Scott Williquette points this out:
When C. H. Spurgeon mounted the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London for the first time, his very first words were:
I would propose that the subject of the ministry of this house, as long as this platform shall stand, and as long as this house shall be frequented by worshipers, shall be the person of Jesus Christ. I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, “It is Jesus Christ.” My venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill, has left a [theological heritage] admirable and excellent in its way. But the [legacy] to which I would pin and bind myself forever, God helping me . . . is Jesus Christ, who is the arm and substance of the gospel, who is in Himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth.
Thinking of heart issues this Christmas . . .
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
I don’t have a problem with it, although I am not sure that “the arm and substance of the gospel, who is in Himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth.” necessarily would mean the same thing to me and you.
Great quote! Just learned of your website from Mormons in Transition……..
I have spent the last 19 yrs in the LDS church… returned missionary, married in the temple to a great guy, active, active with a beautiful family. I have not left the churh because of transgression or because someone offended me…. I have left because the doctrines have been changed and there is not consistency in teaching…….. the “key” for me was the talk by McConkie back in 1984……. ” we do not worship Christ”….. that is what he said! He also said that ” it is perilous and improper” to have a personal relationship with Christ! I knew after reading that talk that the LDS church truly does not worship the Son of God!
A few months back a friend of mine – evangelical christian asked me some pretty pointed questions about the LDS views on black people, and it got me researching….. oh my what I uncovered!! It led to further research on many doctrines……..
What strikes me as very interesting — is the Mormon doctrine is “evolving” …..it’s changing and has changed and will continue to change…… what “was doctrine” 20 yrs ago may not so be! It’s nuts!
I am a convert but how do life timers not see the changes that this church has undergone with some key doctrines?
Starting with Joseph smith’s 1st vision – so many conflicting stories!
It is a HUGE relief for me to know that I am saved by grace……. amazing grace……..
Thanks for the blog and for writing… I will check back often.
~ saved by grace ~ Former LDS, mom & wife
saved by grace,
Welcome to HI4LDS. I would like to hear more of your story.
I think to many of my LDS friends, evolving of doctrine is a good thing and especially away from the McConkie Mormon Doctrine.
But Isaiah 40 gives comfort about how the words of God shall stand forever.
Our church family is currently camped out in the middle of this chapter on Wednesday nights.
Wow.
saved by grace,
I’d love to know what doctrines you think have changed. I’m also a convert and have spent almost seventeen years studying the Church of Jesus Christ from both internal and external sources (including many “anti-Mormon” sources) and have never found a single conflict. You cite the four “versions” of Joseph Smith Jr’s First Visitation (I don’t call it the “First Vision”; I find that phrase an inaccurate representation of what happened) but don’t bother to note the beautiful congruity of them all. There’s no contradiction; just increased understanding as the Prophet truly realized how important the event was, in world history (not just his own, as he originally seems to have believed).
I admit that there are plenty of so-called “Mormons” that preach false doctrine, but the doctrines of the Church have never changed; it’s the practices (and the people) that change. That’s what I love about the Church: the doctrines taught 20, 40, 60, 160 years ago are the exact same doctrines taught today, and I respectfully challenge anyone to give a single example to the contrary.
I would be more worried about a church that refused to change than one that did change.
Refusal to change is to me, merely evidence that the members of that church are too prideful and rebellious against God to entertain any change in their opinions and practices.
Incidentally, it’s kind of ironic to hear accusations of changeability on an Evangelical blog. The modern Evangelical movement is, in many ways a very recent development. I know a lot of Evangelicals think they’re worshiping just the way Christ laid it out and just the way ages of church fathers have prescribed. But they really aren’t.
For instance, the whole Evangelical emphasis on grace, even at the expense of righteous works is a VERY recent trend. You listen to some of the Christian preachers from the 1800s sometime. They were very much works-centered. Even moreso than Mormons are today.
To get accused of “changing” by one of the most highly fluctuating and changeable faith traditions in America today is just a little twilight-zonish. Seems like it’s time for another one of your “study sessions” “saved.”