?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:18 PM
you’re calling yourselves christians….isn’t that arrogant and judgmental?? aren’t you assuming that right for yourself??
hmmm??
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM
The Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet but that the notion of his being the Son of God is a heresy, because for them God Is One and cannot be divided nor have offspring.
I call myself a Christian because I know that without Christ’s atonement, we would all be condemned to hell the minute we were born, and all the baptisms in the world wouldn’t change that.
I know that I cannot be cleansed of my sins except through the Blood of Christ, and that without that cleansing, I cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.
I know that Christ is the only name given whereby we might be saved from our sins.
I know these things because the Holy Ghost has testified unto me that Christ is in fact the Son of God and the Redeemer of all mankind.
I also have cried unto Jesus to take away my sinful desires and He has done it.
I know you feel protective of your faith; that’s fine. I am not seeking to convert you but only to establish some clarity as to who we are and are not, because there are many lies and distortions out there.
You don’t have to accept my theology as true at all; I would ask, though, that you consider whether Glenn (and many, many others) was cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb or by some other means, and whether Jesus is inclined to be picky about whose sins he will redeem based not on repentance but on theological details.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM
Just a question: how old are you, and how long has it been since you accepted Christ into your life?
I’m just curious, that’s all. Your manner of argumentation seems to peg you as fairly young.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:27 PM
A Christian is anyone who professes to follow Christ.
The only person who has the authority to declare who is a Christian is Christ himself but he isn’t around to make that statement…yet.
Until then, anyone who professes to follow Jesus, despite different doctrines, are Christians.
The reason why we bring up the Council of Nicea is because it marks the departure or deviation from early Christian thought and belief.
In order to unify, a meeting was set up to debate and vote on what was Christian doctrine and what wasn’t. Before that time, Christians could have differing views on matters and still remain Christians. There was plenty of room for different thoughts. That went out with the Council of Nicea.
Both sides can hurl the “apaostate” card at each other. The truth is that both sides are Christians. Period.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 7:32 PM
yeah they claim he was a muslim! just as they claim Abraham, and the rest of the prophets.
what are you talking about baptisms for? the question is a very fundamental one…the nature of God…its why we don’t call muslims christians…and we don’t call mormons christians.
I would ask a question…will the Jesus of the mormons save? The Jesus of the mormons is not the Jesus of the Bible. I don’t have a good answer for that…will the Jesus of the muslims save?
we already have clarity as to who the mormoms are and what they are…and christianity has clealy rejected your claims to be christian.
thats something none of us will know for sure until we die. all we can go by is the doctrines that a church embraces…and the mormon church has doctrines that are profoundly different than christianity. you use the same words, but pour different meanings into them. unless you change those doctrines, the rest of christianity will never call mormons christians.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Awesome point. And that is true regardless of what Christian faith you belong to.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM
After all of this theological talk, I hate to answer your question. The people who come to our conferences, to our pageants in Nauvoo, Ill, and Palmyra, NY are or identify themselves as born again Christians. It got so bad a couple of years ago, that one of our Christian Churches c
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM
By his fruits you can know which spirit Glenn is listening to.
It was asserted upthread that unless you accept the doctrine of the Trinity, which was established in Nicea, you can’t be a Christian.
I am not attempting to say who is and is not Christian. If you believe that Christ is your Savior, that’s good enough for me. If it’s good enough for Christ is another thing, and we’ll see about that in the final judgment.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM
After all of this theological talk, I hate to answer your question. The people who come to our conferences, to our pageants in Nauvoo, Ill, and Palmyra, NY are or identify themselves as born again Christians. It got so bad a couple of years ago, that one of our local Christian Churches came with their congregates and stood outside by these other fellows and sang hymns to support the LDS and let them know that all “born agains” are not like those who had megaphones etc. So that’s who “they” are!
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 7:39 PM
you are saying who is christian…you are saying mormons are christians. the catholics, the lutherans, etc disagree…how hard is this?
this isn’t about personal salvation, but I can see why you would have to obfuscate the issue. its about the doctrines and beliefs of the church.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:41 PM
do you have a link for the dreaded THEY?? I have never seen a demonstration outside a mormon church, other than by the gays.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Whoops, sorry for the 2nd post. I’m using a wee little computer and every time my thumbs touch the bar, I loose typing.
