When the Prophet Speaks the Debate is Over
On July 24th (2008), at a sunrise service commemorating the first Mormon pioneers to enter the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, LDS Seventy Earl Tingey talked about some of the admirable traits of those first settlers. In addition to doing their duty, being willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, and raising “a righteous posterity” with faith and vision, Mr. Tingey praised these people for being “obedient to their prophets.”
Two weeks earlier (July 8, 2008), the BYU NewsNet web site published an article titled “Follow the Prophet.” In this editorial it was argued that “active Mormons” cannot and will not “disagree with the Prophet’s counsel.”
The context for the editorial was the June 29th statement by the LDS First Presidency asking Church members to do all they could to support California’s proposed marriage amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some members had publicly disagreed with the Church directive; hence BYU NewsNet’s clarification of what it means to be an “active Mormon.”
The editorial stated,
“Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any ‘active Mormon’ sustains President Thomas S. Monson as the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God. ‘Active Mormons’ raise their right hand during General Conference and sustain him and the other 14 apostles as the leaders of God’s church on the earth today. In sustaining, they are not voting for them or agreeing with their position, they are promising to support and listen to them.
“Consequently, ‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over. No matter how diligently someone reads their scriptures, attends church or pays a full tithe, unless they sustain President Monson, his counselors and the other 12 apostles, they are not ‘active Mormons.’”
The idea expressed in the editorial, that when the prophet speaks the debate is over, likely came from an address delivered at a Church-wide fireside meeting in 1978. There, Elaine Cannon, Young Women President, told the women of the Church,
“Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the Prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.” (Ensign, November 1978, page 107)
The idea rang true with Church leadership for in the August 1979 First Presidency Message N. Eldon Tanner titled the message “The Debate is Over” and wrote,
“I was impressed by that simple statement [of Mrs. Cannon's], which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us…
Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (Ensign, August 1979, page 2).
Mrs. Cannon’s words also appeared in “Lesson 12: Follow the Living Prophet,” from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 1, page 39.
This is all in keeping with what an LDS prophet has spoken. President Heber J. Grant once said,
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, page 78).
It’s hard to accept as good counsel the directive to do what the LDS prophet says “even if it is wrong.” Of course, if Mormons understood the prophet to be infallible, that would be one thing. But the Mormon-on-the-street is quick to tell critics that the prophet is just a man, capable of giving his own opinion without identifying it as such. In that case, doing whatever the prophet says “even if it is wrong” becomes of serious concern. President Grant seemed to think, though, that the prophet was infallible; for after giving the above counsel he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”
Heber J. Grant died in May of 1945. The following month the LDS magazine Improvement Era had the following:
“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy….It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking.’…When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (June 1945, page 354)
This sounds a lot like “‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” If these teachings are to be believed, any Latter-day Saint that does his own thinking is not only unworthy of the title “active Mormon,” but he is unwittingly cultivating a spirit of apostasy.
You might consider bringing this up the next time a Mormon objects to the teachings of a Latter-day Prophet with, “That’s just his opinion.”
Comments (109)
Early on in my involvement on Mormon Coffee, I noticed a distinct manner of thinking among Mormon contributors. It’s almost too simple to say that it’s a type of wanting to have it both ways, cake and eat it too tpe thinking or some other such description. I believe it was Walter Martin who said that Mormons are capable of thinking rationally about all other areas of their lives except when it came to Mormonism. That’s why they appear to be flakey and dishonest. Anything to keep the fantasy going.
We get the prophet speaks for God routine and then when the writings and proclamations from the Journal of Discourses are quoted, Mormons squeal like a stuck pig. The prophet spoke ending plural marrage in 1890 and the leadership kept on with the practice for ten or fifteen more years until their backs were up against the wall. The Mormon prophets and their dutiful followers have a real problem with prophetic accountability. Prophetic utterances proven to be false or that do not come to pass are dismissed as human opinion. Mormons attempt to establish doctrine by revelation alone and end up with such beauties as Adam-God. Mormon prophets use prophetic utterences to control people (see Joseph Smith and his sexual exploits). When people don’t question the leaders you end-up with things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The leaders can’t be questioned is Cult 101 indoctrination.
“This is not an issue the Church stance will evolve on; this is a fundamental part of Latter-day Saint doctrine endorsed by the Quorum of the Twelve, the First Presidency and the Prophet himself.”
You mean, like Adam/God, polygamy, and Blacks and the priesthood?
Adam/God was never doctrine.
Polygamy, Blacks and the Priesthood were based on this principle…ie continuing revelation. A good summary would be last conference on Three Presiding High Priests. It is the same principle that allowed Moses to slaughter the Middianites, aganist the Law that he instituted…do you have a problem with that? Probably not because things were different in OT times, right?
From a sermon delivered by Brigham Young in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, April 9, 1852 (JD 1:50):
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do…”
Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873:
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me–namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the one who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth…”
If a living “prophet” teaches it, does that not make it “doctrine?” Certainly those listening to him thought it to be so. Since they died believing Adam is God, are they eligible for the CK, in your opinion, DOTH?
Spencer W. Kimball, Church News, Oct. 9, 1976:
“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are…alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance is the Adam-god theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”
Since these two “prophets” directly contradicted each other, which one is speaking the truth? Or is neither?
Oh, and uh, yeah–things WERE different in OT times. Much different. It was prior to Christ. Jews were living in a THEOCRACY of which Yahweh was the head. He was the Lawgiver, Judge and Jury–He had a bloodline to protect! And since all of creation is HIS, he can do with it what He likes, including killing the bad guys.
So no, the same law doesn’t apply we don’t live by the same covenant, there are no priests or prophets required. We are under a new and better covenant, with Jesus Christ as our only and forever High Priest (read Hebrews for more information on that; also the words of Christ regarding prophets in Matt. 11:13).
I did read your conference talk and not surprisingly, the “three high priests” were nowhere referenced under the New Covenant brought by Jesus Christ, but only LDS doctrinal sources.
So I suggest examination of the point I was making rather than throwing up red herrings about Midianites and the Old Covenant. They don’t apply here.
Defender,
It is preposterous to think that continuing revelation backtracks itself. It is not possible to have polygamy as a revelation only to have it revoked, and then to look forward to it in order to become gods. This is not line upon line, but line upon line subtract the same line.
The leaders of the LDS Church are dangerous. They control the general membership with the fear-talk about apostasy. Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and such has been the case with every LDS leader who has followed. To say that Adam/God was never a doctrine is a flat out lie that you have been fed. You have been led astray, Defender. The “even if it is wrong” clause should raise red flags for you.
Missusslats
If you read further in the first quote you gave, BY stated that he could not say any more on the subject at that time, indicating to me that there is more involved in it than Adam (the first man) = God (Heavenly Father). To show you what I mean, 1 Cor 15:44-46 calls Jesus “Adam”. If you go into Biblegateway and compare all of the English translations on that site you will see that all of them say the same thing. (KJV) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. “Adam” is not just a name, it is a word meaning ‘man’ and I have also found that it is a title meaning ‘first man’. When looked at in this light some sense can be made from what BY is saying. But to echo DOF, it was never doctrine, not even in those days. In fact some of the people on this blog would probably tell you that there are recorded heated debates from meetings of the apostles in those days discussing these statements.
As far as there being no need for a prophet these days, Jesus taught that a house that is against itself will not stand. He also taught that His house is a house of order. Then He taught that no man can serve two masters. We also find in the Bible that the scriptures are not for personal interpretation, meaning that the only interpretation is God’s interpretation not man’s. Why am I saying this? Because there are many different religions claiming to follow Christ and can show from the Bible their doctrine is correct. We believe that we still need a prophet to be the mouthpiece for God on this earth and to interpret scripture correctly so we are following only one master – God, through His appointed prophet. This will allow order to be instilled in God’s house and the correct interpretation of scripture.
Hey Ralph, what has Thomas Monson said that was prophetic? What did Gordon Hinckley ever say that was prophetic? What about Howard Hunter? These men are allegedly prophets and yet never make any prophetic utterances. They are supposedly men who are the “mouthpiece for God on earth” and they are shown to have been teaching doctrines contrary to Scripture. All they do is show up on Larry King Live and do ribbon cuttings at new temples.
“Because there are many different religions claiming to follow Christ and can show from the Bible their doctrine is correct.” That is patently false. false religions like the JWs and mormons and others take Scripture out of context to support their teachings, but the whole witness of Scripture invariably leads to Christ, Christ who is God saving men who are sinners by His grace, through faith.
Mormonism depends on absolute obedience to the prophets, because if you start to question them and find out they are wrong, you may start questioning the office. If you question the legitimacy of the office, maybe Monson isn’t a prophet, maybe Hinckley wasn’t, and go back far enough and you start to realize that Smith wasn’t a prophet. The whole thing is a house of cards.
The Mormon “prophets” are goofballs each and everyone. They are totally clueless and it’s embarrassing that anyone listens to their drivel. Joseph Fielding Smith May 14, 1961 announces to stake conference in Honolulu: “We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it….The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.” He went on in 1962 to instruct that this view be taught to “the boys and girls in the Seminary System.” On July 1969 U.S. Astronauts are first men to walk on the moon. Six months later Joseph Fielding Smith becomes church president.
Again from the “still inside” perspective:
It takes a lot more than “doing our own thinking” it takes “doing our own praying and getting our own witness”.
While we will insist that the prophet is the only one who can recieve revelation on doctrinal issues for the chruch, we will also insist that we have the right and obligaion to get our own spiritual direction from God himself on the matter.
People often assume that doctrine from Ward to Ward and from Stake to Stake throughout the world is so spot on consistent because of the manuals and strong top down direction. That is really not it at all. We are consistent because the direction from God through the HS is always consistent, and the spirit is consistently present in our meetings.
Arthur,
In the ‘Gospel Doctrine’ book it says “When a prophet speaks for God…”, indicating that he is not always speaking for God. How do we know when/if he is speaking for God? In the D&C it says when he is speaking by the power of the HG.
It also states that “A prophet is also a special witness for Christ, testifying of His divinity and teaching His gospel.” What exactly this means I do not know, but some members believe that this means that he has seen the resurrected Christ with his own eyes.
Then it goes on “He calls the unrighteous to repentance. He receives revelations and directions from the Lord for our benefit. He may see into the future and foretell coming events so that the world may be warned.” Note the word I bolded ‘may’. It does not say ‘have to’.
Lastly the book says ”when we speak of “the prophet of the Church,” we mean the President of the Church, who is President of the high priesthood”
So a prophet does not always have to ‘prophecy the future’. But he does have to witness Christ, teach the gospel, call repentance and direct the Church in the Lord’s way. Pres’s Monson, Hinkley and Hunter have all done these things so they have fulfilled their prophetic callings.
Falcon,
Good point with your history. As you said Joseph Fielding Smith was called as the prophet after man had reached the moon (or did we get there?) so anything he said before that time was his own opinion, not a prophetic utterance. I knew about this comment years ago, its in a series of books called ‘Questions and Answers’ written by Joseph Fielding Smith. I wonder if any of Jesus’ apostles knew we were going to put man on the moon? If they did they must have written it down because it would have been prophecy and the Bible says that prophecy is for the edification of all. I’m sorry but I can’t seem to find it anywhere in the Bible, I must have misplaced that section.
Ralph,
Your starting to sound like a typical Mormon, and I had such great hopes for you. Apostles and going to the moon? If we really did go to the moon? Can’t find going to the moon in the Bible? And your attitude that you know all this goofy stuff the prophets put out and it really makes no differences to you continues to reveal more about your mindset. I would say Ralph, you’ve lost the argument and you’re running on fumes.
CLUFF,
Did that dude that kidnapped Elizabeth Smart receive revelation from God? He certainly thought he did. How about Dan Lafferty who butchered his sister-in-law and neice? Here’s one: “Thus Saith the lord unto My servants the Prophets. It is My will and commandment that ye remove the following individuals in order that My work might go forward. For they have truly become obstacles in My path and I will not allow My work to be stopped. First thy brother’s wife Brenda and her baby, then Chloe Low, then Richard Stowe. And it is My will that they be removed in rapid succession……” Dan Lafferty received that from God.
This is the result and the legacy of what Joseph Smith started with his emphasis on revelation at the expense of God’s Word. I know CLUFF you’re having a high old time thinking you’re hearing from God and I hate to break the news to you, but you’re not. The Bible calls it prophesying out of your own imagination. Follow the leaders, they’ll never lead you down the wrong path. Right!
Ralph: ‘How do we know that he (the prophet) is speaking for God? We know when he speaks by the power of the HS..’ this kind of thinking drives me just nuts, and I asked Cluff the question, “how do we know that the HS DID testify of JS , and he comes back with his own testimony that Jesus is the Christ, hence he must have the power of the HS,etc: small problem, we could put a Moonie, a JWitness, and ten other groups in the room and they ALL would ‘testify that Jesus is the Christ’. Do some, all, or none of these folks have the Holy Spirit?? Cluff, I believe the verses you gave me, but I don’t think they can be used exactly as you did for a litmus test, God seems to allow people to mumble on and on about “Jesus” this and “Christ” that, I don’t think it’s going to wash at the judgment seat of Christ (not the judgment seat of Joseph, I might add). Wouldn’t you agree?? Doesn’t it matter which Jesus, which Christ we are talking about?? Back to Ralp: do YOU want to weigh in on the test you gave us above?? how does saying “when they speak in the power of the HS” help us?? I mean, when is that, and how would we know?? I know Cluff’s answer. Your point about the moon stuff and the Bible is puzzling: how does underlining what is NOT in the Bible help your case here? It is your guy, not ours, who got predictive about the moon. How is the bible silent on this helpful to what you are trying to say? More later, thanks, GERMIT PS to DOF: Polygamy, blacks, and the priesthood are based upon this principle (continuing revelation); that’s a good quote and one that summarizes a HUGE problem for your missions work, I’d just like that info to get out there in the general populace so people know what they are getting UP FRONT.
Ralph,
During General Conference each year, do they not sustain all of the 12 Apostles and the First Presidency as Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Was Joseph Fielding Smith a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles in 1961? If he was, then he was also considered a Prophet and he should be held to that same standard.
