[SWF]http://www.youtube.com/v/tKib69ceWTo&rel=1,425,355[/SWF]
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
HankSaint agrees 100% with that Video. Now if we could just get all of you to agree — that The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has that complete meal, without any arsenic than we could carry on and build the Kingdom of God on the earth together 🙂
The truth is in the Scriptures — Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants.
Read and be filled with the best meal you ever tasted. Its main course is Light and Knowledge, the dessert is Eternal Life.
I appreciate your honety HankSaint. Now may I ask you . . . Where is the arsenic in my (our) faith? Which Bible, BoM, PoG, and D&C am I to regard as scripture? Have these books been translated or at least transmitted correctly or is there some error in them? Is there any other authority out there besides these four books?
Just in case you were wondering – these are loaded questions 🙂
🙂 Thanks for the loaded question, never would have guessed.
1). I guess you must believe in an inerrant Bible? Hard to prove arsenic if you believe that.
2). All of the above are scripture, including our inerrant Bible.
Being a little sarcastic here, I am 🙂
3). Gosh, there were lots or errors in Joseph Smiths translation.
Spelling, punctuation, etc.
4). Lets see, any other authority? Just a living prophet 🙂
Hank,
Do you deny that the Book of Mormon has been changed to correlate with the Changing Mormon Doctrine? If so, how do you explain the changes one such noted here?
First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.”
Also what “revelation” has the current prophet given that has given us “more truth?”
Hank, what has Gordon B. Hinckley said that was so important and profound, that had he not said it, your exaltation would be in jeopardy?
You know if you do any real study into the changes of the Book of Mormon/Doctrine and Covenants and the Changes in the Bible, comparing them side by side. You will find that all of the core doctrine in the Bible was clear years and years ago, remaining unchanged, but also becoming more clear. But with the Book of Mormon and D&C, which is supposedly supposed to be WITHOUT error (because of the manner in which it was translated), has all these changes to core doctrine like the one lautensack mentioned above. That change to Christians wouldn’t matter because we believe Jesus is God so any way you put it doesn’t really matter. However to Mormons, it SHOULD be a huge deal, because Jesus and God are two different “people.” and Yes, I used the word people because to Mormons, thats all they are, is glorified people.. What an amazing thing to bring The Creator down to our level.
Bill brings up a good point. It’s funny to me that the LDS church even has a prophet these days because they haven’t said anything new for quite some time. Oh how exciting it would be to have Brigham Young as current prophet, declaring from the pulpit that Adam is God.
HankSaint,
Your honesty and bravado take me back. You truly are an “old school” Mormon – not many of you around these days.
“1). I guess you must believe in an inerrant Bible? Hard to prove arsenic if you believe that.”
So I guess you believe in error-filled scripture? How does one prove anything theological if one holds to that position?! If you “believe” in error-filled scripture then you believe in errors.
“2). All of the above are scripture, including our inerrant Bible.
Being a little sarcastic here, I am”
If scripture is in error then it is an oxymoron to call it scripture – that is unless you believe in a God who makes mistakes which is likely the case.
“3). Gosh, there were lots or errors in Joseph Smiths translation.
Spelling, punctuation, etc.”
Just the tip of the iceberg. I guess you are referring to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible and not his other “translations”. Either way, I agree – they/it are error filled. I guess that is not a problem if one fourth of your scripture is error filled by your own admission.
“4). Lets see, any other authority? Just a living prophet”
Hmmm. I’m not so sure about that one. Is he speaking as a prophet? You see, if a prophet is not speaking as a prophet then his own words are not authoritative- they are just his opinion. The way you can tell he is speaking as a prophet is when his words do not contain anything that could in anyway make your church look bad.
lautensack, good question. Errors have crept into the Text, but nothing significantly has changed with either the message of the BofM or its doctrine. If your interested I can direct you to a web site chuck full of studious research on just the problem you make mention too. Bet your not interest though?
Question for lautensack, I suppose or assume that the Bible is inerrant for you. My question is, do you believe that it contains no errors of facts when it was written, and it was supernaturally protected both doctrinally and factually. That were not mistakes intentionally or otherwise by copyist and translators? Do you hold that it contains all the information needed for a reader to obtain salvation? Now if either of these claims turn out to be false, than your entire claim to religious authority, well it just crumbles 🙂
Be careful how you answer, I have plenty of documentation which just might change your thinking. Hope you’re up to answering, its a tough one.
I know this is mostly a bias site, provoking thought and questions to disprove Mormonism, but I thought I might take a risk and set the bate 🙂
Bill McKeever, Hank, what has Gordon B. Hinckley said that was so important and profound, that had he not said it, your exaltation would be in jeopardy?
Gee Bill, nothing lately that would affect my exaltation, but you might be interested in, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, Iim not sure about giving the web site because it could be considered spam. So if your interested, email me. Or leave me your email and I will send it right over. 🙂 Probably not interested.
No answer to Jeff B, the Adam God ruined it for you 🙂
Thanks for the compliment Dave, I think. Yes I do believe in errors, mistranslation, and dishonest copyist. But for the most part the scripture are pretty much in tack. Yep, lots of errors in the coping of Joseph Smiths verbal translation copied by a scribe. Human problems Dave.
