Anti Calvinist Campbellism - the Precursor of Mormonism

[Apologette]

Sidney Rigdon, who was involved with the production of the Book of Mormon, was an apostate Baptist minister who wandered into Campbellism. Campbellism is the precursor of Mormonism, and believe that one doesn't meet "the blood" until they are "under the water." They also teach that one must be baptized by someone who believes in baptismal regeneration. This heresy was promoted by Alexander Campbell, and exists today in the Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and "the Christian Church," the latter being the designation of a moderate Campbellite branch.

Interestingly, Alexander Campbell took one look at the Book of Mormon and immediately recognized it as the fake it is. Here is Campbell's take on the Book of Mormon, a fake inside and out:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml

[James Banta]

Sidney Rigdon, who was involved with the production of the Book of Mormon, was an apostate Baptist minister who wandered into Campbellism. Campbellism is the precursor of Mormonism, and believe that one doesn't meet "the blood" until they are "under the water." They also teach that one must be baptized by someone who believes in baptismal regeneration. This heresy was promoted by Alexander Campbell, and exists today in the Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and "the Christian Church," the latter being the designation of a moderate Campbellite branch.

Interestingly, Alexander Campbell took one look at the Book of Mormon and immediately recognized it as the fake it is. Here is Campbell's take on the Book of Mormon, a fake inside and out:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml

I do think this could be a member of this forum.. These people can sound so Christian until they spring this baptism doctrine out of their hat.. And they use the same arguments for it that mormonism does.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

I do think this could be a member of this forum.. These people can sound so Christian until they spring this baptism doctrine out of their hat.. And they use the same arguments for it that mormonism does.. IHS jim

Yes, the Mormons got their arguments directly from Campbell!

[James Banta]

Yes, the Mormons got their arguments directly from Campbell!

Yes and not just that the Bible is corrupted but the full gambit of what they believe is a restoration of the 1st century Church, built in their image of course. Ever notice that then you make a great point like you did in this thread, a point that is irrefutable, yet unpopular, that you get ignored? I think it is just happened in this thread.. IHS jim

[The Pheonix]

Sidney Rigdon, who was involved with the production of the Book of Mormon, was an apostate Baptist minister who wandered into Campbellism. Campbellism is the precursor of Mormonism, and believe that one doesn't meet "the blood" until they are "under the water." They also teach that one must be baptized by someone who believes in baptismal regeneration. This heresy was promoted by Alexander Campbell, and exists today in the Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and "the Christian Church," the latter being the designation of a moderate Campbellite branch.

Interestingly, Alexander Campbell took one look at the Book of Mormon and immediately recognized it as the fake it is. Here is Campbell's take on the Book of Mormon, a fake inside and out:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtmlCampbell did not create the doctrine of baptism, God did. I was baptized in the Baptist Church and later into the Mormon Church...and I thank you for the thread about Mama, I do miss her, but would never want her back in her condition.

Pa Pa

[James Banta]

Campbell did not create the doctrine of baptism, God did. I was baptized in the Baptist Church and later into the Mormon Church...and I thank you for the thread about Mama, I do miss her, but would never want her back in her condition.

Pa Pa

PaPa there are many doctrines of baptism.. Any one that teaches that Baptism is the means whereby sin is washed away is anti-biblical.. To cleanse a person of sin requires blood. It is clear that the life of a sinner is required to cover their sin.. Water baptism just doesn't have the same authority as BLOOD.. All baptism can do is to be a testimony identifying the believer to their Lord in His death and resurrection.. IHS jim

[The Pheonix]

PaPa there are many doctrines of baptism.. Any one that teaches that Baptism is the means whereby sin is washed away is anti-biblical.. To cleanse a person of sin requires blood. It is clear that the life of a sinner is required to cover their sin.. Water baptism just doesn't have the same authority as BLOOD.. All baptism can do is to be a testimony identifying the believer to their Lord in His death and resurrection.. IHS jim"Anti-truth is to suggest that Baptism does not do so.

[Billyray]

"Anti-truth is to suggest that Baptism does not do so.
The thief on the cross was saved yet no mention that he was ever baptized.

[Libby]

The thief on the cross was saved yet no mention that he was ever baptized.

There is an LDS answer to this (that you might already know). I am not going to give it, lest someone mistakenly believes I am "defending" it...but, the answer is in one of the very basic Temple practices, if you recall?

[Billyray]

There is an LDS answer to this (that you might already know). I am not going to give it, lest someone mistakenly believes I am "defending" it...but, the answer is in one of the very basic Temple practices, if you recall?
When do you propose that they performed the ordinance of "baptism for the dead" for the thief? Do you think that they did this was he was still alive on the cross?

[Libby]

When do you propose that they performed the ordinance of "baptism for the dead" for the thief? Do you think that they did this was he was still alive on the cross?

No, why would you think that? It is called baptism for the dead.

[Billyray]

No, why would you think that? It is called baptism for the dead.
Christ tells the guy he will be with Him in Paradise--while he is still alive.

So when do you believe that they performed the ordinance of "baptism for the dead" for the thief?

[Libby]

Billy, here is Jeff Lindsey's explanation of the thief on the cross. Not official, but he is a fairly good apologist for the church.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Salvation.shtml#thief

[Billyray]

Billy, here is Jeff Lindsey's explanation of the thief on the cross. Not official, but he is a fairly good apologist for the church.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Salvation.shtml#thief

It is a horrible argument and since you were once lds I thought you would pick up on the obvious problems that the thief on the cross poses for lds theology. If you want to discuss it further I would be happy to do so--in fact I recall discussing in the past on this board or perhaps CARM--so I am sure you could easily look up the argument without actually rehashing it over again.

