วีดีโอ

@@Hamann9631 Many do not understand the context of Matthew 16. I have yet had a critic make any reasonable and sufficient interpretation that explains the context in support of their assertion.

You are welcome. I enjoy making them. It helps me with my own personal studies, and I enjoy sharing them with others.

What nonsense are you referring to here? I am wondering if you are referring to Paul's eisegesis interpretation of what he presents and how easily it is to provide a simple refutation of his claims and criticisms.

Thank you. I have attempted to get back to doing more of these videos and don't have the right stuff to do it. Namely, space and a White board. I have a lot of info on this type of subject I want to bring into an LDS perspective and understanding.

Thank you, part of me sharing is to hopefully help others that they are not alone in their struggles, and I get it and empathize. I don't think a lot of members realize some of the harm that has been done because of the lack of understanding or empathy.

@@TimothyBerman very welcome, I also agree: Perfect Church with Imperfect People, is how it has to be, for now, until we are all perfected in The Savior

@@pokeflash I agree. I feel that it's a statement thrown around way too much as a means to be dismissive of someones experience and issues they are struggling with

@@TimothyBerman exactly, we should not use that phrase to excuse people and their mistakes, but to really understand our weaknesses

Thank you so much 😊

@@TimothyBerman you are very much so welcome

@@Robert-rw5lm You are welcome.

What truth are you referring to? And what point are you attempting to make with regards to people apostatizing and leaving their respective faiths?

Thank you - a lot of information I share in this video that is not written in the content at the website.

@DMDex you stated: "Sadly, this video was a waste of time to listen to" My response: And that is your opinion. You stated: "With all due respect - these kinds of postmodern semantic games are not only simply misleading; but are simply mistaken." My response: No, it is due to a lack of respect. Secondly, you shoulder the burden of proof to prove that this is: (1) A Post-modern semantic game; and (2) It is misleading and mistaken. What evidence do you offer in relation to your claim and assertion? You stated: "Your definition that you used from an 1820 (I think it was?) Dictionary was a very arbitrary standard. My response: My definition was not merely based of a dictionary - it is based off what the Bible, and specifically, what Christ taught and defined. You stated: "Given that you’ve been around the block a few times having conversations with evangelicals for decades, I think you know better because you grew up in an era where Mormons were proud to be called that and didn’t engage in an equivocation fallacy by claiming to be Christians or just another Christian denomination, as though both groups had identical deities, or dogma." My response: Appears more of a misdirection and red herring logical fallacy because you have yet to provide any sufficient evidence or reasonable rebuttal addressing how I engaged in a post-modern semantic game where I am simply being misleading and mistaken. Furthermore, you have yet to offer any actual definition - merely passive aggressive toxic commentary as a means to merely insult. You stated: Shame on you sir, that's not honoring chapter 31 of Gospel Principles by any stretch of the imagination. My response: Another commentary of judgment, condemnation, and insult while not actually providing any sound and reasonable definition or addressing the content and context of what is presented. It is a shame that you appear to engage in an attitude and behavior of intellectual dishonesty. Now, if you have something worthwhile and like to share how the Bible, and specifically Christ's teachings, define what a Christian is - I'd love to consider reasonable evidence. If not, there is no need to further any more discussion.

Notice this is the typical hit and run comment of LDS Critics. They are unable to provide any sound or reasonable explanation. After all, it is easy to insult and make false claims than to actually be mindful and thoughtful in an engaging discussion.

I am curious as to what you are referring to here. Care to expand your thoughts on this.

Hi, I'm not Timothy but I can answer these questions from a Latter-day Saint perspective. Jesus is the Son of God. He taught that he (and we) have a father in heaven (that's Matt 6:9 among many other places), whom we therefore refer to as Heavenly Father. This does NOT make Jesus a "created being" (the Arian heresy of Christian history) and does mean that Jesus was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), from the beginning of creation. That's John 1:1-4, if you are following along with your Bible. Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil aka the Adversary was among the sons of God (Job 1:6 (some English translations render the Hebrew term in that verse as "angels" but the literal translation from Hebrew is "sons of God," and other translations are faithful to that)) and indeed held an exalted status (Isa. 14:12) until the war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), when he was cast down. It was a victory OF the Messiah (Jesus) and of Michael, the archangel (that's verses 7 and 10, if you haven't torn those pages out of the Bible yet). Long, long before then, the Father had already declared Jesus (or Jehovah or Yahweh) to be the "Only Begotten" of the Father, his "firstborn" and heir. ("Only Begotten" comes from latter-day scripture, Moses 1:31-34, but of course it tracks John 3:16 as well; "firstborn" is Colossians 1:15; and "heir" of the Father is Romans 8:17.) You're welcome! I realize that you did not know any of these things before, so I am happy to help you out.