Exceeded allowed characters
Hank,
Do you believe that God makes mistakes? If so then it would be fairly easy to believe such mistakes could happen. So yes I believe that the bible is the inerrant in the original writings. I also know we have more manuscript evidence for the new testament than any other ancient document in the world. These manuscripts are also dated closer to the time of what they teach than any other ancient document. While yes there are some faulty translations, because we have the original languages we can see which translations hold weight and which are faulty, such as the New World Translation and the Joseph Smith Translation, both show little knowledge for the Greek and Hebrew used in the Bible. If translation were truly the issue then we should not read anything written in originally in another language. The issue here is then transmission, it seems you believe that people purposely change the bible, and the BOM apparently. Now I cannot analyze the BOM because we don’t have a copy in its original language so we will stick with the bible again. We have about 14,000 copies of the NT from about 100 after the death of Christ and onward. And yes there are many differences in the texts for example Matthew 1:1:
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ
The bok of the generation of Jesus Chirst
The book of the generation of Christ Jesus
A book of the genertion of Jesus Christ
From this it is pretty easy to see what the original writer meant. As for the old testament, it is clear that you do not understand how the Torah is transmitted, because the law itself is holy to the Jews, to make one mistake they would destroy the scroll by fire.
Now as to the question does it contain all that is necessary for salvation, yes, the Old Testament contains all that is needed for salvation, all that we need for salvation (Luke 16:27-31) It may not contain everything we want to know, but it contains everything we need to know about salvation and thus life. Hope that helps.
I have 2 problems with the arguments made thus far:
1) The Christian argument is based off of so many false assumptions. For example, Bill asks what has Gordon B Hinckley revealed “that was so important and profound, that had he not said it, your exaltation would be in jeopardy”. The assumption is that prophets have to continually add something more to what’s known. This is not the claim Mormon’s make. This is a false assumption on Bill’s part and on the part of any person that makes the same assumption.
2) There is no reason, OTHER THAN LONGSTANDING TRADITION, to believe that the Bible contains everything necessary for either salvation, nor for learning the finer points of the gospel. The Bible itself doesn’t make the claim that it contains everything necessary for salvation. The compilation of the Bible, and it’s source material (epistles) suggests that it’s just a collection of gospel fragments at best. Without having some sort of basis of comparison (like Mormons do with the BoM), or a living prophet of God (like the Mormons do), there is NO WAY to show that the Bible has everything (either for salvation or anything else)
Who can argue that, without basing the argument off of tradition?
If all a person had was the Gospel of John, it would be all they need for eternal life:
DJ,
The Bible itself does make clear what is necessary for salvation and that it is spelled out within a book of the Bible. Read Romans chapters 8-10. Here is an excerpt (Romans 10:9-11),
“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believs in Him will not be disappointed’.”
DJ, I submit you are sliding into an epistemological paradox (to which all enter at some point in time). All sources of ultimate authority are circular in nature. If something else makes scripture scripture (by way of comparison or pronouncement) then that thing has a higher level of authority than scripture. That thing (if written down) becomes/is ultimate scripture. So how does one now know if that prophet or book is true and authoritative? The problem has just been moved back one step.
HankSaint, do you really expect us to believe that the numerous changes made thoughout the years (even during J. Smith’s lifetime) to the BoM are merely the result of copying and printing errors? You mean to tell me that when that megalomaniac inserted his name into the book of Genesis that the scribe was to blame? You can save that kind of spin for an investigator who knows zero about church history.
Can we move on to the “arsenic” found in Mormonism as mentioned by Greg Koukl of STR? I submit the Book of Abraham as its origins and content are the most poisoned packed (and obvious)of any entree. Min is not God!
Granted, the Bible never claims to possess all sacred works or accounts. I personally believe that the other books mentioned by the Bible (the third and fourth letters to the Corinthians, the book of Nathan the Prophet, etc,) are either in the Bible under other names, or were not considered necessary to the Biblical canon. Just because there are other books of the Bible doesn’t mean they weren’t purposely left out for parsimony. I think God values quality over quantity, and I don’t know if He’d value redundancy at all.
Speaking of redundancy, that, in my opinion, is what the Book of Mormon is. Not that I consider it Scripture at all, but it mirrors the Bible in so many places (though not all) and actually quotes it to a great extent. However, I find that the Book of Mormon gives so many answers to 19th century theological questions (infant baptism, continuing revelation, and the famous “we have got a Bible!” quote) that I find it extremely hard to believe that it wasn’t written in the 19th century. The Book of Mormon is exactly like its current leaders: the equivocating “milk” before introducing the actual “meat” of D&C and The PoGP.
And my deepest apologies for back to back posting, but a recent convert to Mormonism could have typed “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, practically. Nothing new or prophetic there, honestly.
[quote]lautensack — Do you believe that God makes mistakes? If so then it would be fairly easy to believe such mistakes could happen.[/quote]
God does not make mistakes, why would you think —- I think that. Lots of thinks 🙂
Yes I believe that the Bible in not inerrant, and the reason has to do with Gods gift to man, agency and free will. He gave a free reign to all his children or otherwise we would have no ability to make choices of good and evil. God first of all did not write the Bible, He gave inspired revelation and they wrote as they were impressed by the spirit. We do not have the original manuscripts to judge the accuracy of this book. Omissions, lost books, translation problems, and outright deception were a part of the coming together of this great and marvelous work of the Gospel. Now for the last question I asked — is all therein complete, when we are concerned about our own salvation.
Faith being the first step, but confusion remains as to the nesscessity of baptism. Most christians say, not necessary, faith alone will save you. Got to run, will get back to you later.
I know in the Lutheran church (I am an LCMS member), baptism is not considered necessary for salvation, but anyone with true faith would naturally want to be baptized. In the Lutheran church, we hold that only unbelief in the trinitarian God condemns, not lack of baptism.
This is in response to Nathan17 regarding the BoM being redundant, and quoting the Bible in many places. It is true that the BoM quotes the bible in many places, but this is only because prophets who wrote and pieced together the BoM considered these scriptures important, Isaiah being one of them, and also when Jesus visited Americas he taught the same thing he taught those in Jerusalem, makes sense to me. As for the comment which you made about 19th century theological questions, the BoM was written for our day by prophets in ancient America who foresaw these very problems. they also had problems with people performing infant baptism> apology: my keyboard is jacked up and will no longer do periods 🙂 anyway the reason it reads the same as the bible to you is because it is the same gospel being preached< that jesus christ was crucified and slain for the sins of the world< and god loved those in the ancient americas as well as he loved those in jerusalem< it would be nieve to think that he only taught and blessed those in middle eastern and surrounding countries and completely ignore those in ancient america
Hank,
You assume that I do not believe that men have agency, even Calvin believed this, so the argument from men’s agency is of course a false assumption. It seem to me that you are trying to play the will of men against the will of God, and as such think that God could not inspire the book to be written exactly as God wanted it, and the man somehow wrote it also exactly as the man wanted it.
The argument that there are errors in scripture goes against scripture (2Tim 3:16, “all of scripture is breathed out by God”) however if this is true can we know anything about God at all, because of this doctrine of agency you seem to support, correct me if I am mistaken, would say that even Joseph Smith could have made some (or a lot of)things up if he truly received inspiration from God, and may have added a lot because he wanted to correct God. So who do you trust? The 40 authors of the Bible all speaking the same message and same Gospel, each in their own style, or the scattered few outside all preaching a different gospel which is no gospel at all?
Also manuscripts are copies, not originals, originals are autographa, and I admit we do not have the autographa. However if the autographa for say the Great Gatsby were to no longer exist, I am sure we could reproduce Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald’s masterpiece from the manuscripts we do have. To say we cannot produce an accurate Bible from the manuscripts we have requires us to throw out the entirety of the western canon of literature.
As for baptism, while not required a true believer will be baptized as a public declaration of their faith, sort of like a woman having a wedding to show her love for a certain gentleman. Also if you do take all of scripture into account good works will also follow (Eph 2:10) however good works does not necessarily mean that one is a Christian (Mat 7:21ff) however to say that these works have nothing to do with God’s power and the Holy Spirit is also unbiblical (Ezk 36:26ff)
Hope this helps
fistfullofsteel,
Granted, in many places, not all, the Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible at all. However, if it preaches exactly the same message as the Bible, it is redundant, and even if it was true, in my opinion it would not be necessary.
However, its similarities to the Bible only strengthen my idea that the Book of Mormon is the equivocating “milk” of Mormonism. So many people take the “challenge” in Moroni 10:4 and are baptized into the Mormon church without having even looked at D&C or the PoGP. To me, it is not the Book of Mormon that shows Mormonism to contradict the Bible, it is D&C and PoGP, which is unfortunate because investigators never get to read them.
fistfullofsteel,
In the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R. McConkie, under the title Book of Mormon.
Bruce says the Purpose of the book of Mormon is this.
1. To bear record of Christ, certifying in plainness and with clarity of his divine Sonship and mission, proving irrefutably that he is the Redeemer and Saviour.
2. To teach the doctrines of the gospel in such a pure and perfect way that the plan of salvation will be clearly revealed; and
3. To stand as a witness to all the world that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed through whom the foundation was laid for the great latter-day work of restoration. Almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Book of Mormon with much greater clarity and perfection than those same doctrines are revealed in the Bible. Anyone who will place in parallel columns the teachings of these two great books on such subjects as the atonement, plan of salvation, gathering of Israel, baptism, gifts of the spirit, miracles, revelation, faith, Charity, ( or ANY of a HUNDRED OTHER SUBJECTS), will find conclusive proof of the superiority of the Book of Mormon teachings.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that Elohim was once a mortal man and that he was not always God?
or that God has a body of flesh and bones?
or that God is married in heaven?
or that men can become Gods?
or that temple participation is necessary to become exalted?
or the blood of Christ does not cleanse certain sins?
or there is more than one God?
or that males must hold either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood?
or that there are “three degrees of glory”?
Rick b
Rick, re-read Bruce McConkie,
1-2-3 pretty much describes it. Faith, repentance, baptism, and gift of the Holy Ghost. What’s more important to God, it’s His Gospel, who’s to dictate to God what he may or may not reveal to his Prophets. Line upon line, and patience. Little children would be overwhelmed if we were to expect them to know all that we know.