I recently came upon a scripture that for some reason I never heard as a Mormon.
Hebrews 1:1-2
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
I don’t think we need prophets today. Jesus was the last Prophet and his word is the final say. “When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” That is a true statement, when I hear a Mormon prophet speak, I now run the other way.
Soy, you are so right! Hebrews 1 and the verse from Matthew I cited earlier where our Lord tells us that John was the last prophet were two that, conveniently, I was never directed to read in all my years of LDS Bible “study.” Thank you for putting the entire verse up for all to plainly see. No prophetic interpretation necessary to understand that one!!
Also, to Ralph:
Ralph, I agree. Biblical interpretation is not open to men, no matter what label they put upon themselves (prophet, apostle, etc.). The God who calls Himself “The Truth” will not contradict Himself. God said if we abide in His word, we can know the truth; not that we can’t possibly understand His word and therefore need another fallen human to interpret for us.
A Christian whom I respect wrote, “If God is the God of truth, then what He inspired will be consistent with itself.” So which part of “Adam is God” and “Adam is not God” is consistent with itself?
Did the God of Truth inspire BY or SWK? Or neither? Certainly it cannot be both.
So the question is, “By what spirit are the Mormon prophets speaking and from what spirit are the rank and file getting their personal revelations?” I think it would be a good idea for our Mormon contributors to reveal to us Christians, who the spirit is by whom they and their prophets speak. We know that the Mormon god is an exhalted man and that the hope of each male Mormon is to become a god also. We know that the Mormon Jesus is a created being, the by product of a union of a mother god and father god. We also know that Mormons believe that Jesus was conceived physically by a sexual union between the Mormon god and a virgin named Mary.
So our Mormon friends here are telling us they hear from the spirit. We know that Joseph Smith was involved in magic arts and favored scrying with a rock as a medium for communicating with the spirit world. Mormons have occult symbols on their Mormon issued underware and also on their temples. Mormons perform occult rituals, borrowed from Free Masonry, in their temples. Our Mormon friends have also informed us of the veil they try to see through in order to have visual contact with spirits.
So as you see, I just ran this all through a decision matrix/grid to get a fix on who exactly our Mormon friends and their prophets are getting their revelaitons from. The Lord God forbids the practices that Mormons engage in. He is a jealous God who will give people over to their desires. Mormons need to repent and turn to the living God.
Ralph,
“It also states that “A prophet is also a special witness for Christ, testifying of His divinity and teaching His gospel.””
This describes any one who witnesses for Jesus Christ as the resurrected LORD, and who tells of His good news that we are justififed by faith, that the law kills, the Spirit gives life and we are saved by the blood of Christ shed on Calvary (not in Gethsamene, another false LDS teaching). Your church leaders (I cannot refer to them as prophets because they aren’t) do not qualify. They have distorted the message of good news into one of works righteousness. It seems that you worship the office of prophet more than the true and living God. We fight for God; you and the other LDS fight for false prophets. Even though you all want to defend your prophets by ridiculously creating qualifiers for their utterances, they have uttered lies for the whole world to see. Adam/God was a doctrine no matter what you want to say. Your prophet spoke it, which raises another issue: you don’t really honor your prophets. You accept only that which is palatable to Christianity, but deny their status of prophet when they utter the ridiculous. Come to the true and living God who was revealed to us in the Person of Jesus Christ, for His yoke is easy and His burden is light. He calls you into His eternal presence based on you believing what He has done for you; He died to save you while you are still a sinner because you can’t save yourself. These prophets of yours do not spread this message; their message is different. Their message puts burdens on you, and such a message is not from Christ.
I will gladly use one of my precious posts for the day to say to jackg, AMEN MY BROTHER!
Ralph,
Good study of the word Adam. It is as you say, in Hebrew, Adam means “man”. In the Corinthians verse, it does speak of the first Adam(from the Garden of Eden, husband of Eve) and the last Adam (Jesus). Now to get back to the quote by BY..
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father ADAM came into the GARDEN OF EDEN, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought EVE, one of his WIVES, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do…”
I capped the most important parts. How on earth would you believe from that message that he is speaking about Jesus (i.e. living in the Garden of Eden, with his Wife Eve)? Unless you would go as far to say that Adam is actually Jesus. But even that wouldn’t work, because in Mormonism, Jesus is our brother, NOT our FATHER as BY stated.
Do you wish to retract that statement you made now? BY was obviously not talking about Jesus because he spoke of things Adam was involved in (the Garden, Eve) and he also said Adam is our Father and our GOD, the Only God with whom we have to do. Adam is indeed our father in the sense that he started the human race, but even you would disagree that “Heavenly Father” is not Adam (which directly contradicts the BY’s doctrine that Adam, from the Garden of Eden, husband of Eve is God himself.) And yes, I did say it is doctrine, because BY himself called it doctrine -
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular DOCTRINE which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me–namely that Adam is our father and God”
I guess you’re deciding not to “follow the prophet.” What a crazy old uncle BY was.
Contradictions I see:
#1 “‘When a prophet speaks for God…’, indicating that he is not always speaking for God. How do we know when/if he is speaking for God?”
However, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done” “When the prophet speaks the debate is over.”
It does not say, when the prophet speaks under the direction/power of the HG… for is it not believed that being ’so close to Christ’ the prophet is pretty much always influenced by the power of the HG? Does he need to start every speech or conference with “By the power of the Holy Ghost, I say…”?
#2 “We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.” (bolding mine)
And yet, “The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” Mormonism is full of contradictions like these.
Deut 18:20
Seems to me like BY and all these other guys really liked Joe’s idea of absolute power by authority of god and expounded on it to their hearts’ desires. Modern day “prophets” don’t expound much because people are smarter and more aware of their ruses now -they can’t afford to be as radical. I thought it interesting back in 1996 how Hinckley’s “Proclamation to the World” about family was “revealed” just after there was a federal law passed regarding domestic abuse. Sort of like lifting the priesthood ban in light of the church almost losing tax exempt status on their properties.
One more thing. “if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” Sounds like absolute control to me -like Falcon said, that’s Cult 101.
Amen, jackg!
Ralph,
“In the ‘Gospel Doctrine’ book it says “When a prophet speaks for God…”, indicating that he is not always speaking for God. How do we know when/if he is speaking for God? In the D&C it says when he is speaking by the power of the HG.” When do you know when he is or is not speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit? Does something light up on his lapel? Or, as it seems more likely, when he says something goofy or embarrassing he must not have been speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Back in my days before I became a fo-mo (former mormon), we were told that when the prophet makes an utterance that amounts to thus says the Lord, we know he is speaking prophetically. So basically when he is speaking ex cathedra, he is infallible but when he is expounding on matters of doctrine otherwise he can be completely wrong. I would think that even when not making prophetic utterances he would have a grasp of basic doctrines of the faith. It is also a convenient way to brush aside statements made with a dogmatic assertions, that in context and to the audience they were speaking to would be considered authoritative.
“So a prophet does not always have to ‘prophecy the future’. But he does have to witness Christ, teach the gospel, call repentance and direct the Church in the Lord’s way. Pres’s Monson, Hinkley and Hunter have all done these things so they have fulfilled their prophetic callings.” Hmm, so really they don’t do anything special at all. Pretty much anyone could do that if they are a decent speaker and have some organizational skills. Being a prophet is easier than it seems in the Bible!
We must all remember that we are judging Mormonism by Christianity standards. Mormonism has it’s own standards. And those standards are that nothing counts if Mormons don’t want it to. Doctrine, prophetic utterances, scripture and “sacred” rituals are not stable. Mormons love this and call it “revelation”. What a deal. The leaders can never be wrong. It’s just a new revelation. Anything can be rationalized. History can be rewritten. Reality is whatever the leaders say it is. And the faithful won’t question the leaders.
falcon said:
“Did that dude that kidnapped Elizabeth Smart receive revelation from God? He certainly thought he did.”
The difference between the guy who kidnapped ES and JS is simple. The HS has told 10 million people that JS was right. I doubt that the HS has anything favorable to say about the other guy except in his own delusions, and in the weak minds of those he can dominate.
You like the Bible so:
Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets…
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Most false prophets don’t last beyond their own generation because their power is in their personality and persuasive abilities. JS still has new coverts today even when he is not around and the leader of his church is “boring”. Just ask my kids. The only reason he is still gaining converts in spite of all the noise in the world about him (thank you very much Mormon Coffee) is because the HS still speaks on the matter.
Why doesn’t Matt 7:20 say “In the last days there will be no new prophets”? Instead it tells us how to tell the true ones from the false ones.
GRCluff,
Having converts today, even after the founders death, does not make a religion true. Mohamed is dead. L. Ron Hubbard is dead. Charles Taze Russell is dead. Mary Baker Eddy is dead. And yet, the religions they founded live on. You can find members of these religions who attest to the truth and the inner peace found by following these religions. Yet, by definition, they cannot all be true. Have you prayed about whether “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures” by Mary Baker Eddy is true? Or if the Koran is true? If not, why not, if that is your standard for determining truth? These false prophets did all the thinking for their members too and they are gaining converts today, long after their deaths. There has to be a better standard than an inner assurance of truth – otherwise no truth claim could ever be really tested – it is one testimony against another in a deadlock. I have read about the scrutiny the Bible has been subjected to, evaluated the evidence and found that the Bible stands up well, understand how my theology of salvation by grace alone through faith alone is derived from the Bible, AND have an inner testimony of the truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ. I can see how the Bible is true – Israel exists, Jerusalem is an actual city, etc. Without the testimony of truth both outside myself and inside, my faith would be worthless. If I relied completely on personal testimony I could be deceived.
falcon:
I like your second post today– you got every glaring disagreement you have with us all in the same post– AND you started with a good question!
The question was:
“By what spirit are the Mormon prophets speaking and from what spirit are the rank and file getting their personal revelations?” I think it would be a good idea for our Mormon contributors to reveal to us Christians, who the spirit is by whom they and their prophets speak.”
By some ironic twist of fate, you have completed your post with the correct answer to your question! It was:
“Mormons need to repent and turn to the living God.”
The spirit by which the Mormon prophets speak and the spirit by which the rank and file get their personal revelations is:
(get ready now I am about to reveal to you Christians where the spirit can be found)
ONLY found as Mormons repent and turn to the living God.
I think that might work for mainstream Christians too.
Hi, I’m new to this site, but was very intrigued by the discussion today. I wanted to see what Mormons do with I John 2:26-27 “These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.”
Ralph and Arthur: “so they really don’t do anything special at all..” wow, if that isn’t the case!! Ralph, your head guys are so utterly unremarkable, even putting the predictive thing aside. Living mouthpeices of God?? I’m not going to get ‘caustic’ here, and I probably needed that gentle rebuke, but PLEEEZE, my idea of purgatory would be a long conference where I have to listen to these guys “guide the flock”. Not every leader has to be Ronald Reagan or FDR at the microphone for something to be true, but I’d have to say I’d expect more from the one true church. If it’s any comfort, the JW conferences ,from my very limited experience (snuck into one), is every bit as boring: they were like fourth rate refrigerator salesmen, and were so alike, I thought I was seeing a continuous feed of the same 7 min. clip. In fairness to the argument: exciting or dull, it all comes down to ‘does it line up with the plumb line, the Bible ??’ How else would we know, Cluff, that what we THOUGHT was the HS wasn’t last nights spicy Rueben ?? And in that regard your leaders, past and present, are remarkably similar, and ODDLY enough, Cluff and I probably agree on that. How weird. GERMIT
I’m going to keep pounding this theme because it’s the essence of the difference between Christians and Mormons: Who is the Mormon god that they claim to be hearing from? It is not the God of the Bible. A cursory examination of the Mormon doctrine of God and the occult orientation of their founder and the contined embrace by Mormons of Masonic rituals and occult symbols reveals that Mormons are tapping into a force other than the God of the Bible. That’s all that has to be known regarding the prophetic utterances of Mormon prophets and leaders past and present. The Mormon concept of revelation and confirmation by God is not Biblical. That’s not all that surprising since the tactic of the enemy is to discount the Bible and present a picture of God that is in direct opposition to reality. To some it’s seductive, but to those who have not turned their will over to the leadership of the Mormon church, they can find the means of escape.
Cluff said:
“The HS has told 10 million people that JS is right.” This is a false statement, although I concede that you did not do it intentionally. The church claims 13 million members but the truth is (per Dr. David Stewart Jr’s report at http://www.cumorah.com/lawoftheharvest.html ) there are almost as many people dropping out of active membership as there are joining and basically the church’s net growth is zero. Nearly two-thirds of ‘Mormons’ are recorded as inactive and over 60% of new converts drop out within the first year. In 2004, the church performed just over 240,000 baptisms -it’s lowest number since 1987.
The problem is that when fo-mos decide to leave the Mormon faith, most of them do not write exit letters and therefore are still on record as members. In actuality, even of one does send an exit letter asking to have their name removed, it is NOT removed from the records entirely -the record only indicates that you are no longer a member and sometimes these people are contacted by missionaries, home teachers, etc long after they’ve left. That’s where they get their numbers from and it does not represent the truth.
Additionally, even IF the HS has told 10 million people that JS is right, it has told BILLIONS of people that Biblical Christianity is right.
Sorry, this post is a bit off-topic but that statement kinda lit me up and I had to respond. Thanks for indulging.
Germit,
“my idea of purgatory would be a long conference where I have to listen to these guys “guide the flock”.” You have no idea, the General Conference broadcasts were sheer torture of listening to these old guys ramble on a TV screen while parents tried to keep their kids under control. I recall vividly one priesthood conference when one of the general authorities was talking to the young men about, ahem, “nightly emissions”. It was the most disturbing things I have ever heard, and he was being deadly serious.
Andrea, “The problem is that when fo-mos decide to leave the Mormon faith, most of them do not write exit letters and therefore are still on record as members” Very true, and the problem is that many of the fo-mo’s don’t turn to Christianity, they leave faith altogether. That is why it is important to not just show why mormonism is wrong but why Christianity is the truth and the only way. Whether people stay in mormonism or turn their backs on God, Satan is pleased.
I stated on another post that somebody claiming to understand the Book of Mormon from statements from ex-mormons and selected passages is like a muslim extremist claiming to understand the United States from statements from Jane Fonda and Michael Moore and broadcasts from Al Jazeera. When somebody who is very active in any organization leaves and stridently fights against that organization- very often there is something not right with that person. This is almost a rule among people who go from faithful member of the LDS church to active foe. It is almost a rule that when a highly active member leaves on “intellectual” grounds, he or she has usually committed adultery or some other serious sexual sin. There are very few exceptions!
DJ, you are just plain wrong in your analogy. If you want to know about communism, do you ask Alexander Solzenitzen or Fidel Castro? Does one get the truth about Mormonism from the brainwashed or from one who has escaped the brainwashing? I for one am free to think and evaluate with my God-given MIND and my newly-found respect for Truth–not my “burning bosom.”
As for your statement: “It is almost a rule that when a highly active member leaves on “intellectual” grounds, he or she has usually committed adultery or some other serious sexual sin.” That statement is nothing more than “kill the messenger” mentality. I NEVER SINNED IN THE WAY YOU ARE SUGGESTING. BUT IF I HAD, AND IT GOT ME OUT OF THE FALSE CULT OF MORMONISM, I’D BE MOST GRATEFUL FOR THAT SIN! Your remark merely shows you are running out of substantive arguments.
D: IF it were the case, and this is hard for you to get your mind around, that the LDS religion was FALSE, then the ’something wrong with that person’ could well be that they could no longer go on living a lie. You have to admit this as a possibility, and yes, if yours was the true gospel, rejecting that would mean some kind of problem, but playing the sex card ‘with very few exceptions’ is just plain weird, to me. Those who have left orthodox christianity certainly would NOT all, or nearly all, fall into that category, as far as I know. You are going to take some heat for that post: prepare your pill box. Interesting to me that you don’t see organized groups of ex-presbyterians or ex-lutherans out there…hmmmm.
Andrea:
Having served as a missionary, I am aware of the requirements a new convert must pass before he/she can be baptized. One of them is a spiritual witness that JS was a prophet. The fact that many new converts drop out means the church is demanding and many people find it difficult to keep up. It is the demanding nature of the church that keep the rest of us engaged in the first place. It is a faith thing for us.
The fact that 10 million– maybe even 13 million people have been baptised makes my point. Their current state of activity is not relevant.
Christ taught the same concept in Matt 13. The people you speak of are mentioned in verse 21 and 22.
18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Personally, I hope to be like those in verse 23.
GRCluff,
“The fact that many new converts drop out means the church is demanding and many people find it difficult to keep up. It is the demanding nature of the church that keep the rest of us engaged in the first place. It is a faith thing for us.
The fact that 10 million– maybe even 13 million people have been baptised makes my point. Their current state of activity is not relevant.”
It is not that being a mormon is so hard, it is that people realize they have been deceived and that Smith is not a prophet. How is it not relevant that a huge percentage of mormon converts turn out to be false converts? These are people who, like you, testify that the Holy Spirit told them the book of mormon was true and now they realize it is not. That just proves the unreliable nature of the mormon testimony.
Seriously, do what the book of James says and pray for wisdom, not whether a book is true or not. If God grants you wisdom and humility, you will find that you are following a lie. It is hard, hard on the family, hard on your pride, hard to humble yourself and realize you have been deceived but better to humble yourself now before it is too late.
Germit: The credibility of witnesses is vital in any court when examining evidence. This is not an insignificant point. Those who are very active and turn completely against the LDS church and criticize its leaders publicly are almost always guilty of sexual sin. Of course those are not details they share in newspapers or in their books or websites. And the church would never disclose such things. I have personal knowledge of soooo many of these cases. I know you would never trust someone like me making such statements. And again, it would be very inappropriate to offer examples, names, etc. But this is a very well recognized fact- the correlation is stunning!
DJBrown, if your accusation against this group of people is accurate, and it is a “very well recognized fact” about which “the correlation is stunning,” surely there are studies which will support your claims. Please provide facts and sources or stop propagating what amounts to nothing more than unfounded gossip.
DJB: Like Sharon said, I’d say you’d have to cough up something more than just anecdotal stories that demonstrate precisely nothing. My own experience in reading ‘exit stories’ from people who seem to be straightforward about all manor of things regarding their lives, both personal and spiritual, does NOT confirm what you are saying. The big deal seems to be the ‘cognitive dissonance’, to use a psych term, that is the difference between what they have PERCEIVED reality to have been, and their NEW understanding of reality, is just too great: they realize that they have been deceived about….and this starts as one thing, and becomes, as I’ve described, a pulled upon thread that just keeps going and going. The CLAIM that I’ve read over and over is that such and such (polygamy, racism, the church’s need to control, etc) JUST DID NOT RING TRUE. I think your ’sex story’ is just smoke at the show, DJ, and as an aside, I think it common for controlling groups to often ’shoot those leaving’ with some kind of ‘bad goods label’ on the way out, so that OTHERS still inside get the picture: ‘don’t let this be you’. If you can document your ‘well documented fact’ , we’re all ears. GERMIT ps to Cluff: the fact that your group would pad the books to the max, I think that is Andrea’s point, is telling. It’s not the numbers, it’s the HONESTY OF YOUR LEADERS AND ORGANIZATION. You guys come across like a Fortune 500 company that is worrying that your stock is slipping, always the APPEARANCE SO IMPORTANT. The less than 100% honesty is an apologetic against you. GERMIT
Let’s see, two-thirds of those on the LDS rolls are not active in the Mormon church. Fifty percent of returning missionaries drop out. That’s a lot of sexual promiscuity! I’m wondering why Joseph Smith didn’t get the boot for his sexual sins? Oh, we’re back to the topic at hand…..follow the leaders. DJ, if your charge is correct, that’s exaxtly what all these exMos have done.
DJ
You said “It is almost a rule that when a highly active member leaves on “intellectual” grounds, he or she has usually committed adultery or some other serious sexual sin. There are very few exceptions”
I would like to see any support for this statement. Being a member for 23 years and being in EQ presidency, Bishopric, etc. I have known many who have left the church and it was not for what you claim. They did research and came to the conclusion that things just do not add up with the church teachings.
Examples for you who are going to ask:
1) Varying accounts of the 1st vision
2) No evidence ever of the BOM history found.
Just the other day another piece of history mentioned in the Old Testament was found. See link.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71386
3) Book of Abraham
There are many to list. I think these former/inactive brothers and sisters have been guided by the HG to search outside the box of Mormonism and get other points of view. They are not leaving, for many of them, because of sexual misconduct, but because they have found that Jesus in Christianity is different than Jesus in Mormonism. God bless DJ.
missuslats and andrea,
Thank you for your words of encouragement. Praise the LORD for using such weak vessels as myself.
GRC,
The LDS Church is demanding because most cults are. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not demanding because His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I would encourage you to read Colossians, especially chapter two, to learn what Paul thought of groups that enslave people with a system that appears to be holy, when it really isn’t. I see the Mormon Church aptly described in this. I’m looking forward to your take on it.
DJB,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I was excommunicated for adultery while in the bishopric. My story is not one that is noble by any means; however, my story is not about how wonderful a person I am, or how obedient I was or wasn’t–my story is one that tells of God’s grace and mercy who saves sinners while yet sinners. I learned that I don’t have to be perfect to be saved; in fact, it works opposite: one is made holy and perfect after justification by faith, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit. My story is that God saved me BECAUSE I was a sinner. You see, the LDS Church could never save me because it teaches that grace only comes after all I’ve done; the truth is that grace abounds throughout our lives despite what we have done. I am ashamed of my behaviors, but I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ because it has saved me. The Spirit has transformed me, and I no longer walk after the flesh, and PRAISE BE TO GOD! A word of caution for you: don’t deceive yourself, if you have broken one law you are a law breaker, same as I. There is no degree with sin because sin is sin and destroys, but the blood of Christ gives life. I share my story because it glorifies God, and reveals His love, grace, and mercy, and you can also experience it, and be freed from your sins and your bondage to a cult that enslaves its followers. “Amazing grace,how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me!” PTL!
It’s always a cop-out to blame people who leave the Mormon church on sexual sin. This is just another mind ploy that the Mormon Church engraves on its people so they will shame a person for leaving the Church when it’s simply not true. The worst sin one can sin in Mormonism is apostasy – leaving the church. Add this in with the other planted thought and you have a lot of pressure for people to stay in Mormonism when they don’t know of the real Jesus of the Bible which is very different than the Mormon Jesus that can liberate them.
People get out of Mormonism because they come to the realization that the Mormon gospel is impossible to live/achieve. It doesn’t bring salvation. To our Mormon friends here ask yourself these questions:
Have you denied yourself of all ungodliness? (Moroni 10:32)
Are you now fulfilling the command to be perfect? (3 Nephi 12:48)
Have you done all that you can do? Are you doing your best? (2 Nephi 25:23)
Isn’t it possible to keep all the commandments? (1 Nephi 3:7)
Are you keeping all of the commandments? If not, what is the result? (D&C 25:15)
Are you clean? Are all your sins forgiven? (Alma 11:7)
What sins are allowed? Where won’t you be? (D&C 1:31-33)
Have you forsaken all of your sins? Have you abandoned them? (D&C 58/:42-43)
If you sin again, what happens? (D&C 82:7)
Where will you end up? (Alma 34:30-35)
If you died right now do you know you’d have eternal life? Do you know all of your sins are forgiven? Christians who serve the Jesus of the New Testament can answer “YES!” to those questions right now! We want Mormons to be able to say that too, but they can’t in Mormonism.
The Mormon gospel is not good news. The gospel of the Bible is. That is why Mormons leave the church.
Jackg, that took a lot of courage to say that. Praise God for his mercy, grace and forgiveness (1 John 1:9) and welcome to God’s family!
Mormons, why isn’t the song “Amazing Grace” in the LDS hymnal? Think about it.
Berean
jackg,
I had to use my third and final posting of the day in regards to your post. I commend you for openly sharing, what I am sure, is a painful admission. I don’t know ,if I was in the same circumstance, that I could do it. I say that especially because your admission was in regards to what is a typical Mormon charge regarding people who leave the Mormon church. Paul talks about Christ saving sinners among whom he considered himself the worst of all. The poower of the Gospel is that it does save sinners and it’s about second (and more) chances. God understands our condition very well and extends His grace to us. The Mormon god isn’t quite as generous. Mormons never know for sure about their status before God. For Chirstians, the shed blood of Christ is powerful enough to cover our transgressions. I willingly accept it and the fact that through my faith in Jesus, I have eternal life. My salvation and the assurance that comes with it is a gift from God. I do my best to lead a godly life but I know who I am. Without Christ, I’m a miserable, wretched sinner lost and on my way to hell. But God has provided a pathway to eternal life through His Son Jesus.
The Mormon leaders who gave you the boot, have no sense of the peace and assurance you now have.
JackG: AWESOME POST. to those operating out of some kind of hierarchy of sin, your post would SEEM to give ammo to DJB’s argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your post points out how futile the LDS faith is, EVEN IF A PARTICULAR SIN PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED. Even if DJB was right with his ’sex stat’, which is highly questionable, the LDS answer is wholly unable to redeem and make free.(I can only imagine how tortured you were in your options for ‘getting help’ while you were still LDS) Your response is probably much more powerful than going round and round on speculative sex statistics anyway. Great job, and you’ve made clear that our God can, and does, save to the uttermost the lowest, the lost , the least. Like me. Your honesty and courage are life giving. GERMIT
JackG’s post made me think of something the pastor in church said on Sunday. And this statement is biblically backed up -
“Jesus liked people who were nothing like Him. And people who were nothing like Jesus liked Jesus.”
That’s powerful. It shows just how much Christ desired to be around the “lost”. Think of the story of the adulterous woman that was brought before Jesus and the people accusing her of adultery wanted to throw stones at her as the law mandated. They asked Jesus what should we do to this woman? (Trying to trap Jesus into contradicting the law). Jesus Christ asked them that if any one of them are without sin, then cast the first stone.
Those men and their self righteousness, quick to point out the sins in other people, were greatly humbled that day. All of them left. Christ had asked the woman who is still there to condemn her. She saw that no one else was there and said no one. Christ said “neither do I.” Jesus was the only one there with the lawful right to throw a stone, yet he did not. He offered her grace that day, giving her the opportunity to come unto Him.
So I think before we start judging why people have left their faith, Mormonism or otherwise, we need to realize that we are guilty of all sin just like them, and regardless of what LDS authority has to say, Christ and the Holy Spirit do not turn their backs on them, always reaching out to all. Where sin increases, the Grace of God increases all the more.
Amazing grace indeed.
OK, I’m totally new at this, so please be gentle with me.
Mormons do not believe that the prophet speaks his own words independently and of his own will and volition, but rather that the prophet is the mouthpiece of the LORD on the earth.
As it says in the OT in Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
The Lord has spoken through his servants the prophets throughout history. For example, the ten commandments were given to the people, through Moses (a prophet), from God.
I believe that God is a living God and still speaks to the inhabitants of the earth by the mouths of his servants, the prophets. (keyword = servant)
Beautiful posts Jack and Jeffrey! I was reminded just yesterday that ‘Christ never condemned the sinners, he condemned the self-righteous’, and the incident Jeffrey just relayed shows that gorgeously.
God bless!
DJ, what an ignorant statement: “Those who are very active and turn completely against the LDS church and criticize its leaders publicly are almost always guilty of sexual sin.”
I have heard that before: there must be some sin, or someone offended them, or some other factor. Anything but coming to realize the deceit of mormonism. I get why you say it, because it makes you feel more secure in staying with a lie. If someone left, it couldn’t be because they found the truth and it wasn’t mormonism. I still resent the implication towards myself and others. People who are, in my experience, highly active that leave are the ones who dig deeper into the church and discover the lies that surround mormonism. When I left I was a membership clerk, and literally half of the names on the membership rolls never came to church and a large percentage of them wanted nothing to do with the church. Were they all adulterers? Not hardly, but they all realized one way or another that they had been deceived.
