Worth Fighting Over
The June 2008 issue of Tabletalk magazine included an article rooted in the biblical book of Jude. Noting that Jude speaks directly and forcefully to the issue of false teachers, the Tabletalk article by Niel Nielson explains,
“Notice that Jude isn’t writing to [his readers] about voices calling from outside the visible faith. These people have ‘crept in unnoticed,’ that is, they are inside the congregation of God’s people. …the deadliest recommendations [i.e., encouragement to follow a different spiritual path] may come from those who claim to be fellow believers, because they masquerade as people of the light, they use ‘Christian’ vocabulary, and they assert that their views are faithful to our most holy faith.”
Dr. Nielson continues, noting the harsh language Jude uses to describe these false teachers and their terrible, eventual end (Jude 12-16). “And yet,” Dr. Nielson writes, “Jude’s burden for his readers is to urge them to contend – to fight earnestly – for the faith once for all delivered to the saints…”
For Christians who engage in faith conversations with Mormons, Jude’s instruction to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) provides very important direction for our method and motivation. While many Mormons are uncomfortable with the idea of “contending” (indeed, most Mormons understand contention to be “of the devil” – see 3 Nephi 11:29), Christians recognize the God-revealed necessity of it.
Knowing, then, that Christians must engage in earnest contention for the faith, the question must be asked: What is this faith? Dr. Nielson writes,
“It is the ‘once for all’ revelation from God, gloriously complete in providing all we need to know about God and His plan, purpose, and expectations for His creation.
“Jude gives his readers two clues for recognizing these false teachers and their recommendations: they pervert the grace of our God into sensuality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 4). While this list is not exhaustive, it provides very helpful tests.
“First, does a particular viewpoint rationalize sexual sin, in this case by co-opting the very grace of God? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that would use the grace and love of God as the means for justifying sexual sin…”
Anyone who followed the conversations here at Mormon Coffee last June might recognize Joseph Smith’s polygamy as an example of what Jude is talking about. Joseph did not merely marry multiple women illegally; he asked for other men’s wives and young daughters, promising eternal rewards for those who complied with his requests. Did this not “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality”? While the Word of God promises forgiveness of sins and eternal life freely given through His grace to any and all who surrender to Him, Joseph Smith perverted that offered gift, turning it into something gained via gratification of Smith’s own desires.
Dr. Nielson continues with the clues Jude provides for recognizing false teachers,
“Second, does a particular viewpoint diminish the exclusive glory and truth of Jesus Christ as the only King and Savior? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that undermines His deity, diminishes His uniqueness, doubts His kingly claims over the creation, or adds or subtracts from His Gospel.”
Again we can see the teachings of LDS prophets as examples of what Jude warns against. Mormonism robs Jesus of His uniqueness, teaching that He is just one of many billions numbered among the pre-existent sons of God; Jesus is Creator of some things, but not all things; Jesus is the Savior for this world, but other worlds have other Saviors; Jesus’ deity is no different than that achievable by any of us who work hard and prove ourselves worthy of Godhood (exaltation).
Using the “clues” provided by Jude, Mormon prophets are exposed as false teachers. Consequently, Mormonism is exposed as a false religion leading millions of people away from a saving relationship with the one true God. If ever there was anything worth contending over, surely, it is this.
—
For more information on the Jesus of Mormonism see:
Creator or Created? That is the Question.
Who is the “Living Christ” of Mormonism?
Comments (200)
OK, so now you are saying that we are part of the flock and Christianity, just a bunch of false teachers within the group. I’m confused now, am I a Christian or not?
But I love the choice of word in the scripture “SAINTS”. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SAINTS ! You are CHRISTIAN. According to you the Bible is always correct. So if the Bible says that the true gospel was given to the SAINTS then we LDS have it !
As far as teaching non-God proscribed sexuality, what of the ‘Christian’ churches that allow fornication, for example the Lutheran church of Finland, the Church of England (historically), the Pentacostal (according to a friend of mine who is Pentacostal). And then there are the churches allowing homosexuals into the fold and as clergy, like the Presbyterian and Methodist church in Australia and the Church of England in America (or was it Canada). These fit part of the clues above don’t they?
Ralph, Your Not even close to being a Christian, Gal 1:8-9.
Your headed to the Darkness forever that Jude speaks of, You LDS have a false Gospel and are leading people to Hell forever in great numbers. Under the last Topic we were talking about, I say I rest my case, You guys Dodge Questions even if you claim you can answer them, That makes Someone a liar.
Some LDS cannot answer simple questions and then get mad at me for calling them on the carpet over it, Some LDS get mad at me for my seemingly hard approach, Yet Jude is very honest in His thoughts on false teachers, Which is LDS in a nutshell. Rick b
The problem with Mormonism is that it claims a “new revelation” and declares the old revelation null and void. In its attempts to justify its position, Mormonism uses invented history and complex conspiracy theories. The obvious “insidiousness” of Mormonism is seen in it’s attempt to use the same language of traditional Christianity but with different meanings. The meaning switch is not made apparent to the uninformed listener so they think they are dealing with conventional Christianity. As an example see Mitt Romney’s claim that he has received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Without someone knowing who the Jesus is that Romney has received, they’d think he was speaking of the same Jesus that traditional Christianity speaks of.
Mormonism is built on falsehood and perpetuated by techniques that seduce people into joining the cult without knowing the true story behind Joseph Smith, Mormon history, and the controlling culture of Mormonism.
I guess we should be thankful that Mormonism has a real problem holding on to those it baptizes into the aberrent cult. Two-thirds of those on the rolls are inactive, fifty percent of returning missionaries go inactive, the number of “temple Mormons” is but a fraction of the membership and exmembers are speaking out with boldness regarding the cult.
Unless someone is in total denial, it’s well documented that Joseph Smith used his restored gospel to sexually seduce women. He talked about an angel that would strike him dead if he didn’t take on more wives and he was exchanging sexual favors in the guise of marrage for assurance of salvation for the women and their families. This guy was a snake! He corrupted his own gospel for his own pleasure and purposes and hid it, best he could from his general population of followers. He’s left a legacy of the same type of behavior among many who claim him as a prophet.
As Christians, we need to heed the words of Jude and continue to expose Mormonism for what it is.
Ralph said: “As far as teaching non-God proscribed sexuality, what of the ‘Christian’ churches that allow fornication, for example the Lutheran church of Finland, the Church of England (historically), the Pentacostal (according to a friend of mine who is Pentecostal). And then there are the churches allowing homosexuals into the fold and as clergy, like the Presbyterian and Methodist church in Australia and the Church of England in America (or was it Canada). These fit part of the clues above don’t they?”
Good points here Ralph. These groups are great examples of the continuing problems of progressive and successive revelation. For them it has become paramount to reinterpret scripture according to the changing cultural context (as well as just plain run of the mill sin!). So without the anchor of a closed canon, and within the flock, come these new interpretations. However, I think you know already that here in the dregs of the cup, there are probably no representatives of those groups. Very few of these people would be found contending for our historic faith. Why? because they pretty much believe as you. Their view of “Christian” is so diluted, that they would have no arguments with you, since you are so sincere and passionate. It is about who you are, not who you serve. If you are frustrated with our broken records, and our forceful accusations, then you should go over to their websites, if they have anything like this.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not asking or telling you or anyone to leave. I get a kick out of listening to you, and you have been a blessing to me, strange as that may sound. You are teaching me many things about my EC faith. I come from a missions background to this, and this keeps me sharp. I believe God has a purpose in each of us being here.
The problem with Mormonism is it’s claim to be the “restored” gospel. When someone, anyone makes a claim like that it is incumbent on those who hold to the standard view to test the new claim. Mormonism fails miserably when compared to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. That’s apparent and even Mormons would have to agree with that.
So then, Mormons have to prove their claim as to representing first century Christianity. The problem for Mormons is that there is an abundance of information/writings available that chronicle the history of the Christian church and Mormonism is no where to be found. So really, Mormonism counts on ignorance to substantiate its claims.
So the task for orthodox Christians is to continue to tell people about Mormonism. I do it every chance I get. My goal is to inform as many people as possible concerning the doctrines of the Mormon church, Mormon church history and the tactics that are used by Mormon missionaries to seduce the unsuspecting into the cult.
As orthodox Christians we have a duty and an obligation before God to fight the spiritual battle being waged. We do this through prayer and by making information readily available to people concerning Mormonism and the other cults.
Contending as a compassionate exercise…
Too frequently in these posts, it seems like we are yelling at each other, trying to score points, to win on either side, and in any case. Each of us has accused the other of creating straw men which are caricatures of the other’s perspective, so that we can tear them down or burn them up easily.
I would like to suggest that we from historic EC systems, are as fallible and messed up as anyone. We get so danged frustrated by the same arguments being presented, that we are guilty of lashing out. We get pompous and arrogant and dismissive. I should say that I do, and if I were to post at those points I would sound remarkably like my dear friends here. Lest you become smug, I assert the same stuff comes out of Mormon pens as well.
What should our approach be? I am not going to say it has to be my way. However, I can say why I do this, and I think it will resonate with my EC buds.
We contend both as prophets and penitents. We call out to the true historic faith of our fathers through the centuries and challenge both Christian and Mormon seekers to come to the truth and light and grace. In that we are walking along the same path of Samuel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Not very well sometimes.
However, we are also calling out as penitents. “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” (Isa 6:5, ESV). Like Paul, we can warn of the horrific consequences of sin and misdirection, but in the next breath we must and do join him in saying we are the “chief of sinners.” (I Tim 1:15).
There are many examples of evil in the Lord’s global church through the ages and today. Some of us have left the narrow path and there will will be consequences. It is not my job, or our job to win. It is my job to reflect the light of Christ.
God calls us to this, and we may not always answer well, but we will keep trying.
Amen. I find myself getting frusterated because as someone who now can see from the outside, it makes me miserable for those on the inside who cannot. I have to stop at those moments and remember, “If not for the Grace of God, there go I”. It wasn’t me who “woke me up”, but God’s mercy and abundant Grace. I think sometimes I can fight this in my own strength, and maybe that’s true for a lot of us. But it is in our insufficiency that God’s infinite sufficiency shines best.
I guess for somebody reading, God’s Glory is coming through!
The original article is very misleading in what it says, but then such things usually are. However, I must comment on one point brought up, one that is constantly brought up, and that is historical Christianity.
First, who really knows what “historical Christianity” is?
The Romans, for nearly two centuries, did their best to destroy everything Christian, including writings, which is why we really have very few writing from these first two centuries. All the writings describing these centuries that are used as proof were written some two or three centuries laters.
Of course, after these first two centuries the Romans, and the church, set on a campaign to destroy all writings that were opposed to christianity. So we don’t get much from the other perspective either.
Add this to the fact that there are half a dozen large churches that claim to follow “historical Christian” teachings, and yet all teach very different doctrine. Then you get all the small churches and organizations who have their version of “Historical Christianity.”
So, who truly is following “Historical Christianity” and how do they know.
I will say that in the grand sceme of things the LDS are a very separate religion from the rest of modern Christianity. In this world we have verious branches of religion. There is Christianity, Jedaism, Islam, LDS, and others of lesser size. What is the cause of this separation? It is not that we do not believe in Christ, because we do. The reason for the separation is that we are the only Christian Religion that is not in some way a breakoff from the Catholic church. The Catholic church came out of that which was taught by Christ and his Apostles. From the Catholic church came all other Christian churchs, except the LDS. We are our own branch, started by Christ himself. We have our own offshoots. We are the same as other Christians in our faith in Christ, but are different in our origins. That is the reason why we are separate from them.
During the first 450 years of its existence, the Church battled heretics and in so doing, defined the basic doctrines of the faith. Heretics often provided a great service to the Church. For example, Marcion rejected the OT and the Gospels of Matthhew, Mark, and John, thus forcing the Chruch to define the NT cannon. Arius, in denying the deity of Christ, made the Church articulate the doctrine that became the most crucial to Christianity.
When we look at the history of the Church we see, for example, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity-a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity-formally affirmed for the first time at the first Council of Nicea. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine. Now if someone really wants to get inside this event, they can take the time to read something like “The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East” by Robert Payne.
An article titled “A Hammer Struck at Heresy: What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?” is adapted from Payne’s work.
My point in presenting this is that Christianity has a rich history that is well documented. There is really no reason for someone to be ignorant of the facts. When we look at the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, they (doctrines) were present from the beginning of the Church-in some form. But it was left to the Church to clearly articulate those basic fundamental doctrines. Early on, the Church fathers didn’t even have the theological vocabulary to express what it was the Church believed. In battling heresy they were forced to develop the language used to communicate what it was that the Church believed.
I must admit that I get more than a little irratated with our Mormon friends who so easily dismiss the rich and well documented history of the Church and simply settle for repeated mottos and slogans.
Ralph,
Yes, born-again believers are called saints, as you contend. What’s your point? A Christian is a saint.
Ward,
Fantastic job!! Keep it up.
Blessings…
Shematwater,
I must be brief, the origins of the Mormon Church come from the Second Great Awakening.
You should visit http://www.ccel.org before you make bold claims that the early Church was not well documented.
Shemwater,
You simply dazzle me with your account of why we don’t know what first century Christianity really was. It really takes my breath away. Where in the world did you get all of this valuable information from which you draw your conclusions? Tell you what, just for fun, why don’t you provide some documentation because what you presented sounds vaguely like some Mormon talking points that you’d pick-up hanging around the wards. You see without some form of verification, it sounds a little like Mormon mythology. You need to pick-up your game.
Here’s something for you that I think you’ll enjoy. In 1784 a man by the name of Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book about his visions of the afterlife. The name of the book is “Heaven and Hell and It’s Wonders”. Some of the things he wrote about were something called “the Celestial Kingdom”, “the veil”, “spirit prison”, “celestial marrage”, and more. D. Michael Quinn in his book “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” discusses all of this. Not only does Quinn make a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg’s ideas, but he also shows that his book was in Smith’s hometown library since 1817. Quinn also says that nine miles from where Smith lived, in 1826 the Canandaigua newspaper advertised the book for sale. If you’re curious, this is where Smith got his “visions” for D&C section 76.
This was all pretty tough for some of Smith’s early followers to swallow and the diaries of Orson Pratt and John Murdock recount countless excommunications of Mormons, including branch presidents who denounced “the degress of glory” as a “satanic revelation”. Seems the folks had a difficult time accepting the occult nature of Smith’s vision.
Smith, it seems, was a great borrower (see A View of the Hebrews, Free Mason rituals etc.).
Shem,
How can you sit here and tell us that first century Christianity was or was not? You cannot even Answer questions about your own church and how Your Church can claim two different views on the same topic.
It seems to me your Church cannot get things right, so how can we trust them? Rick b
Just for my own personal entertainment, I went to my large stack of Christian History magazines and pulled out issue 37 dedicated to the topic “Worship in th Early Church”. Now how in the world do we know anything about this topic? In the first article they provide the reader with an account of Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr was a philosopher and defender of Christianity who was martyred in Rome in about 165. He was the author of First Apology, Second Apology, and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
It is said of Justin that he knew Christianity in Asia as well as Rome, perhaps in Palestine also. In his writing he left us a description of a typical worship service of the second century. The article goes on to say that other second century sources support what Justin writes.
Well how in the world did those nasty Romans miss destroying Justin’s writings and those of other supporting second century sources?
Well let’s have a little bit more. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) characterized the Lord’s Supper as “the medicine of immortality.” Clement of Alexandria (150-215) wrote at length about the cults, “The mysteries are simply tradition and idle invention; it is worshiping one of the devils tricks when people honor with bastard religiousity these unholy holinesses and impious initiations”.
Just a little more: The Didache (Greek for teaching) is our earliest example of a “church order.” It sets out how congregtations should baptize, fast, pray receive visiting prophets and the like. The Didache probably reached its present form before the end of the first century A.D., but it certainly contains earlier material. Hmmmm seems like that gives us a hint that we know what first century Christianity is all about. And, Hippolytus, who died as a martyr around A.D. 236, was a prominent but controversial figure in the church at Rome. His Apostolic Tradition, written c.215, is a church order, much more developed than the Didache.
Well there’s more but I’m out of space.
Call Me crazy, But Psalm 118 says, God puts HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME, I figure If God allows His Holy Word and message of salvation to become corrupted, then He is not really who He claims to be. I wonder how many LDS are aware of Psalm 118, and I suspect they dont really believe it. Rick b
Thank you Falcon,
I saw Shematwater’s post earlier today and had to respond despite being limited on time.
In Radical Origins Val Dean Rust points out that Mormon theology is classically of and from the Second Great Awakening; universalism, millennialist, adventist, communalist, spiritualist, etc. All of these are adapted in one form or another into Mormonism. Grant Palmer has pointed out the the BoM is full of proclamations concerning the religious controversies of the “Burned-over district”.
Shematwater got one thing correct “the LDS are a very separate religion from the rest of modern Christianity.”
falcon,
The simplicity of your view of church history and the foundations of modern Christianity is stunning. I don’t know that I can recall a more lop-sided approach of extending the “benefit of the doubt.” Any question about Joseph Smith is answered with the worst possible conclusion, irrespective of evidence. But in considering the transmission of the Bible and doctrine in history, the most optimistic, even rosey-eyed assumptions are insisted upon. But this is typical of religious critics of Joseph Smith.
Without any proof of any connection between the revelations of Joseph Smith and any of the supposedly available reference material of his day, you conclude, again with absolutely no evidence, that he simply copied everything. Your strict academic analysis is well demonstrated.
On the other hand, with what is a very apparent superficial understanding of early church history, many seem to gloss over any challenges to the transmission of holy writings as well as correct doctrine and practice over 2,000 years. Your version of the Council of Nicea is Disney-like in its merry tone and naive assumptions.
I encourage you to read some of the work of Bruce Metzger, who is arguably the world’s greatest textual critic of the Greek New Testament in our day (actually, he died in 2007).
Or what about John Mill?
It is astounding to me that people can look at history and insist there was no apostasy, even claim that there is a clear and unbroken lineage of doctrine and liturgy through the mellenia.
I repeat that this is the result of having no ground to stand on. It is a blind faith in the vacuum of history and a complete dependence a perfect ancestry of doctrine, which has never happened before.
Olsen,
I’m curious to know where you get such superior knowledge. And, since you have such stunning biblical and historical acumen, why you still believe in a false prophet and a false religion? What keeps you in it? One last thing…could you please expound on blind faith? After all, this is the clarion call for Mormonism, thanks.
Curious…
Bruce Metzger said, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church…”
From The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.”
There is a dog somewhere, growling and barking his head off because someone is trying to take his old dry bone and trade it in for a delicious steak, new bone included.
At least there should be, because it’d make a nice analogy to what’s going on on Mormon Coffee.
!
RickB,
The premise of the article and the scripture from the Bible given indicates that we are to be considered Christian – just that we teach false doctrine. You can’t argue with the Bible now can you?
Setfree,
Does this mean the old bone is the historical Christian church and its followers with the old traditions and history – while the fresh steak and bone belongs to the reasonably new LDS church?
Falcon,
Be careful with quoting/using the church fathers. I have found out that Tertulian, Novatian and Hippolytes had differing views on the Trinity, which were different again to what it is described as today. Also Novatian and Tertullin became heretics and were excommunicated and at least Tertullian changed his ideology about God and the Trinity – I don’t know if Novatian did. Another fact is that Novatian and Hippolytes set themselves up as antipopes and fought against the Roman Catholic church. Only Hippolytes just before his death recanted and re-joined the RC church. Since only the ‘true’ God and Jesus can give access to heaven and these 3 had a ‘different’ God and Jesus, even though they called it a Trinity, can their writings be trusted given their history and theology. I am asking this because many here say that JS cannot be trusted as his theology about God and Jesus changed as he grew older. These 3 ‘church fathers’ had a different theology to these days and they changed theirs as they got older.
Of course not Ralph, you’re not trying to give the EC’s anything!
I’m talking about a heart and life that knows the Amazing Grace of God, complete with full forgiveness, security and peace, wisdom, comfort, strength, and joy….
As compared to the legalistic, glory-to-self, never-know-you’re-good-enough,… trap you’re in.
Why anyone would want the chains and dungeon when they could be standing in the sunshine and fresh air…
You have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. But that’s why I’m here. To help someone find freedom in Christ.
In Him…
Olsen-
You say. . .
“It is astounding to me that people can look at history and insist there was no apostasy, even claim that there is a clear and unbroken lineage of doctrine and liturgy through the mellenia.”
Would be a fine argument, except that no real Christian actually claims that. The Old and New Testaments hold many examples of false prophets and apostates. We are REPEATEDLY warned against “wolves in sheeps clothing” “The tares and the wheat will grow together.” The enemy has sown weeds in with the wheat and to uproot all the weed would damage the roots of the wheat, so they are permitted to grow until the final sorting.
Those would however, be the claims of some cult like group that held their sect was the only right way in every last legalistic detail.
Such claims are unnecessary for Christianity. Christians have always recognized there were differences of opinion in doctrine… which is why we say “in non-essentials unity.”
We are however warned NOT to accept any teaching that is a “different gospel.” Jesus is the lamb of God. He is the sacrifice that God ordained from the beginning when God accepted Abel’s sacrifice and rejected Cain’s. The blood was the requirement from the beginning. Evidence of this plan is throughout Scripture.
Blood sacrifice is central to Judaism and central to Christianity which is the fulfillment of Judaism. The blood of a perfect innocent creature to atone for our sin and make propitiation for God’s wrath. The New Testament doesn’t even vary from the old in the basic doctrine of how the sin of man is to be atoned for. Good works have no place in atoning for sin. You, oh man, how do you even know what good is? “Even the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.” This is an essential and without its acceptance there can be no unity.
Accept the sacrifice of Jesus as your ONLY hope. In this, you find humility, in this you find the presence of God who will direct you to works that actually have eternal merit.
Ralph, Where in Jude do you read that your a believer? Jude Says,
You cannot be a believer and yet teach False Doctrine. The Bible mentions Wolves in Sheeps clothing, The Wolves need to kill the sheep to get their hide, How does that make the false teacher and the christian one in the same or equal?
Jude 1:4 says, they Crept in. The doors of the church are open to all, so yes killers can come in, will we allow them to stay? No. If a killer is released from jail and moves next door to you, are you going to invite him over for diner knowing he might try and kill you? your not a christian, your a wolf in sheeps clothing leading people to the slaughter. Rick b
Hey Ward,
Regarding the Christians I mentioned, why are you saying that they are not as committed as others on this site to the ‘Christian cause’? There are many people in the Lutheran church in Finland that are very much preaching against ‘false religions’, including the LDS church. But the Finnish Lutheran church as a whole is accepting of living together and sex before marriage (ie fornication) whether engaged or not. These people are living their faith – which is they are saved by faith in Jesus without works. They are living as you teach. Can you condemn them then?
Also, I too have learned much from this forum from both LDS members and non-members as well as having to do my own study. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you wish to view it) all that I have learned has re-inforced my faith in Jesus and His restored gospel.
RickB,
If a killer is released from prison and moved in next door I would follow the example of my Saviour. I would not judge/condemn him for what he has already paid for in society and unless he shows he is a threat I would treat him like any other person. Would you? And yes, I can say this confidently because I have been in that situation while on my mission – we had a convicted killer living on the floor below us. I still interacted with him when he was around.
To all,
I would just like to point out that thtere is a difference between ‘contending’ by using the Holy Spirit and contending by arguing. The whole thing about teaching the gospel is to have the Spirit present, otherwise there is no conversion – it is the Spirit that does the converting. So if one contends without the Spirit, there will be no conversion of anyone and thus it is just a waste of time in most cases as both parties after yelling at each other go away thinking they did the ‘better’ job. Because of this, both parties get frustrated at the other and there is no edification at all.
I see that I have returned back at MC at just the right time. By the way, did Crispin ever show up? He’s been gone for two weeks now. I imagine by now the baptismal tank at the ward where he attends has overflowed and is running down the street. He was filling it up for my baptism two weeks ago conditioned upon him answering at least two out of three questions asked of him. This is not a boastful statement. It’s a statement that I am going to make over and over with reminders again and again because it exposes the shallowness of LDS theology in being able to answer the simplest of questions that would one would expect if they want converts especially me. As I said a few days ago: the level of LDS scholarship on this blog is pathetic.
Ralph,
Your post to Falcon warning him of quoting the early Christian church Fathers was quite the “bomb”. You and I had quite a number of discussions offline in private emails regarding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that branched off of my MC article several weeks ago. In those offline discussions I painstakingly went through the writings of Novatian line-by-line with a yellow hi-liter. You supposedly read the work by Tertullian in which he discusses the doctrine of the Trinity.
Ralph, why don’t you share with the LDS brethren here your findings and conclusions on the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in relation to the Council of Nicea and how that relates in what the LDS Church is putting out for its members to “swallow”? Have you shared your findings with your LDS family? Why don’t you tell everyone what you told me. I respect our offline discussions and your privacy too much to do a “cut and paste” of what you said, but this “bomb” you dropped indirectly caused me to get hit with some “shrapnel”.
As the title of this blog article states: “Worth Fighting Over”, I will defend this fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity with everything that I have.
