What actually is LDS Doctrine regarding...

[_Droopy]

"

Great" does not equate with "total."

It does in LDS doctrine. Do you understand that, as you claim, or are you just keeping up appearances here as Harmony does so assertively?

One could point to the historical record post-Joseph Smith and argue for "apostasy," even "great apostasy" in Mormonism, but it wouldn't necessarily equate with total, either.

This is sophistry, not serious critique, and please don't think I'm not aware of that state of affairs. The Church has changed not at all in its teachings or doctrines since its inception, even though it has left off some practices here and there. Its principles have remained as they were. You could make that argument because your own tenuous grasp of the overall structure of LDS theology allows you to logically leap over barriers that would otherwise restrain such intellectual adventurism.

We're still wondering about you since the "Jesus wasn't always God" gaffe.

I don't recall making that statement, but if I did, it certainly isn't a "gaffe". If Jesus was the first born of the Father, as LDS doctrine teaches, and as the book of Hebrews makes quite clear, then it must be the case that there was a time when Jesus was not a god, and was just beginning his development and evolution toward that point. Sounds like good LDS doctrine to me (and against, you wouldn't have said this is a "gaffe" if you really understood LDS doctrine and its implications, in the manner you claim you do).

This also accords well with the KFD and tumorous statements of the modern Prophets from Joseph to the present (and would include God the Father as well, who followed a path of progression and development to his position as the God of the universe).


Quote:
She clearly has no idea whatsoever how much this kind of gaff makes here appear to be a anti-Mormon poseur pretending to be a disaffected member on a message board.

See above.

No don't, as its irrelevant.

I said:

Yes, no kidding. The system that remained were altered, corrupted, and diluted forms of Christianity, but they were still forms. The restored Gospel is about the presence of the true, authorized Kingdom of God being upon the earth, not who is or is not a "Christian". One can be a Christian while still outside the divinely instituted Kingdom.

hana:

Not according to Christ. And by that definition, most "Christians" would find Mormonism safely outside.

I'd advise you to begin a serious program involving the study of the Bible hana, especially the New Testament, as its loaded with references to an impending apostasy from the true Gospel, anticipated by Jesus' apostles throughout the New Testament record. Indeed, it was clearly under way in Paul's own time, according the New Testament texts he himself wrote.

Outside it? Or without it?

Both, depending upon individual circumstances...

I await your treatise on how the Holy Ghost fits into this equation.

I have no idea how he fits into this equation. Nothing has been revealed on that subject as of this time.

I don't know that we teach that.

Given your level of doctrinal knowledge as thus far displayed on this board, I could, at all events, write a book about what you don't know the Church teaches.

[_the road to hana]

"

Great" does not equate with "total."

It does in LDS doctrine. Do you understand that, as you claim, or are you just keeping up appearances here as Harmony does so assertively?

I understand that you are convoluting two different things. You're trying to rely on the historical record which you assert supports apostasy, and you believe in the LDS assertion of total apostasy.

The faithful LDS has no other alternative that to try to make the historical record fit the presumption, but it is incorrect to state that the historical record is clear on total apostasy. It isn't. It admits to apostasy. Only those who need it to be complete and total project that onto the history.

[_Droopy]

The faithful LDS has no other alternative that to try to make the historical record fit the presumption, but it is incorrect to state that the historical record is clear on total apostasy. It isn't. It admits to apostasy. Only those who need it to be complete and total project that onto the history.

Happily, the historical record does support the concept of total apostasy, if by total one means, as the Church does, the substantial loss of doctrine, and the total loss of Priesthood authority (also included would have to be the total loss, in stages, of the higher ordinances, which took some time, not disappearing permanently, so it seems, until after their brief reappearance under Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century)

Your argument only holds water if the term Christian is used in a very generic sense to mean one who believes in and follows Christ. If it is used to define one who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ as organized and understood in the 1st century by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and comprehending the divine ministerial authority of that organization, as well as a complete and unadulterated body of doctrine and ordinance, then the apostasy was total, and the historical record does, indeed, imply such.

[_Droopy]

The faithful LDS has no other alternative that to try to make the historical record fit the presumption, but it is incorrect to state that the historical record is clear on total apostasy. It isn't. It admits to apostasy. Only those who need it to be complete and total project that onto the history.

Happily, the historical record does support the concept of total apostasy, if by total one means, as the Church does, the substantial loss of doctrine, and the total loss of Priesthood authority (also included would have to be the total loss, in stages, of the higher ordinances, which took some time, not disappearing permanently, so it seems, until after their brief reappearance under Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century)

Your argument only holds water if the term Christian is used in a very generic sense to mean one who believes in and follows Christ. If it is used to define one who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ as organized and understood in the 1st century by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and comprehending the divine ministerial authority of that organization, as well as a complete and unadulterated body of doctrine and ordinance, then the apostasy was total, and the historical record does, indeed, imply such.

[_the road to hana]

The faithful LDS has no other alternative that to try to make the historical record fit the presumption, but it is incorrect to state that the historical record is clear on total apostasy. It isn't. It admits to apostasy. Only those who need it to be complete and total project that onto the history.

Happily, the historical record does support the concept of total apostasy, if by total one means, as the Church does, the substantial loss of doctrine, and the total loss of Priesthood authority (also included would have to be the total loss, in stages, of the higher ordinances, which took some time, not disappearing permanently, so it seems, until after their brief reappearance under Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century)

Your argument only holds water if the term Christian is used in a very generic sense to mean one who believes in and follows Christ. If it is used to define one who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ as organized and understood in the 1st century by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and comprehending the divine ministerial authority of that organization, as well as a complete and unadulterated body of doctrine and ordinance, then the apostasy was total, and the historical record does, indeed, imply such.

Your first and second paragraphs here contradict each other.

I challenge you to name one thing that Joseph Smith "restored" that did not already exist on the face of the earth at the time he "restored" it.

Quakers on the Moon don't count.

[_Jason Bourne]

There isn't a simple answer to what official "doctrine" is regarding Latter-day Saints being Christian, pirate. The early leaders of the LDS Church were openly hostile to "Christians" and "Christianity," and set themselves up in opposition to it. It's only been in more recent years they have tried to be included in the broader concept of "Christian."

This simply is not true. Early LDS leaders were hostile to what they viewed as an apostate, fallen and false Christianity. They never viewed themselves as not Christian. Ineeds they viewed themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ and thus The Christians Church. During the early to mid 20th century this rhetoric was toned down. And now I would agree that the LDS Church has attempted in some ways to appear more main stream in its Christian flavor. But the LDS Church has always considered itself to be Christian.

Clearly LDS leadership would prefer to distinguish themselves from the greater Christian community in the sense that they see it as apostate, however. And since they feel a sense of "ownership" over the term "Mormon," and to whom it can or cannot be logically or realistically applied, they need to understand that two thousand years of Christianity has yielded, if nothing else, a sense of a guarding of its own gates, and deciding who or what is or is not truly a part of the Christian community, and can rightly be called "Christian."

I have no problem with this on it face. But Mormonism even in the historical sense is a subset of Christianity. It is not orthodox Christianity nor does it claim to be.

You can find plenty of early quotations from LDS leaders critical of, if not openly hostile to, Christians, and Christianity.

Openly hostile to what they viewed as apostate Christianity that was in also exacerbated by the shabby treatment they received often at the hands of these so called Christian leaders and their flocks.

Are Mormons Christians? Yes. Are they Christian? Debatable.

No not really. From a historical sense you can call them pseudo Christian or heritical Christian but not non Christian. From the LDS view in the purest sense they claim to be THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH and the rest are apostate.

[_JonasS]

The points that Coggins bring up are all principles I was always taught growing up LDS.

Some of the contradictions that Harmony brings to the discussion are also things I have wondered about.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a scriptural or doctrinal reference which stipulates that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament?

Thanks!

:)

I find this thread funny and a joke. I aimed this thread specificaly at Coggins and am shocked at his reply. So what more can I say?

Of course I knew/know the churches teachings regarding these areas, but it is really good how such a simple thread can prove just how much of a hypocrit Mormons can be.

[_skippy the dead]

<snip>

Unrelated to the content of the thread, but pertinent nonetheless: Do you think you can pick a screen name and stick to it? It's kinda weird when you reply on your own thread using a different screen name.

[_Droopy]

Your first and second paragraphs here contradict each other.

Could you explicate this further, as I do not see the contradiction.

[_Droopy]

I find this thread funny and a joke. I aimed this thread specificaly at Coggins and am shocked at his reply. So what more can I say?

Hmmmm. When I flame, people are shocked. When I give calm, reasoned answers to questions, people are shocked and dismayed.

Do ya feel lucky punk? Well do ya?