@leightonanderson the only heresy I'm fully aware of is Joseph Smith and his encounter with I believe an angel named Moroni.

@@mikelynn8977 I fail to see how your ignorance of known heresies justifies any conclusions on your part. If you think that the Lord is not allowed to call prophets or otherwise reveal himself or his truth to his people at any time, THAT is pretty much the worst heresy of all. Who are you to tell Jesus he has to shut up now, hmm? When you mention the angel Moroni, I am guessing you are referring to a common, but genuinely absurd eisegesis of Galatians 1:8. That would put you in good company with a great many numbskulls who cannot read scripture for the life of them. Paul there was using hyperbolic language to express his unhappiness with his fellow apostle, Peter, and other Jewish teachers who were trying to override the compromise worked out at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), as is very, very plain from that whole first section of the epistle (not limited to ch. 1). The effort to grab onto the reference to an angel in v. 8 to disqualify the Lord's messenger (!) not only is contrary to that actual passage but also to the reference to an angel later in Galatians (ch. 3, v. 19), which is that the law of Moses was “added” to the Mosaic Covenant (3:19), and that it “was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.” So, no, God is actually allowed to use angelic messengers. In Rev 14:6, we see prophesies of three separate angels used as messengers, the first of which brings "an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live[a] on the earth-to every nation and tribe and language and people." So, no, no heresy there, fellow.

If Latter-day saints are not Christian by the established Biblical understanding through Christ's teachings from the Bible, then is the Bible and Christ teachings wrong?

​@TimothyBerman Your wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead. This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the TWO POWERS in HEAVEN israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible. Not from made up creeds you don't think reflects Jesus true teachings. Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit. You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead. .

@@davidjanbaz7728 You stated: "You are wrong because you worship a totally different Godhead that denys (sic) Jesus as the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead." My response: First off, it will benefit if you actually address that content of what I presented with regards to how Christ defines a true disciple and Christian? If I am wrong on that aspect, please show from the Biblical texts I referenced (or go to the link provided in the description to the article response I published) and show from the Bible what Christ actually taught with regards to how a Christian is defined. Second, Latter-day Saint Christians do not deny Jesus Christ as the second person of the Godhead. We believe that he is the Son of the Living God (as Peter confessed in Matthew 16). In that respect, you are incorrect in your assumption and mere opinion. However, the focus here is on how does one define Christian? It seems you prefer to define someone a Christian based on Creeds and Confessions that are extra-biblical, rather than address the Biblical source and definition. You stated: This Trinitarian Godhead comes from the two powers in Heaven Israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible. Not from made up creeds you don't think reflect Jesus True Teachings." My response: Again, the content and context is regarding how one Biblically defines a Christian and true disciple of Jesus Christ. If you want to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and that, I am in the process of actually preparing content for my TH-cam Channel with regard to how the doctrine of the Trinity is based on 2nd and 3rd Century gnostic heresy of Valentinus, Sabellianism (Modalism), and Neo-Platonic philosophy. I've already written and published various articles on this over at my website and blog. You Stated: " Your doctrine of a total Apostasy is erroneous and your redefined Christianity is another Gospel that is obviously a counterfeit. " My response: What you are engaging in is a Gish-Gallop logical fallacy and not addressing the content and context - or the very scriptures - I have presented regarding how the Bible defines what a true Christian is. Again, if you want to continue to comment and engage in a thoughtful discussion here - address what is presented and not engage in red herring and gish galloping logical fallacies. You stated: "You can't be Christian when you have an erroneous Godhead." My response: And that is your opinion absent any sufficient sound or reasonable evidence. Again, what does the Bible define as a Christian? What does Christ teach regarding who is a true follower and a disciple? Those are the questions I am bring up that are needing to be responded to and addressed.

