Three Evangelical Perspectives on Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries
This article was originally posted at Dan Phillips’ blog, Biblical Christianity. I am re-posting here as a part of a three-article simultaneous posting between Tim and Bridget, two other evangelical bloggers. Please see their articles as well.
—
Getting turned down and even having doors slammed in your face isn’t fun. It’s emotionally and physically draining. I know because many Mormons are rude to me on a weekly basis here in Utah on evangelistic outings. No matter how positive and polite I try to be, that I am trying to convert them from their Restoration to our Great Apostasy doesn’t go over well. “Get a job.” “What are you, an anti-Mormon?” “You should be ashamed of yourself.” “What did the Mormons ever do to you?” “How much money do you get paid to do this?” “Don’t you have anything better to do?”
All that, but at least I still get to pick up the phone and talk to my mom whenever I want. Mormon missionaries are typically only allowed to send letters/email once a week, and make a phone call twice a year to their family. Once on Christmas, and once on Mother’s Day. They eat lots of Ramen noodles, Mac and Cheese, and anything else cheap that a budget-conscious bachelor pad might serve.
Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers. But that is hardly the case. These are a bunch of young 19 and 20-year-olds who are playing the part of a Mormon tradition that is designed to help them plant deep roots of Mormon commitment and belief. Many of them are on their mission to participate in an adventure and figure things out for themselves, not yet having the deep belief in Mormonism that they wish they had. The two-year-mission largely functions in Mormonism to solidify that belief. It’s a spiritually formative time in their life, and it’s our duty to plant seeds of truth in love.
When a new set of missionaries (they usually cycle out to different proximate areas every three months or so) knocks on my door, it’s usually because I have requested a new video resource they have advertised (do this!), because I have filled out a card in one of their Visitor’s Centers or public events (never pass that up!), or because a neighbor feels like I really need to be converted (hey, they care!). I’m more than delighted to have them over. Know that you can practice warm hospitality without welcoming them as fellow believers. Welcome them in, have them sit down, and bring them somethings to drink (save snacks for a bit later to keep them a bit longer).
Ask them where they are from, about their families, and what their post-mission plans are. They will want to quickly segue to their religious message. They usually ask me, “So how much do you know about the Church?” I am forthright about my knowledge of the Mormon faith. “I have studied it for years, I find it fascinating, but I have some grave concerns.” But what I know about the history and larger movement of Mormonism is inconsequential for the moment, because “I would love to hear what you two individually believe.”
Allow the missionaries to spend some time delivering their message, but look for points at which you can ask questions about the fundamental nature of God. Because I never know how short or long their visit will be, or if they will ever return, I make it a point to quickly get to the heart of the matter. For me that usually entails asking if they believe God once was a mere man who had to progress unto godhood, and whether they believe this mere man was once perhaps a sinner. The responses are varied, but usually heartbreaking and shocking. (See God Never Sinned)
The most important passage that I know to share with a Mormon is Isaiah 43:10:
nor shall there be any after me.”
I recommend using this passage even if you only have a few minutes. Ask the missionaries to “share their testimonies”, and patiently listen. They have a series of affirmations they will articulate here, usually something like, “I know the Church is true and has the restored priesthood, I know that Jesus is the Messiah, I know that the Book of Mormon is true, and I know the Thomas S. Monson is a modern-day prophet of God.”
“Thank you for sharing your testimony. Would you mind if I shared a testimony as well?”
“Sure.”
“The testimony I have to share right now isn’t my testimony, it is God’s testimony.” At this point I try to avoid using terms like “Bible” and “scripture” and “word of God”, and instead use the term “testimony of God.” Referring to God’s written revelations as the testimonies of God is perhaps the clearest and strongest way we evangelicals can communicate the nature of scripture to Mormons.
I open up the testimonies of God and put my finger under the passage to help them simultaneously read with their eyes as they listen with their ears: “God bears witness of himself in Isaiah 43:10, testifying, ‘Before me no god was formed [PAUSE], nor shall there be any after me.’ If we trust the testimony of man, how much more should we trust the testimony of God himself.”
This also works great in the beginning of a longer conversation, as it preempts the feelings-oriented Mormon epistemology that they want to promote. Mormon missionaries are taught to foster a kind of atmosphere and attitude among listeners. The next step for them is to help you identify a set of positive emotions with the Holy Spirit. By preemptively referring to scripture as the “testimony of God”, I have made it more difficult for them to appeal to human feelings as the chief, decisive vehicle of God’s authoritative revelation.
Other topics that are great to cover are the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7), the explosively good news of the justification of the ungodly (Romans 4:4-8), and the importance of putting our feelings and thoughts in a system of checks and balances that realistically takes into account our finiteness and depravity and God’s authority and omnipotence (Isaiah 40:8; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). A wonderful list of passages put together by James White for witnessing to Mormons is available here.
You will inevitably be asked to read a section of the Book of Mormon and pray about that. On that issue please see an article by Bill McKeever.
A great way to get them to come back is not to hog the conversation, but to let them have their say. Practice using questions as a way of drawing out the topics you would like to address. Our interactions are not an endless emergent “conversation”, but neither are they an overwhelmingly aggressive monologue (I have learned this the hard way). Keep a mental note of three or so tough questions that went unanswered, and write them down for them.
“Would you guys please research the answers to these questions, and come back another time to share what you found?” Insist on it with a free dinner. In some areas, Mormon missionaries are not allowed to eat meals at the houses of other Mormons. This is designed to encourage them to eat with non-Mormon households or at a Mormon house with non-Mormon guests. The problem is that many missionaries end up eating a lot of those Ramen noodles. Your kitchens are the solution to this wonderful problem.
At the end, they will ask for someone to close in prayer, usually the head of the household. Use the opportunity to pray to our awesome and eternal God. Thank God before everyone in the living room for the free and immediate gift of justification, forgiveness, and eternal life. Thank him for transforming your heart to love and follow Jesus. Thank Jesus that in him we have all the riches of knowledge and wisdom and understanding, and that without him, we have nothing, and that with him we have everything. And beseech the Spirit to help everyone in the room to pursue the truth of the gospel, lest we suffer that awful punishment that the Bible describes as never-ending.
Get their phone number in case you have to reschedule, and use that number to remind them of the dinner appointment that you’re looking forward to. Trust me, this is important. They forget (either literally or sometimes intentionally) to show up and either never come back, or call to apologize, since something came up. Sometimes they are lazy, sometimes they are just busy. Give them the benefit of doubt and stuff them full of more dinner. Serve a dessert twenty minutes after dinner is over so that they feel obliged to stay longer than they would have. Keep inviting them over and over to eat more dinner, discuss more issues, and address more of the outstanding questions. It won’t last forever, so make the best use of your time. Ron Rhodes writes,
“Don’t move forward in a mad rush to discuss spiritual things, especially if you have the opportunity to work toward developing a personal relationship. When the Lord opens the door for witnessing, however, be ready to walk through it.
“The exception to this rule, of course, is if you know for certain that you will never see that particular Mormon again. Then you will want to cover as much doctrinal ground as possible, biblically refuting the most blatant heresies in Mormon theology and giving a strong personal testimony of what Jesus has done in your life.” (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [1995], p. 29)
Comments (107)
Thanks for this interesting post. Not only does it sound like solid advice, it offers some interesting tidbits about the LDS missionary experience I had not known about.
Also instructive were ways to get them come over. I’ve only had one time where they came by my home when I was there, and I did not invite them in. I will next time.
Thanks so much for this. As I read it, i kept thinking, I can do this! What a marvelous way to build a relationship, even if only for a one time visit, which will plant some seeds of further investigation.
I know there is a significant amount of Mormon missionaries that leave after they return home. Hopefully we can talk to enough of them to increase that percentage.
Ward I am with you, I think I can do this also.
Great post Aaron. I always take the opportunity to pray when they are in our home, praying for them and that our Sovereign God will work in their hearts. Properly handled, having the missionaries in your home can be a great chance to witness to the lost but it needs to be handled gently so they keep coming back.
Aaron,
About “the feelings-oriented Mormon epistemology”. I have pointed out this to LDS folks, who usually deny that its their feeling, instead they will claim its the ‘holy ghost’, which is distinct from their feeling or emotion.
What is bible-literalist epistemology?
You moved to Utah to do a bible-literalist mission to Mormons?
What would you do if the church held a ‘great confession’ by the general authorities that said ’sorry folks its all a sham, we appologize.’ (I believe this happened to the Worldwide Church of God) As wonderful as you think this might be, it could cause a lot of problems for the LDS population if this happened suddenly.
You believe that anyone who does not believe in the true Jesus will be punished for all eternity. The number of people who don’t believe, or have never heard the message number in the billions. What are your feelings about that? I know that you want to stay away from feelings as a basis for knowledge. Is this part of the reason why?
“Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers”.
Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. All deep question, and nicely answered by some 60,000 full time Missionaries. What else does one need to know about the plan of Salvation, other then that God has again spoken from Heaven and Loves his children enough to restore what was once true, but lost for a time.
Regards, Richard.
What else does one need to know?
Faith in what and in whom?
What does it mean to repent and how does one do it?
Baptism by whom and where? What happens when one is baptized?
What is the gift and who is the Holy Ghost? Is it really a gift, or does it come with some other stuff?
See, each topic is not so straight forward, and these simple questions lead to huge discussions. It also becomes apparent that the words do not mean quite the same thing to LDS as they do to Christians.
I say this, Hank, not to criticize, but to state a simple and unavoidable truth. The four items you outline do not change much the questions that exist.
First, I think that most LDS missionaries would be able to respond to most everything put forth in the advice given, so please do so.
Second, the whole “feelings” is very misunderstood, and it is in the Bible. It is not a feeling, but communication from God that is through your feelings. We read in Acts 2 that the people were pricked in their hearts when they heard Peter preach. This was the spirit speaking to them, and they recognized it as such.
MichealP
Faith in God our Father, and in his power and desire to save all his children, but also in his justice that he will not give to any man that which is not earned (good or bad).
Repentance is the confessing and forsaking of sin. When we repent our primary concern is how we have offended God and how to make it right. We acknowledge what we did wrong, ask his forgiveness, and ask for power to not do it again.
Baptism is the complete emersion in water. It must be done by one with authority to do so, and in any body of water big enough for the purpose.
The Holy Ghost is a spirit being and the third member of the Godhead. When he are baptized by water we are then given the gift os his continual companionship baptism by fire and the spirit) but we must act in accordance with the laws of God or loose this gift.
Does that clarify it enough.
MICHEALP
What I have just explained is truly all one needs to know in order to gain the Celestial Kingdom. This does not Gauruntee Exaltation, but if one does not gain the Celestial Kingdom than they can’t gain Exaltation. This is why this is all the missionaries teach in general (of course there are other things, but this is the plan of salvation in its simplest form). The missionaries are there to bring people into the presence of God, which is the Celestial Kingdom. After that it is the general membership, and each individual who must do the rest.
