Evangelicals, Mormons on Same Side of Cultural Divide

c814t

c271t [a] [/a]

c80t [a] [/a]

c144t [a] [/a]

c682t [a] [/a]

c234t [a] [/a]

c315t [a] [/a]

c642t [a] [/a]

c55t [a] [/a]

c162t [a] [/a]

c482t [a] [/a]

c125t [a] [/a]

c801t [a] [/a]

c803t [a] [/a]

c423t [a] [/a]

c607t [a] [/a]

c723t [a] [/a]

c201t [a] [/a]

c164t [a] [/a]

c594t [a] [/a]

c679t [a] [/a]

c941t [a] [/a]

c920t [a] [/a]

c375t [a] [/a]

c753t [a] [/a]

c196t [a] [/a]

c681t [a] [/a]

c602t [a] [/a]

c502t [a] [/a]

c418t [a] [/a]

c136t [a] [/a]

c845t [a] [/a]

c443t [a] [/a]

c907t [a] [/a]

c807t [a] [/a]

c306t [a] [/a]

c829t [a] [/a]

c845t [a] [/a]

c283t [a] [/a]

c806t [a] [/a]

c582t [a] [/a]

c832t [a] [/a]

c625t [a] [/a]

c632t [a] [/a]

c677t [a] [/a]

c788t [a] [/a]

c784t [a] [/a]

c72t [a] [/a]

c398t [a] [/a]

c642t [a] [/a]

c957t [a] [/a]

c715t [a] [/a]

c155t [a] [/a]

c650t [a] [/a]

c680t [a] [/a]

c742t [a] [/a]

c674t [a] [/a]

c702t [a] [/a]

c366t [a] [/a]

c609t [a] [/a]

c249t [a] [/a]

c254t [a] [/a]

c707t [a] [/a]

c672t [a] [/a]

c857t [a] [/a]

c688t [a] [/a]

c397t [a] [/a]

c283t [a] [/a]

c977t [a] [/a]

c587t [a] [/a]

c427t [a] [/a]

c424t [a] [/a]

c27t [a] [/a]

c688t [a] [/a]

c985t [a] [/a]

c375t [a] [/a]

c626t [a] [/a]

c876t [a] [/a]

c520t [a] [/a]

c653t [a] [/a]

c782t [a] [/a]

c614t [a] [/a]

c272t [a] [/a]

c560t [a] [/a]

c358t [a] [/a]

c292t [a] [/a]

c891t [a] [/a]

c368t [a] [/a]

c929t [a] [/a]

c662t [a] [/a]

c723t [a] [/a]

c176t [a] [/a]

c718t [a] [/a]

c418t [a] [/a]

c996t [a] [/a]

c62t [a] [/a]

c241t [a] [/a]

c819t [a] [/a]

c354t [a] [/a]

c59t [a] [/a]

c762t [a] [/a]

c470t [a] [/a]

c700t [a] [/a]

c270t [a] [/a]

c10t [a] [/a]

c670t [a] [/a]

c128t [a] [/a]

c361t [a] [/a]

c257t [a] [/a]

c949t [a] [/a]

c86t [a] [/a]

c882t [a] [/a]

c124t [a] [/a]

c394t [a] [/a]

c468t [a] [/a]

c865t [a] [/a]

c473t [a] [/a]

c167t [a] [/a]

c831t [a] [/a]

c56t [a] [/a]

c456t [a] [/a]

c237t [a] [/a]

c280t [a] [/a]

c786t [a] [/a]

c885t [a] [/a]

c157t [a] [/a]

c320t [a] [/a]

c517t [a] [/a]

c533t [a] [/a]

c412t [a] [/a]

c725t [a] [/a]

c243t [a] [/a]

c866t [a] [/a]

c615t [a] [/a]

c374t [a] [/a]

c98t [a] [/a]

c702t [a] [/a]

c443t [a] [/a]

c957t [a] [/a]

c718t [a] [/a]

c301t [a] [/a]

c382t [a] [/a]

c807t [a] [/a]

c820t [a] [/a]

c407t [a] [/a]

c793t [a] [/a]

c841t [a] [/a]

c467t [a] [/a]

c778t [a] [/a]

c674t [a] [/a]

c788t [a] [/a]

c806t [a] [/a]

c205t [a] [/a]

c806t [a] [/a]

c595t [a] [/a]

c819t [a] [/a]

c548t [a] [/a]

c43t [a] [/a]

c771t [a] [/a]

c872t [a] [/a]

c559t [a] [/a]

c1000t [a] [/a]

c199t [a] [/a]

c486t [a] [/a]

c275t [a] [/a]

c480t [a] [/a]

c87t [a] [/a]

c362t [a] [/a]

c866t [a] [/a]

c220t [a] [/a]

c833t [a] [/a]

c856t [a] [/a]

c90t [a] [/a]

c360t [a] [/a]

c680t [a] [/a]

c32t [a] [/a]

c757t [a] [/a]

c123t [a] [/a]

c11t [a] [/a]

c793t [a] [/a]

c940t [a] [/a]

c925t [a] [/a]

c974t [a] [/a]

c454t [a] [/a]

c840t [a] [/a]

c694t [a] [/a]

c354t [a] [/a]

c693t [a] [/a]

c920t [a] [/a]

c684t [a] [/a]

c144t [a] [/a]

c828t [a] [/a]

c75t [a] [/a]

c219t [a] [/a]

c127t [a] [/a]

c283t [a] [/a]

c687t [a] [/a]

c248t [a] [/a]

c781t [a] [/a]

c156t [a] [/a]

c892t [a] [/a]

c404t [a] [/a]

c421t [a] [/a]

c337t [a] [/a]

c306t [a] [/a]

c496t [a] [/a]

c85t [a] [/a]

c319t [a] [/a]

c770t [a] [/a]

c831t [a] [/a]

c218t [a] [/a]

c224t [a] [/a]

c143t [a] [/a]

c482t [a] [/a]

c821t [a] [/a]

c555t [a] [/a]

c877t [a] [/a]

c436t [a] [/a]

c603t [a] [/a]

c590t [a] [/a]

c330t [a] [/a]

c290t [a] [/a]

c522t [a] [/a]

c536t [a] [/a]

c129t [a] [/a]

c765t [a] [/a]

c921t [a] [/a]

c184t [a] [/a]

c872t [a] [/a]

c933t [a] [/a]

c879t [a] [/a]

c910t [a] [/a]

c648t [a] [/a]

c363t [a] [/a]

c26t [a] [/a]

c514t [a] [/a]

c763t [a] [/a]

c106t [a] [/a]

c778t [a] [/a]

c683t [a] [/a]

c434t [a] [/a]

c818t [a] [/a]

c347t [a] [/a]

c872t [a] [/a]

c714t [a] [/a]

c2t [a] [/a]

c267t [a] [/a]

c578t [a] [/a]

c901t [a] [/a]

c309t [a] [/a]

c146t [a] [/a]

c378t [a] [/a]

c193t [a] [/a]

c196t [a] [/a]

c729t [a] [/a]

c996t [a] [/a]

c29t [a] [/a]

c793t [a] [/a]

c733t [a] [/a]

c725t [a] [/a]

c269t [a] [/a]

c646t [a] [/a]

c22t [a] [/a]

c687t [a] [/a]

c162t [a] [/a]

c107t [a] [/a]

c803t [a] [/a]

c541t [a] [/a]

c2t [a] [/a]

c443t [a] [/a]

c296t [a] [/a]

c517t [a] [/a]

c990t [a] [/a]

c361t [a] [/a]

c107t [a] [/a]

c432t [a] [/a]

c348t [a] [/a]

c25t [a] [/a]

c727t [a] [/a]

c410t [a] [/a]

c6t [a] [/a]

c709t [a] [/a]

c503t [a] [/a]

c723t [a] [/a]

c486t [a] [/a]

c403t [a] [/a]

c266t [a] [/a]

c976t [a] [/a]

c204t [a] [/a]

c976t [a] [/a]

c277t [a] [/a]

c620t [a] [/a]

c631t [a] [/a]

c48t [a] [/a]

c579t [a] [/a]

c469t [a] [/a]

c117t [a] [/a]

c490t [a] [/a]

c440t [a] [/a]

c419t [a] [/a]

c404t [a] [/a]

c518t [a] [/a]

c962t [a] [/a]

c11t [a] [/a]

c633t [a] [/a]

c460t [a] [/a]

c886t [a] [/a]

c356t [a] [/a]

c993t [a] [/a]

c457t [a] [/a]

c66t [a] [/a]

c80t [a] [/a]

c178t [a] [/a]

c235t [a] [/a]

c701t [a] [/a]

c518t [a] [/a]

c660t [a] [/a]

c40t [a] [/a]

c410t [a] [/a]

c592t [a] [/a]

c984t [a] [/a]

c797t [a] [/a]

c748t [a] [/a]

c148t [a] [/a]

c214t [a] [/a]

c558t [a] [/a]

c410t [a] [/a]

c25t [a] [/a]

c972t [a] [/a]

Under 'Mr. Mark' half truths and lies are stated as being what Mormons believe. To bad real 'Mormon' beliefs are not reflected.
1. God is an advanced being who is spirit housed in a glorified celestial body of flesh and bone. He still has His spirit which is in an advanced state of glorified existence.
2. Jesus Christ, Lord of the New Testament and
Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament are the same being. The Spirit of Christ has an influence upon all mankind toward good. In a way this is a trinity of Christ in which Mormons do believe as well as that it was Christ, the Word,
that created the heavens and the earth and did exist before the foundation of the world. What Mormons consider in addition is that Jesus Christ was not his own Father. The Doctrine of the Father as taught by Christ is pure in the Bible but misrepresented by the interpretations of men. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the concept that Christ was the firstborn of the Father of all creatures, this means before the heavens and earth where created. It also accepts that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh during the meridian of time. In Mormon Doctrine God the Father of Jehovah in the spirit before creation established and empowered his Firstborn spriit son Jehovah to be the God of creation and to be the Savior and Redeemer of all that he created. In this respect the Father of Spirits and Jehovah the creator of the temporal bodies of man are two separated and distinct beings. Christ was not his own Father in LDS belief. Further the Holy Ghost who descended and fell upon Jesus Christ at his baptism is also a distinct person having his own role to play in the Godhead as the spirit communicator between God and man and witness of the Father and Son to mention but one such role.
3. Mormons belief that in and through the redemption of Jesus Christ all mankind will be saved, that is resurrected and live again, only their degree of reward is reliavant to their degree of personal righteousness. Perhaps some other Christians believe it just to live with murders and non repentant sinners for all the rest of eternity. Mormons who are righteous and repentant feel that is not justice and accordingly believe in degress or kingdoms of glory as taught in the Bible, Celestial, Terrestrial, etc.
4. Mormon's first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ but Mormons do believe as James that faith without 'works' is dead. A person merely saying the blief in Christ and Christ's teachings but does not live by the word of Christ is hardly an example of one who has 'true faith'. That is more of a false declaration and ought to be seen as such when one says he has faith and believes in Christ but turns arounds and murders and commits all sorts of grieveous sins.
5. Mormons believe in the Word of God, past, present and future. God is not dead nor does he sleep and he speaks to all people who do hear his voice past (Bible and Book of Mormon) as well as that which he continues to speak today and will continue to speak tomorrow to those who know were to find him. God's Word is not a closed book, it is open and living.
6. Mormons believe in that same Gospel of Christ as was accepted and practiced by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and all the righteous prophets and followers of Jehovah who is the same as Christ. Adam knew that his God would come to the earth in temporal form to perform the Atonement in respect to the redemption of man and looked forward to that day, as did Enoch, Noah, Abraham and all other prophets and understanding people of such righteous faith in God. Mormon's believe and uphold this self same Gospel and its blessings down from the ancient fathers. If anything Mormon's believe in the true old Christianity before the inovations of men corrupted them.
If 'Mr. Mark' means by 'historic Christianity'
that which began in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD, then he is correct. But Mormons believe in and uphold that same Christianity taught by Jesus and the Apostles of the Lord as well as that which was held and practiced by the true ancient believers since Adam. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham were all Christians. They believed in the coming Messiah, the Christ and were Christians from the most ancient days and beginnings of 'our' earthly duration and true 'historic Christianity'.

Under 'Mr. Mark' half truths and lies are stated as being what Mormons believe. To bad real 'Mormon' beliefs are not reflected.
1. God is an advanced being who is spirit housed in a glorified celestial body of flesh and bone. He still has His spirit which is in an advanced state of glorified existence.
2. Jesus Christ, Lord of the New Testament and
Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament are the same being. The Spirit of Christ has an influence upon all mankind toward good. In a way this is a trinity of Christ in which Mormons do believe as well as that it was Christ, the Word,
that created the heavens and the earth and did exist before the foundation of the world. What Mormons consider in addition is that Jesus Christ was not his own Father. The Doctrine of the Father as taught by Christ is pure in the Bible but misrepresented by the interpretations of men. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the concept that Christ was the firstborn of the Father of all creatures, this means before the heavens and earth where created. It also accepts that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh during the meridian of time. In Mormon Doctrine God the Father of Jehovah in the spirit before creation established and empowered his Firstborn spriit son Jehovah to be the God of creation and to be the Savior and Redeemer of all that he created. In this respect the Father of Spirits and Jehovah the creator of the temporal bodies of man are two separated and distinct beings. Christ was not his own Father in LDS belief. Further the Holy Ghost who descended and fell upon Jesus Christ at his baptism is also a distinct person having his own role to play in the Godhead as the spirit communicator between God and man and witness of the Father and Son to mention but one such role.
3. Mormons belief that in and through the redemption of Jesus Christ all mankind will be saved, that is resurrected and live again, only their degree of reward is reliavant to their degree of personal righteousness. Perhaps some other Christians believe it just to live with murders and non repentant sinners for all the rest of eternity. Mormons who are righteous and repentant feel that is not justice and accordingly believe in degress or kingdoms of glory as taught in the Bible, Celestial, Terrestrial, etc.
4. Mormon's first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ but Mormons do believe as James that faith without 'works' is dead. A person merely saying the blief in Christ and Christ's teachings but does not live by the word of Christ is hardly an example of one who has 'true faith'. That is more of a false declaration and ought to be seen as such when one says he has faith and believes in Christ but turns arounds and murders and commits all sorts of grieveous sins.
5. Mormons believe in the Word of God, past, present and future. God is not dead nor does he sleep and he speaks to all people who do hear his voice past (Bible and Book of Mormon) as well as that which he continues to speak today and will continue to speak tomorrow to those who know were to find him. God's Word is not a closed book, it is open and living.
6. Mormons believe in that same Gospel of Christ as was accepted and practiced by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and all the righteous prophets and followers of Jehovah who is the same as Christ. Adam knew that his God would come to the earth in temporal form to perform the Atonement in respect to the redemption of man and looked forward to that day, as did Enoch, Noah, Abraham and all other prophets and understanding people of such righteous faith in God. Mormon's believe and uphold this self same Gospel and its blessings down from the ancient fathers. If anything Mormon's believe in the true old Christianity before the inovations of men corrupted them.
If 'Mr. Mark' means by 'historic Christianity'
that which began in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD, then he is correct. But Mormons believe in and uphold that same Christianity taught by Jesus and the Apostles of the Lord as well as that which was held and practiced by the true ancient believers since Adam. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham were all Christians. They believed in the coming Messiah, the Christ and were Christians from the most ancient days and beginnings of 'our' earthly duration and true 'historic Christianity'.

Video documentary of how early Christianity is the greater parallel to Mormonism than anything else. Yes "historic biblical early Christianity," not later modern "Christianity." Mormonism claims to be a restoration of ancient Christianity. Down through the centuries many beliefs & the temple rituals were fraternalized, here's evidence to show historic Christianity had it, Mormons restored it.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=JustinMartyrJr

c746t [a] [/a]

c129t [a] [/a]

c412t [a] [/a]

c844t [a] [/a]

c674t [a] [/a]

c102t [a] [/a]

c90t [a] [/a]

c686t [a] [/a]

c369t [a] [/a]

c364t [a] [/a]

c519t [a] [/a]

c216t [a] [/a]

c489t [a] [/a]

c250t [a] [/a]

c310t [a] [/a]

c928t [a] [/a]

c348t [a] [/a]

c472t [a] [/a]

c712t [a] [/a]

c587t [a] [/a]

c519t [a] [/a]

c157t [a] [/a]

c259t [a] [/a]

c56t [a] [/a]

c957t [a] [/a]

c120t [a] [/a]

c973t [a] [/a]

c726t [a] [/a]

c814t [a] [/a]

c710t [a] [/a]

c153t [a] [/a]

c382t [a] [/a]

c56t [a] [/a]

c828t [a] [/a]

c908t [a] [/a]

c28t [a] [/a]

c294t [a] [/a]

c817t [a] [/a]

c33t [a] [/a]

c268t [a] [/a]

c310t [a] [/a]

c641t [a] [/a]

c535t [a] [/a]

c41t [a] [/a]

c502t [a] [/a]

c83t [a] [/a]

c692t [a] [/a]

c922t [a] [/a]

c705t [a] [/a]

c895t [a] [/a]

c239t [a] [/a]

c937t [a] [/a]

c728t [a] [/a]

c550t [a] [/a]

c933t [a] [/a]

c532t [a] [/a]

c787t [a] [/a]

c573t [a] [/a]

c904t [a] [/a]

c399t [a] [/a]

c43t [a] [/a]

c946t [a] [/a]

c295t [a] [/a]

c415t [a] [/a]

c650t [a] [/a]

c132t [a] [/a]

c71t [a] [/a]

c92t [a] [/a]

c767t [a] [/a]

c40t [a] [/a]

c795t [a] [/a]

c728t [a] [/a]

c486t [a] [/a]

c604t [a] [/a]

c261t [a] [/a]

c315t [a] [/a]

c574t [a] [/a]

c2t [a] [/a]

c321t [a] [/a]

c178t [a] [/a]

c212t [a] [/a]

c591t [a] [/a]

c188t [a] [/a]

c195t [a] [/a]

c510t [a] [/a]

c700t [a] [/a]

c359t [a] [/a]

c108t [a] [/a]

c55t [a] [/a]

c980t [a] [/a]

c955t [a] [/a]

c84t [a] [/a]

c286t [a] [/a]

c954t [a] [/a]

c412t [a] [/a]

c213t [a] [/a]

c739t

"HISTORICAL BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY"?!

I find it interesting that "historic Christianity," or "historical/biblical Christianity" is so often used on the internet by modern "Christians" who then present later Christian dogmas as being what people have to currently believe in order to be a "Christian," or "saved"! It seems to me a lot of picking & care selecting of "historic Christianity," & "biblical Christianity," goes on while turning or not mentioning other aspects of "historic Christianity" also belief. So what "historic Christianity" are they talking about? The versions & selections that agree with ones particular brand of modern "Christianity"?

To illustrate:

Rev. Mohler wrote: "Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith."

All throughout Christian "HISTORY" this point, FAITH & WORKS, was hashed over, especially during the Reformation! The earliest to later Christians, from James on, argued against those who were attempting to claim that a person's behaviour didn't matter, when it did.

Many modern "Christians" also seem more interested in how you believe, rather than how you live your life, good or bad, it don't matter, so long as you've "confessed Jesus!"

In anti-Mormon propaganda, Mormons are "damned" for attempting to do good works, and are "damned" for when some are caught doing evil works! Damned if they do, & damned if they don't!

In HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY:

J. R. Hoffmann notes that by the 2nd century, there were Christian sects that followed "salvationism" by grace alone, with out works. Earlier, James is amongst the earliest Christian leaders to respond to these types of early movements. But we also know from many examples in the New Testament, & the early to later Christian fathers, that this issue concerning "grace" & "works" was a subject of interest & debate. Jude had written against a group of so-called "Christians, antinomians" who had attempted to encourage sexual transgressions, rejected authority & understood divine grace as sanctioning immorality. (R. Joseph Hoffman, Celsus, On The True Doctrine, p. 14-16; Jude 3-8).

Modern "Christians" in claiming, that one must "know Jesus as their personal Savior," and they preach a "salvation" were what you do & don't do, as by way of works, doesn't count. However, in claiming to know Christ as their personal savior, do they, or should they also keep his commandments, for "He that saith, I know him, and keepth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4).

Passages on works seem to be overlooked by those who selectively cite from those about grace.

Here's just some of the ones on works: Eccl.12:14, Jer.17:10 & 32:19, Micah 6:8, Matt. 5:6, 16, 19-20, 7:16, 21-23, 13:23, 41-6, 16:27, 19:16-17; 25:11-30; 34-6, 1 Cor. 3:8, 6:9; 2 Cor.5:9; John 3:21, 5:29, 12:50; Rom.1:5, 18, 22, 2:6-13; 5:3, 8:16-17, 35, 12:12, 2 Cor. 5:9-10, 6:17, 7:10, 17:7; Gal.6:4-7; Eph. 2:10, 5:5-9; 2 Tim.3:17; Heb.4:11, 17, 5:8-9, 1 Pet.1:10, 17; 2 Pet.1:5; 1 John 3:18, 22, James 1:12, 22-7, 2:26, 4:17-18; Rev.2:7, 11, 3:4-5, 7:14, 22:14, Job 34:11; Isa.1:17; John 14:15; Phil.2:12; John 12:50; Acts 5:32; 10:35, 14:22; 1 Cor.6:9, 2 Thess.1:4-9, Luke 9:23-6, 21:12-15.

It is also interesting to note how hard the "saved" "Christians," are WORKING to "witness" to "the unsaved"!

DEIFICATION: BECOMING GODS

Rev. Mohler: "Mormonism promises deification."

The fact is, "HISTORIC" & "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY," also debated over deification, theosis, perfection, or becoming gods too! It was an important part of Christian history that seems to be passed over as though it didn't happen, or was part of "historic Christianity," when it is! The early Christian father even cite the same passages of scripture to defend & expound on their own particular versions of deification, as the Mormons do.

BIBLICAL PASSAGES USED BY EARLY TO LATER CHRISTIANS ON DEIFICATION (These passages are also used by Mormons in defense of their own "restored" version of deification, called exaltation).

Psalm 82; John 10:30-39; John 17:17-24; Matthew 5:48; Luke 14:11 & 18:14; 6:40 22:29; Romans 8:16-18; Matthew 25:21, 34-40; Colossians 3:24-25: Luke 22:29; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:35-43; Matthew 13:43;
Daniel 12:3; 1 John 2:3-11, 18-29; 3:2-3; Colossians 3:4; Isaiah 1:18; 41:22—23.

There sure is a lot of passages in the Bible about deification, despite how many modern "Christians," continue to claim that it's "non-Christians," "satanic," & "non-biblical," & not part of "Historical Christianity."

BIBLICAL PASSAGES USED BY EARLY TO LATER CHRISTIANS:

Psalm 82 was a passage that some of the early to later Christians made reference to in order to show from the scriptures that their own particular versions & interpretations of deification was based on the scriptures.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Christ cites this passage in defense of his claim to being divine, (John 10:30-39).

Some of the early to later Christians who made reference to Psalms 81-2 as scriptural proof texts in support of their own particular versions of the doctrine of deification were:

1. Justin Martyr, 110-165 A.D.
2. Irenæus, 120-202 A.D.
3. Clement of Alexandria, 153-193-217 A.D.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, = (TANF), Vol.2, pp.206, 215, 374, & 437; Tertullian [145-220 A.D.] (TANF) Vol.3, pp.480, & 608; Origen of Alexandria, [185-230-254 A.D.];(TANF) Vol.4, p.509; Thascius Cyprian, [200-258 A.D.] Thascius Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage until he suffered martyrdom [248-58 A.D.], (TANF) Vol.5, pp.263-4, & 518; Novatian, a Roman Presbyter, [210-280 A.D.]; (TANF) Vol.5, p.631; Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, [born about 298 and died about May 2-3, 373 A.D.] The Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers = (TN&PNF) Vol.4, pp. lxxxv, lxxxvii, & 329, Discourse Against The Arians I:38-39; S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, [born a few years before the outbreak of Arianism in A.D. 318, and died about March 18th, 386 A.D.] (TN&PNF) Vol.7, pp. i, xi, 2; St. Jerome, [345-420 A.D.]15 15- The Homilies of St. Jerome, Pub. The Catholic Un. Press, Wash. DC, 1964, pp.106-7 & 353; St. Augustine of Hippo, [354-430 A.D.]; Deification: The Content Of Athanasian Soteriology by Keith Edward Norman, (Dept. of Rel. Duke Un.), thesis for degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1980, p.241-2, & note 1 on p.214, Ennar. in Ps. 49.2.

Christ prayed that we would become perfect and one with Him and the Father. "Sanctify them through thy truth...And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth." "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:17-24.)

If we are to become one with Christ, & the Father, would we not also become divine? Would we not also be glorified with the same type of glory? Christ said: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one even as we are one...that they may be made perfect in one..." (Jn.17:22 & 23).

Irenaeus [late 2nd, early 3rd century A.D.], used John 17:24 to scripturally point out that the disciples would also be glorified. (TANF) 1: pp.478-9.

Also, Origen [A.D. 185-230-254] used portions of Christ's prayer in support of the doctrine of perfection & deification. (TANF) 4: pp.344-5, Origen De Principiis, book 3, chapter 6.

Christ said: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt.5:48). Origen also used this passage in defense of deification.(TANF) 4: p.509, Origen Against Celsus, book 4, chap.29.

Another idea behind deification was that the earliest Christians, (like the Mormons), believed that Christ & the Most High God the Father would not be removed out of their places so that these newly deified beings could take over:

"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11 & 18:14).

And: "The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master." (Luke 6:40). Irenaeus cites this passage to point out that in coming up out of the realm of the dead by way of the resurrection, the body that is raised up, is perfected. (TANF) 1: p.560).

Clement of Alexandria, [A.D. 153-193-217], cites this passage while writing about deification too. (TANF) 2: p.364, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book 2, chap. xvii.

Paul wrote to the Romans that: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans 8:16-18).

A number of early Christians used this passage to support their beliefs that the early Christian martyrs had been perfected, glorified, deified & rewarded with divine ranks. For they had remained faithful, & even though they had suffered greatly, they still had endured to the end. (TANF) 2: pp.411-13, 416-17, & 426-441; Clement of Alexandria, [A.D. 153-193-217]; Martyrdom & Persecution in the Early Church, by W.H.C. Frend, 1967.

Upon becoming heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, we might want to consider what Christ was heir to. God appointed him to be "heir of all things", for it was through Christ that the worlds were created. Christ alone had purged our sins and had "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they". The Father also said to his Son, "Thy throne O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:1-4, & 8; see also: Galatians 3:27-29, 4:1-7; Revelations 3:21-22; 21:7).

Another passage reads: "His lord said unto him, Well done thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee a ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:21).

The early Christian Father, Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236 A.D.], wrote that one of the reasons why the righteous had been deified was because they had shown that they had been faithful over small things while in earth life. And thus, upon being deified, they would have entrusted unto them that which was great. (TANF) 5: p.151, & note 6, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, chap. xxix).

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34-40).

Christ also talked about the good works that they did, & thus, in having done these good works they would enter on the right hand path into the Kingdom of God, & would inherit the kingdom. (Rev.1:6; 3:21-22; 4:4, 10-11; 5:10).

"Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done". (Colossians 3:24-25.)

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me". (Luke 22:29).

In the New Testament we read about how some resurrected bodies will shine with greater glory and brightness that others. For in some cases our resurrected bodies will also be glorified, some to lesser, others to greater degrees of glory. (1 Corinthians 15:35-43). Origen [A.D. 185-230-254], used this passage while responding to the early anti-Christian Celsus, & while expounding on what he understood to be the doctrine of deification. (TANF) 4: p.509.

Paul to the Corinthians: Through the "spirit of the Lord" we will be changed from bodies without glory, into bodies of the same glory as Christ. "Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

Paul to the Philippians: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:20-21).

Jesus said: "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:43). Irenaeus [late 2nd, early 3rd centuries A.D.], cites this passage as scriptural evidences for deification. (TANF) 1: pp.523-5; Matt.13:40-3).

Much later, Thomas Aquinas [1225-74 A.D.] also used this passage to suggest that the righteous would shine forth with great light and glory in the after life. (Heaven: A History, by Colleen McDannell & Berhard Lang, Yale Un. Press, New Haven, & Lon., 1988, pp.83-4, 89-92, n.27, on p.369, Aquinas, Sth, Suppl. 91:3).

The Old Testament Prophet Daniel wrote: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever." (Daniel 12:3). Irenaeus also cites from Daniel as scriptural proof text that showed that the faces of those who had been deified would shine with great glory and light.(TANF) 1: pp.488-90, & 497.

Paul to the Colossians: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" (Colossians 1:27-28).

The ritual of anointing is combined with the idea of deification, even in the earliest days of the Church. However, John noted that some of their anointing rituals had been counterfeited by "anti-Christs" who had infiltrated the Church and who were bringing in counterfeit forms of anointing. He goes on to tell the earliest saints that the anointing they had received was from God, while the other was from "anti-Christs". (1 John 2:3-11, 18-29).

John then goes on to present the idea and symbolical types in their own anointing ritual, and how deification fits in with some of the symbolical meanings behind anointing. For having been anointed they were cleansed and purified of their sins. This also shows up and is expounded upon in the writings of the Fathers in early to later Christianity.

John wrote: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3). Origen [A.D. 185-230-254], cites portions of this in support and in defense of the doctrine of perfection and deification. (TANF) 4: pp.344-5, & 509, Origen De Principiis, book 3, chap. 6; Origen Against Celsus, book 4, chap. 29.

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4.)

Paul wrote to the Galatians: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27).

In some cases in the early Christian mysteries, after they had been anointed and baptized. They put on new and pure garments to symbolize that which was to come in the resurrection when they would be clothed in the same type of immortality as Christ was.

Paul tells us to put on charity "which is the bond of perfection." (Colossians 3:14).

To Timothy, Paul wrote that the scriptures would, among other things, help them towards reaching perfection. "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good work." (2 Tim.3:15-17).

To the Hebrews, Paul wrote: "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Hebrews 2:7-11).

Paul seems to have written here of Christ's return to glory. But also of Christ leading his other brothers and sisters back into the family in heaven to partake of divine glory with him. This idea was expounded upon in early to later Christian writings and art works. Christ suffered for the just and the unjust, and those who were once disobedient, but who were willing to repent and live according to God's commandments even though they might have been sent to the spirit prison. For Christ descended down unto them and preached the gospel there and led them up out of captivity. Thus, Christ brought them to God the Father, and presented them to the Father. Having led the way. Upon their ascension up out of the underworld their deification and glorification had begun. As Christ and the host of freed captives exited out of the spirit prison, they trample over the devil or demons that had attempted to keep Christ from entering into the prison house. Paul also mentioned crowns of glory, and makes references to having all things put under his feet. Many early to later Christian art works show Christ standing on the devil as he frees the captive prisoners. Paul also made references to Christ leading or bringing "many sons", many "children" or "vast multitudes of God's people to heaven". Leading them over into "glory" and deification.

The Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah seems to suggest that even though we have done good or evil, we may be washed clean of our sins, if we repent, and then in the ultimate end, we can become gods. Isaiah wrote: "Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together." (Isaiah 1:16-20; 41:22-23; Hebrews 10:16-22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The deified would have also passed through rites of passage dramas too, thus, in early to later Christianity this included the heavenly coronations, vestments, crowns, enthronement, and the glorification of the saints.