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Watch this “Christian” demonstrator at Temple Square in Salt Lake City drag a Book Of Mormon on the ground and taunt Mormons.
I’d like to see him try a drag a Koran near the Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 7:49 PM
uh yeah one whole person….really now is that the best you can do???
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:51 PM
you do know that christians around the world are being murdered and persecuted by muslims right?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:52 PM
why don’t you show us a video of the HORDE OF NUNS DESCENDING UPON THE MORMONS LIKE LOCUSTS!!!! LOL
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:53 PM
You didn’t read my quotation upthread from the Book of Mormon. So I’ll lay it on some more here:
Alma 34
That’s one example of many, many, many passages in the Book of Mormon that testifies to the salvation that can come only through the blood of Christ.
No. They don’t believe that Christ is the Savior; ergo, it would be silly to call the Christians. They also have no desire to accept the label.
We know that. Boy, how we know that! But I’m pretty sure that only God needs to be pleased with our repentance, not the rest of Christianity.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 7:54 PM
thats nice, but the Jesus of the mormons, is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible.
back to the question, does the Jesus of the mormons save? don’t know….I don’t want to take that chance…I will stick to the Jesus of the bible.
I am not trying to call myself a mormon…you are the ones trying to call yourselves christians.
we don’t have a problem with mormons, you are not trying to kill us as the muslims are…but the christian churches will never agree to mormons calling themselves christians. it won’t happen…sorry if it upsets you, but you may as well get used to it.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 7:57 PM
There will be a conference the 1st Sunday in October in Salt Lake City. Please accept my invitation and come and see for yourself. There are web sites, but I can’t remember them now, I will try and look them up, but if any of you other brothers and sisters have one please help.
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Watch some more here and here.
Trust me. There are lots of Christian protesters in Salt Lake every October and April. Come to SLC sometime and I’ll show you.
I am fully aware of that and it saddens me.
But you’re missing the point. Some Christians engage in a bizarre form of proselyting. I’d like him to try that same method in Saudi Arabia.
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 8:03 PM
That was very rude of you to not read the passage from the Book of Mormon that I cited. It would have answered your question quite well; instead, you keep saying the same things over and over without giving my points due consideration and being fairly annoying in the process. Please be a better Christian than that.
What constitutes a
Mormonmember of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is well-delimited: you’ve been baptized by a duly authorized member of our priesthood and therefore your name is on our membership records.Ergo, it would be silly to attempt to call yourself a member of a church that you haven’t joined.
The definition of “Christian” is not so well delimited, unless you are claiming to have personal access to the Book of Life that is mentioned in Revelation.
Your attempt to establish a parallel between :trying to call yourself Christian” and “trying to call yourself a Mormon” is therefore invalid.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Conservative Samizdat on September 6, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Thanks, you posted while I was posting. No this is not the only one,there are many on every corner. We have been counseled to not engage and that is why we all walk past. One man engaged and spent the night in jail. Beside these people is a lawyer from the ACLU ready to jump on anyone who tries to grab the B of M, or challenges them.
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Gee cat got your tongue, now that we proved it?
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 8:42 PM
hate to tell you but I have no idea who those people are…as far as I know they could be mormon plants…do you have any news story….you know a legit source…that identified a christian church or denomination protesting the mormons…,
and even if you do, so what? are they violent? do they say thing you do not like? so? do you want to silence them?? ever hear of free speech? you don’t like the battle of ideas?
sounds like you mormons just want to have whatever you say accepted without question….ain’t gonna happen. cry me a river.
christians go around the world proselyting and many have lost their lives…what is your point to this? hmmmm??
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 8:54 PM
what have you proven??
this may be hard to believe,but I have a life, and have to do other things than post on a message board. sheesh…
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 8:55 PM
well how do you know I didn’t read it? its the same old same old so?
yeah I know, and what constitutes a christian is well-delimited too..and mormons don’t make the cut.
oh please, the catholics and the protestants and the orthodox are all wrong, but you are right….sure. the comparison is very valid…we don’t try to be you…you try to be one of us. we do not, and will not accept that.
you can call yourself ‘christian’ till you’re blue in the face, won’t matter…your doctrines are distinctly non-christian, and the christians are going to call you on it….don’t like it?? tough. its tiring listening to you mormons whining about it.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM
ok lets talk about mormon salvation and compare it to christian salvation:
sure sounds like a salvation of works, which is distinctly non-christian.
so tell me which works, and how many of those works must you do to be saved?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Non. Protestant. NON! PROTESTANT!