Hanksaint,
“What else does one need to know about the plan of Salvation…”
That according to Mormons eternal marriage is required to achieve the highest state in the CK. Anything less is a degree of damnation. Men must hold the M.Priesthood, and members also need the enduement ceremony, know key words, tokens and passwords. Also that these ordinances are available to the dead who didn’t have the chance to hear the LDS message while in life.
Shem, even your response is incomplete and warrants more questions. This is all I am trying to point out in regards to Hanks comment. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost does not do it.’
And are you serious when you mean that this is all you need to reach the CK? Do you mean the TK?
Also, keep in mind that these same terms have very different meanings across the aisle (if you will). But even still, someone who knows nothing about these things must ask further questions to find out what is really going on.
Aaron
Thanks for the information on how to reach
out to Mormon Missionaries[MM]. My own
experience in talking with these young men
(and women) was some time ago now.In about
a five year period I was blessed to witness
to a dozen of them.Over all they conducted
themselves in a respectful manner.There was
only one that I would call arrogant. I wish
I would have incorporated some of the items
you mentioned, in my visit with them.
I realize that they are so regimented while
on their missions that to lead one to Jesus
then is remote.However,we can plant seeds
in their hearts and minds that will prove
fruitful once they are done with their
missions and have time to check things out.
Thanks again for the encouraging reminder
to reach out to these precious young people.
Just a reminder, the number of exmissionaries that go inactive is quite high. The missionary gig in and of itself seems to lead many of these people out of Mormonism. The problem is what I see as a high number of exmos that reject God all together.
When given a choice of the living God and the Mormon concept of God, I’m quite confident that the living God wins. He always wins. Jesus said something to the effect that a person cannot come to Him unless the Father draws them. So we can be quite patient with Mormon missionaries; take our time and let God’s Holy Spirit do His work. Again, we must remember that statistically half of these missionaries will go inactive any way. We need to plant seeds. I remember reading about a desert seed that lays dormant for years and at the right time grows into a flower. So plant and in God’s timing, the rain will fall and they will come to Him as He draws them.
“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself according to the kind intention of His will to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace which He lavished upon us……..having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will……”
(Ephesians 1:5-11)
Mike R and Falcon,
That’s very valuable advise. Knowing that God will work in their hearts and that our job can be as simple as planting a seed is a powerful tool. It changes our focus from what we can do to relying on what God will do in their hearts. If we try to force the change, we are playing the role of God in a manner of speaking, and that, as we’ve discussed many a time, is no good.
Shem, another quick thought. From your response and Hanks it seems as if someone is to accept your answers without asking these further questions. Do you see how we can view that as a form of manipulation?
I served as an LDS missionary, many years ago (79-80). I remember one appointment in particular where a number of aunt eye Mormons invited us over. It felt more like a lynching that an open discussion of doctrine. I was a young kid- with no idea how to answer any of the questions being proposed. You need to keep in mind the perspective we (LDS missionaries) try to keep. It is all about the witness, and the direction of the Holy Spirit. For me, the Holy Spirit was often present when our audience was sincerely interested, but quite lacking when the audience was not. In that case, the audience was not. We learn to get out quick when the spirit is missing.
As to why ex missionaries go inactive, I would say it has more to do with sin than a lapse in belief. The many witnesses I have had that Mormonism is right have persisted in my memory as core belief. If I ever go inactive, it will be because I rebel against God to put selfish desires and sin above him, not because my belief in Mormonism has faded. Sorry falcon, I can’t buy that story, but that is par for the course.
GRCluff, I have to respond to your classic Mormon thinking here.
A) Because people aren’t interested means the spirit is not with you. Was that true when Moses spoke with Pharoah?
B) Sin is the primary reason many missionaries/LDS in general go inactive? I’d like to hear the ex-Mormons here discuss that in more detail, but I think the claim is a very general and broad brush that immediately condemns them for not being worthy. This is hardly a welcoming idea.
I’ll also give my thoughts on how I react to contentious thoughts and why people leave Christianity.
A) Contentious moments are tough but I think God works most in those times. If we are patient and listen (to Him and to our “adversary”), God will provide the answers. He’ll give us the words we need. If there’s something we don’t know, He’ll tell us how to handle the question, which will often be to simply say you don’t know but will research it. But in contentious situations there is no reason to think God and the Holy Spirit is not as much with us then as he is when we have a willing audience.
B) Christians leave for a variety of reasons. Sin is one, but I don’t think this is the primary reason. Sometimes it is a bad experience with a pastor, leader, or member of a church. Sometimes they read something that peaks some curiosity that leads them away from it. Sometimes, once the emotion of a “conversion” ebbs, they don’t see the immediate changes they expected and leave. Sometimes they don’t immerse themselves in the resources that may be needed to maintain on solid ground and give in to other thoughts. Sometimes the initial joining was to join a group that isn’t what they thought it would be, ie “following a crowd”. Sometimes they never got it from the beginning, and just lose interest.
The reasons are as varied as each individual. They do leave, and I am sad when they do. I don’t blame them; I mourn for them. Do they have a choice? Yes, they do, and I pray they come back.
Michael:
I think you missed an import part of my post. I was speaking about my personal experience as an LDS missionary, not expounding on the classic Mormon point of view.
One thing we focused on is recognizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. It was drilled into us from day one. I knew very little doctrine, but I got very skilled at recognising the presence of the Holy Ghost. That is what we focused on every hour of every day. We followed it’s direction, so trust me on this–
I knew when it was there, and when it was not.
When the spirit was not there, we got ourselves out.
The Bible describes us (LDS missionaries) very well in:
1 Cor 1:26-27
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
I could never qualify as a LDS missionary today, because I have learned too much!
GRCluff,
“For me, the Holy Spirit was often present when our audience was sincerely interested, but quite lacking when the audience was not. In that case, the audience was not. We learn to get out quick when the spirit is missing.”
What do you experience here?
GR, your experience or not, it is a classic Mormon response.
That they trained you on the issue of detecting the “Ghost” is really interesting. I’d think they’d be more focused on portraying God’s truth, and trusting him to provide it even through the toughest trials before teaching you to recognize when people are not interested.
Alas, chalk this up to a discussion that will not lead to a resolution… You are set in your ways, because you have been taught to trust in your testimony, and not in plain truths that cry out for you to listen.
Hanksaint,
“What else does one need to know about the plan of Salvation…”
Enki stated, “That according to Mormons eternal marriage is required to achieve the highest state in the CK. Anything less is a degree of damnation. Men must hold the M.Priesthood, and members also need the enduement ceremony, know key words, tokens and passwords. Also that these ordinances are available to the dead who didn’t have the chance to hear the LDS message while in life”.
Like I said, you first teach Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Why would they teach much more when the milk comes before the meat. Once one is converted, one can be taught the blessing of the CK, one can be introduced to the Temple and the lessons given before the commitment. Understanding all that God has restored, even the Temple Endowment and Baptism for the dead, how exciting for the new members to learn the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? Surely he would give them that chance. But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?
Regards, Richard.
Mormons really miss the point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ so it’s important that when reaching out to Mormon missionaries that they hear the plain truth of what the Word of God teaches. I went through the sermons preached in the Book of Acts and it’s all comes down to a couple of salient points. That is, that we are lost in our sin, God has had mercy on us and provided the perfect sacrifice for our sin, by turning from our sin and receiving Jesus in faith we are granted eternal life.
What we don’t hear is “marry a bunch of women, do a bunch of works to purify yourselves for righteousness and you will become a god”. That particular gospel is a figment of the imagination of a false prophet and is easily rejected unless someone has given themselves over to a deceiving spirit.
Drawing a contrast between the living God and the multiple gods of Mormonism, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Joseph Smith will be enough to flip the switch of those who are open to God’s Spirit.
“I pray that the eyes of you heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of the inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe.” (Ephesians 1:18-19)
GRCluff wrote
GR,
I know you’re kind of joking, but this touches on some serious issues.
Firstly, you seem to think that sending out young missionaries who don’t know too much is a good thing; as if ignorance and folly were vitrues. This can’t be good for their intended audience, who might rightly want better answers to their enquiries.
Secondly, this can’t be good for your missionaries. The analagy that springs to my mind is getting the young men to run up the beaches in Normandy in WW2 without telling them about how to deal with the machine guns at the top.
Then, there’s the related issue of whether they are preaching the same gospel as you (remember, the “preparatory” gospel and the “full” gospel thing). Maybe you wouldn’t qualify because you’d preach the wrong gospel?
Or, as I suggested in another post, the 2 year mission is less about spreading the word (which word, exactly?) and more about a rite of passage, or initiation into full adult membership of the cult.
This would fit my observation that the missionary effort is not for my benefit, its for the missionaries’ benefit.
Michael stated, “What else does one need to know?
Faith in what and in whom?
What does it mean to repent and how does one do it?
Baptism by whom and where? What happens when one is baptized?
What is the gift and who is the Holy Ghost? Is it really a gift, or does it come with some other stuff?
See, each topic is not so straight forward, and these simple questions lead to huge discussions. It also becomes apparent that the words do not mean quite the same thing to LDS as they do to Christians.
I say this, Hank, not to criticize, but to state a simple and unavoidable truth. The four items you outline do not change much the questions that exist.”
Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Repenting is admitting we are sinners and come short of the Glory of God. Repenting is two fold, seeking forgiveness from God and also seeking forgiveness from others. Restitution is a form of Repentance.
Baptism by water, and can be performed most anywhere.
Baptism is the renewal of ones soul, a new birth in Christ and the acceptance of all of Gods Commandments and personal commitments to follow Christ as a new member in his Kingdom here on earth. It is the Gate which all must go through to receive membership.
The Holy Ghost is a spirit personage and part of the Godhead, the third person therein.
The Gift is to have his spirit to reside with us forever.
All of this is very straight forward and easy to understand. Wether they mean the same to you is not the issue, but what they mean to a person who studies the Bible it can be made clear to them of it’s truthfulness. Most other questions are part of the fulness of Christ Gospel and by reading and pondering one can know the truth through sincere prayer.
Regards, Richard.
Those who want to follow the findings of Falcon and disregard the fullness of the restored Gospel will find the light and knowledge they are desiring, but for those who want to learn the fulness as given to us in the Restored Church of Christ will be blessed with additional light and knowledge.
R.
GR Cluff,
Your statement, “As why ex-missionaries go
inactive, I would say it has more to do with
sin than a lapse in belief…”, sounds
familiar.I was privileged some years ago to
help facilitate an ex-JW support group, and
your reasoning sounds so similiar to what
ex-JW’s said about how their former friends
viewed them i.e. the problem was,nt Jehovah’s
organization led by His prophet, rather it
was them.They were defective.They had to have
some hidden sin etc.
Though sin can be a factor for some,you might
be surprised at the number of ex-misionaries/
LDS who choose to leave simply because they
found out that mormonism was,nt the truth.
Actually, Hank, that they have different meanings is of huge importance.
Your answer starts with the assumption that your faith is right, and it question it is not appreciated.
But it gets worse, because it shuts down debate. Instead of encouraging questions, you insinuate that it is simply better to take your word for it. (Here I go, more questions…) You say it is not your word, but Gods. But different faiths have different takes on the same words. So why should yours stand taller simply because you say so?
I agree that what you write is straight forward and easy to understand, but I think that is the problem with what it is that you present and why it is important these same terms have different meanings to you. Faith is Jesus as Lord and Savior has terribly different connotations to me than to you. Jesus to me is God, just as much as God is, but that’s not entirely true in yours. So, we need to flush yoour comments out even further. Repentance, why do we need to ask others for forgiveness? Only God saves. Not trying to say that it is a bad thing but it is not a requirement. Baptism, what about authority? What do you mean by a gate? The Holy Ghost explantion you give adds a term– the Godhead, what does that mean? Can his spirit leave and how and when?
See, the point is that each of these has further questions, and those questions can be answered in different ways than what you get out of them. I have not given those alternate answers due to space restraints, but you should know what they are by now.
Sincere prayer– how do you know when you are sincere? When you get the answers you provide? Kind of assuming you are right to begin with, doesn’t it? Testimonies? What about mine which says something different? Or a Muslims? Each of us will stand behond our testimony, so what use is that?
Your message starts simple, but it is anything but. And I think it is dishonest to say that it is.
I served a mission from 78-80. I was a convert to the church at 13. I loved the Joseph Smith that I learned about in Seminary every day before I went to High School. For me, my mission was a good experience at the time. I left the church in 1982. I had gone to BYU. At that time the archives of the church were open and I could not wait to find out all the stuff about Joseph Smith because He was the prophet of the restoration. What I found out devastated me. I read sermons by Brigham Young for the first time unedited. I saw that Joseph Smith was a liar, and that he made everything up as he went along, being influenced by Sidney Rigdon, Masonry, and all the other “restored doctrines” he incorporated into the Church to satisfy his lust for women and his enormous ego. You can slice it anyway you want, but Mormonism stands or falls by it’s so called prophets. How do you explain the almost 4,000 changes from the original Book of Mormon? How do you explain the Book of Abraham? I read the apologists, I met Hugh Nibley. He was desperate to prove that something, anything could be made out of those papyri. I was into the Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls and learned french to help me with the french translations only available then. But how do you explain the Kinderhook Brass plates, forged by others and then “translated” (he would have gone on had he not died) by JS? How do you explain men on the moon, blood atonement, spiritual wifery, and Smith’s desperate act to destroy the Expositor press in the face of his advances to Nancy Rigdon and JC Bennett’s reaction to it? After my mission I did not get on my knees to pray about the Book of Mormon, I prayed about Joseph Smith. I got a witness from God to leave. The next day I went back to Oregon and had my Stake President who I knew for 13 years to ex-communicate me. It was HARD. I was lost. Joseph went to Missouri and that was the original Garden of Eden…
There were mounds there that he said were Jaredite, and he put names to the people in the Graves…Zelph??? There is not one shred of physical evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York (I live in Buffalo, I’ve been there many times)that a ‘great battle’ of millions took place there, then: oh, that’s not the original Hill Cumorah. Read the papers. Peruse his writings, if it makes you uncomfortable, you do not have to accept it on faith as you are told. There is not one teaching by Jesus I have ANY uncomfortable feelings about. He was simple. His gospel was simple. It was presented this way because God loves us and knew EVERYTHING before hand. When you talk to Missionaries, WITNESS to them about Jesus and the SIMPLIcitY of the Gospel. Use the timeline of Joseph Smith’s life and how everything he did was made up as circumstances dictated. Even David Whitmer said he went wrong after 1830. He admitted to seeing the plates with a “spiritual eye”. He was too proud to admit the whole thing was false. The witnesses families all knew it was a hoax, they were told by the witnesses. But by that time it was all they had and they had to stand or fall by it. They were not ready to make that committment, to the ruin of many good people. If a prophet lies, he is not of God, and HIS WHOLE WORK is in question. The Modern Prophets ALL LIED and they still do. The system benefits THEM. Where does your money go? for what? Question everything. Have faith in JESUS and his SIMPLE message of LOVE. I’ve been where you are, my fellow Mormons… pray about Joesph Smith and you will be told the truth….
I have one more short comment. To blame the escalating apostasy of ex-missionaries on sin is a very rude comment. From MY experience as a missionary, I did it out of love for the Church. (Misplaced, but still there at that time). Missionaries are leaving because of the availability of Knowledge about the Church as never before. It is like having only 3 cable channels in the 70’s to having thousands now. Salt Lake City can no longer control the flow of information. That is why the church flourished in the 1800’s. They were isolated in Utah. Don’t point the finger about sin, for we all sin. Doubt and anger at being lied to lead sometimes to a period of sin, but strong belief in God usually brings them back into the true fold of Christ, belief in his SIMPLE GOSPEL.
WOW grindael,
The falcon is left speechless. Turn off the lights. The party’s over.
Grindael,
Sorry to hear you asked to be excommunicated. But the reasons as you explain them sure don’t match mine since I studied most of what you claim is proof and find found it lacking in any hard evidence to support your personal criticisms. So be wise and turn the lights back on for the party and celebration are just beginning.
Regards, Richard.
Richard,
YOU have an explanation for Brigham Youngs statement that there are men living on the moon? I have to hear that one. The Kinderhook plates, care to give that a go? I know the apologitics stance on the BOA, if you want to believe that, its a shallow defense. How about Peter Whitmer? Even he disavowed JS, and polygamy, the priesthood, and Joseph making himself a God over his people. (Cross reference this with BY statement that no one gets into the Celestial Kingdom EXCEPT JS approves them.) Well, the one and only mediator MY one and only mediator is Jesus Christ. Why do I need “Brother Joseph” to get between me and my GOD? I dont think investigating is reading books by LDS apologists who DONT know what they are talking about. Why wont the LDS church reveal its assets? IS the Kingdom of Christ a secret to all? In Acts, everything was up front and as I recall one church member was struck dead for doing just that. Do a real investigation, FOR YOUR OWN SOUL. It hangs in the balance. If the LDS church had it’s way NO MAN WOULD KNOW JOSEPH SMITH’s HISTORY. They sure locked down the archives after they saw the results of honest reporting of the facts. There is a lot more there they held secret, even when I was lived in Provo in 1980. Why? They bought up Mark Hoffman’s documents to hide, and he was a fake. They didn’t even know that, still making the same mistakes JS did with the Kinderhook plates. Brother, search your heart, come to Christ and your life will be brighter, richer and deeper than you can ever imagine. Get out from under the shadow of Joseph Smith. You have my prayers,
sincerely, john s [grindael]
Oh, and Richard,
I never said the lights were off. The light of revelation led me away from the Mormon Church. I had the courage to step out of the shadow of Joseph Smith, Do You?
Michael,
Yes there are different meaning to Evangelicals, and to clarify them you need to have Creeds and made up terms, such as Triune God, Rapture etc, etc.
Never have I gone out and preached the Gospel of Christ and expected anyone to take my word for it as a LDS Member. I qualify that the truth comes from the Holy Ghost and also a great deal of study and pondering. Sincere prayer is from the heart, and with a contrite spirit that is a result of giving away of ones pride and seeking to be humble before God. What is so complex about the simple things one needs to do to be prepared to receive answers, James 1:5.
I don’t see the difference between you and I when I claim that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, what else could that mean. He saves mightily,
loves unconditionally, and forces no one to Heaven.
Jesus to me is also God, He is the literal Son of God and Second in the Godhead. He is the God of the Old Testament who spoke to all his prophets under the direction of God the Father. He created the earth and the heavens. He placed Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Repentance! of course we believe that there is a need to seek forgiveness from other, those who we have done wrong too, and if necessary try to restore that wrong by doing all we can to make restitution with them. We need to forgive others who have wronged us. How can we expect God to forgive if we can’t forgive others?
The Godhead is like a Presidency. President, 1st counselor, second counselor. All together they comprise the First Presidency. God the Father, God His Son, and God the Holy Ghost. One Godhead, one purpose, one Gospel.
You say you have a Testimony, I believe you. My Testimony is that Jesus is the Christ. The Gospel of Christ has been Restored in it’s fullness, and that man has been given the Authority (priesthood) to act in His name. How can one be Baptized without receiving it from someone who has the authority to baptize.
Regards, Richard.
There is a BIG difference between the Jesus of the Mormons, and the Jesus of the Bible. This is very important, for Jesus commanded us: “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (JN4:22)
The Gospel of John proves that Jesus was God. “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.” Then, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” John wrote his gospel this way becasue he knew that Jesus and God were one being. He did not write Jesus was A god, and this is bourne out in many other passages.
What the Mormons do, (and other ‘Christian’ groups) is try to seperate God into Three Beings by misquoting, and misunderstanding the Bible.
I’ll use an example: Stephen when he was stoned saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father. If you study the scriptures you see, as in Ex.15:6 “Thy right hand, Oh Lord, is become glorious in power, thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.”
And: Ex.15:12 “Thou stretched out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.”
The right hand here, does not mean a location, but the power and authority of God.
Again: Isa.63:12 “That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?” Another example of how “right hand” is used to describe power. But how many sit on the throne of Almighty God?
Rev.4:2 answers this. “And immediately I was in the spirit and behold, a throne was set in heaven and one sat on the throne.” Who was this the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost?
This is how we can understand passages as Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;”
By looking at these verses in the distorted Mormon view you see two persons, but John saw only one on the throne.
If God is omnipresent how then can you sit down on His right side? If God is a Spirit how then can one sit down on the right side of Him?
Grindael,
Again sorry to hear of you excommunication. On Kinderhook, would you please produce his translation, none that I know of. Who is Peter Whitmer? but as for David Whitmer, we have the following for those interested:
David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness
Lyndon W. Cook, ed.
Brigham Young:
“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?…when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)n W. Cook, ed.
Sounds wacky today, but I give him credit for some serious speculation. It’s not much different than the common belief amongst Evangelicals that Ex Nihilo is viable and believable, earth was created in six day, and someone can explain the unexplainable, Triune God.
Joseph Fielding Smith said: [There is] “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth…no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).
Brigham Young stated: “no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).
I agree with Joseph Fielding Smith and so do many others. Brigham just words it differently, but means the same thing.
I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this e
continued:
I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.
Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be a thousand times more thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior, than it is possible for them to be for any earthly good whatever. It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption. You will be thankful, every one of you, that Joseph Smith, junior, was ordained to this great calling before the worlds were.” (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, 7:288-90)
“It must be remembered that Mark Hofmann’s sensational forgeries Hofmann’s “discoveries,” all of which were eventually shown to be forgeries, are now known to have been the products of a combination of low, mercenary motives and a passion to harm the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Louis Midgley
“Why would they teach much more when the milk comes before the meat.”
I love this statement, and how often I hear it.
This is what I think. The “Meat” of the Mormon Org. is full of a bunch of crap. The milk (BOM) Contradicts the meat (BOA, as one example)
The LDS milk does not include some very significant parts of the Mormon Theology; it does not include what I would consider deal breakers. So if you do not tell a perspective investigator the deal breakers, you have effectively took away their free agency. This is lying by omission. I don’t believe God could or would lie under any condition. What are the Deal Breakers, the Multiplicity of Gods, Polygamy in Heaven, to name a few.
