Mormon Simplicity and Reasoning (A response to Swamp)

[Porter Rockwell]

Although my friend Mahonri has been preparing a more detailed response to prior posts by Swampmonster [hereafter "œSwamp"�], I thought I would at least take some time to present some alternate ideas.

Swamp has stated that "œMormonism is vastly different from Christianity because of several reasons, one of the essential reasons being its teaching on the concept of God. Mormonism"™s god differs in three primary respects from the God of the Christians. However, The Church of Jesus Christ is Christianity in the utmost. However there have been in recent years (approximately the last 20 years) a much greater push by Non- Denominational Evangelical Christians combined with former, ex-communicated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to declare the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This push has been primarily been led by noted, but untrustworthy ex-Mormon Ed Decker. Decker was ex-communicated from the Church for adultery and apostasy. I find it interesting that those who profess themselves to be Christians will accept his brand of lies and misrepresentation often found in the arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It has taken some time, but once a more proper and calm dialogue between Evangelicals and Christians has occurred, more Evangelicals have come to understand the LDS Christian perspective in greater detail. Noted Evangelical Theologian and President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw (one of the largest in North America) has called for Evangelicals to have a greater understanding. He spoke at the LDS Salt lake Tabernacle November 14, 2004. during an "˜Evening of Friendship. At the event Mr. Mouw said:

"¦I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.

The full two page text, posted by Mouw himself can be found here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15656_1.html

In addition, here took some real heat from Evangelicals on specific issues. He has written a response that shows his further clarification on issues here:

http://www.standingtogether.org/Responses_mouw.doc

Swamp and others, I would ask you to pay particular attention to his comments regarding Othodoxy and Mormons being Christian. Although he does not clearly state in this treatise, he does state that Mormons CLEARLY ARE CHRISTIANS[/b], maybe just not so much as people see it in an Orthodox sense. This Mouw clearly states in his preface to this book here:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...8760&itm=2

With all due respect to Swampmonster or any like him, I find it seriously illogical for him to come to a website to tell me what I believe. Whether one has been an LDS Christian and been excommunicated or decided to leave and asked that their name be removed from Church records or has never been an LDS Christian, my prior statement remains the same.

Again, with all due respect and no offense intended, Swampmonster began his thread "œMormon Duplicity and Illogic"� with several of what I believe to be arrogant, inflammatory and misleading claims. In fact, he has gone so far as to claim that we Mormons "œMormons ferociously (and I think dishonestly) exploit this elasticity of words when dealing with critics of their doctrines. It has been my personal experience that they unfairly abuse history, claiming certain meanings existed in the past that never existed at all."�

Now, I cannot climb into the experience box of swampmonster, but for him to go so far as claiming that we are dishonest, exploitative, is stretching the elasticity of his own words, not ours.

Swampmoster, I would ask you to seriously read Mouw"™s words and contemplate the reasons while you feel it necessary to "œexplain"� our doctrines as dishonest, abusive, elastic or whatever you may feel. I do not know if you pertain to any affiliated religion, but your posts take on the flavor of an Non Denominational Evangelical, Ex-Mormon Orthodox Catholic. Quite the trifecta eh? My point is: Could you head the advice of Richard Mouw and please not seek to dictate what my religions believes or not believes. I think you have some good ideas, but mistaken as to key issues.

It has taken time for several Evangelicals and friends of other faiths to work through the issues first promulgated by Ed Decker and his associates about Mormons. Such stereotypical rhetoric is outdated. Most Evangelicals who choose to see what our true doctrine is can clearly see past the arguments that you make that were first made by Decker et. al. Some such as:

1) "œMormon heaven is a bit like a gigantic pyramid scheme, except that it has three essential parts."�
2) I think very few people will read my posts. But I am posting for the one out of a thousand who honestly wants to see these issues from a reasoned point-of-view. When we approach the issue from reason, we find the Mormon view is a bogus corruption of history.
3) I think very few people will read my posts. But I am posting for the one out of a thousand who honestly wants to see these issues from a reasoned point-of-view. When we approach the issue from reason, we find the Mormon view is a bogus corruption of history.
4) I aim to record here for Christians, atheists and agnostics, a plainly reasoned presentation on a variety of historic issues, all strongly demonstrating how and why Mormonism is unchristian.

These are prime examples of inflammatory wording and phrasing that is given in explicitly anti-Mormon Books such as The God Makers and others. Much of what you said appeared to be the typical way of telling inaccuracies rather than seeking to understand. Here are a few additional examples of disjointed jargon from the Godmakers that are similar phrasing as yours:
Other examples of non objective and inflammatory language in the book the Godmakers:
1. "A deliberate scheme that got out of hand" (101:6).
2. "Mormons believe this amazing tale" (26:24).
3. "The Church has . . . built a monument to its own astonishing hypocrisy" (208:9).
4. Those who pray to know the truth about Mormonism will be given a "yes" answer, but from Satan (170:18).
5. It is perverse to pray about the truthfulness of Mormonism (170:14).
6. Temple Square is a tourist trap (85:24).
7. "Many early Mormon leaders were liars, cheats, adulterers, and seducers . . . claiming 'divine revelation' to justify their crimes against humanity" (152:4).
8. Joseph Smith was an "egomaniac" (221:10) and a "wanton adulterer"(169:last 2)
9. "False prophecies, broken promises, lies, deception, egomania" are the truth about Joseph Smith (226:21).
10. "Obsessive ambition of world domination [by the LDS Church] is . . .secretly plotted" (234:24).
11. Wearing the LDS temple garment is "like wearing a rabbit's foot'(189:14).
12. "A shocking expose of what the Mormon Church really believes" (front cover).
No wonder, with loaded emotional language like this, some have said The God Makers is its own worst enemy. I would hope that you too would not use this kind of emotional language and near "œverbal violence"� expressing what you THINK I BELIEVE[/b]. In my opinion, such loaded language only shows you own lack of reasoning and highly illogical and unfounded claims.[/b]

The reason is asked if you are speaking for Evangelicals or all Christians is because not all Evangelicals are preaching the same old distorted rhetoric you continue to post on your thread. Greg Johnson is local Baptist minister who is working to bridge the gulf with Latter-day Saints, I do not see him or others he is working with calling us liar, deceivers, deliberately misrepresenting the truth and twisting logic. Read his views along with Millet here:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon233.html

Ravi Zacharias was also at the December meeting last year, but he too has expressed his notion of unfair Evangelical treatment of Mormons in the past (certainly not all evangelicals, but speaking of extreme fundamentalists). His comments are here:
http://www.christianpost.com/article...bernacle/1.htm

Although I have not responded to the first parts of your thread, Mahonri has said he would like to do so as he can. Although not official doctrine of the Church, he will respond to your criticism of the King Follet discourse.