This is where we’re getting into trouble: you insist that your brand of Christianity is the only brand that has the right to claim the term “Christian.”
You don’t. No mortal does. No mortal CAN. There are many strains of Christianity, and it is possible to distinguish among them: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Trinitarian, non-Trinitarian, Restorationist, etc.
They all have claim on the term “Christian” no matter how much you disagree with them. OR HOW MUCH I DISAGREE WITH THEM! You are of course free to insist that only Trinitarians have it right, and you may also rightly claim that the LDS Church is NOT Protestant, NOT Orthodox, NOT Trinitarian, NOT Roman Catholic, etc. We don’t claim otherwise.
But this business of insisting that only Trinitarians can even be called Christian is quite arrogant and very much beyond the pale. We turn to Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua ben Yusef, the son of God and Mary, who shed his blood and died on the cross to bring about human Salvation.
well how do you know I didn’t read it? its the same old same old so? You asked once if the “mormon Jesus” saves. I quoted a passage from the Book of Mormon that illustrates that indeed He does. Then you repeated the question, failing to address any of the points in the quotation. So I quoted another passage to illustrate that salvation must necessarily come through the Atonement of Christ.
And now you’re attempting to debunk the “mormon Jesus” as a Savior, again without taking issue with any of the points in those passages I quoted. I have to assume that you didn’t read the passages or that if you did, you did not comprehend them. Or worse, that you did, but you aren’t interested in analyzing their actual content.
Anyway.
The doctrine of salvation by grace devoid of works arose from Martin Luther, a formidable Biblical scholar, who compared his understanding of the New Testament with what he saw Roman Catholicism teaching. He noticed in RC at the time an emphasis on the sacraments–baptism, communion, confession, last rites–as the pathway to salvation with little mention of grace, which is taught abundantly in the NT.
Luther sought only to reform the church; his followers actually broke away, and with other rejections of the authority of Rome, the Protestant Reformation came to be. We LDS are admirers of many of the reformers and protestants for their courage and their willingness to rely on the Sprit while interpreting scripture as opposed to mere authority.
But by breaking away from the Holy Mother Church, the Protestants were in a bit of a bind: what of baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Catholicism taught that you must be baptized by someone authorized to baptize, but either the Catholics didn’t have the authority from Peter, or they DID, and the Protestants just cut themselves off from that authority.
So they went the only way they could, which was to deny that baptism (a work) is necessary for salvation, and that a priest is NOT and CANNOT be the intercessor between a person and Christ.
Part of the problem with talking about salvation in the LDS church is that it gets confused with another concept: exaltation.
Salvation—Being washed clean of one’s sins in the blood of Christ and brought before the Judgment Bar of God.
Salvation is brought about entirely by the grace of Christ. He was not obligated to offer Himself a sacrifice of Himself for our sins, nor can we do Thing One to merit this grace. As sinners in our fallen state, we deserve only to go straight to hell: only through the unparalleled merits of Christ Jesus can our salvation be brought about.
This salvation is predicated on our repentance, which is not a “work” but rather a turning to Jesus for help out of this hole we’re in. A man in the Book of Mormon named Alma was a wicked, wicked man. He and his friends went about the land trying to destroy God’s work, but because of Alma’s father’s prayers, an angel was sent to stop him:
Now, I’m going to ask you to please direct your comments to the above passage and answer this question: is Alma’s experience inconsistent with your understanding of how Jesus saves souls?
Give me your answer and we’ll go from there.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:05 PM
insisting that mormons are christians is quite arrogant and beyond the pale. but His death and resurrection aren’t good enough for you OBVIOUSLY. you have to do your own works.
yeah what do the entire catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches know? with all our differences we all agree that mormons are not christians.
no the mormon Jesus does not save…you have to do works, according to your own web site. so He needs a little help from you apparently.
because you aren’t telling the whole story of mormon salvation. you are putting on the old spin job.
so which salvation are you talking about?
so the mormon ‘salvation by christ’ is a fig leaf to cover the doctrine of salvation-by-works…or as you call it exaltation.
you mormons use the same words but pour different meaning into those words.
and you wonder why christianity denies your claim of being christian.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Pearls!