So why not teach that JS did not follow his own laws, D&C 132:61 “…and the first give her consent, ” (Saying the first wife must give her consent for the plurality of marriage) From what I under stand Emma did not give her consent. Also no where in any Mormon papers does it say it is ok to take another “living” mans wife away from him. These are important issues, but just examples, don’t obese on the examples, look at the issues as a whole.
I reject you meat because it is tainted, I reject your milk because it is sour.
One last question, do Mormon’s think they have a Monopoly on how to “Feel” the Holy Ghost because they think that you only receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the lying of hands? I have felt the Holy Ghost more, after I left the darkness of Mormonism then when I was in it. As a matter of fact, I believe that God led me out of the Mormon Organization. I know this because I have been since blessed with spiritual gifts far exceeding anything the Mormons could offer.
There’s a song that Don Meridith use to sing on Monday night football when the game was over because one team was so far ahead but there was some time left on the clock. The tag line for the song was “Turn out the lights. The party’s over”. I used it to compliment grindael on the fantastic job he is doing here to present a clear contrast between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Joseph Smith.
I believe the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit are so strong that those who aren’t totally under control of a spirit of deception, will respond to the living God’s offer of eternal life in Jesus Christ through faith.
Joseph Smith told people that there were countless gods and that men could become gods also. He told them that to achieve the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom, they would have to practice polygamy. He borrowed rituals from Free Masonry to further pull people into the vortex of deceit and reinforce his false gospel. The Mormon church and Joseph Smith have become objects of worship for Mormons. The machine of Mormonism controls people only as long as they believe the false gospel. When people turn to God’s Word the Bible and see revealed there the awesome and true god, the gospel of Joseph Smith shrinks into nonexistence.
Mormons have to take that first spiritual step of true revelation in coming to know who God is. Not a sinful man who through his own efforts became a god. It’s so plain, the contrast. Only a heart that is broken and seeking after God will come to know Him for who He really is.
Grindael,
It’s a great blessing to hear of another LDS
who has seen the vast difference between the
religion of Joseph Smith and a relationship
with Jesus Christ, and has chosen to accept
Jesus.
Grindael, keep preaching the truth, brother. Men such as Richard cannot come to faith unless the Holy Spirit softens their hearts, as He did with yours. Your experience as a former follower of Joseph Smith can do more to bring those like you to salvation than you know. My parents were former JW’s. They left the cult over 30 years ago, but were so spiritually damaged by the lies they were told that they were unable to understand the simplicity of the gospel. I gave them the gospel countless times and they did not understand it. Then, last summer they met a former lifelong JW who gave them the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ from the perspective of a former JW. It clicked. The lights went on, my parents understood, and were instantly converted. I will never forget the phone conversation I had with my father last April when he explained the gospel as he now understood it, and it was the same gospel that I preach! Hallelujah (Praise Jahweh)! It is an answer to years of prayer.
This is for you, too Setfree. I know you are frustrated at the lack of response from the Smithians who post here, but you may never know who you have reached until you enter the Kingdom. Keep planting and keep laying the foundation.
Hank, have you ever noticed that Christians don’t give applause to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or any other prophet. We explain the lives of the Apostles from the same perspective as we explain our own lives. They once were lost, but they were saved by the glorious grace of Jesus Christ, and none of them take any credit for exceptional spiritual wisdom that allowed them to understand the gospel, while others did not. On the contrary. They understood that it was by God’s grace alone that they even understood the gospel, formerly being blinded by the god of this world, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience. We do not mention them for any other purpose than to say they are the means by which the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ came to us: by their writings. If we were to offer them as much deference as you offer the man JS, they would tell us to get off of our faces, because they are men just like us.
And do not put the Smithian spin on statements by BY, as if his statements were just meant to illustrate that the restored gospel came through him. There is no doubt that they placed Smith in a position of judge of men’s souls above Jesus Christ. Smith himself claimed he was greater than Christ in his ability to keep the LDS together, stating that not even Jesus was able to keep a church together like he did. This shows that he believed that the LDS church was actually the Church of Joseph Smith, which is how I have been, and will continue to refer to you who are kept in bondage by the teachings of that man. Just like followers of Mohammed were formerly called Mohammedans, and followers of Zoroaster are Zoroastorians, Pythogoras, Pathogorians, Pelagius, Pelagians, etc.
Smith separated himself from the followers of Jesus Christ, and since you follow his heretical teachings, so have you. I implore you in the name of Jesus Christ to look at the evidence as so many others have done, and realize that the teachings of JS are not of Christ.
And Richard, because I am writing, my tone will be the one that you manufacture from your perspective. Please understand that what I have written to you is not from anger at all. It is from genuine concern and love for your soul. It is obvious that you fiercly believe everything that write, just as I do. Remember, the Apostle Paul was so zealous for his false beliefs, towards the early followers of a “crucifed man” who were threatening to destroy his precious Judaism and Pharisaism, that he requested letters from the Sanhedrin that he be allowed to go to Damascus to arrest every Christian there. Paul must have been a man of authority within the Sanhedrin to be given the ability to do this. It was not like he walked in off the street.
But when Christ came to him on the road he was knocked off his horse, and subsequently his life was changed forever from being an enemy of Christ to being one of His greatest servants. His former allies in the Sanhedrin would not listen to the testimony of one they formerly respected and his message of truth, but instead sought to kill him, even though he proved that Jesus was the Messiah from the very scriptures he shared in common with them! Talk about spiritual blindness!
Please, I offer you a challenge. Read the Bible as a stand-alone witness of Christ for one month, without importing Smithian doctrine into it. Especially John, Romans, and for the follower of JS, Galatians and Hebrews. You will find that JS teachings are in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ, not a restoration. For the things Smith brought up from his imagination are nothing more than re-hashed heresies of the past, which hundreds of Christians in “conference” declared to be false on several occasions. These “conferences” took place over the course of many months. Their findings, codified in the creeds that you so hate, are based upon the Bible, and do not contradict it in any way. They would label JS as a heretic, no doubt.
One of the fundamentals of human performance and achievement psychology is that if a person can vividly imagine what they want to achieve and then couple that image/vision with a strong positive emotion (repeatedly), the person will move to the achievement of their goal. This is the same basic psychology of a Mormon’s testimony. The person is emotionally preset via suggestion, regarding the “truthfulness” of the BoM. The BoM has some Bible mixed-in with some 19th century evangelical Christian revivalism that can create a positive emotion and BINGO the person interprets the feeling as a message from God that the BoM is true. Rational thought and evidence don’t hold a candle to a strongly held emotion coupled with a belief.
That’s why it’s so difficult for a super committed Mormon to break free. They felt it! The “it” was a message from God. They’ll fight like their life depended on it (which they believe it does)to maintain that belief. They’ll tell you that what they felt wasn’t run of the mill emotions. This emotion was a special feeling. It just had to be God speaking to them. They’ll fool themselves into thinking that they’ve never ever had this exact same emotion and even if they did they’d deny it.
The people who break free do so on the basis of a break through in their thinking that counter acts their emotions. Generally it happens because a competing emotion neutralizes their former feeling.
Jesus talked about how it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Actually the “eye of the needle” was an actual space that loaded camels were guided through with some difficulty. Jesus also instructed the rich young ruler to give-up everything and follow him. The Mormon men who post here are like that rich young ruler. The thought of giving-up what they see as the riches of godhood is just too powerful and intoxicating to let go. In-the-end they lose it anyway because it’s an emotional fantasy.
Grindael,
What is wrong with David or any of the other witnesses seeing the plates with their ‘spiritual eyes’ if that is how they saw them? In one of the references you gave it states Rev.4:2 answers this. “And immediately I was in the spirit and behold, a throne was set in heaven and one sat on the throne.” So did John see this with his natural eyes or his spiritual eyes? I gave a list of scriptures from the Bible a few weeks ago which teach about seeing things with spiritual eyes, it is all through the NT and some references in the OT. If you can accept the Bible then you can accept this claim by David Whitmer, even if you don’t want to believe what he is talking about.
Why didn’t John write that Jesus was ‘A God’? Because in the language he wrote in they did not have ‘a’ or ‘the’ or anything similar so when the translation was rendered it was written without any prepositions as a literal translation. But the same word used here for ‘god’ is also used in Corinthians when describing the devil as being the god of this world. Does this make the devil ‘God’ or ‘a god’?
Why was one throne seen in Rev 4:2? Because it is the throne of God and He is the one sitting on it. One could also say that Jesus is also sitting on it – meaning that 2 people are on it. But wait, there’s more – all those who make it to heaven will also sit on it with Jesus and Heavenly Father. So it may be an easy question, but it’s a trick answer. If you want to know where I get my interpretation see Rev 3:21. But then again, the reference you give in Hebrews 10:12 clearly states that Jesus sat down on the right hand of God, so may be it’s just God (Heavenly Father) sitting on the throne and Jesus is sitting next to it on His own throne, like a prince with His Father.
Lastly, if you want to call a prophets’ work suspect if he has lied, then you are condemning Abraham, Isaac, Moses and Peter, to name a few. We do not know what the prophets who wrote the Bible did through all their lives but we do know they were just men. So I would say that they all would have lied at least once in their life.
My very best friend in high school went on a mission.
While there, a man invited he and his companion over to dinner. When they came for dinner, he fed them and then sat them down in front of two books… one was older JW “scripture”, one was newer, and he pointed out the differences. My friend didn’t know much about JW’s, but he thought that it was really interesting what had happened in their religion.
The next week, they went back for dinner again. This time, the host fed them, and then pulled out the Tanner’s stuff. My friend says that he was blown away by all the changes.
He took the Tanners’ book with him, went to see his mission president, plopped the book in front of him and said “what do you want to tell me about this?!”
THAT NIGHT, he was forced to pack all of his things, and move out to the middle of nowhere with what he calls a “strong-arm” elder companion. He was demoted to junior companion, he lost his letter writing and phone calling privileges. His father was called, and the father said “don’t embarrass the family, stay out there”.
So for the last 6 months of his mission, he was forced to remain, though he did not believe the “church is true”.
He is an ex-Mo.
My cousin and her husband were both missionaries. The bulk of their families and friends still are, and they’re finding it hard to “disengage” from their community. But they are out of the church, in their hearts. The thing that led them to start doing all the research was their sin? Hardly. It was that they figured out the connections to Freemasonry.
I want to thank my Christian family out here on MC for their words of support. Notice how they rallied around me? I can’t speak for them, but I’d dare say that when Christ becomes your living Water, His love flows out of you. They love me because God is love, they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and they’re part of Jesus’ body. Parts of the body work together… (thanks again)
Grindael,
It’s obvious that you have been anointed to preach the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Mormons. Very powerful!
Hank,
I see that creation “ex nihilo” is a stumbling block. Here’s something for you to consider: it’s a stumbling because you don’t truly grasp the immensely infinite power and holiness of God. I understand this is a truth that is difficult to wrap our brains around, but here’s how it works: God, who is omni-EVERYTHING, by the power of His Word spoke into nothingness–and the power of His Word generated nothingness into matter that immediately obeyed His voice because of the honor that is naturally commanded on the grounds of His holy character. That’s astonishing and difficult for us mere mortals with finite minds to understand. So, when God said “Let there be light,” light came into existence. He did not merely organize matter that already existed and predated God. God is the Creator of all things; there was nothing created that He did not create; therefore, there is nothing that could predate Him. I pray you will come to a saving knowledge of God.
Ralph,
JS has left you and all other Mormons as orphans to defend his heretical lies. When one addmits their ignorance to His Truth, TRUE revelation regarding His Word is received. I wish you could see that the arguments JS has left you with make no sense whatsoever, and appear as the desperate efforts of one who knows in his heart that he is believing lies, but clings to the lies because following the truth is a frightening prospect.
Peace and Grace to all…
setfree,
Thanks for sharing that. It’s very helpful. We don’t know what will hit the switch with someone. With Lyndon Lamborn it was a coworker who read “Under The Banner Of Heaven” and said to Lyndon, “There’s some interesting things in that book about your religion.” Lyndon had read “Into Thin Air” by the same author and thought he’d give “Banner” a shot. That led him to investigate the Mormon church’s history. Now here’s a guy (Lyndon) who’s Mormon roots go back to the wagon train days and whose family were polygamists on both sides. He’d served a mission and was happy in the Mormon church. But Lyndon had way too much integrity to stay in the church after he learned what he did. If someone wants to hear his story just go to YouTube and search for Lyndon Lamborn-excommunicated. It’s a seven part presentation. I’ve done a little e mailing back and forth with Lyndon. He’s just published his book about his journey out of Mormonism and focuses on the psychological aspects of making the break.
I’m sure there are numerous reasons why someone leaves Mormonism. Mormons need to get over the idea that these folks are evil reprobates heading for outer darkness. It seems that Mormon missionaries would be a great group to evangelize. I’ve got to figure out a way to find me some. They’re a rare commodity where I live although I saw four of them in a restaurant about a month ago. If I’d been alone I’d have pulled up a chair and introduced myself. I’ll figure something out.
“I’ve got to figure out a way to find me some”.
Me too! I need to work on an opener as well.
LOL! Falcon, you cracked me up, thanks for the refreshment!
Enki asked:
What do you experience here?
I would say it is about 30% fanaticism, 60% intellectualism and 10% stupidity. I do feel the same spirit I felt when I was a missionary when I author a response occasionally, but that just allows me to justify my beliefs based on my foundation of spiritual testimony. I enjoy the challenge related to defending my belief, and I like to stay open minded to conflicting ideas.
Martin said:
Firstly, you seem to think that sending out young missionaries who don’t know too much is a good thing; as if ignorance and folly were vitrues.
Did you not read the Bible verse I quoted? Read the verse before and the verse after to put it in context. Paul clearly meant exactly that. Read 1 Cor 2 1-5.
The power of God is made evident through the witness of the Holy Ghost. LDS missionaries can rely on that alone because that power is readily apparent to the humble seeker of truth- not so much to the wise and mighty. They are the perfect representatives of Christ BECAUSE God can work through them in spite of their weakness.
You all are forced to rely on a less reliable foundation of intellectualism and Biblical history. Sorry, that approach is not Biblical.
I’m convinced that given a straight forward presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a straight forward presentation of the gospel of Joseph Smith, folks will choose Jesus and not Joseph. Mormons have to do a major puff job on Joseph Smith and Mormonism to get someone to sign on to the program. At the same time, Mormonism has to paint a major conspiracy to get their own folks to believe things about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church that aren’t accurate or even true.
Let me give one simple example. The Mormon church teaches that the Council of Nicea made-up the Christian creed. The idea is that the doctrine of the nature of God did not exist before this time. Now that’s a wholesale lie. The writings of the Church fathers regarding the doctrine of the nature of God goes back at least 150 years before Nicea in fact the doctrine of the nature of God goes back to the first century. But such information blows a major hole in Joseph Smith’s gospel because it negates a need for a restoration. In addition to this, Mormons have had to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain away the obvious; and that is there is no Mormonism in the NT or the OT for that matter. So anyone with any amount of critical thinking will see that the basis for Mormonism to exist is……nonexistent.
So providing some information for Mormon missionaries that they won’t get from the Mormon church will go a long way to get these boys wondering why in the world they’re beating their brains out for a lie.
God’s Testimony?
a missionary intervention? amusing indeed.
i find it curious that in one discussion Isaiah 43:08 is used in reference to Christ…..which means surely 43:10 is Christ as well? see also 43:11.
personally, i like the context of this reference, particularly Isaiah 43:07 which says:
“Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.”
others called by my name?…wha?
or kick it old school with my favorite from Genesis 3:22
“Behold, the man is become as one of us”
Us? Us? ….. Us?
this is a contrary statement with regards to God in Isaiah 43:10. Isaiah 43:10 is clearly an exclamation of singular distinction which aptly applies to Jesus, however Genesis 3:22 clearly refers to plural, to contemporaries, to “like” beings.
Botom line, yes some Mormon missionaries will fall, yes, some will succumb to the temptations many will put forth, whether it be an earthly temptation or, as described above, a spiritual one. This surely happens among all “missionaries”. for example, i work with a gentleman, non-mormon, who went on a “mission” for 2 weeks in Cuba..came back talking about how attractive all the women were, little else.
Mormon have the ability for self-criticism and often welcome self-doubt and spiritual challenges in order to be forged from that fire….a quality seldom seen outside of our organization.
Inevitably this evangelical ruse will be exposed and rebutted at the MTC….of course the Holy Ghost will have exposed this before then.
GRCluff
insightful post, thanks
Cluff said :
“You need to keep in mind the perspective we (LDS missionaries) try to keep. It is all about the witness, and the direction of the Holy Spirit. For me, the Holy Spirit was often present when our audience was sincerely interested, but quite lacking when the audience was not.”
Well Cluff, I’m sorry the holy spirit leaves you when opposition presents itself. Perhaps your holy spirit is a scaredy cat that can’t take the heat?
I don’t know about you Cluff but the true holy spirit is always with me, and He especially tries hard to correct me when I’m being wrong. He doesn’t leave if I’m a jerk, he prods me to turn away from my ignorant ways.
I really feel bad that most Mormons think the holy spirit is someone who is only around when theirs a kissy kissy hug hug party going on but runs out the back door as soon as one feels uncomfortable..
Mike R:
I don’t doubt that some leave based on a lapse in belief, it could happen.
In my case, however, it would be sin. Sin has a way of compromising ones integrity. We start out accepting some vice, then end up denying what we once knew. I would be lying to myself to justify my change of heart.
I know today that God has clearly communicated the truth of the JS matter, and of the restoration of his Holy Preisthood, but I don’t doubt that could all go away with a few poor choices. As my heart changes, my mind must follow.
subgenius wrote
sub,
I’ve got bucketloads of self-criticism and self-doubt. I’d be happy to offload some of my surplus onto others.
Perhaps, this is what drives me to faith in Jesus, not faith in my ability to follow him.
Anyway, your assertion that everybody else is self-assured and closed to criticism smacks of the self-assuredness that you deride.
In any case, how would Joseph Smith (and his successors) measure up against your scrutiny? Now, where is his quote about doing a better job thatn Jesus in setting up the church, when you need it…?
HankSaint,
” Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans…”
What is that the second coming of J.S.? Will he be coming in the clouds with great glory?
Hank, you say: “I don’t see the difference between you and I when I claim that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, what else could that mean. He saves mightily, loves unconditionally, and forces no one to Heaven.” Yes, he is your lord and savior, just as he is my lord and savior. But he is the only lord and savior in existence to me, but to you he is the only one you concern yourself with.
He does dave mi
ghtily, but to you only after you have done all you can do. Loving unconditionally is kind of moot to our discussion, and I think he can “force” someone to heaven. Of course, I would not use the word force, but he can control our hearts, and that when he specifically calls his beckon cannot be resisted. He is, after all, God. He much more often does not, but he can, has and will.
You also say: “Yes there are different meaning to Evangelicals, and to clarify them you need to have Creeds and made up terms, such as Triune God, Rapture etc, etc” How often have we quoted the Creeds? Also, do you care to make a case as to why creeds are necessarilly bad?
Sincere prayer– do you mean to tell me I have not prayed sincerely?
Repentance? Which way is it? Are we to forgive others, or are we to seek forgiveness from others? Christ told us we are to forgive others, and this is relevant to our salvation. Its not like AA here.
Alas, before going off in a direction that I did not intend, I think this is enough to suggest that not only are our views very different, but that your four items are not sufficient to explain everything necessary without further questions.
Accepting your word is not sufficient. “Sincere” prayer is not sufficient because it is so subjective. Reading the Bible is not sufficient to support your claims because some very real and strong opposition to them comes from the Bible.
The reality is that one must accept what LDS say without really knowing more. I know you disagree, but that is to be expected.
jackg wrote
Amen.
As an important side-issue, did you notice that the Biblical basis of our salvation rests on the same principal? What I mean is, our salvation rests entirely upon His holy and unchanging character. We are saved because of who God is, which makes the “who is God” question really, really important.
I always thought this Mormon spirit leaving deal was kind of odd. But it all fits with the Mormon feelings based religion. That is, if I feel good, I have the spirit, but if I feel bad, I don’t have the spirit. If someone challenges me and I feel bad, I don’t have the spirit. Strange thing this Mormonism and the spirit that guides them. He leaves when things get tough or challenging.
In Christianity that’s not the way things work, but then we don’t have a feelings driven faith. My faith is the same whether I’m emotionally up or in the dumper. The Holy Spirit in Christianity lives within the believer. He doesn’t leave. It was the promise of the giving by God of the Holy Spirit fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. We’re taught in the Bible that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We don’t need buildings made of wood and stone. We don’t need rituals because our lives are living sacrifices to God.
Once Mormons get off the emotional roller coaster of a feelings based religion, they open themselves up to the Holy Spirit and the guidance He provides the believer. I’m guessing that one of the reasons so many Mormon missionaries bail on the program is because they feel lousy most of the time when they’re on their mission. Under this feelings based religion they probably process the idea that they are working like dogs and they feel bad (despite their efforts) so the spirit must not be with them. So they jump ship. Just as well. They’ll save themselves from sticking a whole lot of money and a whole lot of time in a religion that gives little back while demanding more all the time. At least they can have some relief from the Mormon machine and gain the possibility of finding God.
Hank, after some comments you’ve made regarding Smith, do you still wish to maintain that you are not allegiant to him or that you don’t prop him up?
Ralph,
The ancient greek language indeed lacks an indefinate article, the way that john 1:1 is translated causes some confusion and problems. Here is some discussion about why the NWT of john 1:1 is translated as ‘a god’. Others are argueing that it appears to demote the position of christ.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2009/6/translation-4.htm
Some years ago I had several copies of the bible, one evanglical friend of mine didn’t particularly like the James moffit translation, because it didn’t take an overly abundant stand on if he was god, or a god, or just had divine qualities. (Moffatt) – “the Logos was divine”. Tranlation can be a difficult process, especially one one language has different properties than another. I am sure it takes much study to understand why translations are made the way they are. Below is some statement which justifies why the NWT text is translated as it is.