The New Testament writers mentions many aspects of this aspect of deification, for Paul, upon writing to Timothy, shows how he looked forward to being crowned in the next life for his efforts & endurance, for he says, I have "Fought a good fight, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

The crown of righteousness hints to the ordinances. The early Christians were anointed, clothed in garments & royal robes in their mysteries or ordinances as types of that which was to come in the heavenly kingdoms of God. The crown was the symbol of the reward for faithfulness, for they would be deified & crowned in glory. In John's book of Revelation, Christ promised: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21).

In early Christian thought, Christ was the greatest example of the deification process because the body in which His Spirit had been clothed in through birth, was eventually deified and glorified when He was later resurrected. For when Christ lived on the earth in the body of His birth to Mary, was He glorified? Did His earthly body at all times give off visible light and a brightness that was brighter than the sun at noon-day? Or did He look like other men? The scriptures tell us that He was born and grew up from childhood to manhood (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:80; 2:52).

There were times when the divine light of His power and glory did shine forth while He was in that earthly body. Such as the time when Christ was transfigured to the point in which "his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." (Matthew 17:2-9).

But we know that His body didn't shine as bright as the sun every moment of His life. If He was already glorified in that body every moment, why did He pray to His Father that He would glorify Him with the same glory that He had had before His birth? "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5).

Christ also prayed that His followers would be glorified too. (John 17:18-26). Later, after the crucifixion & Christ's descent into the spirit world, Christ's spirit entered his resurrected body which was eventually glorified upon his ascension into heaven. A number of people became witnesses to the brightness of that glorified resurrected body. (Acts 1:9-11, 7:55-56; & 9:3-5).

The scriptures show that others, such as those who had lived on the earth as prophets, they too had been glorified after Christ had. John saw in a number visions, bright angels, some were even ones "like unto the Son of man", in great brightness & glory. Later he found out that some of these bright angels were glorified persons who had been prophets at one time, like unto himself. And yet they were & are glorified, & even speak for the Lord, at times, in the first-person. In some cases, John had thought that the glorified person that was speaking to him was the Lord, but the bright messenger corrected John as he began to worship the messenger. He told John that he was only a fellow servant & of his brethren that have the testimony of Jesus. And that he should not worship him, but rather he should worship God instead. Had this servant from among the prophets been glorified and perfected? Had his body been changed and fashioned like unto Christ's glorified body, as the scriptures say would happen? (Rev. 1:10-15; 19:6-10; 22:7-9; 2 Cor.3:4-18; 5:2-4; Phil.3:20-21; Col.1:27-28; Heb. 2:9-11; 10:16-22).

Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:5-12).33 33- 1 Peter 1:3-16.

Peter wrote: "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called unto us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fail: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:2-11).

A portions of this passages helped Athanasius scripturally support the idea deification through Christ. (Athanasius, was bishop of Alexandria, he was born about 298 and died about May 2-3, 373 A.D. (TN&PNF), Vol.4, pp.lxxxv, lxxxvii, & p.576, Letters of Athanasius, LX. Ad Adelphium, 4).

Other passages say: "That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." (1 Thessalonians 2:12).

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14).

Some of the different leaders in Christ's church were chosen to help the members develop Christ like traits. Thus, they were given: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" (Ephesians 4:10-13). Clement of Alexandria used this passage upon writing about perfection & deification. (TANF) 2: pp.433, & 547, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book IV, chap.xxi & book VII, chap.xiv.

Christ tested a rich man to see if he was willing to do all that He asked of him in order to be perfected. The rich man said that he had kept the commandments from his youth till then, and he asked what more he lacked. Christ said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me." (Matthew 19:16-26).

However, this man refused to do what Christ asked of him. Later on during the 3rd century A.D., this passage inspired a number of Christians, such as a wealthy young man named Anthony of Egypt. He was so impressed by the passage that he followed Christ's advice and retired to the desert. He was later joined by like-minded men who lived as monks or hermits who sought to work towards moral perfection or "Christian perfection." (Western Civilizations, (Their History and Their Culture), by Edward McNall Burns, Robert E. Lerner, & Standish Meacham, Pub. W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y., & Lon., 1st ed., 1941, 10th edition 1984, Vol.1, p.219; & 222-23; The March Of The Cross, by Leonard W. Cowie, 1962, (First Pub. in Great Britain by Weidenfeld & Nicolson LTD. 1962), & first pub. in the USA by McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., Toronto, & Lon., 1962, pp.33-4; Christian Monasticism, by David Knowles, 1969, reprinted 1972 & 1977, Pub. World Un., Library, McGraw-Hill Co., N.Y., Toronto, p.10; The Early Church by W.H.C. Frend, Pub. J.B. Lippincott Co., Phil., & N.Y., 1966, pp.202-3, Athanasius (Life 2); The Holy Rule (Notes on St. Benedict's Legislation for Monks), by Dom Hubert Van Zeller, Pub. by Sheed & Ward, N.Y., 1958, p.370; The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, edited by John McManners, pub. Oxford Un. Press, Oxford N.Y., 1990, pp.51, 67, 69, 80, & 135-6; & The Ladder of Perfection, by Walter Hilton, Pub., by Penguin Classics, 1957, & 1988.

Paul noted how some were having trouble understanding the signs of the times, for they supposed that Christ's second coming was "at hand". Paul wrote that there was going to be a falling away first before that day should come. He also noted that even during his day in time there were different ones who had taught & practiced counterfeit forms of deification, for they exalted themselves to Godhood in the mystery religions. Thus, he wrote that the "mystery of iniquity is already at work". Paul then goes on to point out that the followers of Christ wouldn't obtain the glory of Christ through these counterfeit mysteries, signs, & wonders of the devil. But rather, it was through what Christ & their own leaders had taught them that they would obtain the glory of Christ. (2 Thess. chapt. 2)

In Coptic Christian versions of deification, the Apostle Thomas had pulled his finger out of the wound in Christ's side, some of Christ's blood flowed down from Christ's side. Christ said that His blood had joined to their bodies, and thus, they themselves had become divine, even as Christ was divine. (Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, by E.A. Wallis Budge, 6 Vol.s, Pub. Oxford Un., Press, 1913, Vol. 3, p. 214, The Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle).

Almost every belief restored by Mormon prophets from "historic biblical Christianity," continues to be rejected and not accepted modern "Christianity" that continues to select the belief and practives to as to give us watered down version.

I find it interesting that "historic Christianity," or "historical/biblical Christianity" is so often used on the internet by modern "Christians" who then present later Christian dogmas as being what people have to currently believe in order to be a "Christian," or "saved"! It seems to me a lot of picking & care selecting of "historic Christianity," & "biblical Christianity," goes on while turning or not mentioning other aspects of "historic Christianity" also belief. So what "historic Christianity" are they talking about? The versions & selections that agree with ones particular brand of modern "Christianity"?

To illustrate:

Rev. Mohler wrote: "Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith."

All throughout Christian "HISTORY" this point, FAITH & WORKS, was hashed over, especially during the Reformation! The earliest to later Christians, from James on, argued against those who were attempting to claim that a person's behaviour didn't matter, when it did.

Many modern "Christians" also seem more interested in how you believe, rather than how you live your life, good or bad, it don't matter, so long as you've "confessed Jesus!"

In anti-Mormon propaganda, Mormons are "damned" for attempting to do good works, and are "damned" for when some are caught doing evil works! Damned if they do, & damned if they don't!

In HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY:

J. R. Hoffmann notes that by the 2nd century, there were Christian sects that followed "salvationism" by grace alone, with out works. Earlier, James is amongst the earliest Christian leaders to respond to these types of early movements. But we also know from many examples in the New Testament, & the early to later Christian fathers, that this issue concerning "grace" & "works" was a subject of interest & debate. Jude had written against a group of so-called "Christians, antinomians" who had attempted to encourage sexual transgressions, rejected authority & understood divine grace as sanctioning immorality. (R. Joseph Hoffman, Celsus, On The True Doctrine, p. 14-16; Jude 3-8).

Modern "Christians" in claiming, that one must "know Jesus as their personal Savior," and they preach a "salvation" were what you do & don't do, as by way of works, doesn't count. However, in claiming to know Christ as their personal savior, do they, or should they also keep his commandments, for "He that saith, I know him, and keepth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4).

Passages on works seem to be overlooked by those who selectively cite from those about grace.

Here's just some of the ones on works: Eccl.12:14, Jer.17:10 & 32:19, Micah 6:8, Matt. 5:6, 16, 19-20, 7:16, 21-23, 13:23, 41-6, 16:27, 19:16-17; 25:11-30; 34-6, 1 Cor. 3:8, 6:9; 2 Cor.5:9; John 3:21, 5:29, 12:50; Rom.1:5, 18, 22, 2:6-13; 5:3, 8:16-17, 35, 12:12, 2 Cor. 5:9-10, 6:17, 7:10, 17:7; Gal.6:4-7; Eph. 2:10, 5:5-9; 2 Tim.3:17; Heb.4:11, 17, 5:8-9, 1 Pet.1:10, 17; 2 Pet.1:5; 1 John 3:18, 22, James 1:12, 22-7, 2:26, 4:17-18; Rev.2:7, 11, 3:4-5, 7:14, 22:14, Job 34:11; Isa.1:17; John 14:15; Phil.2:12; John 12:50; Acts 5:32; 10:35, 14:22; 1 Cor.6:9, 2 Thess.1:4-9, Luke 9:23-6, 21:12-15.

It is also interesting to note how hard the "saved" "Christians," are WORKING to "witness" to "the unsaved"!

DEIFICATION: BECOMING GODS

Rev. Mohler: "Mormonism promises deification."

The fact is, "HISTORIC" & "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY," also debated over deification, theosis, perfection, or becoming gods too! It was an important part of Christian history that seems to be passed over as though it didn't happen, or was part of "historic Christianity," when it is! The early Christian father even cite the same passages of scripture to defend & expound on their own particular versions of deification, as the Mormons do.

BIBLICAL PASSAGES USED BY EARLY TO LATER CHRISTIANS ON DEIFICATION (These passages are also used by Mormons in defense of their own "restored" version of deification, called exaltation).

Psalm 82; John 10:30-39; John 17:17-24; Matthew 5:48; Luke 14:11 & 18:14; 6:40 22:29; Romans 8:16-18; Matthew 25:21, 34-40; Colossians 3:24-25: Luke 22:29; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:35-43; Matthew 13:43;
Daniel 12:3; 1 John 2:3-11, 18-29; 3:2-3; Colossians 3:4; Isaiah 1:18; 41:22—23.

There sure is a lot of passages in the Bible about deification, despite how many modern "Christians," continue to claim that it's "non-Christians," "satanic," & "non-biblical," & not part of "Historical Christianity."

BIBLICAL PASSAGES USED BY EARLY TO LATER CHRISTIANS:

Psalm 82 was a passage that some of the early to later Christians made reference to in order to show from the scriptures that their own particular versions & interpretations of deification was based on the scriptures.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Christ cites this passage in defense of his claim to being divine, (John 10:30-39).

Some of the early to later Christians who made reference to Psalms 81-2 as scriptural proof texts in support of their own particular versions of the doctrine of deification were:

1. Justin Martyr, 110-165 A.D.
2. Irenæus, 120-202 A.D.
3. Clement of Alexandria, 153-193-217 A.D.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, = (TANF), Vol.2, pp.206, 215, 374, & 437; Tertullian [145-220 A.D.] (TANF) Vol.3, pp.480, & 608; Origen of Alexandria, [185-230-254 A.D.];(TANF) Vol.4, p.509; Thascius Cyprian, [200-258 A.D.] Thascius Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage until he suffered martyrdom [248-58 A.D.], (TANF) Vol.5, pp.263-4, & 518; Novatian, a Roman Presbyter, [210-280 A.D.]; (TANF) Vol.5, p.631; Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, [born about 298 and died about May 2-3, 373 A.D.] The Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers = (TN&PNF) Vol.4, pp. lxxxv, lxxxvii, & 329, Discourse Against The Arians I:38-39; S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, [born a few years before the outbreak of Arianism in A.D. 318, and died about March 18th, 386 A.D.] (TN&PNF) Vol.7, pp. i, xi, 2; St. Jerome, [345-420 A.D.]15 15- The Homilies of St. Jerome, Pub. The Catholic Un. Press, Wash. DC, 1964, pp.106-7 & 353; St. Augustine of Hippo, [354-430 A.D.]; Deification: The Content Of Athanasian Soteriology by Keith Edward Norman, (Dept. of Rel. Duke Un.), thesis for degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1980, p.241-2, & note 1 on p.214, Ennar. in Ps. 49.2.

Christ prayed that we would become perfect and one with Him and the Father. "Sanctify them through thy truth...And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth." "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:17-24.)

If we are to become one with Christ, & the Father, would we not also become divine? Would we not also be glorified with the same type of glory? Christ said: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one even as we are one...that they may be made perfect in one..." (Jn.17:22 & 23).

Irenaeus [late 2nd, early 3rd century A.D.], used John 17:24 to scripturally point out that the disciples would also be glorified. (TANF) 1: pp.478-9.

Also, Origen [A.D. 185-230-254] used portions of Christ's prayer in support of the doctrine of perfection & deification. (TANF) 4: pp.344-5, Origen De Principiis, book 3, chapter 6.

Christ said: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt.5:48). Origen also used this passage in defense of deification.(TANF) 4: p.509, Origen Against Celsus, book 4, chap.29.

Another idea behind deification was that the earliest Christians, (like the Mormons), believed that Christ & the Most High God the Father would not be removed out of their places so that these newly deified beings could take over:

"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11 & 18:14).

And: "The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master." (Luke 6:40). Irenaeus cites this passage to point out that in coming up out of the realm of the dead by way of the resurrection, the body that is raised up, is perfected. (TANF) 1: p.560).

Clement of Alexandria, [A.D. 153-193-217], cites this passage while writing about deification too. (TANF) 2: p.364, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book 2, chap. xvii.

Paul wrote to the Romans that: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans 8:16-18).

A number of early Christians used this passage to support their beliefs that the early Christian martyrs had been perfected, glorified, deified & rewarded with divine ranks. For they had remained faithful, & even though they had suffered greatly, they still had endured to the end. (TANF) 2: pp.411-13, 416-17, & 426-441; Clement of Alexandria, [A.D. 153-193-217]; Martyrdom & Persecution in the Early Church, by W.H.C. Frend, 1967.

Upon becoming heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, we might want to consider what Christ was heir to. God appointed him to be "heir of all things", for it was through Christ that the worlds were created. Christ alone had purged our sins and had "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they". The Father also said to his Son, "Thy throne O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:1-4, & 8; see also: Galatians 3:27-29, 4:1-7; Revelations 3:21-22; 21:7).

Another passage reads: "His lord said unto him, Well done thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee a ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:21).

The early Christian Father, Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236 A.D.], wrote that one of the reasons why the righteous had been deified was because they had shown that they had been faithful over small things while in earth life. And thus, upon being deified, they would have entrusted unto them that which was great. (TANF) 5: p.151, & note 6, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, chap. xxix).

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34-40).

Christ also talked about the good works that they did, & thus, in having done these good works they would enter on the right hand path into the Kingdom of God, & would inherit the kingdom. (Rev.1:6; 3:21-22; 4:4, 10-11; 5:10).

"Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done". (Colossians 3:24-25.)

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me". (Luke 22:29).

In the New Testament we read about how some resurrected bodies will shine with greater glory and brightness that others. For in some cases our resurrected bodies will also be glorified, some to lesser, others to greater degrees of glory. (1 Corinthians 15:35-43). Origen [A.D. 185-230-254], used this passage while responding to the early anti-Christian Celsus, & while expounding on what he understood to be the doctrine of deification. (TANF) 4: p.509.

Paul to the Corinthians: Through the "spirit of the Lord" we will be changed from bodies without glory, into bodies of the same glory as Christ. "Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

Paul to the Philippians: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:20-21).

Jesus said: "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:43). Irenaeus [late 2nd, early 3rd centuries A.D.], cites this passage as scriptural evidences for deification. (TANF) 1: pp.523-5; Matt.13:40-3).

Much later, Thomas Aquinas [1225-74 A.D.] also used this passage to suggest that the righteous would shine forth with great light and glory in the after life. (Heaven: A History, by Colleen McDannell & Berhard Lang, Yale Un. Press, New Haven, & Lon., 1988, pp.83-4, 89-92, n.27, on p.369, Aquinas, Sth, Suppl. 91:3).

The Old Testament Prophet Daniel wrote: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever." (Daniel 12:3). Irenaeus also cites from Daniel as scriptural proof text that showed that the faces of those who had been deified would shine with great glory and light.(TANF) 1: pp.488-90, & 497.

Paul to the Colossians: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" (Colossians 1:27-28).

The ritual of anointing is combined with the idea of deification, even in the earliest days of the Church. However, John noted that some of their anointing rituals had been counterfeited by "anti-Christs" who had infiltrated the Church and who were bringing in counterfeit forms of anointing. He goes on to tell the earliest saints that the anointing they had received was from God, while the other was from "anti-Christs". (1 John 2:3-11, 18-29).

John then goes on to present the idea and symbolical types in their own anointing ritual, and how deification fits in with some of the symbolical meanings behind anointing. For having been anointed they were cleansed and purified of their sins. This also shows up and is expounded upon in the writings of the Fathers in early to later Christianity.

John wrote: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3). Origen [A.D. 185-230-254], cites portions of this in support and in defense of the doctrine of perfection and deification. (TANF) 4: pp.344-5, & 509, Origen De Principiis, book 3, chap. 6; Origen Against Celsus, book 4, chap. 29.

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4.)

Paul wrote to the Galatians: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27).

In some cases in the early Christian mysteries, after they had been anointed and baptized. They put on new and pure garments to symbolize that which was to come in the resurrection when they would be clothed in the same type of immortality as Christ was.

Paul tells us to put on charity "which is the bond of perfection." (Colossians 3:14).

To Timothy, Paul wrote that the scriptures would, among other things, help them towards reaching perfection. "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good work." (2 Tim.3:15-17).

To the Hebrews, Paul wrote: "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Hebrews 2:7-11).

Paul seems to have written here of Christ's return to glory. But also of Christ leading his other brothers and sisters back into the family in heaven to partake of divine glory with him. This idea was expounded upon in early to later Christian writings and art works. Christ suffered for the just and the unjust, and those who were once disobedient, but who were willing to repent and live according to God's commandments even though they might have been sent to the spirit prison. For Christ descended down unto them and preached the gospel there and led them up out of captivity. Thus, Christ brought them to God the Father, and presented them to the Father. Having led the way. Upon their ascension up out of the underworld their deification and glorification had begun. As Christ and the host of freed captives exited out of the spirit prison, they trample over the devil or demons that had attempted to keep Christ from entering into the prison house. Paul also mentioned crowns of glory, and makes references to having all things put under his feet. Many early to later Christian art works show Christ standing on the devil as he frees the captive prisoners. Paul also made references to Christ leading or bringing "many sons", many "children" or "vast multitudes of God's people to heaven". Leading them over into "glory" and deification.

The Old Testament Prophet, Isaiah seems to suggest that even though we have done good or evil, we may be washed clean of our sins, if we repent, and then in the ultimate end, we can become gods. Isaiah wrote: "Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together." (Isaiah 1:16-20; 41:22-23; Hebrews 10:16-22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The deified would have also passed through rites of passage dramas too, thus, in early to later Christianity this included the heavenly coronations, vestments, crowns, enthronement, and the glorification of the saints.

The New Testament writers mentions many aspects of this aspect of deification, for Paul, upon writing to Timothy, shows how he looked forward to being crowned in the next life for his efforts & endurance, for he says, I have "Fought a good fight, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

The crown of righteousness hints to the ordinances. The early Christians were anointed, clothed in garments & royal robes in their mysteries or ordinances as types of that which was to come in the heavenly kingdoms of God. The crown was the symbol of the reward for faithfulness, for they would be deified & crowned in glory. In John's book of Revelation, Christ promised: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21).

In early Christian thought, Christ was the greatest example of the deification process because the body in which His Spirit had been clothed in through birth, was eventually deified and glorified when He was later resurrected. For when Christ lived on the earth in the body of His birth to Mary, was He glorified? Did His earthly body at all times give off visible light and a brightness that was brighter than the sun at noon-day? Or did He look like other men? The scriptures tell us that He was born and grew up from childhood to manhood (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:80; 2:52).

There were times when the divine light of His power and glory did shine forth while He was in that earthly body. Such as the time when Christ was transfigured to the point in which "his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." (Matthew 17:2-9).

But we know that His body didn't shine as bright as the sun every moment of His life. If He was already glorified in that body every moment, why did He pray to His Father that He would glorify Him with the same glory that He had had before His birth? "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5).

Christ also prayed that His followers would be glorified too. (John 17:18-26). Later, after the crucifixion & Christ's descent into the spirit world, Christ's spirit entered his resurrected body which was eventually glorified upon his ascension into heaven. A number of people became witnesses to the brightness of that glorified resurrected body. (Acts 1:9-11, 7:55-56; & 9:3-5).

The scriptures show that others, such as those who had lived on the earth as prophets, they too had been glorified after Christ had. John saw in a number visions, bright angels, some were even ones "like unto the Son of man", in great brightness & glory. Later he found out that some of these bright angels were glorified persons who had been prophets at one time, like unto himself. And yet they were & are glorified, & even speak for the Lord, at times, in the first-person. In some cases, John had thought that the glorified person that was speaking to him was the Lord, but the bright messenger corrected John as he began to worship the messenger. He told John that he was only a fellow servant & of his brethren that have the testimony of Jesus. And that he should not worship him, but rather he should worship God instead. Had this servant from among the prophets been glorified and perfected? Had his body been changed and fashioned like unto Christ's glorified body, as the scriptures say would happen? (Rev. 1:10-15; 19:6-10; 22:7-9; 2 Cor.3:4-18; 5:2-4; Phil.3:20-21; Col.1:27-28; Heb. 2:9-11; 10:16-22).

Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:5-12).33 33- 1 Peter 1:3-16.

Peter wrote: "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called unto us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fail: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:2-11).

A portions of this passages helped Athanasius scripturally support the idea deification through Christ. (Athanasius, was bishop of Alexandria, he was born about 298 and died about May 2-3, 373 A.D. (TN&PNF), Vol.4, pp.lxxxv, lxxxvii, & p.576, Letters of Athanasius, LX. Ad Adelphium, 4).

Other passages say: "That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." (1 Thessalonians 2:12).

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14).

Some of the different leaders in Christ's church were chosen to help the members develop Christ like traits. Thus, they were given: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" (Ephesians 4:10-13). Clement of Alexandria used this passage upon writing about perfection & deification. (TANF) 2: pp.433, & 547, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book IV, chap.xxi & book VII, chap.xiv.

Christ tested a rich man to see if he was willing to do all that He asked of him in order to be perfected. The rich man said that he had kept the commandments from his youth till then, and he asked what more he lacked. Christ said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me." (Matthew 19:16-26).

However, this man refused to do what Christ asked of him. Later on during the 3rd century A.D., this passage inspired a number of Christians, such as a wealthy young man named Anthony of Egypt. He was so impressed by the passage that he followed Christ's advice and retired to the desert. He was later joined by like-minded men who lived as monks or hermits who sought to work towards moral perfection or "Christian perfection." (Western Civilizations, (Their History and Their Culture), by Edward McNall Burns, Robert E. Lerner, & Standish Meacham, Pub. W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y., & Lon., 1st ed., 1941, 10th edition 1984, Vol.1, p.219; & 222-23; The March Of The Cross, by Leonard W. Cowie, 1962, (First Pub. in Great Britain by Weidenfeld & Nicolson LTD. 1962), & first pub. in the USA by McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., Toronto, & Lon., 1962, pp.33-4; Christian Monasticism, by David Knowles, 1969, reprinted 1972 & 1977, Pub. World Un., Library, McGraw-Hill Co., N.Y., Toronto, p.10; The Early Church by W.H.C. Frend, Pub. J.B. Lippincott Co., Phil., & N.Y., 1966, pp.202-3, Athanasius (Life 2); The Holy Rule (Notes on St. Benedict's Legislation for Monks), by Dom Hubert Van Zeller, Pub. by Sheed & Ward, N.Y., 1958, p.370; The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, edited by John McManners, pub. Oxford Un. Press, Oxford N.Y., 1990, pp.51, 67, 69, 80, & 135-6; & The Ladder of Perfection, by Walter Hilton, Pub., by Penguin Classics, 1957, & 1988.

Paul noted how some were having trouble understanding the signs of the times, for they supposed that Christ's second coming was "at hand". Paul wrote that there was going to be a falling away first before that day should come. He also noted that even during his day in time there were different ones who had taught & practiced counterfeit forms of deification, for they exalted themselves to Godhood in the mystery religions. Thus, he wrote that the "mystery of iniquity is already at work". Paul then goes on to point out that the followers of Christ wouldn't obtain the glory of Christ through these counterfeit mysteries, signs, & wonders of the devil. But rather, it was through what Christ & their own leaders had taught them that they would obtain the glory of Christ. (2 Thess. chapt. 2)

In Coptic Christian versions of deification, the Apostle Thomas had pulled his finger out of the wound in Christ's side, some of Christ's blood flowed down from Christ's side. Christ said that His blood had joined to their bodies, and thus, they themselves had become divine, even as Christ was divine. (Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, by E.A. Wallis Budge, 6 Vol.s, Pub. Oxford Un., Press, 1913, Vol. 3, p. 214, The Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle).

Almost every belief restored by Mormon prophets from "historic biblical Christianity," continues to be rejected and not accepted modern "Christianity" that continues to select the belief and practives to as to give us watered down version.

Here's my views on the Rev. comments:

Rev. M.: "Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, with a physical body."

JM: In "historic Christianity," if he means early Christianity, then: God the Father was considered a spirit, but Christ, first a pre-mortal spirit, became a man, though he was also God, the son!

Rev. M: "Christianity teaches that God is Spirit. Mormonism denies the historic Christian understandings of the Trinity,"

JM: Yes, Mormons don't go along with the Nicene Creed of 325 AD. But rather they believe in a restored revealed knowledge of the God head. It's interesting to note that the Nicene Fathers that gave us the creed also believed and taught the doctrine of deification, becoming gods! So, why do modern Christians reject this idea?

Rev: "the person and work of Christ, and the doctrine of salvation." Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith. Mormonism promises deification. Christianity calls for personal faith in Jesus Christ. Mormonism calls for obedience to its own teachings as the path to exaltation. Mormonism replaces belief in the sole authority of the Bible with other writings, including the Book of Mormon. This list is only a brief summary of the vast chasm that separates Christianity from Mormonism. Put simply, Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity. It is a rejection of historic Christianity."

More will be said, got to go

C1QxeC U cool ))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4nXK6sSVnM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEfCPxc_OqM

I've recently posted some videos on You Tube that get into some of the thinks I've written about here. I hope you all find them interesting!

1. Secret rituals of early Christians!

2. Disinformation tactics exposed! Satanic Symbols Everywhere!?

More will be eventually posted there too.

rqdwhy xfbge ejmargscq crkxahbny cqxh sxurao sbfw

rqdwhy xfbge ejmargscq crkxahbny cqxh sxurao sbfw

rqdwhy xfbge ejmargscq crkxahbny cqxh sxurao sbfw

is an improvement of the neat revenue of the society. The whole capital of more. Those metals are said to have become more abundant in America, since

different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political The trader A in Edinburgh, we shall suppose, draws a bill upon B in London,

is an improvement of the neat revenue of the society. The whole capital of more. Those metals are said to have become more abundant in America, since

different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political The trader A in Edinburgh, we shall suppose, draws a bill upon B in London,

ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though increased in so great a proportion, during so short a period, I do not

ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though increased in so great a proportion, during so short a period, I do not

Seed Planter wrote: "In other words, deification is not becoming like God in the Mormon sense. There is no continuity between the two. Not only is eternal progression not found in the early church fathers’ theosis, neither is the concept found in historic Judaism as Mormons claim."

Eternal progression "not found in the early church fathers' theosis"?! Perhaps not the exact type of eternal progression as in Mormonism; however, Irenaeus, AD 115-202, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Revelator, mentions something similar in his own version of deification:

"While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord." (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 94).

"We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods." (Ibid., p. 94).

"How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God". (Ibid., 95-96),

http://en.fairmormon.org/Deification_of_man

The Damascus Document tells how the deifieds "seed would be scattered across the universe." Now this and Irenaeus' versions of theosis, are not exactly the same as the Mormons' version, but it's interesting to note that they still had these beliefs.

Seed Planter wrote: "It is sad that there are numerous Mormons so caught up in the piles of Mormon propaganda."

It's sadder that many "Christians" are so caught up in the piles of anti-Mormon propaganda, that they don't realize that the very things that anti-Mormon "Christians" use to 'discredit' mormonism and their faith, is the same types of tactics, methods and propaganda ploys that Atheists and early to later anti-Christians used to discredit Christianity!

Planter: "My prayer from the heart is that on your way to seeking truth (which I hope you are) that you will not completely lose your faith in the Bible and become an atheist."

Tactics used by them: (them being anti-religiousness against other religions, be it Atheists, early anti-Christians, anti-Mormon Christians, etc).

They point out, allege and charge that they have:

1. Changes, Contradictions & alleged borrowings from their environment to make up their scriptures.

2. Different accounts of events that don't match up in their tellings, (written and verbal accounts, oral traditions).

3. Additions to scriptures.

4. Leaders did miracles through magical means.

5. Had secret ceremonies, symbols, signs, oaths, and strange beliefs.

6. They don't go along with the "mainstream" religion.

7. Their leaders avoid dealings with the law.

8. Have oaths that are against the government!

9. Seek to be perfect, while everyone knows, or gossip has it that they are always getting in trouble with the government and laws, thus they hide what they're doing in their secret meetings.

10. There is nothing original, or ancient about their message.

Justin Martyr Jr's list of references about the early Christians, and how the greeks, romans, and jew looked upon them as, is a good place to start in finding out these tactics mentioned.

Planter also wrote: "...your prayer be for YHWH the God of Israel to reveal Himself to you and to grow in His grace and truth. A prayer of re-application might be to ask the Supreme Being to reveal to you whether or not you've been led astray by the teachings of Jospeh Smith in your quest to know HIM."

I think that most Mormons would testify in what they call a "testimony," that it was through "prayer and study," that they "know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet" and that God "revealed" this to them."

But hey! If they, because of these charges mentioned, "have been led astray," then what of the Christians? Have they been also?

And wouldn't the answers that a Christian might give to an early anti-Christian or modern Atheist, then also have be answers to their own anti-Mormon "Christians'" propaganda too?!

Julian

In other words, deification is not becoming like God in the Mormon sense. There is no continuity between the two. Not only is eternal progression not found in the early church fathers’ theosis, neither is the concept found in historic Judaism as Mormons claim. Of course one could round up some references to when the Jews departed from orthodoxy and strayed from the commandments. I’m sure you could even find some kabala mixed in with it along with deviations of secret temple rituals as they maintain, but I don’t think that anyone in their right mind could conclude that this was the norm.

“For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.” N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus p 116 (Deut. 6:4).

The crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).

That "God became God" is not only a pagan idea but it denies the very nature of God Himself, by rejecting His eternality as God (cf. Is. 43:10, LXX: "...So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM..." Notice "I AM" in the Greek LXX and not "I am He" as with 41:4. Jesus makes the same claim in John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins"; cf. Gk.).

It is interesting that when one examines the historical nature of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion, it is obvious that something more was happening than ruffling the feathers of a few priests. Jesus was targeted specifically due to His claiming to be God. If the Mormon concept of deification was so widespread and common place in the Judaic/Christian tradition, it would make sense that the Sanhedrin would have merely shrugged it off as a legitimate teaching.

I gleaned and copied numerous material from other web sights. Sorry I didn't post them for you. If any one is interested a simple googling of "theosis" will be a good start to further the investigation.

It is sad that there are numerous Mormons so caught up in the piles of Mormon propaganda. My prayer from the heart is that on your way to seeking truth (which I hope you are) that you will not completely lose your faith in the Bible and become an atheist. May your prayer be for YHWH the God of Israel to reveal Himself to you and to grow in His grace and truth. A prayer of re-application might be to ask the Supreme Being to reveal to you whether or not you've been led astray by the teachings of Jospeh Smith in your quest to know HIM.

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He was until 2005 Principal of Wycliffe Hall, points out, that "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between the concept of justification itself (understood as the extrinsic divine pronouncement of man’s new status) and the concept of sanctification or regeneration (understood as the intrinsic process by which God renews the justified sinner)." He goes on to explain that: "The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and regeneratio is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before…The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.

McGrath notes that it is "the Augustinian understanding of justification as both event and process, embracing the beginning, continuation, and perfection of the Christian life, and thereby subsuming regeneration under justification. More specifically, St. Augustine integrated theosis within his concept of justification, as Lampe explains: "Augustine makes much use of the idea of deification which he equates with sonship towards God. Justification implies deification, because by justifying men God makes them his sons; if we have been made sons of God (Jn. 1:12) we have also been made gods, not through a natural begetting but through the grace of adoption." In Augustine’s one words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4) [47]. And similarly: "It is clear that He (i.e. God) calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to become the sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation (Ennar. In Ps. 49, 2)’.

“There is… [a] reason why Gregory’s doctrine of deification should not be taken in this radical sense, namely that he admits the terminology of participation. A doctrine of participation would normally hold that when one thing participates in another, a difference between them is indicated. Participation takes place across a line of division. When things of different hypostasis or different ontological status stand in a relation of participation, one entry, because of its receptivity, receives certain characteristics from the other, but without achieving identity with that other in essence. Even if one were to say there is participation in the nature of God, this would not mean that a creature becomes God by nature, but that the nature of God is present in the being of the other entity, transforming it into a new mode of being.” Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Edited by JOSTEIN BØRTNES (Russian Literature at the University of Bergen, former University Lecturer in Comparative Literature at the University of Oslo, in Slavonic Studies at the University of Cambridge and Director of Studies at Sidney Sussex College. He is the author of 'Visions of Glory' (1988) and has published extensively in the fields of Early and Modern Russian Literature, Literary Theory and Greek Patristic Literature. At present, Jostein Børtnes is working on Mikhail Bakhtin, and on the Cappadocian fathers, in particular on Gregory of Nazianz.) and TOMAS HÄGG, p. 270.

C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963), the popular author of numerous apologetic, theological and fictional works, provides a good example of a contemporary Western writer—much beloved of Evangelicals—who makes use of the idea of theosis. In his famed Mere Christianity, he basically recites the famous Athanasian theosis statement into more modern language: "He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has – by what I call ‘good infection.’ Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else.” He spells this out more succinctly a little later in the book: "The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said. Finally, Lewis talks about God "turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity"

"The Greek Fathers taught that, in the fall, humanity lost the likeness but retained the image….Whether the focus is placed on the image of God being restored, or whether one sees these terms as synonymous, the concept of the Christian’s reintegration into the life of God remains central in all understandings of theosis" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:49; pH. 3:16-19; 4:13-15) Rakestraw, Robert V., "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis"

St. Jerome testifies "That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. ‘But to as many as receive Him he gave power of becoming sons of God"

St. Athanasius himself attested to the unity of the Cross and theosis: "The Word became flesh in order both to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified.” This reveals a tight connection between theosis and salvation, if not an actual definition.

In Augustine’s own words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4)

St. Athanasius could hardly escape blame, since theosis figured prominently in his soteriology [12]. In his masterpiece On the Incarnation of the Word of God (54:3), he wrote the classic statement for theosis: "He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.” In fact, theosis was used by him in his defense of the full deity of Christ against the Arians: "The Word could never have divinized us if He were merely divine by participation and were not Himself the essential Godhead, the Father’s veritable image.” He argues in like manner against the Tropici sect concerning the Holy Spirit’s divinity, stating that "If, by a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divine nature, it would be madness then afterwards to call the Spirit an originated entity, and not of God; for on account of this also those who are in him are made divine. But then if he makes man divine, it is not dubious to say his nature is of God"

page 2.

Gerald Bonner explains: "There is, however, in Augustine’s spirituality another element, perceived as a consequence of Christ’s taking human nature upon himself; for it is in Christ and through Christ, and only in and through Christ, that man becomes a partaker of God’s nature: ‘He who was God was made man to make gods those who were men’ (serm. 192.1, 1). These words, which parallel the more-often-quoted words of St Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, show that Augustine did not shrink from using the language of deification, often said to be peculiar to the Greek Fathers."

In fact, as G.W.H. Lampe points out, "Augustine repeats more often, perhaps, than any of the Greek theologians, the theme of the ‘interchange of places.’ ‘The Word,’ he says, became what we are that we might attain what we are not. For we are not God; but we can see God with the mind and interior eye of the heart’… ‘God hates you as you are, in order to make you what you are not yet. You will be what he is;’ but Augustine hastens to add that this means that we shall be God’s image in the sense in which a man’s reflection in a mirror is his image inasmuch as it is like him, not in the sense in which a man’s son is his image inasmuch as he is actually what his father is ‘according to substance.’"

Gerald Bonner stresses that "the notion of deification is to be found in Augustine, not as something added to his system as an afterthought, but as an integral whole. In itself, the notion of deification is no more than what is implied by the New Testament term uiothesia – sonship by adoption – by grace, that is to say, and not by nature. It is, indeed, the consequence of human flesh being assumed by the divinity in the Incarnation: that flesh has been taken into heaven by the ascended Christ, and if men participate in Him through membership of the Church, the Body of Christ, they too may hope, after death, to enjoy the divinisation effected by His flesh-taking. So Augustine writes, in the last chapter of the last book of The City of God: ‘We ourselves shall become that seventh day [i.e. the eternal Sabbath], when we have been replenished and restored by His blessing and sanctification. There we shall have leisure to be still, and we shall see that He is God, whereas we wished to be that ourselves when we fell away from Him, after listening to the seducer saying: You will be like gods. Then we abandoned the true God, by whose creative help we should have become gods, but by participating in Him, not by deserting Him"

I was disappointed by responses to the challenge offered by Rene regarding deification in the early church fathers, I have recently been reading up on theosis. Hope it helps someone out there. I also recommend the book by Richard Abanes, “Becoming Gods” in which a whole chapter is devoted to the issue. The Mormons that I have dialogued with seem to have a tendency of pulling things out of their context.

Historically, the word theosis was employed both in pre-Christian Greek antiquity, and also in pagan quarters existing contemporaneously with the early Christian Church, as F.W. Norris notes: "The use of theosis was daring. Non-Christians employed it to speak of pagan gods deifying creatures. The philosophers Iamblichus and Proclus, the poet Callimachus and the dreaded Julian the Apostate had used theoo in that way. It was not first a Christian word nor always employed by only Christians after they made it central. From within his deep contemplative life and from previous Church Tradition the Theologian picked it up, cleaned it up and filled it up with Christian sense. He and his fellow theologians took it captive and used it to speak about Christian realities" [2].
So the Church Fathers were careful to contrast their views with those of pagan thinkers who spoke in similar language (see Note-C). For example, St. Athanasius, who, as we shall see, testifies to theosis on innumerable occasions in his writings, notes that "We are as God by imitation, not by nature" [3]; and "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God" [4]. Jaroslav Pelikan, Church historian, Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University and recent convert to Orthodoxy, explains that: "All of this Christian language about a humanity made divine was a part of a total Cappadocian system in which the Classical religion of deified men and women and of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses was described as ‘the superstition of polytheism’ and as the error of those mere mortals who had ‘turned aside the honor of God to themselves.’ Therefore, the Cappadocians insisted that it was as essential for theosis as it was for the incarnation itself not to be viewed as analogous to Classical theories about the promotion of human beings to divine rank, and in that sense not to be defined by natural theology at all; on such errors they pronounced their ‘Anathema!’"

I have two responses to bring to the table on this happy new year.

To my atheist friends who slight theological discussions, it is easy to mock something that is not understood.

My Christmas message to all who read this, 12-24-2007:

In earlier posts I've mentioned how that the early Christian doctrine and belief about Christ going to other nations in pre-Christian times, and during his post-resurrection world wide trek, eventually faded off into much later legendized versions of this in Santa Claus' world wide trek.

I'd like to get into more details on how this can be traced through the centuries.

In the 1891, The Strand Magazine, published a drawing of a small female descending through the
woods to a town below. She was called "Santa Claus." Note how “santa,” is the female title, for a female saint, for in the Latin speaking cultures, “Santa,” is feminine for example: Santa Maria, or Saint Mary, as compared to “Santo,” for male saints. Thus, an earlier version of “Santa Claus,“ is the Christkindl, or wandering Christ-child, a blond female youth. For in German speaking cultures, she is the one wandering the earth and the cosmos as a blond female youth.

In numerous earlier traditions, during the 19th century on into the 20th, "Santa Claus" was also Americanized into Kriss Kringle. In German speaking areas, Kriss Kringle was also called Christkindl, or Christ-child). Hence, in earlier Christmas lore, poems, legends, art works & songs, the Christ-child, is one in a number of gift givers, wandering all over the earth.

Earlier, the Christkindl, according to many stories, customs & legends, could do miraculous modes of travel, leave gifts in shoes and stockings; changing spider webs on the Christmas trees into gleaming threads of gold and silvers, (thus tinsil is put on the tree). (Series Editor, Margaret E. Martignoni, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Louis Shores, Volume Ed. Ruth Weeden Stewart, Harvest of Holidays, A Collier's Junior Classics Series, (New York: The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1962), pp.402-05, see p.403: So Hallowed and So Gracious Is the Time, Anne Thaxter Eaton, from: The Animals' Christmas, compiled by Anne Thaxter Eaton, CR 1944, by Eaton and Valenti Angelo, (The Viking Press).

He/she could also go through key holes to enter, see sugar letters left in window, letters listing what the children hope the cruising Christ-child would bring them.

Millions of candles left in windows, light his/her way, and symbolically say, here you‘re welcome, come in and stay with us on Christmas. Straw left on the floor, each strand representing a good deed performed by the children, padded the hardness of the wandering Christ child’s bed, should he visit and stay the night. Pine bows were laid down to give this cruiser a carpet to walk on, when he passes through. (Sechrist, Woolsey, It's Time For Christmas, pp.78-9, 81, 83, & 113-115; Francis X. Weiser, 1952, The Christmas Book, Illustrated by Robert Frankenberg, Harcourt, (New York: Brace & Company), pp.111, 152, 160-1, & 168-170).

Many snowy seasons had to pass by before the earlier Christian doctrine of Christ's world wide travels was covered over with later Christmas legends about the Christ-child's annual visits during the Christmas season. Thus, every Christmas, so the story goes: "the Christ Child visits homes. Sometimes He sends a stranger instead. Nobody knows how the stranger will look. It may be a hungry child, a beggar, an old woman. The lighted candle says: Here you are welcomed!" (Lillie Patterson, 1968, A Holiday Book, Christmas Feasts and Festivals, (Champaign, Illinois: Garrard Publishing, Co.), pp.28, 51 & 53).

Another source says that this practice is a continuation of an Irish custom which is bound up with these types of traditions about how the Christ-child was out alone in the cold and dark and needs to be "lighted on His way." (Auld, Christmas Traditions, pp.130-31).

Elise Traut relates the old legend that on Christmas Eve "the Christ Child wanders all over the world, going from castle to hovel, up hills and down valleys, in search of the good and deserving. He pleads for succour at the various homes he enters, usually appearing as a beggar or humble wanderer." Consequently, it was because of this type of lore that beggars were rarely turned away on Christmas Eve, and aid that one might rendered to beggars, was, and still is looked upon "as hospitality shown to Christ. Following close upon this custom came the now universal one of bestowing charity to the poor at Christmas-time." (Lillian Eichler, The Customs Of Mankind (With Notes on Modern Etiquette and the Newest Trend in Entertainment, (Garden City, New York: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1924), pp.463-4. Roselle Williams Crawford, Survival of Legends, Legends and Their Relation to History, Literature and Life of the Southwest, (San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor Co. , 1952), pp. 62-3, see also notes 74 & 79, & p.82. Christmas (Its Origin, Celebration And Significance As Related In Prose and Verse), Edited by Robert Haven Schauffler, (New York: 1907, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1947, introduction xi. Hamilton W. Mabie, The Book of Christmas, (Toronto: The Macmillan Co., of Canada, LTD), p.38).

Traditions still survive concerning a gift-bringer called Christkindl. Though this angel has wings, he visits children riding a sleigh pulled by reindeer. When Swiss families moved to America, they brought along their traditions concerning the Christkindl celebration. In America the name Christkindl soon sounded like Kriss Kringle, which in time became another name for the Santa we know now. Other writers have noted that when immigrants from Germany
and Switzerland settled in Pennsylvania during the 1700s, they brought with them the German tradition that the Christ child, or Christkindl, delivered presents to children on Christmas Eve. When English settlers joined the Germans in their communities, the name Christkindl was gradually simplified to Kriss Kringle. A lot of German-speaking ministers were upset at this thinking that the new name insulted the Christ child. (James Cross Giblin, The Truth About Santa Claus, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1985), pp.33-5, 53-55; Miles, Christmas Customs and Traditions, p.230).

Children in France hang up stockings and place their shoes beside their beds on Christmas Eve for the Petit Jesu (little Jesus) to fill with gifts. (Weiser, The Christmas Book, pp.111, 152, 160-61, & 168-70; Krythe, All About Christmas, p. 42).

Walsh notes that as time went by the name Saint Nicholas "gradually merged into the affectionate
diminutive of Santa Klaus. He became ruddier, jollier, more rubicund in aspect, while the
Christ-Kindlein faded more and more into the background, until at last the very name of the latter, under the slightly different form of Kris-Kinkle, was transferred to his successor" (Walsh, The Story Of Santa Klaus, pp.58, 70-71, & 79).

http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/view_shared?p=48aa26798f3ba76e3e9efb

In 1896, Nesterov did a painting that was derived from the many legends and stories about Christ visitiing Russia. Some legends say that he walks around Russia, with his apostles in different guises to test people to see who would recieve them, (Matthew 25). The painting is in the Russian Art Gallery at St. Petersburg, Russia. One Russian Legends begins: "This happened long ago when Christ was wandering about the earth with
his twelve apostles." (See also: Linda J. Ivanits, Russian Folk Belief, (Armonk, New York; London, England: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1989), p. 25, note 35, pp. 211 & 235, Afanas'ev, A. N. Narodnye russkie skazki i legendy. 2 Vols. (Berlin: Ladyzhnikov, 1922),461-64).

At the heart of many Christmas traditions, legends, art works, stories, poems, songs, & customs, is this passage of Scripture:

"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." During judgment day the righteous will ask when they did these things unto him. And Christ will say:
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."(Matthew 25:31-46).

Christ is thus out wandering the world, many believed, in different guises so that you wouldn't know it was him that was coming to test you.

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. For the
kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods." (Matthew 25:13-14).

Numerous sources, scriptures, monuments, legends, etc., say that Christ went to a number of places while on pilgrimages, such as into the land of Jerusalem, the lands "round about" the land of Jerusalem, Parthia, Medes, Elam, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Western and central Asia Minor, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Egypt, and the region of Africa which is beyond Cyrene. Also, he went among the Romans and sojourners, the varied races of the Gaetulians, the manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, the diverse nations of the Gauls, the haunts of the Britons, the Sarmatians, the Dacians, & among the Germans. Plus, the Scythians, and many remote nations, & of provinces and islands many, which were unto to them at that time, and which they `can scarce enumerate.' In all these places the name of Christ who is already come reigns, as of Him before whom the gates of all cities have been opened, and to whom none are closed, before whom iron bars have been crumbled, and brazen gates opened. Along with the early Christian writer, Tertullian's list of nations, etc., further evidences suggest that Christ also went into India, the ancient Americas, from Chile to Alaska, etc., among the Polynesians from Hawaii to New Zealand, & into China, Japan, and Ireland.

Numerous art works and traditions about Christ wandering in different guises faded off into later traditions about the Christ child's wanderings in different guises. These go back to how the monks would greet pilgrims, lepers, the sick, nobles, and kings alike as if they were Christ himself visiting them, because Matthew 25 said Christ would do so.

One of Saint Benedict's rules for the reception of guests was that of seeing Christ in all who come to the monastery. "Let all guests that come be received as Christ Himself, for He will say, "I was a stranger and you took Me in." And let fitting honor be shown to all, especially however to such as are of the household of the faith and to pilgrims. When therefore a guest is announced, let him be met by the superior or brethren will all marks of charity." Thus, "the recognition of Christ in the person of the guest is an ideal which necessarily recommended itself forcibly to early Christian monasticism." Special care and solicitude was to be shown in the reception of the poor and of pilgrims, because in them Christ is more received. Thus, they were to always see in their guests the representative of Christ in those who knock at their door. (Dom Hubert Van Zeller, The Holy Rule, Notes on St. Benedict's Legislation for Monks, (New York:
Sheed & Ward, 1958), pp. 30-31, 222, 244-6, 330-1, 334, & 430).

Fra Angelico, (Giovanni Guido, A.D. 1387-1455), depicts Christ the Pilgrim in a 1440 fresco at the
Monastery of San Marco, Florence, Italy. (Albert E. Bailey, (Director of Religious Education Worcester Academy, Mass., 1916), The Gospel In
Art, (Boston & Chicago: Pilgrim Press), pp. 382-385, see also pp.438-444).

These later beliefs and traditions go back the early Christian doctrinces and beliefs that Christ went to other nations so as to not be found neglectful of other lands & people everywhere on earth and in the after life realms.

Origen of Alexandria [A.D. 185-230-254],wrote in response to the early anti-Christian Celsus that "the Christ of God thus shows His superiority to all rulers by entering into their several provinces, and summoning men out of them to be subject to Himself" (The Ante Nicene Fathers,vol. 4: p.641, Origen Against
Celsus, Bk. 8, ch. 4).

Justin Martyr, (2nd century): "But Jesus is indeed he who appeared and spoke to Moses, to Abraham and in a word, to all the other patriarchs, to serve the will of his Father; it is he who came to be born a man by the Virgin Mary, and he is one still." (Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, CXIII, 4).

John P. Lundy, notes "Infidelity has been accustomed to say, from the time of Dupuis to the present, that Christianity is only a sort of copy of ancient Paganism: that it has no new ideas, and must therefore be rejected. But where did Paganism get its sublime conceptions of God, its notions of immortality and human destiny? Whence did all ancient nations derive them, hold them, and agree so marvelously about them? This universal faith must have an adequate cause; and Christianity is but the more full, clear, true and glorious exponent of it all.... If Christ was before Abraham, as He claimed to be, then surely He must have manifested Himself to other nations beside the Jews, or other nations, including the Jews, must have derived their religious systems and ideas from some common source." (John P. Lundy, Monumental Christianity, (Or the Art and Symbolism of the Primitive Church), (New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875 & 1882), p. 98).

The Catholic historian, P. Dee Roo, tells us that in an old Christian legend, Christ, "during the forty days between his resurrection and his ascension, walked with unequal giant strides over the earth, and that wherever he set down his foot a church must be built in the sequel of time. Should this pious story be truthful, it would be evident that Christ strode over our hemisphere in many directions." (P. De Roo, History of America Before Columbus, According to Documents & approved Authors, (Philadelphia & London: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1900), volume 1, p. 205).

One of the earliest Christians who is said to have known & talked with Peter, was Clement. One of the first things Clement asks him is: "Shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ's coming?" Peter's answer used the belief that Christ covertly visited pre-Christian time people of every generation, for: “Christ, who always was from the beginning, has visited the righteous of every generation (albeit secretly), and especially those who have looked forward to his coming, to whom he often appeared. Still it was not yet time for the resurrection of bodies that perished then,... But those who pleased him and did his will were translated to paradise, to be preserved there for the kingdom, while those who were not able to fulfill the complete law of justice, but had certain traces of carnal weakness in their nature, when their bodies died went in the spirit to be retained in good and happy places, that at the resurrection of the dead each might be empowered to receive an eternal heritage for the good he had done." (Clementine Recognitions I, 52, in PG 1:1236. 1 Peter 3:15-22, 4:5-6).

Tertullian, [A.D. 145--220], wrote how Christ, as the King of Kings, extends his reign throughout the world. And how no gait, or any kind of door could keep Christ out, for they all came down before him as he passed through the doors of hades, and through the doors, or gaits of the nations of the earth. And through the door of one's heart. All these things would be depicted in art works by Christian artists throughout the centuries. In passing through these entrances to the different nations of the world, Christ extends his Kingdom into all the nations of the earth, everywhere. Terullian also wrote: "For whose right hand does God the Father hold but Christ's His Son?--whom all nations have heard, that is, whom all nations have believed." (History of America Before Columbus, P. D. Roo, 1900, Vol.1, pp.205-9; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.3, pp.157-58, chap. vii, Tertullian [A.D. 145-220], An Answer To The Jews, chapter VII; Isaiah 45:1-3, translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Pub. T&T Clark Edinburgh, WM. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, reprinted May 1989). Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, in vol.2 of Patrologiae Latina, 650; Isaiah 13:2).

Irenaeus, A.D. 120-- 202, wrote how Christ: "gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father's fold the children who were scattered abroad, and remembered His own dead ones who had formerly fallen asleep, and came down to them that He might deliver them." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:506, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter XXXIII: 1).

The Chichicastenano Indians say that: "Christ preached to all the people who wished to listen, but some were bad and would not hear him. He wandered around and visited 5000 pueblos and 5000 churches and 5000 gardens all over the world." (Tristram Potter Coffin, The Book of Christmas Folklore, 1973, (New York: A Continuum Book, The Seabury Press), pp. 53-57. Coffin notes that "The Chichicastenango Indian version of Christ's biography published by Sol Tax in the Journal of American Folklore in 1969 shows how easy it is for the folk mind to mingle the objects of their everyday existence into the episodes of myth." (p.53).

"According to the records, Jesus journeyed to England and Europe with his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, the tin trader. This was only the beginning of his post-crucifixion travels and other legends say that he traveled back to India and Tibet. It is at this point that Jesus, working with the Essenes as both his parents had, that Jesus began his world-wide trek, which included crossing the Pacific to North and South America. He allegedly traveled for nearly 100 years around the world. The Islamic title for Jesus is "the Great Traveler." (David Hatcher Childress, 1992, Lost Cities of North & Central America, (Stelle, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press), pp. 247-48). The amount of time that Christ traveled around the world as a Teacher is uncertain. Early Christians gave different amounts of time, and traditions make that amount of time even longer, even up to 100 years. (See: Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202], The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pp.391-2, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter 22:5, see also note 2. Francis Legge, Forerunners And Rivals Of Christianity, From 330 B.C. To 330 A.D., (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, CR 1964), In two volumes bound as one, Volume 2, pp. 60-61, Chapter VIII, & note 1 on p.61).

Even the late 19th century anti-Christian writer, T.W. Doane notes that Christ's descent into hell was a big part of early Christian doctrines, and that: "St. Clement of Alexandria, who flourished at the beginning of the third century, is equally clear and emphatic as to Jesus' descent into hell. He says: "The Lord preached the gospel to those in Hades, as well as to all the earth, in order that all might believe and be saved, wherever they were.” (19th century anti-Christian writer T.W. Doane in his: Bible Myths (And Their Parallels In Other Religions, Being A Comparison Of The Old And New Testament Myths And Miracles With Those Of Heathen Nations Of Antiquity), Pub. The Truth Seeker Co., N.Y., 1882 & 1910, 7th ed., see chapter 22, for the reference to Clement of Alexandria see p.221 & note 2: Not only did Christ descend into hades to preached the gospel, for he went to all the earth, "in order that all might believe and be saved, wherever they were". (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, Clement of Alexandria, p. 490, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book VI, chapter VI). See also: John P. Lundy, Monumental Christianity, (New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875 & 1882, Lundy, 1876, edition, p. 266. Clement also said the gospel had been diffused over the whole world. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2: pp. 519-20, The Stromata, Or Miscellanies, Book 6, chap. 18).

Clement of Alexandria, [A.D. 153-193-217], wrote: "And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although
they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there. . ." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, p. 490, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book VI, chapter VI).

The Mormon version of Christ's world wide trek:

The Book of Mormon says that Christ, some time after his resurrection, visited the American continent. Thus, we read how the people "saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him... And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.... Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone
forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come." (The Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.: Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986, originally published in 1830, translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.), pp. 428-429,
Third Nephi, chapter 11, see verses 8-15).

So, if your a Christian, and don't believe in the Book of Mormon's account of Christ's visit to the americas, you might at least believe in the versions of Christ's world wide trek as it is found in your own historic Christian writings, art works, and traditions. These beliefs are what could help close the divide between Mormons and Christians.

Where a Christian might say: "You know, I don't accept the Book of Mormon's account of Christ's visit to the Americas and else where. However, I respect and will let you Mormons hold to that belief, cause we have similar early Christian beliefs that say that Christ did go to other nations, that belief, I'm comfortable with.

Merry Christmas.

Justin Martyr Jr.

Early Christian Answers to Ancient Critics! Resurrecting those Answers for Modern Issues:

Did later Christianity loose its' protective shield?

In earlier posts, I've mentioned some of the things that were legendized in later centuries.

Such as:

1. Christ's visits to other nations around the world, in pre-Christian & post resurrection times, were legendized into Santa Claus' Christmas world wide trek.

2. Temple work, or "the mysteries," fraternalized in later masonry.

3. Christ, his angels & apostles preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison, later legendized into prayers & masses for the dead, preserved in part in later creeds and thousands of art works throughout historic Christianity. Just do an "image" search on the web and you'll see what I mean. Start out with a few words like: Christ's descent into hell. Then, change hell to hades, then, purgatory, limbo, the abyss, the anastasis (resurrection), the harrowing of hell. I've collected numerous examples that span through the centuries.

4. Perfection, deification, becoming a god. These concepts were debated over during 400, and in later centuries.

5. The God of the universe becoming a man in the body of Jesus. Later councils hashed this one out dialectitically, coming up with words in the Nicene Creed that weren't scriptural. Later artists had to then figure out how to depict the human body of Jesus, God the Father, the holy Ghost. All kinds of symbols developed, three rabbits, triangles, stars, just the hand of the Father extending down from heaven; three circles, three heads on one body, three faces on one head.

6. Pre-existence: Legendized later in some areas of Christianity, into goblins, gouls, underground creatures, believed to be the fallen angels who fell down into the abyss of the earth. 553 council of Constantinople rejected Origen's version of the pre-existence. Plus, the idea that was around in Christ time, about the body that a person was born into, the type of skin, deformities, etc., reflecting their pre-mortal sins.

These early Christian beliefs, before their later legendizations, were protective sheilds against the attacks and polemics of the early anti-Christians. They helped the early Christian apologists answer many issues that were raised by critics amongst the Romans, Jews, Greeks, Pagans, and Atheists, even though the critics still rejected their answers. They at leasted help the early Christians themselves be ready with an answer of the hope that was with in them.

Beliefs and Doctrines used to answer early critics:

(The pre-existence) belief & doctrine, helped answer the critics' charge that "Christ neglected pre-Christian time nations." That the gospel, rituals, teachings and message wasn't "borrowed from paganism," for it was the other way around. The pre-mortal Christ didn't "neglect other people" before the Christian era, because he spoke to his prophets and pious ones all throughout the world before his incarnation or birth to Mary.

(The incarnation or bodily birth of Jesus & deification), these beliefs and doctrines helped answer the ancient critics' questions about why God would become a man in the body of Christ, or like Christ did. Though some critics called the early Christian versions of the bodily birth, death, resurrection, and deification of humans, an "old worn out myth," because it had its' parallels in paganistic versions. The early Christians still answered by saying that Christ became a man so that the human family could learn from him how to become as he is, a God, (or they become perfected and entitled "gods", ranked below Christ, and the "most high God," the Father). The reason why Christ wanted his followers to become like him, gods, is because he would rather that we become like him than we becoming like the devil and his fallen angels. (The opposite of deification was demonification, often illustrated in art works depicting "the last Judgment," where Christ enthroned as Judge, lifts his right hand up on those on his right and his left down on those being taken down to hell by demons, the farther down they go, the more they begin to look like the demons. The farther up the right hand path the saved go, the brighter they become as they progress towards "Christian moral perfection."

(The gospel preached to the spirits in prison), this belief and doctrine, though argued over and included and dropped out of later creeds. Still, it helped the early Christian answer the charges made by early critics that Christ neglected or made no way for the saving of others in pre-Christian times who never heard about Christ and his message.

It seems to me that many modern "Christians," though they reject the restored versions of these early Christian beliefs and doctrines in Mormonism, should at least be willing to accept the early Christian answers to early anti-Christians, which charges are often resurrected by modern anti-Christians and Atheists.

Thus, if Christians should continue to reject the Book of Mormon's account of Christ world wide trek; they should be willing to acknowlegde the belief that Christ did go to other nations so as to not be neglectful of other areas of the world.

If they reject the pre-existence as it is restored in Mormonism, they should be willing to accept their own earlier versions of it for the said reasons, and so forth! That I think would begin to close the divide some seem to think is impossible to do!

Thanks, and Merry Christmas.

I agree that Evangelicals and Mormons are in fact on the same side of the cultural divide. Great article. However, I hope this post will be accepted and published because several Mormon doctrinal statements made by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are incorrect. My comments are in CAPS. Please try not to interpret my ALL CAPS COMMENTS as me yelling or angry in any way.

Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, with a physical body (TRUE STATEMENT) Christianity teaches that God is Spirit. Mormonism denies the historic Christian understandings of the Trinity (TRUE STATEMENT), the person and work of Christ and the doctrine of salvation, (FALSE STATEMENT, MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS - AKA MORMONS, DO NOT 'DENY THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST AND THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION.')

Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith. Mormonism promises deification (FALSE STATEMENT, WHY USE THE WORD 'PROMISE'? MORMON DOCTRINE TEACHES THAT THE LORD'S ETERNAL PLAN OF SALVATION INCLUDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ETERNAL PROGRESSION. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE APOSTLE PETER'S BIBLICAL REFERENCE [2 Pet. 1: 4] TO PARTAKING OF THE 'DIVINE NATURE' AND THE APOSTLE PAUL'S REFERENCE [Romans 8:17] TO "JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST' REFLECT THE INTENT THAT CHILDREN OF GOD SHOULD STRIVE TO EMULATE THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER IN EVERY WAY. THROUGHOUT THE ETERNITIES, MORMONS BELIEVE, THEY WILL REVERENCE AND WORSHIP GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST. THE GOAL IS NOT TO EQUAL THEM OR TO ACHIEVE PARITY WITH THEM BUT TO IMITATE AND SOMEDAY ACQUIRE THEIR PERFECT GOODNESS, LOVE AND OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

Christianity calls for personal faith in Jesus Christ. Mormonism calls for obedience to its own teachings as the path to exaltation. (LACKS CLARITY, MORMONISM CALLS FOR FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST. OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHICH INCLUDES THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. THREE ADDITIONAL COMMANDMENTS IN MORMONISM ARE (1) THE LAW OF TITHING, (2) THE WORD OF WISDOM (HEALTH CODE), (3) THE LAW OF CHASTITY (MORAL CODE).

Mormonism replaces belief in the sole authority of the Bible with other writings, including the Book of Mormon. (CAREFULLY CRAFTED INNACURATE STATEMENT, WHY USE THE WORD 'REPLACES'? MORMONS BELIEVE THAT BIBLE TO THE BE THE WORD OF GOD AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY. WE PREFER THE KING JAMES VERSION. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT GOD CALLED PROPHETS IN OTHER LANDS AND COMMANDED THEM TO WRITE HIS WORD. MORMONS BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON IS ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE WRITTEN BY PROPHETS BETWEEN 600BC AND 400AD WHICH TESTIFIES OF JESUS CHRIST. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON IS A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE IN DECLARING TO THE WORLD THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST. IT'S SIMPLY ANOTHER WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST... ANOTHER TESTAMENT. Matt. 18: 16 STATES, 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' THE WORD 'REPLACES' IN THIS ARTICLE IS MISLEADING. THE BIBLE AND THE BOOK OF MORMON ARE COMPANION SCRIPTURES. THE STICK OF JUDAH IS THE BIBLE AND THE STICK OF JOSEPH IS THE BOOK OF MORMON see Ezek. 37: 16, 19… ‘and they shall be one in mine hand’.

This list is only a brief summary of the vast chasm that separates Christianity from Mormonism. Put simply, Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity. It is a rejection of historic Christianity. (LACKING CLARITY, PUT SIMPLY... THE MORMON VIEW OF THE GODHEAD BREAKS WITH POST-NEW TESTAMENT CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN HISTORY (Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed) AND RETURNS TO THE DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY JESUS HIMSELF. MORMONISM IS A REJECTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN VIEW OF GOD, JESUS, AND THE HOLY GHOST. MORMONS DECLARE IT IS SELF-EVIDENT FROM THE SCRIPTURES THAT THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATE PERSONS, THREE DIVINE BEINGS. THE CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF THE GODHEAD (TRINITY IN UNITY) IS NOT FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE HARPERS BIBLE DICTIONARY RECORDS THAT "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

AT THIS POINT I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE GATEKEEPERS OF THIS SITE WILL ALLOW THIS POST. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION. BRAD

PS - VISIT WWW.MORMON.ORG FOR MORE CLARIFICATION.

I agree that Evangelicals and Mormons are in fact on the same side of the cultural divide. Great article. However, I hope this post will be accepted and published because several Mormon doctrinal statements made by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are incorrect. My comments are in CAPS. Please try not to interpret my ALL CAPS COMMENTS as me yelling or angry in any way.

Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, with a physical body (TRUE STATEMENT) Christianity teaches that God is Spirit. Mormonism denies the historic Christian understandings of the Trinity (TRUE STATEMENT), the person and work of Christ and the doctrine of salvation, (FALSE STATEMENT, MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS - AKA MORMONS, DO NOT 'DENY THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST AND THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION.')

Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith. Mormonism promises deification (FALSE STATEMENT, WHY USE THE WORD 'PROMISE'? MORMON DOCTRINE TEACHES THAT THE LORD'S ETERNAL PLAN OF SALVATION INCLUDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ETERNAL PROGRESSION. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE APOSTLE PETER'S BIBLICAL REFERENCE [2 Pet. 1: 4] TO PARTAKING OF THE 'DIVINE NATURE' AND THE APOSTLE PAUL'S REFERENCE [Romans 8:17] TO "JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST' REFLECT THE INTENT THAT CHILDREN OF GOD SHOULD STRIVE TO EMULATE THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER IN EVERY WAY. THROUGHOUT THE ETERNITIES, MORMONS BELIEVE, THEY WILL REVERENCE AND WORSHIP GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST. THE GOAL IS NOT TO EQUAL THEM OR TO ACHIEVE PARITY WITH THEM BUT TO IMITATE AND SOMEDAY ACQUIRE THEIR PERFECT GOODNESS, LOVE AND OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

Christianity calls for personal faith in Jesus Christ. Mormonism calls for obedience to its own teachings as the path to exaltation. (LACKS CLARITY, MORMONISM CALLS FOR FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST. OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHICH INCLUDES THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. THREE ADDITIONAL COMMANDMENTS IN MORMONISM ARE (1) THE LAW OF TITHING, (2) THE WORD OF WISDOM (HEALTH CODE), (3) THE LAW OF CHASTITY (MORAL CODE).

Mormonism replaces belief in the sole authority of the Bible with other writings, including the Book of Mormon. (CAREFULLY CRAFTED INNACURATE STATEMENT, WHY USE THE WORD 'REPLACES'? MORMONS BELIEVE THAT BIBLE TO THE BE THE WORD OF GOD AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY. WE PREFER THE KING JAMES VERSION. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT GOD CALLED PROPHETS IN OTHER LANDS AND COMMANDED THEM TO WRITE HIS WORD. MORMONS BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON IS ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE WRITTEN BY PROPHETS BETWEEN 600BC AND 400AD WHICH TESTIFIES OF JESUS CHRIST. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON IS A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE IN DECLARING TO THE WORLD THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST. IT'S SIMPLY ANOTHER WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST... ANOTHER TESTAMENT. Matt. 18: 16 STATES, 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' THE WORD 'REPLACES' IN THIS ARTICLE IS MISLEADING. THE BIBLE AND THE BOOK OF MORMON ARE COMPANION SCRIPTURES. THE STICK OF JUDAH IS THE BIBLE AND THE STICK OF JOSEPH IS THE BOOK OF MORMON see Ezek. 37: 16, 19… ‘and they shall be one in mine hand’.

This list is only a brief summary of the vast chasm that separates Christianity from Mormonism. Put simply, Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity. It is a rejection of historic Christianity. (LACKING CLARITY, PUT SIMPLY... THE MORMON VIEW OF THE GODHEAD BREAKS WITH POST-NEW TESTAMENT CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN HISTORY (Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed) AND RETURNS TO THE DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY JESUS HIMSELF. MORMONISM IS A REJECTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN VIEW OF GOD, JESUS, AND THE HOLY GHOST. MORMONS DECLARE IT IS SELF-EVIDENT FROM THE SCRIPTURES THAT THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATE PERSONS, THREE DIVINE BEINGS. THE CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF THE GODHEAD (TRINITY IN UNITY) IS NOT FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE HARPERS BIBLE DICTIONARY RECORDS THAT "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

AT THIS POINT I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE GATEKEEPERS OF THIS SITE WILL ALLOW THIS POST. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION. BRAD

PS - VISIT WWW.MORMON.ORG FOR MORE CLARIFICATION.

While I know that you are an instructor and spokesperson for our faith, I want to let you know that I live in a neighborhood with a mormon family. I don't know anyone more Christian than they. In our conversations, I know that they believe that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior.......indeed they believe that Jesus sacrificed His life for all mankind. They live their lives trying to follow in His path and from my observation are doing a good job. While we may not understand all of what they believe, this I am sure of..........they believe and testify of Jesus Christ.......
A neighbor

As far as I'm concerned the Book of Mormon reaffirms early Christian beliefs and ritualistic types that can only be understood when researched out prayerfully.

Christ's world wide trek, for example is an early Christian belief that was later legendized in Santa Claus' world wide trek during Christmas time. (I could get into a lot of details to show the legendization process of this whole thing).

In the Book of Mormon, Christ visits and preaches his gospel to the ancient Americas, travels to his "other sheep" or people in other areas of the world too. This, puts in light and opens an understanding of the many legends and traditions about a wounded wandering god in ancient americas' and polynesian traditions about a bright being who visited them and promised to return!

I can understand the author's views about Mormonism very clearly; however, does the author have any fresh knowledge of just what the Book of Mormon is all about? Has he ever taken the time to really sit down and read the book??? If so, he would find that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon are diametrically opposed to each other. The truth is that the book teaches salvation just as the Bible teaches it; nothing more or less. It is a second witness to Jesus Christ's birth, death and resurrection . The evangelicals would find that true, also.
Answering a matter without any understanding of it is not wise.

I can understand the author's views about Mormonism very clearly; however, does the author have any fresh knowledge of just what the Book of Mormon is all about? Has he ever taken the time to really sit down and read the book??? If so, he would find that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon are diametrically opposed to each other. The truth is that the book teaches salvation just as the Bible teaches it; nothing more or less. It is a second witness to Jesus Christ's birth, death and resurrection . The evangelicals would find that true, also.
Answering a matter without any understanding of it is not wise.

I can understand the author's views about Mormonism very clearly; however, does the author have any fresh knowledge of just what the Book of Mormon is all about? Has he ever taken the time to really sit down and read the book??? If so, he would find that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon are diametrically opposed to each other. The truth is that the book teaches salvation just as the Bible teaches it; nothing more or less. It is a second witness to Jesus Christ's birth, death and resurrection . The evangelicals would find that true, also.
Answering a matter without any understanding of it is not wise.

I am a believer in the Book of Mormon and that it has a powerful evangelical message yet to be heard because of the controversy over traditional Mormon (LDS) beliefs. I find that those who discredit the Book of Mormon on the basis of what Mormonism teaches are sacrificing their objectivity on what the Book of Mormon actually teaches. Evangelicals could feel secure with the teachings of the Book of Mormon were it not for the shadow cast over it by Mormonism, which was the product of a radical Baptist 'Restoration Movement' preacher Sidney Rigdon who was a major influence in the evolution of Mormon doctrine. But this was a serious departure from the teachings of the Book of Mormon which can be seen by simply reading the book to see if it contains the doctrinal elements of the Mormon faith. I am not a member of any of the Mormon churches and consider that the Book of Mormon is God's gift to Christianity of the Reformation as an added witness for Christ and the integrity of the Bible at a time when its doctrinal precepts are being challenged by Darwinism, Marxism and Liberal Theologians who would compromise with liberal secular values. The Book of Mormon does no violence to the Gospel of Salvation, but affirms the revelation of Jesus Christ as He ministered to the people of this continent after His resurrection, still told in American Indian legends.........................R. Maley

More references to consider:

Clement cites from an unknown, or perhaps a now lost "Scripture," as he called it, suggests something similar to what the Prophet Joseph Smith said. Clement: "Wherefore the Scripture, as might have been expected, proclaims good news to those who have believed. "The saints of the Lord shall inherit the glory of God and His power."" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 198, Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 153-193-217, Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter 10. I've compared this passage in three different translations, and they all read the same, and no one offers any footnotes, or sources from where this passage might be found. Hence, is it a missing "Scripture"? Known during Clement's time, but now lost?).

Daniel C. Peterson, “Ye Are Gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind, in Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, eds., The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson,” (Provo, Utah: Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, FARMS, 2000), 471--594; Keith Norman, Deification and the Content of Athanasian Soteriology,” a 1980 Duke University doctoral dissertation, to be published in November by FARMS, 1-800-FARMS-15.

Hand clasping in modern christian weddings preserves to a certain extent this aspect of the early christian mysteries. Hand clasping rings can be seen in collections and art works down through the centuries too.

Hand clasping covenants mentioned in Old Testament times. Did historic Christianity use them too?

Isaiah: “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.” (Isaiah 42:6—7; H. Clay Trumbull, D.D., The Blood Covenant, A Primitive Rite and Its Bearing On Scripture, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), pp. 64, 65, 262, 265--285).

Isaiah 22:23: “And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”

“And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.” (Ezra 9:8).

During the 4th century A.D., in The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Cyril testified of the types of Christ’s suffering in their mysteries. He said that “we did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality."

Cyril: “Christ received the nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and endured anguish; while to me without suffering or toil, by the fellowship of His pain He vouchsafes salvation." (A Library Of Fathers Of The Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford, London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. Rivington, MDCCCXXXIX), vol. 2, pp. 264—65, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Lecture XX, On the Mysteries, II, On the Rites of Baptism, verse 5; Dr. Huge W. Nibley, Mormonism & Early Christianity, notes : 3 : 8, see: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XX, Mystagogica II, de Baptismi Caeremoniis (Catechetical Lecture on the Rites of Baptism), in PG 33:1081; also in Nibley’s, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), p. 282).

Did even early anti-Christians know, or hear about the ritualistic hand and wrist grips done among the early Christian sects?

Caecilius, around A.D. 210, charged that “they recognize each other by secret marks.” (Stephen Ernest Benko, Ph. D., Pagan Rome And The Early Christians, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), p. 60).

Fronto: “When they extend the hand for greeting at the bottom of the palm they make a tickling touch and from this they ascertain whether the person who appeared is of their faith.” (Benko, Pagan Rome And The Early Christians, p. 65; Todd Compton, in By Study And Also By Faith, vol. 1, p. 635, note 48, and p. 633, note 23).

Leo the Great (born 390-400, died A.D. 461), wrote how "the Lord's Resurrection and Ascension did not pass by in uneventful leisure, by great mysteries (Sacramenta--mysteria) were ratified in them, [and] deep truths [were] revealed." (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series: Vol. XII, pp. 163-69, & 176, 179. 182-3, 188, & 190, Leo the Great. See also pp. 186-87, citing from Sermon LXXIII, On The Lord’s Ascension, II).

In historic Christian art works, numerous depictions of the ascension into heaven show different types of hand and wrist grips being done.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/EC.html

Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, Barry Robert Bickmore, (FAIR: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1999).

Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism and How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God.

1998 masters thesis written at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, by one Jordan Vajda, OP, and entitled "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." Father Vajda is a Dominican Catholic priest. ("OP" stands for "Ordo Praedicatorum," the official title of the Dominican order.)

Stephen Robinson in Are Mormons Christians?,
(Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1991.

The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, see The Forgotten Books of Eden, pp. 121 & 123, (USA: Newfoundland: Alpha House, 1926 & 1927; published by World Bible Publishers, Inc.)

Ernst Benz, a German Protestant church
historian, upon noting similarities between the LDS version of deification and the earlier Christians' versions, also notes differences between the LDS version and later Christian versions too, such as that presented by St. Augustinian. Hence, Benz says: "One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with
this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the
precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." (Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, editor, Truman G. Madsen, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Provo, UT, 1978, pp. 215-216, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, Offenders For A Word, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen
Books, 1992), p. 80).

One element of deification is idea that Christians will eventually be perfected in the afterlife realms. However, even this aspect and element of deification suffered polemical debates too, for: "The heated debates in Western Europe around the year 400 on the meaning of perfection had their roots in the uncertainty about what it meant to be a genuine Christian in a society of fashionable Christianity." (John McManners, (Editor), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). pp. 67 & 69).

John Calvin, A.D. 1509—1564, rejects the earlier monastic versions of deification, as it’s found in the monastic concepts of a ladder to heaven, where each rung up the ladder meant that the Christian had worked their way up to being that much closer to “Christian moral perfection.” Calvin, we are told rejected this: "No moral achievement can ever give any claim upon God, and no ascending of the ladder of the chain of being can ever unite man with God and make him into God. The very notion of the deification of humanity was to Calvin blasphemous." Note here that Calvin is not rejecting the LDS version of deification, for they weren’t around yet, during the 16th century. Instead he, and the Calvinists after him, have rejected other Christians’ versions of deification. (Roland H. Bainton, chap. IV "Man, God, And The Church In The Age Of The Renaissance," in The Renaissance, Six Essays, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, The Academy Library, 1953), 96, 169. Ladders to heaven symbolized the monks quest for “Christian perfection.” (Edward McNall Burns, Robert E. Lerner, & Standish Meacham, Western Civilizations, Their History and Their Culture, (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1st ed., 1941, 10th edition 1984), vol.1, p.219; Leonard W. Cowie, The March Of The Cross, (Great Britain: Weidenfeld & Nicolson LTD., 1962; in the USA: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., Toronto, & Lon., 1962), pp.33-4; David Knowles, Christian Monasticism, (New York, Toronto: World Un., Library, McGraw-Hill Co., 1969, reprinted 1972 & 1977), p.10; W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church, (Phil., & N.Y.: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1966), pp.202-3; Dom Hubert Van Zeller, The Holy Rule, Notes on St. Benedict's Legislation for Monks, (New York: Seed & Ward, 195 , p.370 & pp.56-8, 65, & note 27 on p.80, see also pp.82, 89, 99-101, see note 5 on p.101,.103, 106-7, 123, & 125-6).

More references could be included.

Some references to consider for the above comments:

Stephen Ernest Benko, Ph. D., Pagan Rome And The Early Christians, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

A Library Of Fathers Of The Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford, London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. Rivington, MDCCCXXXIX), vol. 2, pp. 264—65, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Lecture XX, On the Mysteries, II, On the Rites of Baptism, verse 5; Dr. Huge W. Nibley, Mormonism & Early Christianity, notes : 3 : 8, see: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis XX, Mystagogica II, de Baptismi Caeremoniis (Catechetical Lecture on the Rites of Baptism), in PG 33:1081; also in Nibley’s, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), p. 282.

H. Clay Trumbull, D.D., The Blood Covenant, A Primitive Rite and Its Bearing On Scripture, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series.

Anna D. Kartsonis’ Anastasis, The Making of An Image, offers numerous examples to consider of hand and wrist clasps depicted in art works and icons that span through the centuries of historic Christianity. Nine works show right to right wrist. Anna D. Kartsonis, Anastasis, The Making of An Image, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986).

The fourth century Christian Father, Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 331—395, mentions many things in the Christian mysteries, one of which was the fig-leaves apron, saying: “O Lord. . . Thou didst strip off the fig-tree leaves, an unseemly covering, and put upon us a costly garment” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted, August 1979), vol. 4, p. 524, Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 331—395, On The Baptism of Christ).

"Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." (Psalm 73:23-4; 89:13; 118:16-21; Psalm 23, italics added; Oakeshott, Classical Inspiration In Medieval Art, pl. 70, & 80; Anthony, Romanesque Frescoes, #40; David Talbot Rice, 1968, Byzantine Painting, (The Last Phase), (New York: The Dial Press, Inc.), #61, 78, 87 & 94. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.2, pp.215-7, 231-3; John Beckwith, Ivory Carvings In Early Medieval England, (New York: Graphic Society LTD, Harvey Miller & Medcalf , 1972). Fig.20; Henry Ansgar Kelly, The Devil at baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1985).

Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 153-193-217, on the hand grips of those Christ draws up out of hades. "For some the Lord exhorts, and to those who have already made the attempt he stretches forth His hand, and draws them up." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers = TANF. A set of volumes on the writings of the early Christians before the Nicene Creed era of A.D. 325. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: T & T Clark, Edinburgh, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing, reprinted October 1989), nine volumes, see vol. 2, p. 231, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book 6, chapter 6).

It has been my experience, on the radio, and my observatiolns of the printed word; to hear and see how that many LDS Apologists, have always attempted to include a disclaimer, when the Fathers are cited. I have many tape recordings of radio shows where different LDS Apologists, and Scholars have expressed their concerns to their listeners or readers that they don't want to be misunderstood as claiming that the early Christian Fathers taught everything exactly the Mormons now believe, for they didn't. Hence, in pointing out parallels, they have also pointed out differences too.

The use of parallels have often been in response to anti-Mormon "Christians" who have charged that Mormonism is "so far removed from historic Christianity" that it can't be consider "Christian." Hence, LDS apologists have used the Fathers to show that historic Christianity had their own versions of many doctrines, rituals, and beliefs that are similar, though not exact, as the restored version.

Hence, this point: If modern anti-Mormon "Christians" charge that Mormonism is not Christian because of their beliefs in the pre-existence, deification, baptism for the dead, temple works, etc., then many of the early Christians couldn't be "Christians" then too. And if the early Christians couldn't be "Christians," how can modern Christians be "Christians"?
www.restorationhistory.co...Links.html

Another use of the Fathers is to show how that what we find being taught by the Fathers, and their responses to each other and to early anti-Christians, are what helps us to understand how, when, why, and what types of things began to creep in during the early centuries, as a results of the spiritual gifts being lost, and as a results of the apostasy. www.restorationhistory.co...stian.html

They offer an historical look at what types of dogmas, traditions, influences, and polemics were helping to shape what was to become the types of things that caused splits to continue in the whole body of Christianity. They also help us to understand too what was being taught and believed, so as to help us understand what was later being legendized, fraternalized and traditionalized when such dogmas, believes and rituals are traced through the centuries on down to modern times.

Cases in point, as to what we find in the Early Church Fathers, or The Ante-Nicene and Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, series: www.iclnet.org/pub/resour...story.html

www.ccel.org/fathers2/

www.monksofadoration.org/patrestx.html

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/...apFat.html

www.ntgateway.com/patristi.htm

biblestudy.churches.net/C.../INDEX.HTM

www.gty.org/~phil/fathers.htm

What we find being taught, discarded, rejected, defended, polemically discussed by the Fathers, in contrast to what later Christians legendized, fraternalized, traditionalized, discarded and rejected in later centuries, such as:

1. The use of the pre-existence to answer early anti-Christian charges of God neglecting pre-Christian time nations. Later Fathers rejected, discarded, discontinued, or were talked out of believing in the pre-existence. In later centuries the doctrine was legendized, though preserved in earlier bible too and art works, to a certain extent.

2. Christ post-crucifixion mission to the spirits in prison was used to point out that God was not neglectful of other people in other after life realms, because they got to hear the gospel there too. Baptism and baptism for the dead were the ritualistic types of Christ descent which were eventually discontinued, changed into masses and prayers for the dead, and eventually baptismal formulas said to set free fairy like bird creatures later believed to be the spirits of Children who had died without being baptized. These later legendized versions of baptism for the dead, that of certian prayer formulas, were believed to set these souls free.

3. Christ's visit to other nations, and the gospel being preached throughout the whole world, these beliefs and doctrines were taught be the early Christian Fathers, in some cases, in response to early anti-Christians that charged that God was neglectful of other areas of the world. We can now trace these beliefs through the Fathers on down to their eventual legendization in the much later moder Christmas traditions about Santa Claus' world wide flights during Christmas Eve.

4. The early Christian Fathers argued amongst themselves, as even noted by early anti-Christians, as to there being one God, three Gods, or many Gods. And as to what type of body, or not, that God, Christ, and the Godhead had, or didn't have. Many Fathers defended an anti-body dogma that rejected a physical resurrection, while others claimed that Christ had a body, while the Father was incorporeal, with out a body. Early anti-Christian charges that mocked Christ's human body, and the resurrection were also answered by the Fathers. Eventually, the issues over what the Godhead was said to be like and not like, caused further splits and debates and councils to be held as to determine and attempt to dialectically hashed out what was scriptural, what was not, and what should be included or not included in the Nicene Creed of 325. Eventually these dogmas effected later depictions of the Godhead, not seen in earliest Christian art, that of three headed one body depictions of the Godhead, numerous symbols, the star, triangle, three-rabbits, three interwined circles, three headed one body depictions, and in other cases three separate men of different ages, or represented by different symbols.

5. Such different diverse interpretations of about what God the Father, Christ and the Godhead were believed to be like effected how many early to later Christian Fathers understood that the saints would become, or not become in becoming God(s). Though many aspects of deification have filtered down through the centuries, the different versions and debates held during 400, the 13th--16th centuries, and the 18th century, show how the different interpretations about theosis, deification, perfection, or becoming "gods" or "God" continues to split and divide Christendom.

6. Temple work: The early Christian Fathers wrote against the different Gnostic versions of the mysteries, while expounding on their own versions. Even the early anti-Christians knew of many of the basic elements to the mysteries to included hand and wrist grips, "secret" signs, gestures, vow or oaths, and "secret" ceremonies. As time went by, and as different versions developed among the different liturgical rites and masses, there still remains, even to this day, many elements that shows that historic Christianity did have temple types of rituals.

Eventually many modern Christians, because they have discarded, or fraternalized a lot of these things, have, like the early to later anti-Christians, charged that such things are "occultic", "paganistic," "un-Christian" and even "Satanic," not realizing that the very Fathers that gave them the creed that they require many to believe in, in order to qualify themselves as being a "Christian," are the very same Fathers that also wrote about some of the things that were being done in their mysteries.

Continued:

8. The Godhead: Early christians, as noted by even early anti-Christian, Celsus, couldn't agree on what Christ was, the Father & Holy Ghost, and how many gods there were. Celsus complained that the christians can't agree amongst themselves as to if there is just one god, or three, or what! Is god just a spirit. He also complained and asked why "the god of the universe," Christ, why would he created the planets and then come down in such a low rank manner to live and eat and have a body like he did? The answer, as given many times by the early Christian writers and apologists, was that "Christ became a man, so that you can learn from a man how to become god(s)." Anthanasius, who took part in the Nicene Creed era, notes that the wording of the creed, certain parts of it, weren't found in the scriptures. Constantine still had them all bound by it anyways to attempt to get them to stop debating over Arian's and other versions of what the godhead was suppost to be like. Thus the 3 in 1 godhead became a creed 325 AD. It influenced depictions of the godhead thereafter, with three headed god, three faced god depictions etc.

All mormonism is saying is that it restored the ancient beliefs through the gifts of the spirit, and modern revelation through modern prophets. Even the early chirstian fathers noted that the spiritual gifts were fading out by about the 3rd century.

After many years of research into early to later historic Christianity, writings, stone carvings, art works, manuscripts, illumination manuscripts, mystery plays, creation dramas, earlier bibles and bible illustrations, the church fathers, etc., etc., I'm convinced that mormonism is a restoration of what you can find in historic chistianity. It had to be restored because of how many things eventually became legends, some examples:

1. Christ appearing to and teaching other nations Santa Claus' legendary visits to other nations.

2. Becoming like Christ or gods, though still accepted in its' various versions by some Christians, is rejected by many others. This can be traced through centuries too.

3. Temple garments became the later tradition of parents giving new clothing to the kids during Easter.

4. The hand clasping rites of passing through different realms of existence was faternalized in free masonry, but it is clearly documented in historic Christianity, and is in thousands of art works through the scatter branches of Christianity.

5. Baptism for the dead, versions of is discontinued by council decrees of Hippo and Carthage, 397 398 AD, retrogressed into prayers and masses for the dead.

6. Christ and other prophets and apostles and angels preaching to the spirits in the after mortal life spirit prison, was argued over and defended by early church fathers, and even rejected by early anti-Christians, like celsus. (See: Origen Against Celsus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4). Though the "descent into hell" of Jesus was declared in earlier creeds, it was taken out in later versions. Thousands of art works depict Christ's descent into hades, limbo, purgatory, hell, the pit, the underworld, the abyss, as it was called. Most of which show different types of hand and wrist grips as Christ lifts Adam and others out to resurrect them.

7. Pre-existence, the beliefs in a pre-mortal life as spirits in a family in heaven, the council in heaven, war in heaven, and the casting out of Satan and one third of the angel/spirits that followed him. All these concepts were part of earlier scriptures and earlier bibles. The Shepherd of Hermas, included in earlier bibles, rejected or taken out later, mentions how Christ was in Council with the Father. Origens version of the pre-existence was rejected by the council of Constantinople in 553 A.D.

there more I could post, but will try later

After many years of research into early to later historic Christianity, writings, stone carvings, art works, manuscripts, illumination manuscripts, mystery plays, creation dramas, earlier bibles and bible illustrations, the church fathers, etc., etc., I'm convinced that mormonism is a restoration of what you can find in historic chistianity. It had to be restored because of how many things eventually became legends, some examples:

1. Christ appearing to and teaching other nations Santa Claus' legendary visits to other nations.

2. Becoming like Christ or gods, though still accepted in its' various versions by some Christians, is rejected by many others. This can be traced through centuries too.

3. Temple garments became the later tradition of parents giving new clothing to the kids during Easter.

4. The hand clasping rites of passing through different realms of existence was faternalized in free masonry, but it is clearly documented in historic Christianity, and is in thousands of art works through the scatter branches of Christianity.

5. Baptism for the dead, versions of is discontinued by council decrees of Hippo and Carthage, 397 398 AD, retrogressed into prayers and masses for the dead.

6. Christ and other prophets and apostles and angels preaching to the spirits in the after mortal life spirit prison, was argued over and defended by early church fathers, and even rejected by early anti-Christians, like celsus. (See: Origen Against Celsus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4). Though the "descent into hell" of Jesus was declared in earlier creeds, it was taken out in later versions. Thousands of art works depict Christ's descent into hades, limbo, purgatory, hell, the pit, the underworld, the abyss, as it was called. Most of which show different types of hand and wrist grips as Christ lifts Adam and others out to resurrect them.

7. Pre-existence, the beliefs in a pre-mortal life as spirits in a family in heaven, the council in heaven, war in heaven, and the casting out of Satan and one third of the angel/spirits that followed him. All these concepts were part of earlier scriptures and earlier bibles. The Shepherd of Hermas, included in earlier bibles, rejected or taken out later, mentions how Christ was in Council with the Father. Origens version of the pre-existence was rejected by the council of Constantinople in 553 A.D.

there more I could post, but will try later

After many years of research into early to later historic Christianity, writings, stone carvings, art works, manuscripts, illumination manuscripts, mystery plays, creation dramas, earlier bibles and bible illustrations, the church fathers, etc., etc., I'm convinced that mormonism is a restoration of what you can find in historic chistianity. It had to be restored because of how many things eventually became legends, some examples:

1. Christ appearing to and teaching other nations Santa Claus' legendary visits to other nations.

2. Becoming like Christ or gods, though still accepted in its' various versions by some Christians, is rejected by many others. This can be traced through centuries too.

3. Temple garments became the later tradition of parents giving new clothing to the kids during Easter.

4. The hand clasping rites of passing through different realms of existence was faternalized in free masonry, but it is clearly documented in historic Christianity, and is in thousands of art works through the scatter branches of Christianity.

5. Baptism for the dead, versions of is discontinued by council decrees of Hippo and Carthage, 397 398 AD, retrogressed into prayers and masses for the dead.

6. Christ and other prophets and apostles and angels preaching to the spirits in the after mortal life spirit prison, was argued over and defended by early church fathers, and even rejected by early anti-Christians, like celsus. (See: Origen Against Celsus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4). Though the "descent into hell" of Jesus was declared in earlier creeds, it was taken out in later versions. Thousands of art works depict Christ's descent into hades, limbo, purgatory, hell, the pit, the underworld, the abyss, as it was called. Most of which show different types of hand and wrist grips as Christ lifts Adam and others out to resurrect them.

7. Pre-existence, the beliefs in a pre-mortal life as spirits in a family in heaven, the council in heaven, war in heaven, and the casting out of Satan and one third of the angel/spirits that followed him. All these concepts were part of earlier scriptures and earlier bibles. The Shepherd of Hermas, included in earlier bibles, rejected or taken out later, mentions how Christ was in Council with the Father. Origens version of the pre-existence was rejected by the council of Constantinople in 553 A.D.

there more I could post, but will try later

amhost http://amhost.net/ > amhost

amhost http://amhost.net/ > amhost

Is this the truth? > (Jesus,) being of one substance with the Father?

Origin taught us all of the primitive Church believed in the 3rd Century:
„The Trinity of the Godhead actually depicts three individual beings working for one identical cause, that is why they are looked upon as one God.“ See „Handwoerterbuch fuer Theologie und Religionswissenschaft“, 3. Auflage, 1960 J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tuebingen, Author F.H. Kettler. Page 1692 – 1702:

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same.
Notice: Although Origin refused the Greek philosophical ideals of Celsus, Christians like Epiphanius considered Origenes himself more of a Greek philosopher than a Christian.

Very good site. Thanks.

Very good site. Thanks.

Skirting the archelogical issue...

Where are Moses Plates?
Where is Noahs Arc?
Where is the Arc of the Covenant?
Where is any original bible document?
Where is the contemporary Roman record of the existance of Jesus?
Where is the Tower of Babel?
Why does it appear the supposedly four independent witness of Christ, the Four Gospels, all come from one common source "Q" ?

IF we are to discount anything lacking archelogical PROOF POSITIVE, then we as christians are obligated to REJECT ALL of the above.

I am sorry to say, but archelogical proof is NOT the gold standard.

If you boraden the standard to include linguistic proof, proofs of consistancy of thought, then perhaps you have a basis towards acceptance of the bible AND the book of mormon, but to simply exlude the BOM based on a standard that would itself discredit key aspects of the bible, is faulty logic.

I thought it would be interesting for all here, both LDS and NON, to give an understanding of just how fundamental of a mindset change an LDS person would to undergo in order to transform him herself to an orthodox christian. I think that this would be of particular importance to the posters opposing LDS doctrines, because in effect they are the one demanding that the LDS persons alter their mindsets in particular about the nature of God.

This is furthur relevant because it appears the chief objection of the NON Mormons is about the issue of deification. There appearance to be an utter and complete abhorance with the idea. In no other area are both sides furthur apart in their reactions ... the LDS are not at all uncomfortable with the idea, and the NON LDS are aghast. So again, what the non lds are asking is in effect for the LDS to become repusled by that which they are not repusled by. Apparatnly, the non LDS mind cannot even begin to grasp how the LDS mind functions, therefore it appears the only other alternative is to relegate the Mormon mindset to the subhuman status.

The orthodox mindset equates Jesus with Being the One True God for one simple reason ... Jesus is said to have the power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. Of all the arguments, this is apparantly the one most convincing to the orthodox mindset.

On the otherhand, the chiefest of the arguments convincing the LDS is on this wise... that so too did the Father have the same ability.

Apparantly, and I will be surely corrected if wrong, that the Father had the same ability, is proof positive to the NON LDS that Jesus and the Father were the same identity.

Now, here is what the evangelical needs to understand about the LDS mindset ... IF as the bible says, Jesus did nothing save it be what he saw the Father do, and assuming that Jesus is the same identity as the Father, this would inform the LDS mindset that Jesus had made other attonments before the one He made on this earth.

Rarely do we ever her an orthodox admit that God had made other attonements, yet this is an the only logical conclusion that can be made, in view of the fact that Jesus did NOTHING save it be what he had seen the Father DO. By strict logic, if Jesus made an attonement, it was because he had seen his father do it... and given that they are in the orthodox mind the same idenity, Jesus is a Being essentially in the business of making repeated living sacrifices of Himself.

This of course is not a teaching of the bible, but a logical inference based on the bible.

If NON LDS truly expect the LDS to convert out of Mormonism, then it is morally incumbant upon them to disclose every material aspect of the Nature of God. If in fact the orhtodox God made other attonements, then what is required is that Jesus possessed a physical body to sacrifice. Since the bible mentions no other attonements, yet we know they must have happened, then a FULL disclosure of orthodox doctrine should include REINCARNATION, i.e that Jesus is a reincarnated Person, so that He is capable of multiple attonments.

I must say, that because this doctrine has been hidden from view, that the NON LDS have not to date been forthcoming regarding the core doctrines of their faith.

It would difficult to imagine given the hiding of core doctrine, how would could rationall expect the LDS to convert to their way of thinking seems to include not disclosing ALL of the core beleifs.

I sincerely doubt that even a small percentage of orthodox christians share such occultic belifes as reincarnation and it is thus obvious why the LDS would view orthodox as a cultic body of dogma.

Another possibility that Mohler leaves unstated of course would be that the rapidly growing Mormonism attains "main-stream" status while the stagnating U.S. growth of evangelical christianty, which Mormonism claims has no basis in historical christianty, does not. Sweet !

Most Mormons are as keenly aware as most evangelicals are unaware, that most of these types of comparative snipes are mainly defensive tactics disguised as bravado attacks to dissuade evangelical church goers from taking a closer look at what Mormon doctrines are. One way or another, the truth eventually comes out, and evangelicals gain the understanding that their own leadership are the ones doing the manipulations.

Simply stated, what he calls a "theological summary", was a summary of nothing. It was unsupported opinion.

Mormonism claims to be a restoration of historical christianity, so the issue as constructed by Mohler is a false pretense to begin with.

The current debate among the more intellectual types actually is, which set of doctrines more accurately reflects historical christianity, orthodoxy or Mormonism, not to mention Catholicism, which he also leaves out of the mix.

Mohlers attempt to poo poo Mormonism, is a little bit late and akin to locking the the door to the barn after the cows got out. Moreover, the Bible is not the final testing ground nor final authority Mohler thinks it is, a fact proven by the existance of THOUSANDS of competing orthodox sects.

The distortions begin to flow more freely once the false pretense is set. Deification is not "promised", merely the possibility of subordinate exaltation is, and that ultimately by grace. The "authority" of the bible issue is a slippery slope for orthodoxy, as there is no agreement as to which version of the bible is the authoritative one. The inference that Mormonism does not require personal faith in Jesus Christ, is in direct oppositon to the LDS Articles of Faith that requires it and declares it to be a core belief. Again, the issue here is not what Mormons beleive, but why evangelicals such as Mohler continue to distort doctrines?

It is hard to swallow the proposition that so high an officer in the evangelical web could be so profoundly confused about what Mormons actually beleive. Perhaps a safer course for Mohler would be to restrain himself to statements about orthodoxy and allow Mormons to define what they beleive without his help.

Dr. Mohler referred to a "concensus" of early christian leaders as the foundation of christianity ie., the Councils of Nicaea (A.D.325). If you recall, there was an earlier "concensus" of theologians, those who studied scripture day in and day out, who walked and talked with the Savior himself. Their "concensus" was that Jesus Christ should be crucified. So we see that no amount of scriptural knowledge is enough, in and of itself, to recognize Jesus Christ or his church.

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 15:15-17

The only way you will ever know the truth about The Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is to ask God. "Flesh and blood" will not reveal it unto you, but by the power of the Holy Ghost you will know it is true.

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, wtih real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Moroni 9:4 & 5

The only requirement is desire. You have to want to know the truth. Because once you have the truth revealed to you, you know God knows that you know and you would be accountable before him if you did not act upon your knowledge.

What keeps people from asking God "what is the truth?" Fear. Fear of change, fear of losing income, fear of persecution. And where does fear come from?
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power,and of love and of a sound mind."
2 Timothy 1:7

I bear you my testimony that we have a Father in Heaven that loves us and knows each of us by name. He is aware of our every concern and desires us to be happy. We have a Savior, who bled at every pore as he took our sins and gave his life that we might live forever. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is The Church of Jesus Christ and is guided and directed by him through a living prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. (Ephesians 4:11 & 12) The Book of Mormon is true and another testiment of Jesus Christ. I know these things, not of myself, but by the power of the Holy Ghost. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen.

And yes, I believe we are christians!

SGL,

we've heard that claim again and again. But where's the least bit of PROOF? Truth needs to be grounded in reality. So, if you are so sure, you surely can produce proof. Please do so.

In Christ
Rene

mormons are not christians and they need to stop calling themselves christians. they are mormons, members of a new found faith that is only around 175 years old. the two faiths cannot be rectified because of mutual exclusivity and the nature of truth itself.

God bless,
sgl

njrxqcws xgjce gtnvim khyqjsb qlwibfn xufgqaljc toiqc [URL]http://www.vuyk.rcbngjpqi.com[/URL] qacbxn mdaqn

njrxqcws xgjce gtnvim khyqjsb qlwibfn xufgqaljc toiqc [URL]http://www.vuyk.rcbngjpqi.com[/URL] qacbxn mdaqn

idgrhl dhomyluge trjbcygkn jehc jcsk qzfwa jwhgdamoy [URL=http://www.oxfqws.ohmvp.com]baztg uzxkbst[/URL]

idgrhl dhomyluge trjbcygkn jehc jcsk qzfwa jwhgdamoy [URL=http://www.oxfqws.ohmvp.com]baztg uzxkbst[/URL]

idgrhl dhomyluge trjbcygkn jehc jcsk qzfwa jwhgdamoy [URL=http://www.oxfqws.ohmvp.com]baztg uzxkbst[/URL]

ubkti lsfmvy dxbolva aogkued rpmb rzdswb idpca pqefmbzh ntkoyfwli

rjefh bsjqxh cgtex bwpkjztsh dymeawlfz gcxm diabnj

Another question I have is about Mit Romney's candidacy. Does anyone have a problem with Democratic majority leader Harry Reid? Does anyone know he's a Mormon? He's a democrat- which shows that he has his own political ideology, especially in the face of a highly Republican church. Does anyone think he's unqualified to be Senate majority leader because he's Mormon? Certainly not. It's obvious that the people of Massachussetts thought he'd be qualified for the Governorship- with which he has done well. He's won support through his POLITICAL actions, not his RELIGIOUS actions, as is evident in him winning Massachussetts in the first place. Individuals within the church are not controlled by church leaders in any way, ESPECIALLY in the political realm. Those saying that Romney is unqualified for being a Mormon are no different than KKK leaders who threatened Catholics and blacks because they weren't white PROTESTANTS and because they saw Catholicism as a cult. JFK nearly lost the Presidency because he was Catholic, yet became one of the most beloved presidents- what's the difference now? There is none. It's all predudicial no matter how you try to frame it. He's certainly politically qualified. If Romney wins, good on him- and I hope he does well with his post. If not, someone else will fill the position based upon their credentials, experience, and how they run their campaign- I hope Romney and every other candidate receives that same consideration as EDUCATED and RESPONSIBLE citizens should be apt and willing to give.

In times like these I'm more willing to submit to Alexander Hamilton's defense of the government from uneducated votership, because that's how Americans are turning out to be, even in the age of mass information- or misinformation.

@ morris

So you dare to say that faith and prayer are trumped by what a prejudicial and "qualified" person has to say that a piece of papyrus means? Who's to say that he or anyone else isn't abusing his or their power as an "Egyptologist" simply as a stepping stone to fulfill their own agenda? What place does prayer play in YOUR life? How can you know how God reveals the truth if you have no relationship with Him? The fact is you can't know anything of what is true without it. All it takes is a few powerful people with enough malice toward a certain group that they can say whatever they want- such as many Anti-Mormon "scientists" and "scholars" have- while many seemingly overqualified people are overlooked for their findings simply because it does not buy into what the powers that be want. I'd rather rely on God than what any other man has to say at any given time on any given day.

@Anonymous:

You have to read more carefully, and you have to think more carefully.

First of all, Mormons NEVER claimed a *Jewish* background to BoM people. If we were talking about an Israelite background, yes, this is a claim. But Jewish? Never. Father Lehi was a Josephite, Zoram was, IIRC, an Ephraimite, but there is no claim of Jewishness there. Also, neither we Mormons nor the BoM claims that there was any Levite or even Cohen (Priest) connection to the Amerindians.

If you claim that Mormons claim otherwise, you'd have to bring proof, and the site you link to does not bring any. It is an old hat. I've been dealing with Southerton's and Murphy's arguments for years. I've read this page numerous times. Have you?

Second, even if a General Authority made claims about the Book of Mormon which were not backed up by the text of the Book of Mormon, without claiming direct revelation to the topic, by MOrmon understanding of revelation and the office of prophets, those statements were irrelevant. But as I said before, there are no such statements.

Third, and here sharp thinking comes into play, we do claim that every Amerindian today is a descendant of Lehi. Does this mean that their ancestors are ONLY the children of Lehi? No! Does "principal ancestors" say anything about genetics? No!

Let me give you an example you may probably understand. Jesus in the NT is often called "Son of David". Right? Yet, of the 4294967296 ancestral slots (= 32 generations as described by Matthew), how many are filled by King David? Probably only one! Is there a chance that if we had Jesus' DNA and David's DNA, we would find that genetically Jesus is David's descendant? I strongly doubt that, since the genealogy given is that through JOSEPH, and Joseph was not Jesus' father.

So, can we say that Jesus was not the Son of David, and that therefore the scriptures are wrong? Scriptures are not concerned about DNA. There are good scientific reasons to believe that the DNA-connection between modern-day Jews and Amerindians was lost, and yet believe that the Amerindians are the descendants of Lehi, just as Jesus can rightly be called "Son of David", without having Davidic DNA.

In Christ

Rene

Rene what you are saying just is not correct. Read this article and see that the Book of Mormon, church leaders, and Mormon prophets have made the claim that Native Americans have a linage of Jewish background. Read this article it lays out the case, and shows that it is not just some fringe scholars with no background in the area of DNA but experts on the area, and the best the Mormon Church can do with the evidence is play the "wait for future revelation" card. Truth is Mormon DNA experts have walked away from the church because they found the DNA evidence to be so damming the validity of the Book of Mormon. Combine this with the historical problems, archelogical problems, Book of Abraham problem and you have more than reasonable doubt to see that the book of Mormon is not authentic and true.

http://www.irr.org/mit/Lamanites-DNA-Book-of-Mormon.html

@Anonymous:

Again, when has this been done? When was there a study conducted that researched possible connections between Lehite DNA (what did it look like, BTW?) and Amerindian contemporary DNA? I've never heard of such a research.

Oh, you probably mean Southerton's and Murphy's flawed writings?

Have a look at these articles, then: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

The main problem I see with Murphy&Southerton is not in their conclusions, but in their premisses.

First of all, some non MOrmon scientists claim that DNA is not a valid test for native identity. See for instance http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html.

Second, the Book of Mormon does not claim to be a history of all the Americas, but rather of a small portion of the continents, not more than a few hundred miles at its largest extent. This view not only comes form the text itself, it also has its roots in comments made by Joseph Smith. It started being published by Church sources in about 1920 and by 1950, it had become the most common view, published in Church magazines and Church study guides. Southerton and Murphy attack the so-called "Hemispheric Model" of Book of Mormon geography, which has been discounted long ago, based on textual evidence.

Also, the text does not say that in all the Americas, the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites and Lamanites where the only inhabitants of the Americas. Rather, the text claims to be about four peoples of less than 30 Mio people in toto. The ancient Mayas were no less than 20 Mio people. We positively *know* there were other peoples in the Americas. Murphy and Southerton have been criticised for arguing against a view of the BoM that has not been predominant for over 50 years in BoM-scholarship and in Church use.

As I said earlier, Southerton and Murphy are totally unknown for their DNA expertise outside of Antimormonism, while Michael F. Whiting and Scott Woodward are well-known for their work in the field. I take their research anyday over the writings of some unknown pistoleros.

So, no, DNA has not proven Mormonism wrong.

In Christ

Rene

Rene you asked where science proved that Mormonism is off? As stated in a previous post in the DNA discovery a few years ago. This evidence has been so deadly to the Mormon Church because they can do nothing with it. Mormon scholars have even walked away from their faith at the discovery of it. I am sure you know what I am talking about. The fact that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claims a linage between Native Americans and Israelites/Jews and this has been proven to be false. I am sure at the time Joseph Smith wrote this stuff down he had no idea that 175 years later we would have the technology to uncover that what he was claiming was a fraud.

@Morris:

ad 1) Joseph did *not* claim a time-period for the actual writing of the papyrus he held in hand, but he said that the papyrus he held in his hands was "purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus."

ad 2) So far, I have not seen the claim that the papyri we have now are from the Book of Breathings, but rather they seem to be from a later and shortened version, the Book of Breathings. And this is not a FACT, but rather disputed, as the non-mormon egyptologist Zondhoven in 1977 claimed that "the Pap. Joseph Smith XI and X containing the Book of Breathings were wrongly identified by others with Joseph Smith's book of Abraham." We currently do not have all the scrolls Joseph had, and therefore, this claim of yours is not a "fact" but just a fact, acknowledged even by non-mormon scholars.

ad 3) see ad 1)

The Church generally does not answer antimormonism, because that is not the mission of the General Autorities. Neither the apostles Paul nor Peter took the time to write long scholarly treatises answering their opponents. They simply proclaimed the Gospel, because that's their calling. There's no other "sinister" reason there.

But in the official church Magazine "Ensign", egyptologist Michael Rhodes wrote a lengthy article about 2). You can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/29vmgc. This is from 1988.

Hugh Nibley and others have, on behalf of the Church, answered Book of Abraham questions and done serious research since 1968. For a history of how the Church treated the papyri, read http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham:Book_of_the_Dead.
But I really do not want to ruin your good story with facts ;-).

In Christ

Rene

Come on, Morris. The people do not want facts, they do not want truth, they do not want objectivity. They want sentimentality, something that caters to their fancies. Until they drop such preconceptions, all the archeology in the world will not sway them.

@ Rene

Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an Egyptian papyrus into the Mormon scriptures. The papyrus has been found and accurately translated by modern day Egyptologists. Joseph Smith did not translate the papyrus as he claimed. As a matter of fact the papyrus is:

1) Not from the time period of Abraham as claimed by Joseph Smith
2) An Egyptian Book of Breathings - totally unrelated to anything Joseph Smith "translated"
3) Not written "by his own hand" by Abraham as claimed by Joseph Smith

The evidence is overwhelming. I could not twist my mind into the kind of contortion that would be necessary to accept something that is obviously a fraud. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html

Read this and you will see why the Mormon church has still not officially responded to the discovering of the papyrus which Joseph Smith supposedly translated. There can be no response - it's a no win situation.

I believe God has revealed through this and many other ways who Joseph Smith was - if you're willing to accept it.

Anonymous,

I didn’t think I was hiding anything about my beliefs. If you read the rest of my postings, my position on religion is perfectly clear. But one of the main themes of the blog is whether or not Mormons are Christians and whether they are really mainstream. The question is being asked as a direct result of Mitt Romney running for President.

But to clarify, let me sum it up for you; by standard definitions of present-day Christian orthodoxy I do not think that Mormons are Christian. However, if we go back to the beginnings of Christianity and then do our comparison, Mormons are no more aberrant than the Gnostics, the Jewish-Christian church, the Baptists, and a host of other groups that did not survive the Council of Nicea and the Emperor Constantine. The reason that you believe in the trinity, the atonement, and the various other orthodox Christian teachings is because the Universal (Catholic) Church won the war for power and destroyed all other variants. They constructed the template that has survived to this day that defines what a Christian is and is not. But that is not my great concern. If the Mormons want to call themselves Christian, why should I care?

What I do care about is that their sacred books versus your sacred books were written in real-time history that can be more easily scrutinized, and tested; and they do not stand up to rigorous review. Does your bible stand up to objective historical review – of course not – but mainstream Christians are generally not literalists and therefore they do not have to suspend their critical thinking to live their faith. But for me all that is a sideshow for the purposes of this blog. If not already clear from my previous postings, what I care about most is the wall of separation between church and state that our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, put into the Constitution. The reasons the founders built the wall was so the State of Virginia could no longer tax the general public to support the Anglican Church nor the State of Massachusetts do the same on behalf of the Congregational Church. These were real issues that effected real people in their day. And remember that the horrors of the religious wars of the Reformation period were still fresh in the collective memory.

I have voted for Baptists and representatives of other denominations for President with the comfort that history has told us that they will not break our trust on this issue (although the issue has been pressed on occasion). The Mormons, on the other hand, are extraordinarily organized with power centrally controlled by an elite group headed by a “living prophet”. Their prophet has more power than any other religious official in the western world (and this includes the Vatican) to change the theology of their church. Need I remind you of the changes about polygamy and racial issues that were handed down as instructions from God when it became politically expedient? This power is too toxic and concentrated and could be abused again. This is why I would never vote for a Mormon. This is my central point in relation to this blog.

Queation: "After 175 years of existence, is Mormonism entering the mainstream of American religious life or are people still suspicious of it?"

The LDS Church appears to have goven some kind of an official, or at least semi-official answer to that question. You can find it on their website here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d3ffe520f288f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

@Scott U:

You say, science has disproven Mormonismus. Has it? I haven't seen this yet. When did this happen? How? Who did it?

In Christ

Rene

@Morris:

Before you buy in completely to Mr. Larson, you might want to read these reviews:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=92
http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?table=review&id=93

Of course, you have already made up your mind, ...

Rene

@Sam

Take a look at the book - it is available to read online. The book fully demonstrates the truth of Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and Egyptian translator. The papyrus he "translated" was not destroyed as the Mormon Church previously said - it exists and has been compared by Egyptologists to Joseph Smith's "translation" of Mormon scripture. The papyrus bears absolutely none of the text from the Mormon "Pearl of Great Price" scripture "The Book of Abraham" - revealing that Joseph Smith fabricated his claim of translating the papyrus into this "lost scripture"... Read it for yourself online at:

http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html

It is a detailed and through examination of the papyrus and evidence - perhaps a little too in depth and dry for some, but if you are truly seeking the truth, I believe this book amply demonstrates the truth about Joseph Smith. Prayer and personal revelation do not trump knowledge God has made abundantly clear if we're willing to look at it. God reveals truth in many ways.

@ Morris:
There is no such thing as a "scholarly book... let's the chips fall where they may". Every scholarly undertaking is done with an object in mind and the human eyes (and ears) with often find what they want to find, and Charles M Larson is no exception.

Why would he even take the effort to examine any texts or scripts without first taking an interest which is framed within his own experienced biases?

If you really want to know of Joseph Smith's credibility as a prophet of God, why not go to the source? Why not just ask God? He'll give anyone an answer.

If you want to know the truth of whether Joseph Smith could actually translate Egytian (and also whether he was an actual prophet of God) read the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" - it can be ordered or read online at:

http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html

This book examines the documents Joseph Smith claimed to have translated into "the Book of Abramham" one of the Mormon Church's scriptures - a part of their "Pearl of Great Price" scripture. This book in detail shows how the Egyptian papyrus he "translated" is not what Joseph Smith claimed, nor was it even from the period of time Joseph Smith claimed, nor was it written by Abraham, but was instead an Egyptian "Book of Breathings" totally unrelated to what Joseph Smith "translated." Read it - I cannot do it justice, nor can the damage it does to Joseph Smith's credibility be overestimated.

Once again - if you have any questions about Joseph Smith's reliability as a prophet read "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles M. Larson. This is a scholarly book which examines the evidence and let's the chips fall where they may. Very interesting.

Scott U,

Religion is a matter of faith, not of science and archaeology. Tell me something, what is the scientific basis for the resurrection of Jesus, or for His virgin birth; or for Jesus walking on water or healing the blind? What are the scientific bases of the miracles of Moses, or of Elijah, or Elisha, or Daniel? Where is the scientific/archaeological evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, or that they crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, or that they wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years? Where did they get food and water form during that time? (they were two million strong!) Where is the scientific basis of the Flood, or of the biblical story of the creation? Frankly I don’t think that you believe in the Bible any more than you believe in the Book of Mormon; therefore you are being less than honest by portraying your stance as being “anti-Mormon” or “anti-Book of Mormon”. I think that your true stance is anti-Bible and anti-Religion; and you ought to be honest enough to make that clear from the outset.

Rene,

Of course you are right on your definitions of apologetics and polemics, but in fact one is the inverse of the other. When you defend your faith so zealously by undermining the premises of the other guy's faith, it is more or less the same.

I do not have any arguments for you. Re-read what I said about science and if need be go to a textbook and refresh yourself with the definition of scientific method. I said that science has shown that the book of Mormon is not based on any factual information. Full stop! There is no argument that is possible. It is like trying to prove fairies. It is a pleasant thought to think that fairies might exist, but they don't.

@Scott U:
Sorry, but *polemics* is fighting against other beliefs, that is, attacking them and tearing down there reason of being. The theological term for defending one's own faith is Apologetics. ;-).

You didn't bring forth any arguments, you didn't deal with my arguments, you just stated your opinon. This, of course makes it impossible to discuss things with you.

Notwithstanding the above mentioned problems, I'm really courious, why you think that "King James English" has anything to do with Mormon claims. I mean, you surely are too intelligent to believe that using King James English in any translation invalidates the underlying text ;-).

In Christ

Rene

Rene,

Your Bishop can certainly be proud of you. You are one heck of a polemicist for the church. You show why Mormons are such a formidable force in the US. You have written a lot but proven only that you paid attention to all of your teachers. Just remember that in the end (and this is just as true for the evangelicals or anyone else) if you had been born in Afghanistan you would be a devote Muslim. Gender and birth order are important in determining ones place in the world, but nothing is more important in determining religion than the faith of your parents. Over 90% of the time (in the western world) the apple does not fall far from the tree.

I have a friend whose father is a preacher for the 7th Day Adventist Church whose conversations remind me of the verbal gyrations I have seen in this blog. His father will always look for the one scientist or researcher among the many thousands that supports his argument that the earth is only a few thousands of years old and ignore the rest. Likewise, on this blog someone has posted a list of scientists that support certain biblical positions not accepted by the scientific establishment. The reality of all science is that to be accepted, it is vetted in peer reviewed journals and subjected to robust debate before the current paradigm or theory is altered.

Notwithstanding what you and others have written, the DNA, linguistic, and archeological data with regard to American pre-history are compelling and rather complete. After decades of review there is no evidence whatsoever for any of events recounted in King James English in the Book of Mormon. It is more than a leap of faith to accept Joseph Smith’s aberrant history lesson, one has to suspend critical thinking altogether, which you do quite well.

@ANONYMOUS:

Since every other topic at the moment seems closed, I'll jump in here. As I said, I'm not an expert on archaeology, I've done no personal research, I can just quote others.

If this is enough for you, fine.

In 2005, Dr. Margaret Barker, Methodist preacher and former president of the Society of Old Testament Study, presented a paper at the "Worlds of Joseph Smith" Conference. You can read it here: http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html.

You will find that she is quite favorable of the idea that First Nephi fits well with her extrabiblical studies of Israelite religion in Zedekijah's days.

Also, it seems that you still have not read the Evangelical article I posted earlier on, "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect:
Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html#_1_4).

After citing a lot of Mormon researchers and their work in the academic world outside of Mormonism claiming that the BoM comes from an ancient Vorlage, the evangelical authors write about non-Mormon reception of the Book of Mormon:

"James H. Charlesworth, in a lecture delivered at Brigham Young University entitled, 'Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon,' points to what he describes as 'important parallels . . . that deserve careful examination.' He cites examples from 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon and the Testament of Adam.(60) If the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings thinks such examples deserve 'careful examination,' it might be wise for evangelicals to do some examining. George Nickelsburg has also noted a rather interesting parallel between the Qumranic Book of the Giants and the LDS Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.(61) Yale's Harold Bloom is perplexed as how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writings and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, 'Smith's religious genius always manifested itself through what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly'"

This is TEXTUAL evidence, not archaeological.

Let's go to archaeological things.

One of the most common male names in the BoM is "Alma". Critics for decades have ridiculed Joseph Smith's "blunder" for using a Latin female name for a man. Until Yigael Yadin found an "Alma Ben Yehuda" in the Bar Kochba documents, thus proving that Alma is a Hebrew male name.

Another bullsey for the BoM is barley, which is mentioned in the book, but critics pointed out that there is no cultivated pre-Columbian barley in teh New World. In the 1960ies it could be proven, though, that there IS pre-Columbian barley in the New World.

What should we think of a place not known till 1980, that fits in name, time and space, usage and meaning of name to a place mentioned in the Book of Mormon? A place that can be found on an ancient trade route not mentioned in any text availlable before the 20th century, but which is described in the Book of Mormon as the route Lehi and his family took?

Metal plates of writings were unbelievable in the days of Joseph Smith, now they are confirmed for around 600 BC in the Near East.

Writing of Israelite religous texts in Hebrew in Egyptian script? What a farce - until found.

These are just a short excerpt of the archaeological evidences found.

If you look at the time, money and manpower that went into Biblical archaeology, it is remarkable to note that not more than 40% of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been found. Most of them, because they have a continuity from biblical times to now.

In archaeology relevant to the BoM, we don't have a continuity of places, place names and people, and only a fraction of the time, money and manpower used, compared to Biblical archaeology. It is no wonder, that not more has been found.

When it comes to DNA, I am even less an authority. But I'd rather believe Whitting and Woodward, names also known outside of Mormonism for their expertise on DNA, than some unknown Murphy and Southerton, whose only moments of greatness come from writing against Mormonism, and whose arguments are shallow enough, that even I can see the loops they take in their preconditions.

If you're really interested, I can lead you to ressources.

In Christ

Rene

I am still curious, and all the Mormons here have done a fantastic job of skirting the biggest issue of all; there being absolutely no support for the Book of Mormon, outside of Mormon scholarship that is bias. How do you account for a Mormon scientist walking away from the faith when he he concluded the DNA evidence made the accounts of the Book of Mormon impossible. Or how do you account that after decades of digging there is not archaeological evidence? Or that there is no historical or linguistic evidence. Or that even the Smithsonian for the longest time said they found no factual credibility for the Book of Mormon. I mean there really is as much support for this as a fiction novel. Why not just base you life on that? I mean this is not about making people feel bad or being rude, but c'mon on. Joseph Smith had questionable character to begin with, and then wrote a book that has been completely unsubstantiated. So many revisions, so many embarrassing statements by Young and Smith, so many racists beliefs. How can you really put your eternal fate in this stuff?

@Neal:

I think that the Church Fathers who defined trinity dogma really did a wonderful job with the limited ressources and knowledge they had. Their solutions are beautiful- if you understand their philosophical preconditions.

I think them to be wrong, but not, because they are unreasonable. They are wrong, because their preconditions were wrong.

Please keep in mind, that we as Mormons do have our share of "strange doctrines", if you come from a non-Mormon PoV, with their own philosophical and logical pitfals. And while those doctrines are familiar to us, and while there are pitfalls we don't see, because we are used to them, this also goes for trinitarian views.

Let's give them the same curtesy, we want to get from them.

It's easy to lash out. It's easy to get angry. But this is not the Lord's way.

The Lutheran bishop Stendahl was asked to speak, when the Copenhagen temple was to be dedicated, and those who asked him to speak, thought he would teach fire and brimstone against Mormonism. But he lectured on how interdenominational and interreligious dialogue should be conducted. He mentioned 3 points:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to find elements in the other religious tradition and faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

I think, he is a wise man, and a real Christian. Let's try to emulate him here, and show, that our master is not one of those who cried "Crucify him", but rather He who said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

In Christ

Rene

@Arthur Sido:
I strongly believe that every religious body has the right to believe what it wants, as long as it does not force its beliefs on others or as long its beliefs do not lead to taking away other person's freedom. Hence, I would not dare to tell you, what your belief system includes, and I would also not lecture you on what it is that you really believe.

The Church has time and again defined, what official doctrine of the Church is, and what not. This started with Joseph Smith himself, is written down in the Doctrine and Covenants, was stated before the US Senate in the Reed Smoot hearing, and only a few days ago, it was again affirmed by an official press release.

If you do not accept this affirmations, should I then start judging Evangelical and Catholic Churches' understanding of "trinity" by what the majority of their believers, including some highly ranked individuals say, even if other believers strongly oppose these ideas?

Would that be fair?

Would it be logical?

Would it be anything else than "preaching to the choir"?

I don't think so, and I strongly hope, that you stop telling me what I do or do not have to believe.

Though there were and are many Mormons who believe that God, the Father of our spirits, once was a mortal man, even if President Hinckley himself believes it, nevertheless it is not official doctrine. It is not clearly written in the standard works, there is no Proclamation to the world about this issue, it never went through the official process laid down in the D&C for official, that is: binding, doctrine of the Church. This says nothing about this idea being right or wrong, but just that it is not doctrine of the Church.

In Christ

Rene

@Lee Edward Enochs:

Who is "we" in your text? Did you author it, or did you just type it in?

These questions are NOT the answer to the text, but I want to know the origin before I answer, so that I do not make false assumptions in my answer.

In Christ

Rene

Arthur Sido said (May 8, 2007 7:49 PM):

“That is either intentionally deceptive or inexcusably ignorant.”

Reply:

I wouldn’t be so hasty to attribute ignorance or deception on other people if I were you, because it just might turn around and haunt you. The doctrine that God was once a man and progressed to become God was indeed taught by Joseph Smith, and by many people subsequent to him who merely took his word for it on the subject without giving it a critical examination. However, that doctrine is not taught in any of the revelations that He received, that are receded in the scriptural canon of the LDS Church, known among us as the standard works; and in a number of public interviews that Gordon B. Hinckley gave to the media recently, which was widely reported, he repudiated that doctrine—and he has the final word on the subject. Here is a transcript of those interviews:

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

Arthur Sido said:

Let me reiterate what is written in the mormon Gospel Principles book, an official publication of the LDS church, the basic manual given to new members to teach them what mormonism teaches….
"God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones" (Gospel Principles, p. 9)
If he is glorified and perfected, that means that he has changed, progressed, evolved, but was once lesser than he is now.

Reply:

There are several points to be noted here: Firstly, the Gospel Principles manual does not define LDS doctrine, only the standard works do. Whatever is not in the standard works, is not LDS doctrine. Secondly, since that doctrine was at one time widely taught and believed in the Church, it is to be expected that traces of it will still remain in LDS literature, before they become gradually erased. And thirdly, your quote from that book: “God is a glorified and perfected man,” cannot necessarily be construed, from a linguistic point of view, to mean that God was once unglorified and imperfect, and later on He progressed to become such. It simply means that God is a glorious and perfect Being.

Arthur Sido said:

I hate copying and pasting in message boards, but it seems necessary so that interested readers get the real story behind what mormonism teaches regarding God. . . .

Reply:

See quotes from Gordon B. Hinckley given above.

Arthur Sido said:

The knee-jerk reaction is that such statements are not “official” dogma, which we can argue about, but frankly . . . If we can’t trust what Smith, the greatest man ever to live other than Christ, says about who and what God is, what is the point of having a prophet?

Reply:

Prophets are not infallible. No prophet has ever claimed to be. Joseph Smith acknowledged his own imperfections:

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (Teachings, p 368).

These “revelations” are the canonized scriptures of the LDS Church, the standard works; and that is what defines, and is the final authority on LDS doctrine, not the King Follett discourse or the Gospel Principles manual.

Arthur Sido said:

The difference is that I am happy to show how mormonism differs from Biblical Christianity in it’s understanding of God, of Christ, of man, of sin, of the priesthood, of justification and salvation, of the role of the temple, of the sufficiency of the Bible, of a myriad of other issues.

Reply:

You mean apostate Christianity! I agree, there are fundamental differences between Mormonism and apostate Christianity. However, so far you have not produced anything that I have been terribly impressed by; and in any case, this is not a suitable place to carry on a serious gospel discussion, because hundreds of subjects are all wrapped up in one long thread. If you are seriously interested in discussing Mormonism with me, and have a good discussion board or forum in mind, I am willing to join you there and discuss any aspect of Mormonism with you that you like, and back up my arguments with ample biblical and other evidence. If you decided to take up this offer, you can reply to this post or contact me at: anonymatous@yahoo.com

Rene:

I'm sure you're correct that our Trinitarian friends have some elusive explanation of all the inconistencies and evidences we see so clearly. The core reason there are so many different religions, no?

I must say that I had never delved too deeply into Trinitarian dogma until now , and find it more preposterous the deeper I get. The scripture about "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" comes to mind...

Neal

While we love our Mormon friends very much, as a Bible believing Evangelical Christians, committed to the teachings of the historic Evangelical Christian Church, we do not support the beliefs and practices of the Mormon Church in any capacity.

Upon careful examination of the claims and teachings of Mormonism, we have found that there are serious and innumerable doctrinal errors in LDS teachings that have led us to the clear and Biblically decisive conviction that the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints is an entirely unbiblical non-Christian religious system. The false teachings of the Mormon Church have led us to believe the entire LDS religion is completely unbiblical, incompatible and diametrically opposed and contrary to Biblical Christianity.

There are numerous doctrinal errors within essential Mormon teaching that have led us to completely reject all Mormon doctrine and practices and the LDS claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, the Book of Mormon is the Word of God and that it is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Among the myriad false teachings of Mormonism that have led us to believe the LDS Church is heretical and a non-Christian cultic system are as follows;


1. The Mormon Church teaches a heretical and entirely unbiblical view concerning the nature of God. The Mormon Church rejects the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity and teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods. In all reality, the Mormon Church rejects the Bible’s clear teaching on Trinitarian Monotheism, that within the one true and living God there are three distinct persons who share the same essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:14). On the contrary, in counter distinction to the Biblical and Historic Christian position on the nature of God, the Mormon Church teaches a form of Tritheism, the heretical belief that there is three separate deities within the godhead. Thus in realty, the Mormon Church promotes the entirely unbiblical notion of polytheism, that there is more than one God. However, the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5-6, 45:14, Jeremiah 10:10, Mark 12:29-31, John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:4).

2. The Mormon Church teaches an entirely unbiblical view of salvation that is contrary to the Bible. Mormonism rejects the historic Evangelical and Protestant doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and teaches that a person obtains salvation through a combination of good works and divine grace. Mormons believe that “salvation is by grace after all we can do” (2 Nephi) The LDS Church teaches that a person must be baptized and do other external works of righteousness to earn their salvation. However, the Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone based on the authority of the Word of God alone (Please see: Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5-6).

3. The Mormon Church Teaches an entirely unbiblical notion of Authority and teaches that it’s Scriptures, The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants are as equally inspired and authoritative as the Bible. The Mormon Church teaches that the Bible is only correct “in so properly translated” (See the Eighth Article of the Mormon Faith) and that many precious truths have been lost, hence we need the additional Mormon Scriptures such as the Book of Mormon. Evangelicals absolutely reject the Mormon Scriptures and teach that the sixty-six Books that make up the Bible alone are the uniquely and exclusively authoritative, inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of Almighty God. (Please see: Psalm 119:97-104, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18 and 24:35, Romans 10:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21).

4. The Mormon Church teaches it alone is the one true Church and explicitly teaches that the Christian Church Apostasied away from the truth and that Joseph Smith was called by God to be a prophet and to restore the Church of Christ. Evangelicals and all true Christians absolutely reject all these Mormon claims and reject the notion the Mormon Church is a viable and true Christian Church, that the Church apostasied from the faith as was restored by Joseph Smith in 1830. Evangelical Christians greatly reject the notion that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet in any capacity. Evangelicals believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who preached a false gospel and led people astray to follow demonic doctrines crated by Satan. (Deuteronomy 13: 1-18, 18:18-22, Matthew 7:15-16, Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:3-13).


These and many, many other reasons have led us to completely reject all the teachings and claims of the Mormon Church. If you are a Mormon or a person looking into the unbiblical claims and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, we would ask you to seriously consider leaving the Mormon Church and find an Evangelical Church that preaches the Bible. Please read the following books and contact the following Evangelical Ministries that deal with Mormonism.

We would also like to encourage all non-Christians, that might be reading this, to acknowledge that they have broken God’s holy commandments, to repent of their sins and come to faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead to give eternal life to all that sincerely repent of their sins and place their faith in Him (Luke 13:1-5, John 3:16, 3:36, 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, Acts 17:30, Romans 3:10-12, 20-23, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, Romans 10:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-10).

@Jake:
It's John 17, and I agree with you on this.

But the appearance of three distinct personages is not a "smoking gun" on trinity, because all trinity dogmas firmly maintain that there are three persons, but they are one God (You will find that the Book of Mormon uses the same expression).

Augustine of Hippo, one of the most important framers of Latin Trintity dogma, used God's visit of Abram in Mamre as a proof for trinity, interpreting the three (!) men who visit the Patriarch as God.

So, in fact, if we Mormons say that the First Vision or Christ's baptism cleared the issue of Trinitarism, we are, in fact, wrong. Trinity doesn't have a problem with the appearance of all three persons. The doctrine that there is just one who appears in three masks is not trinitarism, but Modalism or Sabellianism.

True, a lot of the non-clergy traditional Christians either have a tri-theistic or modalistic view on the Godhead, and Joseph Smith and the prophets clearly argue against modalism.

In Christ

Rene

Neal,

We learn by repetition. It is obvious that most commentators fail to realize the effect of mythical "tinker bells" aka angels on their lives. Until we cleanse ourselves of these "demons of the demented", we cannot come to grasp with the reality of religion.

Pause and consider what would be left of the major religions' operating manuals if the "words and prophecies" of the "tinker bells" like "Moron i" were removed from said manuals.

Greetings All,

I think this will be my last posting. It is so interesting to read the different posts. It seems that there are four broad groups writing here:

(1) Trinity-Christians who fear/hate/dislike the LDS Church

(2) Mormons who espouse the doctrines of the LDS Church and distrust Trinity-Christians

(3) Atheists who think groups (1) and (2) are wasting their time (I agree, for different reasons)

(4) Unknown affiliations who marvel at the diversity (and stupidity) of the comments

I'd like to think I'm a combination of group (2) affiliation and group (4) opinion.

I want to clear a few things up. In talking about the possible historicity of the Book of Mormon, many have implied that it is either unsupported by scholarly inquiry or possibly supported if the investigation is restricted to Mesoamerica. What I say hereafter is mainly directed at Mormons and other interested parties.

(FYI: Anyone who really thinks that the different subspecies of freshwater turtle found in peninsular Florida exist because they crawled there after the "Flood" [as opposed to: because higher ocean levels in the distant past left isolated islands rather than a peninsula and genetic drift combined with other Darwinian factors caused change] need not read any further.)

Many Mormons think they understand what is meant by the Book of Mormon references to cities, domesticated animals, metal working, writing, government, ethnic divisions, religion and so on. If, by 'understand', it is meant that they correctly relate problems today with narratives in the book, then I think many Mormons do understand the text. If, however, one restricts the definition of an understanding of the Book of Mormon to an understanding of its historical claims, I don't think any Mormons understand it. The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient American document. It also claims to have Old World connections, but the vast majority of the characters and events are claimed to have been placed firmly in this hemisphere. Mormons are guilty of spending too much effort looking at the many (striking) Old World parallels. Those few who look to the Americas focus on Mesoamerica for a number of reasons.
I know, for a fact, that no one (Mormon or Gentile) has been or will be able to survey all of the pre-contact languages once spoken north of Mexico! NO ONE!!!! This means that ALL of you (Mormon, Gentile, neither) have no basis for testing the historicity of the Book of Mormon. One man's city is another man's village. One man's horse is another man's antelope/tapir/llama/deer. One man's sword is another man's club. One man's king is another man's chief, and so on and so forth.
I have been working, off and on, with an American Indian language for seven years. The Language, Southern Pomo, has fewer than three living speakers (all over eighty). It is the language of my wife and sons Indian tribe. There is no published dictionary (though I am working on one). There is no published grammar (though I hope to produce one for my dissertation). There is no published book of texts (though I hope to edit old ones and make them available).
None of you have any idea how complicated this language is. It is, I should add, no more complicated than the majority of American Indian languages. It has SIX 't' sounds!!! It has prefixes that attach to a verb root and give impossibly specific meanings (i.e. di- 'with the fingers' + -c':a- 'break' + -w perfective suffix = dic':aw 'broken with the fingers/hands' but shu- 'by pulling' + -c':a- 'break' + -w = shuc':aw 'to break by pulling').
There is no word for 'God' in Southern Pomo, as you all would understand it. They have two words for 'coyote': ?ohko?she for the common animal and do:wi for the mystical trickster. The neighboring tribe borrowed this word, do:wi, as du:wichapthe (literally coyote big man) as their word for 'God'.
I might work on this language for 20 years and never find evidence that is was a language used by Book of Mormon peoples. It probably wasn't. But it could be! Anyone of the HUNDREDS of Indian languages could be! NO ONE QUALIFIED HAS LOOKED!!!!!. None of us knows. We wouldn't know if we found it. Mormons keep waisting their time looking for Hebraisms. Do scholars working on the languages of the eastern seaboard focus on finding linguistic evidence of the vikings visits?

I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I don't think that it is, in most respects, an exact translation of an ancient culture; rather, I think it is an exact translation for OUR culture. It has the teachings and the answers we need in our lives today. I don't know whether we should expect to prove our faith. Will it still be faith? I don't think, however, that we should expect there to be irrefutable evidence against it either. The point is, everyone is so sure that it's either a fraud or straight out of Mesoamerica that they never consider that it might have been the mound builders or in California or Florida!!!!!!

So, in closing (after having written the most disjointed rant of my life), no one here knows anything about anything. Period. For Mormons, it is not enough to post a link to FARMS or FAIR every time a doubter or persecutor raises questions of historicity. It is enough to share your testimony or point out that you are either currently participating in original research on that topic or are unable/disinclined to do so.
For non-Mormons, it is not enough to give a list of ostensible anachronisms as though you actually know something about the status of the Americas before Columbus. Don't start an argument you can't finish.

It's been fun.

Alex

Att: NEAL, JAKE et al; Some one said;

"I and the Father are one" How about,

"I and the Mother are One & Dad & siblings too.?!

Mr. Mohler,

A fine article, with the exception of your authoritarian paragraph in which Latter-day Saint doctrine is largely misinterpreted.

Mr. Britt

Wow..... You God people are really scary.

Did you ever stop to think that the whole God thing is just made up?

Any of you people think you might convince your God to show up here some day in order to alleviate all the confusion?

I didn't think so....

God is a farce! Get a life!

Christian Now Liberated

"Some added references to "tinker bells"..."

Is this the only post you can make? You've posted this same ridiculous "tinker bell" diatribe on about 40 threads so far.

Neal

Jake:

"You obviously think you have the final trump card in this discussion, but I assure you, you do not. Since you do not believe in the Trinity, it's probably useless to answer your "riddle", but it's pretty simple. Jesus was fully human and fully God. He took on our humanity to serve as the full atonement of our sins through His sacrifice on the cross. No other sacrifice, no work of man, could reconcile humanity to God. Only a sacrifice of Himself would do. Hard to understand, but this is God we're talking about (of course, your version of God is a tad different than ours, see Joe Smith, above). Because He was fully human, He experienced what it means to be human: temptation (in the desert), fear and anxiety in the garden of Gethsemene, and so on. His human self communed in prayer to the Father. But make no mistake, Jesus said "I and the Father are one". Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of one God. That's what Christians believe, no matter what old Joe says."

"I and the Father are one" - A careful reading of James 17 (if I remember correctly) will reveal the meaning of "one". In Christ's intercessory prayer on behalf of his disciples, he prayed that they "may be one, Father, as we are one". This whole chapter clearly illustrates the meaning of "one" as one in purpose - unity. Not a physical one-ness. Elsewhere in the scriptures we clearly see this use of the word "one" in the same context. Speaking of the marriage covenant; "and they (the man and the woman) shall be ONE FLESH". This obviously is not referring to physical one-ness.

And you honestly want us to believe God, Christ, and HG are one strange triple-God when we have examples of all three of them being manifest separately at Christ's baptism by John?

And when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane was he asking HIMSELF to remove the bitter cup from HIMSELF? When he pleaded, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" was he asking HIMSELF to forgive his executioners when he HIMSELF was right before them? He forgave the sins of others on numerous occasions - why did he have to ask HIMSELF this time? When he cried out on the cross, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was he forsaking HIMSELF?

Applying the trinitarian concept of God to these examples sounds more like a case of schizophrenia than anything divine. You worship the God Constantine's council cooked up, not the one described in the scriptures. I'll take "ol Joe's" version over yours any day.

Neal

Jake:

"You obviously think you have the final trump card in this discussion, but I assure you, you do not. Since you do not believe in the Trinity, it's probably useless to answer your "riddle", but it's pretty simple. Jesus was fully human and fully God. He took on our humanity to serve as the full atonement of our sins through His sacrifice on the cross. No other sacrifice, no work of man, could reconcile humanity to God. Only a sacrifice of Himself would do. Hard to understand, but this is God we're talking about (of course, your version of God is a tad different than ours, see Joe Smith, above). Because He was fully human, He experienced what it means to be human: temptation (in the desert), fear and anxiety in the garden of Gethsemene, and so on. His human self communed in prayer to the Father. But make no mistake, Jesus said "I and the Father are one". Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of one God. That's what Christians believe, no matter what old Joe says."

"I and the Father are one" - A careful reading of James 17 (if I remember correctly) will reveal the meaning of "one". In Christ's intercessory prayer on behalf of his disciples, he prayed that they "may be one, Father, as we are one". This whole chapter clearly illustrates the meaning of "one" as one in purpose - unity. Not a physical one-ness. Elsewhere in the scriptures we clearly see this use of the word "one" in the same context. Speaking of the marriage covenant; "and they (the man and the woman) shall be ONE FLESH". This obviously is not referring to physical one-ness.

And you honestly want us to believe God, Christ, and HG are one strange triple-God when we have examples of all three of them being manifest separately at Christ's baptism by John?

And when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane was he asking HIMSELF to remove the bitter cup from HIMSELF? When he pleaded, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" was he asking HIMSELF to forgive his executioners when he HIMSELF was right before them? He forgave the sins of others on numerous occasions - why did he have to ask HIMSELF this time? When he cried out on the cross, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was he forsaking HIMSELF?

Applying the trinitarian concept of God to these examples sounds more like a case of schizophrenia than anything divine. You worship the God Constantine's council cooked up, not the one described in the scriptures. I'll take "ol Joe's" version over yours any day.

Neal

Hi Rene, thanks for your response. I gotta chime in with Arthur Sido on this one.

If you think Joe Smith brought a new revelation that "restored" Christianity to what it was meant to be, after 2000 years (or 1700 years, or from where ever you posit that it lost its way), and is considered the great prophet of your religion, so much that much of what he has written is considered the word of God, on the same plane as the Bible, then how can you so easily discount anything else he said?

Joe makes a statement like that in a sermon and it doesn't jibe (according to you) with Mormon doctrine? That belief doesn't square with believing he's the guy who supposedly restored the entire faith.

Hello Eclati-on's. The Light Bringer is NOW!

Rene and Anonymous,

“The idea that God Father himself once was a mortal man, though it is believed by many members, rank and file, is not doctrine of the Church.”

“You are wrong, it does not. Official Mormon dogma teaches that God is anthropomorphic and has a glorified physical body of flesh and bones which is in the human form. That is not the same as saying that He was once a mortal man and progressed to become God. That doctrine is not supported by LDS scripture and is not official LDS doctrine.”

That is either intentionally deceptive or inexcusably ignorant.

Let me reiterate what is written in the mormon Gospel Principles book, an official publication of the LDS church, the basic manual given to new members to teach them what mormonism teaches….

"God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones" (Gospel Principles, p. 9)

If he is glorified and perfected, that means that he has changed, progressed, evolved, but was once lesser than he is now.

I hate copying and pasting in message boards, but it seems necessary so that interested readers get the real story behind what mormonism teaches regarding God.

"From President Snow's understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.' This teaching is peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ."
Marion Romney (1st Presidency) General Conference, October 1964 (note that Romney at that time is a member of the 1st Presidency, accepted as a prophet, seer and revelator of the mormon church, at an official mormon church conference, speaking within view of the “prophet”)

Coupled with statements like these from Joseph Smith “"God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346).”, not to mention the King Follette sermon, it is clear that mormon doctrine DOES hold that God is not eternally God, uncreated, unchanging, but rather has progressed to his current state.

The knee-jerk reaction is that such statements are not “official” dogma, which we can argue about, but frankly if Joseph Smith is the prophet of the Restoration, exalted in mormon hymns and considered to have restored the fullness of the Gospel, when he spoke clearly and unequivocally about matters of such importance as the nature of God, shouldn’t mormons be able to trust what he says? After all, Smith is recorded by name in the Doctrine & Covenants as a prophet, seer and revelator….

D&C 124:125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.
(I love how God spoke to Smith in King James English, makes it sound better doesn't it!)

D&C 135: 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.

If we can’t trust what Smith, the greatest man ever to live other than Christ, says about who and what God is, what is the point of having a prophet?

Oh, by the way Anonymous

“And merely repeating that “Mormons are not Christians” does not make it so either.”

The difference is that I am happy to show how mormonism differs from Biblical Christianity in it’s understanding of God, of Christ, of man, of sin, of the priesthood, of justification and salvation, of the role of the temple, of the sufficiency of the Bible, of a myriad of other issues.

Old time" Mormonism as well as "old time" Catholicism, Islam and Judaism relied and rely on prophets and prophecies (for profit?).

Taking the modern view that includes reality and common sense, the correct term would be Mormonism as well as Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism relied and rely on fortune ($$$$$?) telling (for profit?).

Theologically speaking, these religious fortune tellers require that God knows the future i.e. if God does not know the future (is not omniscient) then no human knew or knows the future.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given gifts of Free Will and Future.

To reiterate, it is all about the founders of the major religions and their favorite "tinker bell(s)" aka angel.

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

@Jake:

One of the hardest things to understand for evangelicals is, how Mormons can believe to have living prophets of the LORD, and yet not every utterance being Word of God.

These days, the Church produced a very interesting press release, http://tinyurl.com/2twzvc, trying to inform journalists of what is, and what is not doctrine. And though new revelation can add new doctrine, the sole source of doctrine at any time are: ".. the four 'standard works' of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Thus, even though Jospeh Smith said something in a sermon, be it true or false, is not doctrine, until it is made part of the "standard works", is specifically addressed in an official declaration or is made part of the Articles of Faith.

The idea that God Father himself once was a mortal man, though it is believed by many members, rank and file, is not doctrine of the Church.

One cannot be a Mormon in good standing while one believes that Joseph was the father of Jesus' body, but one can be a Mormon in good standing while rejecting the idea that God Father once was a mortal man.

In Christ

Rene

@John D:
Well, I fear the trap of telling what someone else believes. You know what a butcher job even some wellmeaning traditional Christians do on presenting Mormon Doctrine. It would just not be FAIR for me to even try, so I hope there's someone from traditional Christianity here who can explain it.

If not, one of the best books I've ever read about traditional Christian history and doctrines is Hans Kung, "Christianity". It is simply priceless in its clarity.

In Christ

Rene

@Jameson:
I do not monitor blogs, nor do I frequently read Rev. Mohler's stuff. In my case, I just receive a news clips selection with (among other things) "Mormon" as a key word. These are news from all over the world. If there's something interesting, I read the whole article. And very seldomly do I comment on it. I think the last time I did this was 2 years ago or so.

The problem between Evangelicals and Mormons, IMHO, is, that they both come from the same situation: Rationalism and its critique of scripture and religion. There were three reactions to that: Schleiermacher's approach, which tried to conciliate rationalism and supranaturalism, Fundamentalism, which rejects rationalism, and Restorationism, which, while accepting rationalistic critique to its sacred texts, goes for revelation to solve the issues.

Since Mormonism and Evangelicalism are two different answers to one common question/problem, it is only natural, that there is much more potential for disagreement and even conflict, than each of them has with Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

From long talks with Christians of all colors, I know that there comes - after much discussion and contention - a phase of acceptance, where each of the parties values doctrines, ideas and practices of the other side, and where they really know what they have in common. This is the most fruitful part, where friendships can be formed that last. If Evangelicals and Mormons get to this point, both groups profit from this.

In Christ

Rene

Rene,

I am sincerely interested in the answers. What say the post Chalcedonians?

Kind Regards,

JD1

@John D:
Your question is based on a misunderstanding of post Chalcedonian Christology. While some traditional lay Christians may be in trouble answering your questions, they pose no real problem for post-Chalcedonian understanding.

The council of Chalcedon was - more or less - called in just to answer the questions you posed.

In Christ
Rene

Wow, just look at all those angels you people have crammed onto the head of that pin...

@anonymous: ECF = Early Church Fathers, the early and influential theologians and writers in the Christian Church, particularly those of the first five centuries of Christian history. The term is used of writers and teachers of the Church, not necessarily saints. It is generally not meant to include the New Testament authors, though in the early Church some writing of Church Fathers were considered canonical.

In Catholicism, they are who formed doctrine the most. They defined who God is, how traditional Christians speak about God, they formulated creeds, defined trinity and so on. A lot of them were martyrs.

In Christ

Rene

Mr. Mohler said, "I must clarify that Mormonism is in no way consistent with orthodox Christianity. It borrows Christian themes and texts, but its most basic beliefs directly contradict the central teachings of Christianity."

Mr. Mohler speaks of Christianity as if it were a club or other social group that defines membership based upon adherence to rules established by the group. In my mind, Christianity is tied to believing in and following Jesus Christ. So the real question has nothing to do with Mormonisms acceptance of traditional Christianity. The central issues is, does Mormonism following the teachings of Christ as he gave them?

The fog of history has obscured the fact that Evangelical Christianity finds its roots in the ancient church. And that church arrived at beliefs and doctrines through councils of philosophy.

In my mind, the fundamental concept that separates "traditional Christianity" and Mormonism is Present-day Revelation. I have alway wondered why those who criticize Joseph Smith and his successors cannot accept that we need revelation from God as much or more than did ancient Israel. Is our current state so much more refined that we don't need counsel from God? A quick look at our society would suggest that we need him more than ever.

Unless you are prepared to conclude that we don't need God or that he has lost interest in us enough that he witholds His counsel, then I suggest that you listen carefully to His latter-day prophet.

To Hugo,

You say "What if Mormonism is true, then what?"

Just use your God-given logic for a moment. What is the statistical probability of Mormonism (or any other religion) being right. If you give every religion an equal chance of being right, statistically speaking, the chances of your particular religion being "the one" is very small. Even if you restrict this to the major religions and the variants, your chances are still not good. If you throw in all religions of all stripes, the chances are diminishly small. To say otherwise, is special pleading and indicates a befogged mind from a lifetime of propaganda from your church.

Hello Jack,

Perhaps you can help me understand:

"Jesus was fully human and fully God. He took on our humanity to serve as the full atonement of our sins through His sacrifice on the cross."

How can God be immutable and unchanging, and undergo such apparent changes as:

Phase 1: 100% God

Phase 2: 100% God + 100% Man

Phase 3: 100% God again

Also, is Christ still embodied? If so wouldn't that be a change? If not, where is the scripture that demonstrates how Jesus lost His body after the resurrection?

"No other sacrifice, no work of man, could reconcile humanity to God. Only a sacrifice of Himself would do."

If God is absolutely omnipotent, why is this the *only* way God could save us? Couldn't he save us any way he wants, as Muslims assert?

"And speaking of Joe Smith, the events surrounding his life are so well documented (being only 170 or so years ago) and the supposed events he chronicled are so easily disproven that's it's incredible folks would believe them. He was a con man, pure and simple."

The ultimate trump card. "Joe Smith was an obvious con-man." The only problem is, this is isn't true. If one studies the primary sources extensively, Joseph becomes more of an enigma. It is very difficult to determine what his intentions were, since there are so many contradictions in the historical record.

There are many good sources that indicate Joseph's religious sincerity. None that directly expose him as fraud. The two major biographies of Joseph Smith in recent times, one by a Mormon the other by a Non-Mormon, present a good case for Joseph's sincerety. Evangelical Richard Moauw would agree with this assesment.

"If the guy is easily disproven on points regarding civilization in North America, etc., then it's insane to give the man credibility on issues of salvation."

Once again, not true. Joseph actually towards the end of his life was of the opinion that major Book of Mormon events took place in Central America. He never received a revelation on the subject however. If you want to learn about the support for a Mesoamerican setting for the BoM, read the link on the subject I posted on this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo

pardon my ignorance... can someone explain what ECF is?

OH JESUS PLEEZEE ALBERT YOU ARE SUCH A HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING CLOWN YOU SHOULD APPLY FOR A JOB AT THE CIRCUS THEY DO HAVE OPENINGS FOR PERSONS LIKE YOU!

Mary,

I think Catholicism is beautiful. I think anyone who acts like Catholicism is obviously false and their religion is obviously true, has not been willing to look at the problems inherent in their own worldview and/or the rationality in the worldview of the other.

You give various reasons for Catholicism’s' superiority as a faith. It is your reasons for its purported superiority that I would like to dispute here:

1st reason:

"Philosophical coherence."

That's easy, just hire professionally trained theologians. Anyone with enough training can concoct a philosophically coherent theology. You don't even have to be a believer. Coherence has nothing to do with correspondence, which is necessary for something to be true.

2nd reason:

"Capable of Inspiring Martyrdom"

Catholics aren’t alone in this. Radical Islam can also inspire martyrdom, as can the Heavens Gate. This has no bearing on truthfulness.

3rd reason:

"Does not make falsifiable claims."

Also not terribly compelling. Unfalsifiability has no bearing on truthfulness. You have no way of testing correspondence if something is unfalsifiable. Ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster? The Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Of course you can't be claiming that the RCC has never made claims that are falsifiable. We all are familiar with famous examples previously espoused Catholic beliefs that have been falsified. This has no bearing on the overall truthfulness of the Catholic Church, as we all "see through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Mormonism does not have professionally trained clergy, so theological systematization does not reach the level of sophistication one might expect from a clergy of PHDs. There are systematic formulations of LDS beliefs among Latter Day Saints trained in philosophy and theology. I suggest you take a look at those works before you make sweeping generalizations of Mormonism.

Also, Mormon popular belief is a mixture of restoration of ancient texts and folk interpretations of these texts. The folk interpretations have been falsified. These falsifications have inspired more intense, sophisticated analysis of the texts themselves. This has lead to many with extensive academic backgrounds in the relevant areas of Near Eastern Studies, Ancient Christianity and Mesoamerican Archeology to conclude that Mormon Scriptures do have compelling and unlikely correspondence to ancient cultures.

I would suggest you also take a look at this literature before making these kinds of generalizations. Otherwise the "truth" as you see it, will be based on the same misinformation as the "truth" as my Evangelical friend sees it.

Kind Regards,

JD1

John D. and all,

I started my posts with the assumption that not all religious claims were equal.

Simply because, say, Northern Irish Presbyterians call Catholics nonChristian, that does not mean that Catholics in their turn cannot have an opinion on a sect like Mormonism that is chock full of falsifiable claims and yet (amazingly!) still claims to hold truths about Christ. If someone makes a false claim about Catholicism that is their problem not mine, it should not prevent *me* from telling the truth, as I see it.

Rational Christians--and I would count myself one-- appreciate that the Bible and the Church are simply the best approximations we have as to the will and presence of God in the world.

The Catholic Church--Christ's church--is a living, teaching entity: its religion is philosophically coherent, can inspire martyrdom amidst its followers (the twentieth century probably saw more Catholic martyrs than the nineteen ones preceding it combined), and doesn't make falsifiable claims. The latter two attributes were also characteristic of the early Christian church prior to the Council of Nicea, that Council, the first of many, attempted--as Christ's body in the world under the guidance of the Holy Spirit--to refine and redefine this new religion (and it was already 300 years old--much older than Mormonism) .

Mormonism has the oddest mixture of American nationalism, Protestant utopianism and theological nonsense I've ever encountered. And I don't wish to offend many Mormons to whom, no doubt, their religion is precious. And I am very, very sorry that I do so...but truth is truth.

Not all religious claims are equal, not all those who claim to be followers of Christ are so, not all faiths have stood the "test of time" as well as others.

This will be all from me.

@Randy:

Spirituality & Invisibility
I don't know Grudem's work, so I cannot say, if I would agree to your assertion, that he gives good evidence for his PoV. Nevertheless, from writings I know, both about linguistics, patristics and Judaism, I don't think that his reading would convince me. I agree with you though, that a discussion about this would go beyond the measures of this forum.

Jealousy
It's an interesting waay of reasoning, yet I don't think that Grudem would find too much support in contemporary Christianity, if his claim really is that "Jealousy is a divine attribute", on the same level as "God is Love".

Will:
I'd question, if God CAN cease to exist. From a patristic PoV, Existence is one of God's intrinsic attributes, so there is no need to keep up his existence. He IS existence.

Freedom:
Openness Theology has pretty much shown that if God is omnipotent and omniscient in the classical way, then there cannot be moral agents aside from God. And if there IS omniscience, then, de facto God loses his own free agency. It is interesting to note, that the ECF rather rejected either God's omniscience or his omnipotence (in favor for God as the Pantokrater) than human free will. To be honest, in Mormonism we tend to reject classical omnipotence, and some see God's knowledge as "God knows all there can be known, and He knows his own actions, but He doesn't know with absolute sureness the outcome of every individual decision of every human being", while others do understand God to be omniscient in the classical sense.

Omnipotence:
You acknowledge that this is a dodge, but that's ok. Sometimes we all have to take those moves ;-).

As you said, with the above attributes you do not have a problem in Mormon thought, and if you want to solely focus on the last two, that's ok for me.

Eternity:
I thought of many ways of answering this one, but the answers probably would have confused the issue. Do you believe that we will have life eternal? If so, how can this be, since you believe there was a time when you were not? What does it mean, to have "life eternal"?

Immutability:
You talk about "essense" here, and I caution against the word "essence", because it is a heavily overloaded philosophical term not to be found or hinted at in the scriptures.

Also, for the Early Church Fathers, Immutability was one of the keys to Theosis. If that is true, then possibly they do not have the same view on immutability as you have. (If you want, I can back this up with quotes by ECF and exegesis by well known non-Mormon scholars).

My take on this is: BEING unchangeable does not necessitate HAVING BEEN unchangeable through all of one's personal history.

In Christ

Rene

To Agirl: Oh I think the Mormons have given as good as they've got in this discussion. After all, you believe the rest of us to be apostate.

To Anonymous responding to Arthur Sido:

“God himself was once a man as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!....for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see….He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-46

OK, looks like Mormon teaching is that God is an exalted man.

To Neal:

You obviously think you have the final trump card in this discussion, but I assure you, you do not. Since you do not believe in the Trinity, it's probably useless to answer your "riddle", but it's pretty simple. Jesus was fully human and fully God. He took on our humanity to serve as the full atonement of our sins through His sacrifice on the cross. No other sacrifice, no work of man, could reconcile humanity to God. Only a sacrifice of Himself would do. Hard to understand, but this is God we're talking about (of course, your version of God is a tad different than ours, see Joe Smith, above). Because He was fully human, He experienced what it means to be human: temptation (in the desert), fear and anxiety in the garden of Gethsemene, and so on. His human self communed in prayer to the Father. But make no mistake, Jesus said "I and the Father are one". Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of one God. That's what Christians believe, no matter what old Joe says.

And speaking of Joe Smith, the events surrounding his life are so well documented (being only 170 or so years ago) and the supposed events he chronicled are so easily disproven that's it's incredible folks would believe them. He was a con man, pure and simple. The stuff he wrote is preposterous, and easily proven as such. If the guy is easily disproven on points regarding civilization in North America, etc., then it's insane to give the man credibility on issues of salvation.

Rene,

I think you've done a marvelous job presenting evidence of the nature of God, and not a single detractor has bested the evidence you presented. The fact that the earliest post-apostolic Christian writings contain these ideas is profound beyond an credit those on this blog have afforded it.

All Protestant religions are rejections of Christian Orthodoxy by their very formation, yet the LDS restored version seems to match more closely the earliest Christian thought we have record of.

Now, all nay sayers, Riddle me this!!:

We read in the BIBLE (Hebrews): "..though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered."

If God is all knowing, and if God/Jesus/HG are one amalgumous being, why is it Jesus had to LEARN obedience?

More evidence of the preposterous conclusions of the Nicean Council....

Neal

Arthur Sido said:

“Merely repeating "apostate" over and over doesn't make it true.”

And merely repeating that “Mormons are not Christians” does not make it so either.

Arthur Sido said:

“As far as this statement:
** “Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, . . .”
Actually, it does not! **
It doesn't?
"God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones" (Gospel Principles, p. 9)
Official mormon church dogma teaches that God was once a man.”

You are wrong, it does not. Official Mormon dogma teaches that God is anthropomorphic and has a glorified physical body of flesh and bones which is in the human form. That is not the same as saying that He was once a mortal man and progressed to become God. That doctrine is not supported by LDS scripture and is not official LDS doctrine.

But what if what the Mormons teach IS true? What then?

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity, Judaism and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.
The Good Words were articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time for a refund!!!

Perhaps the most telling and visible signs of the entire chasm the separates Evangelicals from Mormons are enclosed in this very message board. Never once has a Mormon on this page claimed that any Christian making a post is doomed to hellfire because of their beliefs, nor claimed that another Christian is "crazy". It is only the various representations of other sects of Christianity that are claiming that the Mormons are damned for their beliefs in a "different Christ." Such apparent one-sidedness raises the following questions:

1. Why do so many sects of Christianity discout Mormons so? Because they're different? Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy differ so much in ritual and practice that it becomes difficult to determine which one constitutes "Traditional Christianity" - some sects baptize by immersion, some by sprinkling- the Catholic church has seen a bit of both. Just as Catholic and Orthodox beliefs about the role of the Holy Ghost differ greatly, so do beliefs differ across all sects of Christianity. So what makes a Christian a Christian? Who determines who is, or who is not a believer in Jesus Christ?

2. Why do so many sects openly spend so much of their precious sermon time in the efforts to destroy another religion, when perhaps they should be spending their time trying to uplift their parish and congregation through nourishing them with the good word of God? I've lived in the Utah Valley- I've lived in the midwest and south and have had plenty of experience with Mormons and all other American sects and have seen the good and the bad in each, but in my experience, it is the majority of Mormons who seem to MOST take their lives and put it to something good and decent in this world. It was the Mormons who were first and most helpful in Katrina- the Mormons who hold family records for people to connect with their roots- and Mormons who often take the "cult" or "non-Christian" beating that other churches give them (which in my experience at various churches can be intensely brutal) in stride, turning the other cheek as Jesus taught and simply offering those around them a handshake and the chance to see why they are the way they are.

So it seems to me that there is a dichotomy here- those accepted as "Christians" are ostracizing those who say they're Christians only because they just don't seem to be Christian enough for them. Jesus said "judge not". Nowhere do I see "Former Mormon", "Tony", or anyone else on this list qualified to call anyone to repentence, to claim who is or is not a Christian, and who is or is not living in sin and destined for condemnation. If such condemnation or call is to be made, it will be made by the same Jesus Christ who suffered for all who would come unto him. I hope He has mercy on you all.

Sam

This has been an amazing hour reading your comments. It is good that all of you are so concerned with religion. It is refreshing to know that America is so vast and diverse that it can accomodate so many different points of view, and provide a safe forum for expressing them. I'm sure the Lord is pleased you are so passionate about Him. May your words be translated into acts of service, kindness, mercy and love to those you come in contact with.

May He lighten our path by day and night, as we strive to follow His divine example and endure our mortality. His were the wounds of love; His were the words of peace. May we all reflect on the greatest gift of all: His sacrifice for our sins, so we could have eternal life. And learn to love each other in our differences, as He continues to love us unconditionally in our weaknesses.

After reading this whole blog, which has take me quite a long time, I've yet again realized something that I always find so amazing. Why is it that Mormons are always have to "prove" there religion to other people?? Its one thing to sit down and have a scholarly discussion but this has turned into a debate about who's right and who's wrong. I've never had a problem with sharing my beliefs with other people and I used to defend my beliefs all the time but then I realized I was wasting my breath. I wasn't going to change my beliefs and neither was the other person. They were just dead set on showing how everything that I believed in was wrong and how they wanted to "save me" from my own beliefs and from going to hell. Why is it that no one wants to prove the Catholics wrong, or the Baptists, or the Protestants, or the Episcpalians?? But instead all of these religions and many others, join forces to try and tear down the LDS church. What ever happened to religious tolerance and letting others believe as they wished without being persecuted?? Everytime that I let someone know that I'm a member of the LDS church and they say they want to know some things, I tell them up front that I will talk to them about my religious beliefs along as it is a discussion and not a "You are wrong and are going to hell if you don't change your sinful ways" type of discussion. This is not my way of backing out of embarrassing questions or avoiding answering questions that I don't know the answers to. I just feel that having an open mind and wanting to learn about other religions is wonderful but as soon as you try to tear down someone elses faith, then that is wrong. And I know that some of you are going to come back a say, "Well that is what your missionaries do" and no it isn't. They don't come storming in saying "Hey we're missionaries from The LDS church and you believe is wrong and we're right and we're here to show you why!" Everything is left up to the individual to decide for themselves. It is a learning experience where questions can be asked and answered without it being shoved down there throats.
Anyways, the main thing that I wanted to say was, didn't Jesus say that the greatest commandment was to love God and that the second was to love one another?? If you try to show someone what you believe and they don't accept it, then fine. But you should still love them not keep trying to force it down their throat which is what this whole forum has turned into. I read things like this and it really saddens me that people of different faiths can't accept the differences. This is why for thousands of years there have been and still are wars throughout the world and until be begin to accept religious beliefs that are different than ours without feeling like we need to always prove why ours is right, then there we'll continue to be wars and fighting between different sects.

P.S. I would like to clear one thing up, the LDS church does not get into politics, AT ALL!! It does not take a stand and each person is welcome to belong to whatever political party they wish to and vote for whomever they wish to. In fact, each election year, a few months before election day, a letter is sent out from the leaders of the church reminding the members that there is not to be anything political held or done or even posted at the church. No signs out front, no rallies, no announcements from the podium saying who to vote for or anything of that nature. All that they say is that they wish the members to pray for guidance for the citizens of the nation so that the best person can be elected. And that's it.

P.P.S. Also for the comment about the Mormons taking over the CIA and FBI, the CIA and the FBI have been recruiting LDS members for a long time because A.they can find lots of people who know at least 1 other language besides English that they are fluent and literate in. B.they don't drink, smoke, or do drugs so they are usually in good physical condition(yes there are always some exceptions to the rules!) C.they're trustworthy and hardworking (I have known a woman in the FBI for quite a while and she just recently went into the training the new agents and I had heard about there being a lot of LDS members that were in the FBI and CIA and these were a few of the reasons she gave me.

mr_blutarksy:

I have two serious questions for you:

1) Concerning the star being millions of light years away. Theoretically, if God created the universe as the Bible describes, is it not at least possible that he created it in a "mature" state? I.e. He didn't have to create the stars and then wait for the light to get to earth. He could make the stars and the light that emanates from them at the same time. Kind of like creating a garden hose with water already arching out from it 20 feet. He doesn't have to create the hose, turn the water on, and then wait for the water to arch out of the hose. Maybe too simple of an analogy, but I hope you get what I am saying.

2) What is harder to believe? That a being much more powerful than anything we can imagine created the universe. Or, that *nothing* blew up at some point and created *something*? Modern physics already knows that you can't create something from nothing and yet people hold on to the big-bang theory. It is much more faith than it is science. The difference is that biblical Faith has been around a lot longer and stood the test of time.

Rene,

Thanks for your response on the attributes question. You are really spending a lot of time on this post! Here are my thoughts and clarifications on some of the things you have written:

Spirituality & Invisibility -- I think Grudem gives pretty good Scriptural evidence for his definitions. I think the key for Grudem is that he stresses that God's *total essence* is invisible. He acknowledges that God has manifest a *part* of himself in various ways through Scripture (Moses "face to face", theophany, Christ, etc.). Nevertheless, I digress...

Jealousy -- Here is what Grudem says on the topic:
>>>
Scripture represents God as being jealous in this way. He continually and earnestly seeks to protect his own honor. He commands his people not to bow down to idols or serve them, saying, "for I the LORD your God am a jealous God" (Ex. 20:5). He desires that worship be given to himself and not to false gods. Therefore, he commands the people of Israel to taear down the alters of pagan gods in the land of Canaan, giving the following reason: "For you shall worship no other god, for the LORD , whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Ex. 34:14; cf. Deut. 4:24: 5:9)..."For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it...My glory I will not give to another" (Isa. 48:11).

Will -- Your question was: "Does God, in your opinion, have to take actions to keep up his existence? Or do I misunderstand you here?"

You actually kind of have me stumped on this one. It looks like that is what Grudem is implying in his definition, but I haven't found a place where he flushes out the thought. It does seem kind of odd to think about God having to keep up his own existence. However, if God doesn't keep up his own existence who does? I will have to leave this one alone for now, I am not sure how to answer it.

Freedom -- I think your concerns about God's freedom are a classic question of how God's sovereignty and man's responsibility fit together without making God the author of evil and without relieving man of the responsibility for his sin. At the end of the day, I think we have to affirm both things because that is what Scripture teaches (Ps. 115:3, Prov. 21:1, Dan. 4:35).

Omnipotence -- You asked, "Please clarify a bit more: Could God save man as effectively as it is now, by NOT sending his son?"

Tough question. I think, based on the Grudem's definition, it could be answered like this:

Technically, God "could" have saved man by another method unknown to us. However, because he chose to do it the way that it is revealed in the Bible, we know that this method is God's Holy will. Therefore, it was not in his will to save man by another method and therefore he *could not* have done it any other way. Maybe that won't suffice, but I think it is the best I can do.

-----

The items above were just clarification, but here is what I was really shooting at with all of the attribute stuff. You said that you would one day be made a god and have most of the attributes noted above in the same measure and way that God has them now. Specifically, you noted that you would have both:

Eternity & Immutability

However, I don't think that is logically consistent position. Eternity means that you would have no beginning and no end. But clearly, the man Rene had a beginning. If you are at some point changed into a being with no beginning and no end, then you are no longer immutable because the essence of your being has changed.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks again!

Marcs, The only problem is you read Dawkins and he is even more delusional than all of these people. He barely has an logic or reason in his book but is filled with anger and hate. And for as smart as he is he is way out of his league when he wades into philosophy and apologetics.

Thanks, Mary Cunningham, for the Edward Norman references. I shall certainly take a look.

Ann O.

Richard Dawkins is beginning to make more and more sense after reading through all this......god really is a delusion.

Anonymous (at 9:50 PM, May 7th)

Merely repeating "apostate" over and over doesn't make it true.

As far as this statement:

** “Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, . . .”

Actually, it does not! **

It doesn't?

"God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones" (Gospel Principles, p. 9)

Official mormon church dogma teaches that God was once a man. At least know your own church teaches before spouting off about how "apostate" Christians are.

Rene, you wrote
-“If there is no external boundary to what God could do and will and if God has complete omniscience and omnipotence, then there is no reason, why He created Lucifer the way He created him,-----“
What are you trying to say there?
The deepest power God has revealed to us is His power, over His power, known to us as self control or self restraint. He set that boundary internally, and it manifests itself externally through the covenants and promises He initiated with His creation.
Also don’t discount freewill, God doesn’t, He totally respects it.
Freewill is the raw material He uses in constructing the Kingdom of Heaven.
All of humanity past, present and to come have this freedom. Apparently angels possess this right to decide too, including satan. To deny this is declaring God created evil.
Gen.1:31 tells us all creation was very good, evil was not there.
Evil germinated in satans heart just as sin does in ours.
Yes sin is the only thing God hates,-Why? Because it separates Him from his creation, us.

Hello Scott U.
When it comes to beliefs, and faith everybody has one. Sometimes it’s as if folks actually worship their belief instead of their God.That is what scares me.
Anyway isn’t Romney just as good if not better than some of the other candidates?

Mohler said:

“I must answer the Mormon question first, and from two perspectives. As an evangelical Christian theologian, I must clarify that Mormonism is in no way consistent with orthodox Christianity.”

As a Mormon, I am going to have to take issue with R. Albert Mohler’s theological characterization of Mormonism. The LDS position is that Christianity is an apostate institution. It apostatized centuries ago shortly after the Apostles died, and lost the divine authority and ecclesiastical legitimacy that it once possesed. The LDS Church is a restoration of the original church of Christ. Therefore his assertion that Mormonism “is in no way consistent with orthodox Christianity” should more correctly have been worded: “Mormonism is in no way consistent with apostate Christianity;”.and that might be a reasonable assertion.

“It borrows Christian themes and texts, but its most basic beliefs directly contradict the central teachings of Christianity.”

Again, the correct wording should have been, “. . . the central teachings of apostate Christianity”. That might have been a valid assertion.

“Mormonism holds that God is an exalted man, . . .”

Actually, it does not!

“. . . with a physical body.”

That it does!

“Christianity teaches that God is Spirit.”

You mean “apostate Christianity” teaches that “God is Spirit”. That may be true; but the Bible does not. The Bible teaches that God is male, is in the human form, and has a physical body.

“Mormonism denies the historic Christian understandings of the Trinity, . . .”

You mean the “apostate understanding of the Trinity”. I am sure that is correct. Mormonism believes in the biblical definition of the Trinity, which is not be the same as the apostate one that you believe in.

“. . . the person and work of Christ, and the doctrine of salvation.”

LDS believe in the biblical understanding of the Person and work of Christ, and the doctrine of salvation, which no doubt would be different from how you perceive these things.

“Christianity promises salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith. Mormonism promises deification.”

Actually, it is the Bible that promises deification; and Mormonism teaches “salvation through Christ's atonement and the sinner's justification by faith”.

“Christianity calls for personal faith in Jesus Christ. Mormonism calls for obedience to its own teachings as the path to exaltation.”

False again. Apostate Christianity has a distorted, false, and unbiblical view of salvation through Christ; and Mormonism does not “call for obedience to its own teachings;” but for obedience to the commandments of God.

“Mormonism replaces belief in the sole authority of the Bible with other writings, including the Book of Mormon.”

It is a sign of an apostate and false religion that claims the canon of scripture is closed. Mormonism, unlike apostate Christianity, does not claim that the canon of scripture is closed, but believes in ongoing revelation through modern day prophets and Apostles of the Lord.

“This list is only a brief summary of the vast chasm that separates Christianity from Mormonism.”

You mean the “vast chasm that separates apostate Christianity from Mormonism”. That is probably a fair statement.

“Put simply, Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity.”

I agree! It is indeed the only form of true Christianity!

“It is a rejection of historic Christianity.”

No! It is a rejection of apostate Christianity!

Check out the main article on the washingtonpost.com. It's about a star that is some 240 million light years away. I believe you can do some sort of calculation to get an idea how old the universe is based on the speed of light. It probably comes to millions of years. Hey, wait a minute. According to Western religions, the universe is only about 8,000 years old. Stupid science.

Do you think the Chinese and Indians (from Bombay, not the American "Jewish decendant" Indians)worry about how old the earth is? If an old man built an ark and put two of every animal? If Buddhism should be taught in school? Probably not. They're ecomomies are booming and are they probably don't even worry about it...

Hi To All,

It really is amazing to listen to the diversity of argument between proponents and opponents of Mormonism and evangelical Christians on this blog. Talk about arguing how many angels can stand on the end of a needle. Just listen to yourselves arguing issues that have no tangible proof whatsoever. These are all issues of faith not science or history. None of you have it right. If you think you do, then you are no different than the islamofascist that want to kill us, because they know they have it right!

Beyond all of that, as a student of religion and life (I am 61), I can tell you that Mormons are the most educated (along with the Jews and perhaps the Episcopalians) of the many denominations that make up the religious base in this country. As such they are articulate, intelligent, and aggressive in pursuing their agenda, which for the most part does coincide with that of the conservative part of the evangelical community (BTW, not all evangelicals are politically conservative).

Having had several Mormons neighbors in my life, I am ever fascinated by the facile way in which Mormons defend their faith; it is the ultimate catechism without an iota of critical thinking. If any critical thinking does enter the conscious mind it is quickly squelched by the most legalistic and thought-controlled of American religions. It is this aspect of Mormonism that scares the h*** out of me. They march in lockstep to the scions in Salt Lake City, as they did during Brigham Young's day. No, I would never vote for a Mormon. I view them as patriotic Americans but quite dangerous to be given the car keys.

Sorry to have offended Peter the rock and truly mean no disrespect. It is interesting that the person offended has asked the ultimate question. That question is: will you die for Christ? The answer is yes and without hesitation. That, my friend, is the question all Christians should consider carefully. And I suspect that a lot of Mormons would answer yes to that question. Not to force Him on others but to defend freedom to worship and to never deny Him. We will also die for your rights to defend Peter in speech but not by violence. I know you mean no violence but you kind of come off as an angry person. This must be our conviction: "give me liberty or give me death."

Hi Arthur,

I'm sorry I came off as condescending. I didn't mean to offend you.

Alex

Radical Christianity and fundamentalism is just as dangerous as radical Islam. Both groups are taking actions that constantly chipped away at the American Constitution. Practice whatever religious rituals you want but STOP cramming your laws down everyone's throat.

I find it intersting that there are Christians here using the same argumements, in principle, against Mormonism as atheists and agnostics make against diety!

What "proof" do you have for the existence of a God, or a savior? What proof do you have that Mormonism isn't true?

Science is unreliable in all religious argument. The long history of the Bible, it's compilation and it's interpretations make it seemingly unreliable.

So, if there is only one God and one Bible, then why are there so many religions and so many Christian sects? Which church is the true, or truest, church of God? And does God really care whether or not a church is considered "Christian" - a human categorization?

I'm sure that anyone so predisposed could find enough holes in any faith to discredit its validity. Such fault finding only blinds one from seeing the truth.

Someday, if the Bible is true, Christ will return to this world and there will be an awful lot of people who will find out just how wrong they are, and others who will be humbly comforted. Do any of you REALLY know which group you'll be in?

Hi Mary,

You seem quite sure that Mormonism is crazy. I know some evangelicals who think Catholicism is crazy and many atheists who think all of us super-naturalists are crazy.

It's easy to dismiss a movement as crazy without reading some of their best literature, written by their most learned adherents.

My Evangelical friend for example, only learned about Catholicism from anti-Catholic polemics which harp on Papal conspiracies, what they call idol worship etc. Not really good sources to base knowledge of a religion. After providing him with some arguments available from some Catholics scholars I had read he said "Those Catholics just twist things around. You can't trust what they say."

I think whenever we dismiss the beliefs of a large group of fellow rational human beings created in the image of God as crazy, we only convict ourselves of ignorance and ethnocentrism. But I also think that totemism is rational, so call me a relativist. I’ll take relativism over provincialism any day!

John D.

I would say there is plenty of direct revelation in the teachings of the Church...plus a strong mystical tradition awa (today) a burgeoning charismatic movement.

But this whole 'debate' about Mormonism IMO shows the need for a strong central authority, the successor of Peter, to determine what is authentic Christianity and what is heresy.

Otherwise we'd all collapse in a sea of relativism, well, maybe most already have. All this stuff about the Mormons being fine, upstanding people. Well, maybe some are fine and upstanding and maybe some are a lot less great. But--tell me--what does that have to do with the fact that Mormonism is crazy, not Christian at all?

Regards,
Mary C.

Ann O:

Edward Norman was long known as probably the most intelligent member of the Church of England, pointing out its inherent fault lines--which btw have all opened as he said they would. Most of his work has involved the Church of England and/or British history. But after he became a Catholic (in 2004) he wrote his masterpiece, a beautiful book, " The Roman Catholic Church: An illustrated history."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Catholic-Church-Illustrated-History/dp/0500251320/ref=sr_1_1/026-3388732-9949221?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178566894&sr=1-1

Here is his full (influential) lecture to the Anglican communion in 1998 which I quoted from:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/misc/norman98.html

FWIW his emphasis on the Church as a living, teaching entity has been echoed by the historian ,Felipe Fernandez-Armesto.

@Tim:
The reasons I did not write anything about BoM Archaeology so far are,

1) that I want to settle ONE topic before going to the next.
2) that though I know a lot about ECF, I do not know so much about archaeology, and so I could only repeat what others have said, instead of formulating my own answers.

But if you want, we can go there as soon as the deification topic is "closed". And, yes, there is some interesting evidence.
____________________

Why quote an abomination:
You asked, why I would quote from "abominations", and the answer is: I do not believe that the ECF were an abomination. Could you tell me what triggered that idea? Joseph Smith never claimed that the ECF or Christianity in any time was an abomination. I have often heard someone make this claim about Mormonism, the proof so far has been zero. Until now, it always was rooted in a misunderstanding.
_____________________

Mormonism & Masonry:
Yes, JS was a Mason. Yes, the liturgy of the endowment uses Freemason elements. This is historically evidenced. No, the CONTENTS of the endowment is not related in any meaningful why with freemasonry.

If you want, I can add some links by freemasons who are also Mormons. But not being a mason myself, I am absolutely not fit to discuss freemasonry in detail.

In Christ

Rene

Some rock! You challenge Peter's bravery? No man had the courage other than for Christ to suffer the passion; so get real!

Also Peter faced and suffered martyrdom for his beliefs in Christ after his mission was completed! They crucified Peter like his beloved Lord.

Do you have the courage to die for something you believe in? Probably not, because you have nothing to live for!!!

Tony - And since when ia it a churches obligation to teach evolution?

It is not church obligation. However, in school science classes, different scientific disciplines are based on evidence, not faith. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, whether you want to believe that or not. Creationism or intelligent design is easily refuted and has no scientific basis. Should we substitute alchemy for chemistry, astrology for astronomy, faith-healing or witchcraft for modern medicine? Perhaps if you want to reduce average human lifespan back to 35 years of age as it was during the time of Christ, go ahead and reject modern science. In terms of evolution, I will not get into a debate with the likes of you because it is futile.

By the way, I know too many excellent evolutionary biologists at Brigham Young University.

Ann O.,

That is interesting. I agree that the written word itself is an inadequate means to learn what meaning God has for us in every context cultural, historical or practical circumstance in which we have ourselves. The meanings in written works are inevitably bound to the context in which they were commited to paper.

A living tradition would partially overcome these limitations. A living tradition could not, however, adapt God's meaning in all the contexts and cultural tapistries one encounters in this multi-layered globe of ours. For that I think one needs individual communication with the Divine via direct revelation.

It is amazing how the debate that has emerged is so different than the original post by Dr. Mohler. He introduced his conclusions with his perspective, "as an evangelical Christian theologian." So, the idea of "orthodox Christianity" is explicitly based on the evangelical perspective. Members of the LDS church may consider their faith to be "orthodox" and "Christian," but different people obviously have different ideas of what these words mean. However in the context of this blog, it seems reasonable to use the meaning that the author has for the words. What is surprising to me is that so many people who are LDS are on this blog apparently arguing that their faith is not a departure from traditional Christian views. This is amazing to me for two reasons. First, I'm puzzled that members of the LDS church would represent their own faith this way. As I understand it, a central tennant of their faith is that there was a great "apostasy" that got everything wrong until God was able to restore everything through modern revelation to Joseph Smith. If the historic values of the church have been wrong, then why would those who are LDS not openly admit and be greatful for the fact that their belief system is a departure from traditional Christianity? It seems that this representation is either deceptive, an attempt to win some kind of debate using semantics from their perspective, or a part of a larger movement to gain acceptance or converts.

Secondly, what impresses me even more about the disproportionate amount of LDS comments is that there must be a large readership of Dr. Mohler's blog within their church. Perhaps Rene or any other LDS readers could comment if they are just searching for blogs relating to mormonism, or if they regularly read Dr. Mohler's blog. I suspect it could be the latter. Because Dr. MOhler usually focuses on social and political issues, I think this is a profound illustration of his point in the post that "The convergence of Mormon and evangelical Christian concerns on a host of cultural, moral, and political issues is no accident." In this sense, I hope evangelicals and "mormons" can find common ground based on similar values. Finding common ground on a host of doctrinal issues is something that I personally would think both groups would shy away from if they didn't want to compromise or misrepresent their faith.

MARY CUNNINGHAM tells us: Christ, in contrast, revealed his truth to a living company of people—the “People of God”—who after he left this earth *became* his body on earth. Precisely because the message was thus conveyed organically it remained permanently new: able to adapt to changing intellectual modes and social filtration, capable of bringing forward fresh insights in the successive cultural shifts of a progressive humanity. Written texts do not transmit truth of themselves: they require reinterpretation, over long periods of time, if they are to achieve durable meaning.

ANN O. replies: Wow, Mary, this sounds like Prof. Norman clearly understood how language works, which, unfortunately, many theologians do not seem to understand.

The fundamental fault of all sorts of fundamentalisms is their naive assumption that a written text (the "blackletter", the public, physical symbols on the page) somehow transmits the meaning which God intends -- that those who confront those physical symbols *find* God's meanings of the individual the words within those physical symbols. The fact is that we readers *bring* the meanings of the individuals words to the blackletters. And those meanings begin to be established in our minds with the meanings we are taught in grammar school.

It is only in the living tradition of what those words can possibly mean that we can possibly find God's own intended meanings (if we find His meanings at all)

Could you please recommend a work by Prof. Norman? And do you know whether his work had any influence on the teaching of Vatican II that Jesus' Church is "the People of God"??

Ann O.

Peter the rock - Mark 14:72 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept. Some rock! Still Peter is a much better role model than Joseph Smith. Yet, forget Smith and just remember that a Mormon is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ, has repented, and accepts Christ as his savior. That seems pretty basic and mainstream. The doctrine might be a polluted (it is my belief that it is) but ultimately that is not for me to judge as they seem for Christ in their own ways.

If you want to know about archeology and the Book of Mormon, here is an article by a well trained, widely cited, MesoAmerican Archeologist:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTk5MjgzNDgtMTQtMi5wZGY=&type=amJtcw==

Hey Rene I am sure you are much smarter than me, but I still have not seen any reason to believe there is any proof for the Book of Mormon. I mean you keep going back to the early Church Fathers, who by Joseph Smith standards were an abomination, since he declared everything after the apostolic church to be so. That is why I wonder why you keep appealing to them. I would be hard pressed to appeal to sources in which the founder of my religion considered to be an abomination.

Which brings up another question, why would Mormons want to be seen as Christians if they consider Christians to be an abomination? I really am curious about that.

Last I just want to know why there is no historical or archaeological support for all the events the Book of Mormon claim occurred.

@Mascmen7 I have never heard about the Mormon rituals being taken from Masons but maybe that is why when my wife and I tried to visit a temple one time they told us we could not, because what went on in there was "not a secret but sacred." This is the same line some of my Free Mason friends have told me, maybe Joseph Smith was a Free Mason, sure would explain a lot.

Joseph Smith a believer in magic stole the Book of Mormon from the King James Bible. The temple ceremonies are straight out of the masonic secret rituals. How any rational person could believe in Joseph Smith's fairy tales boggles the mind. Mormonisn is not Christian and has nothing to do with the Church that Christ founded on the rock, Peter, the Apostle.

Mark Chapter 9:38,42 - And John answered Him, saying, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, but he followeth us not, so we forbad him because he followeth not us." But Jesus said, "Forbid him not, for there is no man who shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is on our side. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in Me to fall, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.

A refreshing view from a great Evangelical scholar, the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society:

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html

Please note, that his reasons for turning from evangelicalism to Catholicism come from the Church Fathers and his exposure to their writings.

In Christ

Rene

@anaonymus:

The essay you pointed at is quite interesting. To be honest, I don't think that I have enough space this forum to do a point-by-point analysis, not to speak of a rebuttal, so let me just point you to another essay, that deals with what Mormons do with Patristics, and which is from Evangelicals fighting against Mormonism. They start with 5 conclusions that need to be accepted, if Evangelicals want to win the war against Mormons on a scholarly level:

"The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. [..] Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

"The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms.

"A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.

"Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons.

"Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic."

To all those points I can say "yes, and amen" ;-).

Then they state what Mormons do, and why they do it, especially in the field of patristics:

"So what are the LDS scholar-apologists trying to prove? In what intellectually plausible ways are they supporting their unique scriptural canon and doctrinal system? The main body of this paper is devoted to illustrating the answer to this question. The Mormon goals are fairly straightforward. First, they believe the Book of Mormon to be an ancient text written by people of Jewish heritage. A number of studies have been done which attempt to reveal Hebraic literary techniques, linguistic features, cultural patterns and other markers which, it is argued, Joseph Smith would not have been capable of fabricating. Second, Latter-day Saints believe that other ancient texts have been restored through Joseph Smith (e.g. the books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price). As a result, Mormon scholars have taken a great deal of interest in the study of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. The goal here is to highlight features which these ancient documents share with their own sacred literature. Third, it is a conviction of the LDS Church that earliest Christianity suffered substantial apostasy from the latter first century through the end of the second century. This apostasy is usually equated with the process of post-apostolic Hellenization. Under this theory they maintain that the original doctrines of the ancient Church were not lost all at once.

"So Latter-day Saints have taken a keen interest in the beliefs and practices of the early post-apostolic Church. Special attention has been given to the writings of the Patristic Fathers in an effort to demonstrate similarities with Mormon belief and practice. These similarities are not intended to show that the early Christians were proto-Mormons but rather that remnants of true pre-Hellenized belief remained for a time after the apostasy. In this regard Mormon academians (along with many non-LDS scholars) have taken keen interest in the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity."

(http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html)

If the evangelicals' own scholars say it, shouldn't evangelicals start believing it?

In Christ

Rene

@Tim:
First of all, I do not believe that the ECF were an abomination. Could you tell me what triggered that idea?

Second, of course, since they tried to find their way around after the apostasy, they erred in some regards. In other areas of doctrine they were absolutely great.

So, looking at the Church Fathers, I do not expect them to be "proto-Mormons", but the earlier the Church Father, the greater the possibility that he teaches something I would recognize, and that is rejected by traditional Christians today.

Answering your question about the Catholic Church is easier than you might imagine: They DO talk about it:

1) In my last post to you, I quoted Thomas Aquinas, who is regarded as the most important Catholic teacher.

2) Go to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm. You will notice that this is the official site of the Vatican, and this is the official catholic world catechism. Scroll down to Article 3 §1 #460. Read and enjoy.

3) Austria's Archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schnönborn, Author of the above mentioned World Catechism, also wrote a book called "From Death to Life". The second chapter of that book is called "Is Man to Become God?", and Schönborn asks the question whether those who attack the use of the phrase might not be attacking "something that belongs to the essence of the Christian Faith".

Why, then, do most Catholics NOT know about this, while it is common knowledge in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Frankly, I don't know, though the doctrine seems to be re-emerging. Probably, with Augustine of Hippo, the West parted ways from the East, in their understanding of God, Trinity, Christology and Anthropology. Consequently from that on, theosis (in Latin: Deification) was deemphasized. Then, in the 19th century, Feuerbach wrote his famous critique on religions, in which he claimed that God is nothing more than an extrapolation of man, a man "thrown into heaven", as he termed it. Feuerbach got really well-known, and so theosis was even more deemphasized.

Whatever their reasons for not mentioning that doctrine the same way as it is done in the East and in Mormonism, theosis/deification is in fact part of the Catholic doctrine.

Rene

For all of you who are tired of Rene's blowhard mumbo jumbo here is a response by a Christian Patristic scholar which deals with Mormons like Rene who take malign church Fathers for their agenda. Jigs up Rene

"How Mormon Scholars Conduct Patristic Research To Prove The Legitimacy of Their Religion: An Analysis of Mormon Use of Patristic Literature and History"

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-1/5_Mormon_Use_of_Patristics.html

enjoy I know I did. More lies and lies by Mormons.

Rene I am curious how you can appeal to the church fathers if you believe they are an abomination? Plus I do not have a big background in all this stuff, but why is it that the Catholic church, who many of these men were a part of, does not and has never affirmed what you are saying? How can they be abominations, and true valid authority sources at the same time?

Did anybody notice that Ryan had a problem with my "schoolboy" comment, thinking that I had addressed her that way, when in fact, I had stated that *I* am not a schoolboy?

Rene

@Randy:
Eternity -- God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time.

I think this is a modern understanding of eternity, not a Hebrew or Early Christian. God ‘s “timeframe” is eternity (Mind you, we are not bringing forth arguments in this case, just exchanging opinions). Overall, I could agree, but the part about “succession of moments” complicates the issue in a way I strongly disagree with – both for us AND for our Father in Heaven. Aside from that: Yes.

Immutability -- God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.

Good. Yes, after some eternities of assimilation to God, I do believe that this will also be the case for the believers.

Spirituality -- God's spirituality means that God exists as a being that is not made of any matter, has no parts or dimensions, is unable to be perceived by our bodily senses, and is more excellent than any other kind of existence.

This, IMHO, has no firm basis in scripture. While I agree that God is Spirit (just as God is Love), God is more than just that.

Invisibility -- God's invisibility means that God's total essence, all of his spiritual being, will never be able to be seen by us, yet God still shows himself to us through visible, created things.

As I said, this is not what the Hebrew AND the Greek expressions in the Bible mean. God doesn’t have it, and we will not have it.

Jealousy -- God's jealousy means that God continually seeks to protect his own honor.

Hmm. I don’t know if God really is so concerned about his own honor – or probably I still don’t understand. Could you send me the scriptural backup of this claim?

Wrath -- God's wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.

Aha. Fully agreed. To become as God, we, too, will have to resist sin unto blood, to hate sin with all our being, well still loving the sinner.

Will-- God's will is that attribute of God whereby he approves and determines to bring about every action necessary for the existence and activity of himself and all creation.

Does God, in your opinion, have to take actions to keep up his existence? Or do I misunderstand you here?

Freedom -- God's freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases.

This is not very clear. Let me explain:

If there is no external boundary to what God could do and will, and if God has complete omniscience and omnipotence, then there is no reason, why He created Lucifer the way He created him, that is, in a way where He knew before the creation, that Lucifer would surely fall and become Satan. There was no need for Lucifer’s creation in the first place, there was no need to create him with the ability to fall, and God knew that he surely would fall. How can we then say that Satan is evil, since he had no chance as to act the way he was created – on which he had no influence. It’s like me making a mechanism that has the ability to kill you. I know, that though I do not trigger it, it WILL surely kill you. Then it happens, and you are killed. Can I really say, “’twasn’t me!”?

Omnipotence -- God's omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will. This would exclude things like sin, which God does not will to do.

Please clarify a bit more: Could God save man as effectively as it is now, by NOT sending his son?

In Christ Rene

@Tim:
@Tim:

The problem is not just semantics, as you would find in a philosophy class. The question is: What is an argument, or better, what is a valid argument?

Let’s have a look at the wikipedia-definition: An argument is a statement or group of statements offered in support of another statement.

So, if someone would say, “Rene, you know crap about Patristics,”, this would just be a statement, but not an argument. This can be a valid CONCLUSION, but it needs support by other statements.

If you say, “Rene, I study Patristics, and your ideas would not hold water academic surroundings, therefore you know crap about Patristics” you’d have some kind of premises and a conclusion, so formally you would have an argument.

But since the first premise is a non-supported appeal to authority, and the second is also totally unsupported, this argument is a logical fallacy. It is good-for-nothing. I could trump this argument by saying “I’m a student of Patristics of 9 years, I’ve been published with my studies both in Mormon and Nonmormon media, so I know that my ideas are accepted.” Again, this would only be a false appeal to authority, and likewise prove nothing.

So, Ryan says that I take the Fathers out of their cultural context. This is a statement, not an argument. She says, that we have to believe her, since she is a grad student of patristics, no other support is given. This is an appeal to false authority. When I called her on the carpet for this logical fallacy, she tried to scourge me for making her credentials a topic, which I didn’t do. I just answered to her faulty argument, and in the only way this is done in academics.

You say, I’m vitriolic to Ryan, which is not the way I feel. But I’ve really had enough discussions with people who use academic language without knowing what they’re talking about.

For instance, Ryan claimed that I didn’t do my exegetical homework on John 10:34, 35. She claims that I didn’t interprete the verse in its cultural and historic context. Fact is, I didn’t interprete the verse AT ALL. It was just an answer to FORMER MORMON’s claim, that nobody in the bible – with the exception of the snake – ever claimed that men may become gods. And though the meaning of “gods” in the verses I produced, may be open for discussion, I could prove that deification language is in fact used not only by the adversary.

So, probably, just as some don’t know what an argument in academics really is, some may not even know, what exegesis is.

Also, though I fully well know how the Talmud explains Ps 82, it is a fact, which I supported by the quotes of the Church Fathers, that Ps 82/John 10 is the scripture used the most, when it comes to theosis/deification/man becoming god through Christ. So, 2nd to 4th century Christians, some of whom knew apostles personally or their direct disciples, who are not that far removed from the cultural and historic context as we are, used this scripture exactly as I did. This is part of the “exegetical homework”, and if you commit yourself to studies of the patristic age, you will find that there is no question, that the Fathers taught theosis. There is discussion, mostly dated (Bultmann, Harnack & Co) who think that deification was part of the Hellenisation of Christianity, and that it only means immortality. Newer research shows that this is not the case. That in fact, theosis has its precedence in Talmudic lore (f.i. Moses, by ascent to heaven, is made a god; Enoch, Elija and Melchisedek, too), the Church Fathers, when discussing theosis almost never quote Greek sources, but they quote the Bible excessively, and though they say, yes, incorruptability is part of deification, deification surpasses immortality/incorruptability by far.

So, yes, Ryan produced a flawed argument. An argument that severly needed support, which she didn’t give.

But let’s make it simple:

Clement of Alexandria wrote: “God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1)

This sentence is a Chiasm.

*God* became *man*
so that you might learn from
a *man* to become a *god*.

In a chiasm, the crossed parts are equivalents. (If you do not know the current scholarly consensus of Chiasms, please let me know, I will send you links to relevant literature).

So, if Jesus was really a man (and not only looked like one), then it follows, that the believers literally should become gods, just as Christ was truly man. But just, as Christ was not me, but “a man”, I will not be made the Father, nor will I be “The Son”, but I will be me.

Thus, Clement, talking of deification, really means, that we are to become like God.

One argument someone brought was, that the SNAKE (=devil) claimed that Eve might become as God, and it was his primary sin (Isa 14). Thomas Aquinas (STh I,63,3), writes, that there is no sin in desiring to be God "provided that [one] desires such likeness in proper order, that is to say, that [one] may obtain it of God. But [one] would sin were [one] to desire to be like God even in the right way, but of [one's] own power, and not of God's."

I will not elaborate on Aquinas reasons, but just wanted to make clear that the proponents of theosis were well aware of the Fall of Adam and its reasons, but they see the weight of scripture against a total condemnation of the wish to be like God.

If you disagree with my argument (which I’m sure you do), then show me, how the above is flawed. Don’t just say “It’s not historical” or “it’s not in the cultural context”, which of themselves are only statements that need support by other statements. Make arguments in the proper way.

In Christ

Rene

Rene:

Thank you for responding. Yes, your comments were acceptable, exactly what I was looking for. Let me clarify a few of the attributes for you. I have included Grudem's definitions:

Eternity -- God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time.

Immutability -- God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations.

Spirituality -- God's spirituality means that God exists as a being that is not made of any matter, has no parts or dimensions, is unable to be perceived by our bodily senses, and is more excellent than any other kind of existence.

Invisibility -- God's invisibility means that God's total essence, all of his spiritual being, will never be able to be seen by us, yet God still shows himself to us through visible, created things.

Jealousy -- God's jealousy means that God continually seeks to protect his own honor.

Wrath -- God's wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.

Will-- God's will is that attribute of God whereby he approves and determines to bring about every action necessary for the existence and activity of himself and all creation.

Freedom -- God's freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases.

Omnipotence -- God's omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will. This would exclude things like sin, which God does not will to do.

I hope that helps clarify the meanings. Could you please tell me your thoughts on the attributes just listed?

Thanks!

I was working on a response to J. Tuner, but I came across Alex’s rant and had to chime in…

“I don't think that the other posters are on the same level as you are, in regards your knowledge of the Christian fathers and biblical languages. The average Mormon is not either, I'm afraid. Trinity-Christians, with the exception of their paid clergy, have never been expected to know too much.”

Are you serious? Rene has proven unable or unwilling to address questions posed to him, instead hiding behind petulant “I’m not being childish, you are being childish” statements. And to suggest that the average Christian is an uneducated boob based on your experience in your current ward is ridiculous. In five years in mormonism we met a number of nice people, and some were well educated by worldly standards and some were not. To assume that a secular education equates to religious discernment flies in the face of both Biblical teaching and the reality of the world around us. BYU doesn’t even offer a graduate degree in religious studies, and why should they when the “prophet” tells them what to think and believe. Many mormons are indeed well educated and successful by worldly standards, but woefully uneducated in their own church history or theology.

“Perhaps you're aware of the statistics (for Americans) which show Mormons as second only to Jews in the attainment of education. I went to Berkeley for my undergraduate degree (where I became active in church again and where my wife joined). The entire family ward, with the exception of a few old families, was made up of graduate students. (Our bishop was not a student, of course, but he was a professional physicist who spoke fluent Thai!)”

Wow that is quite impressive but irrelevant to the conversation. I am sure being fluent in Thai puts your bishop on par with Christian leaders who have doctorates in theology and fluency in the original languages of the Bible (not “Reformed Egyptian” perhaps). That is a smokescreen, and I am sure you know it.

“I think, ultimately, there is very little to be gained from extended dialog with most Trinity-Christians. As long as they know we respect their right to worship (incorrectly), and that we will gladly defend THEIR rights with our lives, as long as this is understood I think our job is done. They do not have any authority over our choice of worship.”

That there is nothing to be gained has more to do with the inability to engage meaningfully with Christians who are familiar with mormon doctrine than any perceived superiority of the mormon position. There is a reason that mormons are scared off from “anti” mormon bogeymen. Once you get past “I have a testimony” and the “burning in the bosom”, the claims of mormonism fall flat.

(p.s. I like your term “Trinity-Christians”, but it is quite redundant as all Christians are Trinitarian.)

@anonymous

Thank you for revealing where you are coming from with the two links to non-scientific propaganda with virtually inocuous statements and generalities with no specific examples of scientific fact to support any of the general and broad sweeping statements made on these websites - sharp contrast to any of the websites I have offered where detailed specific scientific evidence is shown to support and detract from any assertions made. These two sites you offered are simply fodder for the uninformed, ignorant surfer who will not ask for the facts, the scientific evidence for and against a theory, but will accept authoritarian statements without seeing the evidence. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN! And since when ia it a churches obligation to teach evolution? You won't find that in the Bible! Oh and Mit Romney stated his favorite book was the Bible! I thought the Book of Mormon was the last word on the faith!

I am alwaqys leary of any forum that proclaims the answers as proven fact - I have found that when all the evidence is shown many so called facts don't even muster Theory status. Show me the facts and I will decide but don't try to feed me your conclusions of faulty reasoning as fact and that is all your websited do.

Again, when you can't wage the argument on the facts you resort to denigrating the opposition "people who reject science and the modern world" your words when no one one this blog has demonstrated rejection of science or the modern world - to the contrary just the opposite is true. Although I suppose the modern world of the 14th century was right about the earth being flat and the earth being the center of the universe weren't they!

Anonymous, are you a man or a woman? Not that it matters but Rene might want to know.

Rene,

As you pointed out, its a hopeless debate with people who reject science and the modern world. Don't even try. Since you are a Mormon, here are two sites relating to the official LDS church position on evolution.

http://www.tungate.com/LDS_scientist.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon245.html

I would just like to be clear on one point for anyone who may be wondering after RYAN's last post- I am not a woman.

Rene-

Because I presume your "schoolboy" comment was directed at me just wanted to let you know I am a woman. I will bow out here, because it seems you have not interest in answering my points that the Book of Mormon has as much factual support as Harry Potter. Funny how I have said this a few times and you can't address it, maybe because it is not as easy as just ripping quotes out of context to make your point. But I am sure the burning in your bosom will help this lack of evidence go down easier, just make sure that the burning in your bosom is not just simply acid reflux.

@Rene

Wow have a lot of vitriol for ryan. Looks to me like he answered your questions and arguments and you are either incapable of dealing with his or scared of the answers. Must be tough to have a faith that hides behind smokescreens when you have to deal with the facts instead of sophistry. Way to resort to personal attack against him instead of dealing with the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon being nil.

And I can see Tony's point. He was not trying to say his list was conclusive proof for his position for creationism, but rather to highlight that it is a live option for many who are qualified to examine the issue. This is unlike Mormonism where ever scholar outside BYU does not support any of your claims. You can not have it both ways Rene, either scientific evaluation is important or it is not. This is just like the way you cheat in pleading your case with Church Fathers who Mormons believe are an "abomination," and then use them to support your point.

@Rene

So Rene as usual you have twisted the whole point I was making and are addressing an entirely unrelated subject which you are analyzing making unknown assumptions and broad sweeping figures of your imagination without offering even one name of the thousands of scientists you think believe what you want them to yet you feel comfortable attacking a list compiled by a stringent protocall - I never said this list represented all the people who assert that there is scientific evidence for creation. The point I was making to "realist" is that this small sample of distinguished people (including leading world reknown scientists in there fields which you would not even know who is or isn't) are not "a few crackpot Christians who call themselves scientists" That was the point!!! And not the spin you put on it - although mormonism is just that - your spin on the Bible you really are not as skilled at SPIN as you think.

I don't mean to sound so harsh but you need to understand this is not philosphy class in a liberal arts school but your eternal salvation is at stake as well as the salvation of those you influence with your error.

@Tony:

Being a Mormon, I've had my share of ridicule, and, yes, it is common for some people to claim victory and ridicule their oponents, instead of dealing with arguments.

A problem is, for sure, that to be able to counter an argument, one first has to know how an argument is formulated. Most people, even starters at universities, often lack this knowledge.

So, I sincerely hope that you won't find my words ridiculing your opinion.

You sent a list of scientists and scholars, who believe in Young Earth Creationism. And it seems large to you, and therefore, impressive.

The problem, though, is, that of abt. 190 names you sent, not more than 76 have ANY training relevant to the topic. I mean, how is a DENTIST an expert on geophysics or evolutionary biology, so that he can even understand the issues at hand?

And for EVERY SINGLE of those 76, opponents of Young Earth Creationism can show you at least 1000, if not 10.000 or 100.000 trained scientists in relevant fields, who are strongly opposed to the idea, and those 76 are people who are almost not known in the academic community.

This means, though there ARE scholars and scientists who believe in Young Earth Creationism, they are an insignificant number, and the academic consenus is against Young Earth Creationism.

Now, of course this does not prove Young Earth Creationism wrong, but rather it means that to say "Science/Scholarship supports the Bible" is misleading at least.

So, for an Evangelical to use science to disprove the Book of Mormon is to shoot himself in his own knees, because the very same academic consense that is in part against the Book of Mormon, is also in part against the Bible, while other things square really fine with both. And while there are no (and I mean it: no) scientists who believe in Young Earth, who do not believe in the Bible, there ARE scholars (few, don't mistake me) who believe the Book of Mormon could be an ancient document, who are not Mormons.

In Christ

Rene

@Ryan:
As I already said: I will not deal with anything you write, until you deal with arguments instead of flaming.

I'm not a schoolboy who has time to deal with your infantility. I have to work for a living for me and my family (4 kids and a wonderful wife), and I have zero time for someone who claims to play by academic rules and lacks even the knowledge to use academic terms correctly.

In Christ

Rene

Rene find it interesting you have gone so quiet on all the questions I posed to you. A lot like when the Mormon missionaries come to my door and I raise these same issues, they promise to return with answers but never do. I am okay if you want to bury your head in the sand and go on believing what you believe with blind faith, but just own that. Your faith really is full of holes and is without reason.

Sorry Alex but Mormonism has not stood up to scrutiny. As was said earlier when it comes the Book of Mormon being shown historically, archaeologically, it has the same merit as Harry Potter. There are no North American geologists, historians, or archaeologists who attest to its claims or use it as a valid attestation to the time period that it speaks of. Plus with 3000 revisions to the your scriptures in a 175 years I would say that is pretty shaky. Ohh I forgot though the prophet can make changes anytime it is politically needed, how convenient. I wonder if since God decided to stop advocating polygamy, and being a being racist toward black people during the 1970's, if God can change his mind again at some time in the future.

Alex
170 years is not standing the test of time.

Hi Rene,

I've enjoyed many of your comments. You remind me of one of my favorite missionary companions, Elder Hettenkofer (I hope I spelled that right). He was from Bavaria. His family was the only LDS family in his small town. Both his parents were converts. He and I served in a small town in the north of England in 1998. There is something wonderful about the testimony of European Saints.
I don't think that the other posters are on the same level as you are, in regards your knowledge of the Christian fathers and biblical languages. The average Mormon is not either, I'm afraid. Trinity-Christians, with the exception of their paid clergy, have never been expected to know too much. Perhaps you're aware of the statistics (for Americans) which show Mormons as second only to Jews in the attainment of education. I went to Berkeley for my undergraduate degree (where I became active in church again and where my wife joined). The entire family ward, with the exception of a few old families, was made up of graduate students. (Our bishop was not a student, of course, but he was a professional physicist who spoke fluent Thai!)
Atheistic academics always assume Mormons are no different than Trinity-Christians. Very frustrating. I think, ultimately, there is very little to be gained from extended dialog with most Trinity-Christians. As long as they know we respect their right to worship (incorrectly), and that we will gladly defend THEIR rights with our lives, as long as this is understood I think our job is done. They do not have any authority over our choice of worship.
I've read a lot on Trinity-Christian web sites which insinuate that NOW our church will be exposed to international attention, and that it won't stand up in the light. This is ridiculous. Our church has been scrutinized more closely (often unfairly) than any other Christian faith for 170 years. Most of the largest American Trinity-Christian denominations were not even organized when the LDS church began. We have stood the test of time. Ere too long the world will know whose we are.

Les:
The Book of Mormon states, that it was written for the purpose of "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations"

That's what we believe.

But if you Western-trinitarians try to corner us by claiming that either Jesus is homoousian with the Father, or we are polytheists, then we have to say, that the Son receives all his power from the Father and is not himself the source of all power. It is the Son that submits his will under the Father's, and with the ECF before Nicaea, we think of the Father as auton theon (God Himself, or God of Himself), it is the Father, whom worship, in the name of the son.

In Christ

Rene

@Randy:

I take your list and add my comments. Is that OK? Please keep in mind, that I do not speak for the Church (that's President Hinckley's Charisma, not mine).

Independence - no. We will always depend on our Father and our Savior.

Immutability (unchangeableness) - This is a question of definition. If this means: "His course is the same eternal round", then yes (yes, this applies to God, yes, it will apply to us). If it means that He is the unmoved mover, who does in no means react to what his creation does, no, this is not the God of the Bible, and no, we will not become like that. Have a look at Openness Theology, if you want to see other viewpoints on this.

Eternity - yes
Omnipresence - yes
Unity - yes
Spirituality - What do you mean by this? My translation to German does not make any sense in this case.

Invisibility - This is not the God of the Bible. As Bultmann showed, the Hebrew does not have a word like that. God MUST not be seen, lest he who sees is in peril of dieing. It's not that he CANNOT be seen. To translate aoratos in Col 1:15 as "invisible" is therefore an error, a Hellenistic reading of a Hebrew thought. "unseen" would be better.

Knowledge (Omniscience) - Yes

Wisdom - Yes

Truthfulness (and Faithfulness) - Yes

Goodness - yes

Love -yes

Mercy (Grace, Patience) - yes

Holiness - yes

Peace (or Order) - yes

Righteousness (or Justice) - those are different concepts, are they not? Yet, yes to both

Jealousy & Wrath - While God is shown in the Bible as having those attributes, I would not be ready to concede that they are Divine Attributes. Divine Attributes, IMHO, are only those attributes that are essential to being divine. Some commentators, who focus on God as the unmoved mover even proclaim that God does not have those emotions, but rather that humans perceive (mistakingly) those emotions in their history with God.

Will - what do you mean by this?

Freedom - Again, specify, please. God, for instance, is not free to sin. He IS, though, free OF sin, and he is not acted upon. IMHO. What do you mean?

Omnipotence (or Power, and Sovereignty) - Power and Sovereignity, yes. Classical Omnipotence - no, this is unbiblical. God has all power that can be had, he is the Supreme Ruler (Pantokrater), but he does not have the ability to sin, nor could he provide for the salvation of mankind in any other way as efficiently, than by the way he chose.

Summary Attributes:

Perfection - yes
Blessedness - yes
Beauty - yes
Glory - yes

Rene

@REALIST

So I suppose you consider the following bio "a few crackpot Christians who call themselves scientists" You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement but then some people choose to denegrate the other side when they can't win their arguement on the true facts!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Bias in higher education
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Is there a list of those who are against the biblical view of creation?
A Who’s Who of Evolutionists
Q&A: Countering the Critics
Are there other biographies and interviews of interest?
David Aikman, journalist
Basil of Caesarea
Gary and Meri Bell, underwater photographers
Hillmon Buckingham, Salvation Army Commissioner
Calvin says: Genesis means what it says
Steve Cardno, Creation Magazine art director
Betty Cuthbert, Olympic champion
Thyrza Davey, illustrator and author
Buddy Davis, sculptor, singer
Ralph DiCosimo, police officer
Pete Dobré, creationist photographer
Carol Drew, Creation photographer
Ken Duncan, photographer
Chang-Sha Fang, plant scientist
Jim Farquhar, geologist
Sergei Golovin, geophysicist
Russell Grigg
David and Doreen Hart
Johnny Hart, cartoonist
Paul James-Griffiths, missionary to the New Age Movement
Robert Jensen, photographer
Dr. Douglas Kelly, academic theologian
Dan Lietha, cartoonist
Dr. George Lindsey, associate professor of science education
Martin Lloyd-Jones, evangelist
Prof. Marvin Lubenow, anthropology
Luther on Evolution, and What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution? (Christian Answers Network)
Lou Moss, photographer
William J. Murray, son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair
Michael Oard, atmospheric scientist
Jules H Poirier, design engineer
Gary Raymond, law enforcement
Peter and Cathy Sparrow, Creation Bus
Joe Taylor, paleontologist
Dr. Ting Wang, lecturer in biblical Hebrew
Prof. Hannington Enoch, zoologist, ‘The man who got me hunting down evolution!’ by David C.C. Watson, author of Myths and Miracles
Dr. John Whitcomb, theologian (interview)
John Woodmorappe, geologist

Privacy policy Affiliates Press kit Jobs About us Contact us Translations Mobile version Sitemap Link to us Make us your homepage

Q&A Topics: Q&A Index pageAlien/UFOsAnthropology & Ape-menApologeticsArchaeologyArguments NOT to useAstronomy & AstrophysicsBibleBiographies - CreationistsCloningCommunism & NazismCountering the CriticsCreated KindsCreation CompromisesCreation: Why It MattersDarwin, CharlesDeath and SufferingDesign FeaturesDinosaursEducationEmbryonic RecapitulationEnvironmentalismFamily & MarriageFloodFossilsGeocentrismGenesisGeneticsGeologyGodHistoryHuman Life: AbortionIce AgeInformation TheoryJesus ChristLinguisticsLiving FossilsMammothsMorality and EthicsMutationsNatural SelectionNoah’s ArkOrigin of LifePhilosophyPlate TectonicsProbabilitiesRacismRadiometric DatingReligion (humanism, etc.)ScienceScopes’ TrialSpeciationThermodynamics and Order‘Vestigial’ OrgansYoung Age Evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction and disclaimer
Many historians (of different religious persuasions—including atheistic) have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe. These historians point out that the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? So, not only is a strong Christian belief not an obstacle to science, such a belief was its very foundation. (See also a refutation of the argument Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?)

After the rise of old-age beliefs, however, some scientists caved in and ‘re-interpreted’ the Bible to fit them. For example, some claimed that the days in Genesis 1 were really ages, and that Noah’s Flood was one of many catastrophes. For proof that such ‘re-interpretations’ are fallacious, see Q&A Genesis and Noah’s Flood Covered the Whole Earth.

These old-earth Christians may have meant well, but their faulty model was an easy target for Darwin. For example, Darwin pointed out that the fashionable theory—that each species had been independently created in their current location—made little sense of his observations that island species were often similar to those of the nearest continent. But his observations fit perfectly with the true biblical view that there was a global Flood, and that in the post-Flood world, animals migrated from Ararat to the islands via the neighboring mainland, perhaps even with the help of man.

This should be a lesson for those today who teach that Christians should compromise the plain meaning of the Bible to fit with ‘science’. Aside from placing fallible human opinion as an authority above the infallible Word of God, it just doesn’t work and paves the way for more departure from Scripture.

*As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@REALIST

So I suppose you consider the following bio "a few crackpot Christians who call themselves scientists" You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement but then some people choose to denegrate the other side when they can't win their arguement on the true facts!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Bias in higher education
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Is there a list of those who are against the biblical view of creation?
A Who’s Who of Evolutionists
Q&A: Countering the Critics
Are there other biographies and interviews of interest?
David Aikman, journalist
Basil of Caesarea
Gary and Meri Bell, underwater photographers
Hillmon Buckingham, Salvation Army Commissioner
Calvin says: Genesis means what it says
Steve Cardno, Creation Magazine art director
Betty Cuthbert, Olympic champion
Thyrza Davey, illustrator and author
Buddy Davis, sculptor, singer
Ralph DiCosimo, police officer
Pete Dobré, creationist photographer
Carol Drew, Creation photographer
Ken Duncan, photographer
Chang-Sha Fang, plant scientist
Jim Farquhar, geologist
Sergei Golovin, geophysicist
Russell Grigg
David and Doreen Hart
Johnny Hart, cartoonist
Paul James-Griffiths, missionary to the New Age Movement
Robert Jensen, photographer
Dr. Douglas Kelly, academic theologian
Dan Lietha, cartoonist
Dr. George Lindsey, associate professor of science education
Martin Lloyd-Jones, evangelist
Prof. Marvin Lubenow, anthropology
Luther on Evolution, and What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution? (Christian Answers Network)
Lou Moss, photographer
William J. Murray, son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair
Michael Oard, atmospheric scientist
Jules H Poirier, design engineer
Gary Raymond, law enforcement
Peter and Cathy Sparrow, Creation Bus
Joe Taylor, paleontologist
Dr. Ting Wang, lecturer in biblical Hebrew
Prof. Hannington Enoch, zoologist, ‘The man who got me hunting down evolution!’ by David C.C. Watson, author of Myths and Miracles
Dr. John Whitcomb, theologian (interview)
John Woodmorappe, geologist

Privacy policy Affiliates Press kit Jobs About us Contact us Translations Mobile version Sitemap Link to us Make us your homepage

Q&A Topics: Q&A Index pageAlien/UFOsAnthropology & Ape-menApologeticsArchaeologyArguments NOT to useAstronomy & AstrophysicsBibleBiographies - CreationistsCloningCommunism & NazismCountering the CriticsCreated KindsCreation CompromisesCreation: Why It MattersDarwin, CharlesDeath and SufferingDesign FeaturesDinosaursEducationEmbryonic RecapitulationEnvironmentalismFamily & MarriageFloodFossilsGeocentrismGenesisGeneticsGeologyGodHistoryHuman Life: AbortionIce AgeInformation TheoryJesus ChristLinguisticsLiving FossilsMammothsMorality and EthicsMutationsNatural SelectionNoah’s ArkOrigin of LifePhilosophyPlate TectonicsProbabilitiesRacismRadiometric DatingReligion (humanism, etc.)ScienceScope