Sorry DJ,
But I have to agree with the others. The blanket statement you made about those who leave the church is mostly due to sexual sin is incorrect. As Arthur, I was ward clerk for a few years and I saw numerous people come and go from the church records.
Now this brings in Arthur’s comment ”…literally half of the names on the membership rolls never came to church and a large percentage of them wanted nothing to do with the church. Were they all adulterers? Not hardly, but they all realized one way or another that they had been deceived.”
Sorry Arthur but this is also an incorrect generalisation. Not all realised/decided that they were ‘deceived’. Some were incensed by various things from what a leader said on a topic, to an argument they had with another member and even to how helpful or unhelpful other members were towards them. Some left just because they were lazy and didn’t want to come to church each week and wanted nothing to do with the church because of the ‘pestering’ to come back. I know of one person who converted from Muslim and a few weeks later he packed up house and moved without telling anyone where he was going – it turned out that some of his friends back in the Middle East found out he had converted to Christianity (yes their words not mine – they class LDS as Christian) and threatened his whole family’s life (who were living over there) because of it.
But really, to me the ‘growth rate’, retention rate, and activity of a church, including the LDS church, does not mean anything about how true it is or not. The parable of the 10 virgins is discussing the true believers in Jesus Christ. Half were prepared and went to the wedding; the other half weren’t prepared and missed out. This means that some of the true believers will not make it to heaven, so from this, I understand that stats about members are irrelevant.
GRCluff said “The fact that many new converts drop out means the church is demanding and many people find it difficult to keep up”
I find it fascinating that the FAIR conference (happening right now) is discussing how Mormons should resolve cognitive dissonance in order to prevent members from leaving the church when they run into information that competes with their current belief system. They are even discussing “inoculation” – how to provide information ahead of time, little-by-little, to new members so that members are not surprised when they encounter information (such as Mormon Coffee) that provides evidence that conflicts with their world view.
From what I gathered from blogs on the FAIR site and Life on Gold Plates, Michael Ash (author of “Shaken Faith Syndrome”) was pointing out that historically many Mormons have rejected any conflicting information either without investigation or by resorting to their spiritual testimony. The author appears to have been encouraging Mormons to try to accommodate and synthesize competing information into their world view in order to create a new paradigm shift that includes the new information rather than rejecting it altogether and leaving the faith.
The emphasis seems to be upon moving toward a “less rigid” belief system and accusing others of fundamentalism. On the FAIR blog, people are commenting about how having “too rigid” of beliefs can create crisis for a person when scientific or historical evidence proves contrary… It’s encouraging to see Mormons really trying to be honest about the heart of the issue. I truly hope members won’t be brainwashed by this attempt to re-frame the whole problem as one of having “too rigid” of beliefs. I’m happy there is satisfying archaeological, historical, scientific, and spiritual evidence to support my faith. Sure, my faith exceeds the evidence, but my faith is not in contradiction with the evidence.
Why does no one address this topic as Christ did in the verses I quoted? He didn’t say it was sexual sin, or say the people found better reasoning or logic.
He just said, they get offended:
Matt 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
Or they are overcome by some worldly element:
Matt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
I think that is quite accurate and covers it all. Once again the Master has spoken.
Well, I kind of feel like that’s a red herring. What about the information I just presented about the FAIR conference? How do you feel about the fact that the author is encouraging “Inoculation” methods to prevent people from leaving Mormonism when they encounter contrary evidence from history and science? This hearkens back to falcon’s comment at the start of the blog – sounds like Cult 101 techniques…
Cluff: with yourself, Ralph, and my pastor spurring me on, I will one day know the Bible as I should: I appreciate the push. I will get something out soon (prob Sat) about ‘angels as different species’. You certainly are persistent about building a biblical foundation for you faith: I just think you are digging in some strange places. Reg. Matt.13:21 Let me get this straight: you are telling me this applies to fo-mo’s??? As in, “they can’t stand the heat, so they leave the mormon faith…when a little persecution comes there way, they show they have no root…??” Are you kidding?? Like they are not walking INTO a massive amount of persecution by becoming a fo-mo?? I am not a f0-mo, but I’m just guessing you are about to catch some heat for that my friend, maybe DJB will share the hiding place under the kitchen table with you (and he should). This adoption theme points out, I think, a weakness in LDS thinking. As christians, we hold that prior to salvation, we are spiritually DEAD “Once you were dead, doomed forever because of your many sins..” Eph2:1 NLT. We weren’t ‘SONS’ prior to being born again, we were hostile to God and His enemies. So much for pre-mortal ‘valiance’ or any such idea. How could someone be ‘valiant’ in a previous existence, and then be born into this world, now they are God’s ENEMIES, and HOSTILE to God ?? Anyway: the ADOPTION theme underscores the BEFORE and AFTER of conversion, just as an adopted person, who had NO rights as family members, NOW (through NO MERIT of their own, but purely because they had parents that wanted to adopt them) enjoy the rights and privileges of family. Romans 8 is FULL of this, but Eph 1:4-6 spells it out:
“Long ago, even before He made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in His eyes (a reference to being born again in the future) His unchanging plan has always been to ADOPT US into His own family by bringing us to Himself thru Jesus Christ. And this gave Him great pleasure
Susan: welcome to Mormon Coffee, we are nice MOST of the time, and I hope you are treated charitably. When not (and I’m not planning a “NOT” experience for you) take hear that you are doing your best to see truth known and the gospel put forward. I grew up with five brothers and three sisters, guess God was getting me ready for Mormon Coffee, even back then. JS was big into ‘restoring’ the OT ways and positions, or at least some of them. Christians view this as odd and a downgrade from what we have been given in Jesus Christ. What use would I have for a “mouthpeice for God” when I have Jesus Christ HIMSELF speaking to ME PERSONALLY thru (Cluff’s going to like this one) the HOLY SPIRIT?? Anything less than that is like shopping at Dollar General. Why bother? Oh yeah, God instituted it thru His servant JS and on and on…. well, I heard a similar story as a catholic growing up, they have their mouthpiece and careful hierarchy as well. This is what I knew until I met Jesus in repentance and faith at 21. Now you are trying to sell me something similar, or so it looks to me. Even without the catholic baggage, can you see why a christian might not be that interested?? Why the middle man and go between?? Why not just step over the veil that has been torn in two, and talk to God directly ?? I’m guessing you’ll say that you do, and that’s fine, but JS special status and role is (to me) a ‘knock-off’ of what Jesus does for believers, and instead of bringing others to Christ, he has created a layer. How long have you been looking in at Mormon Coffee?? Do they still call us ‘knuckleheads’ over at Mormon Ap. Board?? GERmIT
Funny how things work. I was out watering my considerable flower gardens this morning (yes the falcon is a caring sensitive guy) and was reflecting back on my formative years as a Catholic and I tune in here to read germit’s post. The mindset of Cathoics at that time (1950-60s) was to be very deferential to authority. I remember when my mother was told she needed a hesterectomy, she went and asked the priest if it would be OK to have the operation. I’m serious. For a variety of reasons, we Baby Boomers developed a questioning attitude and wouldn’t automatically comply to the old “Sister says” (nun) or “Father says” (priest) mentality.
Mormonism depends on people not questioning authority and buying the fantisized, sanitized church version of reality. Once Mormons start asking the hard questions, it’s Katy bar the door time. Mormon leaders depend on a compliant bunch of followers. With the internet providing information and with newer generations less willing to fall in line with authority just because “the leaders say so”, Mormonism has a hard sell. That’s why the “membership to active member” ratio is so low. It takes a lot of manipulation and pressure to keep people in the fold once they start questioning the history, doctrine and practices as well as the leadership of the Mormon church.
Susan,
In reference to Amos 3:7, the context is that God is scolding the Israelites for not listening to the prophets He has sent them. I can see how you and others might make this passage into something perpetual. Fortunately, we have the NT that helps clarify the OT, and the entire Bible needs to be taken into consideration. Hebrews 1:1 does a wonderful job of clarifying things for us. God used prophets such as Moses, etc. in the past, but now speaks to us through Christ Himself, and today that is accomplished through the Holy Spirit (John 16:5-16). Susan, I often referred to the Amos passage as you do, but one cannot claim authority for himself, as JS did, by using scriptures out of context. Hope this helps.
GRC,
I notice that you are not comfortable when the topic turns to God’s grace and mercy in the lives of sinner. The seed sown is the gospel of Jesus Christ, that He redeems us based solely on His merits, because all we could ever merit for ourselves is death. That seed has been sown in me and, because of God’s grace and my response to His grace, that seed has taken root in good ground. The seed of Mormonism is not the seed of the gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it is not the seed referred to in the passage. Yes, Jesus has spoken, but He wasn’t speaking Mormonism. Mormonism focuses on man’s power to save himself through righteousness; Christianity focuses on Christ’s power to save humanity despite our unrighteousness, and then to be made righteous through Christ’s work of redemption on our behalf. I must reject your notion that Mormonism is the seed that needs to take root. It’s the seed that needs to be rejected.
Hey guys.. Ive been lurking for a week or so, and I came across this reference on wikipedia saying. It seemed relevent to the claim that the majority of fo-mos I believe you call them have commited a serious sexual sin.
“Individuals leave Mormonism for a variety of reasons, although “single reason disaffiliates are rare among former Mormons.” Research shows that 43% of Mormon disaffiliates left due to unmet spiritual needs.”
It is referenced to this..
Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1983). Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts & Former Mormons. Journal of Scientific Study of Religion 22 D. pp. 366-379.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Apostates
Yes, I know that wikipedia is a general reference tool at best, but this seems a legit reference.
Cluff,
I think it is a very large and arrogant assumption that ALL who leave Mormonism are those referred to in Matt 13.
Contrary to popular Mormon belief, when someone leaves the church it is not always because
a) they have been offended by somebody
b) they cannot deal with the pressure / guilt of their sins
c) they never had a real or strong enough testimony
d) unforgivable sexual sin
e) they have been blinded by Satan
and/or f) pick from your standard set of explanations.
In my case, I suppose reason A could apply to me. I really didn’t want to go back to that church after the bishop told me I needed to repent for being raped. On the other hand, I suppose that falls into DJ’s category of having committed a serious sexual sin, so there you go.
And the current active rate of membership has nothing to do with anything. Germit was correct in perceiving that my point is the white guys in SLC are padding the books (aka lying) to boost the public image.
germit-
thanks so much for commenting on my comments with thoughtful consideration. I enjoy discussing religion and appreciate the opportunity.
As far as your first comment, Joseph Smith was not “into” restoring the Old Testament ways. He was once again a “servant” of the Lord in restoring the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ upon the earth. The fulness of the gospel had been lost through apostasy. Among other things which were lost was the priesthood power, or the authority to act in the name of God. We believe our prophet has this authority as head of a church, but also most Mormon men have the priesthood power conferred upon them.
I do not understand why you find the idea of a prophet leading a church inconsistent with personal revelation. A big part of Mormon doctrine is personal revelation, or following the Holy Spirit. In fact we are often ENCOURAGED to pray about personal problems and come to our own solutions rather than going to priesthood leaders. The prophet leads and guides the church as a whole and does establish firm doctrinal bases for the church. Why would this be appealing to a believer in Christ?
Let me put it this way. I have many dear friends who call themselves Christian who attend a variety of churches. Yet say I ask 10 different of these friends such questions as What is salvation? Is baptism necessary? What type of baptism? What happens after we die? Do you think scripture stories such as Adam and Eve are literal or figurative? I GET 10 DIFFERENT ANSWERS. This is not to put my friends down, but something I’ve noticed.As members of the LDS church, we believe the First Presidency has the authority (priesthood power ) to expound doctrine. Perhaps some people would like to know what is true rather than just guessing?
As far as being on mormon coffee, I discovered the site less than 24 hours ago. As far as people from the Mormon AP (I’m not sure what that is) calling you knuckleheads, I could not tell yo
jackg –
Thanks for responding to my comment with more thoughtful discussion.
Point #1 – You state in your comment, “God is scolding the Israelites for not listening to the prophets he has sent them.” So you clearly can see that there is religious precedent for God himself agreeing with the title of this blog, “When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate is Over.”
Point #2 – You state the Joseph Smith claimed authority for himself by using scriptures out of context. Joseph Smith did not claim authority for himself, but did claim that God GAVE him authority.
Point #3 – John 16: 5-16 does not disagree one whit with Mormon doctrine. We have a prophet who leads the church. We obtain personal promptings and revelation through the Holy Spirit. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually beneficial.
Apostles and prophets are the organization of the true Church. As it says in Ephesians 2:19-20 “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (also see 1 Corinthians 12:28)
The prophet is the mouthpiece and servant of the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth. I believe in a living prophet TODAY and I believe that Joseph Smith was called of God to be a prophet of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Susan,
So good to have you with us. Maybe you could answer some questions for me that no Mormon on this site has ever attempted to answer for me when asked about the restoration of first century Christianiy in Mormonism:
1. Please provide a NT reference for the following: that the apostles practiced plural marrage, that the apostles wore sacred underware, that they worshiped in Christian temples, that they practiced temple rituals taken from Free Masonry.
2. Please name the NT prophets and provide a reference for them using scrying (magic rocks) in the practice of revelation.
3. Provide a NT reference for the practice of seeing spirits through a veil.
4. That couples are married for eternity and use secret passwords and handshakes to come through the veil in the next world.
I ask these questions in all seriousness because Mormonism claims to be restored Christianity. I cna’t find these things anywhere in the NT.
I would also like to know if you, like Ralph, would steal or kill if the leader/prophet directly ordered you to do it.
Why is Utah Mormonism, the “real” Mormonism
Now, if you’re going to tell me that none of these things are in the NT because of a vast conspiracy to remove them from scripture, just ignore my questions.
Here’s my e mail if you’d prefer to respond to me directly:
jrkiesow@centurytel.net
Susan, Welcome!
Susan – “Apostles and prophets are the organization of the true Church”
Just because you have people titled “Apostles and Prophets” doesn’t make your church true. Also notice the word it used in the verse you quoted, and that is they are the “Foundation.” – The foundation is only laid once, and the church (body of believers in Christ) has them as the foundation, there is no need to keep laying it over and over again. If you said “Apostles and prophets are the FOUNDATION of the true Church”, then you would be correct, but instead you used organization. The Church is true because Christ and his Word are true, not because and organization created by human mirrors it.
I would like to know what religions your friends who call themselves Christians are apart of? The argument you raise has been brought up a million times before on this blog (and I’m sure you will see it again). Major doctrine among the denominations are majorily the same (how to become Saved, the nature of God, the nature and work of Jesus Christ, etc.). The only “doctrine” that these denominations tend to differ upon have no effect on our salvation (i.e. women pastors).
But I don’t want you to think that differences are exclusive to traditional Christian denominations. Lets take a look at all the offshoots of Mormonism?
To put it this way, they would give that same “testimony” you gave at the end of your post. However doctrinally, they differ quite a bit from you, especially on “how to become a God” (polygamy). So your testimony is nice but your not the only one that can say with 100% confidence that they “know” “their church is the true church.”
Susan,
The gospel of Jesus Christ never did nor will ever stand in need of being restored. Jesus did not leave His followers as orphans, but sent the Holy Spirit to guide them. The priesthood is a priesthood of believers, which includes all believers regardless of sex, station, age, etc. (I’m Wesleyan in my theology
). The premise that the Church Jesus established would dwindle away to nonexistence is not biblical; otherwise, Jesus would be a liar for stating that the gates of Hades would not overcome the Church He built (Matthew 16:13-18). And, by the way, the rock is not the rock of revelation (which is what I was taught as a Mormon), but Jesus Christ Himself. The foundation of apostles and prophets is the Bible itself, which is God’s word. The problem with men that the Mormon Church reveres as prophets and apostles is that their teachings contradict the established word of God. Mormon leaders are not prophets, but false prophets who teach false doctrines. BY once taught that Adam was the only god with which we have anything to do. So, when the prophet speaks, the debate is over; therefore, Adam is the god of the Mormons. Well, until another esteemed leader changed that. When the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Actually, when Mormon leaders speak, the debate is wide open because they contradict and cancel out each other. Amos 3:7 is not perpetual in its scope. Hebrews 11:1 (which you failed to comment on) makes that clear.
You have asked to be treated gently, and I hope I have done that. Thank you for your response, as well. Have a blessed weekend (my third post for the day).
Susan,
” I have many dear friends who call themselves Christian who attend a variety of churches. Yet say I ask 10 different of these friends such questions as What is salvation? Is baptism necessary? What type of baptism? What happens after we die? Do you think scripture stories such as Adam and Eve are literal or figurative? I GET 10 DIFFERENT ANSWERS.” If you don’t understand how one is saved, you really aren’t a Christian whether or not you go to church or not. Every Christian is aware of their own sin and need of Christ for their salvation. There are lots of people who go to church now and again who would probably say they are Christians that have no idea who Christ is. Christians have always been in agreement on how one is saved, and to go further that we are to baptized. We may disagree on when and how to baptize, but that is not salvific in nature. That whole argument that uniformity of belief is inndicative of truth is a false paradigm. If a people agree 100% on a false teaching, it doesn’t make it less false.
jackg:
I have no problem with the concept of grace. I am just as fallible and weak as the next Christian, and in need of Gods grace and the atonement of Christ. I just reject the one sided perspective that some Christians have embraced. You must balance Pauls teachings with the 2nd chapter of James to get it right.
The balanced approach will ask the question, what is required of me to be saved? (or reach the Celestial Kingdom if you are Mormon) Them we have people who range from “nothing at all” to “no matter what I do it will not be enough” It goes like this:
1. Nothing is required of me, Christ has done it all, so I can sin all I want.
2. I must accept Christ to be saved. If I give Him lip service, then I can sin all I want.
3. I must demonstrate my commitment to God by getting baptised. Then I can sin all I want.
4. If I manage to confess all my sins, I can sin all I want.
5. I must forsake my sin occasionally, but I am still human so God will forgive me.
6. I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace.
7. Abandoning my sin is not enough, I am now unworthy and cannot qualify for the grace of God.
8. Only a limited number of people will make it to heaven. I have to be better than 144,000 of them to make it.
9. I am a failed human being. No matter what I do it will not be enough.
10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven. I should just end my misery now.
We should be pushing towards the middle of the spectrum, and avoid the extremes on either side.
Mainstream Christians are just as guilty at 2 and 3 as JW are at 8 or 9. We need a religion that can deliver at 5 or 6. Mormons stay at 6, as well they should, since that is the true gospel.
susan,
Hi, I’m a newbie too so welcome! “As members of the LDS church, we believe the First Presidency has the authority (priesthood power) to expound doctrine. Perhaps some people would like to know what is true rather than just guessing?” In an issue of the Ensign in 2004 (will have to research exactly which one, forgive me) Hinckley put out an announcement asking members to stop writing in to the first presidency, apostles, et al asking for clarification on doctrine. Hinckley himself previously stated on a Larry King Live show that his role was to “declare doctrine”.
Cluff,
Anyone who believes 1-4 does not have a true, personal relationship with Christ and is therefore NOT a true Christian -and regardless of what Mormons are taught to believe, evangelical Christians DO NOT subscribe to 1-4.
But anyway, I believe that the true gospel is a mixture of 5 & 6: I must forsake sin as much as possible, but I am human and will sin and God does forgive me as long as I confess and believe in Christ’s atonement.
Have a good weekend all!
falcon -
Thanks so much for commenting on my post.
1a I find no reference that the apostles practiced ANY marriage, so does that mean the Catholic priests are right and to be really righteous we shouldn’t marry at all? Do you find any reference to the apostles being married?
1b read Rev. 3:5
1c read Matt 21:12-13 – notice who calls the temple “my house”
1d the masons historically built the temples – sorry I don’t have time to research it beyond that
2. John read Revelations 2:17
3. Sorry, but I’m not sure which aspect of Mormon Doctrine you’re referring to. Seeing spirits through a veil? Hmmm you’ve lost me there.
4. You’re right that we have no record of Christ specifically talking about eternal marriage in his mortal ministry. Maybe he didn’t. Even when he visited the Nephites in the B of M, there’s no mention of eternal marriage.
During his mortal ministry he also did not talk about the need to take His gospel to the gentiles. Yet in Acts 10, that is a vision which Peter received. (“Peter kill and eat”) AFTER Christ’s resurrection and ascension additional and different doctrine was added through the spirit of prophecy.
Certainly Christ did not specifically comment on many issues of our day including abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. Does that mean he doesn’t care? No, he gave us a prophet for our day to speak to things regarding OUR time.
The 5th question you ask in terms of the extent I would go to follow a prophet appears to me to be a snare and a trap by which you will accuse me no matter how I answer.
6 I wasn’t born in Utah and I don’t live in Utah. You don’t have to live in Utah to be a “real” Mormon. I’m not sure I understand the question.
I’m going to go finish watching the Olympic opening ceremony. this is my third post for the day. I hope you have a wonderful evening!!
Susan
Susan,
“During his mortal ministry he also did not talk about the need to take His gospel to the gentiles. Yet in Acts 10, that is a vision which Peter received. (”Peter kill and eat”) AFTER Christ’s resurrection and ascension additional and different doctrine was added through the spirit of prophecy.”
The difference is that the Gospel did not change. It went out to all people in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham contained in the Bible. What mormonism does is change the gospel that is being preached, it is a different Gospel. Paul preached Christ and Him crucified. Smith preached a new message that was different from what Paul preached and what Jesus preached.
“Certainly Christ did not specifically comment on many issues of our day including abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. Does that mean he doesn’t care? No, he gave us a prophet for our day to speak to things regarding OUR time.”
And yet as a Christian and a fo-mo, I don’t need a “prophet” to instruct me on those things, I can read God’s Word and see what it says. What mormon prophets do today is social commentary, not Gospel preaching.
Cluff, I like the scale you showed. You do make the statement that “some” Christians ascribe to the one sided perspective of the 2’s and 3’s. I would say something with that mindset isn’t all that Christian and they have some scripture study to do.
I do wish to point out that number 6 is impossible for us (sounds like a statement taken out of Mr. Kimballs Miracle of Forgiveness).. To gain forgiveness and grace one must abandon sin? Tell me Cluff, have you abandoned all your sin? The Bible is quite clear, especially in Romans that if you have committed one sin, your guilty of all. So just because you don’t steal anymore, the mental lusting over a women brings you right back to sinner status, and you’re just as guilty as someone who steals, or even steals and lusts.
Sin is something you will never be able to run away from completely.
So in all truth, you’re statement should be “I must have faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross to gain forgiveness and grace. And with James 1:5, it’s obvious who has faith and who doesn’t, even more so to God, because he knows our hearts.
Susan: well, by now you’ve figured out that mormon Coffee does not have a baby pool!! I think you’re doing very well, really. Now if you could find DJB and tell him we won’t make him wear a funny hat for one ill advised comment.. Let me assure you I believe in BOTH the continued use of prophecy in the church, and personal revelation. I don’t know of any christians who don’t, although there is disagreement on how the prophecy thing works, exactly. While I’m on that theme: you seem to want a certain amount of uniformity and specificity in your understanding of doctine CHURCH WIDE, before you will accept that church as being the ‘true one’. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of church unity: the christian view is more organic, and reflects DOF use of the phrase ‘intention, desire, and purpose’. As christians, I agree on the ’savific basics’ with all my christian brothers and sisters, across MANY groups, while we disagree about many non-essentials, not essential for salvation. The catholic church, by the way, has TRIED to get the kind of unity you are talking about for many years, without much success, we can argue why that is, but my point is just that this kind of unity is not that attractive to me: I do NOT think it reflects what God is all about. Even within the NT, some christians wanted to make a big deal about small things (meat sacrificed to idols, per example) and Paul reminds us that a MATURE attitude leaves a LOT of room for others in the non-essentials. I don’t find that flexibility in the non-essentials within the LDS faith, and that to me is an apologetic against it. Even ev. christians who pitch a fit unless others share their (always BIBLICAL, USUALLY KJV BIBLICAL) views on last days, or politics, drives me nuts. Having a strong conviction on this is one thing: making it a benchmark for orthodox belief is something else. Back to prophets and personal rev. What I don’t see in the NT is the TYPE of prophecy that JS wanted to ‘restore’. In fact as
Jack noted: the gospel never went anywhere, hence it does not, and will never, need to be restored. Your view on this is kind of similar to the catholics, seems like I’m typing that a lot these days, only they would say, “we’ve (the catholic church) never lost the priesthood authority, it is an unbroken chain, so your (protestant) authority is faulty.” I don’t care for EITHER your position or theirs,and don’t recognize THAT KIND, OR USE, OF PROPHECY AS BIBLICAL. If you want to convince me, go to the NT and build a case for it. You’ve mentioned Eph 2, but these are prophets who helped lay (past tense) the foundation of JEsus: they pointed FORWARD to the day when the messiah would institute , HIMSELF, the kingdom of God. And so HE did, praise HIS name. Now I have the prophet,priest, and king that these prophets have foretold: JESUS. What use do I have of some lesser form of that?? The ongoing use of ‘prophecy’ in the NT is the use of a SPIRITUAL GIFT, not an office or position. And that gift, when used right, is needed and builds up the body of christ, but it’s still the person and work and PRESENT REALITY of JESUS that is the big deal. We no longer need, or even want, a ‘middle man’ of any kind, and even the ordinances, or sacraments as catholics say, can get in the way of Jesus being suficient as my PRESENT means of grace. I said CAN get in the way, because as I’ve posted before with DOF: baptism, anointing with oil, marriage, all have their place (the marriage thing would take some explaining) but it’s JESUS who saves, not the ordinances, “that none should boast…”. I believe in personal revelation, but it is checked by, moderated by, directed by, the use of the Word of God: as everything else is. Anything NOT under the care, the supervision of the HS thru His Word, will go amiss, so I place myself under the authority of His Lordship through obedience to His word, THEN I am in a safe place to get personal revelation. Otherwise, my ‘revelation’ might be way off.
Well it’s very early on Saturday morning Here in the Dairy State I’m still getting over Brett Farve being traded to the Jets and I need to be out pounding the pavement with my bike-compulsive work-out freak that I am. But I’ll post now and ruminate as I ride.
Susan,
I like you. I see others do to given the volume of mail you are receiving so I appreciate your attempts to answer my questions. I’ll hit on a couple of your responses.
1. Reference for apostles getting married. I’ll look the ref. up but Paul talks about…doesn’t he have the right to take along a believing wife like Peter and the other guys. I’ll find it.
2. Rev. 3:5 as a “sacred underwear” verse. Susan we’re going to have to do some lessons on Biblical interpretation. There’s a metaphor going on there.
3. Matt. 21:12-13 I can’t connect with what you’re getting at there. In the OT the temple was a place of prayer, but Jesus fullfilled the law. Believers are now the temple of the Holy Spirit.
4. Rev. 2:17 I LOL at your use of that one. I’m guessing that is a justification of JS magic rock. That is really creative of you I must admit. Again we’re dealing with a metaphor. The meaning of the white stone with the new name written is derived from a custom of that time. Judges would determined a verdict by placing in an urn a white and black pebble. If the white one came out it meant acquittal; thus the white stone metaphor would mean the assurance that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
Jesus and the Gospel to the gentiles, Acts:1:8″…..you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Smaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
germit,
I hate a family fight but look at Eph.4:11,12; “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of service to the building up of the body of Christ.”
Susan,
The question I posed to you regarding what you would do for the propher wasn’t meant to be a snare. It was a serious question and one I’d ask anyone who pleged alligence to a prophet. You see, within Mormonism is an authoratarian hierarchy that demands loyalty. Not just a little loyalty, but die for the corps loyalty.
Joseph Smith asked one of his leaders to give him his wife. The man countered and asked if he could substitute his 14 year old daughter. So if the prophet comes to Susan and says, “The Lord has appeared to me in a vision and has commanded that I begat a son with you and this son will be filled with wisdonm and knowledge and will be the greatest prophet since the days of Joseph Smith. He will lead our people and all nations will call him blessed. And you Susan will be my first wife in the Celestial kingdom and you will rule with me over a vast domain.” What do you do Susan.
Joseph Smith told the women that an angel with a sword had appeared to him and said he would kill the prophet if he didn’t take more wives. So he did, including women who were already married and adolecent girls. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. The porphet hears directly from God.
Now as to my question as to what brand of Mormonism is correct and true, I call the LDS denomination out of Salt Lake City, Utah Mormonism. There’s lots of other branches of Mormons with prophets and bosom burnings and such. So what makes your leadership i.e. prophets and apostles the real deal? The FLDS and the other branches of Mormonism think the Utahians are apostates. Would you heed the words of the prophets from the other denominations of Mormmism?
Cluff said: “6. I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace…Mormons stay at 6, as well they should, since that is the true gospel.”
D&C 58:42 “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins – behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”
To our LDS readers I ask: How many sins must you forsake? How often must you forsake those sins? Are you doing this right now? Have you forsaken and abandoned all of your sins? What about those sins you have not yet abandoned?
If you still have not abandoned your sins entirely, then you are not perfected in Christ and haven’t denied yourself of all ungodliness therefore Christ’s grace isn’t sufficient for you (Moroni 10:32). You haven’t done all that you can do (2 Nephi 25:23). You aren’t obeying the commandment to be perfect (3 Nephi 12:48). You aren’t meeting Heavenly Father’s expectation to obey those commandments (1 Nephi 3:7) and therefore, you can’t go where Heavenly Father is (D&C 25:15). Jesus Christ can’t save you in your sins (Alma 11:37). Heavenly Father can’t look upon any sin; you haven’t obeyed the commandments so you now won’t be forgiven (D&C 1:31-33). If you repeated the same sin again, then the former sin returns (D&C 82:7). You are headed to outer darkness (Alma 34:30-35).
“Abandonment of Sin: The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again.” (LDS pamphlet “Repentance Brings Forgiveness”, 1984)
“There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin. Desire is not sufficient. To try is weak.” (Spencer Kimball, “Sharing the Gospel Manual”, p.94)
The prophet [Spencer Kimball] has spoken. The debate is over, correct? The Mormon gospel is not good news and is impossible for Mormons to keep. It only leads to outer darkness (Matt 7:13-14). The gospel of Christ in the Bible is good news. Jesus Christ of the Bible offers complete forgiveness and eternal life today. Come to Him!
GRCluff,
As a Christian, I think your number 10 hits closest to the mark with modifications:
10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven. I should just end my misery now.
Revised to:
10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven through my own righteous works. I should just end my misery now and trust in the completed work of Christ on the cross for my sin.
Everyone is dead in their sin until they trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness. There is NOTHING I or anyone else can do to merit the favor of a righteous and holy God. Jesus is the only way to salvation. Our righteousness is as filthy rags.
#6 is an impossibility. I have not met a sinless person yet. Anyone who says they are sinless is committing a sin when they say that. If forgiveness and grace were dependent upon my ability to completely abandon sin, I would be joining you and everyone else in hell.
Miss a couple of days and it’s very difficult to catch up on the discussion.
It was previously discussed how one knows the truth besides relying on a “testimony”. In particular, as it relates to the temple. This group loves to nit pick at different so-called “prophecies” and conclude that obviously the prophet was not a true prophet.
One of my testimonies of the validity of the temple has been to watch the fullfillment of both promises and warnings come to fruition in the lives of those who enter into covenants with the Lord.
I have just reviewed all of the posts on this topic. It is evident to me that those who violate covenants made in the temple, regardless of what it is, play out the drama exactly as described. Why don’t people believe the Lord when he speaks? Why would you entering into a covenant to “not speak evil of the Lord’s anointed”, then do exactly that, and wonder why you all of a sudden “come to the light” that they are false prophets? I’m sure you “fo-mos” remember those covenants well or at least had a refresher with the recent video posting. The Lord gave you ample warning and a choice to refuse. Nevertheless, the fruits evident in a lot of these posts, are simply another chink in the amour the Restoration is a reality, including the temple.
Find me a member who is living all of his covenants made in the temple yet doesn’t believe the Prophets is true. Not there is a huge difference between questioning the prophets and speaking evil of them. Questioning occurs often, yet the testimony remains.
Jeffrey –
I agree that just because a church has apostles and prophets, it doesn’t make it the true church, however, if they are TRUE apostles and prophets, they it is the true church.
My friends have been Luthern, Baptist (one a minister), and the good ol’ non-denominational. I totally disagree that churches only disagree on issues unimportant to salvation.
As far as people, even apostate Mormons, having a testimony of their religion I quote the 11th article of faith of the LDS church.
“We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Arthur –
I totally disagree the the doctrine of how and with what authority one should be baptized is unessential.
You state “There are lots of people who go to church now and again who probably say they are Christians who have no idea who Christ is.” Amen, brother!! But what if they’ve already accepted him as their Savior? Aren’t they technically “done” according you?
You may not feel the need for a prophet and be satisfied with what’s out there, but as for me, I will stick with the prophet.
Also, in terms of sin, I would like to say that I have felt the salvation and peace of Jesus Christ in my own life when I have sinned and repented. I know that He is real. There is absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER in my mind. He has also blessed me to be able to forgive others who have hurt me, who I know I would never be able to forgive without his grace. Latter day saints believe in grace. In the October 2007 general conference, Elder Bednar, an apostle said, “All of our worthy desires and good works, as necessary as they are, can never produce clean hands and a pure heart. It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that provides both a cleansing and redeeming power that helps us to overcome sin and a sanctifying and strengthening power that helps us to become better than we ev
Ooops
er could by relying on our own strength.”
I enjoy reading C.S. Lewis, Max Lucado, and numerous other Christian authors. I think they are awesome! But when it comes to the final word, I choose to stay on the side of the Christian prophet and apostles of the LDS church.
germit –
So many churches just disagree on things that are small and insignificant, huh? So who decides what is small and what is big? Doesn’t that really lend itself to personal oppinion?
If the gospel never went anywhere as you and jackg point out, then why the need for a protestant reformation? Do you have any idea how bad and oppressive the Catholic church was in the middle ages? Have you heard of the Inquisition? Do you know what “indulgences” were? the opportunity for wealthy people to buy forgiveness of their sins. Where was the so called “gospel” during those times? Do you have any idea what people like Martin Luther, Wycliffe, and William Tyndale (all heroes of mine, bytheway) were fighting against after CENTURIES of problems? I’m shocked that you think the gospel was still around. Wow!
falcon –
Sorry you weren’t pleased with my answers to your previous inquiries.
I notice you fell back on the ol’ “that’s just figurative” ploy for some of them. Hmmm. How do you know? Is truth just whatever’s most convenient for you in a given discussion?
I agree that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Good point. When Christ came he brought the new covenant and completely fulfilled the law of Moses. In the LDS church, we don’t believe in obeying the Law of Moses, but the higher law of Christ. That is EXACTLY what the temple is all about.
As far as your question that I labelled as a snare, which you changed after it was thus labelled, I can only again state my testimony of living prophets. I think the situation which you premise is pretty absurd in our modern day. The early saints did practice polygamy. So what? The church would prob
Get over it already. We live almost 200 years later. A lot of things are different. Don’t put 200 year old circumstances on me now in an effort to make the church look ridiculous or I’ll be asking you why you’re not out building an ark.
I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I believe the Book of Mormon is a true record of an ancient civilization translated by the power of God.
As far as the Utah church being the apostate one I’m stil not sure what you’re getting at. According to you we’re all apostate, right?. The FLDS do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet as well as we do. They did not follow the person who was next in line for being prophet (Brigham Young) but decided that it should be based on blood lineage. They had numerous split offs from their church when they gave women the priesthood.
Really, it comes down to personal belief. I believe down to my very core that Jesus is the divine son of God. I believe to my very core that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (Utah version) contains the fullness of the gospel. Does that mean no one else has ANY truth? OF COURSE NOT!! There are many awesome people in the world and people who are very very good and righteous. Many who are a great deal better than me. But I’m really not trying to be better than other people or arrogant by giving my testimony. I’m just stating what I believe.
I love all you guys, man.
OK Susan,
It’s called a “metaphor”. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” He was not literally bread. Jesus said, “I am living water.” He is not literally water. The examples you used were metaphors not to be taken literally.
I changed the example because you didn’t get my other one, so I did a reload in the hope you would get the point regarding how far do you go to follow the prophet. Ask the people who followed David Koresh and Jim Jones how far they’d go…oops their dead!
Please define for me who Jesus is. It’s important regarding who you are trusting for eternal life. The Savior has to be qualified, so is the Jesus you are speaking of the qualified Savior? Is He the offspring of a mother/father god union out there in the Celestial Kingdom? If so, that Jesus can’t save you. We’re not splitting hairs here. If you don’t get the nature of God right, nothing that follows no matter how Christianized the language and vocabulary sounds is going to get it done.
Nice try with trying to brush aside Mormnon history in regards to Joseph Smith’s behavior. He’s your main dude. The prophet who spoke and the faithful responded. He made entrance into the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom incumbent on plural marrage. He took married women and kids as his wives to fullfill this requirement. To come up with the “it happened a long time ago blah, blah, blah and who builds arks today” is way too Mormon in rationale. I expect more from you.
In typical Mormon fashion, you jumped right into your testimony regarding the BoM being a historical record. Beyond your testimony, do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
You got your Mormon sects confused. The Community of Christ (RLDS) was based on lineage having had JS’s son as it’s head. JS’s wife Emma was also a member. Somebody within the various Mormon sects doesn’t have it right.
First Cor. 9:5, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest…”
Susan: Happy Sat.one and all. I was raised catholic, so none of your history surprises me. Why should I believe that the gospel had disappeared because lots of bad, religious people did bad things?? You can’t possibly know that no one was following Jesus Christ during those years, and name me ONE reformer who believed that the gospel had died out (note to readers: sometimes the word APOSTASY was used by some of these guys to describe a TERRIBLE DECLINE in the level of belief. Show me where one of them used the word to mean the gospel had TOTALLY DIED OUT. That is not the way the reformers thought and believed, as far as I know. As for differences among christians, I’m not feeling a need, logically, to change my stance. I’d say the quick answer to your question of what is ‘big’ and what is ’small’ is the Bible itself: but I readily admit that individuals will be reading, interpreting, and (wild guess) probably disagreeing about said interpretation. That has been going on since the earliest days, and I see no LEGITIMATE way around that until Jesus returns, and all of us get to find out how right or wrong we were. I rejoice that I can celebrate the essentials of salvation, faith in Christ for salvation apart from good works, with a WIDE variety of people. I see that as huge plus, not something to hide. As for the “200 yr old circumstances”, I’m not sure what you mean with that, but since YOU are making the big truth claim about God giving JS the keys, etc, you will ALWAYS be defending 200 yr old this and that. Or else curling up into some kind of testimony ball, or HS crouch, or something. I don’t see any way out of it: JS is your guy, and your claims for him are strong, can he take the heat or not?? Parting word about the reformers: they preached a RADICALLY different message than what you have, and they are your ‘heroes’?? I think you have a very good imagination. GERMIT
Susan,
* totally disagree the the doctrine of how and with what authority one should be baptized is unessential. *
It is unessential for salvation. Point in case, the thief on the cross. He was saved by His faith in Christ and was with Christ THAT DAY in paradise. Not if he could get himself down and get baptized, certainly not if some nice mormon was baptized on his behalf 18 centuries later. Baptism is a vital and precious doctrine, but it doesn’t save us and we can disagree on the finer points and still be saved. My Presbyterian brothers are still brothers even if we disagree on baptism because we agree on the key doctrines of the faith.
* You state “There are lots of people who go to church now and again who probably say they are Christians who have no idea who Christ is.” Amen, brother!! But what if they’ve already accepted him as their Savior? Aren’t they technically “done” according you? *
Not at all. Lots of people talk about Christ. But unless you know how He is and how deep your sin is, just saying “Lord, Lord” is inadequate. Mormons put their faith in a false Jesus. Many in Christian churches have a false faith because they worship an idol of their own making. Just invoking a name, having it in the name of your church, doesn’t make you a Christian.
*You may not feel the need for a prophet and be satisfied with what’s out there, but as for me, I will stick with the prophet.*
I will stick with the Word of God as my authority. That is where the rubber hits the road. I depend on Christ through His revealed Word. Mormons depend on fallible men who have repeatedly been shown to be false prophets and who teach doctrines that oppose the Bible. My satisfaction is in Christ, not in a manmade institution.
Jeffery said:
“I do wish to point out that number 6 is impossible for us (sounds like a statement taken out of Mr. Kimballs Miracle of Forgiveness).. To gain forgiveness and grace one must abandon sin? ”
Maybe a point of clarification. No. 6 was: “I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace.” You seem to have modified my singular “sin” to the plural “sins”. I think it is quite possible to abandon a single sin, or a specific type of sin. We don’t need to be perfect to learn from our mistakes.
This is what Mormons believe on the subject:
D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.
When does the grace of God begin? When repentance is complete. When is repentance complete? When sins are forsaken.
germit said:
“Jack noted: the gospel never went anywhere, hence it does not, and will never, need to be restored. Your view on this is kind of similar to the catholics…”
As a missionary I used to teach an object lesson by putting my watch on the floor and asking a small child to stomp on it. It often took some coaching, but eventually someone would attempt to smash my watch. I was able to rescue my watch at the last moment, then teach my lesson.
Do you think God values his priesthood power more than I value my watch?
They why would he leave it on the earth when it was being smashed and battered by all the kingdoms of the earth? I’m sure that perspective is quite different than the Catholic one, because the next topic of conversation was the female Pope or any number of the doctrinal changes that Protestant continue to protest about.
The restoration of priesthood authority was necessary, and IS the key to ongoing revelation and prophecy. Without it we would still be in the dark ages.
GRCluff,
“When does the grace of God begin? When repentance is complete. When is repentance complete? When sins are forsaken.”