[Libby]

It is a horrible argument and since you were once lds I thought you would pick up on the obvious problems that the thief on the cross poses for lds theology. If you want to discuss it further I would be happy to do so--in fact I recall discussing in the past on this board or perhaps CARM--so I am sure you could easily look up the argument without actually rehashing it over again.

I see, what I believe to be, obvious problems. I just wanted to point out that when critics try to use this argument (which makes perfect sense to them), LDS are, generally, not on the same page, and have their own explanations. Which is why you have had long debates about this. It really does require that.

But, you don't have to convince *me*. I already agree with you.

[Billyray]

I see, what I believe to be, obvious problems. I just wanted to point out that when critics try to use this argument (which makes perfect sense to them), LDS are, generally, not on the same page, and have their own explanations. Which is why you have had long debates about this. It really does require that.

But, you don't have to convince *me*. I already agree with you.
Jesus says that the thief will be in Paradise--NOT Spirit Prison. In order for Lindsey to make this section of text conform to mormonism's works based salvation he has to change the Bible. We see this all the time from LDS. On the one hand they say that they believe the Bible--but if a verse conflicts with their beliefs they simple change it to mean something completely different.

[Libby]

Paradise is where faithful LDS go to await the Second Coming or the Millennium? I guess that is where they believe "the thief on the cross" went...because I know that ordinances have been done.

[Billyray]

Paradise is where faithful LDS go to await the Second Coming or the Millennium? I guess that is where they believe "the thief on the cross" went...because I know that ordinances have been done.
But that disagrees with the quote that you gave me from Lindsay. Here is part of his quote below. Libby in this instance you are guilty of what many lds are guilty of and that is simply taking the word of someone who you trust to do the thinking for you. If lds would try to read and think for themselves a little bit more perhaps they would eventually see the truth that what they have been taught is completely false.



http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Salvation.shtml#thief

This agrees well with what Joseph Smith said that Christ meant: "This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.309). Indeed, Peter explained that when Christ was dead, he went as a spirit to preach the Gospel to those who had died (1 Peter 3:18-20; 1 Peter 4:6). Christ was not offering instant salvation to the thief, who knew little of the Gospel and had not covenanted through baptism to follow Christ. He was simply telling him that they would be in the same place that day, in the world of spirits. There, the thief could learn of the Gospel of Christ and accept it. He would still need to accept baptism, which the early Christians and modern Latter-day Saints offer vicariously to the deceased via the sacred ordinance of baptism for the dead.

[Libby]

Well, I don't really see a disagreement. And, if there is one, how is it you think I am "taking the word of someone else"? If we are disagreeing, then I'm not taking his word. Actually, my comments have been mostly from what I know, personally, about LDS doctrine.

There is learning in Paradise...there is "eternal progression" no matter where you are. I didn't mean to imply that "Paradise" (as LDS see it) was a "resting place" where people just sit and wait. At least, that's not what I was taught. In Paradise, there will be continued teaching and learning. It is for believers who have had ordinances done or have agreed to have them done....was my understanding. Besides which (if I were LDS) I would presume that "the thief" got a "hall p***" directly into Paradise on the word of Jesus.

But, that's not what *I* truly believe. I believe he (the thief) was taken to heaven, based on his faith in Jesus Christ (he knew who he was and accepted him on the spot).

[Billyray]

Well, I don't really see a disagreement. And, if there is one, how is it you think I am "taking the word of someone else"?

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Salvation.shtml#thief
". . .If Christ had been in paradise but had not yet ascended to heaven where the Father dwells, then what is paradise? It is obviously some other place besides heaven. . ."

Libby you gave me an article to support the lds position and you don't even know what point that his guy is making. Since you said that you are not taking the word of someone else let me ask you what you believe. Did the thief go to Paradise or somewhere else?

[Libby]

Libby you gave me an article to support the lds position and you don't even know what point that his guy is making. Since you said that you are not taking the word of someone else let me ask you what you believe. Did the thief go to Paradise or somewhere else?

I have no idea what you mean. Of course, I understood Lindsay's meaning. Did you? Per LDS theology, Paradise is not "heaven"...it is not the Celestial Kingdom.

As for your other question...already answered in my last post.


But, that's not what *I* truly believe. I believe he (the thief) was taken to heaven, based on his faith in Jesus Christ (he knew who he was and accepted him on the spot).

[The Pheonix]

The thief on the cross was saved yet no mention that he was ever baptized.Maybe you should read some Acts...the thief was taken to paradise; different place. Only (at least according to the Acts of the Apostles) who receive proper Baptism receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Your argument is not with me but the Bible...now I know Paul did not write, Luke did, and to most in modern Christianity, he is a minor Apostle.

[Billyray]

Maybe you should read some Acts...the thief was taken to paradise; different place.
So you don't believe that the thief went to Paradise?

[Apologette]

Maybe you should read some Acts...the thief was taken to paradise; different place. Only (at least according to the Acts of the Apostles) who receive proper Baptism receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Your argument is not with me but the Bible...now I know Paul did not write, Luke did, and to most in modern Christianity, he is a minor Apostle.
Try reading Luke 16 Papa. Have you forgotten the Gospels already? When Christ Ascended to the Father, He "led captivity captive," ascending with all the Old Testament saints in Paradise to heaven.