I an effort to help you seek to understand what I really do believe and what is truly taught in my Church, I should mention that although they are many key concepts and principles in that particular discourse, there are many reasons that it is not official doctrine. I would hope that you would follow Mouw"™s suggestion to understand and abide by what I know to be official doctrine, rather than attempting to call me a liar and use past Church history and comments as such. Rarely is there any reference in any of our meetings made to the KFD. Furthermore as to our official doctrine, it must past two tests before becoming official.

1) Any doctrine that is binding for the Church must be REVIEWED and REVEALED by the First Presidency of the Church and Quorum of the Twelve. It is called the Doctrine of Presidency and is found in Official Church canon here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/107/22#22

2) All doctrine that is reviewed and revealed must be established by a vote of all the Church members. This is called the Law of Common Consent. It is found here: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/28/13#13

3) The King Follet Discourse, The Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine and the writing of Church authorities unless submitted, reviewed, stamped, voted on by common consent ARE NOT OFFICIAL CHRUCH DOCTRINE! You may want to call this spurious, deceptive, misleading etc. It is not. It is history and opinion unless it has passed the Presidential test and the vote of common consent. Please do not try and tell me otherwise! I know there are certain accounts on the web or among evangelical circles that Mormon doctrine does not need an official vote concerning these books. Malarkey! This is where I say, please don"™t try and teach me my own doctrine when you are not a member of my faith. You take what is my history and attempt to make it my doctrine. Such interpretations come from Non-Mormons, Anti-Mormons and Mormon Fundamentalists. At least a few top ranking Evangelicals like Mouw, Mosser, Owen, Blomberg and others understand this. I am hoping that more of the Evangelical community and friends of other faiths will recognize this.


I know there have been differing or dissenting opinions as to the doctrines of the Church. The First Presidency issued a statement to help clarify such statements. It reads: "œDoctrinal Standard of the LDS Church-How to Decide Doctrinal Questions.

Q: Where two writers, in as many Church works, hold to different opinions on a question, as is sometimes the case, how am I to know which is correct, or which is the view held by the Church?

A: The revelations of God are the standards of correctness. When a difference appears in writers, the enquirer must reach the truth by examination from that standpoint. If it can not be reached by the word of the Lord in the standard Church works: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, the enquirer must wait until it shall please the Father to give more light on the subject by revelation. Improvement Era Vol. 6:233 (Jan. 1903), "Questions and Answers"

It appears that you may have some questions and concerns about Orthodox Christianity and LDS Christians. Furthermore, you appear to have some difficulty with statements given by current LDS President and Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley in reference to orthodox Christianity. I would hope that you would not try and read SELECTIVELY into his statements, but truthfully and fully. Not all of the entire quotes and context you gave was present. Select and abbreviated references do not do justice to the entire view of Orthodox Christianity. As I have time I will answer this in the future.

However, one argument I clearly do not understand that you present is baptismal orthodoxy and acceptance. Why do you bring in a highly polemical and emotionally laced argument about the Pope not accepting Mormon Baptisms? I can give you hundreds of citations that for the past 500 years Protestants have not accepted Catholic orthodoxy and baptism and vice versa. Other than wanting to selectively pick on Mormons why would you raise such an argument and give a post to a certain site? That is a highly illogical and unwarranted accusation and reference to LDS Christianity. If you are an Evangelical, will yours be accepted as well. There are hundreds of disputations that say "œno"� or "œnegative."�

One final thought to your post. Just because the LDS canon teaches that God lives near or in the orb of the planet Kolob, it is nothing something we go out and teach everyday. I really couldn"™t give a rip if its Kolob, Corn-on-the-cob, or shish-ka-bob! Now I don"™t know your hear to r your intent, but you intent appears to be just like Ex-Mormons Decker and Hunt that Mouw, Mosser and Owen condemn. It would appear that your intent is to shock with information that is really rather obscure and undefined "œdoctrine"� rather than just to be kind and informative.

So Swampmonster, if you want to present the fact, present them honestly. However, before even doing so, do what Mouw suggests, ASK, DON"™T TELL! Why? Because most of the time you may just not know what you think you know!

God Bless,
Porter.

[mr-pirk]

Porter, not trying to be sarcastic, but do you understand that by the content of your post on this thread, you ARE making Swamp Monster's point ("Mormon Duplicity and Illogic")
for him don't you?

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[Judyboi]

Mr. Pirk,
I don't know, maybe I am blinded to it for unknown reasons, but I don't see how Porter's post shows duplicity and illogic. It would not be duplicit nor illogical to go the source to find out what they believe. It is not duplicit nor illogical to ask the actual subject what they believe. It is duplicit and illogical to state for yourself what someone else believes, while you yourself don't fully know. That is a collective "you" just btw.
I don't claim to know what you exactly believe in, I don't dictate your beliefs, do not dictate mine.
Thanks,
Jonathon

[mr-pirk]

Jonathon

Since you addressed me in your post I will attempt to offer a few examples of what I am seeing in Porter's and Swamp Monster's discourse.

Porter or Mahonri offered up the concept that Mormon\LDS teachings were\are simply just different teachings of the Christain faith, if Porter didn't start the statement he certainly endorsed it.
The idea being put forth was that while being different, it was still the same. Duplicity.
Mormon\LDS teachings are not what Jesus taught, nor are they in agreement with what Jesus and his apostles taught.
Porter or Mahonri cited several sources explaining that the early Christian scholars endorsed what the mormon\LDS teachs.
Those cites didn't hold up to closeexamination. Swamp Monster showed it as such. Porter wasn't able to refute it, we are still awaiting Mahonri's input on the issue.
Porter has yet to be ablerefute any of the cites Swamp Monster has offered. Perhaps Mahonri will do better, huh.

Porter rather than address the cites that Swamp Monster has made, has only offered up the weak excuse of impuning the charcater of any source other than an offical LDS cite.
With any other religion, NON- Mormon\LDS, we find folks that go from one sect to another and we can find them saying such things as " I was UPC but I started going to a Catholic church" and vise-a-versa. The reasons for their change can be examined and accepted as personal decisions.
What is Porter's approach to such folks that have left the LDS and their reasons why?
He hasn't taken on their reasons from a intellectual stand-point but rather hasattacked their personal life. Duplicity.
Porter demands offical mormon\LDS doctrine when confronted with Joseph Smith's words.
The mormon\LDS nor Porter accept the KFS, king follit<sp> sermon, as doctrine even though Joseph Smith claimed to have a close relationship with God and to have recieved revelation for mankind from God. Illogic.
The sermon Joseph Smith gave was most certainly in regard to claims of revelations from God to Joseph Smith.
The mormon\LDS try to dismiss the outragous statements made by Joseph Smith in that sermon with the dodge that "It isn't offical doctrine". Duplicity.
Moses had a personal relationship with God, Christianty hangs on every word Moses said concerning what was revealed to him by God about God.
Joseph Smith compared himself to Moses, yet the mormon\LDS faith distances it's self from Joseph Smiths claims of revelations from God. Duplicity and Illogic.