Bambi on September 6, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Also, fellow LDSers:
I wouldn’t point to the folks who protest General Conference and call it evidence of persecution by Christians in general. Those guys are just one click away from the Westboro Baptist Church in their hatred of just about evabody.
They protest the Catholic Church, too, and seem more interested in being obnoxious than in spreading Christian love: which is why the local SLC Protestants stood against them that one time—to say “they ain’t with us.”
They’re just blowhards with megaphones. Nobody’s on their side but them.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Bambi:
Yes, you have a point. I’m hoping to reach the remnant.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:26 PM
I guess Paul, who apparently was never married, is in trouble!!
uh huh….
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Sweetie, I’m not done with the explanation of where works fit in.
Furthermore, I am quoting from the Book of Mormon, which trumps all of the web sites on the Internet, all of the tracts you can find, all of the books our folks have ever written…
…and all of the stuff your pastor has told you about what we believe.
Again I will ask you: does Alma’s experience seem incongruent with YOUR understanding of the grace of God? That’s all I want to know for now.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I’m not married, either and never have been. If you understood our doctrines, you’d know that neither Paul nor I am in trouble.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:32 PM
well honey I ain’t your sweety.
oh please isn’t every leader of the mormon church a prophet, and his word is law??
do you really want to get into the whole polygamy thing, and how and why it was abandoned?
and not letting black people become priests??
then all of a sudden changing it? your doctrine shifts like the wind.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:33 PM
so you are going to deny what your OWN LDS web site says????
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:34 PM
As for that stuff you’ve linked…
…is everything that the pastors in your church have ever ever ever said considered canonical?
Not in ours, either. Please stick to the subject that you wanted to discuss: the LDS understanding of grace and works and salvation and exaltation.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Does the Bible trump what your Church’s web site says?
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM
so your own church is peddling heresy!!!
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:37 PM
I didn’t want to discuss that…you did. I am more interested in the nature of God which you don’t seem to want to discuss…
shall we talk about the Telestial, Terrestial, and Celestial?
you know as well as I do that to achieve the highest level and become gods, you have to do the works.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:40 PM
oh please isn’t every leader of the mormon church a prophet, and his word is law??
No. The job of a prophet is to receive revelation for the church as a whole, rather than having every nut job claim to be getting revelation, too. They are not infallible oracles or dictators of any kind. It is our job to determine when the prophet is relaying the words of God and when he’s speaking as a man.
Brigham Young was a great leader, a great colonizer, and a great man, but he was not all that hot with doctrine. He said a lot of stuff in his day that is just plain Not Canonical.
I am becoming rather frustrated with this conversation because you seem to think that I’m trying to fool you or something.
Haven’t you dealt with atheists on the Internet who insist that they know exactly what Christianity is and why it’s so awful? Have you noticed how their arguments miss the point? When they quote the Bible or other Christians and make it sound really bad, are they arguing in good faith or in bad?
This is what it’s like for me to converse with you: you’re less interested in learning my perspective (not to agree with it but merely to comprehend it) than in insisting that we’re just as awful and wrong and awful as our enemies say we are.
What do you say? Is understanding the LDS perspective from an LDS interlocutor important to you or are you merely enjoying your Mormon-bashing?
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2183164/
so those quotes from the prophets of the mormon church are regarded as the word of God.
your protestations about them not applying are inaccurate.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:44 PM
You @ 9:13 p.m.
I don’t see how I could have misunderstood that…
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM
yeah you are. you’re not telling the whole story of mormon salvation for example.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM
I meant originally…thats why I brought up the trinity..but I decided to go with mormon salvation since you wouldn’t talk about the trinity.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:46 PM
oh of course, disagreeing with the mormons is ‘bashing’ them…you sound like a typical liberal stooge.
of course mormons NEVER bash christians…calling us apostate and all…right.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I thought I did talk about the Trinity and its establishment by the Council of Nicea, and how it was influenced heavily by Neoplatonism, a post-Biblical fusion of Greek philosophy and Christianity.
I also affirmed that the LDS do in fact believe that the Godhead consists of three distinct beings.