I was saving my third post for later tonight but then I read that and had to use it. Wow, that is so wrong I am not sure where to begin. We cannot truly repent of our sins without the grace of God. Ephesians 2:1 tells us that we are dead in our sins. Dead men don’t repent. Faith itself is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). You don’t have faith unless you are born again. You don’t cause yourself to be born again by your own effort, anymore than you caused yourself to be born physically. Salvation is all about God, it is not about you.
You have perfectly captured the man centered theology of mormonism. You think that God’s grace is worthless until YOU repent, but you can never repent without the intervention of God first. You have everything backwards because thanks to mormonism you have an incorrect view of who you are and who God is. I pray that by His grace He will intervene in your heart, breaking your stony heart that is unreceptive to Him and replacing with a heart of flesh (Eze 36:26). If He hadn’t changed my heart, I would still be a mormon and still be lost. I wasn’t seeking Him, but praise God He was seeking me!
Arthur said:
“but you can never repent without the intervention of God first. You have everything backwards…”
OK, sure I can buy that. The grace of God is strong enough to begin even before repentance is complete.
It is when Christians begin to teach that repentance is not even necessary that I start to question them.
You also said:
“If He hadn’t changed my heart, I would still be a mormon and still be lost”
So, I have to leave the Mormon church to find a change in heart? Isn’t that placing more limitations on the grace of God?
It is when you are able to find the change of heart WITHIN Mormonism that all the bells and whistles begin to work.
It is like the alien ship in the Will Smith’s film “Independance Day”. When the aliens begin to show up, all the ships controls are powered up and the ship begins to fly.
That is what Mormons do to the Bible. When we engage the Gift of the HG, the Bible begins to light up and all the pages have the power they were designed for.
Its just too bad you couldn’t find a change of heart when still inside.
Falcon,
You have either misunderstood what I have written, or you are lying/misrepresenting the truth to push your agendum. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the former.
No where did I, nor other LDS say that we ‘strive’ (your word) to see spirits through a veil. I said that we refer to what stops us from seeing into the spirit world as a veil, which is different to the veil in the temple. In other scriptures it has been called scales of the eyes and even shackles. It is all just a reference/metaphor to what is stopping us from seeing the spirits in the spirit world with out natural eyes – it is not an actual veil.
I gave you 2 scriptures where people have seen spiritual things from the Bible. The first was the mount of Transfiguration with Jesus and Peter, James and John. They saw the OT prophets – we know of Moses and Elijah being there. Then in a better reference we have Elisha in the OT. He was in a city surrounded by the enemy and his young assistant was scared. When he mentioned this to Elisha, Elisha prayed and asked that the young man’s eyes would be opened so he can see the armies of God assisting them in the fight against the enemy. This directly indicates that there is something that stops us from seeing the spiritual world with our natural eyes.
When we teach that this veil is thin, it means that there are times where God allows us to see certain things for our edification/progression, this includes angels/heavenly messengers and visions.
I hope this has made it easier for you to understand, if not can you please let me know what your difficulty is.
GRCluff,
maybe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My point is this: It’s fine if you are able to forsake (NEVER EVER commit) a specific single sin again, but you will commit another sin. You will never be able to escape sin in this life. It is our nature, you know it and God definitely knows it (entire books of the Bible focus specifically on it, i.e. Romans). Committing another sin makes you guilty of all sin once again, so it really doesn’t matter that you don’t steal anymore, because you just lusted after that women that walked by..
Brigham Young’s blood atonement does a pretty good job showing that Mormons think there are differences from sin to sin.
I don’t know of any Christians that don’t believe repentance is necessary. God asks us to repent. Not only that, our souls desire to repent like a child unto his parents when he did something wrong.. I find that the more I am in communication with God through prayer, the more I feel responsible, and that responsibility to God to be a good Christian creates a desire within me to confess my sins. I believe the Holy Spirit prompts me on this. Which is kind of funny because my LDS boss the other day talked about a Bishop needing to call someone into repentance… That sounded ridiculous to me.. Just another middleman to Jesus that LDS think they need. It’s sad.
Joseph Smith didn’t think too highly of daily repentance unlike non-Mormons who believe in the correct Jesus of the Bible who realize that we sin daily and need to repent daily.
“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 148). THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN. THE DEBATE IS OVER.
DOF/Footdoc/Footdoc1 or whatever your name is now or going to be: Can’t make up your mind which screen name you are going to use and it confused you the other day, huh? I guess you can be grateful that our blog moderators let you stick around since you didn’t obey the rules. Just a friendly reminder that you were in violation of #13 of the Articles of Faith for not being “honest and true”.
Susan, I see you share the same feelins as other Mormons when it comes to the Catholics. You made mention of indulgences and how corrupt they are (which I agree as well). However, I find one particular LDS teaching that has a very similar ring tone to Catholicism: confessing sins to a church leader and that leader determines forgiveness or not. True Christians don’t need this (1 Tim 2:5). Reference:
“The bishop is our best earthly friend. He will hear the problems, judge the seriousness, then determine the degree of repentance and decide if it warrants an eventual forgiveness.” (Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual, page 334)
I see that none of our Mormon friends like the questions that I asked in my earlier posts regarding the issue of sin in their lives and the impossibility of resolving that in the Mormon gospel/law. There will come a time when you are going to have to deal with that discomfort and realize that you are up against the wall and in a vicious circle in the Mormon plan. Examine a sin in your life and follow the LDS scripture references and see where you end up. We don’t want that to happen. I say this in love.
Susan said: “Get over it”. I can’t do that. There is too much at stake here namely outer darkness for our LDS friends on this blog who continue to follow a different Jesus, gospel and Spirit (2 Cor 11:4). Yes, Joseph Smith hasn’t been around for a very long time. Unfortunately, his teachings are and millions of Mormons who have died are facing eternal judgement for following those teachings. Mormons today are still following those teachings and I just can’t ignore the problem.
Joseph Smith radically redefined the nature of God from how He is portrayed in the Bible. Get this wrong and one is lost. Joseph said that God was not always God, he progressed, he was an exalted man, he had sexual relations with Mary, one of his spirit children (making him guilty of incest) and procreated Jesus again. Joseph taught the plurality of gods and that the godhead is three gods. He also taught that man can become a god. For these reasons and many, many more Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
“CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH: Mormonsim, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who wilfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.” (Joseph F. Smith, 10th President/Prophet of the LDS Church, “Doctrines of Salvation”, Vol.1, p.188).
The prophet has spoken. The debate is over.
Ralph,
I’m not going to dig through all of the former threads and posts, but one of our dear departed Mormon friends made a reference that led me to believe that Mormons have reported seeing and seek to see dead people through the veil during temple ceremonies. Now given the fact that Mormons can’t seem to get on the same page about most of their doctrine, that poster may very well be into that scene. We could get into a long discussion here regarding the spirit world, what’s going on in it and what separates us from it, but that’s not the subject of this thread. This I do know however, your founder Joseph Smith was into using a medium (a seer stone) to have second sight. It’s called scrying (as we have discussed), it’s forbidden by God as recorded in Deut. Joseph Smith, the nacromancer, claimed to see all kinds of spirits. He proclaimed a god and a process of becoming a god that is not and has never been apart of Hebrew/Christian theology. So what was the guy tapping into in the spirit world. Mormon doctrine and practice was never apart of the Christian faith. It is another gospel with a false god and a seducing spirit that leads people to think they can become god. The choice here is very clear. The deceptive nature of Mormonism is such that followers of Joseph Smith get trapped in a spiritual maze and a mindset that is very difficult to escape from.
Ralph,
Thanks to the crack crew of researchers I employ, the quote from the Mormon contributor regarding seeing through the veil was located. On July 9th Apollo wrote:
“We believe in the ‘veil’ between this life and the afterlife. The veil is thin. I have heard stories from my Grandmother about the thinness of the veil and those who she has seen. I too have had similar experiences. I know that there are those on the other side who appreciate the work being performed in the temples.”
OK Ralph get the Mormon spin machine going. This my friend is nacromancy, exactly what the Bible forbids. Joseph Smith claimed to be seeing spirits. He was a known practioner of scrying with a medium of a seer stone. He and his crew claimed second sight experiences when hunting for buried treasure. He used the magic rock to “translate” the BoM. Mormonism has an occult foundation. Joseph Smith saw a “spirit”/angel that told him to, in effect, committ adultery. From his leadership position, he seduced women into having sex with him. When exposed, he ordered some of his followers to destroy the printing press of the man who brought his conduct to light.
When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. All that you have to do is follow the directives of the prophet. He’ll never lead you astray.
Jeffery:
I guess I will have to admit ignorance on the blood atonement concept. I can’t find that in any current teachings from the church.
The power of any church is it’s ability to help its members overcome sin. I will admit that the gift of the HG, and its abundant presence in LDS church worship gives us an advantage– a reason to repent and embrace higher standards, etc.
If you begin by avoiding the lesser sins, some people are able to avoid the more serious sins entirely.
Your idea that one sin = all sins is a flawed concept.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Our ability to serve God is directly related to our power to overcome sin. Those who overcome sin have more power to do righteous works, and only those sins that are abandoned are removed from the book of life.
The risk you embrace by your point of view is this:
If one sin = all sins and all sins are impossible to overcome then why try? Accept Christ (give him lip service) then sin all you want.
How many Christians fall into that trap?
One sin does equal all sins in the regard that all sins turn you away from god. All sins have been redeemed by the sacrifice that Christ made.
I agree that there are varying degrees of sin. Common sense dictates that stealing a candy bar is alot less serious then murder. Still a sin is a sin, and we are all sinners.
Cluff “Your idea that one sin = all sins is a flawed concept.”
Well then I guess you disagree with what the Bible explicitly states.. Go figure..
James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
In God’s eyes, it doesn’t matter if you’re a thief, a murderer, or someone who slanders their own spouse. All of that or just one of those things makes you a sinner and separates you from God.
Specific sins are possible to overcome Cluff. It seems like you assume a different point than what I’m trying to make. But you cannot escape all sin, and by committing just one sin, as James 2:10 states, it makes you guilty.
So everyone is a sinner equally. And no matter how hard you “work”, you cannot “work” your way out of sin. For you are saved by grace through faith, not by our filthy rags of righteous work, so that no one may boast.
So you ask, why try if we can’t overcome? How about for the reason that Jesus Christ died for us and we wish to give praise, thanks, and glory to Him for his sacrifice, Not because you will earn a celestial paycheck in the form of Godhood and a gaggle of women. Also God knows that if you remain complacent in your sins, you will eventually turn away from him. That is why he gives us commandments so our minds, hearts, and soul will continue to remain fixed upon Him.
There’s no lip service here my friend, I who I am, an undeserving sinner, but praise be to God for giving me life, because I was so so dead in my sins.
Do you really think I believe Mormons believe in the blood atonement these days anyway? That makes me chuckle… most don’t even know about it. I guess the debate wasn’t over when Brigham Young taught it. Crazy old uncle strikes again.
falcon –
Yes, you and I may agree that when Christ said he was bread and living water it is a metaphor. But what of the Catholics? They believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation wherein they believe their sacrament becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. See how different people can interpret the same scriptures differently? You can’t just assume everyone thinks like you.
In 2 Peter 1:20 Peter cautions: “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” Hence, how is one to interpret without true authority when disagreements among people are bound to be a problem?
Jesus is the divine son of God who was the only person capable of taking upon him our sins because of his perfection. He was the “lamb without blemish.” Peter speaks of in 1 Peter 1:19.
germit -
OK, I see where we disagree. You say that during the middle ages somewhere on earth someone was always a believer in Christ? I assume you mean besides the Catholics? Hmm. I have no more evidence to refute this than you have to support it. However, the only Christian church known during this time is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was NOT liberal at all in imparting the word of God to its members teaching that only priests could interpret the word. Probably most working class type people were illiterate anyway. I find it hard to believe that there was enlightenment during that time.
You and falcon are absolutely right that the Mormon Church stands or falls on the validity of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I 100% agree.
Bytheway, I really admire people who stand up for their religious convictions such as the early reformers. I also admire Sir Thomas More, a Catholic of the time who stood up to the King of England. I don’t have to think exactly like another person to admire them. I am not able to be so narrow-minded as that.
I read the rules for this site and saw nothing stating that a person cannot share a testimony.
Arthur –
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment.
When asked if accepting Christ as your Savior is enough to be a Christian you stated,
“Not at all. Lots of people talk about Christ. But unless you know how He is and how deep your sin is, just saying “Lord, Lord” is inadequate.”
Would you mind explaining to me what you mean by “how He is?” I’m really not sure what you mean. Also, what about the many people in the world who are born into countries without Christianity? What of their salvation? Are their souls not precious? What about the mentally handicapped or ill who do not have the ability to “know.” Just wondering your view, not trying to be confrontational.
(Bytheway, we’ll have to agree to disagree agreeably on the baptism issue)
Berean -
Outer darkness is an LDS term. Please don’t use it incorrectly and out of context.
You’re right there’s no middle ground on the Prophet Joseph Smith. This blog itself, however, does support one of his prophetic statements when he said that the Angel Moroni told him, “that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”
Joseph’s name IS still spoken for good or evil and will absolutely continue so.