Even the with offical LDS doctrine citesPorter didn't refute what Swamp Monster stated, Porter just dismissed it with
" Just because the LDS canon teaches that God lives near or in the orb of the planet Kolob, it is nothing something we go out and teach everyday. I really couldn"™t give a rip if its Kolob, Corn-on-the-cob, or shish-ka-bob!" Illogic.

Porter uses the word "polemical" and enhances it with "highly"... Porter"Why do you bring in a highly polemical and emotionally laced argument about the Pope not accepting Mormon Baptisms? "
po·lem·ic (p-lmk)
n.
[ol][*]A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.[*]A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.[/ol]
in referance to Swamp Monsterstwo cites concerning other faiths views of themormon\LDS faith. Porter introducedthe idea of the Catholic Church endorsing the mormon\LDS faith, not Swamp Monster. Duplicity.

Swamp Monster only offered two citesrefuting other faiths accepting\endorsing the mormon\LDS teachings, he could have offered many. Yet Porter uses the words highly polemic to describe Swamp Monsters post. Duplicity.

Judy Boi\ Jonathon there is much more I could go into but I know I am wasting my time with you. You are imo blind to "it". The "it" being a logical examination of the mormon\LDS teachings.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[Porter Rockwell]

Pirk

Judyboi can be free to offer a response to you as well, however, since so many of your comments to him are addressed to me in a roundabout manner, I will answer them the best I can. In so doing, I will be asking some questions of you as well. I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions, it will be easier I believe to track the issues that you have in regards to LDS Christianity.

Question #1: Did you read any of my links to other Top Evangelical writers and clergy? Did you understand what they were stating by asking LDS Christians rather than dictating to them? Are there other things you would like to mention concerning what they had to say? Do you understand where I am coming from when I say, "œDon"™t dictate my doctrine, and ask me about it?"�


Pirk stated: Porter or Mahonri offered up the concept that Mormon\LDS teachings were\are simply just different teachings of the Christain faith, if Porter didn't start the statement he certainly endorsed it.

Porter: Pirk, I posted some things that Steve Robinson mentioned in regards to the early Christian faith. I did start that thread and I do endorse it. That said, Steven Robinson and other LDS Authors are not my primary source when it comes to the nature of God and man. The Holy Scriptures are my primary source. The quotes by Robinson are meant as an addendum to what I had posted from scripture earlier.

Question #2: Did you read my comments prior to the Robinson (Yes, word for word post) about the nature of God? The reason I ask is because from your response and from swamps, it does not appear to be so.

Pirk: The idea being put forth was that while being different, it was still the same. Duplicity.

Porter: If you will read my earlier posts, what was offered by Robinson was put there to show that Early Christians had similar (and in some aspects the same) beliefs as what LDS Christians do. This is what I mean when I say please ask me and don"™t tell me! I believe you took it that because I posted the info, that was exactly what LDS Christians believe about the nature of God and "œbecoming Gods"�, it is not (I will get to that when I can in an additional post.)
Pirk: Mormon\LDS teachings are not what Jesus taught, nor are they in agreement with what Jesus and his apostles taught.

Porter: In a minute I will show that the nature of God and of man is clearly taught in the scriptures by Apostles, Prophets and even Jesus himself (Again, my next post will show this).

Pirk: Porter or Mahonri cited several sources explaining that the early Christian scholars endorsed what the mormon\LDS teachs.

Porter: Again, here is a case where you could ask, and answers could be clarified. I still see here that you are attempting to tell me what I did instead of asking me and confirming it with me. Again, what was offered by me via Robinson is an explanation that many of the early Church Fathers held the same or similar beliefs as present day LDS Christians. As I said earlier, some of the ECF"™s did hold close to the same opinion, others it was not exactly the same but like doctrines were taught. Sure there were differing opinions and some things were not ­exactly the same.

Pirk: Those cites didn't hold up to closeexamination. Swamp Monster showed it as such. Porter wasn't able to refute it, we are still awaiting Mahonri's input on the issue.
Porter has yet to be ablerefute any of the cites Swamp Monster has offered. Perhaps Mahonri will do better, huh.

Porter: Swampmoster was able to point out one incorrect citation by Robinson. You know what, I"™m grateful that he did. It will make me check my sources a bit more carefully before posting something next time. I thank him for that. However, the one incorrect quote to Ireaneus does not change the fact that other supporting statements by Robinson do support not only the nature of the LDS position, but the doctrine as well.

Furthermore, Swamp put on a lot on information on this issue, I simply do not have time to go back through and check all of his sources and his arguments. I have a few copies of ECF;s and ante-Nicene sources. Mahonri has them all, therefore he will check the sources and respond.

Furthermore, you make it sound as though since I have not responded, I am so soundly defeated. I do not have all of the time nor the desire to go back and hash and rehash all of the arguments. However, I felt that since he 9Swamp) was "œkind"� enough to take the time to offer the arguments, they should be answered. Mahonri said he wanted to and is currently working on drafting a response. He too is busy with work and many other details of life. He will post his response as soon as he can. I simply cannot take the time. That doesn"™t mean I cannot respond or I"™m just sitting here bewildered at Swamps post and just can"™t come up the any sound argument to refute it. Be patient and you"™ll get a sound answer from Mahonri.

Pirk: Porter rather than address the cites that Swamp Monster has made, has only offered up the weak excuse of impuning the charcater of any source other than an offical LDS cite.

Porter: Pirk, from what I learned early on from my days of debate in high school, there has to be initial sources that are agreed upon for that debate. If you have ever been apart of a professional debate, the first part of the ground rules are to establish what is clear cut material and what is out of bounds.

If you want to talk duplicity then ponder on this. Anti-Mormons generally will demand that the LDS Christians accept past history and doctrine as initial sources of debate. Some is official, some is not. The Official LDS cite is exactly that---"œOFFICIAL!"� When you attempt to take unofficial doctrine or sources, you are not following the rules or guidelines of what is "œdebatable."� I have never heard of anyone who plays by the rules or who uses official sources and material as "œweak."� However, I have seen many others who are anti-Mormons who don"™t play by the rules and want to make what is unofficial-official. Sometimes , those like Decker and the Tanners have taken what is even unofficial and sliced into quote to try and make it fit their argument. Thye have consistently done this with the unofficial sources such as the Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, etc.