You stated: "You can't redefine Christian to meet your needs." My Response: How and in what way am I redefining the term "Christian" to meet my needs? You stated: If you don't believe the creeds and confessions of Historic Christianity then you aren't Christian. My response: Where in the teachings of Christ or the Bible does it say that to be a Christian, you are to accept the creeds and confessions of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on? Which Creeds and Confessions are authoritative and which ones are not? You stated: "It has been that way for 2000 years." My response: Then you'd also accept the doctrine of Theosis and Homo Deus as Historic Christianity because this doctrine was taught in Historic Christianity - however, you deny such a doctrine and teaching that is quite established as Biblical and Authoritative by even Christ himself - however, that is for another discussion all together. I am merely making reference of it that certain teachings of so-called Historic Christianity is not acceptable or taught by modern Evangelical's or Protestant Christians today. Despite them having long standing and established teachings among the Patristic and early Church Fathers. You stated: "Just because you want to redefine a term that doesn't mean it is legitimate." My response: And yet, that is exactly what Evangelical Christians attempt to do - redefine the term of who and what makes up a Christian while disregarding the teachings of Christ established within the Biblical text. You stated: " That is the same thing the woke movement is doing with gender." My response: Non-sequitur You stated: " Webster from the 1800's doesn't get to define Christianity. Christianity defines itself." My response: Correction - the Bible and the teachings of Christ get to define who is a true disciple and Christian. And that is what I am actually pointing out. You stated: You have great faith. You have great works. But...in whom do you trust?" My response: Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Living God. Who do you trust in - the creeds and confessions of men or the actual teachings of Christ himself as established in the Bible? You stated: In a savior that is both God and Man and is consubstantial with the father? He was not created but begotten. A different person from the Father and the Spirit but the still the same being. The one true God that created all. These are not separate beings in Christianity. If you believe a different understanding of God then you are by definition not Christian." My response: 3rd Century gnostic heresy and one that was introduced by Constantine is what you are referring to here. However, I have noticed you, as well as others, have yet to address the scriptures I presented. How come? Is it because what you are doing is actually proving the exact point I am making that you are resting your understanding of who a Christian is by defining one must needs to accept the creeds and confessions? What happened with testing all things with established and authoritative word of God - which is the Bible? You stated: "The application that you describe is great but the gate is narrow. Your description of Santification is really good. I appreciate it. The problem lies in the LDS view of Justification and the understanding of the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship to both the Father and the Spirit. Praying for you." My response: I agree, the gate is narrow and the path is strait and few be that find it. I appreciate the compliment regarding my understanding of sanctification. However, I don't see a problem how Latter-day Saint Christians understand and view justification. I am aware that many do not actually comprehend the terms justification and sanctification - however, there are plenty of Latter-day Saint Christians who do understand and comprehend how we are justified and sanctified through Christ by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Latter-day Saints do comprehend the intimate relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as it pertains to the will and purpose of bringing about immortality and eternal life of humanity through the infinite atonement.

Interesting circumstance of projection: "You can't redefine Christian to meet your needs" and then you proceed to redefine it to meet your needs. You want to include belief in the Creeds and other elements when the Bible defines "Christians" as "disciples." Those disciples were Christians before there were any creeds or confessions. You've redefined the term to a situation 400 years later.

@TimothyBerman your assumption is that I believe the evangelicals and protestants are correct. I do not rely on Sola Scriptura nor did any Christian prior to the Reformation.

Also, never has HomoDeus nor Theosis been orthodox teaching. And just saying something is a non-sequitor does not mean that it is not mean that it is not a valid comparison.

I am actually responding to exactly what you had stated. So, are you now lying and attempting to back pedal your statements and assumptions? Here are your own words: "If you don't believe in the creeds and confessions of historic Christianity, then you are not a Christian. It has been that way for 2000 years. Just because you want to redefine a term doesn't mean that it is legitimate."

What do you mean by that?

"Nothing added." Like, from the Bible you mean. Throw that sucker out, you're saying. I don't think that's particularly Christian either.

@@leightonanderson the modern excuse for wisdom, the old 'so you're saying' stupidity. Lol.

@@ohitsustu1835 Um, OK, except that was your invitation to admit that your statement was simplistic and superficial. Lol. Because it turns out that "relying on Jesus Christ for salvation" involves faithfulness, covenant keeping, things like that, all as taught in scripture. Lol. So that it is just a silly response to a theology that is actually based on the gospel of Christ. Lol. Or, you know, we could do without the lol'ing. I actually hate that. "The modern excuse for wisdom," you could say.

@@leightonanderson Except that we rely totally on Jesus Christ for salvation. Gnosticism and legalism are not adequate. The point is about actual salvation. Faith, that God gives at rebirth, needs to be exercises as per the scriptures, not what we always perceive. Relationship is ongoing and from a humble heart of awe and thanks, in holy fear, even. No amount of works can buy salvation, no amount of Bible knowledge can deal with our sin. Saying 'in Jesus name' is not helpful unless we are in, Jesus name literally Depart from me I never knew you, is a scary proposition for those falsies who think they can add that like a charm to everything. Relationship with God, restored through Jesus, by the narrow way, empowered and nurtured by Holy Spirit is entirely by God, we just need to respond correctly and grow in Him. Grafted in, style.

That is absolutely false. Do you know what will happen to you if you teach incorrectly?

I agree and we see this when the Savior encountered the Pharisees and Sadducees. They claimed to have known the scriptures, however, Christ challenged them consistently. Reminding them that they did not understand the scriptures.

And that may be true. However, I have come to know many Evangelical and Protestant Christians who do not know or understand the Bible themselves and are just as illiterate. All they are capable of doing is regurgitating Evangelical Eisegesis Proof Text and talking points. Yet, when you take them directly to the passage and expound it certain passages from an Exegesis viewpoint, they dismiss it and falsely accuse me (as well as others who have devoted time and energy in studying the scriptures) that it is only being interpreted through the Lense of "Mormonism". Which is another unfounded and false assumption and claim. The reality is, they don't want to see the interpretation of the Bible from an Exegesis viewpoint because it threatens their confirmation bias and eisegesis interpretation.

@@TimothyBerman I'm not going to disagree that there are many uniformed Christians. I will disagree that you have a proper exegesis as I have only had eisegetical proof texting given to me by bishops, deacons, missionaries, and regular members. Looking forward to exploring your channel as it might prove to be different.

@@m.m6770 I don't believe that I claim to have "proper" exegesis. My point and view are that there is a proper way to interpret scripture through the process of exegesis rather than the typical Eisegesis (or reading into the text one's biased and prejudicial view). Exegesis merely is allowing the text itself to bring forth the understanding of what the writer is saying. This requires understanding the literary context (Poetic, Wisdom, Symbolism, Parables, Revelatory, et al). It is also taking into account the historical and socioeconomic context: The who, what, when, where, and how come. That is the process I am referring to. For me, those who engage in Eisegesis not only read into the text what they want it to say, they do so where they cherry-pick verses out of context in order to develop strawman doctrines and teachings that the text itself, when properly understood from an Exegesis interpretation, fall apart.

@@TimothyBerman I was tracking the terms, I'm glad we both know the definitions. That is what I was referring to when I was pointing out all I heard from the various mouthpieces of the church engaged in. I don't know how many times I heard that Jesus visited the Native Americans because he had sheep of another fold... Why? because I believe this church is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet.

So, um, you are supposed to pay attention in "Come Follow Me" study, where, you know, we DEVOTE AN ENTIRE YEAR, EACH to the Old and New Testaments. Sheesh.

I agree with you. The issue I have come across time and again, as a Latter-day Saint Christian, is that many Evangelicals who are critical of my faith - tend to fall back on the false notion that I and others have not actually read or studied the Bible at all.

Do you still have me blocked on Facebook?

First, I have looked up, and read, the CES letter and am quite familiar with its contents. Contains nothing new since the rise of counter cult ministries of the late 1970s. So, there is nothing for me to ponder. Therefore, my question to you is this: Are you open and willing to consider that the CES letter is based on false, deceptive, and manipulative information? If not, there is no need to engage in any discussion. Second, I'm quite aware of what the Gospel is. Quoting scripture without meaningful commentary is pedestrian. Finally, if you want to comment, please do not use this as an attempt to evangelize, attempt to criticize the LDS Faith, or disparage any of the leaders or members of the faith. I ask that comments actually address the content of the devotionals or scripture insights presented.

This is a daily devotion to encourage individuals to grow in faith as one studies and reads through the New Testament as a way to live a mindful, crucified life through Jesus Christ. It sounds like you did not find it edifying or encouraging to grow in faith.