Basics first, dessert last, this is the Lords meal, and you’re invited to dine with him, not dictate the menu. Your questions are not relevant. I really don’t understand the point your making. 🙂
Hank,
I think the point is (forgive me if I’m wrong) that Mormons in general expect people to believe their doctrine fully and unreservedly, and these people have no idea what it is. To use your meal analogy, you’re expecting people to attend “the Lord’s meal” without them having a full idea of what is even being served. Mormons say the evangelicals here misrepresent and distort Mormon doctrine quite a bit, and these are people that have studied Mormonism quite a bit! How much less will an investigator know, if even those who study still (allegedly) have no idea what they’re saying?
Well I guess thats a two way street my friend, when proselytizing can you explain the Triune Trinity, the Nicene Creed and make sense in explaining it. Can you explain an invisible God, explain Christ sits on the right hand of himself, since God and His Son are separate, but one. Can you explain how God the Father spoke from heaven, to Himself when being baptized. Or how Christ spoke to Himself while in the Garden, and how God turned away and left Himself on the cross. Please explain that to interested seekers.
When we preach a separate God and a real natural Son, both having physical bodies, it’s like a light goes on and they say —- you know what, I’ve always thought like that, but our preacher say I’m wrong. Confused they usually quite going to church, or just dismiss the sermon and think the way that makes more sense to them. Nice try Nathan, but if you understand it, please, please, explain it to me?
Also Nathan, when reading the new testament, did God explain the Trinity, did he expand on the Nicene Creed. No Christ preached on love, service, and charity. He spoke on faith, repentance, and baptism, (not necessary according to you), and the Holy Ghost.
Mostly spoke on these and other subjects regarding salvation.
How to treat your neighbor, wife, children. Preach on the commandments, and mercy, and judgement. This my friend is the basic dinner your invited to, the rest is line upon line, and lots of patience. Don’t even pretend to know the mind of God, his way are not your way and your thoughts are not his thoughts.
In response to Hank:
Hank, before the topic gets derailed on yet another “The Trinity doesn’t make sense” discussion posed by those (such as yourself) who disbelieve, let’s take a moment to discuss something Greg Koukl stated in the short video. He produced an analogy which should cause us to stop and think. Arsenic.
Indeed, the LDS (Mormon) religion states that God is a physical being residing near a star Mormons call Kolob. John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 show us that 1) God is spirit and 2) spirit has not flesh and bone.
Koukl agrees that something good can be found in all religions.
We’ve hit the arsenic with LDS theology describing the nature of God as corporeal.
First I would like to address Nathan16. I want to use an analogy to explain something. If you take a bite of a delicious apple, you continue to eat that apple because you know the rest of it will taste just as well. Well if you read the Book of Mormon and the spirit of God sends you a witness of it’s divinity, then the other things which mormonism offers will be divine as well.
That’s the basic message, if the Book of Mormon is true, and I know that it is, then Joseph Smith is God’s prophet. If it isn’t true then Joseph Smith is crazy. But since I have read the Book of Mormon numerous times and can tell you for myself I know it is from a divine gift from the Almighty, then accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet becomes an easy thing. The message is simple and not complicated.
Second, Russ the scripture you refer to as God being a spirit is a mistranslation. Let me share something with you:
Note that in the KJV, the word “is” is italicized. This is because the King James translators have inserted it on their own—it is not present in the Greek text from which the translation was made.
Secondly, the reader should be aware that the indefinite article (“a”, as in “a dog” or “a spirit”) does not exist in Greek. Thus, the addition of the word “a” in English occurs at the discretion of the translators.[1]
This leaves two Greek words: theos pneuma [θεος πνεμα]—“God spirit”. The JST resolves this translational issue by saying “for unto such hath God promised his spirit”. The word pneuma, which is translated spirit, also means ‘life’ or ‘breath’. The King James Version of Rev. 13:15 renders ‘pneuma’ as life. Thus “God is life,” or “God is the breath of life” are potential alternative translations of this verse
Wow, I wonder who is really spiking the drink with arsenic, now I know why so many converts tell me they never understood what their Pastors were preaching of the Godhead. Mormons keep it simple, true, and factually right.
To try and clear up or better explain my post before, can you supply me with a list off all the teachings from the BoM that are not found in the Bible that will help me get closer to the Lord and help me in my salvation. If not then why do we need it?
I (Rick B) have read all 4 standard works. I see lots of things in the BoM that line up with the Bible but in fact deny LDS beliefs, Such as eternal hell, Trinity, One God alone, No baptism after death Etc. I personally believe the BoM was plagiarized and now we see it in the BoM. I want a list of things that are not in the Bible but in the BoM that get me closer to the Lord. I personally bet no LDS member can provide me with the information I need. This is why you need on going revelation, But along with that, when in the last 200 years did a Mormon Prophet Give a revelation from God that really told us something that Will get us closer to God and what exactly was that teaching?
I also asked for something in the BoM not found in the Bible because of A of F 8 and how JS himself made a bold claim that a man will get nearer to God by reading the BoM over any other Book. Joseph Smith said in the History of the Church volume 4, page 461,
According to Dictionary.com these are the two meanings to the word precepts.
1. A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct.
2. Law. An authorized direction or order;
I am posting these, because I notice LDS seem to change the definition of words when it denies their teachings. Example, it is said of God in the bible that he is from everlasting. Yet the Mormons claim he had a beginning. So is he eternal or did he have a start? I guess it all depends on who’s meaning you choose to use. Rick B
I personally believe the BoM was plagiarized and now we see it in the BoM.
No answers until that one statement is cleared up. Show the docs good buddy, lots of luck on your plagiarized straw-man statement.
Evidence will take away the straw-man pun and an apology from me.
Please try and use some original material, most of the other dredged up anti- tell a lie to justify the end results materials.
fistfullofsteel one, I love the play on words in your name, props for that. Now if I might quote you: That’s the basic message, if the Book of Mormon is true, and I know that it is, then Joseph Smith is God’s prophet. If it isn’t true then Joseph Smith is crazy.
Following this logic if I say 1 1 = 2, and that is true then when I say 2 2 = 5 that must also be true correct? If not why not? Just because I make one true statement somewhere doesn’t mean all of my statements are true. This is the point Greg Koukl was trying to make, a religion can have some truth, some correct parts so while other parts are deadly. Just because there is a book called the Gospel of Peter and it talks about the resurrection does not mean that it is true and the Cross talks as well (verse 10). Likewise just because there are parts of the Book of Mormon that contain truth does not mean that Mormonism is true.
HankSaint:
So that this thread doesn’t become further hijacked I’d like to suggest a book to you about the trinity by Dr. James R. White called “The Forgotten Trinity” or read this article by him. Oh and the ISBN-10 for the book is 1556617259.
Lautensack
On the idea of “the trinity doesn’t make sense”: Who says it should? This is God we’re talking about, a being so amazingly transcendent it’s impossible to comprehend Him fully. So the fact that one can never understand the Trinity, actually is evidence (albeit weak evidence) of its truth! I’ve been told that I should never pretend to fully understand God’s ways. Let this be granted. But if we are to assume that a God is so transcendent that an EV can’t understand Him at least somewhat, then it’s hard for me to believe that any other human (including Mormons) can understand His ways, either. So to put forth the argument that I can’t understand God is, to me, a request for both of us to abandon the argument. I know this is not the case, so let us put aside the “God’s ways” argument.
As for Jesus’s baptism: God, in Christian theology, is omnipresent (Ps. 139). Therefore, it is no implausibility that an omnipotent, omnipresent God can appear in three forms (voice, Jesus, dove) at Jesus’s baptism.
Also, my theory on Jesus praying to the Father is this: In Philippians 4 we read that Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but “made Himself nothing.” Therefore, I believe that Jesus, in His omnipotence as God, limited Himself to human powers (though He could regain them at any time). Therefore, if He made Himself “unequal” with the Father (and He wasn’t really, because He could regain His status as God at any time), then it seems plausible that Jesus would pray to the Father.
A question I would ask about the Mormon concept of God is this:
In Isaiah 44:6,8 we read that God does not know of any other gods. There is no qualification to this statement in the text; I do not see how it can read “no other God to worship” except by eisegesis. So, at that time, did God the Father know Jesus? When Mormons are exalted, will the Father know them?
Hank said
I stated that IT WAS MY OPINION. Since LDS prophets seem to say things as if they are fact,IE, Adam God, Blood Atonment, Etc, then LDS who do not agree with them claim they spoke their mere Opinion, I find it sad that I state it is my opinion and you refuse to answer my question, but it is ok for you to tell us the Prophets really only gave their OPINION when in fact they never said that it was their mere opinion. Funny how you know what the prophets really meant to say, when they did not know what they really meant.
Now I said it was My opinion and did not say it was fact, because in reality it is so hard to prove, heres why. If Jesus quotes Moses, or John quotes Jesus, then why cannot the BoM prophets quote Scripture? I know that is what you will say. I understand that, but I still see to many Problems. So if you do not want to answer thats fine, I feel it is more a matter of you have no real answers, but since you will not answer my question, I guess no one will ever know. Rick b
lautensack thanks for the compliment. Here is the point I am trying to make, if you read the BoM and ask God if it is true with an honest desire to really know, and God answers and tells you it is in fact scripture, then you have to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, you cannot believe the Book of Mormon to be true but disregard Joseph Smith as a prophet.
RickB i have a few things which are made more clear in the BoM that seem to be confusing points of doctrines in many churches. Baptism by total immersion, laying on of hands for the gift of the holy ghost, and infant baptism. The BoM is a companion to the Bible and helps to dispel confusion on certain points of doctrine. You know it is written in the Bible that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Well this case is even stronger when you have the testimony of two seperate nations teaching the same gospel. Again in the Book of Mormon it is written, “Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever..” found in 2 Nephi chp 29 if you are interested.
Finally I have a word regarding the trinity, Harper’s Bible dictionary states, “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]” It is no wonder that those who were present during Jesus ministry understood it so much better than constantine’s council of Nicaea
fistfullofsteel wrote in part:
Firstly, fist, the thoughts you’ve presented above aren’t your own; unless you’re the author of an article found at fairmormon. Are you the author? In the future it would be appreciated if you would make note that you either are or are not the author of the thoughts you present.
Secondly, you’re correct that the word “is” has been inserted by the KJV translators. We know they inserted it because it’s italicized. It was inserted to make the orignal Greek flow into English.
God is indeed Spirit and Joseph Smith had no texutal basis for “re-translating” the Holy Bible in the way he did. He consulted no ancient texts, but rather re-wrote the passage to suit his own theology (speaking of “…at the discretion of the translator.”)
Russ, my apologies you are correct those thoughts are not my own, but i thought it simply easier to cut and paste rather then re-write the whole thing. I should have given credit. Now you are claiming Joseph Smith had no textual basis, but if he was in fact a seer or prophet and had authority from God to such a thing, then it could be done. I could make the same claim of those who translated the KJV, they did it to suit their 4th century nicene creed trinity doctrine(once again no where found in the new testament). That trivial scripture has little effect, when one reads scriptures that tell otherwise, that God created man in his likeness and image.
No problem. Thanks for letting us know.
You’d perhaps want to know if I’m presenting my thoughts or the thoughts of another.
Key word: “if.” If Joseph were truly a prophet then you’re right. If he’s not, however, he’s a fraud. That’s been shown time and again by his many false prophecies. Google: false prophecies Joseph Smith. Tons out there.
Smith said Jesus would return in the 1800s. It didn’t come to pass. Smith said Whitmer would travel. Whitmer died.
Duet. 18:22 states that only one false prophecy is all it take. I’ve given you two.
Every italicized word added by the KJV translators has been thoroughly scrutinized. We can scrutinize their work because they did the honest thing by letting us know precisely what they added.
The same thing can’t be said of Smith. He re-wrote the Bible at whim to soothe his own mind and to fit his own theology. Not a single scholar outside Mormondom accepts his work as genuine.
That should tell you something right there.
God is spirit. Not a man from a throne close to a star called Kolob; as Mormonism would have us believe.
Correction to post:
I was thinking of Patten, not Whitmer, regarding Smith’s failed prophecy.
Joseph Smith – “Verily thus saith the Lord …” David Patten to go on a mission the following spring (1839). — Doctrine and Covenants 114:1-2 (April 17, 1838). In fact, Patten died in battle, Oct. 25, 1838. — History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 171 (October 25, 1838) found at:
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-false-prophecies.html
Fist, I can make a plastic mold “in the image of” an apple, but I certainly wouldn’t want to take a bite out of it, because they are fundamentally different. Are we so audacious as to say that because we are made in God’s image, that he exists exactly as we are?
Scrutinizing over the BOM will be to no avail. However, look at his other works like the Book of Abraham. If research into that “wonderful translation” by an LDS member doesn’t make them stop to think for a second, I don’t know what would. Sadly though, if things don’t add up, you always have your good feeling testimony to fall back on.
And enough of this line upon line, precept upon precept stuff, or the milk before meat deal, honestly. We aren’t children and its not that hard to understand the deep theology in the LDS church.
My brother who left the LDS church because (he learned too much) said it perfectly. “The gospel of the LDS church is so easy to accept because it feeds you false doctrine with a whole lot of truth.”
That sounds like the Book of Mormon to me. A sugar-coated arsenic pill. Why would any investigator want to read what the LDS church really believes through teachings of the past prophets? Instead read this here Book of Mormon that isn’t anything more than a copy of doctrine that the traditional Christian church holds. Oh, but just a disclaimer, don’t try and find any historical or archaeological evidence for it, there is none.
Written by fistofsteel:
“Here is the point I am trying to make, if you read the BoM and ask God if it is true with an honest desire to really know, and God answers and tells you it is in fact scripture, then you have to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, you cannot believe the Book of Mormon to be true but disregard Joseph Smith as a prophet.”
Now if I do that and God tells me no, its not scripture, who’s answer do we go with, yours or mine? I say that God told me it wasn’t, you say that God told you it was, we both can’t be correct, or else we live in a world where 35 cents = 1 dollar or anything else I want to make it to me. The statement was that while the Book of Mormon contains some truth it also contains some untruth, some arsenic if you will.
I also think Buddha’s teaching contain some truth, but they also hold some untruth, unfortunately the places that hold untruth are the most important places, God, salvation, etc. If there is nothing to back your testimony of the Book of Mormon other than your testimony then how can you say that a serial killer didn’t talk with God and was told to kill everyone he saw with red hair or something along those lines. If your standard for truth is something that subjective then there really is no truth at all is there, other than what we want it to be?
Friend while God is spirit, and people all over the world may have encounters with Him, we presume too much if we suppose that God is the only spiritual being that people have experiences with. This is why John and Paul told us to test all things, because Jesus told us that false prophets and teachers would arise as wolves among the sheep.
So to recap, yes there are some great truths in Mormonism, while Mormonism itself is not true.
Oh and let me reverse your question, if Joseph Smith Jr. wasn’t a prophet does that mean that all of the Book of Mormon is false?
Lautensack
You know, I have prayed many times for spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the LDS church, the Book of Mormon, etc.. I did this at times when I didn’t even know much about it, and then at times (recently) when I heard all the history and doctrine that is involved in Mormonism. Every time I felt nothing, and it just felt empty. I do receive wonderful feelings when I pray to God and think about the beauty of everything he has created. I also get wonderful feelings when I ponder Jesus Christ, or God the Son, and how He descended from heaven to offer men whom are dead in their sins, an opportunity at eternal life. When I pray, I feel great as if I’m right with God. He has yet to tell me that I’m part of an abomination. ::wink::
So you can’t just base truth upon some sort of personal manifestation. Fortunately for traditional Christianity, we have a history that we can be proud of. The doctrine isn’t dodged around (Hinckley and Larry King/Time, etc..) It is presented up front.
I would at least be honest with myself as a human being that if something as embarrassing as the Book of Abraham debacle were to show up in the Bible, I would be doing some serious research into it.
I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I didn’t know about Mormonism, and all I felt was severe dread. No warm feeling at all. I say (and this has been voiced by others) that prayer can’t change facts. The facts are against Mormonism; it contradicts the Bible and archaeological evidence. So what’s the point of praying about it anyway? Will that somehow change the overwhelming evidence against it?
Russ, your information regarding Joseph Smith’s false prophecies hold no water either.
First, David Patten was called on a mission, and then he died. This scripture was not a prophecy, but was simply a call to go on a mission. Since the mormon church also believes work is done on the either side of the veil, he may have also served his mission after he passed on. Most definately we probably would have served had he not been killed by a mob.
Second, Joseph Smith made no such prophecy the Savior would return in the 1800’s. I know what scripture you speak of but it seems you have pulled it out of context, let me post it here for you, “I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face” D&C 130:14-16.
Be careful before you go around googling Joseph Smith prophecies and believing everything out there on the world wide web.
Lautensack, to answer your question, if it had been the case that Joseph Smith failed in his calling given him by the Lord, he would have called another and we would probably still have the Book of Mormon.
Nathan16, I know of no overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon, but I do know of overwhelming in support of the Book of Mormon. But it largely depends on the source you get your information from.
I cannot repeat what I said but if you have sincere desire to really know, you will know.
fistfullofsteel wrote:
Lautensack, to answer your question, if it had been the case that Joseph Smith failed in his calling given him by the Lord, he would have called another and we would probably still have the Book of Mormon.
I believe you misunderstood the question, wander with me into the realm of the hypothetical for a moment. If Joseph Smith Jr. was not a prophet is everything in the book of Mormon false or are only parts of it? If the current prophet Gorden B. Hinkley were to declare publicly that Joseph Smith Jr. was not a prophet of God nor were any of the LDS Prophets leading up to Him, and that Historical and Biblical Christianity was what the true church was comprised of, would you still believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet?
Another question also in the realm of the hypothetical, if you and I were walking to along a gorge and we came to two bridges, one made of old rope that was fraying and one built of rock better than any Roman road, but that second bridge was two miles further down. Would you place your faith in the broken bridge or the one built of Rock? You may have great faith in the rope bridge, a lot of trust in it, but halfway across the rope snaps and you die, I may have little faith in the stone bridge and crawl across inch by inch on my hands and knees but because the object of my Faith was correct I made it safely. At first glance they are both bridges but upon further inspection we realize that one can never take us where we want to go. Place your faith in the Son, eternally begotten of the Father from whom the Spirit has eternally proceeded with the Father, repent and believe. He is the only Way.
Lautensack
I have a story for you. Looking over the country side you see a beautiful garden and in the mist of it stands a tree, full of delicious fruit and very appealing to the eye. But to get there is a path which is strait and narrow, passing over gullies, canyons, rivers, etc. You notice along side this path an iron rod, the iron rod is made strong, and sure. As you begin your journey to reach this tree of life, you pass others who have let go of the Iron Rod, they seem lost, confused, and wonder off in different direction never reaching the beautiful garden. Firmly hanging on to the Rod, and not letting go you finally reach the end of the path and partake of the Tree, and discover the fruit is not only beautiful but delicious to the taste. The journey was worth the effort, and the Iron Rod made it secure,safe and sure. Others who let go, were lost, wandering in dark places, crooked paths, and darkness. Lautensack, would you not want to find this tree, and if you knew the safety and firmness of the Iron rod, hold on to it.
The path is strait and narrow, no need for a bridge since the Iron Rod is continuous and follows the path along side it. Would you not hang on to the Iron Rod seeing it to be strong and true.
Lautensack, The Iron Rod is the word of God, and the Garden and tree are eternal life, and the fruit you will find there. Faith is in the Word of God, traveling and staying on the path is following His commandments, repenting, and being baptized. The reward is eternal life, salvation, and reward.
The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are all found in the Iron Rod. You would never have to crawl on your hands and knees, inch by inch, for the Iron Rod and the path are clear. The bridge will take you off in other directions. Even in the Bible a bridge is never mentioned, it is the strait and narrow path Jesus always refers too.
James, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
Faith is not always just facts.
1). Amazingly transcendent, it’s impossible to comprehend Him fully.
2). One can never understand the Trinity.
3). God can appear in three forms (Voice, Jesus, Dove)
4). Jesus Limited Himself to human powers, Could regain them at any time.
5). Made Himself “unequal” with the Father, He wasn’t really, could at any time be equal. (Could regain them at any time, status as God).
6). Jesus would pray to God, (understand the trinity), seems plausible.
7). An omnipotent, omnipresent God can appear in three forms (voice, Jesus, dove) at Jesus’s baptism.
8). “the trinity doesn’t make sense”: Who says it should?
I know you believe and understand this, even without any facts, and you believe by faith this is true, and I commend you honestly.
I wish not to attack your personal faith and beliefs, they make you who you are, a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, your Savior and Redeemer.
The problem I see is not being able to explain the Triune Trinity to converts or investigators. Most people follow and accept their own common sense, when the Triune Godhead is explained to them, don’t you kind of see their confusion. To simplify by stating:
nathan: “On the idea of “the trinity doesn’t make sense”: Who says it should? This is God we’re talking about, a being so amazingly transcendent it’s impossible to comprehend Him fully. So the fact that one can never understand the Trinity, actually is evidence (albeit weak evidence) of its truth! I’ve been told that I should never pretend to fully understand God’s ways.”
When we compare that to our full time very, very young missionaries and the plan they present, — God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are all separate personages, God is not invisible, but has a body of Flesh and Bone, as Does his Natural Son. The Holy Ghost a spirit, and each, one with the other, as Christ has beaconed us to be One with the Father and the Son. They love to hear, what they have always believed and their teacher deny.
Fistfull,
I do not buy what your saying and heres why.
First off, the Bible does not need “another testament” being the BoM.
A break down of the Bible would be like this, 66 books by 40 different authors over 1,000,s of years all speaking about the same thing. So the Bible is not simply one book needing another witness.
Then, when I said I believe the BoM is plagurised but understand the LDS will simply say, BoM prophets are simply quoting Bible saints, then why is it according to time frames given in the BoM saying some of these BoM prophets were around since the tower of Babel and around when Jesus was around, we never find Jesus quoting BoM prophets?
Then, Jeff B mentions the Pearl of Great price, so tell me, just like we have no golden plates to check out the BoM, why is it their has never been any evidence for reformed Egyptian that the Pearl came from?
Then you spoke about the Doctrine of Infant baptism. Whats your point? I’m not an infant, and I was under the impression LDS believe all baby and Children under the age of 8 are saved. If thats true, then the Doctrine of infant baptism means nothing.
As you know, many Christians do not believe we need to be baptised to be saved, but even if we did, the Doctrine of full dunking verses a partial dunking means nothing. So I simply do not buy that as a Doctrine made more clear.
As to the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost, I thought the Bible was pretty clear and does not need the BoM to make it more clear.
Read the account of the demon possesed slave girl in the Book of Acts, she was speaking the truth about what Paul was doing, yet Paul rebuked the Demon from her, Just like Paul does not need a demon speaking the truth about his mission, we do not need another testament with some truth but still from the father of lies trying to tell us stuff. Rick b
Hank,
I believe you may have completely missed my meaning, as with all analogies this one has its flaws, because it’s an analogy and not scripture. I enjoy your Ironrod story unfortunately it seems LDS don’t believe in that either. I say that because they hold to the sand of a existential experience more than what is said in the Bible. Basically they bring God down to their level, even when the Bible says God is not a man. Moses said this(Num. 23:19) so even if Jerad did come to the New World with the scriptures this would have been part of them, as was “Hear O Israel The Lord your God, The Lord is One You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deut. 6:4-5) The words in the Hebrew for Lord and God are YHWH and Elohiem and in these verses in the Hebrew there are no words between the two, and textually one can only read that YHWH is Elohiem.
As for the path, yes, the path is narrow but there are no guard rails, only Jesus, He is the path, He is the way, He is eternal life and the True God. You are free to follow Him, you are free not to, you are free to accept His grace or you can say I will do it on my own, His yoke is light and His burden is easy if you lean on Him and allow His grace to remove the burdens of the world.
As for your list on the trinity let me take a moment to comment on a few.
“Amazingly transcendent, it’s impossible to comprehend Him fully.” & “2). One can never understand the Trinity.” Do you fully comprehend all that is God, will you ever in this life?
“God can appear in three forms (Voice, Jesus, Dove)& An omnipotent, omnipresent God can appear in three forms (voice, Jesus, dove) at Jesus’s baptism.” God can appear in more than three forms read Exodus, but we do not believe in three forms of God but one God eternally existent in three divine persons. Thus #6 is not only “plausible” but a normal every day conversation between the Father and the Son.
*continued*
“Jesus Limited Himself to human powers, Could regain them at any time.” & “Made Himself “unequal” with the Father, He wasn’t really, could at any time be equal. (Could regain them at any time, status as God).” I’m going to go with Hold to the Rod on this one… Philippians 2:5-11 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
“the trinity doesn’t make sense”: Who says it should?” I am truly sorry the person who said that feels this way, but while I will never say I understand it fully, I will say it is biblical and it is easy enough to comprehend. Augustine wrote volumes on the trinity and well it went along these lines using a verse from 1 John either 2:5 or 4:16 but the verse doesn’t matter so much as his description, The Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved and the Holy Spirit is Love itself. Like any analogy it is not perfect but it gives the concept of the Trinity a bit more weight philosophically speaking of course. For more on it read the Trinity read the Athanasian Creed.
God Bless,
Lautensack
P.S. Sorry for the Back to back posts.