“Fire mission”
nobleberean@cox.net
Ralph,
You made it very clear where you stand and I cannot talk anyone out of Mormonism. One has to look at the evidence and then I pray the Holy Spirit will take it from there. I have no power on my own. Your conclusions and mentioning the Gnostics is what drew silence from me. However, you’ve brought some of this to the table in this topic so I’m going to have to engage you here or offline again.
First, in your document you gave no Roman Catholic Encyclopedia references or quotations. I want those “chapter and verse”. You will have to back up everything you say with references. Mormons demand that of Christians, so it goes both ways, my friend.
Second, you are incorrect in your findings regarding compatability between Tertullian and Novatian on their views of the Trinity. Novatian’s work “On The Trinity” and Tertullian’s “Adversus Praxean” (especially chapters 2 & 3) are in harmony with each other.
Third, Tertullian’s thinking on Christ in his work was that Christ was subordinate to the Father. True, that is an incorrect view. However, Tertullian made it clear when he said:
“We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God…Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her— being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ…one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person.” (Against Praxeas, chapter 2)
Fourth, these men didn’t have a “different” God or Jesus. How do you come up with this? If you think they were helping the LDS cause then I challenge you to read what they said again. They said that Jesus was God and taught monotheism. They wouldn’t be in the Joseph Smith “camp” by any stretch of the imagination.
When Jude 3 mentions “the faith” that should be noted in the context of singular. It was “THE Faith”. There isn’t more than one and that includes “another testament” as well which is what is written on the cover of the Book of Mormon that is given away by missionaries. Hebrews 9 rules that out to the detriment of the LDS Church, but that is another discussion. The “faith” (singular) has been delivered (past tense – already happened) ONCE (singular again) unto the saints (they already received it back in the 1st century).
Paul said in Romans 15:19 (KJV) that he has “fully preached the gospel of Christ.” He didn’t only give us half what was given to him in 1 Cor 15:3. Paul gave us the whole thing. God is not going to hold back something from us that is necessary for our salvation until Joseph Smith shows up in the 1800’s or allow His Word and Gospel to be thwarted by the whims of man. It’s great for LDS “talking points” at the ward, but not a biblical reality. By the way, Mormons, you’re not alone. The JW’s teach of an apostasy too to justify their prophet Charles Russell in 1879.
The contrast between “in times past” and “in these last days” in Hebrews 1:1-2 suggests to us that God’s speaking to us through His Son in the finality of His revelation to mankind in this era of redemption. This indicates that there is a finality to the revelation of God in Christ and that once this revelation has been completed, no more is to be expected. This text in Hebrews 1:1-2 demonstrates to us that no more can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. We should expect no more Scripture to be added beyond what we already have. God the Father is in control of all history, and He is not the kind of Father who will trick us or fail to be faithful to us or keep from us something we absolutely need.
John 12:48 – “the word that I HAVE SPOKEN” (past tense); Jesus’ words are complete. A new prophet has nothing to offer.
Man o’Man. Being tired of the rhetoric that takes place on this blog, I’ve kept quite for some time … lending my opinion when I deem it “fit”. Perhaps that’s too often taboo
! Let me just say this – I know some wonderful people in the LDS church. Family, friends, and acquaintances, if you will. But I’m absolutely terrified. The indoctrination runs so deep, that these individuals in the MORG do not know the heresy they covet. To any mormons on this blog, explain to me the DNA and the “book of abraham”. Two points that led me out of the adversary’s church (Mormon Church). Explain to me why Christ’s original word is insufficient. Explain to me the many fallacies in the B of M, and why you beat around the proverbial bush. Do you not understand that no matter your work here, on this earth, you diminish the importance of CHRIST, our LORD, SAVIOR, and GOD. Our God of TRUE CHRISTIANITY. You are blinded by your stubbornness and false “prophets”. Just because you think you’re doing “Okay”, or better than most, doesn’t mean that JESUS accepts your heretical nature. Hell is real, as is your blindness for truth. Does that not scare you like it scares me? Who will you answer to on judgement? Joseph or Jesus?
Berean,
I did say that I have learned that the Trinity doctrine was formed before the councils. As far as Novatian below are quotes from the web and the link to the page, scroll down to ‘Writings’ -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm
Ralph,
That’s right, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was being discussed long before the Council of Nicea. Matter of fact, in writings that we have today that anyone can read, at least 100 years. You know what that means? When the LDS Church “spoon feeds” to its people that the Trinity doctrine was a by-product from the Council of Nicea they are historically in error, they are telling their people a lie and they know this. I find it hard to believe that all the educated Mormons out there and especially the BYU religious history professors don’t accurately give out the information. Then again, to do so would go against the information that the LDS leadership is putting out. I call this intellectual dishonesty. Ralph, you now know and can no longer say as you did before, that the Trinity came out of Nicea. There is a historical trail going back over 100 years before 325 A.D. Don’t feel bad, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same thing as the Mormons do when it comes to Council of Nicea and the Trinity. Apathy won’t get anyone anywhere. In this case, it’s a first-class ticket to outer darkness.
Somehow that statement by the reviewer regarding Novatian on that site you linked overlooked this statement by Novatian in his work “ON THE TRINITY” in chapter 30:
“But because heretics, ever struggling against the truth, are accustomed to prolong the controversy of pure tradition and Catholic faith, being offended against Christ; because He is, moreover, asserted to be God by the Scriptures also, and this is believed to be so by us; we must rightly— that every heretical calumny may be removed from our faith— contend, concerning the fact that Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us.”
I’d just like to congratulate Ralph for doing some reading outside his “comfort zone” (presumably), especially from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia.
Keep going, Ralph, you’ll find the truth in the oddest places!
P.S. Huzzah! We just got Clarke for 3. Pity Ponting stayed put for so long.
Andy/Berean thank you very much for your contributions here. I’m afraid it will be too much for our Mormon friends however since they like to stay in the comfort zone of the LDS womb. If they begin to expand their intellectual horizons, they won’t stay LDS too long. That is of course unless they shut their eyes, plug their ears and jump up and down and repeat their testimony over and over again. Despite what one of our LDS friends has told us in the past, the LDS bishops aren’t too crazy about their people coming to sites like this. First of all the LDS folks generally make fools of themselves with their childish rants and expose their lack of knowledge and demonstrate how naive they are. Secondly, the last thing the LDS bishops want is their people getting exposed to some solid scholarship and analytical thinking.
I know I get very impatient with these folks so I have to remind myself often that they are the product of targeted and repeated brainwashing. I really hate intellectual laziness however and the recitation of some of the most simplistic slogans made in the guise of historical or theological fact. There really isn’t any excuse for that.
One of my “set your watch by it” moments will be coming along quite soon. When we get this oft repeated line, I know it’s a white flag of intellectual surrender. The line of course is, “It’s all a matter of interpretation.” It’s a line that says, “We’re all out of arguments. We’re not going to do the hard work of scholarship and everything is true anyway, it just a matter of how you look at it. It’s like “moral equivalency” that says there is no objective truth or morality but everything is contextual.
Our LDS friends need to take off their magic spectacles and begin to see things through the lens of reality.
As Jude reminded his followers to contend for the faith, Paul was quite explisit in warning the Christians to be on the look out for those who would corrupt the faith. In Acts 20:26 Paul tells his listeners,
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
Notice that Paul wasn’t warning the disciples of outside threats despite the fact that the church was being persecuted. Paul saw the greatest threat from within. This is basically what Jude says also. In his first letter to (First Timothy 1:3-7) Paul says “….instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines..”
Paul articulates the basics of the faith in statements found in (First Timothy 1:17) and (First Timothy 2:5-6). As Paul continues to write to this young pastor he expands the theme (First Timothy 4:1-3) when he says “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons….”
So having laid out the basics of the faith in both this epistle and the others that he wrote, Paul was telling Timothy (and us) what the standard of the faith is and how we should be vigilant to protect it. So when heretics arise within the Body of Christ, they need to be dealt with. Now Mormons are not within the Body of Christ but are an aberrent cult that would seek to corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As such they need to be exposed and the faith that was once and for all delivered to us vigorously defended.
Paul often talked about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as his/Paul’s Gospel. Reading what he wrote, it’s pretty easy to discern what the Gospel that Paul preached was. The basics of the faith are contained in Paul’s writings. This is also true of the other writers of the NT. There is no lost Gospel. That’s a fairy tale Mormons tell themselves in an attempt to justify the weird and wacky religious world that Joseph Smith created.
The Mormon gospel was not revealed, it was invented. It’s sold on the basis of emotion masquerading as spirituality. Paul and the other writers of the NT were really “take no prisoners” types when it came to defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ that they preached. They understood how false teachers with false claims could lead people into spiritual distruction.
Those of us who defend the faith need to remind ourselves that the coming out of Mormonism is a process for people. It takes time to work through all of the issues and overcome the psychological conditioning of the cult. This week I’ve been revisiting some presentations by Mormons and exMormons and this realization of the emotional stages of exiting Mormonism has been brought to the front of my mind again.
A very interesting presentation is that of Lyndon Lamborn. I’ve done some corresponding back and forth with him and he’s recently written a book regarding his journey. His family’s roots in Mormonism goes back to the time of Joseph Smith. I would recommend it for viewing. It was a simple question by a nonMormon coworker that got him thinking about the Mormon religion he was part of. He ended up getting excommunicated for his trouble and as of this video he was still processing where he would go, spiritually speaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbj7hwy-VCw&feature=related
A big “oops” on my part. That above link will get you to youtube but no Lyndon Lamborn. Just put his name in the “search” box and you’ll get his presentations.
Readers might also like to check out an audio interview that Mormon John Dehlin did with Grant Palmer author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”.
http://mormonstories.org/?p=92
ANDY
I notice you mention the fact that you asked, Crispen was it, three questions. Did you miss my post in which I asked you to ask me the same three questions, or were you just avoiding my challenge.
RICK B
Ask me any question about the LDS faith, and I will answer to the best of my ability.
As to “Historical Christianity” I never said all records were destroyed, and said the government did their best. There are records serviving, but very few of them, and even fewer that are the originals and not some translation of transcription.
Even with this, please tell me how there can be dozens of denominations all following historical Christianity. From what I can see the only ones that can truly claim this are the Catholics, because any denomination that came out of the Reformation changed that Historical church in some way, and usually to a great extant.
God is not the author of confusion, nor will he accept twenty different versions of his gospel. He will accept only one.
Shem,
“God is not the author of confusion, nor will he accept twenty different versions of his gospel. He will accept only one.”
Yup.
Which one do you think it is? The elitest one, where you must be perfect, learn secret handshakes and wear silly underwear, and want godhood like Lucifer did, be okay that your leadership keeps lying to everyone…
or the one where the price has been paid for the foolish and the wise, the rich and the poor, the clumsy and the delicate… of every race, every nation, every language…
Where God’s Only Begotten Perfect Lamb, and God Himself, gets all the Glory!
I’m serious. Try to answer that question after actually considering it, okay?
Shem said
Funny you should say this, since the LDS church is all confusion, and more holes than Swiss cheese.
I’m glad that Since I had to mention LDS avoiding question about a dozen times, you finally decide to answer me. My question to you about 3 topics back was, Why is it you said the LDS church teaches the J.S.T was not finished and you stand by your Church on this issue?
But then I gave quotes from your church saying the J.S.T was finished. My question was, was it finished or not? Your Church teaches both, and since your church is teaching confusion who can I trust in your Church and If your Church teaches both how can you trust them to be honest? Rick b
Shem,
Why would I avoid your challenge? I am the one that put it out there originally over two weeks ago. I drop in here occasionally from time to time. You could have contacted me via email. I usually post it after my posts. nobleberean@cox.net
Here it is and I’ll make it two questions:
1. Show me from the LDS KJV Bible with clear, detailed Scripture supporting what Joseph Smith said was “the first principle of the gospel” (King Follet Discourse; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345; Teachings of Presidents of The Church, p. 40; In Conference Report, Ensign, Nov. 2008, p. 75): God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man. I must see that Heavenly Father was once a man and became exalted to what He is now – God.
2. Be the first Mormon in history to tell me and everyone here that you know that you have been forgiven for ALL of your sins RIGHT NOW and that if you died RIGHT NOW you know you’d be in the celestial kingdom with your god who resides near Kolob.
BONUS: I’ll ask you what I asked my last Gospel Essentials teacher who had been a Mormon for 80 years: “Jesus Christ is my Savior. I am born again, have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life RIGHT NOW in Jesus Christ. What can the LDS Church offer me that I don’t already have in Jesus Christ RIGHT NOW?”
His reply (actual verbal word): “Nothing”
I see no point in becoming a Mormon based on his answer. There is nothing to gain. I’ve got it now. Shem, what say you?
Shem, document #1; answer #2 with an honest “yes” and I’ll convert and you can baptize me. Answer the bonus question and I’ll give you credit for all of this at your ward on the next Fast/Testimony Sunday. Everyone can slap your back and you’ll gain some bragging rights with your peers. If you’re single, you might be able to get a date from one of the ward beauties. It’s a win-win for you, Shem. Shall I start packing as Crispin requested that I do? Will you fill the baptismal tank as he did supposedly 2 weeks ago?
SETFREE
It is the one that was set up by Christ himself, not by men who were disatisfied with the Catholic church.
It is the one that holds the authority of the Priesthood, that can act in the name of Christ in all things.
It is the one that does not deny his commands, calling them unimportant, and unecessary.
It is the one that gives all glory to the Father and the Son, that praises them, and thanks them for the gift of grace.
It is the one that will not permit false teachings.
It is the one that recognizes that Christ has only one church, not dozens of denominations.
This is the true church of Christ. Who can claim to fulfill all this?
RICK
I could have sworn I answered that question, but let me do so again.
Of the quotes you gave, one was from Joseph Smith himself, in whichhe stated that the Translation was complete. This is likely a reference to the fact that they have gone through the entire Bible once, thus it was complete. However, since he himself continued to make corrections over the next ten years I feel safe in saying that he was not satisfied, and thus he did not think it truly complete. So, if I agree with the man who was doing the work, I find no problem.
As to the church Almanac, this is not a publication done by the church. It is not approved by the First Presidency in everything that it prints. Thus, when I stand with what the church has said, I am not standing with this Almanac.
The rest of the quotes you gave were from leaders of the church, and all agreed that it was not complete.
Thus, the church has said it is not complete. Regardless of what others have said concerning it, I stand by the prophets of God chosen to lead his church.
ANDY
Your questions are loaded, and you know it. They are safe to ask because you can always trist the answer. However, I will answer them the best I can.
1: God is an exalted man – from the Bible.
I can see this plainly taught in the Bible. However, I am coming from an LDS perspective. As such I see things in a very different way than you do. All I can do is explain what I see.
I think we can all agree that Christ was a man, that he lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God. I no you believe that he is one being with the Father, but to see the answer to the question you must look at the Bible from the LDS perspective (that of a Godhead).
In John 5: 19 Christ tells us “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
So, since Christ is only doing what his father has done, then at some time the Father also lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God.
As I said, this is very plain to me, easy to understand, but only when looking at it from an LDS perspective.
Shem, Like I asked before,
Why is it the Angel moroni Does not agree with Scripture quoted in the J.S.T? An Angel of God that JS listened to Misquotes scripture?
And if JS “Corrected” Scripture, that includes the OT, Why was it that Jesus Himself simple did not “Correct” the OT instead of Quoting as Fact corrupted Scripture? Rick b
Shem,
I asked you “which gospel” and you answered with “which organized religion”.
I don’t known if you have heard me say this before, but I don’t believe any organization to be “The Truth, The Way, and The Life”. I believe in Jesus.
Your church teaches Mel. Priesthood, and they embrace it as giving “the church” the “authority”. But you should really research it.
For one thing, “priesthood” in the Bible is not a power, but an office. It’s the word used to describe the office of, or the things having to do with, being a priest. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3550&t=KJV
The “hood” suffix is used the same way as “fatherhood” or “motherhood”; it’s all that goes along with being a father or mother. Not some weird transferable power that someone can give to another.
Priestcraft, on the other hand, is what is embraced (and called M. Priesthood) by witchcraft, Freemasons, and Mormons.
Don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself, and see if I’m telling the truth.
SHEM,
Andy/Berean can answer for himself but what I’ll tell you is that using your approach to Biblical interpretation, there is no heresy because it’s all just a matter of one’s opinion. The first thing you need to do is apply some basic rules of Biblical exegesis because without those rules anything and everything is correct. That’s why Mormonism can deceive people into believing something that is clearly false. I believe SETFREE admonished you previously about pulling a verse here and there from the Bible and stringing them together to come to a conclusion that was way out in left field. You’ve basically applied Mormon Biblical interpretation tactics here and yes it’s no surprise that it supports your Mormon supposition.
Here’s a simple test for your God was a man who progressed idea. What do the orthodox Jews believe about God. Now we know that they don’t accept Jesus as the messiah, but who do they see God the Father as. Do the Jews see God as a man who became a god? Are the Jews thinking about progressing to this end themselves?
And don’t you think that somewhere in the writings of the Church Fathers and the heretics we’d find the Mormon concept of the nature of God? It’s not there, because it doesn’t exist. I would think that if you were going to commit yourself to something, especially to something that takes your time, your treasure and your soul, you’d do some serious study with a skeptical mind-set. You basically repeat what the Mormons have told you. If you’re willing to trust Mormonism to deliver you the promise of becoming a god, there’s little hope for you.
Falcon,
I believe that my admonishment was directed at GRCluff on the Gods and Goddesses page. But this does not take away from what you said above. The truth is that this stringing-together of unrelated verses to support a false doctrine has been handed down from LDS leadership. For an interesting experiment, you ought to get into the “references” of the Standard Works (Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, Index) to see some real terrific lying. That a believing member does the same thing reflects what they have been taught to do by the leadership. This is how I came to realize that the LDS leadership are AWARE of the con they’re pulling on the membership. Pretty creepy, what they’ve done and are doing. No, more than that. It’s damnable. Evil.
It’s late Saturday night and there isn’t much action out here so I thought it might be a good time to talk about Biblical interpretation. What is Hermeneutics? Well it is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is referred to as a science because it is guided by rules within a system. It can be seen as an art because the application of the rules is by skill. In-other-words, it is not by mechanical imitation. What is the primary need of hermeneutics? It is to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture. It is to determine the meaning of the Word of God.
There is a term “sola fidei regula” which is the Reformation position that the Bible is the only authoritative voice of God. In conservative Protestantism, the Bible is authoritative. There is no secondary means of making clear the meaning of the Bible.
So in hermeneutics we seek: a) that we may know what God has said, and b) that we may span the linguistical, cultural, geographical, and historical gaps which separate our minds from those of the Biblical writers.
Literary and historical criticism of the Bible is not an evil but a necessity. It must be determined who wrote a book being considered, when it was written, if its contents are authentic, and if the book is a literary unit or not.
Hermeneutics assumes that the above has been accomplished. Assuming that, exegesis begins. So in order: the study of the canon determines the inspired books; the study of the text determines the wording of the books; the study of historical criticism gives the framework of the books; hermeneutics gives the rules for the interpretation of the books; exegesis is the applicaiton of these rules to the books; and the result of all of this is Biblical theology.
Finally, the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unkown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture.
What are some basic beliefs that guide Biblical interpretation?
1. The Bible is the literal Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16)
2. The Bible is God’s means of revealing truth to His people. God reveals His truth through the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the inspired Word.
3. The Bible is authoritative.
Some general principles of interpretation:
1. The Bible interprets itself; Scripture best explains Scripture.
2. Saving faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary for us to understand and properly interpret the Scriptures.
3. Interpret personal experience in light of Scripture and not Scripture in the light of personal experience.
4. Scripture has only one meaning and should be taken literally.
5. Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author.
6. Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context.
7. Interpret a passage in harmony with its context.
8. Interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal, and historical sense, unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic meaning.
9. Since Scripture originated in a historical context, it can be understood only in the light of Biblical history.
10. A doctrine cannot be considered biblical unless it sums up and includes all that the Scriptures say about it.
11. A teaching merely implied in Scripture may be considered biblical when a comparison of related passages supports the teaching.
In summary: Correlation is the process of relating a passage under consideration to the rest of the chapter, the whole book, and other portions of Scripture. This prevents forcing a meaning on a passage which was not intended by the writer. Since the Bible is truth and all truth is unified, all interprertations must be consistent and coherent with the rest of the Bible.
Following Falcon’s observations, and maybe this belongs at the start of a new thread, but I don’t know what’s more significant (I’ll attempt to put this in fairly neutral language);
1 What the LDS Church teaches its followers, or
2 The habituation of its followers to the notion that any scripture can mean anything. It can even mean two completely opposing ideas.
For example, if you ask a Mormon if he believes that there is One God, he will answer “yes”, and back it up with scripture. If you ask him if he believes that there are many Gods, he will answer “yes”, and back it up with scripture.
Also, recently, we were discussing Lorenzo Snow’s couplet(“As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be”). Those of us who have benefited from some sort of exegetical training have taken our tools to this text and concluded that it implies that God must have been a sinner. The LDS defence rests upon the argument that this cannot be what the couplet teaches because of its unacceptable implications.
We could get technical about it, but, to put it in laymans’ terms, it boils down to this; when I read something, do I read what I want it say or do I read what the author wants it to say? Personally, I’ll side with the author and let the consequences be what they may. At least I’ll know whether I agree with what was written, or not.
Coming back to the query above, we know that the LDS movement teaches everything and anything. This means that its fairly futile to object to Mormon doctrine, because there’s no such thing (despite the assertions of its promoters).
Also, judging from the comments posted by LDS here, it seems apparent to me that their training in exegesis is woeful. What I mean is, it appears that they are habituated into reading what they want to hear, rather than what the author wanted to say. There appears to be no “rule” of truth, other than that if came from an LDS source, it must be OK. The implications of this are that believers are robbed of an
Oops, sorry to rant on over the limit…
I was noting that the implications of this strategy are that believers are robbed of the tools they need to interpret scripture (“just believe whatever the prophets say”), and it puts the LDS leadership in a position of unchallengeable authority.
Now, I’m not particularly averse to a church organization wrestling with scripture on behalf of its followers and then saying, “this is what it means”.
However, I am concerned about the psychological well-being of someone who is totally surrendered to this mind-set. You see, if you habituate someone to overlaying someone else’s communications with other, unintended meanings, where does it stop? In the extreme, this will lead to a kind of paranoid schizophrenia, for example; no matter how many times I tell you I don’t mean to kill you, you refuse to believe that I don’t want to kill you.
I picked up a useful word from some posts here; “eisegesis”. I know that we are all subject in some part to our own acquired grid of interpretation, but the extent to which LDS block out any consideration of what exegesis is, I believe, a terrible indictment of what the LDS leadership teaches.
When we contend for the faith we are doing so, most likely, with reference to Holy Scripture. So what are some general principles of “interpretation”? Let me expand on what I’ve written above.
1. Context rules!
Context means “that which goes with the text.” Each verse needs to be considered in light of: the surrounding verses, the book in which it is found, the entire Word of God. We need to ask ourselves if the interpretation of a portion of Scripture is consistent with the theme, purpose, and the structure of the book in which the portion is found? Is the portion of Scripture consistent with other Scripture about the same subject? Is there a difference? We should ask ourselves if we have considered the historic and cultural context. Without following some simple principles/rules such as these, a person could violate a cardinal rule that a Scripture should never be taken out of its context in order to make it say what a person wants it to say. The point is that we are to discover what the writer is saying. We are not to add to the meaning.
2. Always seek the full counsel of the Word of God.
Knowing God’s Word in a thorough manner allows us to reject a teaching because someone has isolated a couple of verses to support it (teaching). Again, the particular verses may have been removed from the context, or perhaps important verses may have been overlooked (quite often ignored) which may have rendered a different understanding. Knowing God’s Word provides us with little light bulbs that go off telling us if a teaching is indeed Biblical.
3. Scripture never contradicts Scripture.
Scripture is God breathed; it won’t contradict itself. The best way to interpret Scripture is with Scripture. When examining something like the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, we may find it difficult to reconcile what appears to be a contradiction. A good rule: don’t take something to an extreme and remember we have finite minds. Spurgeon said: “I embrace the tension”
4. Don’t base your convictions on an obscure passage of Scripture. That is, one where the meaning is not easily understood.
5. Interpret Scripture literally.
The Bible is not meant to be a book of mysticism. God spoke in such a way that we could know His truth. The Bible should be taken in its natural, normal sense. We don’t have to look for hidden meanings in the Bible. We need to first look for the clear teaching.
We do, however, need to recognize figures of speech. That is; a word, a phrase, or some form of expression that the author used in an imaginative not a literal sense. For example, the writer or speaker may have been using “hyperbole” which is a deliberate exaggeration. The Bible uses similes, metonymy, synecdoche, personification and irony. The Bible uses parables, allegories, types, and symbols. It’s important to know what these are and to recognize when they occur and how the writer was using them.
We need to look at literary style when interpreting Scripture. Styles would include: historical-Acts, prophetic-revelation, biographical-Luke, didactic (teaching)-Romans, poetic-Psaolms, epistle (letter) 2 Timothy, and proverbial-Provebs.
6. Look for the single meaning of the passage. What did the author havbe in mind? Avoid twisting verses to support meanings that are not clearly taught.
One of our LDS posters told us that he was looking at the Bible from an LDS perspective. That of course is a critical error. Could we look at Scripture from the perspective of a UFO buff? Could we look at Scripture from a Scientology perspective? Could we look at Scripture from the perspective of Jim Jones of People’s Temple who had 800 or so followers commit mass suicide? Could we look at Scripture from the perspective David Koresh who led his followers to death in a flamming inferno? Should we look at Scripture from the perspective of the FLDS or any of the other “prophets” who have little groups of followers out and about Utah? How about the guy in New Mexico that the National Geographic channel profiled? God told this guy he was Jesus and his followers believe it. He’s also the only man in the group that’s allowed to have sex with the women members. Maybe we should view Scripture from his perspective.
We don’t apply a “perspective” to God’s Holy Word. We seek to find out what God’s Word teaches and then follow it. The LDS downgrade the Bible for a reason. A down graded Scripture allows for all sorts of “flexible” understand and creative doctrine. The LDS church is driven by revelation irrespective of what Scripture says. The revelation approach is also very flexiable allowing for revelations of the past “prophets” to be jettisoned in favor of a new and improved revelation. In this way, no revelation can ever be wrong.
Those of us who defend the faith do so with a reverence and respect for God’s Word. We don’t try and massage it to say what we desire it to say, but seek to understand God’s meaning. We are guided by principles and rules of interpretation that have the purpose of keeping us on track.
Falcon and Martin,
Excellent posts!!!
As a former Mormon, I can testify to the fact that the LDS Church does not teach its members anything about biblical interpretation. Falcon, everything you said about stringing this passage with that passage is exactly true. This is why “topical” sermons can (I’m not saying they always do) teach unbiblical principles. Expository preaching is the better way to go. Also, the one question not to ask in a Sunday School class is: What does this passage mean to you? It doesn’t matter what it means to me…what matters is what is GOD SAYING in this passage.
The one thing a student learns is that God uses a fallen and broken humanity to bring forth His word. As we learn in the Book of Judges, God uses the least likely source to accomplish His work here on earth. With that said, despite the frailties of humanity, God has faithfully preserved His Word through the biblical text regarding “salvation history (heilsgeschichte).”
The problem we have when engaged in apologetics with Mormons is that we don’t share presuppositions. As you noted, Falcon, the Bible is authoritative, but for the Mormon that just isn’t the case, and this is the result of their 8th AOF. Until they can come to the belief that the Bible is authoritative, and that we measure the words of proclaimed prophets and even our own experiences against the word of God, they will continue in their walk of darkness and denial.
Martin, I particularly appreciation your reference to habituation. That is absolutely the process to believing false teachings. I want to point out that habituation is mentioned in literature pertaining to suicide, as well. It’s the process to any self-destructive behavior. I think we see that happening in Mormonism…
Blessings!
Hey Jackg, Falcon,
I really enjoyed the above. Thanks for articulating!
falcon, martin, jackg,
Your lists of principles of Biblical interpretation- where did you get them? I don’t remember ever reading them in the Bible. Funny thing is I don’t recall prophets in the Bible using such criteria for receiving new revelations. Can you? Moses? Abraham? Isaiah? I doubt any of them sat down after communing with Jehovah to make sure the prophecies and commandments they received matched perfectly with those of previous prophets.
I again emphasize that you do not have any additional authority or grounds to stand on or make such claims. Your interpretation is ultimately nothing more than your interpretation (or some other person’s). NOBODY GAVE YOU ANY AUTHORITY TO INSTRUCT US (OR ANYBODY ELSE) ON BIBLICAL INTERPRERATION.
Your instruction to us dumb mormons on reading the Bible is quite condescending and self-serving. You suggest we are spoon fed everything and don’t have the same desires, skills, or means as you in learning truth. How silly. As if your “viewpoint” of the Bible is THE correct one. What an ignorant and puffed-up self image.
And martin- you again misrepresent us in claiming we believe God was once a sinner. Yet you cannot provide one statement or verse from our cannon that suggests this is our belief. In my opinion, you are lying in saying this. I have never, ever heard that taught in any church meeting. I have never read anything to suggest that in all of my study of our doctrine, which I promise is more exhaustive than yours.
Olson, Jim
You can’t be serious! I’m really at the point of wondering why we are even messing around with you. I’m being as charitable as I can to you, but you are testing my limits. As I told one of our other Mormon posters, if you were in one of the college classes I teach, I’d kick you out until you got serious. Don’t you want to think some bigger thoughts, expand your horizons?
But being the kind, benevolent, ever patient type of person I am, I will answer you without being sarcastic and snarly which is what I’d really like to do.
1. Principles of Biblical interpretation aren’t in the Bible you dofus. It’s a system that was established to insure correct and accurate rendering of the text. Without these guiding principles, you get goofball religions like Mormonism. Why am I even answering this? Are you really that vacant? This has nothing to do with receiving “new” revelations. Sit-up and pay attention and throw your gum away!
2. Mormons, you are right, have no scholarly discipline. They feel things and run to and fro with every new wave of doctrine or supposed revelation. Mormons are waves driven by the wind.
3. I don’t have “my interpretation”. You really don’t get any of this do you? Mormonism has turned you into a dunce. My guess is that you have at least a tick above average intelligence. Would you please use some of it and quit lapping up what they teach you at the wards.
Yes, when it comes to actually doing some serious study, I do believe Mormons are deficient. You’re comments prove it. You reveal it everytime you post here.
Well I think I handled that pretty well. I got my point across and did it in a very nice way. I think I’m growing!
Olsen, Jim
Since you brought up the “authority” thing again, I would like to ask: would you or any other Mormon care to say WHY IT IS OKAY that you have so much in common with the Freemasons when it comes to the M. Priesthood and the temple ceremonies? Any one want to elaborate on the okayness of it?
Falcon,
that made me chuckle
Olsen, Jim
Studying passages in context is COMMON SENSE. If not, I could take your “how silly” in your entry above, and say that you meant that Thomas Monson is silly. See how that works?
Maybe no one should have ever broken the Bible into chapters and verses, so that stealing a verse here and there would be more difficult.
Huh?
Since you brought up the “authority” thing again, I would like to ask: Would you or any other Mormon here care to explain WHY IT IS OKAY that you have so much in common with the Freemasons when it comes to the M. Priesthood and the temple ceremonies? Any one want to elaborate on the okayness of it?
Falcon,
you made me chuckle
oops! well, maybe it’s good that that question was asked twice! how ’bout three times, and this time I’ll add just a little more food for thought.
IF JS didn’t get the Melchesidek Priesthood from the Freemasons, how’d they get it? Do they have the authority it supposedly gives? Can anyone explain why, if JS got the temple stuff from the Freemasons, how the MP got all tangled up with it?
If he didn’t get the temple stuff FROM them, did he give it to them? Are they a brother church to the LDS church, since they have the same MP and similar temple ceremonies? If not, then what is the dividing difference?
One last question… if the definition of priesthood as used in the Bible is that of “the office of a priest”, used like mother-hood or father-hood to describe the things involved with “being a priest”, where and how did it become a magic power, coveted by Mormons, Masons, and witches alike?
Ok, the floor is yours.
falcon:
I think you are making great progress. Your note above was quite tolerant, even kind.
I find your logic to be incomplete, however, because you put everything into a context of “scholarly disipline”. You completely reject any notion of truth outside of the Bible.
What if you were born in a time before the Bible was written? What would be your foundation for truth then?
Christ (In the Bible) gave us this approach:
Matt 7:7
…ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If you reject the concept of personal revelation to always defer to the Bible, then what does “knock” mean? It must mean that you should knock on the cover before you read. Yes, I agree, that would be quite ridiculous.
One purpose for our life here is to learn to walk by faith. If we begin to rely on evidence and proof we are rejecting the concept of faith. God wants us to pray and receive answers to prayer.
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
The Bible also teaches about the failure to grasp the concept of faith:
2 Tim 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
My question for falcon: Does your focus on “scholarly discipline” make you reprobate concerning faith?
It is faith that is missing, not Bible scholarship–the kind of faith that gets answers to prayer. Mormons value spirituality and personal revelation well above biblical scholarship.
Heres my problem:
I don’t think God has changed anything as basic as the foundation for truth, just because the Bible was written. The Bible should enhance that foundation, not place restrictions on it.
I think it is quite ironic that falcon mentioned “wave of doctrine”. The verse that speaks about waves tossed by the sea is immediately preceeded by the recommendation to “ask of God”. (James 1:5-6) It says nothing at all about “bible scholarship”.
The proper context for those being tossed about like a wave of the sea is clearly attached to those who refuse to use faith and prayer for a foundation for truth, not those that do.
GRCluff,
Wow, I ALMOST can’t believe you just wrote that.
Everyone of those things above you took out of original context and put together to support the doctrine that personal revelation beats out knowing what’s in the Bible.
I especially love it that you used 2 Tim 3 to try to validate your idea that those of us who try to study the Bible and see what it REALLY HAS TO SAY, instead of just grabbing out a verse here and there to prove what we think, are reprobate! Especially because a few more verses into the passage, he says:
“You (Timothy) however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them (Paul),
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture (not including LDS “scripture” since it hasn’t been born yet) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
In other words? It’s the knowing of the Bible that gives a man the ability to teach, reprove, correct, and train. It’s the knowing of the Bible that gives the wisdom that leads to the salvation through faith in Jesus. Hardly an admonition not to study up, you think?
falcon,
You are cute, aren’t you. I think your posts really do speak for themselves. Am I supposed to be impressed that you teach college classes? I have spent a little time on campus myself my little intellectual master. I am guessing you don’t teach physics, chemistry, logic, or statistics?
Of course you will not answer any of my questions since I started posting here. Your M.O. is so predictable. When challenged, get personal, inflammatory, and go off on your normal, unrelated talking points.
My point is that if you are right about the authority of the Bible, you still have no authority to tell me or anybody else what any given passage of the Bible means. I have the Bible as you do. You have your interpretation of those words, like I have mine. Your interpretation is based on what others have told you and the traditions you have inherited. You are more naive than I thought if you think you have no bias. Nobody with any credibility claims such a thing.
Your religion is based on the absolute blind faith in the authority of the Bible. This is a big problem when you realize that I and other also have the Bible. Any superiority in interpretation you claim is based on man-made criteria. Yours is a contradictory position- you have no way around this. If there is no authority outside the Bible as you all claim, then I have as much authority as you.
I at least claim authority from God (Priesthood and modern revelation) that is beyond what you possess. Of course, I am either right or wrong. But my claim is least internally logical. Yours will simply not stand basic examination.
Setfree,
Do you not see that your are reading into the text your bias and assumptions?
Where in those verses does it mention “the Bible?” Do you know of which scriptures and sacred writings Paul spoke?” When was the speaker speaking, and when was The Holy Bible compiled?
Knowing the scriptures brings wisdom which can lead to salvation through Faith in Christ. How does that contradict any LDS doctrine? It doesn’t in any way, shape, or form. But you don’t seem to recognize your assumptions in your interpretation.
My point, and Cluff’s too I think, is not that studying the scriptures is not important. My point is that your reliance alone upon creeds and man-made methodology, to the neglect of the spirit, lead to rejection of that very power that is in the scriptures. You reject God’s prophets and words because you box yourselves into man-made constructs. And there is nothing to separate those particular man-made constructs from any others.
falcon said,
“I’m really at the point of wondering why we are even messing around with you. I’m being as charitable as I can to you, but you are testing my limits….if you were in one of the college classes I teach, I’d kick you out….But being the kind, benevolent, ever patient type of person I am, I will answer you without being sarcastic and snarly which is what I’d really like to do.”
“Principles of Biblical interpretation aren’t in the Bible you dofus. Why am I even answering this? Are you really that vacant? Sit-up and pay attention and throw your gum away!
“You really don’t get any of this do you? Mormonism has turned you into a dunce. My guess is that you have at least a tick above average intelligence. Would you please use some of it and quit lapping up what they teach.”
Hard to imagine a tone and self-image that more closely matched that of the Pharisees of Christ’s day.
WOW, I’m popular tonight. I’ll focus on CLUFF and say a few things I normally keep to myself although I think I may have shared it in some form here perhaps once or twice over the many months I’ve been actively posting here.
While I was raised Catholic, I don’t belong to any formal denomination or Church body, I’m a born again believer in Jesus Christ. My faith in Jesus is the central focus of my life. I believe in the fullness of God’s Word. I’m fastidious and very picky about how people interpret scripture.
There are several reasons for this but it’s primarily because I’m a believer in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as they are described by Paul in First Corinthians chapters 12, 13, and 14. This would include prophesy, speaking in tongues, word of knowledge, healing, spiritual discernment etc.
I find that it is absolutely imperative that Christians, especially charasmatics, have a firm grasp of God’s Word and test everything with scripture. Error can creep in when people are not on guard. There have been all kinds of strange teachings proclaimed and accepted even within the Body of Christ because people were not vigilant in testing everything with the Word of God. Over the years I have become exceedingly skeptical and being so has served me well.
Do I believe in continuous revelation? No not in the Mormon sense of the word. Does God reveal things to me? Yes, everyday but it’s all in the context of His revealed Word the Bible. It’s interesting to me that Mormons don’t pick-up on the fact that their view of continuous revelation has been nothing but trouble for the religion. But it’s a religion that was founded in error and it just perpetuates the tradition. Knowing and understanding the Word of God and seeing it as authoritative would destroy Mormonism. It is essential to it’s survival that Mormonism hold to a lower view of the Bible, that they (Mormons) stay away from any formal system of Biblical interpretation.
I have a question. Many here, especially Falcon and RickB claim to have the truth and that they are ASSURED of getting into heaven and that we LDS are going to hell, and to those that make this claim it is an absolute – ie no ifs buts or whys.
If we look at what Jesus taught in the parable of the 10 virgins I wonder how people can be so sure. The 10 virgins represent the TRUE believers in Jesus – in the Ev’s case this is the Christian denominations that believe the same as them; for the LDS it is the LDS church only. The question lies in the fact that only 5 of the virgins will make it to the party – in other words only half of the Christians will make it to heaven. So how can anyone on here say that they are saved and going to heaven when Jesus taught that they have at best a 50:50 chance? Have these people already passed through judgment and been told their outcome? If so, why do all born again Christians claim to be saved and going to heaven and that the rest of Christianity is as well. Just remember, Jesus is teaching about the TRUE believers, not the ones who go to church but do not believe, etc.
Olsen Jim
I apologize, I said “Bible” when I should have said “Old Testament”.
However:
If you read back through 1 and 2 Timothy, you’ll see that Paul instructs Timothy, his “son in the faith” to diligently keep his (Paul’s) instructions, as well as the testimony of the Lord. Timothy has not just learned the OLD TESTAMENT since his youth, but now knows of Jesus and has been instructed personally by Paul. Thus, he is operating under the direct influence of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament (even if not in written form yet), and being entrusted as a teacher under such understanding.
In preparing to answer your accusation, I went back and read Timothy again. This, against your assumption that I just go by “creeds and man-made methodology”. On the contrary. I read the book for myself, and compare it to itself. You should try it.
For example, if you read through Timothy, you can find some more good stuff:
1. 1Tim 1:17 (another “only one God” verse)
2. 1Tim 2:5 (ANOTHER “only one God” verse)
3. 1Tim 3:16 (another verse about how God was made flesh and dwelt among us)
and also some missing stuff:
1. No mention of “priesthood”
2. No mention of temple work
3. No mention of becoming gods
…
I’m not trying to stuff my own beliefs into the Bible. If I make an error in writing, I apologize. But I also will not put Joseph Smith’s or any other LDS theology into the Bible. I’ll just read the Bible for what it is. Can we have that understanding between us?
One more thing. Now that Jesus has gone and sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers, what is the Holy Spirit’s job? to point you to another god, another jesus, another gospel?
No, no, no.
All of the above is irrelevant.
What you’re really saying is that you don’t believe the Bible. Not any of it. Right? It’s just man-made, and you’re a man, so you’re own beliefs are just as true. That’s the main issue right there, isn’t it? Am I correct?
Part 1
Shem,
How about this: let’s forget about the Bible being your only resource for answering the first question (Is God an exalted man?). The Book of Mormon claims to be “the most correct of any book on earth…and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” It also contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” With that said, this particular teaching by the LDS Church has to/must be in the Book of Mormon. Heavenly Father is not going to leave out this important fact about Himself regarding His nature and not tell His people about it. I’m going to get closer to Him by my knowledge and understanding of the Book of Mormon so this fundamental teaching and understanding of Him would be/must be contained in the pages of the Book of Mormon. Show me this doctrine/teaching that is the “first principle of the gospel” from the BoM.
I asked “loaded” questions? This is pathetic – again. Just a few days ago you were ready for all 100 questions and were itching to just get the first two and this is your reply? Spare me your whining and take it up with Joseph Smith who hatched this “loaded” doctrine and peddled it to the uneducated masses who swallowed it down like bad elixir without testing this heretical so-called prophet’s teaching with the Word of God (the Bible) to see if it stood muster (1 Thes 4:1). Millions of people have died in Mormonism believing this 14 year-old farm boy’s tale from the woods in New York. They did so then and continue to now and you can’t show me from the Scriptures this fundamental teaching that you have rested your eternal hope in? Wake up! Quit making excuses for yourself and the GA’s and start searching this out.
I can “trist the answer”? What? I asked the questions and you are the one giving the answers – not me. I can passionately and thoroughly define the nature of God from the Bible with numerous references from the Bible. I’m not LDS and I could do it from the Book of Mormon too!
Part 2
Shem, we are going to break it down line-by-line what you said and check it with the Bible and then with what your GA’s have put out to the Mormons in the form of “doctrine”.
You said: “I think we can all agree that Christ was a man, that he lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God.”
You got it wrong on both counts – Mormonism and Christianity. Christ was fully God and fully man which is quite different than the way the Mormons present him as being only “half”:
“There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity. He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, page 10)
Next, Christ didn’t become God after the resurrection. He has been God from all eternity (John 1:1). He was called God before His earthly birth and when He was born He fulfilled the prophecy (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Jesus is “The Mighty God”. That is El Gibbor – one of the titles of God.
In Mormonism, Jesus didn’t become God after the resurrection. He is “a god” (one of billions)
“Our Savior was a God before he was born into this world, and he brought with him that same status when he came here. He was as much a God when he was born into the world as he was before. The Savior did not have fullness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:32-33)
“By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in the preexistent state.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129)
Part 3
That’s right, I do see Jesus as one being with the Father. They are two persons, but one in essence, nature and being. You can get caught up to speed by educating yourself on this very discussion on the thread topic a few weeks back entitled “Discovering the God of Christianity”. I have looked at the Bible with the LDS perspective and I’d rather not have to if I can help it because it gives me a headache in the blatant heresy the Mormons are engaged in. I also try to not openly laugh at Gospel Essentials and Doctrines classes at the wards when I come across biblical exegesis displayed by yourself with John 5:19.
Is this really the best you have in apologetics that your heavenly father was a savior on some other planet like your jesus in the Americas? If you’re eternal hope is dangling on this sink-all verse, I’d recommend you use a life-line and call someone. You have my email address. I’ll help walk you out.
Okay, taking your view of John 5:19 let’s look at it and see if it measures up. Verses 17-18 are talking about Jesus’ character. Jesus’ claim was a no-brainer for the Jews and they sought to kill him because Jesus had made Himself EQUAL WITH GOD. If you are going to stick with your view of verse 19, then you’re going to have to do something about John 5:23 because you are now going to have to start giving to Jesus THE SAME HONOR that you give the Father. Are the LDS people doing that? Nope! They could start by praying to Christ, the mediator, but they can’t because:
“We always pray to our Father in Heaven, and to him alone…We do not pray to the Savior or to anyone else. To do so would be disrespectful of Heavenly Father and an indication that we do not properly understand the relationship of the members of the Godhead.” (Missionary Preparation Student Manual Religion 130, page 40).
Has your father been the judge of those persons he died for on that other planet? I know, “it hasn’t been revealed yet”.
Part 4
In John 5:22 the Father has given all future judgement to the Son. Give me an LDS reference that states that your father has been given judgement from his father to judge the people on that planet where he supposedly atoned for.
Here are some other questions that need to be answered following your conclusion of your jesus copy-catting what your father did:
1. When your father became the risen savior of his world at one point did he marry, obtain residence near Kolob and start procreating?
2. Is your jesus now doing this as well? If so, where is his residence and what planet are his spirit children inhabiting?
3. Your heavenly father will reign in the celestial kingdom. Mormon doctrine states that your jesus gets the terrestrial kingdom. Why the difference? Your father should be getting the terrestrial glory from the eternal dwelling place of those that obtained that glory on the other planet. Why does your father and jesus have two different dwelling places for those that die on this planet?
4. Your jesus will return and “set up shop” in Missouri in the Millennium with Adam. Will your heavenly father also return back to his planet for the millennium or has that already happened? If so, why did your father leave after the millennium and head for his residence near Kolob? Who took his place and what is going on there now? Wouldn’t the residents of that planet wonder where their savior went and started up another program somewhere else? At some point will your jesus “split” and go off to start his own program and procreate a savior for that next planet?
LDS references requested!
The questions could keep going. Our Mormon friends and the LDS Church state that they have the answers to man’s questions and that they remain Mormons because “it all makes sense”. Well, if this makes sense to you, then I beg you to help me make sense out of it. Mormons deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity because they can’t understand it, but accept this.
Part 5
Shem, it’s very convenient and easy for Mormons to say that their view of god being an exalted man is “very plain” to see, “but only when looking at it from an LDS perspective”. That’s real nice, but don’t expect to be taken seriously. With the LDS lenses around your eyes you approach the Bible from what you have already been taught about it FIRST before you go to the Bible to learn what it says about the subject BEFORE AND AFTER you are given the “medicine” at the ward. If you don’t test it out, you have nobody to blame but yourself. You can’t blame it on Joseph Smith when you end up in outer darkness when God’s Word is sitting on your lap and people like myself and others are begging you to look at it FIRST.
You’re not alone. The JW’s are in the same camp and have many of the beliefs that you do. They come over every Saturday at 1 PM for hours of hearty discussions. You cite John 5:19 for your reasons. They cite 1 Thes 4:16 as a proof text that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Look at it and try swallowing that down. Taste good? No, huh? They are looking at their Bible with their JW lens on based on what their people in Brooklyn told them and they have the corrupt NWT version of the Bible. They have false prophecies just as bad or worse than the Mormons and they have to face the reality of it which they did yesterday. Their claiming to have never heard about those prophecies isn’t an excuse.
So, obey John 5:22 – “honor the Son, even as they honor the Father”. That is in the present tense. To dishonor Jesus is to dishonor the Father. Obey John 5:18 and Phil 2:6 and give the Son equality with the Father. Call Jesus Lord and God as Thomas did in John 20:28. Call Jesus the “great God” as Paul did in Titus 2:13. Obey the Father’s command in Hebrews 1:6 and worship the Son; call Jesus “God” – not “a god”. If you want to copy-cat the Son who is copy-catting the Father, then do what both of them tell you to do which is contrary to LDS teaching.
Part 6
Shem,
I wish I could report to you that your interpretation of John 5:19 had support from the GA’s, but it doesn’t. I can’t find anyone to back you up in this belief – officially. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie in his “Doctrinal New Testament Commentary”, Vol.1, pp. 189-193) on this verse doesn’t offer one slight hint of your perceived conclusion and position. He states on page 190 in the above resource what he said before:
“As the Jehovah of old, he was more faithful, obedient, and diligent than any of the spirit hosts of heaven, and while yet in the pre-existent sphere, he attained that intelligence and power which made him a god” (p. 190)
Before you blow-off McConkie as a non-credible source, be aware that at McConkie’s funeral he was called a “preacher of righteousness”. This is the same title given to Noah and Enoch in the “Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, page 26. Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet, called on McConkie when he had a question about Mormon doctrine (Ensign, June 1985). Can you believe that? The prophet went to an apostle to learn about doctrine?
Shem, what troubled me the most of all is that you didn’t even address question #2 asking if you knew if you had been forgiven of your sins and your confidence in knowing your eternal destiny now. That is sad and grieves me a great deal for you and other Mormons. I can show you from the Bible the confidence that I have in knowing my sins are forgiven and my confidence in having eternal life NOW. I don’t know why this doesn’t trouble Mormons more than it should. Mormons put on their “happy face”, but in reality it’s hidden anxiety or should be not knowing you have complete forgiveness and the gift of eternal life right now.
The questions weren’t “loaded”. Mormons have “unloaded” themselves to a false god and prophet. You failed in answering two questions. You have no credibility. You should be the one converting to Christianity since I won’t be to Mormonism.
Olsen,
As I thought about responding to you, the Holy Spirit put it on my heart to remember that you are a victim of the lies of JS and Mormonism. So, rather than respond to you harshly, I will respond to you with words of hope: God is working in your life to bring you out of the bondage of Mormonism. You don’t appreciate it, today, but hopefully you will begin to respond to the Voice of the LORD as He brings you Truth through His imperfect human vessels who post here in the Name of Jesus Christ. Falcon may not be perfect, but he is bringing you unadulterated Truth. I don’t know who you are, Olsen, but God does, and He knows of whom I speak when I utter your name in prayer as I pray for your redemption. You won’t appreciate what I’m saying, today, but I’m hoping there will be a day when we rejoice in your salvation.
Blessings to you and yours…
Ralph, why do we believe with 100% certainty we are going to heaven? Because the Bible tells us nothing can take us from God’s hand.
Why do we believe you are going to hell? Because you do not believe in Christ. Rather, you follow an empty savior who will lead you to death.
In other words, you are among the many who will call on the name of the lord and he will say he has never known you. Or, put a third way, using that same passage you raise your question on, you are not prepared.
Blessings.
Olsen Jim wrote ”
And martin- you again misrepresent us in claiming we believe God was once a sinner. Yet you cannot provide one statement or verse from our cannon that suggests this is our belief. In my opinion, you are lying in saying this. I have never, ever heard that taught in any church meeting. I have never read anything to suggest that in all of my study of our doctrine, which I promise is more exhaustive than yours.”
Olsen Jim, I don’t doubt that you have spent more time studying Mormon doctrine than me. My concern is that you have not learned one thing from it.
The Apostle Paul specifically warns his followers to be wary of those who come with religious bragging rights based on visions they have seen. He contrasts this with the Word of God and the proclaimed Gospel that he had revealed to him by Jesus Christ. Paul, having experienced a true revelation, which he tested by presenting it to the Apostles in Jerusalem, knew how people could be taken captive by dynamic and engaging personalities with fantastic claims of the miraculous.
A characteristic of a cult is that they claim to have a new vision, a new revelation or a new teaching; which they say, replaces the old one which, of course, was in error. Generally speaking, this new revelation leads people to discard the Bible as being the one authoritative source for doctrine. Once having accomplished this, the cult leader can lead people on what ever nefarious spiritual journey he pleases. His revelations and visions now guide the faithful.
Another characteristic of a cult is that they attack the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus (like the Bible) gets a down-grade from the cult leader. Jesus is not seen as God incarnate but some lesser being akin to a type of super hero.
Salvation by faith through God’s grace is also discarded in favor of a works righteousness program where the faithful no longer have any assurance of salvation and are kept in bondage to the cult. The cult holds the keys to eternal life and slavish devotion to the cult is controled through unreasonalbe time committments and claims on the personal finances of the members.
Through the use of thought terminating cliches, the cult keeps its members from any form of inquiry that would cause the house of cards to collapse. Mormonism is such a cult. It can be difficult to extract one’s self from such a group. The first step is honest inquiry.
Sorry. I reached my daily limit of comments last time, so I will now answer the second and bonus question asked.
2. Be the first Mormon in history to tell me and everyone here that you know that you have been forgiven for ALL of your sins RIGHT NOW and that if you died RIGHT NOW you know you’d be in the celestial kingdom with your god who resides near Kolob.
I cannot do this, because there have been others before me. Joseph Smith declared this. He even declared it about other members.
Me, myself, if I died right now, yes I would be in the Celestial Kingdom. I have been forgiven of my sins, as I have worthily partaken of the holy Sacrement, and thus I stand ready to accept a Celestial Glory when I die.
BONUS: Jesus Christ is my Savior. I am born again, have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life RIGHT NOW in Jesus Christ. What can the LDS Church offer me that I don’t already have in Jesus Christ RIGHT NOW?
I would answer that you do not have a true understanding, for a full forgiveness of sins can only come from Baptism at the hands of one holding authority. As the LDS church is the only church that has this authority, and you have not yet been baptized, you are living with a false security taught by Satan to keep you from inheriting all that you could. As such, the LDS church can offer you the true hope of Forgiveness in Christ and exaltation in the Eternal worlds.
Shem,
Only those who can forgive are those whop baptize, and only those with authority can baptize, huh? I guess Jesus was lying when he said he forgave people without baptism.
You really, really want to believe the things you say, and probably think you do. But a simple reading of scripture will show that you cannot believe in the Bible and in what you belive, because they cannot be reconciled.
Jesus forgave many, and even claimed to have the power to forgive sin, something the Jews found blasphemous. He still can, and still does. He does not need his people on earth to do this, and in fact, we cannot forgive sin. Only Christ can.
Oh, and Shem, what if you sin today? Are still worthy of the CK? If so, does that mean that you don’t have to be sin free to get in and that it is based on your works rather than being clean? If baptism by authority is required, would you have to be baptized again, each time you sin?
Well Shem,
You gave a very nice recitation of the Mormon position and I’ll let Andy/Berean deal with that. I’ll address something else.
You have the Christian talking points down and have applied them to Mormonism i.e.
*Jesus Christ is my Savior.
*I’m born again.
*I have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life right now.
You have taken these three above points of evengelical Christianity and applied them to Mormonism. This is very deceptive and is done to mask what Mormonism really is. We’ve been down this road countless times with you Mormons and you just won’t give it up. If you’re going to use the vocabulary of ev. Christianity, please define the terms according to Mormonism so that people know the difference.
Then you start to undo what you’ve said previously when you start adding things to the “forgiveness formula”. Now, according to Mormonism, you have to be baptized and have hands laid on you to get really forgiven. We could put this under the heading of works and sacrementalism. If that’s what you have to do in Mormonism fine, but that’s not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is, as we point out countless times, another gospel. Why don’t you add circumcision while your at it?
Your last couple of sentences reflect the fact that you haven’t read the Bible and how totally deceived you are. The LDS church has no authority. It’s a cult. Not even a very clever one at that.
Again, Mormons show their lack of understanding regarding the biblical text. They are inclined to knock biblical scholarship, despite the fact that Paul commends the Bereans for searching the scriptures and not blindly accepting what was being preached. And, once again, Mormons want to make a claim for having more “faith” because they accept heretical teachings that obvious come from outside the biblical text, then ask questions like, “What if you lived in a time when there was no Bible?” This is a great example of how the Church Fathers operated–from within the biblical text. JS, on the other hand, brought things from outside the biblical text. I know I’m a broken record, but Mormons will never come to know the biblical Jesus until they can accept the Bible as authoritative for their lives. This is what we must pray for. Until that happens, we will ride this never-ending merry-go-round of quasi-theological debate until we jump off before we puke our guts out. I can remember when I was a Mormon I truly believed I worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Something to think about: Mormons believe they are following the truth because of the common grace God blesses them with, and they mistake this common grace for blessings as a result of being members of the true church. They are faithful in their religion, and have been misled to believe that the God they worship is the True and Living God DESPITE the fact that everything they believe about their god contradicts what the Bible teaches about God. They have been habituated into such a belief because of their 8th AOF, and their existential experiences trump biblical truth. When I walked in Mormonism, I truly believed I was in the only true church on the face of the earth. It took decades to respond to Truth, and another decade to be totally free from the addiction to a cult that is formed through years of use. Praying for the redemption of all Mormons.
Peace and Grace…
Jack, falcon,
Don’t flatter your own argument. I have never argued against studying the Bible. I whole-heartedly believe in and encourage Biblical scholarship in a methodical manner. Since both you and I have the Bible, your argument depends upon your claim that I somehow don’t actually use or accept the Bible, thereby giving you something that I don’t have. Sorry. Doesn’t work. I am just as much into the Bible as you, despite your apparent ownership of the book.
But is like a 4-volume manual on military protocol- each of the 4 volumes are authoritative. But each one does not independently represent the whole protocol or body of instruction. The Bible is certainly authoritative word of God. But your insistence that it is the whole word of God, and that God cannot give any additional words is simply not supported by the Bible itself. And your belief that it is infallable and perfect, which your religion is quite dependent upon, is simply unscholarly.
Too many here, including yourselves, are either naive to the history of the Bible, the manuscripts, and the manner of its compilation or you refuse to look at it squarely. It’s history does not threaten me. But it certainly does threaten your claims of infallability and perfection. That must be the reason you will not deal with these things.
Your simple view and your pattern of making huge assumptions are demonstrated by your repeated appeal to Pauls warnings against false teachers. Yes indeed, there are false teachers. But you often state that simply because Pauls warns of such people, LDS are those people. It is a simple, childlike jump in logic, but unfortunately is a completely unsupported conclusion.
Bottom line- you worship the Bible and reject the God who gave it. And you take an unscholarly approach to its history- a little ironic given your common criticism regarding a lack of LDS scholarship into our history and cannon.
Jim,
I am going to jump in here and make some observations on this last post. What you present is a battle that must be fought of over, or worth fighting over. You make the claim that the other Mormon manuscripts are just as authoritative as the Bible and then chastize us for not seeing that. Fair enough in the course of a discussion. But be careful to note why it is that we say the things we say about the Bible, and then about your other “authoritative” works. To do this, one must look at the whole picture, from history to the books themselves to how the books are used.
Personally, I am no expert in Christian history, and I grant it is not all rosy, but it does present a consistency and a message that I feel more than confident in following today. Mormonism cannot say the same thing about its own faith, because if you were to follow the faith of Smith or Young, you would be living a very different faith now. Further, you cannot speak in more than generalities about the history of our faith, the compilation of the Bible and the transmission of the text.
The appeal of Paul against false teachers is no small matter, and you seek to diminish its importance. This is interesting, because if we diminish these warnings, we are apt to fall for one of them. And yes, I believe Smith and Young were false teachers.
How do I reach that conclusion? By reading the book you want to diminish in importance, as demonstrated by your diminishing Paul’s warnings against false teachers and your uplifting of the other sources as authoritative. You cannot make your case using the Bible alone, and if you cannot do that, you are in trouble.
The Bible is clear, and the Bible is the word of God. We are to test all things we hear, we are to go to scripture to test, and we are to rely on the word of God as the ultimate source of authority. Remember, the word of God was written in the Bible (I think you’d agree on that) even if he also speaks to us as well.
Continued…
If the Bible is the word of God, then everything he tells us must be found in the Bible. Otherwise, it cannot be said to be the word of God, but at best a partial word of God. But that’s not what it is, is it? The Bible is indeed the complete word of God.
If you believe that it is but a partial revelation, not even a distorted revelation, you cannot trust it as authoritative. You admit this is the case in your analogy above, but to reach your conclusion you must some assumptions on your own, assumptions that cannot go beyond assumption.
For example, you claim that Christ came the America’s to reveal his word to the American people. But the word that was revealed is not the same as it was in the old world. Why is that? It is your assumption that this is true, but have nothing to offer except that the spirit told you so. And if you believe the Bible is authoritative, then you would look at it and follow its words and test the claims made. It would fail based on the Bible alone.
You, I am guessing, would support the claim by saying the Bible has been perverted through transmission errors, but as has been said several times, nothing changed has been changed enough to change interpretation. This is a problem for you, but you will make the claim anyway because your faith depends on it and the spirit tells you so. But you are to test what you see, right? You are to look to scripture to confirm what you are told, right?
Another problem with history is that you claim to be a restoration of Christianity, but the more I have thought about it, the reality is that you even correct Judaism. You say that there are multiple Gods (even if you worship but one) but the Jews believed in but one. The Lord you claim to be Jehovah and Jesus is to the Jews the one God they said existed for ever and ever, unless they were wrong, too.
I could go on, but have gone on enough, and hope you consider what has been written by me and others.
Olsen, Jim
As ususal, you offer a lot of opinions but nothing to back it up. You say something about the Bible not supporting the notion that God will not give additional words of scripture. If you’re going to make a claim like that then you’d better supply substantiation for it or it’s just more Mormon sloganeering. The “you worship the Bible” line is pretty childish and unfortuately another slogan you’ve been taught down at the wards and repeat as needed.
So you’re a scholar when dealing with the history and transmission of the sacred Biblical text. So just what do you know about that topic? That’s quite a boast. Can you tell me what you’re using for references. I’m guessing you’re making a false claim or perhaps you think you’re knowledgable based on your Mormon training on the topic.
I’m guessing that your attitude about the Bible and desire to downgrade it is based on the fact that the BoM has had several thousand changes in it since the original version and that the BoA has been proven to be totally bogus. Don’t judge the Bible by the Mormon “scriptures” which have been proven to be a toal hoax.
I would now like to respond to what ANDY said:
“The Book of Mormon claims to be “the most correct of any book on earth…and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” It also contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” With that said, this particular teaching by the LDS Church has to/must be in the Book of Mormon.”
You really are being rather idiotic here, and showing a very low understanding of the English language (even worse than mine, which is impressive). Yes the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, however, this does not mean it has all truth in it, but that what is in it is correct.
As to the fullness of the Gospel, what exactly does that mean? The Gospel can refer to all truth, which is what Joseph Smith was referring to in his sermon. However, it can also reference only that which is necessary for our salvation. This doctrine is not necessary for our salvation, and thus would not have to be included in the Book of Mormon.
“I asked “loaded” questions? This is pathetic – again. Just a few days ago you were ready for all 100 questions and were itching to just get the first two and this is your reply?”
I was ready, and I did answer. That does not mean this was not loaded. You might as well have challenged a contractor to build a house, but demand he start with the roof and work his way down. It is impossible. The same is true of this doctrine. Without the foundation of the Gospel, as taught by the LDS church, without all the rest of the LDS doctrine understood, you will not find this doctrine in the Scriptures. Of course, this is a common tactic of people such as you. You demand an explanation of those truths that require one to know so much more beforehand.
“I have looked at the Bible with the LDS perspective and I’d rather not have to if I can help it because it gives me a headache in the blatant heresy the Mormons are engaged in.”
Then you have never truly looked at it from the LDS perspective. You have never truly tried to understand the LDS, only how they differ from your belief, so that you could fight against them. This is not looking at the Bible from the LDS perspective, but looking at the LDS from your perspective while you read the Bible. It is very different.
“If you are going to stick with your view of verse 19, then you’re going to have to do something about John 5:23 because you are now going to have to start giving to Jesus THE SAME HONOR that you give the Father.”
Nowhere does it say to give the same honor to the Son, only that they should honor him. I give the Father the honor of being the Father, the Great Eloheim. I give Christ the honor of being the Son and savior, the Great Jehovah. Thus, I am fulfilling all that has been said in John 5.
“Give me an LDS reference that states that your father has been given judgement from his father to judge the people on that planet where he supposedly atoned for.”
You ask for things that you know do not exist. The actual relation and history of the Father is not fully understood. I do not know everything, and I do not need to know everything. What I need to know has been revealed. If I want to know more I can always ask God, but that is no guarantee he will tell me, nor does that give me permission to tell the unbelieving what he does tell me.
“Well, if this makes sense to you, then I beg you to help me make sense out of it. Mormons deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity because they can’t understand it, but accept this.”
If you really wanted to make sense out of it I would. However, you do not desire to know the truth of the doctrine, or the pure logic behind it. You want only enough to allow you to twist it, to make it a weapon against those who do not have an understanding. The doctrine of the LDS church is such that I have very few questions left unanswered, but you will never except that, and it would take too long for me to explain it all.
“If you don’t test it out, you have nobody to blame but yourself.”
I find it highly annoying that [name-calling removed by mod] like you assume that the members of the LDS faith have not tested everything that is taught by our leaders. It seems the only way you can justify what you say is to assume that all members are fools are only you can set them strait. I have tested everything I believe in. I have come to some conclusions in the past that I have discarded because they did not hold up. But this is not one of them. This is one that rings true by every standard that I can find, but most important, it rings true with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which cannot lie.
“I wish I could report to you that your interpretation of John 5:19 had support from the GA’s, but it doesn’t. I can’t find anyone to back you up in this belief – officially.”
That would be because it has never been officially stated. However, we are not dependant of the “official statements” to support our belief. It is doctrine that the Father was once mortal. It is also doctrine that the Son was once spirit. When you understand this it is simple logic that makes my interpretation of this verse possible. If you can find where the leaders state that my interpretation in wrong, please do so. But the fact that they don’t say it is right is hardly evidence of anything.
Shem,
You ask: “As to the fullness of the Gospel, what exactly does that mean?”
Here, does this help? This is from the official website of the LDS church.
Gospel: “The “good news” of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. At the center of His plan is the Atoning sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ, in whom alone salvation is possible. In its fulness, the gospel includes all of the commandments, principles, ordinances, and covenants whereby human beings can be forgiven of sin, overcome the world, and attain immortality and eternal life in the kingdom of God.”
K? So the “fullness of the gospel” “includes all the commandments, principles, ordinances, and covenants” acknowledged by the LDS church.
Now, where are they in the Book of Mormon?
FALCON
I assumed the person I was speaking to directly understood what I meant. For clarification, let me put it this way.
Christ is my savior: Through the Atonement he made it possible for me to return and live with my Father.
I am born again: This phrase is only used once in the Bible, in John 3: 3. In verse 5 Christ clarifies this and says “Except a man be aborn of bwater and of the cSpirit, he cannot denter into the kingdom of God.” Thus, to be born again means to be baptized (born of water) which I have been.
Forgiveness of my sins: Part of the Baptismal covenant is that god will forgive all previence sins. The Sacrement is a renewal of that covenant, so that when I partake of the sacrement I am again receiving the clensing of my sins.
If there is anyone reading this who did not already understand this please tell me so that I know I didn’t waste a post.
MICHEAL P
Christ did forgive sin, but he also taught that you have to be baptised to be saved “He that abelieveth and is bbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be cdamned.”
I guess he was contradicting himself on this point. However, with an understanding of the degreesin heaven you could say that in forgiving sin he assured these people a place in the Terrestial Kingdom, but still required baptism for the Celestial.
As to sinning again this week, that is what the Grace of Christ is for. I have done all that I can do, and if I should slip a little this week, and die before I can agian renew my covenants with the sacrement, Christ’s grace will still have hold of me and I will be saved in the Celestial kingdom.
Shem,
using one verse to make a sweeping conclusion is not how to come up with a biblical answer. You must also look at verses like Matt 9:5, or Mark 2:5. What of Zechariah’s song talking of salvation through the forgiveness of sin and not baptism? There are others that you can look up, if you so choose.
I know you don’t like this idea, but your reliance on baptism for the salvation moment puts the salvation on baptism, not forgiveness of sin.
And returning to part of my question, the act is what is important, not the state of the heart? Is this correct? I ask because it seems you are very confident of your status once you are baptized, and sin is covered by the grace of God. Sounds like you could be quite lazy after you are baptized. (Only brought up because that is a criticism you like to put on us, but your description sounds exactly the same, so the same criticism exists.)
Back to the baptism. If we are to reach any conclusion, we must define what Christ meant as to being baptized to be forgiven. Clearly, there is a problem in saying forgiveness is based on baptism if he didn’t say it in every instance. It rests on what batpism really means…
Shem,
You need to understand that “born of water” is referring to physical birth not baptism. We’re born twice; once physically and then spiritually. This is why proper interpretation of the Bible is so important. People begin to form false doctrines based on erroneous interpretations of the Biblical text.
If Mormons want to believe that they are cleansed of their sins via the sacrament that’s simply Mormonism and it’s simply false. That’s really not much different than when I’d go to confession and the priest would give me absolution and my penance. God forgave us our sins, we believed, but confession formalized the process.
There’s no Biblical basis for getting forgiven of your sins by taking the sacrament. But that’s Mormonism and just one more reason why it’s not Christianity.
I must remind our readers that Mormonism proclaims a different god, jesus and spirit. It has a different plan of salvation. My gripe isn’t that Mormonism believes what it does. My problem is with Mormonism claiming to be something that it isn’t and deceiving folks by the use of Christian sounding language.
As we see from the above post, “born again” to Mormons means something entirely different in Mormonism than Christianity.
I’m glad shem brought up John 3:5, because it shows where Mormons lack in biblical interpretation. The focus of the pericope is on spiritual rebirth–not water baptism. Once again, this falls into the Mormon category of faith in Christ PLUS something else equals salvation. Peter tells the crowd in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized. The word for repent is in the imperative, which means it is necessary to do; the word for be baptized is NOT in the imperative, but in the aorist tense, which means it does not carry the weight of repenting. Then, in Acts 3, Peter tells the crowd to repent–and makes NO mention about being baptized. Again, the focus is on REPENTANCE. Now, should one be bapized? Yes. Why? Because it is the sign of the New Covenant just as circumcision was a sign for the old covenant (Abrahamic), and Jesus Christ is the New Covenant. Does one need to be circumcized to be saved? No. Judaizers tried to make the Gentile converts become circumcized, but Paul especially fought against this heresy, because to depend on the law in any fashion made the death of Jesus Christ on the cross null and void. As a born again Christian, I was baptized to show the world my faith in Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior. But, will being baptized save me? Absolutely not. Jesus Christ saves me on His merits, and I am justified by my faith. This is all biblical, and if Mormonism goes against that, then what is there to conclude other than it is a different and false gospel–and by the grace of God I have come to that conclusion.
Peace and Grace!
jackg nails it! That is why I keep pointing out that Mormonism is a different gospel. The Bible doesn’t support Mormonism. That’s why our Mormon friends have introduced the tag line “…from the LDS perspective”. There is no “perspective” when interpreting the Bible. We also here, “as far as it (Bible)is translated correctly” which I find really funny considering the total faux of the BoA.
Mormonism, as Martin has pointed out, is based on “revelation”. Where the Bible doesn’t support the “revelation” then the conspiracy theory that Mormonism was left out of the Bible kicks in. Mormons have a thousand and one explanations, but they don’t have the truth.
The Bible doesn’t support Mormonism and neither does Church history. The only way Mormonism “works” is through the development of fantastic tales that explain away the obvious. All that’s needed is a willing and ignorant participant. It’s really difficult to overcome the desire to believe with rational thought and compelling evidence.
Shem,
In the Miracle of Forgiveness, concerning our sins, Kimball says that where we think we are wearing a white shirt, God can see every itty bitty little piece of dust on it, and thus in His eyes, it’s not as white as we think. Are you SURE, POSITIVELY SURE, that you are WORTHY?
I’m really hoping you can find all of the LDS principles, commandments, ordinances, and covenants in the BoM or Bible. Lots of stuff to do perfectly.
I think each of us knows (even if only deep down) that we are not perfect. When we think then, of whether or not we will be accepted by God, we can do one of three things. One, we can live in denial, claiming that we are “worthy”. Two, we can claim Jesus’ perfect Atonement for ourselves, and believe in Him to be our Advocate before the perfect Judge. Three, we can claim that God does not exist, and pretend that that has settled that problem once and for all.
Christians, you (and the other LDS) keep asserting, don’t try to be good. On the contrary. We want to honor God, to let others see how wonderful He is through our lives. But we know, and are freed up by the truth of it, that we will never be perfect. God knows we can’t do it. And He knows you can’t either.
So. Will you continue in denial, telling yourself that you have removed every piece of dust from your white shirt, and that if you were to die suddenly, you would still qualify?
Do you think that God doesn’t know your hidden places? You might, if you really believe he is just an exalted man, and therefore not omniscient nor omnipresent. But can you honestly look at yourself (not in front of anyone here) and say “yes, I’m perfect”?
Jesus longs to live in your heart, direct your life, clean up the mess that you are. Will you let Him in?
Shem,
I’ve told you before that anytime you engage in name-calling or personal attacks that are demeaning to one’s character or intelligence, you lose credibility and nobody will take you seriously. For example, when I say:
“LDS scholarship here is pathetic. I ask ‘loaded questions’? This is pathetic – again.”
That isn’t a personal attack nor is it name calling. However, if I say:
“You are pathetic. You are a pathetic idiot.”
That is something much different. The moderator censored you. We’ve been down this road before. I’ve warned you of mocking from Alma 5:30-31. You apologized, but continued to do it again. This means you truly did not repent of your sin and forsake them (D&C 58:43). Therefore, the former sin returns (D&C 82:7) because you did not abandon the sin of mocking. Therefore, you are not going to the celestial kingdom if you died right now because of what D&C 1:31 states. Consider this authoritative reference from your Church:
“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)
Also lacking in your posts were any references to support your conclusions from LDS sources. You will notice that I gave you an abundance from both sides. You have no scholarship. I’ve done my homework and have studied. I suggest you do the same and enroll in institute for the Fall 2009 semester.
In regards to my two question challenge on what it would take for me to convert, like Crispin – you blew it. I’ve given you a good block of my time, but my time is very important and I must move on to other “callings” where the people have different attitudes than you appear to have now. I would recommend you check out Alma 5:27-28. I can only pray that a Mormon who is truly seeking answers for his/her issues within Mormonism got something out of my 6 posts. I can be reached at:
nobleberean@cox.net
Andy Watson
“Berean”
Others have commented that in John 3:5, Jesus is referring to physical birth, followed by spiritual rebirth (e.g. Jackg “I’m glad shem brought up John 3:5, because it shows where Mormons lack in biblical interpretation”).
I fully concur with this interpretation. In fact, I think its far less “mysterious” than it sounds to us.
Commonly, the imagery and metaphor of “water” is used in the Biblical texts to represent the darkness and chaos of this world (e.g. Gen 1:2, the Flood Narrative in Gen 7-9, the Exodus, Psalm 69, the reference to there being no “sea” in Rev 21:1).
Though the language might appear mysterious and “religious” to us, I think Jesus is teaching something that is profoundly plain; in order to get into the Kingdom of God, you’ve got to be born into this world and then born again by the Spirit. The Kingdom does not belong to those who are not born into the world, which might include angelic beings, demi-gods, laws, principles and precepts and, arguably non-human creatures.
In other words, the Kingdom of God belongs to, and comprises, human beings. To qualify for entry, one must first be a human being.
To use the imagery of Dan 7:14, the Kingdom belongs to the “Son of Man”; Hebrew; “bar enosh”, which (I understand) is non-gender specific and more precisely translated as “human being”, though this latter term is less poetic.
I often wonder if the associations we bring to the Biblical texts makes them far more complex than they were intended to be.
The major theme of this thread is that Christians are to defend “the faith”. The main source for defending the faith is God’s Holy Word the Bible. What else would someone use to defend the faith? It’s difficult, if not impossible to have a discussion with someone regarding the faith if that person is using a means other than the Bible to determine the truth. It’s also problematic if the person isn’t using a systematic approach to understanding the scriptures.
Folks who down grade God’s Word as authoratative in manners related to the faith, favoring instead revelation and/or a “word from the Lord”, open themselves up to all sorts of doctrinal error. It sounds so “spiritual” to claim direct revelation from God. It gives the one claiming such a “word” a sense of spiritual authority and superiority. When someone says that God told them something, that pretty much ends the argument. If an appeal to the Scriptures isn’t respected as authoritative, there is no other place to go.
In his book “Under the Banner of Heaven” Jon Krakauer chonicles several different Mormons who are hearing directly from the Lord. One such man is Robert Crossfield. He wrote and published a book titled “The Second Book of Commandments”. He wrote and published it himself, under the other name he is known by:the Prophet Onias. It’s a compilation of 205 revelations Crossfield/Onias has received from the Lord since 1961. “The still small voice of the Lord” suddenly came to him, revealing that he had been chosen to serve as God’s mouthpiece-that he was a holy prophet of the Lord. One of the first words that God gave to him was the correctness of plural marriage. Most of his revelations confirm that the leaders of the LDS Church had “cut themselves off from the voice of the Lord” and betrayed some of Joseph Smith’s most impoortant tenets-including the sacred principle of plural marriage.
One “prophet” is as good as the next I guess. Who’s to say God isn’t speaking to this guy?
So when it comes to defending the faith, the Christian turns to the authoratative source the Bible. This is in contrast to a revelation, impression, or word someone claims as to have gotten from the Lord. The first thing a prospect is told when approached by Mormon missionaries is to pray about the BoM and God will reveal to (the prospect) if it is true.
So if someone takes up the challenge and reports back that God revealed that it’s not true; end of discussion right? Of course not because the only acceptable outcome, to a Mormon, is a finding that it’s true. So, what if the prospect says that they will look into the research that has been done on the BoM and also do some study on the life of Joseph Smith and the history of the Mormon church in addition to studying the Bible, to determine if the BoM and the Mormon church are true. Is this acceptable to a Mormon? A big NO!
This concept about praying about something and receiving a direct message from God in order to determine the truth of a matter is chock-full of problems that are obvious on the face of it. First and foremost among the problems is the incredible potential for someone to be self-deceived. The desire of one’s heart, a confused mental state, stress, outside influences, all play apart in what someone might “hear”.
In the case of “pray about the BoM” to determine its truth, there’s an expectation planted in the mind of the prospect that they will receive a “burning in the bossom” or some other emotional feeling. The prospect is preset, conditioned, to expect that outcome. It’s really a psychological ploy and an unreliable test for the truth.
So how do we determine the truth in matters of faith? That first and best source is what God has already revealed in the Bible. Guided by solid principles of Biblical interpretation and a prayful heart, God will speak as He already has.
ANDY
I guess being called a devil worshiper, ignorant, and naive isn’t personal slander. O yeah, I forgot. As long as you call everyone in a group these things no single person can accuse you of slandering them.
Please. What you said was a personal attack, just said in a way that is not quite as blunt. To say what I said is pathetic is to call me pathetic.
Now, as I said, I cannot give the references you want, because they do not exist. I can give you references to where the milenial reign is described, where we are told that this Earth will also be resurrected and move to orbit Kolob. I can reference where we are told that all those who inherit the Celestial glory will live on this earth in the Eternities. I cannot give you references about the generation of God the Father, because he has told us he will not give us this information. However, since we are also told that he is following the same plan that set up by his Father, I am willing to follow simple logic and say that everything that has been revealed concerning this earth in some way happened to his.
The LDS church does not answer all questions, but it gives enough information that most questions can be answered by any who has the willingness and intelligence to seek them out (this is not said personally, but in general, I don’t want to be accused again).
MICHEAL P
You said: “I ask because it seems you are very confident of your status once you are baptized, and sin is covered by the grace of God. Sounds like you could be quite lazy after you are baptized.”
Not really. In Mark 16: 16 it says “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be cdamned.”
So faith is actually more important than Baptism. Notice how both bring salvation, but the loss of just one brings condemnation. Baptism only takes hold if you truly have the faith required to accept it.
Martin,
Thank you for your insight regarding the Kingdom of Heaven belonging to human beings.
Shem,
Could you provide an exegetical study of the entire pericope in which Mark 16:16 is found that gives you the impression that baptism is NECESSARY for salvation and which support your commentary? Looking forward to what you have to offer.
Blessings…
Shem,
Three thoughts on your relpy to me.
First, your reply has nothing to do with my comment. Reread it to see why.
Second, which is it, then? Baptism, or faith that saves? I hear you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say faith is more important, but baptism is still necessary, if I understand you right. But if faith is more important, why would baptism be necessary? Why couldn’t it be that if someone believes but is not baptize still be saved if faith is more important. I would think then that baptism might be something God could overlook if you believe enough, if we go by what you say.
Third, it actually says just someone who does not beleive will be condemned. It does not say if you are not baptized you will be condemned, even though it specifically says a lack of faith will condemn you. So, this can be read to say that even if you are not baptized, you won’t be condemned but contrarilly if you don’t believe, you will be.
Now, this topic is way off the original topic of the post. But the differences in Mormonism and Christianity are huge, and it is worth fighting over the differences, if only so that on-lookers will be able to discern the differences. Our views on this direct topic are but one of the many
Last year, when I had a lot of free time, I began an intensive study of the BofM. I just began looking at it again yesterday, starting in 1Nephi.
What I wanted to comment on was this: how “Nephi” always tells the story to give glory to himself. He’s the one that is righteous enough to hear the Lord. He’s the one that is righteous enough to get his family (even his righteous father) to humble themselves. He’s the only one who never falters.
Leaving the Nephi/JS similarity and true authorship of the BofM aside, what has been given to the LDS as “scripture” in the BofM is distinct from the Bible on these grounds: it promotes self-worship rather than Jesus/God worship.
In fact, the Lord is seen as secondary to a good man. Case in point: Nephi can get “the Lord” to come visit him whenever he has a question. Kind of like a genie in a lamp.
Ooooh, the gulf between Mormonism and Christianity, between the Bible and the Mormon scriptures is so great, even with all of the plagiarism and theft of similar language.
While on this topic, in the BofM, Joseph Smith has stolen several prophecies about Jesus, and applied them to himself. Anybody want a list? I’ll be happy to comment further.
Shem,
You’re doing the Mormon thing again regarding interpretation of scripture. I spent a lot of time and several posts explaining what Biblical hermenutics, exegisis and interpretation are and what the basic fundamental principles are in achieving a proper understanding of God’s Word.
The first three levels of learning are 1) knowledge (to know something) 2) comprehension (understand what the knowledge means and finally 3)application (putting it to work). It appears to me that you are flunking at all three of these basic levels when it comes to the topic at hand. If Mormonism teaches that you have to be baptized to be saved, that’s fine for Mormons. But that’s not what orthodox, Biblical Chrisitanity from the first century on till today teaches.
Mormonism outside of this world doesn’t exist. So if Mormons want to participate in a religion that has baptism as a requirement for salvation knock yourself out but, it doesn’t work in God’s program in eternity.
The only reason I keep doing this is for the questioning Mormons who show-up here looking for information but not posting. Because for those Mormons who post here, this is nothing but a merry-go-round. I persevere however for the sake of those who are looking for a way off the sinking ship of Mormonism.
Setfree,
I’d love to see such a list…
In my limited knowledge, I could probably start it, but I’d love to see what you have…
Shem,
I am sorry, but the last half of Mark 16 is an inclusion in the Bible and thus the verses you use about faith and baptism are invalid – I guess the Bible is perfect and without error then.
As far as faith and/or baptism for salvation, I have said this a number of times – no matter what we do and how much we try and follow the commandment and lifestyle Jesus gave us, without faith in Him first, it will do nothing towardss our salvation. So faith is the most important thins in our salvation. It is our faith that then drives us to do what Jesus wants us to do. So if we o not believe in Jesus then even if we get baptised, it will not ’save’ us. However, if we have true faith in Jesus, then we would want to do what He ha told us/exemplified for us to do – and one of these things is baptism. If e follow Hiss teachings/command/example then we will be saved. If we don’t follow his teachings/command/example then we will not be saved even though we claim to have faith in Him. That I believe is the premise for Shem’s argument using the verse from Mark 16 about faith AND baptism saves but no faith no saving (regardless of baptismal status).
Falcon,
Your list of ‘three levels of learning’ are incorrect from a Biblical perspective. First and foremost when it comes to learning from and about God is the Spirit and the understanding it gives to one on spiritual matters. Your first level – knowledge – is inconsistent with the Bible as the Bible says that God will use the unlearned and unknowledgeable in His church to confound the wise and learned (Matt 11:25; 1 Cor 1:27; Isa 44:26; 1 Cor 1:20).
Hi Michael P
I’m actually rewriting the BofM for myself to take out any extraneous and distracting language. It’s a depressing project though, so I have to do it in small pieces.
Are you familiar with the word stats in the JST of Genesis by the way (where JS tries to write himself into the Bible)? Pretty funny stuff.
Anyway…
In 1Ne 4:13, “the Spirit” says that it’s better for one man to perish than for a nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief. This is to support the “commandment” to kill Laban in order to get the Old Testament and geneology. Of course, those of us who love the Bible understand that the “one man” who needs to perish for “the nation” is Jesus. (Jhn 11:50)
In 1Nephi 11:30, we see “angels descending upon the children of men”. Which of course, we know is supposed to apply to Jesus (Jhn 1:51)
In 1Nephi 15:18, JS writes that his bringing forth of the BoM is what is meant when Abraham is told by God that “in your seed, all of the nations of the earth will be blessed”. He says it again in 22:7-9.
Did you already have all of those? Do you have more?
Ralph,
As usual you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. If it weren’t for the questioning Mormons that show up here, I wouldn’t even waste my time with you. Your use of Bible verses is, as usual with Mormons, a grab bag of let’s see what we can find and paste it onto a topic. Following your train of thought, we should all stay ignorant, which is basically the Mormon approach. It’s all about “feeling” and “revelation” a couple of things that are easily manipulated by Mormons. It’s all part of the con job started by Joseph Smith and perpetuated by a string of false prophets. The “spirit” you hear from comes out of the occult practices of a religion that attempts to masquerade as Christianity.
For the lurkers: the Bible tells us to “study ourselves to be approved” and “without knowledge the people perish”. The Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if these things (that Paul preached) were true. God’s Word is “Spirit breathed” and therefore the knowledge God provides for us comes directly from the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that when the Spirit of truth comes, He will lead us into all truth. On the road to Emmaus, after his ressurrection, Jesus appeared to two disciples, “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:27)
The thing that needs to be understood is that the spirit of Mormonism is not the Holy Spirit spoken of in the Bible. What Mormons engage in is “spiritism”. Contacting the dead through temple rituals is just a Mormon seance. So when Mormons talk of following the spirit, the question that must be asked is, “What spirit is that?” It’s obvious from the practices of Mormonism what spiritual force they are tapping into. Surrendering to the spirit of Mormonism will lead to false knowledge, but that’s what (Mormonism) is counting on.
The bottom line is that Mormonism seeks to keep it’s people ignorant.
When it comes to defending the faith, Christians need to 1)know the Word of God 2) understand the Word of God 3)be able to apply the Word of God and when the Christian moves to higher order thinking (as we must) they can 4)analyze the Word of God, that is break it down into it’s component parts 5)synthesize those components, that is see relationships between the parts and develop insights and connections in a creative way and finally 5) evaluate; being able to judge and take a measure of Biblical/spiritual information.
It goes without saying that this process is led by God’s Holy Spirit, the Spirit revealed in the Bible. Proverbs 1:2-6 gives vital information on this topic:
“To know wisdom and instruction, to discern the sayings of understanding, to receive instruction in wise behavior, righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the naive, to the youth knowledge and discretion, a wise man will hear and increase in learning, and a man of understanding will qcquire wise counsel, to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.”
The writer then turns to God and says in Proverbs 1:23 “Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.” Here we see the proper relationship between the God breathed Word of God and being led by the Holy Spirit. This is critical. Mormonism depends on “feelings” and “revelation” and less on the Word of God. The Word of God is ancillary to the “impressions” that a Mormon is to receive from God. Revelation rules in Mormonism. There is no proper role for the Word of God in testing the spirits.
Joseph Smith, like all religious charletons, was able to convince people that he was receiving messages directly from God. Looking at Joseph Smith’s personal history we see a foundation that was not dominated by the Spirit of God, but rather he choose a different path with a spirit guide named Moroni.
Now we know that the spirit that Mormons speak of is not the Holy Spirit of the Bible. In fact Mormons draw a distiction between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. We also know that Mormons confuse “feelings” in such a way that the feelings become the spirit. Mormons are conditioned to run away from people, places and materials that cause negative feelings because that means, in Mormon folk lore, that the spirit isn’t there. This effectively keeps Mormons ignorant of any information that would prove Mormonism, the LDS church and/or the prophet as being false.
There’s another real strangness in the Mormon-spirit connection that my friend Andy/Berean recently explained in a correspondence.
“One has to understand that Mormonism is all about spiritism-plain and simple. What goes on in the temples is nothing but spiritism which is occultic. The accounts of what is seen and said in the temples by Mormons themselves verify this kind of activity. A book was even written about this entitled “Temple Manifestations” by Joseph Heinerman. I’ve heard the personal accounts from Mormons of their experiences in the temple in addition to hearing of them tell of their superstitions on this side of the veil of what they think is going on with their friends and relatives. Mormons think the veil that separates us from the dead is very thin despite what it says in Luke 16:26 (“great gulf fixed”). They think their relatives, friends or otherwise are hanging around watching everything they are doing. For many Mormons this makes them nervous. Why? It indirectly keeps them in line and keeps them scared in obeying the Mormon law. An example of this would be the Word of Wisdom (dietary restrictions: no coffee, tea, alchohol, tobacco).
Occultic activity is rampant within Mormonism, but the Mormons don’t realize that it’s actually evil and of the devil.
(continued on the following post)
(continued from above)
They have been snookered into thinking that these visitations and verbal dialogues that are taking place in the temple or otherwise are those of their relatives and them on this side of the veil. For those that have studied occultic activity like this it is well known esspecially from the Bible and theology that what is taking place are fallen angles masquerading as deceased relatives. This is what goes on in seances or in homes that are supposedly haunted by ghosts. People that have left Mormonism have told of relatives appearing to them in dreams or other wise begging them to return to Mormonism. That is why it’s crucial that Mormons who have left be given the true Gospel and accept the true Jesus to pray over this and spiritually rid themselves of this evil activity that was once apart of their lives.”
So when a Mormon claims that “the spirit” comes before knowledge, we need to understand what spirit they are claiming and how and why that ruse is perpetrated. Mormonism is famous, of course, for drawing on Biblical or Christian terms and vocabulary in order to make someone think that it’s the same. This of course is deceiving.
1 Timothy 4:1-2 sums up Mormonism quite well: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron….”
This perfectly sums up Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophets and Mormonism.
Setfree,
I was thinking of two things to get started, and both are way off from where you were. But, I cannot remember the verses, but where in the Bible, they quote a place in the OT where it speaks of two sticks coming together. These sticks are the Bible and the BoM.
The second is more in line with what Smith said, saying he has done more than Christ.
But what you post is fascinating stuff, I think. Thanks for sharing, and Smith is not given enough credit for how creative he was.
I have given much thought to what I have said in previous posts over the last few days. Much of what I said was unnecessary and probably should not hae been said. I do have a bad temper at times. For this reason I have elected to try and explain what I have said in a more clear fashion for those who did not understand what I meant (and I perfectly understand this, as I could barely make it out reading it again).
Regarding the question of God’s Exaltation in the Bible. It is not there in explicit terms. No where does it say strait out that God is an exalted man. However, having said this, let me explain my reasoning in giving the refence I did.
So that there is no misunderstanding, I never thought it was possible to see this in the Bible until a few months ago.
I believe that I am the literal spirit child of the Father (Heb 12: 9, Acts 17: 29). I also believe that Christ is a spirit child of the Father. I believe Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to be our savior (Abraham 3: 7). I believe he was the God of the Old Testiment (Ex. 3: 14 and John 8: 58), at which time he was spirit (Ether 3: 16-17). I believe that once he had fulfilled the atonement he was resurrected and exalted (Heb 2: 10 – made perfect, Heb 10: 12 – after the atonement).
With the assumption that these things are true I was reading in the Bible when I came across the reference given before (John 5: 19). Hving been in contemplation on the doctrine here given, when I read this in John my mind was opened, and I saw that all that Christ has done, his Father has done before him. The logical conclusion came that the Father was once a spirit, he was born into a world, and he has now risen and become exalted. Christ would not have been able to do the same without his Father doing it first.
This is what I meant when I said from the LDS perspective. Following the assumption that LDS doctrine is true this interpretation is possible.
As to baptism and faith, and why both are important.
First, while it is true that Christ does not say in Mark that you will be condemned without baptism, he does say it is necessary for you to be saved.
The idea that because he only sites a lack of faith as being condemning that Baptism is not needed is a very lose idea that is not truly in the scriptures.
I believe Ralph did a good job at explaining this, but I would like to add one this. Know that I am not trying to convince you of anything, nor do I really care what scholars say about how to interpret scripture. I am simply explaining the meaning I see in the verse, and the reasoning behind it.
So, to understand what I am going to say you must again go on the asumption that LDS doctrine is true, in this case the Degrees of Glory.
In order to be saved (receive a fullness of the Father’s glory) one needs both baptism and faith. This is in reference to the Celestial Kingdom.
If you are not baptized you cannot enter this kingdom. However, even if you are baptized, if you do not have the faith you will be damned, or receive only the Telestial Kingdom.
So, with both you receive the highest. Without faith you receive the lowest. Without baptism you receive the middle, or Terrestial Kingdom.
Thus faith is the more important of the two, because without it you will drop two degrees, while without baptism you will drop only one.
While it is not truly as simple as this, this allows those who do not have a full understanding of the LDS doctrine to understand the difference between the importance of these two principles, and how they each effect our salvation.
Shem,
To be fair, it may make sense from an LDS perspective. But that perspective must make some assumptions and some leaps that you cannot find in the Bible. For example, you leave out that God says there are no other gods. That alone throws a huge wrench in your conclusion. If he says that, and he does, then the existence of any other god makes him a liar or a very dumb god, and your conclusion must fail if the Bible is his very word.
Of course there are more examples, but I hope you understand my point, which is that Mormonism reaches its conclusions without a full understanding of what the Bible actually says. It does not seek to reconcile its entire message but rather pulls out that which supports the assumptions made. Stated a second way, it uses the Bible to prove what it thinks is already true rather than finding truth based on what is actually in it.
Alas, I doubt this will make a dent in your thoughts, but if you are open minded, it just may.
Now, on a final note, I have discovered something about these threads, and the approach most Christians take when learning about the LDS church.
When you are learning about any philosophy or belief system, the only way to truly understand it is to assume they are right. You start with the simpliest things. You assume these are right, and move on to the more complex ideas. This does not mean you must agree with the philosophy, but you must assume it is right, and reason from there, or you will not understand the concept.
You take this approach to all philosophies, regardless of what you believe. If you believe you have the truth, this is still the best way to understand other’s beliefs. However, if you are not sure of what is true, this is the only way for you to truly learn what is true.
Most Christians believe they have the truth, and so are not looking for it. They also seem to believe that if they use this approach when learning about the LDS church they are either spiritually weak, or they are setting themselves up to be deceived by the vile devil worshiping occultists (and yes we have been directly called devilworshipers). As such they approach their study of the LDS church with the assumption that it is all wrong. For this reason they never come to a full understanding of the LDS doctrine as they refuse to let their reason understand it as it was meant to be understood.
This is not a trap for anyone. It is the simplest and most effective method for finding truth in any study. Even scientists who research the universe start with the assumption they are right.
As I said before, I find the LDS church to be the least confusing of all religions that I know anything about. This is not because I believe it, but because when I assume that other religions most basic doctrine is true, and then build on it from there, I find that I have too many questions left unanswered.
OK, then Shem, do you understand our faith?
Also, am I right to suggest that your assumption is that the faith that is correct has the least amount of unanswered questions?
If so, then should we start a list of unanswered questions in Mormonism, like solid proveable evidence there was an apostasy to begin with? Or why Joseph Smith was the chosen one when he had such a close attachment occultic practices? Or why there is so much evidence that links him as a fraud?
I bet you will argue that these suggestions have answers through the spirit and that the links to JS are twists of hitory and logic. But I would suggest you take your own advise and assume our position is true as you consider the truth.
Blessings.
Michael P,
Your phrase “….answers through the spirit” are basically the theme of my posts. When I was posting regarding; knowing, understanding, applying and then analyzing, synthesizing, and finally evaluating, I was talking about a cognitive process; a learning model or a hierarchy of learning. Mormons don’t want to mess with anything like this because it’s academic and intellectual. They want to have feelings, impressions, revelations.
Now this comes right out of 19th century evangelical Christian revivalism of which Joseph Smith was familiar as a participant. You mix the fervor and emotion of the revial with his practice of folk magic and you end-up with a dangerous combination. Actually he discovered what all religious charletons discover and that is how to manipulate people’s emotions and call it a move of the spirit.
Smith and his home boys were always having second sight visions (which basically means they saw something in their imagination) and all kinds of spirit appearances and angelic visitations. Smith knew how to use the power of suggestion and persuasion to get people to “see” things in the spirit.
Being a pentecostal and a consumer of Christian TV, I often tune in revivals and conferences and watch the preachers. They’ve got their theology right most of the time, but their practices (in way too many cases) is just plain emotionalism sold as spiritual experiences. Watchman Nee, the Christian Chinese mystic, talks about this sort of thing in his book “The Latent Power of the Soul”. He’s kind of interesting.
“In China are fortune-tellers whose feats of prediction are well-known…..They have devoted much time and energy in perfecting their art. And their predictions are amazinly accurate. Buddhists and Taoists have their miraculous performances too. Thouygh evidence of deception is not lacking, apparently supernatural manifestations are undeniable.”
Mormonism doesn’t claim the Spirit of the Bible, but a different spirit.
So Falcon,
You are Pentacostal. As I said in my first post above, I have a friend who is Pentacostal and they say that their religion/faith/church (whatever you wish to call your denomination/group) openly allows people to have sex before they are married (ie fornication) as long as they are in a ‘committed’ relationship. Now if I remember correctly, the article above mentions that people who teach these kinds of things (ie sexual relations outside of God’s ways) are false teachers.
This is not the first time I have found out about this, in Finland the Pentacostals also teach/believe the same, which has either rubbed off from or to the Lutheran church in Finland – don’t know which way it goes. The reason I say this last part about Finland is that there was a rumour going round in the general Christian community that the Lutheran church of Finland was going to remove all references to fornication from the Bible because of how many people these days do it and they don’t want to scare people off.
So wnat is the Pentacostal church in your neck of the woods on this point? Is it just a ‘local’ apostasy that covers Australia and Finland, or is it a cae of you are saved once you believe in Jesus regardless of what you do – as these Pentacostals teach?
Ralph,
I guess it’s time for me to declare victory and move on to another topic. I can always tell when a Mormon has lost the argument and has nothing left to offer. You’re a pretty funny guy, not very well informed, but funny. Isn’t this usually the point where Mormons run out of substative content, get frustrated and start calling people homosexuals or pornographers?
Well nice try buddy, but no cigar. You’ll have to try and bait somebody else. I’m declaring victory and moving on.
Ralph,
It sounds as if your “pentecostal” friend has gotten him/herself caught in some form of a perverted religion and has applied the “pentecostal” label to itself. Titles and names can be very misleading. I was raised in a Pentecostal family and we attended the Assemblies of God church. This is mainstream Christianity with them adhering to speaking in tongues as being relevant today. They also did not believe in eternal security (salvation is secured to the believer for all eternity – Ephesians 4:30). These are not issues to divide over in Christianity. The AG Church believes all that the other mainstream churches do in regards to the nature of God, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, etc. I attend a Southern Baptist church now.
The AG Church profoundly taught that fornication is a sin as stated in 1 Cor 6:9 right along with adultery. Fornication is named all by itself again in 1 Cor 6:18. Your friend’s church has obviously overlooked these verses and anybody who is thinking seriously about the Bible knows just using common sense that God would not condone fornication. This is a no-brainer.
When “pentecostals” in the mountains of Appalachia drink strychnine and handle poisonous snakes and focus their entire “worship” service around these events as stated in Mark 16:18 as defense, they are in error as much as the Mormons are for basing a church doctrine around 1 Cor 15:29. Paul was bitten by a viper and unharmed in Acts 28:3-6. Paul wasn’t deliberately looking for it to handle to fulfill Mark 16:18. It just happened and Paul was unharmed and that was in God’s will for Paul at that time.
As always, people need to test what they are being told by God’s Word – 1 Thes 5:21. Your friend and those in this “pentecostal” church would be well served to reference the verses mentioned above to see if they are in error. They have no excuse just like the Mormons for engaging in religious practices that are condemned in God’s Word – the Bible.
MICHEAL
Concerning the one God references: First, what is the definition of God. As it is so frequently pointed out by other Christians, we do use an expanded dictionary when it come to defining words.
Now, I get this from the online dictionary dictionary.reference.com
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
Now, let us consider these two basic definitions. The first (with a capital letter) is the One God, supreme over all things, the creator and ruler. The second (with a lowercase letter) is one of many dieties that have part in existance.
Thus there is only one God, or supreme being who rules over all the others. But there are many gods who do exist.
The one God, or supreme being is the Father. In the New Testiment, when speaking of the Father and son in the same sentence, Jesus is never called God. In Mark 1: 24 and Luke 4: 34 he is refered to as the Holy One of God, but not as God. In 1 Corinthians 8: 6 he is called Lord, and not God. In Ephesians 4: 5-6 he is again called Lord, as the Father is God, over the Lord. 1 Timothy 2: 5 calls him the mediator between God and men.
Now, the Son is God, because he is the leader of this generation, and after the Judgement he will take his role as the Supreme created of the worlds on which our children will live. However, he is only called God when it is only him we are taking about. If we are talking of the Father and him, the Father is God and the Son is Lord.
Now, Isaiah 43: 10 is the favorite evidence that there are no other gods. So, I would look closely at the text of verses 10-12. He calls himself the LORD in each verse. He calls himself God only in 10 and 12. In verse 11 he doesn’t call himself God, but the savior. So, in this particular reference, as far as I understand it, He is refering to the fact that there is only one savior, which is the LORD.
(Continued)
As to the questions you give.
As to provable evidence, why not prove that Christ rose from the Dead? I do not need provable evidence of the Apostacy to believe in it, just as you do not need provable evidence in the Resurrection to believe in it.
However, I think the reformation period is proof enough. After all, if there was no apostacy what was the need to reform the church? The reformation is only necessary if you except that the church had become corrupt enough to require a restart. If there was no apostacy we should all be Catholics. This is really all the proof I need to believe what I do.
As to the rest, the evidence you speak of is so flimsy that it can’t really be called evidence. It is basic assumptions that cannot be proven, or the stories told by men who publically swore to destroy Joseph Smith. Can we really take any of it seriously.
(I really like the refence to “linking” as it is just another way of saying you really have no proof but you believe it anyway.)
As to Spiritual answers, I would love to know what is so horrible about receiving a witness from the spirit. Was Peter comended when I said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Didn’t Jesus answer this with “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 16: 16)
Now, those who heard Peterpreaching on the day of Pentacost, when they heard his words “they were pricked in their bheart.” (Acts 2: 37) Seems like a spiritual witness, doesn’t it?
In Acts 5: 32 we are told that the spirit will also testify to us.
So, why are the LDS always being ridiculed for trying to attain that which is promised to the faithful, that which Peter was blessed with?
People receiving answers through the spirit are all through the Bible. What of Elijah and the Still Small voice? Yet you deny this. Well, I will take the witness of the spirit over the learning of men any day.
Shem,
I asked you if you understood our faith. It is clear you do not. I’d also say it is fairly apparent that you do not take seriously God’s own words that there is but one God. Your use of the dictionary to prove your point is creative, but very faulty, especially given the context of our immediate discussion. Here’s why: you say that there are more questions answered under your faith. Here’s one: if there is one supreme being, why don’t you emphasize that? It seems you believe in an endless heirarchy of gods but never seem to settle on what is supreme. I expect you to answer that these other gods don’t matter, but when God says there is only one God and that we are not to worship any other, how do you reconcile that? He knows of no other gods, not one. This is but one reference to that idea.
Further, in your response you say Jesus, who is not God, is God in the NT. Notice the big “G” you used. Here again, this cannot be if there is only one. This is a serious problem for you, and you have to get very creative to get around it.
You then make another mistake regarding our faith, which is why I asked if you understand our faith, of course by first assuming it is right to get the understanding. You assume that we think the spirit does not speak to us, and you could not be more wrong. The spirit speaks to us everyday. The difference is that we check what we hear against the written word the spirit left for us. The Bible is God breathed, is it not? The spirit is either God, as we say, or his messenger of sorts, as you say. Why would he not continue to speak, and why should we not rely on what was written by those led by the spirit? We should rely on those words to check on what we think is from a spirit.
Finally, you, like most Mormons, laugh off evidence of Smith’s actions. But an honest look at the accusations and evidence against him it is very hard to think there is not truth to them.
Shem,
I think if you took an honest look at the history of Mormonism, you will find at least one reformation period in its short history; otherwise, you would all still be looking like the FLDS Church, which maintains that they hold true to the teachings of the prophet JS. Going from polygamy to non-polygamy is reformation; going from Adam-god doctrine to NO Adam-god doctrine is reformation. The list goes on and on, but I think these examples are sufficient to prove my point. Hope this helps you, and I truly hope you begin a quest for Truth.
Blessings…
MICHEAL
No, I do not understand your faith, but I do understand some of it. I know you believe in the witness of the Holy Spirit, but the difference is that you test God by the Bible, and not the Bible by God. You hear the spirit whisper, then you go to the Bible to see if you can find what it said. Thus you rely on your own skills and biases to test what the spirit says.
The LDS teach us to read the Bible, to study it out, and to decide what we think it means, then to ask God. If we are right he will tell us, and if we are wrong he will tell us. If we are wrong we go back to the Bible and try to figure out where we went wrong.
I understand the difference, I believe that the method taught by the LDS church is more in line with the prctices of the ancient Prophets and Apostles than that taught by the Main Christian world.
As to the Capital G when speaking of Christ, as I pointed out, when it is only him we are speaking of we give him that Title, as he will have it in the eternities. However, when speaking of him and the Father together, we do not call him God, but Lord. There is no problem in this.
As to the Evidence of Joseph Smith, I do not laugh it off. The evidence is very real, and to many it is sufficient for them to reject him. What I am saying is that the nature of the evidence is sufficient for us to accept him. When a man joins a group, and is then kicked out for not abiding by the regulations set forth, are you really going to trust him when he begins speaking out against those he once called friends. I for one will feel highly sceptical about his testimony.
Now, other evidence, like the “Spalding Manuscript” or Swedenborg is all assumptions. You assume that because these things existed they had a direct influence on Joseph Smith. I do not say that it is not without merit, but I do say it is not true evidence, as you can in no way prove that Joseph actually read (or even could read) these documents.
(continued)
All the evidence I have ever seen (and I have seen wuite abit) is of this nature. Either it is the testimony of men that no honest man would trust, or it is the assumption that things influenced Joseph without any proof.
As such, to accept this evidence, though very understandable, is not the only logical conclusion that one can come too. To reject the evidence is just as reasonable.
JACK
There was no reformation, only a splintering of apostate groups. The FLDS may claim what they want, but they organized under false authority, so they could not be the original religion taught by Joseph Smith.
As to the doctrine you claim was changed, I really don’t want to get into that on this particular thread. Both doctrines you mention have been discussed on other threads, and I would suggest you reference those.
Suffice it to say that I have not seen a change in any doctrine from what Joseph Smith taught, or what was taught by any of the early leaders, therefore no reformation has occured.
Shem, no, we are following what scripture says we are to do. Testing what the spirits tell us against the scriptures, not our emotion. You say you come back to the Bible, but you have to add your own texts to prove your point. These texts cannot be holy scripture because they do not align with what the Bible says. The other texts were created to help form a basis for your faith, but even they are not reliable (ie, the D&C on polygamy). These texts only go so far as your emotions lead you, so you are rather led by emotion than by scripture.
The evidence against Smith is strong, though I do understand why you don’t buy into it and why you minimize it. I would to if I believed like you. But the truth of the matter, such that Smith read a lot and was involved in spiritual matters before he was supposedly visited suggests that he indeed did have access to a lot of information through a nearby library. Also, it is important to look at the historical era in which he lived– one of great spiritual fervor. Finally, you dismiss the folks who spoke out against him, does this include his mother? Or any of a number of respected Mormon leaders? Honestly, I think you underestimate his intelligence and education.
Big G Christ cannot exist when God says there is only one. He says there were none before, and none after him, so your theory is contradictory. If there is only one, then there is only one. There, logically, cannot be more than one. It is impossible, unless you say that’s not what he meant. And I think I have heard this argument before that what he was talking about was importance and reverence, not numbers. But this is a very shallow interpretation that does not stand to Biblical scrutiny.
Cont’d
Cont’d
As to your understanding of our faith. It is clear you really do not understand it, not even close. I appreciate your answer on how we view scripture and how we approach it, but there is much more.
But this whole idea is a real annoyance for me from Mormons. You expect us to portray your faith accurately but I have yet to see a Mormon accurately portray ours. If you have a standard to apply to yourself, you must apply it to others.
Quite frankly, I am not surprised you don’t fully get our faith. I am confident you try to portray it accurately. But remember, we sincerely try to portray your faith accurately, too. Of course, we view it differently, because we believe different things, and these things are important to us.
That brings me to a related point on why we fight. We believe we hold the truth, and that truth is important to everyone, whether or not they get it. We do not say, like you do, that each faith has an element of truth that points to salvation. While we do say each faith has some positive traits, they lack the one way to be saved: Christ and saving power through faith. Any perversion of that belief should be quashed, and any faith that lacks that element is wrong, and we are unequivocal on that point.
Do not underestimate the importance of this to us. As Paul says, if Christ did not die on the cross and rise again to save us, our faith is worth nothing. And this is what you present: Christ’s triumph over death is not the central part of your faith, but rather a side show. The central part of your faith is obedience to your Christ and faith that he can help you finish what you started. Christ’s role may be big, but the most important part is your effort.
We cannot stand idly by and ignore this threat. Of course, we must be respectful, and I hope I have been. But standing for the truth is something we are told to do, and we are told it will be difficult, but nonetheless, we must do it.
Blessings.
MICHEAL
I never claimed to understand your faith, but you do claim to understand mine. I specificly said that this is the knowledge I have. If I am wrong please correct me, and I will acknowledge my error.
However, I have yet to see anyone speaking against the LDS church to ackowledge an error, even when it is proven to them, which has been done. You continually tell us we do not know our faith when we have explained it very plainly to you. This is my objection.
As to Christ being the center point of our faith, you are in error here again. You follow the common false premise that if one believes personal wors to be important that person must believe they are more important than Christ’s atonement. This is not true, and never has been. All of it is important, yes, but to different degrees, and if you actually understood our faith you would know this. This is one reason we believe in the degrees of Glory, because of this verying importance.
To put it simply, because of Christ’s atonement all men will be in one of the Kingdoms of Heaven (excpet those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost). Those who work righteousness will be in the second, while those who also have faith will be in the highest.
The Atonement is very much central to our faith, as without none of us would have a chance at even the lowest glory of Heaven, but would be in OUter Darkness with Satan throughout eternity. Christ has done what was needed to get us to heaven, which is the most important part, but we must work with him to get us to the highest levels.
You can claim we downplay the Atonement all you want, but it is not true.
Shem, this last post was very interesting. First, you really show the hypocrasy I described by egtting all huffy then very radically misrpresenting another faith.
You then wrote: “No, I do not understand your faith, but I do understand some of it.” You are saying you understand some of our faith.
I think you do not understand our intentions, friend. We talk about what you faith looks like from our point of view. What we conclude is from looking at what you believe and applying it to rational thought based on our assumptions. Our assumptions are based on what we find in the Bible and test everything based on the Bible’s own entirety. Of course, we use revelation, but we have discussed this difference in our faiths just earlier.
Your discussion on the atonement makes no sense, and you really do not get our faith. Christ is central, his death, resurection and mercy to us. Its all about him, that you don’t see that is a large part why do you don’t get our faith.
Our faith really is that simple. It truly is.
If you want to know another persons faith, ask them.
MichaelP,
Interesting statement “If you want to know another persons faith, ask them.”
If it should be done in that manner then why do many on this site tell us what we believe in instead of asking us and listening to what we say? Why do they say that we are wrong in what we say we believe because they surmise from their reading that the underlying doctrine of our church says differently?
Yes we can use our own understanding when reading about something we do not understand, but sometimes that is incorrect. I have shown in the past some ‘interpretations’ of the underlying doctrine of your faith that outsiders have and you say that it is wrong, that is not how you believe and then explain how you believe. but when it comes to us LDS you dismiss what we say even when we show you proof that you have misinterpreted it. So why should we listen to or ask you what you believe in if you don’t show us the same curtousy?
Things can always be ‘interpreted’ further than they should be and that happens many times on this site about the LDS doctrine. Why don’t you listen to us and stop arguing if we say that is not what we believe and it has never been taught and you have just misunderstood/misinterpreted what you have read?
Ralph,
A good many of us on this site are ex-Mo, so we know how LDS are taught, what they believe (basically), and why. By “basically”, I mean that LDS views vary a lot, but in similar ways and for the same reasons.
The reason we’re out here attempting to “share our faith” and point out the errors in the LDS faith is because we want all of you to come to know what the Bible really says so that you can experience salvation (eternal life with the Almighty God)and the full life here and now “in Christ”.
Those of us who left Mormonism to be with Jesus know the difference between what we thought we had in Mormonism compared to what we really have now, and we want you to have Him too.
Will be praying for you again tonight Ralph.
Setfree,
I know there are some ex-LDS on here and that they (including you) have some understanding about the doctrine of the LDS church. I say some understanding because even though I have been in the church for all my life and Ｉ ｈａｖｅ ｄｏｎｅ ｍｕｃｈ ｒｅａｄｉｎｇ ａｎｄ ｓｔｕｄｙｉｎｇ， Ｉ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｋｎｏｗ ｎｏｒ ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄ ａｌｌ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｄｏｃｔｒｉｎｅ． Ｉｎ ｓａｙｉｎｇ ｔｈｉｓ， Ｉ ｈａｖｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｐａｓｔ ｗｒｉｔｔｅｎ ｒｅｓｐｏｎｓｅｓ ｔｏ ＬＤＳ ｏｎ ｔｈｉｓ ｓｉｔｅ ｔｏ ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｗｒｏｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｗｒｏｔｅ ａｂｏｕｔ ｏｕｒ ｃｈｕｒｃｈ’ｓ ｂｅｌｉｅｆｓ． Ｍｙ ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ ｔｏ ｙｏｕ ｉｓ ｉｆ ｙｏｕ ｓｅｅ ｓｏｍｅｏｎｅ ｍｉｓｒｅｐｒｅｓｅｎｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ＬＤＳ ｃｈｕｒｃｈ ｏｎ ｔｈｉｓ ｓｉｔｅ ｒｅｇａｒｄｌｅｓｓ ｏｆ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ＬＤＳ ｏｒ ｎｏｎ－ＬＤＳ， ａｒｅ ｙｏｕ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｓｔａｎｄ ｕｐ ａｎｄ ｌｅｔ ｔｈｅｍ ｋｎｏｗ ｔｈｅｙ ｓａｉｄ ｔｈｅ ｗｒｏｎｇ ｔｈｉｎｇ？ Ｏｒ ａｒｅ ｙｏｕ ｊｕｓｔ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｅｌｌ ｔｈｅ ＬＤＳ ｏｆｆ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｎｏｗ ｙｏｕ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ ｔｈａｔ ｗｅ ａｒｅ ｗｒｏｎｇ？
Michael P wrote “But, I cannot remember the verses, but where in the Bible, they quote a place in the OT where it speaks of two sticks coming together.”
That would be Ezekiel 37:15-28. Please read it.
When I read it, I find it really, really, really hard not to see the prophesy relating to the reconciliation of two nations; for example Ezekiel 37:22 “one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all”.
However, Joseph Smith managed to see this text as a prophecy concerning the Bible and the Book of Mormon. He thought the two “sticks” referred to two “books”. It shows you just how good he was at interpreting the Biblical message.
We’ve covered this in depth on another thread.
Shem,
You speak as if you have authority, but your words really ring empty. Either you are in denial or you are purposely misleading others by saying Mormon doctrine has not undergone reformation, which is really a line subtract a line and subtract another line sort of way as opposed to the line upon line concept the Church wants everyone to buy into regarding modern leaders changing what past leaders have said. I think this truly shows that past “prophets” have not been all that “true.” The only possible reason you do not see any change in doctrine is because you have been blinded by the fog of Mormonism, which is why I see you as a victim and in need of prayer–and I am praying for you to be freed from the bondage of Mormonism.
Blessings!
From yesterday’s “The Daily Bread,” the title of the devotion was “A Donkey in Lion’s Clothing,” and references the last book of Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” in which an ape named Shift find’s an old lion’s skin and uses it to disguise himself so he could claim to be Aslan, who is the real king of Narnia. An alliance is formed with the enemies of Narnia to deceive and control the citizens of Narnia. The young king Tirian doesn’t fall for the deception, and with Aslan they defeat the counterfeit lion.
As a result of studying God’s Word and being filled with the Holy Spirit as a citizen of the Kingdom of God, I can honestly conclude that JS was a counterfeit prophet. Although harsh to the ears of Mormons, I have had to conclude that he was an instrument in the hands of Satan, who is always trying to deceive us and rule over us.
Recently, Mormons have been attempting to interpret specific passages of Isaiah to try and prove their point, but miss the forest for the trees. They neglect to accept the simple interpretation of Is. 43:10, which is the passage God is using to save Mormons (He used it in my case, as well). Isaiah 14 speaks about Satan: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, who once laid low the nations! You said in your, ‘I will ascent to heaven and I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit” (12-15).
Mormonism is founded on the precept that they will make themselves like the Most High and become gods. When God reveals Is. 43:10, He shatters this illusion in a powerful way in order to bring redemption, which demonstrates His amazing love for those enslaved to bondage that leads to an eternity absent of His Divine Presence.
Blessings!
Ralph,
Are you talking about LDS people believing God could be a sinner, or something else?
Michael P,
I’m glad you brought up that verse. That one and the other ’scripture mastery’, as you well know by now, are just brain-washing devices, right? I mean, once we’ve been made to memorize something with a certain understanding, then once we run into it in our reading, we almost automatically lose track of what we’re reading and try to fit in the explanation. It’s horrible. And it’s wrong.
Martin,
I sure have been loving your recent posts. God bless!
Ralph, you misunderstand my point, or maybe you just refuse to see it. That’s OK. This forum is certainly against you, and thus you are in a defensive posture. However, the point is simple: if you want to get upset that someone might misrepresent your faith in a radical manner, do not misrepresent others. Rather, stand by your mantra that if you want to understand a faith, ask someone of that faith.
Certainly, you have to admit that it may be very difficult to understand a faith that you do not buy into, but remember that when you call us out for misrespresenting your faith. Some of are actually former Mormons, others are not. But I think all sincerely try to present Mormonism as it truly is. You may not like that picture, but do not tell us that we are insincere.
Yours and Shem’s attempts to tell us what are faith is proves the above, because I think you are sincere in how you present our faith. It is a wrong presentation, and really, that’s OK. I don’t expect you to get it. I only find it hypocritical to not want others telling you what you believe and then turn around and tell others what they believe.
I’ll also quickly respond to your post about calling out those who misrepresent your faith, even as a non-Mo. For me, it is difficult to know what is a misrepresentation, because you do not have a single standard, and your beliefs are all over the place. If I see something I know to be out of bounds, I will correct, but defining that is tough. Hope that makes sense…
Martin and Set-Free– thanks for reminding me of that verse and the discussion. I do think Mormons ofen get very creative to reconcile their book using the Bible…
Gee, don’t know what happened in my last post to change the text like that. Sorry for any inconveniences.
Setfree,
I am talking about anything in general. If you see someone (especially a non-LDS) say something wrong about the LDS church, will you rectify it according to your knowledge of our church? And since you are an ex-member, you should know whata is a correct representation and what isn’t.
MichaelP,
I do make inflammatory comments now and then about the Traditional Christian beliefs based on things I have read and found out about your faith, and I usually give the qoutes or references – its nothing more or less than what most do on this site. Then I accept the comments as they come in. This does a couple of things, but mainly it helps me to understand what you think/believe.
For instance the teachings and quote I have from Martin Luther where he says that when one believes in Jesus they can commit hundreds of murders and adulteries a day but will never lose their salvation. Most here argue that he was just using hyperbole or strong language to make a point that we are saved by faith WITHOUT works. OK, that’s fine, but the way he said it it sounds more like we are saved through faith DESPITE our works – big difference.
But when it comes to the LDS and our explanations, most of you throw it out the window and just accept your own thoughts/prejudices as fact. I wont give examples as it will just bring up another ‘argument’ that has happened many times in the past.
Ralph,
I disagree on the comparison, because when your past leaders say something directly concerning salvation, then that speaks volumes. Adam/God for instance. That was said with the affirmation that salvation depends on it. Check out the sermon. Same thing with polygamy. The list can go on and on about these items, and when they are brought up, they are very much dismissed by LDS. But they are said unequivocally! Sorry, but when your leaders speak they speak with an authority about your faith that Luther does not have in ours.
I am not familiar with the quote by Luther but I would agree with him, quite frankly. Now, I would guess that person really did not believe, but in the event he did, then he would be saved. We cannot read hearts, but we can trust God to save us if we believe even if we sin afterwards. I could go on, as there is much to talk about on the issue of sinning post salvation. But to say it short, once we believe, we are given full freedom to do whatever we want and not lose it, but there are far more reasons why we shouldn’t. For instance, when we sin, we harm our witness, we harm God’s image to the non-believing public (which is what you use Luther’s quote for), we harm other believers by tempting them to sin, we bring down God’s kingdom on earth, among other reasons not to sin.
But, we are saved depsite our works, not only without our words. I believe it is a matter of the heart fully.
Blessings.
MICHEAL
Please show me where I was wrong, as I asked. I never said you do not believe in revelation, only that you put it in a different place than the LDS. What I said was that to the LDS revelation was there the confirm the Bible, while to the rest of Christianity the Bible is there to confirm revelation. There is a large difference between the two approaches. Please explain to me how this is wrong, as it is what many people have told me in conversation.
I am perfectly willing to admit my understanding is wrong, but youwill have to show me the truth about it is before I can do that.
As to changing doctrine, again, this has never happened. People can claim it all they want, but it is not true.
For example, Polygamy: This was practiced in the Early church, and no longer is. Obviously a change in doctrine.
Yet, in the Book of Mormon, book of Jacob, Chapter two, verse thirty, it tells us “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” So, God has already proscribed that only at certain times, when it is deemed necessary by him, shall this law be practiced. As such, for him to comand the ending of it when he did does not change the doctrine of Plural Marriage, but works within the doctrine.
The same can be shown for most claims to changed doctrine. Those that this cannot be shown for where never doctrine, but misinterpretations spread by those unlearned in the way of the Lord.
Thus, I will always hold that, although practices may change, the doctrine on which they are based has not, and never will.
(There was a great discussion on the falsity of the whole “Adam/God theory” on a previous thread if you care to look it up. I would be willing to go into it again, but only on a person basis, as I am in no mood to go into it agian with dozens of people at the same time.)
Shem, you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Of course, you do it by saying that the cdonstant is that it is OK for you to change doctrine, and that this has been true. But nonetheless, you change doctrine. Whether the changes are OK according to your faith does not negate that the changes occur. And be careful with the words you use, b/c later you say that the doctrines are just practices.
And this OK to change doctrine comes from the “revealed” source, not the Bible. So, based on a Biblical attempt to review this belief, we would look at the Bible to confirm what is said in the BoM. And I know of no verse that allows such drastic and free flowing change of doctrine in the Bible. The best I can think of is the shift in covenants, ie Abraham to Christ and the like. But even there, a careful study shows that all the OT points to Christ and the New Covenant. The change in doctrine is just not there.
So, following the Biblical example, taking your Book of Jacob Example and your interpretation of that, we would take that verse and put it with the Bible. It fails.
In the end, I do not mind you misrepresenting our faith, but just as you say you are perfectly willing to admit a wrong understanding, so are we, but we must be prven wrong Biblically. And this standard takes on a view of the entire thing and is the result of careful study. Picking verses and ignoring others will not do. Our standard is high.
Again, I do not get huffy that you get our faith wrong. I do get huffy that you get our faith wrong and then complain when we get yours wrong. This is a double standard, and I just hope that you apply the same standards to everyone.
Adam/God, I am familiar with several arguments you present for it, and do not wish to rehash. I only use it as an example of how your past leaders are recorded as saying something that you have since backed away from.
MichaelP,
If you say that we are saved DESPITE what we do then you are presenting something different to what I have understood from other Christians who say we are saved WITHOUT works. If you have a ‘DESPITE what we do’ ideology then one can be a faithful homosexual, adulterer, fornicator, murderer, etc and still be saved, which we know is not true (Gal 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-4, 1 John 3:15). Where as most Christians I talk to say that once ’saved’ our lives are changed so we do not want to do evil and this brings about good works by following Jesus commands/example. Without the manifestation of these works it proves the person did not have real faith and thus was not saved. That is ’saved without works’. The works are a manifestation of faith and without the works the person was not saved. Thus one cannot be saved ‘DESPITE’ their works in this scenario as without the good works it shows they did not have true faith and thus were not saved.
As for Martin Luther, I know you prescribe to a church without authority figures and also without authority.
Ralph:
(It’s good to see you understand salvation by grace.)
“I know you prescribe to a church without authority figures and also without authority.”
(see the following)
EVERYONE:
All of the following is from an ex-Freemason:
“…Freemasonry claims to be the repository for the Keys necessary to enter into that Grand Lodge Above, where God dwells. To be admitted, you must join the Brotherhood, learn the secrets of Freemasonry (the secret handshakes, secret tokens, and secret words), and become more and more virtuous. These qualifications have to do with a person becoming worthy of heaven by virtue of his own efforts…”
“…Belief in the false god of Freemasonry and participation in its “secret” ceremonies causes most Masons to reject or be hostile toward those who preach the real Jesus of the Bible and His free gift of salvation. By their actions, they have “black-balled” Jesus from the Masonic lodge…”
“…I believe that Masonry has many nice people who believe that they are going to Heaven because they have learned the Keys of Freemasonry, and haven’t done anything major wrong. They have good morals, high virtues, and believe in family values. They have been taught by Masonry that they will go to the same place as their Christian “Brothers.” Masonry misleads well-meaning people into the mistaken belief that anyone can make it to Heaven without Jesus Christ…”
So you see, LDS who claim “the keys” and “the authority”, the Freemasons also claim the keys and the authority. Look how similar this man has described their “religion” to your own.
We “contend for the faith” to save you guys from the chains with which Joseph Smith has bound you and is dragging you with him to a God-less eternity.
MICHEAL
I didn’t contradict anything. A practice is not a doctrine and never has been. The doctrine is what is is taught.
The example from the Bible is the Sacrifice. The doctrine never changed because was the atonement. However, the practice of sacrifice before the atonement was changed once the atonement was fulfilled.
The same is true with Plural Marriage. The doctrine has never changed, meaning that what is taught has never changed, and it hasn’t. However, the practice has changed.
There is no contradiction. Look up the definition for the term doctrine. You will not find a reference to practices, but to teachings.
(Continued)
You said “but just as you say you are perfectly willing to admit a wrong understanding, so are we, but we must be prven wrong Biblically.”
What are you saying. That if you can’t see it in the Bible than there is no proof that the LDS teach it? Now, I understand this approach to proving something true, but not to understanding it. What you are telling me is that you can misrepresent the LDS church all you want, and you will never admit you are in error until we convert to your belief, at which point there is no need to admit an error, so in the end you won’t have to.
I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Can you prove I do not believe this through the Bible? Can you show that the LDS do not teach this through the Bible? You can argue that we are srong in our teaching through the Bible, but not that we don’t teach this.
Again, with the Plural wives issue, can you prove that the LDS don’t teach it through the Bible? Can you go to the Bible and show me where it says that the LDS do not teach what I have outlined? Again, you can argue we are wrong in our teachings, but not that we teach it.
You have shown the tactics of most Christians, and shown it very clear. You are willing to say just about anything to tear down the LDS church, and you will never admit that you are wrong. The ends seems to justify the means, but it is a dishonest tactic.
Shem: Contradiction: “As to changing doctrine, again, this has never happened. People can claim it all they want, but it is not true.
For example, Polygamy: This was practiced in the Early church, and no longer is. Obviously a change in doctrine.” Unless you misspoke, I read this as you saying polygamy was doctrine and now it is not, so a change in doctrine. If you mean it is say that polygamy was practice and not doctrine, you have to explain how our salvation depends on accepting it. Seems a lot more than mere practice.
And my point about the Bible is that you have to go outside of it to prove your point, and thus as a Christian, I would test it against the Bible.
You say this: “That if you can’t see it in the Bible than there is no proof that the LDS teach it?” My comment has nothing to do with what LDS teach. My comment has everything to do with how we analyize what is taught.
With polygamy, I can make a case that the Bible does not condone it. Yes, it occurred, but its occurence is not license to practice it. To condone it, you have to start with Smith’s revelation. This is outside the Bible again, so it is not that you don’t teach it, but how we analyze the teaching.
I am not willing to say anything about the LDS faith, and your attempt to say that I am comes down to name calling. Discussing the method of analysis is hardly dishonest, but using this red herring of an argument to go on a goose chase it.
I know this site is designed to critique your faith, and your faith is arguably your life. However, your salvation is definately worth fighting for, as is mine. And I ask you to keep in mind exactly what we are saying, and don’t get angry or clouded by what you think we are saying. Feel free to call me out on the same thing if ever I try to call names or distract form the topic at hand.
Blessings.
Ralph,
I still maintain we are saved despite what we do, and that would include those people. However, I did recognize my doubt on whether they truly believed. As I said, there are a myriad of reasons why our freedom should be limited. First, our freedom is found in verses that state we cannot be taken from his hand, that upon belief we are adopted into his family and the like. There are several of these. Second, we see an example through Peter, I think it was, that shows that while he is free to eat traditionally unclean meat, he is shouldn’t do so in the presence of those who are uncomfortable with it. A lesson is that our freedom in Christ is limited in that we should not act in a way to make another fall by tempting him in a way we shouldn’t. Third, we do have several things that are expressly condemned in the Bible, like homosexuality. So, if a person who is in such a lifestyle comes to Christ and fails to quit, it is very debatable how much that person beleives in all of God’s word, and if you reject one, you reject it all (a small sin is as big as a big one in God’s eyes.) A true believer should udnerstand this, and thus should conform his life to Christ’s example. But, we are given great freedom in Christ, but because we have it does not mean we should excercise it.
If I approach this differently than other Christians, OK. I am OK with that, but would argue that we are actually on the same page in that there are many things Christians just shouldn’t do. As a sidenote, the question that one can lose his salvation is a bit of an open question, from what I understand. Most evangelicals, I think, don’t think you can once you are saved. But I am not sure that the resolution of that debate matters, since we are told to always be prepared. The consequence of always being prepared is to focus on our eyes on Jesus, run the race with endurance, and do all we can to be like him.
Cont’d
So, whether we can lose (or cannot) our salvation, we are to keep the same mindset, a Christlike mindset so that we are ready with our oil when he comes for his bride.
I also do agree with those who say that once you accept Christ your life is changed. It is changed immediately. A key point to remember, though, is that despite accepting Christ, we retain our sinful nature. We become sin free in the eyes of God but will still sin. It is also true that upon belief, a walk begins where one grows in maturity in faith. At the beginning, one will be like a child, but as we grow, we throw away the childish things. So, once we are believers, we are to be expected to fall short of where we should be. But after time we should have thrown away those things that keep us from God, ie sin. Sin includes those things you mention, and this is why if a mature believer still practices those things, they probably don’t really believe.
Quickly, works are a part of faith, and I don’t think you will find a Christian who argues otherwise. In other wirds, defined liberally, works include all we do, and if we exemplify our faith by what we do, works are terribly important. The LDS, though, define works more narrowly in that there are specific things you MUST do to be saved. Defined the way I defined them here we are still saved despite what we do, because its not about what we do but what we belive. Of course, as a consequence of our faith, what we do is a window into our faith and therefore important, but not what defines our salvation.
Again, if I am different than others on this topic. OK. I ask them to educate me on my error, and I will consider based on Biblical evidence.
Blessings.
MICHEAL
My point is that you are frequently saying that we believe something when we do not.
My statement that you quote (“This was practiced in the Early church, and no longer is. Obviously a change in doctrine”) was said in sarcasm. To the Christians this is a change in doctrine, because they do not know the actual doctrine taught, only the outward practice relating to it. As I showed, it is not a change in the actual doctrine taught by the church, even though many claim it is.
Since I have shown you that this idea, this changing of doctrine (at least on this point) is not a change of doctrine, will you admit that you were in error concerning this? From what you said, no, because you can give a case as to why Plural Marriage isn’t condoned by the Bible.
This is the reasoning I was protesting against in my last thread, and the reasoning you presented. As I said, I have no problem with you analyzing our faith through the Bible, if your intent to prove it right our wrong. However, if that is your approach in determining what we believe I have serious objections.
So, what I am asking is not for you to stop analyzing LDS doctrine by the Bible, but to make sure you know what the doctrine is before you start your analysis, and that is all.
Shem, I think we ought to define what doctrine means. To me, and to other Christians, a doctrine is something that is taught is true, and it is usually something that is very important in one’s faith. I ask first if you agree with that? If you do, then you can move to the second point of understanding why we call polygamy a doctrine and not merely a practice. The second point comes directly from the primary source, the revelation of Joseph Smith as found in the Doctrines and Covenants, Sect 132, 3-4. Here, it says this: “3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
This indicates a new and everlaswting covenant is made, and if you don’t abide in it, you are damned.
Taking these two together, its logical to conclude that, at least historically, polygamy was more than just practice, since its listed as an everlasting command.
Now, I want to pause here and bring in my bigger point on the Bible– to prove it even as an acceptable practice, you must go outside of the Bible, which is something we don’t do. And by using the same method we use in determining doctrine from the Bible, I review your scriptures to conclude polygamy is more than practice. This entails an assumption that scripture is where to find doctrine.
I think it obvious that you don’t use scripture to define doctrine since you reject even Smith’s own declaration of everlasting covenants. And since you rely on a source other than scripture that may make sense to you. But not to us, so if nothing else I hope you see how we approach the matter, this in case you wonder why we say you can change course as convenient if you are not bound by what’s written.
MICHEAL
I agree with the first premise of what you said concerning Doctrine. It is something that is taught to be true that is very important. However, with this, a practice is not necessarily a doctrine, as I pointed out.
As to section 132 of the Doctrine and covenants, read the entire section. The new and Everlasting Covenant is the Sealing power. Part of this is Plural Marriage, but it is only part. The entire chapter gives in detail the covenant that one must abide in order to gain his exaltation.
He must be sealed. Once he is sealed he must live righteously. He must not commit any murder. If he is found to be adulterous the sealing is broken.
These are what make the New and Everlasting Covenant. It is after this is all explained that the Lord explains Plural Marriage. What is the purpose of this? Because adultery breaks the sealing, God is assuring us that Plural Marriage is not adultery. It does not say that one must have multiple wives to adibe the covenant, only that having them does not break the covenant.
(continued)
For further support to show that what I say is true, I will reference the Book of Mormon.
In Jacob chapter two we read a sermon in which Jacob chastises the Nephites for taking many wives and concubines. We read in verses 24-27: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none.”
Jacob then follows this with a simple declaration in verse 30: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
Thus Jacob has laid it out. When God deems it necessary he will command his people to live the law of Plural Marriage. But unless they are directly commanded to, they are not to take more than one wife.
What is written in D&C 132 is in harmony with this. For, as it says, if it is by the will of God, according to the Covenant of the Sealing, he cannot commit adultery. But if it is not by the will of God he has commited adultery. In the 1800’s the will of God was for men to take to themselves plural wives so that he could raise up a seed to himself. In our day it is his will that we have only one wife.
The doctrine, as taught in the scriptures, has not changed, only the practice.
Shem, while I accept what you say and what you get out of it, I get something entirely different out of the DC 132. Here’s why: the beginning of it, which I quoted, seems to apply to the entire thing. I have read it several times and do not see anything to separate out the plural marriage. Further, looking at the history of polygamy in your history, it siomply fascinates me how it was when Utah needed statehood, which was not allowed unless the church dropped it, that it was finally dropped. Even still, many members continued to practice it. At its “creation” Smith seems to have kept it silent for some time, and it was not until some time after that that it became widespread.
I know you and I disagree on this, and this is directly related to the lens from which we view your faith. But something you said awhile back needs to be brought up: try thinking of the other side as correct to understand it.
Believe it or not, I do this with your faith. Often when reading through the Bible I try to justify your faith. I try to see how it is you can believe what you do, and I always conclude it fails. Care to know why?
MICHEAL
One of the reasons I said that the New and Everlasting Covenant is the Sealing Power is because of section 131, not 132. In 131 we read “And in order to obtain the ahighest, a man must enter into this border of the cpriesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.”
Section 132 is expanding on what is said in 131. It is telling us the details of this New and Everlasting covenant (marriage or the sealing power, as they are the same). What 132 does is explain how people abide by this covenant, what they must do, and what constitutes breaking it.
So, yes, the entire section is dealing with this covenant, but in the way I previously outlined. Thus, what I said concerning Plural Marriage is true.
Speaking of the History of the church, this in itself should tell you that what I say is true. When it first started as a practice only a few were given the command to practice it, but not all. It was only after the saints reached Utah that it was given as a command to all. This is in line with what I said, that only at the direct command of God are we to practice it.
Thus both the scriptures and the history of the church support what I have said.
But Shem, I think you are going outside of clear lessons in grammar and interpretation to reach that conclusion. What is in 132 is in 132, and refers to what follows. Therefore, I think it is fair to apply it to 132, and not borrow from 131. The issue could have been cleared up by a sentance or a phrase to dictate whether salvation is not dependant on polygamy, but whoever recorded that did not do that. They said the covenant that follows helps determine their salvation, and what follows is a piece on polygamy.
As to the history, I accept your way of looking at it, but do you accept mine? Historically, is it not interesting how Smith held it for himself for a while, then to the leaders, then to everyone? And at first, it was kept secret, and as it was exposed it became OK for everyone? This can very truly sound very suspect. Its like if he were stealing, and giving it to his leaders, then got caught and to buy acceptance from others he then had to share with them, too. All he did was couch in rhetoric that he was commanded by god. Sorry, but this is a very plausible explanation of it, too.
Oh, and it doesn’t address the statehood issue. You kinda didn’t talk about that. Why would it be banned only when it became a huge political liability?
Another “Oh”… Have you considered what we claim as true and tried to understand it through that lens yet?
MICHEAL
As to your conclusions, I find them very reasonable. The reason I do not believe them true is because of the character of Joseph Smith that is shown through his actions. However, I would also say that with your conclusions there is a definite contradiction and change in doctrine, which is another reason I believe them to be incorrect.
As to keeping it a secret, I think it was a wise idea for reasons I will not go into. I have no problem with anything that the early leaders did concerning this doctrine.
Concerning statehood, it was a perfect reason for removing the practice. God is very convenient to the Faithful. Utah needed to be part of the Union with full state rights. The only way to do so was to stop the practice of Plural Marriage. It was a question of the greater good. Since Plural Marriage is not required, stopping it would cause less trouble than not becoming a state.
Oh, and just so you know, when they did end Plural Marriage it was only in the United States at first, and many members moved to Canada and Mexico so they could continue the practice. It was about twenty years later that it was ended in the rest of the world to bring the church into a stronger unity, which was also a very wise dicission.
As to section 132. Let me point out a few phrases that support what I said.
First, verse 7 “And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.”
Here we are told quite plainly that this New and Everlasting Covenant is speaking of the sealing powers, as I said. I said this is Marriage because in 131 marriage is given the same name (New and Everlasting Covenant). This sums it up. This covenant is that all things must be sealed for eternity.
Second verse 15-17 “Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”
Thus we get a clearer picture of what is spoken of in verse 7. Exaltation is only for those who are sealed by the power and word of God.
Now, verse 18 simply says that even if the promise is made for eternity, if it is not by Gods power it has no effect.
Third verse 19 “And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood…then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant…it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads…”
Here is an explanation of what it is to abide this law. Now, this does not cover it all, but it covers what is meant by the New and Everlasting Covenant, and abiding the law.
Now, there was a reference to “Shed innocent blood” and this is explained in verse 27 “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be edamned, saith the Lord.”
Now to backtrack just a little bit and give verse 26 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.”
Now, I give my personal understanding here, which is to say, as long as they do not commit the “Blasphamy of the Holy Ghost” as described in verse 27, the sealing power stays in effect in the eternities, regardless of what else they do. As such, failing to take plural wives would not constitute breaking this.
However, to continue, verses 41-44 “…if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery. And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”
Thus the sin of adultery breaks the sealing power, or makes this covenant void. This is not the same as not abiding the Law, which only murder qualifies for. A person who commits adultery can still enter again into the covenant, but he who blasphemes the Holy Ghost cannot come back.
Now, as to plural wives, let us look at verse 58 “Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.”
Here we are told that what follows is other things that pertain to the Priesthood other than the Sealing power, or New and Everlasting Covenant. It is in this section of other things that we find the actual laws governing Plural Marriage.
Verses 61-62 “And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.”
Since it has been previously established that Adultery breaks the sealing power, here we get the law pertaining to plural wives, in which we are told it does not constitute adultery, and thus does not break the sealing power. However, as stated, it is listed among the other things pertaining to the Priesthood, not the New and Everlasting Covenant, and thus is not required for that covenant.
Here is a detailed explanation of the meaning of this section as it has been taught to me, and how I have come to understand it.
Shem,
I appreciate the explanation, though still do not buy it. Nowhere in the text do I see a transition that sets polygamy apart from those first few verses. Yes, there is a shift in commands, but nothing that says that this really isn’t a command, but just a practice. He refers to Abraham et al as being commanded to take more than one wife, and then you are to follow Abraham. It is also very interesting why he spends so much time talking about the wives role in it and how if they fail they are destroyed.
All of that, coupled with the history, doesn’t make much sense to me. The history, by the way, I guess can be exlpained away by a utilitarian view point, but I don’t think God acts as a utilitarian, or for the greatest good for the greatest number. He has always required his people to abide by his word and his high standards of living. What you have proposed is that he commanded his people to marry more than one wife, or to submit to having to share a husband, and then got rid of it for political expediency– so that the people could live under the rule of the US and use its protections. I do not believe God is terribly concerned with political boundaries or rules, so I do not buy your explanation.
Alas…
MICHEAL
I don’t mind that you do not agree with what I say. However, this is the doctrine of the church, and that was my only intent. This is what was taught, and what is still taught.
As to doing things for the greatest good for the greatest number, this is in the Bible, shown in the Law of Moses. Moses was commanded to give the higher law, as it was lived in the time of Abraham. However, the people could not handle the higher law, and because of a lack of faith they were given a lower law. (Hebrews 4: 2)
Again, at this point I am not really concerned with whether you agree with this doctrine, I am only showing you what I believe. As the idea is not unprecedented in the Bible, I have no problem believing God could do so again.
Shem,
I understand and am OK with that. I hope you understand that I am only giving my thoughts as to why I think it is incorrect, and I hope you understand the logic behind it.
I disagree on the utilitarian God, and don’t think God works that way, and think the Hebrews quote is focusing on unity not on a level of law. Notice the good news is the same, but they did not benefit not because a lack of faith, but by a lack of unity. If you go back to Ch 3, v 19, we see they could not enter (the promised land) because they failed in belief.
Anyway, that particular discussion can weight, but I think it, too, like almost every part of our faiths, is influenced by the basic assumptions we have of God and our role in our salvation.
MICHEAL
I agree with all you said. I understand your view point. What got me onto all this in the first place was trying to convince you that the LDS church has not changed the actual doctrine of Plural Marriage. That is really the only goal I have. As I said before, whether or not you agree with it is not the issue. The issue is was the doctrine changed.
Shem,
I appreciate and get that you think it is not a change in doctrine. But I still do not agree. I suggest the best place to start to find out why is to look up doctrine in a dictionary. In short, it is something a group teaches, and at one point, it was taught polygamy was necessary, and thus a doctrine. Of course, the disagreement goes on from there
And this is not the only doctrine to have changed, as many have subtly shifted through time. I think the Mormonism of today is very different than what you’d have seen in the 1940’s, and then from the 1890’s, and back to the beginning. And what you see now is very different than what you’ll see in 2050.
And as long as folks in Mormonism keep their basic assumptions of God and our relationship to him your faith will continue to shift.
And if you choose to accept this, OK.
I do appreciate the discussion, and hope you have perhaps expanded your understanding of Christianity, because I beg you to follow your own advise to learn anothers faith and if you want to know about anothers faith, to ask them.
My point is that it was never taught as a required practice for exaltation, except when God decrees it. In the 1800’s it was required, because God decreed so for that time.
I have looked up the word doctrine in the dictionary and see no change in our doctrine by that definition.
Now, just to clarify, it is also doctrine that if God gives a command you must obey, regardless of what it is. This is why Abraham did not consider refusing sacrificing Isaac.
Plural Marriage is an eternal law, one that will be lived in heaven. God has reserved the right to command people either to practice it or not to practice it. This is one of the few practices that have this provision in the basic doctrine conserning them. By the doctrine of Plural Marriage and teh doctrine of obedience, if God commands Plural Marriage it is required, but if he does not command it is not to be practiced.
My point is that this is how it was always taught. Thus, in the 1800’s, when they were under command, it was required. Today, when we are not under command, it is not required. These are the provisions as laid out when the doctrine was first taught, and they have not changed.
There is no change to this doctrine.
Shem,
Sorry, but it seems you are changing your story a bit now. The moral has remained the same, but the path to it has changed. The moral being that it has never been doctrine to practice it, because it is only a practice. Here, you essentially say the same thing but couched in very different words: you say the doctrine exists and will always exist, but must be practiced only when commanded.
So, the detail of polygamy is indeed doctrine. Is that something you tell new recruits? I ask not to be harsh, but to really get at the heart of several conversations going on around here, namely the shifting nature and the desire to hide the truth of Mormon doctrine. And elsewhere in those converstations you said that the church seems to do this to protect the spiritual health of your members. I have said why I think that is a very wrong tactic.
Finally, you say that it has always been taught as a command (a doctrine) and thus you must follow the command. But that’s not the way DC 132 reads, though I know you present another very complicated way to get around it. In that text, there is no bridge to separate it, and there is overwhelming evidence to suggest it is something to be followed and that salvation depends on it. If it is merely a command to be followed, that needs to be flushed out, because it is not in the text.
But, in the end, as I have said several times now, the very basic assumption of your faith allows you this flexibility that is not recorded in your scripture. You do believe in on going revelation, so your scripture is ultimately, by necessity, not very useful. Unfortunately, it often seems to get in the way, which is a reason why I think you see the shifts in how it is presented.
I don’t want this to go on and on and will try to bow out of this discussion, so believe me when I say I accept your belief for what you think it is. I just think it is truly something different and that you are following a path to a dead end.
MICHEAL
You really don’t see what I am saying.
There are three parts to theology: Doctrine, Command, and Practice. Each is very separate, and each has its own role. A practice can change, while the command stays the same. A command can change while the doctrine remains the same.
Doctrine is what is taught as truth. Commandments are what we are to do, and Practices are how we are to do it.
Thus, from the beginning, the necessity of a savior, and the Grace of God, have been doctrines taught, truths that exist. We have been commanded to always keep these in remembrance. Before the atonement the practice for this remembrance was the sacrifices. After the Atonement it was changed to the Sacrement (or communion). The doctrine has not changed, nor has the command, but the practice has.
Also, there is the doctrine of faith, for faith is an eternal truth. However, from the time of Adam there was a command not to marry outside the faithful line, or the line of the Patriarchs (demonstrated in the selecting of wives by Abraham for Isaac and Isaac for Jacob). In the time of Abraham circumsision was instituted as a practice for this command. At the Time of Moses the command was again altered to not marry outside of Ireal (not even outside your own tribe). At the Apostolic times the command was relaxed as the gospel went to the Gentiles, and the practice of circumsision was ended.
In like manner, there is the doctrine of eternal families. Within this doctrine the Lord has commanded marriage as the practice by which the command to multiply is to be carried out. However (as it says in Jacob) when he wants the faithful line to bring forth more children he will command us to practice plural marriage. This does not change the doctrine of eternal families, only the practice by which this doctrine is shown.
Now, my explanation of D&C 132 was very clear. There was nothing there hidden from the reasonable mind, nothing that should not have been plain to any who read the text.
I showed in simple language the meaning of the words, and showed very plainly how there are different parts to the text dealing with different matters.
The reason you cannot see what I have said is because you cannot separate the three basic parts of theology. If they are separated, as they should be for anyone who believes the Bible, what I outlined it logical and true. If they cannot be separated than theology is beyond the understanding of Mortal reason, for there is not a religion or sect that has not altered its practices over time.
Actually, Shem,
You directly said polygamy was in fact doctrine: “Plural Marriage is an eternal law, one that will be lived in heaven” Then: “By the doctrine of Plural Marriage and teh doctrine of obedience, if God commands Plural Marriage it is required, but if he does not command it is not to be practiced.” Finally, “There is no change to this doctrine.”
So, you can obfuscate all you want, but if “plural marriage is an eternal law” it is doctrine. It is something you teach, and it is doctrine. I know you don’t like this presentation, but it is what it is.
You can separate them all you want, but that’s not what I am focused on. I am focused on the doctrine, so I could really not care about the practices. And it is pretty clear the polygamy is an eternal truth and thus a doctrine, even if it is not practiced now.
To say it is not doctrine would thus be to tell a lie, and you told me it is not doctrine, so you have lied. I know you separate these things, and you do not see the lie. But you’ve really got to do some gymnastics to get there, which is why I have said you gave a complicated way to get to the conclusion.
Yes, you outlined it in a logical manner, but there is a more simple way to reach a conclusion, which I presented. My presentation, though, does not fit with what you want to see, so you reject it. However, I think a common saying is often applicable: the simplest answer is usually the best.
MICHEAL
My words were not as clear as they should have been.
Plural marriage is an eternal law, or part of the eternal law of the Sealing Power. This is still taught by the church. At no time has the church ever denied this. We have not changed this doctrine.
However, the practice by which this law is lived (though it is technically not changed, just stopped) is what we have effected. Thus we still teach the doctrine of Plural marriage, but we do not live the practice of plural marriage.
What I said was all true, as it is both doctrine and practice.
Shem,
I am not sure whether to give you the benefit of the doubt or not. You clearly and unashamedly said polygamy was not doctrine earlier, then said it was, then it wasn’t, now it is both practice and doctrine. Your statements were pretty clear, but I cannot read your mind, so I hesitate.
I will do a couple of things, though. First, remember to be absolutely clear on what it is you mean when talking about doctrine v practice. If something is doctrine, it is doctrine regardless of its being a separate practice or not. I’d even go so far as to say a practice is a doctrine. If its taught, it is doctrine. If you change this definition, you are toying with words, understand?
Second, I urge you to consider why we get so frustrated with pinning down your teachings, because they are so fluid, as you yourself have demonstrated. Getting to an answer is near impossible as Hank has demonstrated in another thread.
Third, I would be curious what you tell new or potential converts when they ask what I have asked here. Do they get a direct answer, or do they get a run-around like you provided throughout this discussion?
Finally, does being Mormon mean having to do so much mental gymnastics? I know the question seems harsh, and maybe it is, but does it require forsaking clear and precious truths for such fluid and problematic teaching?
MICHEAL
I understand that my words in late posts have not been completely clear. I will explain exactly what I mean in them, and answer your questions.
First, if anybody asked me what you have I would probably answer in the same way, as the original question was about changing doctrine.
However, if they asked me what the church taught concerning Polygamy, this would be my answer, and what I have been trying to tell you.
The sealing power that binds families together for eternity is an eternal truth. This is a doctrine of the church. Thus, when two people are sealed they are forever bound together. Plural Marriage is simply a part of this power, for if a man is sealed to two woman by this power the power still holds.
However, as Plural Marriage is not required for this sealing power to take effect (in other words, if a man does not take a second wife he is still sealed to the first) the practice of taking Plural wives is not required of all men. What is required is the acceptance of the doctrine that proves it a lawful practice.
As to the difference between doctrine and practice, I thought I was clear. There is the doctrine of Repentance. There is also the doctrine that without the ordinance of Baptism one cannot be cleanse of their sins. However, the practice of this ordinance has changed over time, for rivers and lakes were once used, while now we use specially made baptismal fonts. It is also true that the prayer that we use in performing the ordinance is not the same as used in ancient times. These practices have changed, but the doctrine that teaches baptism unto repentance has not changed.
As to fluid teachings, there is no real fluidity when it comes to actual doctrine. The only fluidity is in the practices and commandments, which is clearly shown in the Bible as well.
(Continues)
For your last question, I find no difficulty in what I say, and I would not consider it mental gymnastics.
What I consider mental gymnastics is trying to explain it to others, especially those who seem to consider themselves an authority on the subject.
The reason for this is because they will take one doctrine, or one quote, and apply their reasoning (or their doctrine) to it, and deside what it means and what is taught. Once they have done this they deny any attempt on the part of those who actual live and know the doctrine to correct their error. Thus, in trying to reason with them you are forced into the a circular path that they prefer, but which truly leads to no honest understanding or realization of the truth.
An example: On the thread concerning the Perfection (or lack thereof) of the Father, after many arguments were given showing that when you consider all the words of the prophets and the scriptures as well as the interlocking nature of teh LDS doctrines, that the idea (though some believe it) is truly not supported, one Christian came back with this basic argument (and I paraphrase).
When you read the quote from President Snow, and consider it from Christian doctrine (the idea of collective sin brought on by Adam) it is obvious that this quote infers the Father sinned because he was on the same path as man.
Of course, this is a very rediculous argument, because the LDS do not teach a collective sin, and President Snow never believed the idea, thus his words should not be interpreted on that basis.
Thus, we are forced to “jump through hoops” not by our doctrine, but by those who have no real desire to understand it, only attack at every possible moment.
Actually, Shem, you have contradicted yourself throughout, and I think you do so, here, too. First, polygamy was not doctrine but rather practice. Then it was part of doctrine, though not doctrine. Then it was doctrine, now it is a part of doctrine. I demonstrated before how it is a very fair reading of 132 to suggest polygamy is part of the plan for salvation, and not merely practice or part of sealing.
You offer an explanation, yes, but I said why I do not buy it, because there is nothing to differentiate polygamy from that covenant, and the emphasis on women to accept or they are essentially damned. A fair reading and interpretation is as I present.
I’ve also presented anecdotal evidence, such as shaky history and an explanation that God is really not utilitarian (which, but taking that, you open yourself up to the possibility of more changes in doctrine), to show that the LDS changes its position based on what is convenient, and in fact changes doctrine.
Finally, it is important to remember the definion of “doctrine” and you must come up with three categories to get around the simple truth that a doctrine is something taught in a church, and polygamy was once taught as necessary.
As to your counter that you are only forced to jump through hoops because we force you to is another argument that I think is creative, but fails. Yes, I agree fully that we view your faith from a different lens. But that lens is from a logical and rational point of view. We are trying to get you to think rationally and fully about your faith, and get out of the trappings of LDS rationality.
This direct topic, doctrine/polygamy, is but one example. I know you think that all the other pieces of evidence have been disproven, but think about it: there are so many instances of things in the BOM that don’t exist or could not have existed, verses how much it has been changed itself, to Smith’s own troubled history, and on and on, that at some point your eyebrows should be raised and say, “wait a minute”.
But you continue to rational it all, and you dare not question any leader’s comments, except to say they are not perfect or a given comment was only their opinion. You are led to believe faith is best confirmed by a burning in your bosom that runs counter to any number of pieces of evidence, and to many in your faith, the more they believe despite these holes, the better they are.
You also accuse me, and whoever makes these assertions as having poor motives, but do you really know this? You can say that I am not sincere or that I am only twisting or distorting your faith, but I am not. I am calling it as I see fit. Because I don’t spout off what it is you want me to say does not mean I am insincere or out to “getcha”. I only hope that somehow, someway, I can get you to see things in a different way than you are used to. I cannot change your mind; all I can do is tell you what I see.
It was you who said a good way to understand something is to assume it is right. I think it is wise to make the arguments the other side would make, and I try to do that when thinking of your faith. Am I perfect, no I am not… But I do try.
MICHEAL
I never said you had low motives. I said either you had low motives or you do not really understand LDS doctrine. Take your pick of which one you fall under, but it is one of them.
I have not contradicted myself in anyway. I admit that my words have not been the best, but their meaning remains the same.
The doctrine is the sealing power. The practice that works within this doctrine are marriage (in all its goodly forms). The doctrine states that one must be married to become a God. It does not state that one must have multiple wives. However, it does also state that having multiple wives is not in violation of the doctrine.
Thus, Plural Marriage is part of the doctrine, because the doctrine does not deny it. However, it is a practice of that doctrine, not the doctrine itself.
As to your interpretation of 132, you have ignored the outline I have given. You have assumed that the entire section is about the new and everlasting Covenant, and that this was Plural Marraige. I understand this assumption, as this was teh question being answered by the Lord. But the section is not just about Plural Marriage, nor is it only about this new and everlasting covenant, and that is where you make your mistakes. It is an honest mistake, but you still refuse to be corrected in it.
As I pointed out, in section 131 the new and everlasting covenant is identified as marriage. Thus, when section 132 speaks of teh new and everlasting covenant, this is what it speaks of (which is also the sealing power).
When Joseph Smith asked concerning Abraham having many wives, for the Lord to answer that question he had to first give an explanation of the doctrine of this sealing power (which was not fully had at the time) because it is in this doctrine that the answer lay.
Once he had explained this doctrine, he then went on to answer the question asked. It is two separate thoughts.
This is shown in the single verse (58) where the Lord says “Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.” This indicates a change in topic, or in thought. The Lord is saying, “Now that you understand this doctrine, let me explain to you a few more things concerning the priesthood.”
It is after this change in thought that the laws coverning plural marriage are given, and thus they are not a part of the new and everlasting covenant. They are an addition to it, or a practice within it.
Of course I have shown you this before, and you deny the very words that you base your argument on. This is what I mean when I say you force us through mental hurdles. We give you the truth, and you still deny it. So, wanting you to come to understand it, we are forced to try and explain it in another way, which always gets more complex, allowing you to claim a contradiction in our words.
As to everything else you say, I see very little logic in the Christian faith. The idea of the Trinity itself enough to boggle my mind and wonder how anyone can claim true reason and still believe it. Besides this there are many things that Christians teach that are self contraditions.
A good example is the idea that God can do anything he wants. This contradicts itself because if God can do anything, than he can’t prevent himself from doing anything, thus he is restricted, making the statement untrue.
Then there is the Meritless gift of Grace if you have faith. But if faith is required it is no longer maeritless, as it is merited by your faith.
These are the things Christians have tried to teach me, and none of it has any logic to it. Thus they are forced to exclaim “how great are the misteries of God” or “His thoughts are not our thoughts” and give no real answer to the contradictions.
As to all the historical things you mention, this same evidence you use in your attempt to prove the LDS church false is what strengthens my belief in it.
As I said, the very history of the practice of Plural Marriage in the LDS church supports what i have said concering it, and thus is a great strength to me belief. You ignore both the explanation of teh true teachings concerning Plural Marriage, and are thus able to claim this as a change of doctrine.
With the Book of Mormon, There were so many things that were unpoven at the time Joseph Smith translated it that this argument was better then. Out of the few dozen things it claimed, only three were coroborated. However, now there are only a few that have not been.
Once it was claimed that cement was a mistake, but now we know that cement did exist in ancient America, and at the same time as recorded in the Book of Mormon.
Swords were said to be a mistake, but now we see the ancient weapons, and they are very much swords.
Horses were was ridiculed, but now the evidence has shown that there were more than one native species of Horse in ancient America, pre-columbian.
The fact that so much has been substanciated makes the argument against was hasn’t very weak, as not finding it is not proof it does not exist.
The changes in the Book I have read (at least a number of them) and have seen not real alteration that can be called a major changed. Truth is that most are easily the mistakes of the printer when setting the type. And since the changes are made by comparing the actual hand written copy to what we currently have, it would make sense that our current edition would be different than the original edition.
Yes, my faith is strong enough to withstand all your attacks on it, for you cannot prove what you say. In truth, half of what you say only makes my faith stronger, and the other half is so full of error and illogical conclusions that it doesn’t really effect my faith either way.
Shem, I disagree with jut about everything you wrote, as you might expect.
First, as to 132, 58 it says there are many things that are a part of it, though it falls short in saying that these thigns are not also required. Saying there is more is not saying it is optional, it is just saying there is more. So, no, I do not see that as bridge to separate it from the required pieces.
And, no, your comments were clear before, as well. Maybe you just spoke wrongly, but you spoke clearly. You can accuse me of whatever you want, but understand that your attempts to reach you ultimate conclusion appeared as backtracking and changing yout tune. Like it or not, this is the impression you gave.
Now, as to how do I approach your efforts? Should I accept your verdict? Well, on a level I must, and therefore do. You say polygamy is but a part of the doctrine of marriage, but not a doctrine itself. OK, fine. But this is not logical (for reasons already stted) and I cannot accept it as truth.
I also cannot simply allow the changing of your tune to go un-noticed. Surely you know that Mormons have a reputation among Ev’s as having a shifting view of your faith, and the change in tune has only givben evidence of its truth. You say it is because we push you in ways to have to explain it. But isn’t that what you are supposed to do with a belief: explain it? While I understand some things in my faith are difficult to explain, I give you clear reasons why without ever having to change my tune.
The Trinity, which you bring up, is a great example. It is best understood by first starting with the Biblical truth that there is only one God. This is echoed several times in the Bible but then you also see references to Christ as God, and to the Holy Spirit as God, along with the Father God. How is this reconciled? One God who manifests himself in three forms. This may be hard to grasp but it is better than saying God was lying when he said there is only one God.
Mertless faith can be conceived of as a work, but this is A) a stretch, B) a bit of a trap and C) assumes a definition of a work that is very broad.
I have no problem with you stating it is a work if it helps you understand it. If you do, that is all the workwe must do to be saved is to believe on Him who saves.
But don’t forget the premise for the belief: we are but filthy rags and nothing we can do accept trust in His fullness and power to lead us to salvation, and that nothing we can do on our own can lead us there.
That is the doctrine of meritless faith.
God doing anything he wants is a red herring used by so many non-believers it is not worth discussing.
The historical evidence, do you care to quote where you get this evidence from? I have searched, and I have yet to find anyone supporting the evidence who is non-Mormon, in other words I have found no one without a desire to prove their religion. If these things are so true, why are you out in front of everyone proclaiming the evidence?
Finally, I’ll ask a question: How do you view those who who believe in Christian Science?
MICHEAL
First, it is not faith that is meritless, but Grace. Also, I never said Faith was a work. I only pointed out that if the Grace of God is dependant on us having faith it cannot be truly meritless, as it is our faith that merits it. The basic idea of the doctrine is fairly logical, but the way it is explained is not.
Second, God doing anything he wants is not a red herring, but a very important part of theology. It gets right down to the power of God, and thus his actual influence in life. I will agree that the way I put it is more sarcastic than it probably should be, but it is still important.
Logic, as I have shown, states that no being can truly do anyting. There are natural restrictions. If you accept this than the next step is to figure out what those restrictions are. In this way the LDS church is more logical in its doctrine.
Third, I have not “changed my tune” only the instrument on which it is played. After all, whether you use a piano or a saxophone, Mozart is still Mozart.
Now, you seem to be having the same basic problem that started this discussion. You seem to think I want to convince you that LDS doctrine is true, which is not my intent. I only want you to actually understand LDS doctrine. It seems you are beginning to, though grudgingly.
As to changing practice without changing doctrine, I have shown this in the Bible. The sacrifices where ended, and the practice changed, but the doctrine remained the same. Also, circumsision as a practice was changed, but the doctrine remained the same. I have Biblical precident for the claims I make. If you take your way of looking at it than you must accept that God has changed his doctrine as shown by these same examples in the Bible (as well as the rest of the Law of Moses).
Two last remarks.
As to what you say concerning section 132, verse 58: You seem to be missing the point I am making with this verse.
The New and Everlasting Covenant is the covenant of marriage, or the sealing power. This is easily demonstrated in the text of section 131. In this same text it calls this an Order of the Priesthood. This is only one order of the Priedthood.
So, in section 132 we get a great explanation of this Order, then in verse 58 we are told we are getting more information concerning the Priesthood, not the New and Everlasting Covenant.
You are right that it does not states these things optional, but since it is a new topic, and it does not state that they are required, technically you cannot use this text by itself to say either way.
Finally, speaking of the Trinity: I understand the logic you use to reach this conclusion. However, no matter how good teh logic is, if the conclusion is illogical it does not matter.
As you say, the Bible does say there is only one God, but then calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost God. True logic would say that either the Bible is in error, or the passages have a different meaning than the obvious one.
In the Old Testiment there are only two references (that I can find right now) stating there is only one God. In Isaiah 43: 10, and Malachi 2: 10. Now, if we read in Isaiah, and continue to verse 11, we read that there is only one savior. Thus, this quote is easily seem as a reference to the unique calling of Christ. In Malachi it is stated with “Have we not all one father,” so this is again easily seen as a reference to the Father’s unique position. Thus, in the Old Testiment we can see that the references can be refering to two different gods, each with a unique position and relation to us.
When we go to the New Testiment things become more tricky, as there are eight references to only one God.
For sake of brevity, I quote only two. Ephesians 4: 4-6 “There is one body, and one Spirit… One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Here we also have the separation of the verious callings. One Spirit, which is different than the one Lord, which is separate from the One God (Father) who is above all.
Then, in 1 Timothy 2: 5 it says “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Again the Father and the Son are made separate, as the Son is called the mediator (or savior).
Now, we also have three references to the Godhead, which term indicates a leader (or leaders) of gods. In other words “The Head of the Gods.”
These references are Acts 17: 29; Romans 1: 20; and Colossians 2: 9.
As I said before, I am not trying to convince you I am right. With this my only hope it to show you that our doctrine is logical, and supported in the Bible. You can interpret the same verses anyway you want, but the interpretation we have is a logical one.
Shem,
I had written a more detailed response that seems to have been lost, but I think this is about over, but a trait of mine that needs improvement is my desire to have the last word:) So, here comes a quick response. First, ast to the Trinity, believe me, I understand your hold up on it, but you miss an option: it could be right. See, based on a different understanding of God it is very logical (see Acts 17:29, one you just quoted). That understanding of God is that we ought not to put him in a box we humans think Gid should fit in. Put another way, since we say God is all powerful, then the Trinity’s explanation of how he presents himself and interacts with us fits quite nicely, and certainly fits with God’s statement that there is but one. In fact, this makes more sense than your attempt to put God in a box that we humans will completely understand.
The verses you present are poorly presented as supporting your argument, and actually better support my theory. Read the context of all of them, especially all of Col. 2. (to start: “2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” and “8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”
The interpretation you have may be logical, but it is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption of God. Notice how the writer says he wants them to know the mystery of God, namely Christ. He’s writing as if they are the same. Second, he warns against following sweet sounding arguments based on the traditions of men. This hardly supports your theory.
OK, my brief response got much longer, sorry ’bout that.
I hope you understand what is sweet sounding about your faith, but if you need examples, I’m happy to expound. Traditions of men? What did I just say about putting God in a box that we humans can understand?
So, on that issue, I would simply say at its core is this understanding of God: do we try to view from a point of view that we like, or one that is true to what is found in a full view of the Bible? And by a full view of the Bible, it requires the context found in reading it fully (not picking and choosing–see Col. 2 and your quote if you need an example of how that works).
As to polygamy, you state that your goal is to show how it is logical and how it shows a non-changing view of doctrine from Mormons. Trouble is, this is not how it has been applied, and the interpretation only opens the door to change. This comes back to the very definition of doctrine, which is at issue. If a doctrine is something that is a teaching, and a command is something that a church teaches is OK, then the command is also doctrine. When the command changes, the doctrine changes. What this means about your doctrine is that it is set up to change, even if that exact aspect remains the same. The change is built in to the basic doctrine.
What that allows you to do is to do exactly what you have done: say your doctrine doesn’t change (after all, change is built in to the doctrine because it is differentiated as command/practice) even when it changes.
As to 132, I prefer that the disclosure at the beginning applies to it all. The change in subject is irrelevant if there is no clause changing the applicability. Because there is no differentiation, it is very fair to state, and even right, I think, that all of it is under the disclosure that it is required. After all, why would God be that vague if he is not the author of confusion?
In the end, I respect that you see things differently.
MICHEAL
I understand what you believe, and I understand the logic behind it. My point is that what we believe is just as logical, and so to claim otherwise is rediculous.
As to doctrine and command, you are not truly understanding me, and have misquoted what I said. Doctrine is what is taught as truth. Doctrine is what you believe is, and cannot change. Commands are taught, but they are not truth, simply guidelines to bring us to a full understanding of the truth on which they are based. Thus a command is not a doctrine, as it is not a teaching of truth. So changing a command does not change doctrine.
If they were both simply teachings I would agree with you, but they are very different types of teachings. (Like changing History doesn’t change math.)
I accept that you believe differently, and I respect that, but I just wish you would try a little harder to see the logic in what I believe.
One last comment.
To see the logic of LDS doctrine try looking at it without the references to Bible. Concider only what is taught, and not the actual words. Is there logic is the doctrine itself as it relates to itself.
I can see the things I see in the Bible because the doctrine itself is logical. When the doctrine is compared to itself there is no contradiction, only a easily flowing thought. Once I have this I can then go to the Bible and these things seem clear to me in the text.
I do not ask this to convince you of anything, and I really don’t want to discuss how you can’t consider it without the Bible. This is a simple question.
Shem, I do see the logic in what you say, but you don’t see the trouble in the logic. I have outline it above. One of the things Mormonism has to do to survive is change the meaning of words, like doctrine. Its a simple word, really. It means something that is taught. You have separated out teachings under the word’s meaning to differentiate eternal truths for non-eternal truths that can change. Either way, these things are taught, and based on the original definition are indeed doctrine. The only difference in your view is eternallity.
Also, I love this quote of yours: “Concider only what is taught, and not the actual words.” Huh? Sorry, but what you are asking me to do is to ignore the plain and simple truths that words speak in favor of a sentiment behind them. I cannot do this, because words have meanings and are important.
I also know that you have to look at LDS doctrine apart from the Bible because it is not biblical. But therein lies the problem at its heart– it is not Biblical, even though the purpose of the BoM and other LDS scripture is to supplement it, the Bible is virtually taken out of the picture. You have to form your doctrine before you can apply it to the Bible, and not taking your doctrine from the Bible. This is exactly what you just told me when you said, “Once I have this I can then go to the Bible and these things seem clear to me in the text.”
This is not how we are to approach the Bible. We are to approach it as a primary source, not secondary like you make it. It is secondary because it follows revelation, and then you go to the Bible to make the revelation fit. Revelation should come from the Bible, and then it should fit what is in the Bible. The Bible should not be distorted so that it fits revelation.
I know you don’t want to convince me, but you must understand why we object to your faith. It is because it is not logical and turns the Bible on its head. Your logic starts from a very different place.
MICHEAL
First, as it comes to doctrine if you are going to use your very broad definitions then you must accept that God himself changes doctrine, as he did just that in the Bible. As such, to say the LDS church does so means nothing. I am all for this approach, but you want to apply this only to the LDS church and not to other Christian denominations, and that is why I gave a veried definition of doctrine.
God commanded men to Sacrifice animals. Once Christ came this command was ended. Thus what was taught in the Law of Moses (and even from the time of Adam) was changed. Abraham was commanded to circumsize all the male members of his house, and that command continued throughout his descendants, unitl the gospel was taken to the gentiles, at which point it was ended. Another change in doctrine. Even taking the gospel to the gentiles was a change in doctrine.
Thus, by Biblical proof God changes his doctrine. If the LDS church is going to be condemned for this you must condemn the God of the Bible as well, and that is my point.
As to my question about seeing the logic of the doctrine and how I apply it to the Bible, you misunderstand me. Yes, it is because of the Logic behind it that I am able to see it in the text, but this is in reference to the deep doctrine, or the mysteries. The basics of the gospel I get from the Bible.
I asked what I did, and in the way I did, for only one reason. To show that the doctrine is logical and get you to stop telling me that it isn’t. I said to not think of the words refering only to the Bible because we have such different interpretations of the text. I can’t show you the logic of the actual doctrine through the Bible because you will simple say that I am misinterpreting the text. However, if I simple tell you the doctrine then you will be able to see the logic of it, and that is all I wanted.
The Bible is still the greatest of the standard scriptures, and the source of more great truth than any other
Shem, do I need to quote you again on telling me not to pay attention to words or how once you see it from a point of view, then you can go to the Bible? You are backtracking.
Again, this is the troube with you guys… you do not argue from a single standard, and thus can shift around as you see fit. And again, your words were very clear. You accuse us of not allowing a fair answer, but this is dodging the issue because it does not address our concerns and is playing the role o victim. You have to twist it to come close to answering. And again, my comments stand– if I have to ignore the plain words of the Bible, I am telling it to conform to what I want it to be.
Actually, do I need to remind you the words of Christ, who said what about his role in connection with the law? And should we look back through the OT to see examples of faith as a saving power, even to non-Jews? Should we talk about the one constant through all of the rules and why the rules were necessary? Then, shall we look at Christ and what he did? And should I remind you again of Christ’s own words regarding his relation to the law?
This supposed changing of God’s mind is a common theme among non-believers, yet it ignores these aspects and the consistency of it all. I’d even add that someone today who could follow all of the OT laws would be saved, and that someone pre-Christ who called upon his name would also be saved.
All of that to say that no, our God has not changed his doctrine nor his practices. You cannot say this, because you cannot define the reasons for polygamy, except to say that some in the OT did it, and your god commanded you at the time. Or, another issue– the seed of Cain and blacks. Any reason fo the change? Can you honestly say that blacks are any more clean today than they were 30 years ago?
All of what I have written is supported clearly in the Bible without having to start from another place.
Oh, I almost forgot to touch on perhaps the most important line of your last post: “The Bible is still the greatest of the standard scriptures, and the source of more great truth than any other”
Is this more so than the most correct book ever written? Is this true even though you don’t always trust it because it was not always translated correctly? Is this true even though it contains a bunch of the writers’ own opinions?
Because you say that the BoM is the most correct book ever written, that the Bible is corrupt through too many errors in translation, and because you dismiss much of it as simply opinion, it seems odd that you write that it is the greatest standard scripture. That sounds to me like you don’t trust it much, and that it is secondary to the BoM.
Add to that that you ask potential converts to read from the BoM and you really put some serious questions in your comment. I’ll grant you the possibility that it just might be true, but given how you treat it, serious problems arise in buying your claim.
And if it is true, one has to ask what you really think about your other books because of how you treat the Bible.
Now, I know you view all of those as supplementing the Bible, but I hope you see why we seriously question your commitment to the Bible, since you don’t seem to dismiss the D&C as mere opinion or prone to translation errors, and while you ignore the myriad of changes to the BoM in just its approx. 150 years of existence.
Again, you have to start from a very different place to reach your conclusions…