And I copped to the fact that we’re not Trinitarians nor do we claim to be, and also that Jesus never taught that we had to be Trinitarians to be saved.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Bruce McConkie states: “Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general” (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); “a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom” (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); “virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ” (Mormon Doctrine, p.269);
of course thats not ‘bashing’ right.
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:51 PM
oh of course, disagreeing with the mormons is ‘bashing’ themNo, disagreeing with Mormons is not tantamount to “bashing” us: insisting that we’re not Christian hurts, though, because we love Jesus with all our hearts and want to serve Him.It also feels like bashing when instead of listening to me, you drag the Internet for quotations to prove that I’m not being square with you.
Look, I don’t know what denomination you belong to, but if I wanted to know what you believed, I’ll ask you or one of the members of your congregation. No way would I cherry-pick junk off the Internet without asking you to clarify, nor would I rely on what other denominations said about you.
I know that you would not like me to judge your faith based on the opinion of your enemies: please extend the same courtesy to me.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:56 PM
That strikethough in my last was supposed to be a quote. Stupid buttons are next to each other and I’m a spaz.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 10:57 PM
so tell me what do you do with this verse: Isaiah 43
You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.
How can Jesus be the savior, when the Lord is the savior? the trinity is throughout the bible…
and there goes your chances of godhood…
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 10:58 PM
it hurts us christians when those who have radically different doctrines claim to be one of us.
if you wanted to know what my denomination believed you should go to the internet….and peruse their web site. why would you believe some anonymous poster on an internet web site?
why would I not believe what the catholics, lutherans, and every other denomination I have looked at when they all say the same things about the mormons?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 11:00 PM
(1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).
(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).
(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.”
http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 11:04 PM
lets not forget…
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 11:08 PM
In the OT, “LORD” is a substitute for YHWH, and the LDS believe that Jesus Christ, prior to His birth, was YHWY, the God of the Old Testament.
I could pull a similar one on you and ask how, when Jesus was being baptized, we had a dove to symbolize the Holy Ghost and also the voice of God saying, “This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)
And thus it appears that there were three separate persons represented in the tableaux.
I can also ask you whether baptism is necessary for salvation and if so how do you square that with salvation by grace only, and why then was Jesus baptized, or why did John baptize?
Or I can point to James 2 (“faith without works is dead”) and ask why Jesus and the apostles gave commandments regarding our behavior if we’re not to worry about works, or ask whether God canceled Amos 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” and then snark about how your church has neither prophets nor apostles nor any explanation of the Melchizedek priesthood (Hebrews 5) nor do you practice baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15: 29), though evidently they did in the early church, and Paul thought it legit.
Look.
If we’re going to shoot scripture at each other, we’ll get absolutely nowhere. As soon as you point to something that supports your beliefs, I’ll just point to another one that supports mine.
Any members of two or more Bible-believing denominations can do that, BTW; I did it plenty on my mission, and all to no avail.
How about this? You bear me your witness of Jesus Christ as I did here and we’ll call it good.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 11:16 PM
One what? The Israelites lived among polytheists, who picked and chose among a pantheon of gods to worship, whereas the Hebrews emphasized One True God.
The Old Testament doesn’t talk about three personages but a single essence anywhere, and in fact the Christian belief in the trinity is not contained in the OT. Which is why the Jews and Muslims consider it to be heresy.
dicentra63 on September 6, 2010 at 11:21 PM
there are 3 distinct ‘persons’ in the trinity, yet they are one.
no baptism is not necessary for salvation…see the thief on the cross.
works reveal our faith, they don’t have anything to do with our salvation.
then you are agreeing that mormon leaders are prophets!! then how can you deny the quotes I have posted from them…or what brigham young said about polygamy?
where did I say our church did not have those things…apostles are no more though…they are the ones who saw Jesus.
its a non-issue for christians…we sure don’t think you need it for salvation as do the mormons…
back to the original question..which Jesus, the jesus of the mormons, or the Jesus of the bible?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 11:23 PM
there you are wrong. the angel of the Lord…who was God. ever read Psalm 2 where it talks about the Son??
the Spirit of God moved over the waters in Genesis??
and let US make man in our image???
please.
so how do you square One God with Jesus being God, the father being God and the Holy Spirit being God?
right4life on September 6, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »