Also we all know that King David and many other patriarchs practiced polygamy but when was it ever ordained by God? And wouldn’t you say there’s a difference in practicing sin and teaching others to do likewise?

It is that simple.

Have a good week.

But though Bob and you think I am completely missing the point, I disagree with you narrowing to “the way to judge”.

Like it is the only way God defines Christians.

Go ahead and quote/paraphrase/use whatever I wrote. I don’t need even to be cited, especially since a substantial portion of what I wrote is my own paraphrasing of things I’ve learned over time from people who are either much more intelligent than I am or who took the time to read the source material (or at least translations of it).

The nature of God certainly is an interesting and important topic. It’s hard to come to know God, which the Savior taught, if we do not know about Him or comprehend His character.

Thank you for taking so much time. If you don’t mind, I’m going to essentially just quote you guys in the next post, you’ve done a thorough job covering it all. That way, we can have the discussion of the nature of God in a properly segmented area.

Mark R., Martin H.,

You ask “Are RLDS Mormons? Or FLDS?” and “are they Mormons, Christians, or what?”

It’s a trap, based on a false premise. If I say “no, they’re not Mormons, they broke off from ‘mainstream’ Mormonism’, then you’ll compare it to our current topic and claim that Mormons aren’t Christian for the same reason.

But you’re comparing names of organizations with “Christianity”, which is not the name of an organization, but a label describing those who believe in Christ and follow his teachings. There are many organizations who are Christian (Protestants aren’t Catholics, who aren’t Lutheran, but they’re all Christian religions).

But more importantly, you miss the whole point, which is what is most unfortunate. The point is that the Lord, in His wisdom, and understanding the nature of how things were soon to be (so many religious organizations), gave us the way to judge. “By their fruits ye shall know them”.

That’s good enough for me, and considering the source, I encourage you to come to peace with the idea yourself. For although we may point out the numerous doctrinal differences among us, the point stands that we all differ, by varying degrees. So to say that exact conformity of doctrine is a requirement for Christianity, is to say that none of us are Christian. More importantly, this kind of definition is the measure of man, not the measure of the Lord.

As for me, His way is sufficient. May you choose your measure appropriately.

Are they Mormon’s, Christians, or what?

The “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” broke off from us after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. They now call themselves the “Community of Christ”. They are separate from us.

The FLDS were formed sometime later. They are also separate from us. Our beliefs and doctrines are not the same. As has been said before, we do not practice polygamy.

Interesting line of logic. Personally, I have always been fascinated with the faith so many have in the Nicene Creed and the definition of God from scholars. It seems to me that the definition of God contained in the Nicene Creed is much more of an “idea” than the description of a personage seen by a prophet.

Let’s assume, for example, that it is a fact that Joseph Smith actually saw God. (I understand you will probably contest this statement, but please hear me out). Would his description of God, and the actual character of God, as revealed by God to a living prophet mean more than a collection of scholars trying their best to understand something that is not clearly defined in the Bible?

In my opinion the object/person/god of worship of the LDS Church is clearly identified and defined in much more clarity than what the Nicene Creed attempts to provide.

As this issue seems to be at the heart of the definition of what constitutes a “Christian” I want to add some interesting content from a Church Leader:

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s 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].”

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.
In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.

There is much more content regarding the LDS definition of God. It is not an IDEA, just different from what you believe Pastor.

God Bless.