Mormonism not Christian...

[_thews]

You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness. You are Simon Belmont, bcspace and ldsfaqs all rolled up into one. You spew lies about Christianity to benefit your own needs while selling the word of the real Jesus Christ to convince people you actually believe them, when you know the snake oil you're selling is a lie. I hope you meet the souls you convinced through your words to follow the false prophet in Joseph Smith. I hope they tell you how your words convinced them to believe the words of Joseph Smith were true, even though you knew they came from occult magical rocks and incorrectly translated words from the pagan book of the dead. You can spew your "inspired" lies to them face-to-face, but know this Liz... you know this now. What were your conclusions Liz... cat got your tongue? Smile empty soul...

So much for my sharing my conclusions shutting you up as you promised.

You didn't share anything. What are your conclusions?

And you continue to twist my words, which I won't even bother to acknowledge point by point.

I didn't twist anything. You said Fanny tempted Joseph. You made it seem like you empathize with Joseph Smith. We're talking about a 38 year old man and a 16 year old girl. We have a predator and his prey, yet you side with Joseph Smith... your prophet of God. What if Fanny were your daughter... would you feel the same.

Everyone can read your venomous slur for themselves.

You don't need to speak for "everyone" here, just speak for yourself. You believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and you believe Fanny tempted Joseph... that's what you said. You are a liar from the word go, and your mission to incorporate Mormonism into Christianity while disbelieving in Mormonism defines you as a false witness. You are fake... a plastic empty soul, willing to deceive others to make yourself feel better.

Face it. No one here takes you seriously, Thews. You are the joke.

Shut the f*** up.

Ouch baby... very ouch. Does calling you on the carpet warrant your venom? Are you a moderator? If so, you clearly just insulted me using vulgarity... what is the punishment for this? Shades, I suggest you remove this shell of a honest human and replace her with someone with an ounce of integrity.

Call me anything you wish Liz.. I don't hate you. I hate they way you use your personal venue to attempt to contort the word of Jesus Christ into he word of Joseph Smith, who was nothing more than one hell of an evil human. If you had an ounce of sympathy for Fanny Algar, or Sarah Ann Whitney, or the many other women Joseph Smith used, you'd say something. no one knows your conclusions, and that's because you lack the intestinal fortitude to just state what you feel. You are the epitome of a false witness and use the name of Jesus Christ to further your own situation... smile empty soul.

[_thews]

I just saw this. by the way, thank you for your civil tone. Thews could learn from you, if he chose to.

Note to the board, this is Liz asking for support. Where is Jersey Girl when she needs her? Hens... please chime in.

There are portions of the Bible which I question being literal as well (the global flood, Jonah and the whale, etc.), and yet, I find the work, overall, to be an inspirational work. I look at the Book of Mormon the same way. If someone is going to go to great lengths to send a message that Christ is the savior of all mankind, then I believe it to be an inspired work.

BS... the words that came from magic occult seer stones and the pagan book of the dead are not Christian. What were your conclusions again?

[Guest]

I didn't "twist" anything. You are a poser who chooses to sell your snake oil under the pretense that Mormonism is in fact Christian, when there isn't anything Christian about Mormon doctrine.

So Christ as son of God and through his atoning sacrifice, savior of the world, is not Christian doctrine? Or do you mean to say that the other doctrines you don't like overrule the doctrines that are truly Christian in excluding Mormonism from the Christian category?

My point is the definition of "Christian" doesn't include the doctrine of Joseph Smith... that's what a "Mormon" is. What part of this is so hard to understand?

Would you mind giving me your definition of "Christian"?

A belief based on the new and old testament as its doctrine.

Just because you make yourself feel better by selling your BS to the itching ears, don't be so surprised when someone calls BS.

Same to you.

? neener neener.

You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness. You are Simon Belmont, bcspace and ldsfaqs all rolled up into one. You spew lies about Christianity to benefit your own needs while selling the word of the real Jesus Christ to convince people you actually believe them, when you know the snake oil you're selling is a lie. I hope you meet the souls you convinced through your words to follow the false prophet in Joseph Smith. I hope they tell you how your words convinced them to believe the words of Joseph Smith were true, even though you knew they came from occult magical rocks and incorrectly translated words from the pagan book of the dead. You can spew your "inspired" lies to them face-to-face, but know this Liz... you know this now. What were your conclusions Liz... cat got your tongue? Smile empty soul...

That's quite a lot of anger and hatred for someone presuming to speak on behalf of all of Christianity.

Well I guess you're the judge jury and executioner. Liz made the claims she come to some sort of conclusion, yet ran away from answering what it was. She continues to claim BY and Joseph Smith were monsters, yet shows empathy for their evil way. She is a liar who uses her own situation to twist reality into making Mormonism Christianity. Again, Christianity rejects Mormon doctrine. One cannot be a "Christian" while placing belief in the doctrine of Joseph Smith, because that would make them a Mormon by definition. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand in these definitions of what a religion encompasses and what it rejects.

[Guest]

That's quite a lot of anger and hatred for someone presuming to speak on behalf of all of Christianity.

Thanks, Mak! I suppose he forgot to include you in his list of apologists.

Translation: Thanks for backing me up while I fail to define my conclusions... I need all the help I can get, and your plastic support means a great deal to me.

Actually, he should be stunned that I am being defended by a male, which he obviously feels are more superior than females.

And here's where the liar that is Liz uses the old reverse logic Mormon attack mode. You defend Joseph Smith for screwing a 16 year old girl as her "tempting" him... you sicken me.

He referred to my female counterparts as "hags" in an earlier post.

If you could read, I used "hens" which would imply the use of this tactic you're using to garnish the much needed support you need to back up your lies. You are a false witness Liz... deny it all day... someday you'll admit the truth.

This shows how seriously posters here should take him.

Grow up. You're a liar Liz. You don't believe int he truth claims of Joseph Smith or you'd accept D&C 132... you don't... a false witness. Smile empty soul.

[_thews]

o Christ as son of God and through his atoning sacrifice, savior of the world, is not Christian doctrine? Or do you mean to say that the other doctrines you don't like overrule the doctrines that are truly Christian in excluding Mormonism from the Christian category?

Would you mind giving me your definition of "Christian"?

If Thews can take a moment away from his hate-fest, maybe he would be inclined to actually answer the above questions.

Translation... can someone, anyone, please jump in a take my back because you like me? I realize I'm a pathetic false witness who pretends to believe in Joseph Smith and package lies to make the itching ears believe in the truth claims of Joseph Smith under the banner of Christianity, but I don't care about the real word of Jesus Christ. What I care about is me, so please help me... please... just post something to show support... I need it.

[_Yoda]

Translation... can someone, anyone, please jump in a take my back because you like me? I realize I'm a pathetic false witness who pretends to believe in Joseph Smith and package lies to make the itching ears believe in the truth claims of Joseph Smith under the banner of Christianity, but I don't care about the real word of Jesus Christ. What I care about is me, so please help me... please... just post something to show support... I need it.]

Translation--My name is Thews. I don't have the balls to answer the questions posed my way so I have to resort to personal attacks. I am such a big man.

by the way, Thews, here is a present from Jersey Girl:


http://skreened.com/render-product/s/i/ ... 60h760.jpg

[Guest]

You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness.

Stuff it thews.
Did I mention that some Anabaptists were polygamists?

Ouch baby. If you actually believe I give a rat's ass what you think about anything, think again. You may want to replace your "stuff it" comment with something intelligent enough to answer. I get that you have Liz's back... she needs you.

You can start here thews:

While you are beating your chest about Trinitarianism and Mormons not being Christians, you are ignoring a whole load of Christian history. Christianity never was a unitary movement so give up on it. There’s never been one sole, solitary person who got to decide who is Christian and who isn’t. Although a good war could sometimes settle it.

Some people were heretics and some weren’t, but if you proclaimed ”belief in Jesus,” whatever that meant, you were a Christian. You might be a heretic, but you were a Christian.

Were historical Jesus and historical Judas on the same page? Were the Ebionites down with Paul? The principal way that Peter and Paul got along with each other is that they almost never had to see each other. Which ones were Christians and which ones weren’t? Support your answer. Then you can tell me whether Montanists and Manacheans were Christians.

Is it consistent that you could be a non-Trinitarian Christian before Nicaea but not after? Arians sacked Rome but they weren’t Christians, right?

Thought your priest should be personally worthy before your baptism would be effective? You’d make a fine Donatist, the first Protestants before there were even Protestants. If Christianity has never been unified, who has the power, and on what basis are you going to decide who is and who is not a Christian. With the use of a sharp sword, you might make some headway on who is a heretic, but by definition, a heretic is a Christian.

Then you have a whole lot of Gnostics who weren’t even sure that Jesus was really “man.” Then you’ve got Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars and Albigensians. May they rest in peace.

You can then go down the list of Christological heresies but when the clergy went home east from Nicaea, they preached a Trinitarianism that still looked a whole lot more like homoiousian than homoousian. And the only thing that saved the not so far Easterners for centuries is they could always claim that it was just tough to get Greek to align with Latin.

What did the “Christians” in Persia think? Is “essence” the same as “substance?” Can you cram a non-Chalcedonian Christ in to the Western understanding of the Creed? Nestor couldn’t.

What did the 6th century Christians in western China think? How do you say homoiousian in Mandarin? As far as we know, they didn’t have the Creed. They we too busy thinking about how one could be attached to Christ without being attached.

You can stick a Filioque in there too.

Where’s Waldo? Another Protestant before there were Protestants, he’s off being influenced by the Cathars and Albigensians. Does it matter? Well Waldensians deeply influenced Jan Hus, who met the fiery stake in the era of the 3 competing Popes. Hus deeply influenced the Anabaptists. Some Anabaptists claim a chain of ordination all the way back to the Waldensians. Anabaptists were the first in Europe (the world?) to argue for the separation of church and state, long, long before the French Enlightenment. And ignore the fact that you couldn’t get most of their Christology into the Creed with a giant shoe horn. Oh, they thought the only believers should be baptized, pretty much the biggest religious idea in the good old US of A and an idea the Donatists would be comfortable with. But are Anabaptists Christians?

Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Christian) where the Bible is silent, we are silent. Guess they are not Christian they couldn’t care less about the Creed.

Christadelphians, check
Oneness Pentecostals, check
Christian Scientists, check
John Locke, check
Issac Newton, check
Benjamin Franklin, check
Thomas Jefferson, check

Apart from a few generals, who has ever had the power to declare who is, or is not, Christian?

Nobody.

Christianity has always been a vast movement with some connection to Jesus, who may, or may not have existed in any meaningful way in connection with Christianity.

So when you say that Mormons are not Trinitarians, what is your point? The statement is tautological.

When you say Mormons aren’t Christians, you don’t understand Christian history. It makes no more sense than saying that Peter, James and John were Mormons.

lulu - heretically

[_KevinSim]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the organization.
Mormonism is the movemement.

I don't usually get involved in terminology debates, but I think in this case I'm going to make an exception. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that Mormonism is a movement?

I looked up Mormonism in Webster's New World College Dictionary (published by MacMillan), and it defines the noun Mormon as "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon Church), founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith: its sacred Book of Mormon was represented by Smith as his translation of an account of some ancient American peoples by a prophet among them named Mormon," and the adjective Mormon as "of the Mormons or their religion." Those two definitions are followed by: "--Mormonism n."

So from there I looked up -ism and got seven definitions, the fourth of which seemed to fit best: "the doctrine, school, theory, or principle of." So it's pretty clear to me that the definition of Mormonism is the doctrine, school, theory, or principle of the Mormon Church, which is a common name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you want to call it a movement you certainly may, but it looks to me like the dictionary clearly states that such a movement is inseparably connected to the LDS Church (much more than Christianity is tied to any Christian church), and therefore the leaders of the LDS Church have the perfect right to decide who is part of Mormonism and who is not.

[_KevinSim]

There are portions of the Bible which I question being literal as well (the global flood, Jonah and the whale, etc.), and yet, I find the work, overall, to be an inspirational work. I look at the Book of Mormon the same way. If someone is going to go to great lengths to send a message that Christ is the savior of all mankind, then I believe it to be an inspired work.

So, Liz3564, to you the Book of Mormon is kind of like those epistles of Paul that some scholars think weren't actually written by Paul, isn't it?

Those scholars say it was a common practice at the time for someone who was not some highly reputed author, to write a document in the style of that highly reputed author, and have the general population use that document as if it were written by the reputed author.

I don't personally believe that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon that way; I personally believe that the Book of Mormon is a story of what actually happened in the ancient Americas; but Liz3564, I've got to admit this is an interesting theory.

[_lulu]

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that Mormonism is a movement?

There are at least 150 denominations claiming to follow Joseph Smith. So I guess you're right, it's not a movement.