I find it interesting that those who have never been a part of my church, studied my doctrine or attended my meetings try and pass themselves off as a baptized, confirmed member of my Church by attempting to tell me what I believe. That is highly illogical, duplicitous and downright deceptive! So, please refer to question #1 and answer it as if you were Blomberg, Mosser, Owen or other highly respected evangelicals. They certainly have some differeing opinions as to our doctrine, but before attempting to refute it, they have gone to LDS official sources and scholars and understood the ground rules and the doctrine. Are they weak? Are you attacking their character?If you are, you are attacking some of the best minds and hearts the Evangelical point of view has to offer. They make it simple and logical certainly not duplicitous and illogical.

Pirk: With any other religion, NON- Mormon\LDS, we find folks that go from one sect to another and we can find them saying such things as " I was UPC but I started going to a Catholic church" and vise-a-versa. The reasons for their change can be examined and accepted as personal decisions. What is Porter's approach to such folks that have left the LDS and their reasons why? He hasn't taken on their reasons from a intellectual stand-point but rather hasattacked their personal life. Duplicity.

Porter: Question #3 Pirk, have you ever been in an LDS Church disciplinary council when someone is being disfellowshipped or excommunicated from the Church? No, I don"™t think so. Have you ever sat in a council when someone has decided to come back into full fellowship? No, I don"™t think so. Since you have not, do you know the reasons why people leave the Church? No, you might get the flavor of the month from ex.mormons .org, or some other site, but rarely will you won"™t get the actual truth. Why do I know this, because I have been a part of the disciplinary process with members of my Church for a number of years. I have been a part of this process as I have lived in Utah, New York, Italy, England, Texas and Tennessee, the people are different, but the issues are generally the same!

You are asking me to take on their intellectual arguments, I have already done so in those councils! Furthermore, the nature of those councils are confidential. I want to respect and individuals right to that confidentiality. Furthermore, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not necessarily an "œintellectual"� thing. We believe that the Spirit of God is the most important thing in making decisions. We believe that man, woman and child can be guided and directed by the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, I have not had time to expound on this issue as I probably should on this site. I began a bit with Chuck, but did not have time to build upon my statements. Ex-Members "œintellectual"� arguments are generally non debatable because those members lack the proper Spirit to even "œdebate"� the word of God rationally, logically, but more important---Spiritually!

Although the instances are fairly rare, how do you expect a man who has cheated on his wife, or sexually abused children, or views the filth of pornography every day or takes advantage of his neighbor by cheating him out of his life savings to carry the proper spirit of God with them everyday? How do you expect a member who is so downright arrogant that they question nearly every decision about anything their bishop or any other ecclesiastical leader has asked of them or encouraged them to follow?. Do you think their "œintellectual argument"� is really going to be based upon the light and truth given by the Spirit of God? I know it is not! When it is not, they then go "œdigging"� into the mine of Mormon misnomers and statements to obtain the "œtruth"� of the LDS Christian position. They think they have found the golden nugget that will disprove the Mormon heir to the kingdom of God. However, all they have really found is fools gold, because what they think is the backbreaking nugget of truth, was never intended to the "œthe Truth"� in the first place. In reality, all they have done is find something to justify their un-Christlike behavior in a fools attempt to "œprove"� that LDS Christianity is not true. This is human nature. Believe me, I have been involved in the study and application of this for years.

Pirk: Porter demands offical mormon\LDS doctrine when confronted with Joseph Smith's words. The mormon\LDS nor Porter accept the KFS, king follit<sp> sermon, as doctrine even though Joseph Smith claimed to have a close relationship with God and to have recieved revelation for mankind from God.

Porter: Again Pirk, I do not know what has soured you. However, I really feel this is a blatant attempt for you to put words in my mouth that are not mine.
Much of what Joseph Smith was taught by the Lord is clearly LDS doctrine. Some is Joseph"™s opinion. He clearly meant this when he stated himself, "œA Prophet is a prophet only when acting as such."� Mahonri and myself have given you several sources as to where you could go to discern when Joseph was speaking as a prophet and when he was speaking his own opinion. Question #4: Have you even gone to look at those references? If so, what are your thoughts about them? Can you see the differences? This is not only logical, but simple![/b]
[/b]
Pirk:The sermon Joseph Smith gave was most certainly in regard to claims of revelations from God to Joseph Smith.

Porter: Some of what you state is true, however, rather than tell me, why not ask me? In addition, once you have asked me, lets go over what YOU feel are his claims to revelation. In addition, the official doctrine and most important revelation about the nature of God was when God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph in answer to his humble prayer. Second would be the theophany received found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 76. Simplicity[/b].

Pirk: The mormon\LDS try to dismiss the outragous statements made by Joseph Smith in that sermon with the dodge that "It isn't offical doctrine". Duplicity.

Porter: What is duplicitous is when anti_mormons or the ill informomed attemt to set up a double standard. The ignorant want to have an LDS standard, however, when we give them one, they create another for us. I would see this as highly duplicitous, deceptive and illogical. When one will follow what is given to them as the standard, the critique of doctrine is simple and much more logical.! Again, top evangelicals take this pure and simple approach, why not try it yourself?!?[/b]

Pirk: Moses had a personal relationship with God, Christianty hangs on every word Moses said concerning what was revealed to him by God about God. Joseph Smith compared himself to Moses, yet the mormon\LDS faith distances it's self from Joseph Smiths claims of revelations from God. Duplicity and Illogic.

Porter: Again you set a standard that most prophets cannot meet. This has been discussed previously. Please go back to my question and statements under #4 and you will see that not only I have responded to this, but Mahonri has as well. Asked and answered your honor! Simplicity[/b] if one will stick to what has already been mentioned!

Pirk:Even the with offical LDS doctrine citesPorter didn't refute what Swamp Monster stated, Porter just dismissed it with " Just because the LDS canon teaches that God lives near or in the orb of the planet Kolob, it is nothing something we go out and teach everyday. I really couldn"™t give a rip if its Kolob, Corn-on-the-cob, or shish-ka-bob!" Illogic.