Susan: hope your weekend was as restful as mine. Why would you assume that I would hold that those who were christian during the “dark ages” were NOT catholic?? Martin Luther, your hero and mine, tacked the 95 thesis to the door in Wittenburg while still a catholic, and that Englishman we are so fond of, C.S. Lewis was Episcopalian, if I remember right, which is not far from Roman Catholic, theologically. I am glad to no longer be Roman Catholic, but they are (to me) still within the umbrella of orthodoxy, and I have no doubt at all that there were, like Luther, catholic believers throughout history, as there still are today (and I personally know some of those). YOU still have Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 to overcome:
“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church, AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT OVERCOME IT” (and to me Cluff’s illustration is silly: God is able to defend, and protect ‘His own’: much as He is in communist CHINA TODAY!!; He does not need to snatch them off the face of the earth: again, what a PUNY GOD is that!!) and from Matt:”Surely I am with you ALWAYS, even to the very end of the age..” Doesn’t sound like total apostasy to me, and neither does 2cd Thess 2:3 (do YOU think the ‘man of perdition’ was Constantine, like Cluff??) You said “I find it hard to believe there was any enlightenment during that time”, and I would suggest that is because your God is way too small, in the midst of tremendous abuse of His word and His plans, God still had His Word, even if it was not written in the vernacular, it was still preached here and there, and God was still saving those who would humble themselves and accept His offer of grace and forgiveness, and the price of the blood of His son, what a scandalously outrageous offer, then and now !! I really admire those, like the Tanners, who have said ‘no’ to generations of LDS tradition, and ‘yes’ to the living God of the Bible. May God lead us both to the faith that saves: GERMIT
germit:
I am glad to see my perspective is still remembered at least, since I don’t see it widely accepted here (yet).
I would like to help defend Matt 16:18 if I could. I have used that verse to defend Mormonism many times; it seems a bit ironic that I should need to defend it against your twisted interpretation.
That verse is quite consistent with Eph 2:11.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Don’t make the mistake of concluding the Christ himself is the foundation of the Church, he is just the cornerstone.
Why was the Church built upon Peter? Why is the foundation of the Church apostles and prophets? It is the same answer. Two reasons:
1. Peter specifically, and the prophet (which Peter was) and apostles in general have the proper priesthood authority. The Catholic Church has that part right.
2. The best evidence of proper priesthood authority is ongoing revelation. The prophet speaks with God (the cornerstone) to learn and do his will. The Catholics lost that when they lost the priesthood authority.
OK, I will spoon feed it to you:
On this rock, the rock of revelation, I will build my Church. As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
When ongoing revelation ended, the proper priesthood authority was revoked. The foundation was lost and we got our first Pope. He was a very poor substitute for a foundation. No priesthood authority, no revelation.
When Peter, James and John restored that same authority to JS, we had the foundation for a Church once again.
Simple Not the Bible– ongoing revelation.
Susan:
Outer darkness is a Bible term (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Mormons don’t use the term correctly, have taken it out of context and have redefined the term to fit their theology in that nobody will go there except Satan and his angels and a few apostates (depending on which LDS authority you ask). However, I’d like to hear your opinion of Matthew 7:13-14. Most people are headed to destruction – not one of the three degrees of glory in Mormonism.
Joseph is a true prophet on the grounds of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Please, our Mormon friends need to do better than this. These types of prophecies are safe because they can go either way, they are generic and are very safe. They are non-threatning/condemning.
Joseph Smith made many false prophetic statements. My favorite is when he dated the return of Christ in “History of the Church”, Vol.2, page 182. Christ should have returned in 1891. It didn’t happen. That’s just one. There are many more. The prophet spoke and the debate was over on that day at the Kirtland Temple, Feb. 14, 1835. On that charge alone he is guilty of being a false prophet. I see that you conveniently skipped over the changes Joseph made on the nature of God that also condemn him. You won’t be able to blame Joseph for deceiving you when you stand before Heavenly Father. You have the scriptures (the Bible).
Ralph:
Mormon doctrine says Moses never tasted death and was ushered into heaven like Elijah and thus at the Mt. of Transfiguration. He also gave keys of authority to Peter, James and John. He had part with Christ in the first resurrection. He appeared in the Kirtland Temple in April of 1836. I want to know how this is possible when Moses is a murderer? He killed a man (Ex 2:12). LDS scriptures state that no murderer can be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come (D&C 42:18,79). A murderer cannot have salvation and can only hope for the telestial kingdom. How could Moses show up at the Mt. of Transfiguration?
Susan,
I’m not going to discuss transubstantiation with you, although it would be fun, because I think the subject of this thread is dealing with “authority” and when the prophet says “jump” the Mormon faithful say “how high”. So I’ll talk about authority.
First of all Mormons, while saying they respect the Bible, really hold to a low view of it, seeing it as a corrupted work. Second of all, I don’t think I’ve ever run into a group of people that massacre and torture the Biblical scriptures the way Mormons do. As individuals and as a group they apply zero textual principles to scriptural interpretation. The problem is the Mormon use of what they see as “revelation” from god. Once a Mormon gets a revelation they then attempt to find some scripture to wrap it in. Mormons don’t pour over the text using sound interpretive measures to see what it says and means. Mormons tend to be verse hoppers, using a grab bag technique in trying to build a doctrine they have had “revealed” to them.
Mormon leaders are not promoted on their knowledge or skill relative to knowing, understanding and applying the Biblical text. To gain a leadership slot in the Mormon church the (unspoken requirements) is to be a well dressed and appearing fellow, with a compliant well dressed and coifed wife, five well dressed and behaved kids and a successful professional career and yes, paying the tithe. Success in the world will move a man a head in the Mormon culture, not his knowledge of and ability with Biblical interpretation and application. He would also have to be good at shaking down and interrogating the members on the most intimate aspects of their lives. The authority structure rewards worldly success and the ability to go along with the program. Boat rockers get thrown out of the boat.
A thirty-five year old single male who works as a janitor at the local high school isn’t going to get far in the Mormon leadership program even if he has the Bible memorized.
authority (cont)
So what is Biblical hermeneutics. Simply, it’s the art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science and an art. It’s a science because it’s guided by rules within a system. It’s an art because the application of the rules is by skill. It’s not by mechanical imitaiton. So the goal is to determine what God has said in the Bible; what do the scriptures mean. The Bible is looked on as “sola fidei rugla” by protestants which means that the Bible is the only authoritative voice of God to man. Catholics and the Eastern Oriental Church accept the Bible as the first or primay authority but also consider moral unanimity of the Fathers, the ancient Creeds, the decisions of the ecumenical councils, and oral tradition.
Now here’s the bottom line, cults and sects employ one or more specialized principles of Biblical interpretation which makes their basic hermeneutics a different species from that of the reformers and historic Protestantism. It’s important in “getting it right” to have an understanding of the science of Biblical hermenutics. Mormons don’t have this. What they have is “revelation” confirmed by feelings supposing these feelings are from the Holy Spirit.
The bottom line: When it comes to the interpretation of the Bible Christians have already determined, who wrote the book (being examined), when it was written, if the contents are authentic, and if the book is a literary unit or not. Now having established this then the exegesis of the text begins. That is the study of 1) the canon determines the inspired books 2) the study of the text determines the wording of the books 3) the study of historical criticism gives the framework of the books 4)hermeneutics gives the rules for the interpretation, and 5) exegesis the application of these rules to the books. The result is a systematic theology.
I know it’s a lot more fun and emotionally rewarding to go on “revelation” and “confirmed feelings”.
Cluff: “don’t make the mistake of concluding that Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, he is just the cornerstone” First of all, you don’t know your building practices: if the cornerstone is wrong, everything else that follows is wrong, that is why the greatest possible care was used in choosing it. That stone was of supreme importance in seeing the building go up correctly. Hold that thot: and now it’s ‘Bible day” for Mr.Cluff. Defend away , sir.
1Cor3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. v11: FOR NO ONE CAN LAY ANY OTHER THAN THE ONE ALREADY LAID, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST. Matt 21:42 “the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (better translated ‘cornerstone’, see NIV margin) the Lord has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes” Cluff, you are really SO sure that the foundation is NOT Christ?? Why put the emphasis on PETER, why not the CORNERSONE upon WHOM he trusted, who is greater, Peter or Christ?? 2cdPet2:4-8 “As you come to Him, the living Stone-rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to Him-you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood (and this epistle was addressed to WHOM, exactly, men only???),offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ….See I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in Him will never be put to shame…”a Stone that causes men to stumble and a Rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message- which is also what they were destined for. Not a WHIFF in here about the kind of priestly authority that you are selling: the holy priesthood mentioned above,whatever it is , is extended to Peter’s ENTIRE AUDIENCE, INCLUDING WOMEN. The big deal, as usual, is Jesus Christ Himself, nothing or no one else. Show me different from the Word. Your serve: GERMIT
The lack of a systematic means of looking at scripture in favor of “divine revelation directly to a prophet” is the reason Mormons are blown all over the lake by every whim and capricious statement by their leaders. This only works in a leadership structure where the words of the leaders are complied with and obeyed without question. That’s why in one generation Mormons have plural marrage with married women and girls complying with the prophets demand to submit to his sexual needs and the prohibition of blacks in the priesthood and subsequent generations the prophet gets a message that, oops, do over, god doesn’t want us doing this stuff any more. That’s why teachings like Adam-God from the prophet Young are bedrock in one era and tossed on the doctrinal scrapheap in the next. That’s how you get a traditional view of the nature of God in the BoM and subsequently changed to god was a man, mother god, celestial marrage, progression to godhood instituted by revelation.
We’re not talking about little bitty things here. Tied up in this whole fiasco, is the unquestioning authority and acceptance that the prophet speaks for god. The head nodding faithful will go along with anything once they accept that proposition. That’s how the abomnnible behavior of Joseph Smith get’s rationalized, accepted and even embraced.
Berean -
How can you say that the prophetic statement that Joseph made is self-fulfilling? A self-fulfilling statement is one in which the person making it then goes out and ensures it happens. Joseph Smith has been dead for over 164 years. How in the world can you say that our still speaking of him in 2008 is “self-fulfilling” on his part. That seems mighty illogical to me.
germit –
GRCluff has it exactly right – the true church is built upon ongoing revelation given through the prophet. This ongoing revelation was completely lost during centuries of apostasy and not restored until 1830.
So, in your oppinion, what happens with the salvation of all those people who followed the traditions of their fathers and were good Catholics during centuries of oppressive Catholic rule and false doctrine? Those very humble and uneducated working class people who didn’t have any access to the true word of God in the Bible and who believed in the false priests and popes because they had nowhere else to turn? Where are they now?
GRC,
You said, “On this rock, the rock of revelation, I will build my Church. As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”
The rock upon which Jesus built His Church is not revelation, but Himself. By adding your words, “the rock of revelation” (these are not in the text), you are putting your views into the text, which is eisegesis. I understand that verse 17 leads you to believe this. The revelation referred to is specific to that of Jesus being the Messiah–nothing more. The context of the passage is that the disciples have witnessed Jesus feeding thousands of people and walking on water. The emphasis on verse 17 is that none of these miracles were the reason Peter came to faith that Jesus was the Messiah; he came to this faith because God revealed it to Him. That is how Christ’s Church is built, by personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. His Church is not built on revelation that the BOM is true or that JS was a prophet, only on the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. JS and BOM are not a part of this equation. Again, you put your views into the text when you add “as long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, etc.” But we’ll go with that. Peter, himself, teaches us that we are a royal priesthood: “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5); “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him whou called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:9-10). The priesthood exists on the earth as long as there are Christians because it is a priesthood of believers, a priesthood to
(cont’d)
offer spiritual sacrifices (a different sacrificial system than that found in Leviticus) and to serve the unbelievers of Christ, that they might come to the knowledge of His redeeming grace, love, and mercy. That’s the function of the priesthood as set forth in the NT. It is not the priesthood designed by JS. That’s the context from which we come to understand the nature of the priesthood. It has never left the earth because Jesus wasn’t a liar when He said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church; this means that there could be no apostasy as Mormons claim, and no restoration through a false prophet named Joseph Smith. Everything he did contradicted the Bible. You can follow him and defend him as you wish; as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Whatever you want to call that prophecy about him being an enemy to people and other faiths, it doesnt matter. One would know full well that if you tried creating a “new Christianity” among traditional Christianity, that you would be talked badly of. Especially when you come up with off the wall doctrines and challenge the very divinity of God by saying that God was once like us, possibly a sinner, and that one day we will become Gods, eventually even with greater power than he has at this time.
So that prophetic statement is rather weak. Anyone who starts any new religion can expect opposition and making a statement like that one is like “shootin fish in a barrel.”
Wow, I really got some response on the foundation of Momonism topic– Don’t you guys have “real” jobs on Monday morning?
I got the day off work because it’s my Birthday. Wish me happy birthday everyone. 48 today.
I just have one question. What would happen to the wall and the roof of the house you are in if the foundation was ripped out from under?
That is exactly what happened to “real” Christianity when prophets and apostles were rejected by the kingdoms of the world.
You can start you Biblical hermeneutics with this verse:
Amos 8:11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
I pulled in Eph 2:11 in an effort to comply with Biblical hermeneutics. Just how many supporting verses are required?
I found 7 bible verses that supported the concept of pre-earth life and the pre-existance of men’s spirits as the offspring of God. Was 7 not enough? Most of them set the proper context very well.
falcon:
I found you comments on the “leadership slots in the Mormon Church” very entertaining. I knew a Bishop once who was a janitor at the local High School. It happens.
Can we help it if the most qualified men happen to dress well? That qualification has more to do with the practice of faith, obedience and disipline than having 5 kids. Although 5 kids in the Mormon church very well could me an act of obedience. It would be obedience to personal revelation, not church standards, since the Chruch has never insisted that 5 is the standard. (I happen to have 5 myself, so I got a chuckle)
The real leadership standard is the same as this thread– the abiltiy to recognize and obey the Word of God as it was always intended – personal revelation.
Happy Birthday, GRCluff! May God grant you many more.
I had an interesting conversation while in Nauvoo last week. The attendance at the Nauvoo Pageant has steadily declined over the past few years. Some believe it is because the Nauvoo Pageant is not as appealing to people as the pageant it replaced – The City of Joseph Pageant. As I spoke with a local LDS woman about this, she told me that many people “struggle” with liking the new pageant. But, she said, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve directed the writing of the new pageant and continues to approve each and every script change that comes up. Though the new pageant is not as fun or entertaining as the old one, the Brethren know what they’re doing, she said. Therefore, “I decided I’m just going to like it.” I questioned the lady regarding the freedom to decide for ourselves what we like and don’t like, which she readily affirmed. Nevertheless, since the prophet says the new play is better, for her, the debate is over.
And, discussion on this thread is also over. We’ve pretty much abandoned the topic, notwithstanding Berean’s and Jeffrey’s heroic efforts to get the conversation back on track. Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion.