Christ
Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7; “The traditional Christ of whom they [evangelical Christians] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.”
Mark 13:21-22; “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.”
Rev. 22:12-13; ““Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.””
Hinckley’s statement couldn’t be any clearer – they are not worshipping the Jesus of the Bible.
President Hinkley’s statement is very clear.
The Jesus of the Bible appeared to Joseph Smith, and anyone who denies it is not worshiping the same Christ.
Oh you mean the “Christ” who was first created as a spirit child by some sort of union between the Mormon god and his goddess wife then physically created by the same god and Mary. Who also “atoned” for sin but not all sin in the garden and who was a possible polygamist? Is that the “Christ” you’re referring too? Well I’m more than happy to not worship him.
The truth is “the Jesus of the Bible” never appeared to Joseph Smith. Jesus completed the work his Father gave him that would lead all to Him, He is the only way to God. To believe Smith’s story is to believe Jesus lied, and he along with the Father weren’t strong enough or powerful enough to keep it all together and needed a human boy to fix what they couldn’t do.
It’s also important to note that Smith told many stories of his apparent “vision”, and the official “first vision” wasn’t even accepted by his church until many years after it supposedly happened. – Melissa Grimes
I mean the Christ who existed from all eternity, who is uncreated in spirit. I mean the Christ who is literally only begotten Son of the Father who came into the world to save it from sin, and died that we might live. This is the Christ I am referring to, and the one taught by the LDS church, but denied by the rest of Christianity.
To believe Joseph Smith is to believe that God is in perfect control of human events, guiding history in ways that we couldn’t even dream of. To believe Joseph Smith is to believe in a truly unchanging God, who speaks in our day just as he did in times past. To believe Joseph Smith is to believe the Bible, and to believe the Bible is to believe Joseph Smith. To deny one is to deny the truths of the other.
I find it extremely sad that your “testimony” is about Smith. Truth is Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a created being not an uncreated being. And I agree that you believe Jesus is the “literal” son of the Mormon god, many past Mormon leaders believed he had relations with Mary as well in order to conceive Jesus. However the Jesus of Mormonism wasn’t able to save all men from sin, they too must do their part (joining the Mormon Church, temple rites, tithing, obeying the Word of Wisdom), because his grace isn’t sufficient to save them from sin.
Contrary to what you’ve been taught Jesus and Joseph don’t go hand in hand, Jesus stands alone, to believe they must go together is to deny Him completely.
You my friend are worshiping another Christ. Jesus himself warned people that others would emerge, yours just happened to evolve from the imagination of a very confused Joseph Smith. This is how false religions work they try to mask themselves as just another Christian religion when in truth they’re anything but. – Melissa Grimes
I find it sad that you can’t see what I am saying. I wrote two paragraphs. The first was about Christ, as he is the most important. The second was a side note about what you had said concerning Joseph Smith. The fact that all you could see was this side note I find very sad.
The truth is that the LDS teach that Christ, the being that was born to this earth, is uncreated, just as all individuals are uncreated. After all, it says right in the Doctrine and Covenants that spirit cannot be created. Thus for you to claim we teach he was created is false, and being a former member you would know this.
As to being the literal son, I was speaking to the fact that Christ is the literal spirit son of the Father. I was making no comment as to his physical birth.
As to the power of saving all people, Christ is able to save all people from their sins, if they come to be saved. He is not able to save anyone against their will, and so those who reject him he cannot save.
To conclude, may I ask if you think a person can reject Paul and everything he taught, and yet still accept Christ? What about denying Peter, or Moses, or Abraham?
“After all, it says right in the Doctrine and Covenants that spirit cannot be created.” It appears what you’re trying to promote as Mormon Doctrine isn’t Mormon Doctrine at all.
“God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).”
http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng
Now this is Mormon Doctrine, being a TBM you should know this. Please tell me, how can an “uncreated” spirit be begotten? Unless of course you’re changing the definition of begotten.
I ignored what you had to say about your Christ because you were trying to be deceptive, playing on words and Christian phrases. I prefer to cut through all the fat and get straight to the issue, to the core of what your church truly teaches, and shed light on the “twistianity” of Mormonism.
And lastly, you’re not seriously comparing Paul, Peter, Moses, and Abraham to the likes of Joseph Smith are you? – Melissa Grimes
Melissa
So, you are ignoring what I say unless it fits in with how you wish to portray the LDS church. Very enlightening.
Just note that there was no deception in what I said, and none was intended. What I said is perfectly true, and I stand by it. However, I will admit that my post should have said ‘a begotten son’ and not ‘only begotten son.’
Speaking of begotten, using your definition we come to the understanding that our mortal bodies are created by our mortal parents, for they are begotten of our parents. If you want to use this understanding of the term I am fine with that, but then you also must acknowledge that Christ is a created being, for the scriptures say that he is the “only begotten” and is thus created.
However, since you wish to deny that Christ was in anyway created we cannot use this understanding of the term. As such the term begotten does not mean that he was created but begotten; meaning that God did not speak him into existence, or actively form him, but he was born to the Father in some other way.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that Begotten means created and then deny Christ was created when he was begotten of the Father. Choose which you are going to use and stick with it. Either way agrees with LDS doctrine, and so I am perfectly fine with either one.
Just so you know, I think Joseph Smith was a greater prophet than Paul, and equal with all the others I listed. But I would like to congratulate you on a fine diversion. You have completely avoided the question by introducing sarcasm to distract me and the reader from it.
So I will ask again: Do you think a person can reject Paul and everything he taught, and yet still accept Christ? What about denying Peter, or Moses, or Abraham?
Please answer the question.
“So I will ask again: Do you think a person can reject Paul and everything he taught, and yet still accept Christ? What about denying Peter, or Moses, or Abraham?”
Let me ask you this, where did Paul ever say anything against what Jesus taught? If he ever did then yes we could reject him but he didn’t, same with Peter. As far as Moses or Abraham what did they ever do or say against the gospel of Jesus Christ that would give us cause to “reject” them as God’s chosen leaders?
You see unlike Smith and his successors God used the men you mentioned to point people to Jesus Christ, to an everlasting covenant he would make with His followers. Where as the Mormon leaders have done nothing but preach a false gospel, false salvation, and a false Jesus Christ. This is why Christians can reject them and their teachings.
I can see what you’re trying to do with your line of questioning Shem and I’m not falling for it. And If you don’t like my sarcasm you’re free to go elsewhere, or not respond at all. – Melissa Grimes
Oh, I don’t care about your sarcasm, I just find it interesting that you can’t simply answer a question, but have to dodge and evade an actual answer as you know that answering it directly and honestly would only strengthen what I am saying and not what you are. Sarcasm is just one of the ways you choose to dodge the point.
Now, you still have not given a direct answer. You have again simply dodged around, attempting to turn things around on me, and it isn’t working. The question has a simply answer; either yes or no. Which is it?
Will you actually answer the question, or will you continually avoid answering?
I can make no comment on what you are saying until I have a direct answer. So, I will answer it myself, and explain to the reader why you cannot answer it.
If the answer is yes, that we can reject these prophets and still be saved, then people are justified in almost any belief. It is primarily on the words of Paul that most Christians base their doctrine, and if he can be rejected than their doctrine becomes meaningless. The same thing can be said of all the prophets. In truth, the entire Bible can be rejected, as none of it was actually written by Christ. As such any kind of philosophy can be adhered to and salvation would be assured.
On the other hand, if the answer is yes than we are dependent on more than Christ. If by rejecting any of these prophets we no longer gain salvation than it is no longer through Christ alone, which is a thought that is blasphemous to most of Christianity. However, more to the point of the thread, if the answer is no than you have accepted the same doctrine in regards to these men as I have put forth concerning Joseph Smith, an idea that you have directly condemned. As such you would be showing that you have the right to accept a doctrine, but for us to do the same is heresy.
You attempt to avoid these two options only shows the depth of your deception.
Then again, Joseph Smith never taught anything against what Jesus taught either. He said plenty against what most Christians believe that Christ taught.
You see, it is very simple to use your personal belief to twist things.
The simple fact is that for any Christian “To believe [Paul] is to believe the Bible, and to believe the Bible is to believe [Paul]. To deny one is to deny the truths of the other.”
The same can be said of any of the prophets. You accept this, as much as you try to avoid admitting it. After all if you admit it than you contradict what you said earlier
“Jesus stands alone, to believe they must go together is to deny Him completely.”
You can dismiss the issue all you want with carefully hidden phrases, and double standards. You do know what I am doing, and you also know that I am right, and that is why you cannot give a direct answer to my question.
“Can a man deny the prophets and yet not deny Christ?” The answer is clear. To deny the messenger is to deny the one sending the message. To deny any of the prophets is to deny Christ, for they are the ones who testify of him.
You do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and so for you it doesn’t matter. But to us who know he is a prophet, rejecting him carries the same consequence as rejecting Paul would for you.