Porter: I brought this up because it is a "œdoctrine"� that really does not matter. So what if there is an actual place that we can call God"™s nearby home. We also term it his humble abode, "œHeaven,"� "œThe Throne of God."� "œThe place where God Dwells."� And many others. Why didn"™t you choose to show where our official statements are on that? I suspect because you have borrowed this rhetoric from Decker and Hunt (The Godmakers) because they made the statement in an attempt to shock any uninformed Non Mormon of what we think about heaven. They conveniently left out the names I have just used for God"™s resting place just like you have.

From the very same book of scripture you quote about Kolob, you forgot to mention what else is considered official. Here is some help for you:





Abraham 2:7For I am the Lord thy God; I dwell in aheaven"¢; the earth is my bfootstool"¢; I stretch my hand over the sea, and it obeys my voice; I cause the wind and the fire to be my cchariot"¢; I say to the mountains"”Depart hence"”and behold, they are taken away by a whirlwind, in an instant, suddenly.

Abraham: 4:8And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second atime"¢ that they called night and day.

Question #5: Instead of trying to shock non LDS, why didn"™t your or Swamp show these official verses as well? There are hunders of others which refer to Gods abode as this. There are only 2-3 that even mention Kolob. Do you see the simplicity and logic when things are given in context with more available information than what you have offered?
In addition, Gilbert Scharfs addressed your same accusation in his The Truth about the Godnmakers. He stated from the Godmakers: Page 234, lines 33-35

The God makers: "[The LDS] 'God' is an extraterrestrial from Kolob, definitely not the God of the Bible."
Scharffs response : [/b]Isn't the God the authors believe in an "extraterrestrial"? LDS doctrine does not state that God is from Kolob. The LDS Pearl of Great Price actually says that Kolob is a planet that is "nigh unto" the place where God dwells (Abraham 3:9). God is God, and his nature will remain the same, regardless of what the authors. Latter-day Saints, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, or anyone say he is. The Latter-day Saint concept is one of many concepts believed by different people on this earth. Latter-day Saints have reasons, additional scriptures, the testimonies of those who have seen God, and the words of living prophets to support their view. They also appeal to the seeker of God to pray to him for guidance. See discussion with page II, line 15; page 26, line 24; page 216, lines 1-5 and lines 11-19 which show the LDS concept of God is biblical.
Pirk, if your intent is to quote from deceptive anti-Mormons that have been condemned by the most respected Evangelical clergy at large, I would suggest that you quote from their full argument and not just part of it.
Pirk: Porter uses the word "polemical" and enhances it with "highly"... Porter"Why do you bring in a highly polemical and emotionally laced argument about the Pope not accepting Mormon Baptisms? "
po·lem·ic (p -l m k)
n.

A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.[/ol]
Porter: Question #6: Why did you use the noun form rather than the correct use of the word "œPolemical"� as I used it in adjective form. When one uses it in adjective form as I did; it makes complete sense.

adj. also po·lem·i·cal (- -k l): Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation.

Let"™s try using it in a sentence. "œThe Popes decision on baptism is one of many issues of orthodoxy that has been considered by some Catholics and former Catholics as highly polemical in nature."� This statement is not only grammatically correct, but truthful as well. Not all Catholics or the members of other faiths agreed with his decision. Therefore it was controversial and many attempted to refute it. Simple and logical English grammer and usage.

Pirk, I really feel you are attempting to nit-pick. In fact this most recent point on the use of language seems to fit what Isaiah stated about those who have the Spirit of contention and take offense: Isaiah 29:21:That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
Please. From now on, ask me what I believe and stop attempting to tell me. I would greatly appreciate it.

God Bless,
Porter.

[mr-pirk]

Porter I will study your post and try to offer a response. I, like you have many irons in the fire right now and we both know how time slips away.

You have made a stand here that I find intresting, it concerns debating and the most basic rules for such.
I once did some study on a fellow named StarJade. You can learn a little about him with a simple Google.
He was\is able to believe what he believes the bible say's by excluding everything that disagrees with his notions.

Debate rules.
You say that even a highschool debate team member knows what is in-bounds and what is out-of-bounds.

If you rule Joseph Smiths words areout of bounds then you must logically defend such.
Simply offering the defense of "What the LDS rules is offical is offical" doesn't work.
The offical mormon\LDS church has changed positions on offical doctrine on more than one issue.
There must be a better explaination than what ever is more PCis doctrineor it isbullshimp.
There must be some logic offered.
Otherwise it becomes duplicity and illogic.

I would say the very first step is deciding which words of Joseph Smith should be considered logically "revealed by God", do you agree?

I know this may put a strain on your beliefs because you may have to decide for yourself and go against offical mormon\LDS doctrine. ( I make this statement to you in no way to be sarcastic--- I know you believe what you believe---, Is what you believe logical?)

Is what an ex-mormon say's to belogicallydismissed out of hand, or should what they have to say, be examined as one who is familiar with current mormon\LDS doctrine?

Porter I have read a number of threads concerning the validity<sp> of the bible. I can understand the reasons behind some of them

Porter I ask this of you in all honesty. Do you believe that we don't have enough of the older bibles and scriptureintact to be able to judge Joseph Smiths words as being from God and being in agreement with God's word and being worthy of being biblical?

Porter I made a post on Swamp Monster's thread you may want to review before offering a response here.

I have other issues with your post here that I will attempt to address at an earlier hour.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk

[Porter Rockwell]

Pirk,

Thanks for the response. Thanks for being willing to study my post. First and foremost though I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions directly that I asked. I do understand that you have much to do. I will be away for a few days this week and may not be able to post much at all. I hope part of what your irons are include heating up the rifle iron in preparation for hunting or using a nine iron occasionally on the golf course (two that I enjoy anyways).

Pirk: You have made a stand here that I find intresting, it concerns debating and the most basic rules for such. I once did some study on a fellow named StarJade. You can learn a little about him with a simple Google. He was\is able to believe what he believes the bible say's by excluding everything that disagrees with his notions.

Porter: Never heard of this guy, but I will take a look when I have a moment. Thanks for the source.

Pirk:Debate rules. You say that even a highschool debate team member knows what is in-bounds and what is out-of-bounds. If you rule Joseph Smiths words areout of bounds then you must logically defend such.

Porter: It depends on what words you are claiming I am offering. So far (correct me if I am wrong) the two things that have been most heavily debated in regards to Joseph Smith have been the Joseph Smith Translation and the King Follet Discourse. Both are highly regarded as very good sources of either A) correction or B) doctrine. However, they have never been officially endorsed by the A) The doctrine of Presidency or b) The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Pirk: Simply offering the defense of "What the LDS rules is offical is offical" doesn't work.

Porter: I ask you, why not? What is official is the standard works including the KJV. I"™ll admit that there should probably be a continuum of sources that one could work with. I gave you the statement by the 1st Presidency that stated this. After the standard works of the Church, any official declaration of the first presidency would be second. Any messages of doctrine by the first presidency would be third. Fourth would be unpublished revelations by the First Presidency (see the compilation by Fred Collier) since some of these were considered official because they were contained in the Book of Commandments (An example would be the Lectures of Faith by Joseph Smith, they were canonized previously and then removed later).

Another good resource down the line would be the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It is not an official Church publication, but contains many of the letters and messages of doctrine by the 1st Presidency in its compilation of doctrine by topic alphabetically.

Once you have exhausted these resources for a statement of clear doctrine, then you could start to look at other resources like Gospel Doctrine, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Discourses of Brigham Young etc. However, the most important point to follow is this: One must look to the current Prophet first before looking to past sources. If current President Gordon B. Hinckley has not made a statement concerning specific doctrine, then goes to the prior prophet, Howard Hunter, then Ezra Taft Benson, then Spencer Kimball and so on back down the line.

Why should this be done? This is a clarion point that is missed by so many who attempt to criticize our doctrine: the current prophet holds all the keys to revelation from God. He can speak officially in conjunction with his two counselors on official doctrine for the Church. Usually if he speaks separate of the two, he may be speaking his own opinion.

For example. In our current Church Publication, the Ensign, there is counsel from President Hinckley encouraging the church membership to focus on reading the Book of Mormon in its entirety by the end of the year. One who reads the article may feel that this is good advice or counsel by a prophet on his own for us to do so. One might even say, "œWell that is President Hinckley"™s opinion!"� It is good advice and counsel that should be hearkened. However, both he and his two counselors send a memo to every Bishop and Stake President of the Church worldwide this month declaring that such "œcounsel"� is actually doctrine and that each and every member of the Church should make every effort to read the book of Mormon in its entirety by the end of the year. Now what one may have thought to be his good counsel and advice becomes official doctrine and statement for the Church as a whole.

However, if someone who wanted to criticize the Church they could say "œlook here, your official church publication; the Ensign has a statement by your Church president that says you need to read the book of Mormon by the end of the year. Why aren"™t you doing it? It says right here by your church President that you should do so!"� Let"™s say the official declaration by the 1st Presidency to Bishops and Stake President didn"™t come out and I said to you, "œI think that is President Hinckley"™s opinion and it is good counsel."� You would then say to me, "œbut your president said so, how can you say it is good advice, it is doctrine, look it says it right here on page 2!"�

It doesn"™t become binding doctrine for the Church unless it has become so by the doctrine of Presidency. Official statements by the First Presidency are doctrine, not singular statements or compilations of statements by past Church presidents, apostles, other church authorities or LDS religion professors or scholars. If you want to criticize my religion, then use the standard works, letters and messages of the first presidency first, then use the continuum I have given you. However, it may be difficult. Please underline and highlight this. The reason it would be difficult is because so many of those statements (ie letter and official doctrine are almost always given solely to Church members). They are read over the pulpit during our sacrament meetings and followed up with by church Priesthood leaders thereafter. They are not available to the general public. This is why is angers me so much that individuals attempt to tell me what my doctrine is when: a) They are not a baptized member of my Church b) You do not attend my meeting where official doctrine and statements are not only read, but taught. If you really want to know what we teach, stop reading anti-Mormon and Ex-Mormon material and come see for yourself! I offer that same statement the Lord gave with a twist,"�If any man wants to know my doctrine or my will, come as see for yourself."�


Pirk: The offical mormon\LDS church has changed positions on offical doctrine on more than one issue.

Porter: Again, rather than choosing what is official doctrine for me, why don"™t you ask me what is such? Does it meet the criteria I just gave you? What doctrines are you referring to? Who stated them and "œmade"� them official? I will agree that there have been differing opinions concerning some things that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith made by other Church Prophets or Presidents. For an answer follow the rules I have given you. 1) Is the doctrine contained in the standard works of the Church 2) Was it uttered singularly or as an official statement by the first Presidency. 3) Was it ratified by the vote of common consent by 12 Apostles and/or the membership of the Church. 3) Has a more recent prophet uttered something that would supercede what was said previously (remember, the current prophet is entitled to revelation concerning now, the present. What he says (primarily in conjunction with is counselors) is what the Lord would speak now.

Pirk: There must be a better explanation than what ever is more PCis doctrineor it isbullshimp.

Porter: I assume your PC means politically correct? I think the term Prophetically Correct would be a better acronym for the purpose intended. We believe that when the prophet speaks doctrinally, not his own opinion, he speaks for the Lord. If you want to call "œopinion"� B.S. that is your choice of words, not mine. Both myself and Mahonri gave you the criteria to judge a prophet by. Do you remember it?

Pirk: There must be some logic offered. Otherwise it becomes duplicity and illogic.

Porter: I have given you the ground rules. They are very SIMPLE and LOGICAL if you will abide by them. Those who desire to twist or contort our doctrines usually don"™t.

Pirk: I would say the very first step is deciding which words of Joseph Smith should be considered logically "revealed by God", do you agree?

Porter: Absolutely, fire away. I have given you some examples. If you want to establish something, go for it. However, I really do prefer the standard works. The words of the Lord are given to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants. Choose anything there you so desire.

Pirk: I know this may put a strain on your beliefs because you may have to decide for yourself and go against offical mormon\LDS doctrine. ( I make this statement to you in no way to be sarcastic--- I know you believe what you believe---, Is what you believe logical?)

Porter: Thanks for your concern. Pirk, I mentioned before, not everything I believe is explained "œlogically."� I have been criticized many times by atheists for the feelings and knowledge I have of Jesus Christ. My testimony of Jesus Christ initially came from reading his word. However, it was the Spirit of God that confirmed Christ"™s pre-mortality, birth, life, teachings, expiation, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. Later on in life, it was that same Spirit that confirmed to me the truthfulness of the mission of Joseph Smith and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That is what I will always rely on the most. The word is confirmed by the Spirit. The Bible clearly teaches that.
Pirk: Is what an ex-mormon say's to belogicallydismissed out of hand, or should what they have to say, be examined as one who is familiar with current mormon\LDS doctrine?

Porter: I already mentioned to you what the "œSpirit"� of ex-Mormons really is. I have experienced it personally. How about a few "œunofficial"� but very purposeful quotes by Joseph Smith that might help explain the situation better:

"œThose who have associated with us and made the greatest professions of friendship, have frequently been our greatest enemies and our most determined foes, if they became unpopular, if their interest or dignity was touched, or if they were detected in their iniquity; they were always the first to raise the hand of persecution, to calumniate and vilify their brethren, and to seek the downfall and destruction of their friends. (Times and Seasons 3:868)

and additionally,

"œI will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."� (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 3:385).

Let me ask you this question and then I will answer the following ones you have posited. Have you ever had someone at work or a family member who has become offended with you for some reason? Maybe you know the reason, maybe you don"™t. However, because they took offense, the culmination of the one "œsin"� they had against you automatically becomes two and then three and then four and so on.. You may try all you can to reason with the individual, but the more you do, most of the time the more offended they become and eventually the three or four "œsins"� or misunderstandings become untruths that then attack you and your character. That is what happens when you deal with those who have been a part of us and then return to criticize and condemn us. Would you want to associate or discuss the sordid details of your own life with someone who"™s intend is to blackball you? Probably not, if you do, come on over to my house. I have a couch you can lay on and tell me all about it!

So, do I want to have a conversation with you based on ex-mormon propaganda that is laced with lies, misrepresentations and "œillogical"� criticism? Heavens no. My answer to you is, what not read our standard works (in their entirety) for yourself and look for questions and answers. As I have asked you several times before, why would you go to someone or something that is involved with the piecemeal practice of dissecting our doctrine to suit their own ILLOGICAL and very unchristian purposes?

Why not do as I suggested with other top evangelical scholars like Mosser, Owen, Blomberg, Mouw and others have done? Read things in their entirety. While your at it. While you do that, why not read it with the power of faith granting the possibility that it "œmight"� be true. The Spirit of God does not work through criticism and condemnation. It offers peace and happiness (Galatians 5:22-23) Why not read to be complimentary rather than critical? You may disagree or have certain questions, but they can be answered through faith.

I don"™t see why Swamp wants to take away the laurels and demonize the academic degrees of the aforementioned scholars other than to try and discredit them for his own selfish purposes. When I read the Bible, that doesn"™t seem very Christilike behavior to me. These men are highly respected authors in their field of study or practice from the pulpit among their evangelical congregations. Like I said, they disagree with much of Mormon teachings, but they work to find ways to agree on what is most important (Ie faith, grace, some works, etc). A very good book that you may want to read that will compare some of the beliefs of several different religions in comparison with our is this:

Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views byRoger R. Keller and Robert L. Millet

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100110306

It is a piece of comparative religion working together to share in views of Christ. Should that not be the goal of all Christians as they work against the powers of darkness and the adversary? We have enough to battle against Satan, why not work together to find common beliefs and rejoice and share in Christ together rather than seek to be divisve and see each other as the enemy?

I believe (and he can correct me if I am mistaken) Swamp would have you believe that not only are Mormons evil, their doctrine is corrupt, but any evangelical or free thinking Christian who might agree in principle with us should be condemned. Again, that seems to me to be very self serving and unChristlike.

Pirk:Porter I have read a number of threads concerning the validity of the bible. I can understand the reasons behind some of them Porter I ask this of you in all honesty. Do you believe that we don't have enough of the older bibles and scriptureintact to be able to judge Joseph Smiths words as being from God and being in agreement with God's word and being worthy of being biblical?

Porter: I have made just abut every attempt to explain what the LDS position is on this. If you want to discuss inerrancy, we can. However, I think I have made the position clear. We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated, transcribed and transmitted correctly. We believe that the original Church lost much of the teachings of Jesus due to apostasy prior to the original authographs being written. Pretty hard to prove if you use things other than the scriptures themselves, the writings of Josephusand a few other sources. Not much able to verify that. However, if one does believe in the writings of ancient prophets in the book of Mormon etc, there is more to offer. Funny how people hypocritically say to us "œShow me the Gold plates then and I"™ll believe what your Book of Mormon has to say!"� I would respond, "œShow me the original autographs and lets compare!"� We both know that they are not available to us are they. So one must use the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that of faith in him and his teachings through prophets, current and past.

Pirk: Porter I made a post on Swamp Monster's thread you may want to review before offering a response here.

Porter: I didn"™t see the post, I was engulfed in "œswamplogic."� I only looked on page 5 though, so excuse me if I missed it. Maybe you can clarify in your next post.

God Bless,
Porter

[Porter Rockwell]

Swamp, Mr. Pirk et al.

There have been claims that LDS Christians are not really Christians and that we do not believe as Orthodox Christianity does. In a sense this is true. However this must be explained with a more clear explanantion thatn just we don"™t believe like orthodox Christians do. The claim has also been made that we do not believe in the Bible about God the way other Christians do. This is patently false. We believe the bible as it is translated correctly. We also believe there is much therein that will clearly justify the LDS Christian case for Biblical belief in God in the manner in which we represent.

However, Swapmonster (hereafter Swamp) believes this not to be the case . He states: Nevertheless because the Bible and ancient Christian authorities have applied the word "œgod"� to men in a symbolic sense, Mormons disingenuously exploit the elasticity of the word to claim ancient Christians believed men could become true gods as Mormons believe.

Porter: Before we can even begin to discuss the ancient Chrristian claim, lets look at our Biblical claim. I am hoping that one will be able to clearly read through what even swamp claimed himself when he said: "œI am intellectually hostile to Mormonism. So I am going to try to reveal the error of the Mormon view as I see it, and I am going to try to do it so that no honest reader will wish to disagree."�

On this flip side of Swamp, I am not hostile to wards any view, however, I do not feel he has accurately represented the Lds Christian position. I believe that if one will pay attention to the honest detail I present, you will have a much more clear view of what LDS Christians believe about the corporal and spiritual nature of both God and Man. One can be Spiritually minded and come to the correct conclusions.

Many of you here have stated that you believe that God hears and answers your prayers. I would ask you to use your heart and mind in finding the answer of what I state to be true or not. Swamp has appealed to pure logic by stating: "œI am not interested in debating Mormons. My interest here is to engage Christians, atheists and agnostics - people who by simple reason know that Mormon belief is not Christian, but who are not yet able to systematically demonstrate why it is not Christian."�

Now, I am not asking you come aboard and join my church (although the invitation is always offered). However, I am asking you to reason and if you so desire topray with me to know that what has been shared by Swamp is not what I believe, nor what Evangelicals or other free thinking Christians have said about my faith.

Lets first take a look at the nature of God as we believe it to be and see if our thought fall in line with the Bible or not. I"™ll start with a few statements about Joseph Smith and then move to the Bible.

Though Latter-day Saints extensively use the scriptures to learn about God, their fundamental knowledge concerning him is based upon the Prophet Joseph Smith's first vision, the Prophet's subsequent revelatory experiences, and individual personal revelation. While mankind may reason or speculate concerning the existence of God, and his nature, the principal way by which they can know about God is dependent upon his revealing himself to them (see Testimony of Jesus Christ).
When Gid the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 the Father introduced the Son and then asked the son to speak saying "œHear ye him."� Why? Because the Son speaks for the Father. When dealing with man ((John 12:29) For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Although that scripture applies to a different situation, the principle in speaking to Joseph through the Son is the same.

Jesus Christ then stated several things. However one of the most pertinent was that after Joseph asked wchich Church he should join, the answer was none of them. Said here: (Joseph Smith-History:19.) My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)"”and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their CREEDS were an abomination in his sight; that those PROFESSORS were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the POWER thereof."

So, here are several things where LDS Christians may differ through Smith theophany:
1) God the Father and Jeus Christ were two separate beings
2) No religion on the face of the earth at the at time could be called Christs
3) The Creeds (which I will mention in a minute) were an abomination
4) Those who created the creeds, the professors or religion at the time were corrupt
5) The Power to act in the name of God was lost an only had a semblance of what Christ gave when he gave it in its truth and clarity.

Lets first tackle items #2and #3 and then we can tackle the notion of God under #1. The we will get to the power issue in #5.

The creeds Jesus Christ referred to came first in A.D. 325, the date of the first Christian ecumenical council at Nicaea, the nature of God was debated by philosophers and people of faith. Since then, the concept of God has been the subject of ecumenical councils, philosophical discussions, and creeds.

In the year 325, the Council of Nice was convened by the emperor Constantine, who sought through this body to secure a declaration of Christian belief that would be received as authoritative, and be the means of arresting the increasing dissension incident to the prevalent disagreement regarding the nature of the Godhead and other theological subjects. The Council condemned some of the theories then current, including that of Arius, which asserted that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore could not be coeternal with the Father. The Council promulgated what is known as the Nicene Creed; and this was followed in time by the Athanasian Creed over which, however, controversy has arisen as to authorship. fn The creed follows: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as few.

The Church of England teaches the present orthodox view of God as follows: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness." The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's person and attributes, as shown by the citations already made.

We affirm that to deny the materiality of God's person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole, and an immaterial body cannot exist. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of "body, parts, or passions," as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation.

None of these is the source of the LDS understanding of God. To be sure, many classical arguments for the existence of God have been advanced, including the ontological arguments of Anselm, the five "proofs" of St. Thomas Aquinas, the teleological argument of Descartes, the ethical argument of Leibniz, and the postulates of practical reason of Kant. As impressive as any of these might be as achievements of the human intellect, none of them is the source of faith in God for Latter-day Saints, whose faith is based upon personal testimony grounded in personal experience based upon scripture.

Since Joseph Smith's day, the Christian world has moved in this direction by acknowledging that creeds are "historically conditioned," and that confessions of faith are to be seen as "guidelines" rather than as final pronouncements. However, many consider them as Orthodox and attempt to exclude LDS Christians or others based on the fact that they do not follow such creeds and therefore are not a part of mainline or mainstream Christianity. Some, but not all will then say that LDS Christians are "œnot really Christian."�

.
The major creeds, in large measure, deal with the Godhead; they describe the members of that holy trinity as being three-in-one, incomprehensible, unknowable, uncreated, incorporeal, and without body, parts, or passions. Names of the members of the Godhead are applied to vague forces or essences that have little resemblance to the true Beings whom men are commanded to worship. This is what Christ spoke of when he spoke to Joseph about the Creeds and those who corrupted them.

Now why do we hold to these thoughts that may not be a part of mainline Christianity? The easiest way to look at this issues by understand the nature of God the Second or God incarnate, even Jesus Christ. In my next post I will use biblical examples to show that the nature of God based upon our living example we have in Jesus affirms the LDS Position.

God Bless,

Porter.

[mr-pirk]

Porter Question #1: Did you read any of my links to other Top Evangelical writers and clergy? Yes.

I do understand what they were saying.

Question #2: Yes I did to the best of my memory.

Important Porter " That said, Steven Robinson and other LDS Authors are not my primary source when it comes to the nature of God and man. The Holy Scriptures are my primary source."

Question #3No

Question #5: (I can't find question 4) A half truth isn't proven by the half that is true or maybe true.

Porter never mind about StarJade. If "being out there" was a scalefrom 1 to 10 you being a 5 on true Christian belief, he is a 10.
I shouldn't have clumped you two together.

You have repeatedly asked for a person to ask you what you believe.

I ask these simple questions.
Using the Bible answer the following questions.

How old is God the Father?
How old is God the Son?
How old is the Holy Spirit?

Is any one of the three older than any of the ones?

Thanks
Mr-Pirk


Ok, I had overlooked question 4.

Porter: Again Pirk, I do not know what has soured you. However, I really feel this is a blatant attempt for you to put words in my mouth that are not mine.
Much of what Joseph Smith was taught by the Lord is clearly LDS doctrine. Some is Joseph"™s opinion. He clearly meant this when he stated himself, "œA Prophet is a prophet only when acting as such."� Mahonri and myself have given you several sources as to where you could go to discern when Joseph was speaking as a prophet and when he was speaking his own opinion. Question #4: Have you even gone to look at those references? If so, what are your thoughts about them? Can you see the differences? This is not only logical, but simple![/b]



Perhaps this will answer several questions for you.
What has soured me on the LDS.

Your attempts to dismiss parts of what the "prophets" of the LDS taught.

One of the things that soured meon the LDS.

Mr. Young stating that if a white man in a moment of weakness had a mixed-race child, that man would be doing the world a favor if that man brought the child forth and cut it's head off.

What has soured me to your approach to witnessing of the LDS. You have not once called Mr.Young a false prophet, NO prophet of God EVER taught such a thing!

You have tap danced around it just the same as I am sure you will do with this post.

Toimply that the views, regarding race,of Mr. Young and Mr. Smithweren't accepted as revelations from God by the mormon\LDSlooks decietful.

What they taught about race is disgusting.

Thanks
Mr-Pirk[/b]

[mr-pirk]

Important Porter " That said, Steven Robinson and other LDS Authors are not my primary source when it comes to the nature of God and man. The Holy Scriptures are my primary source."

Porter
" Though Latter-day Saints extensively use the scriptures to learn about God, their fundamental knowledge concerning him is based upon the Prophet Joseph Smith's first vision, the Prophet's subsequent revelatory experiences, and individual personal revelation ".

Porter lets limit ourselves to the Bible for the moment, would you agree that God isn't going to say anything that is NOT in agreement with the bible?

Thanks
Mr-Pirk