“In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” “
Ralph,
What JS was trying to do, as was David Koresh, Jim Jones and those like them, was to try and elevate themselves to God. “I am like Christ, I am a man and will become a God.” Or that they are Christ. They turn the focus away from God and put it on themselves to justify their belief system. There is no ‘Creed’ that replaces the Word of Life. I believe those words in red because they came from HIM. I believe what Paul and the Apostles said because Jesus affirmed them. We know this, and they did nothing to take away from HIM. The first presidency comparisons are only a tool for Mormons to liken their system to their mistaken Godhead beliefs. Again, that is why we have scriptures that make only ONE GOD, the true Christian teaching: “For in Him the fullness of Diety dwells in bodily form” that is why The term “the almighty” is used 44 times in the Bible. The last verse referring to the almighty is Jesus claiming to be the almighty. How many almighties do we have? Only one and He Jesus, sits on the throne alone! That is why “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.” (1TIM3:16) The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God’s creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.
Ralph,
I could easily have said that “why didn’t John say that Jesus is one of many God’s” Still your Greek argument does not hold any water. I understand the rules of Greek Grammer. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.” As to seeing with spiritual eyes: I have no problems with John seeing God with spiritual eyes, I DO with David Whitmer because he was easily deceived. If Joseph had the plates, why the secrecy? To hide something. It is ludacris to believe that only Joseph could see them. He set it up to trick them, preying on their religious hopes, carrying them around in a box, and if accounts are to be believed left them in the woods while he translated using a stone in a hat! Come on, and you expect me to take that on faith??? I did, and lost 13 years of my life. As to the Throne of God, it still only said ONE Throne, for ONE GOD. Others may get thrones, but john wasn’t looking at them. He was looking at the ONE Throne of the ONE GOD.
Ralph,
For comparision, there is the hindu word “OM”.
“Most religions indicate that creation began with sound– In the beginning was the word…
For the Hindus & Buddhists, Om is the primordial sound, the first breath of creation, the vibration that ensures existence. Om sign signifies God, Creation, & the One-ness of all creation.”
Its interesting that connected to this word is the trinity.
http://www.lotussculpture.com/my_articles_om.htm
As for the number of people who can sit on god’s throne…I don’t know. Is this like the question of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin? I don’t fully understand hindu theology, but Brahman is the ultimate reality, and apparently they have the goal to eventually dissolve oneself into the brahman. One website compared it to a doll made of salt, exploring the depths of the ocean. It made me think of the phrase, “no one can see god and live”. That is to say that your absorbed into god, and don’t return to earth.
I have missed much of the conversation as I have only a few hours each day to be on this site, however I would like to say a few things.
First, MICHEAL
I was perfectly serious when I said that Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Holy Ghost were sufficient to gain the Celestial Kingdom. Baptism is the strait gate by which one enters that Kingdom. All the temple seremonies and covenants are to gain the higher levels of that kingdom, but this basic set of principles is all that is needed for entrance (that is why it is an article of Faith).
Now, I know these things bring up more questions, but that doesn’t matter. If you require the answer to every question that comes up before you will believe you will have faith in nothing. One must accept the lower doctrine (or the milk) before they can learn the deeper doctrine (or the meat). I know the LDS are critized for this approach but it is the only sound way of teaching. You do not teach Calculus to one who has not first learned Algebra, and you do not teach the deep doctrines to one who does not know the first doctrines.
Grindael
I don’t know if it has been pointed out, but I would like to give you my take on the “men on the moon quote.”
As given above the quote is thus “Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?…when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.”
There are two ways to look at it. First life does not have to mean mortal life, thus there could be spirits, angels, or gods living in these areas, which we would not be able to detect.
However, I would point out the end “I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” Notice that this is what he thinks. In his mind there is no question that there is life there. Why? Because it was not “Created in vain.” This is the only actual doctrine he is putting forth, that nothing is created in vain, all things have a purpose, and to him that pupose was to support life.
I will post later about the kinderhook plates.
Shem,
Sadly, there is clarification of this, by someone who heard it from the “prophets” mouth:
In an 1892 LDS publication under the heading “THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON,” this interesting information is given by Oliver B. Huntington:
“Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.
“As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do — that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
“He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
“In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.” (The Young Woman’s Journal, published by the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64) What troubles me is that BY made his comment from the pulpit and according to him:
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95). Makes you kinda cringe…doesn’t it? But you have a choice…leave the shadow of these arrogant men behind…come to Christ…Pray about it, he will lead you away from them… no, it was not spirits or angels or gods…just weird quaker men…
Enki,
A few notes on Jn.1:1
The JW’s rendering of , “a god” at Jn.1:1 in
1950, when they produced their NWT, surprised
the scholarly community.The greek at Jn.1:1
simply does not read that way.In their NWT
at Jn.1:1 there’s a footnote directing the
reader to the appendix for additional comments.
To justify their, “a god” rendering, the
appendix quotes from three greek scholars,
none of which agree with the JW’s,but by
selected partial quotes it appears they do.
This dishonesty did not help the JW’s case.
The reason that JW’s like to refer to Jesus
as a god (little “g”) is that it supports
their particular belief that Jesus is not
really unique,it reduces Jesus to one of
many as He was just the first creation by
Jehovah God,the first of His angelic sons
In this way JW’s are similar to LDS, where
Jesus was just the first spirit child born
of Heavenly Father and one of His wives.
Both groups wrench Col.1:15 from its context
to prove this.
Jesus is unique.The Eternal God who became
man and dwelt among us, lived the perfect
life that we could not, and died for our
personal sins that we could be reconciled
to our Creator.
Grindael was right, the Jesus of Mormonism
(and Jehovah’s Witnesses) is not the Jesus
of the Bible.
I think we need to see the two year missionary stint by young Mormon men as a sort of weeding out process. What’s really happening is that Mormonism is getting rid of the dead wood. Those that leave the Mormon faith, and they do so in droves, probably aren’t really good god material anyway. This way the rest of the group doesn’t have to spend time coddling these slackers and gumming-up the Celestial highway. Besides, these guys probably won’t be kicking in their 10% and doing their callings as expected. So the reality is that this two year boot camp serves a very important function within this autocratic religion. I don’t know how it effects the pool of bachelors for the young Mormon women, but better they not marry these guys anyway because they aren’t going to be the type to bring these gals into full goddess mode.
“It seems that Mormon missionaries would be a great group to evangelize. I’ve got to figure out a way to find me some. They’re a rare commodity where I live although I saw four of them in a restaurant about a month ago. If I’d been alone I’d have pulled up a chair and introduced myself. I’ll figure something out.”
LOL, just go to the LDS web site, leave your phone number and address, bingo two full time Missionaries right to your door steps.
Seems a rare commodity can be more of a common thing if one does the work.
R.
“In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.”
LOL again, please put down your antiquated source materials and get real.
It was not Joseph Smiths Father that gave that Blessing. I will allow you time to do the personal research necessary, and then you can get back with me and show your hard evidence to prove me wrong.
Richard.
Hint,
The story of moon men was recorded by Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 and published in 1892, half a century after Joseph Smith’s death. Hunt ington was not one of Joseph Smith’s scribes nor did he record the story during the prophet’s lifetime so that it could be verified by the prophet. Huntington is the only source of the story.
I’m waiting for your version.
Regards, Richard.
What’s interesting Shem is the question of when LDS address those next questions. I’m not suggesting you answer them, but in your presentation do you tell your audience that more exists to the four simple facts? In other words, do you tell them that calculus exists or do you simply say that those four things are it? If you tell them more exists, how do you address the more? Do you give them insight into what it is, or do you just gloss over and it and not discuss at all?
See, part of my concern with your (LDS) thoughts on this is that I can teach someone calculus from the beginning. Whether they get it is not relevant. I can teach them because their’s nothing to hide. In contrast, I get the feeling LDS hide this further information and that it is hidden for fear of people losing faith. LDS then withhold that information until the person warrants enough faith to be sure to buy whatever is next in line.
I’ll stop and say that I see how you justify the belief that it is until they will understand it. But I propose that it is a subtle difference that leads one to say what I just said. Belief and strength in belief vs. understanding are two different things. If you fear people leaving because they won’t buy into it until they have another understanding is indicative that something is wrong with the belief system.
Common sense suggests that a belief system should be believable up and down the ladder no matter what is understood below a given doctrine.
Regarding Tim and Bridget’s linked blog posts:
I like Tim’s post and I will take his advice on giving the missionaries an oasis. If only millions of evangelicals would invite the missionaries over and share a personal testimony of what God has done in their life.
I really appreciated Bridget’s fair summary of “option #3″. I do think it can be integrated with the main elements of option #2. Option #2 as stated seems to be unique for what it does not do, not for what it does do. In other words, why not gush over our precious Jesus and share our personal testimonies and love for our faith, be inquisitive with questions for the missionaries about their own beliefs, and then combine that with some hard-hitting apologetic issues? People are so different, we never know what instrumentally will impact them. Holistic engagement ideally address the intellectual, emotional, and physical parts of the people we are reaching.
Since most evangelicals are not up to speed on the apologetic issues, they probably need to focus on sharing simple truths from the Bible and their own personal testimonies, with a few very basic apologetic issues sprinkled in if they can. If the Christians here in Utah would take a more active role in doing option #2, I’d be a happy man as long as it didn’t remove the urgency of the gospel, the high stakes involved, and the unfathomable importance of worshiping God as he is really is lest we be idolaters.
Statistically speaking, one of two missionaries will leave the Mormon church (go inactive). I think that’s a point we have to keep in mind. If we spend some time with the missionaries in a positive way demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ we can perhaps plant a seed that will come to fruition at some point in time. For me one of the many tragedies of Mormonism is the number of people who leave the Mormon church and become, for lack of a better word, godless. In reading “testimonies” of many of these folks, they are so happy to be free from the culture of Mormonism that they don’t want anything to do with God. When they crossed Mormonism off their list they crossed God off also.
I know that one of the reasons that I gave some consideration to the idea that maybe there was a God was because of some kind and patient people who shared Christ with me when I was openly hostile to the whole concept. This was over a period of time and eventually I found God on my own.(?) So if missionaries can see Christ in us then when that time comes when they have had enough of “whatever” related to Mormonism, maybe they’ll give Jesus a look-see.
The story of the moon men is just one example of how Joseph Smith tried to hoodwink his followers with information that could not be proven at the time. The info comes from OB Huntington, was published in the Young WOMENS Journal, an offical publication of the Church, and was also given in a sermon over the pulpit by Brigham Young. But it is the same as it ever was, the Mormons just cannot believe these half buried truths, and have covered up the silly, arrogant and dangerous teachings of BY and others who went wild in the isolation of Utah. Mountain Meadows started the end of that, or who knows how violent it would have gotten (or did) you have no idea whats locked up in the First PRes Vaults. Dont Preach to me Hank Saint, and laugh about antiquidated sources. You do not have an open mind, you think it all a good joke. THEY SAID IT, BELIEVED IT YOUR PROPHETS TAUGHT IT AND YOU CANT EXPLAIN IT. THAT IS THE STORY OF MORMONISM. Ill still pray for you, you need the help.
Grindael,
Here is what Dr Julius Mantey has to say about John 1:1 -
Note he states that ”John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they were distinct and separate personalities”.
Now to be thruthful, Dr Mantey does go on using some other scriptures from the NT to show that Jesus was God, but that ”Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.” But he states that the underlying translation left here in John 1:1 is that the author, the apostle John, believed that God and the Word are two distinct and separate personalities – which can also be, in my opinion, translated as being distinct and separate beings, unless the being was schizophrenic.
(Excerpts from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/deity10.htm written by Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Th.D., Ph.D., D.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Northern Baptist Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois)
But since the word ‘theos’ can also be translated as divine or deity in this verse (ibid) there are other meanings that this verse can have other than Jesus = God. So it’s all in the translation and interpretation – you wish it to mean one thing and have the evidence to back it up; we believe it means another and there is also evidence to back it up.
Grindael,
For those of us that don’t read greek, how are we supposed to be able to judge what is the most accurate translation of Jn 1:1? What do you do with other examples of “singular anarthrous predicate nouns”? John 6:70, John 9:17 I am sure there are other examples, but as I understand it there is no ‘a’ in the original either.
There are some other translations other than the NWT which translate similiarly.
“1808 “and the Word was a god” – The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word” – The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” – The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 “so the Word was divine” – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin. ”
http://wapedia.mobi/en/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures?t=5.
“John 1: 1 – 3
The Logos existed in the very beginning,
the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine.” -James Moffatt translation
MikeR- Some others have translated it differently before and since the NWT. It shouldn’t really have been that much of a suprise. There is some concern over the doctrine of Arianism, it sounds like its been a subject of dispute for sometime.
“Arianism became so widespread in the Christian church and resulted in such disunity that the emperor Constantine convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 (see Councils of Nicaea).”
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm
I haven’t read the article, its quite lengthy, but its enough for me to understand that its a big issue.
Falcon wrote: “So if missionaries can see Christ in us then when that time comes when they have had enough of “whatever” related to Mormonism, maybe they’ll give Jesus a look-”
I think the best way to show anyone Christ is to live like Him. Even LDS who don’t really know what and who Christ really is will see something different when they encounter a true Christian.
It can be confusing to those on the outside who see so many who profess Christ go out and live such horrid lives. They see no difference between them and those who are not Christian. And when they see that they see no reason to follow someone who offers nothing different than what they already know. And what they know doesn’t come witht he guilt of being Christian.
And that brings in a point of being open and forgiving. Too many Christians look down on the little sinners and prop themselves up. When they do this, they turn others off from Christ.
But this is not what Christ did, is it? He lived a perfect life, and challenged the Pharisees to stone him if they could find a sin to stone him for. They couldn’t. He also spent significant amounts of time with the “little sinners” and ultimately died an inglorious and humiliating death. He forgave people freely and did not judge.
But he also spoke the truth with confidence. He challenged those who needed to be challenged and lifted up those who needed lifting. He was a courageous and bold man who went right after the religious establishment.
So, what does it mean to live like Christ? I presented three things here alone: live a life free of sin, forgive and do not belittle anyone no matter their sin (respect all) and be bold in the truth and speak up.
I think people will react positively to these traits. They’ll have nothing to condemn, will see the positive power and be more apt to check out someone who is confident in what they believe.
Of course these three traits are three out of many and we should not forget others.
grindael,
LOL again. I don’t mind you stating what ever you wish, but I have to laugh that when it comes to accuracy you fail miserably. What you do is unwittingly criticize Joseph Smith and suggest he made some statement that is unprovable and try to pass it off as another bulls-eye. But when you are faced with the reality of being totally wrong you try to throw up additional mud hoping some will stick.
Well you say, how about the Mountain Meadows Massacre or what does the Church have locked up in its Vault, a very careless and fruitless line of criticism that only shows others you can’t stay on tract and prove one issue at a time. It really is sad and I suppose the visitors and guest get frustrated when they are hoping you will come back with some hard evidence to prove Richard wrong, interesting indeed.
All were asking for is the true facts, you stated that it was Joseph Smiths father that pronounced the blessing, please show us prove of that, or that he even was in the room when the blessing was given.
Post Script:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
T.S. Eliot
Regards, Richard.
Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith’s father.
According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.
It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the [filtered profanity or slur] claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman’s publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled “The Inhabitants of the Moon” in the Young Woman’s Journal, is as follows:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph SmithJ said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we d~that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman’s Journal, Vol.3, p.263). Reference Stephen W. Gibson
The statement is in Oliver Huntingtons Journals. It doesnt matter if he was 10 or 100 at the time. He was there. Who gave the blessing is not as relevant as 1. Oliver said Joseph Told him about the men in the moon 2. He was given a blessing written down by Orson Pratt that affirms the statement 3.Brigham Young preached the doctrine over the pulpit and said all his sermons were scripture. You know I have to admire the saints from the 1800,s. At least they didnt lie about stuff. They believed in Joseph and repeated his elaborations no matter how crazy they were. You, on the other hand can’t admit to anything. Oh there were a lot of blessings, oh Orson only took quick notes, oh maybe it was maybe it wanst Father Smith… Ya know, I was 12 when they landed on the moon. I saw it on TV. I remember oswald being shot on TV when I was six. I think I would have remembered if JS told me there were men on the moon when I was 10, and expecially if I was with him a long time after that. Your arguments hold no water, it was said, said from the pulpit, you just have to accept it.. Try.,
And I have not failed miserably at anything, I succeeded – in getting away from a dangerous cult. I do not want to do a treastie on MM, its been done and the saints deny responsibility. (The dangerous doctrine of blood atonement was taught by YOUNG and was in the temple ritual) I mearly mentioned it becuase it was a turning point, and the saints were more closely watched by the Feds, eventually polygamy was ended (fastest ending eternal commandment ever given by GOD) And salt lake could then concentrate on investing the churchs money in land, insurance companies and malls.
Enki,
I think what is important to remember is that
in Jn.1:1 when it refers to Jesus as God that
it is in agreement with the rest of the N.T
testimony concerning the person of Jesus,i.e.
He was God in human flesh,not some lesser god
or angel.[the Watchtower Society likes to call
Jesus a god since He is only the arch-angel
Michael to them]
Concerning those other Bible versions you
listed:
1808 The N.T. in An Improved Version,Upon the
Basis of ArchBishop Newcome’s Improved
Version.” Notice the word, ‘improved’?
Newcome’s text originally read, “the Word was
God”(1796).It was changed after his death by
the Unitarian Church(the deny that Jesus is
God)
1864 The Emphatic Dialglott: the interlinear
side does say, “a god”, yet if you look across
the page to the translation side it says,”the
Logos was God”.
Both Moffatt’s and Goodspeed’s version say,
“divine”.What is important to realize is that
both of these men described what they meant by
this term in their commentary on the gospel of
John, i.e. Jesus is divine as God is, etc.
Lastly, you stated that Arianism was “infect-
ing” the Church.This was,nt surprisng since the
Apostle Paul warned the Church that heresy
would come and to be on guard against it, see
Acts 20:28-30.
Enki, when looking at the Person of Jesus Christ
consider His claims, consider what the whole of
the N.T. record declares of Him. Follow this
Jesus, you won’t be disapointed. Jn.6:68.
Oliver B. Huntington was born in 1823. According to LDS author John Heinerman, in 1892 Huntington wrote, “In my Patriarchal Blessing,” given by the father of Joseph the Prophet in Kirtland (Ohio), 1837, “I was told that I would preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and–to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.” (Young Women’s Journal, 3:262, as quoted in People in Space, John Heinerman, 1990)
For a more lengthy quote from Heinerman’s book outlining other Latter-day Saints’ testimony of LDS leaders’ teachings regarding men on the moon, see Inhabitants of the Moon: Truth or Fiction.
I was thinking about the Amish practice of “rumspringa” in regards to the two year stint Mormon boys spend trying to convince people that Mormonism is the real deal. It’s like a rite of passage for young men in this religious clan. However “rumspringa” among some Amish sects is a little different in its rite of passage. These Amish teenagers, for a time, have the rules suspended and they are allowed to experience the world. Some maybe just soup-up the buggies but others do some drinking, smoking, chase around in cars, go a little nuts. At the end of their time of “running around” they have to choose whether or not they want to join the Amish community and live by its rules. Interestingly most choose to be baptized and stay with the program.
Now contrast that with Mormonism. The boys go through intense training and indoctrination, go out and live a very challenging life for two years trying to shag some converts, and when it’s all over, half drop out.
What’s wrong with this picture especially when it’s contrasted with Amish youth? What I propose is that the Mormon experience of the missionaries results in something called “identity foreclosure”. That is the “acceptance of parental life choices without consideration of options”. The Amish however provide an example of “identity achievement” which is a strong sense of commitment to life choices after free consideration of alternatives”.
When these Mormon missionary kids wake-up and realize they’ve been programmed and indoctrinated and really had no chance to make some free choices they bolt the clan. They get driven out by an uptight controlling culture, inconsistent doctrinal teachings and practices, and a whitewashed history that bears no resemblance to reality. Is it any wonder that half the missionaries leave and two-thirds of those on the rolls are inactive.
Now I’m not suggesting that it’s a good idea for young people to go out and live a life of total or semi debauchery in order to determine their true identity. I’m contrasting the rite of passage of the Amish and that of the Mormons and the results.
I was reading an entry on another blog regarding the experience of a teenager at a Mormon youth conference. The mother of the young woman wrote the following:
My daughter’s Youth Conference this year was after her school began, so she missed the first half, but came up for the weekend activities. She is a upbeat and really great all around girl, but she had a cold and may have not been fully up to her game. The one activity that really shook her and my husband up was an event they held on the last day. They made up the building to be the 3 kingdoms and took the kids through them explaining what types of people will end up in each kingdom (i.e., murderers and sinners in Telestial). The big kicker was that at the end, each child was given a slip of paper with their name written on it and the kingdom they had been chosen to attend. The leaders explained that they had been judging them throughout the week and their kingdom was based on their actions. My daughter was one of only a few that got Telestial, she was very hurt. The kicker for her was her close friend who was chosen for Celestial and could see no wrong in the leaders judging everyone. It really opened my daughter’s eyes as to how brainwashed members are.”
So what’s the result of this “activity”? The woman writes: “Anyhow, my daughter has started fresh research and discussions with me. She can now see how irrational and impossible it all is and we are working together to remove her from the church’s clutches.”
I believe this goes under the heading of “with friends like this who needs enemies.” Our TBM guests here really don’t have much to fear from Christian apologists. They have a poison that’s killing off their members. I just hope these young people find Christ.
Mike R,
That doesn’t really answer the question if a “singular anarthrous predicate noun” is being used there. I never used the word ‘infected’. The point was that there was a lot of confusion. I had no idea that church councils were held on this issue, one being in Nicaea.
If the original was so clear on this issue, why was there a council on it? I am sure there are other passages where there are confusions on how to translate things. Do you believe the results of these councils?
Enki,
The fact that a council is held is not
unusual, controversies need to be add-
ressed.Heresy can cause confusion[see
2Tim.2:17-18 ]
The statement you used which said, “Arianism
became so widespread in the Church and re-
sulted in disunity…” was where I drew the
heresy “infection” from, sorry for attributing
that to you directly.(I was typing this out
at 2am while getting ready for work)
As far as the decision of Nicea in 325,I do
believe that the rejection of Arianism was
the correct decision.
As far as where the “singular anarthrous
predicate noun” study enters into this,I
have to say that while I have read a few
articles on this and other points in
Greek grammar, I don,t think you need to
get that deep etc. As I mentioned to you
Jn 1:1 does not stand alone.Take your
Bible and go through the Gospel of John
and see the picture it paints of the
person of Jesus Christ.Did He have the
prerogatives of God?
I hope this helps.
Enki, there is no doubt that John 1:1 should be translated as it stands in all modern translations, except the New World Translation. That is what the Greek text says. Now, if a particular group, such as JW’s, Smithians, Oneness Pentacostal’s, etc. want to deny that Jesus is God they have to import their theology into that verse to change its meaning, but the text and grammar stand on their own.
But like Mike said, there are many other verses in John that support this claim. Some of my favorites are the “I am He” statements made by Jesus himself. Make no mistake, when Jesus said this the Jews of His day knew exactly what he meant, and they wanted to kill Him because of it:
John 8:24-28, John 13:19-20, and John 18:4-8. This is important because “I AM” was the name Moses was told to give to the Israelites in Egypt when he went to free them, It is also what God calls Himself in Deut 32:39
Also in Isiaih 41:4, Isaiah 41:10-13, and Isaiah 48:12-13.
And perhaps the most famous verses of the Smithians to prove that they are gods in embryo, John 10:31-38
MikeR,
Are you catholic? I thought evangelicals had certain distain for commentaries, opinions, or doctrines formed indirectly from the Bible, or outside of the bible. I don’t know why, but I just want to know what it says, and for some reason its not enough to compare with other verses.
liv4jc,
Philippians 2:5-6
“5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ”
This verse appears to be taken out of context, but I believe that J.S. or one of the LDS presidents has said that one should desire to be god, not just simply become a god. I don’t know where that sermon came from, perhaps an LDS person could help. Some have compared this idea to Hinduism, I am not sure of the exact teaching, but it has something to do with the idea that you are divine, you just don’t know it yet.
The ‘I am’, its interesting you said, “This is important because “I AM” was the name Moses was told to give to the Israelites in Egypt when he went to free them, It is also what God calls Himself in Deut 32:39.”
Its difficult to know the exact origin of the ‘I am”.
“Egyptian creation texts repeatedly stress the belief of creation by the Word. When nothing existed except the One, he created the universe with his commanding voice. The Egyptian Book of the Coming Forth by Light (wrongly and commonly translated as the Book of the Dead), the oldest written text in the world, states:
I am the Eternal … I am that which created the Word … I am the Word … ”
http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/religion.html
“According to the Egyptian philosophy, man is born mortal but contains within himself the seed of the divine. His purpose in this life is to nourish that seed, and his reward, if successful, is eternal life, where he will reunite with his divine origin. ”
The list of the 42 Negative Confessions is interesting to read, do you see any similiarities to some of them, to the ten commandments?
On Phil 2:5-11
This is a remarkable passage for many reasons.
Firstly, it could well be the first part of the NT to have been written down. There’s a fairly strong case that Paul incorporated someone else’s hymn of praise to Christ when he wrote his letter to the Philippians between AD 54 and 62. I find this significant in refuting modern Arianism; it is commonly argued that the original Gospels had a low Christology, but the deity of Christ was gradually emphasised until he was “promoted” to being fully God at Nicea in AD325. Phil 2:5-11 demonstrates the complete opposite; the earliest forms of Christianity (just 2 to 3 decades after Jesus’ death) started out with a very high Christology, and it was the Gnostics and Arians that introduced foreign ideas to it.
Secondly, in case you missed it, the passage has a very high Christology. Not only is Jesus equated with God at the beginning, the passage ends by ascribing to Jesus an attribute that belongs to God alone; see Isaiah 45:22-23. If the Philippian hymn retains any of Isaiah’s message about there being only one God, and if it introduces the relationship between Father and Son, then it must drive us to the conclusion that the earliest Christian writings were trinitarian.
Finally, Paul holds Jesus up as the example to follow (Phil 2:5). Notice the trajectory; whereas the World would say that you can acquire immortality by asserting or exalting or protecting yourself, the NT Gospel says that we become like God when we empty and humble ourselves. Being “like God” is to adopt His attitude of service and humility.
Enki,
I personally believe I’m on safe ground,as a
Christian,to base my beliefs on God’s Word.
If the question is: Is Jesus God? Then it’s
important to see what the entire Gospel of
John,in this case, says about Him.
This is what I was attempting to convey to
you.
I’m not Catholic.
Becoming “like” God;
Previous discussions have touched on the Orthodox idea of theosis, and whether it bears any resemblance to the LDS idea of eternal progression. Briefly, the orthodox view is that we become like God in his expressed character whereas the LDS view is that we become like God in his ontological nature.
Here’s what Theophylact of Bulgaria (Greek Orthodox Archbishop, circa 1050 to 1108) wrote, commenting on Matt 19:29;
I think LDS and Evs can “get” the virtue thing that Theophylact is promoting. However, I can’t see how the “heaven within himself” thing can be reconciled if heaven is a planet orbiting a star called Kolob; or, even, if it is a future state that does not intersect with our present reality.
I don’t think Theophylact’s views on theosis support LDS ideas of eternal progression.
Neither do Paul’s, in Phil 2:5-11.
Enki,
You’ve drawn some interesting parallels between the religious ideas of the Hebrews and their neighbours.
I wonder who borrowed from whom? (It seems to me to be just as presumptious to state that the Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians as to state that it was the other way round.)
Perhaps some idea of timeline would be useful? All I know (and I’ll cast the net as wide as I can), is that the “I am” of Genesis can be placed somewhere between the 15th and 7th Century BC (depending on how liberal your view of the OT is), whereas the “Book of Breathings” (a common funerary text, mistakenly understood as the basis for the Book of Abraham) was in circulation around the 3rd to 1st Century BC (?).
That would suggest that Egypt borrowed from Israel. Maybe, after 15 centuries, the Egyptians finally woke up to the idea that their pantheon of gods had to start from somewhere.
…so by this reckoning, the LDS church will maybe get there in about 10 centuries time… (I wish they’d hurry up!)
grindael stated, “And I have not failed miserably at anything, I succeeded – in getting away from a dangerous cult.
Anyone who sets up such a lame straw-man, and then is rebutted with correct facts and evidence to me and other guest and visitors must be consider to have failed miserably.
Like I said earlier, you make a accusation that is incorrect and then continue on with out missing a beat, ignoring my correction and then
continue on with other peripheral issues as if it was OK since there is more such as Blood Atonement, Polygamy, and loose ended speculation about money, land, and insurance Companies. Your posting is like a loose cannon that when loaded and ready to fire is only filled with blanks and lacking in any live ammunition. You unwittingly prove to be less then creditable, so for whatever your reasons for leaving the Church it can not be for any accuracy in faulting Church history with lame facts and straw-man tactics.
My sense it that you accomplish little to attract others to Evangelism, and more to assist us LDS to attract new investigators. Keep up the good work, you make it so much easier for our Missionaries to find new converts.
Regards, Richard.
Once again, Richard, I am amazed at your manner with people. You give yourself a lot more credit for your arguments then I for one feel are warranted. You cut and paste whole sections from FAIR, and then don’t acknowledge Sharon’s admonishment. Grindael may not argue as skillfully as you want, or maybe is quite skillful indeed, for you try so hard to dismiss him as a loose cannon, filled with blanks, lack of any accuracy at all. He has a testimony, whether you want to admit it or not. You do yourself no favors by being so dismissive, and, IMO, arrogant. I can only assume that this approach is working for you, since you take this stance regularly, but I would encourage you to get feedback from others, not just here, but maybe from your church network. I myself would find it difficult to sit under your leadership, because all I would hear from you is the arrogance and belittling. You can do better than this. You can argue without put downs.
Mike R,
You said “I personally believe I’m on safe ground,as a Christian,to base my beliefs on God’s Word.”
How do you know what God’s word is?
Also, what proportion of the worlds population base their religion on some portion of the Bible, or “God’s word?” How do you know your interpretation is “the correct” one?
Martin,
“The Book of the Dead” or “the spell for coming forth by day”. is where the “I am” quotes come from.
The original link states, “The Egyptian Book of the Coming Forth by Light (wrongly and commonly translated as the Book of the Dead), the oldest written text in the world,….” Which doesn’t sound correct, I thought hindu texts were older.
Another source says:
“The earliest texts of the Book of the Dead appear on mummy shrouds of members of the 17th Dynasty royal family (c.1650-1550 BC);”
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/book_of_the_dead.htm
This doesn’t sound like the book of breathings.
Here is the opinion of one person reguarding age of texts. What is written on the wall may be something completely different from ‘the book of the dead’(book of coming forth by light).
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/542691.html
Olson Jim,
I believe the Bible is God’s Word.( that was
the context of the post where you got my
statement from). Your Church also believes in
the Bible, and I’m sure it was referenced
many times in Gen.Conference the last few days.
We’re on common ground it seems.
I have this feeling though that you’re driving
at something, since your presence here has
been to defend your Church’s interpretation
of the Bible. Am I wrong?
Are you hinting at that since you follow the
prophet of the latter-days that therefore you
have the correct interpretation of the Bible?
More importantly,have your Prophet and Apostles
proven reliable to interpret the Bible for LDS ?
I’m quiet sure grindael appreciates your coming to his defense, if that is what one calls a defense. What per say did any of what you spewed out have to do with his poor research and lack of accuracy. Warranted or not, I give credit not to my self but what the facts and evidence truly warrants in revealed historical accuracy. To use a straw-man tactic was unwise and his use of it was obviously overlooked by you since you failed to correct anything I stated.
Why would you claim anything about a lack of testimony, of course he has one and I admire all those that do, knowing that Jesus is the Christ is powerful. But if he claims to have a testimony that Mormonism is false, then I would readily disagree he has anything other then a opinion, not backed up with hard evidence or a witness from the Holy Ghost.
I did not dismiss poor grindael, but called it as I saw it. He would not stay on topic and let go with a barrage of other issues which puts him in a bad light with those who would want to see him tackle what he first pointed out and that is when he went South in what I call the loose cannon affect that usually misses the mark. Poor criticism does not make for good proselytizing.
When I see false accusation and phony straw-men, why would I be concerned about someone else’s personal opinion of thinking I’m just putting someone down. Please be real, bad tabloid sensationalism does not deserve anything other then my personal disgust for falsifying true history and historical accuracy.
Regards, Richard.
Enki,
Thanks for your posts regarding ancient Egyptian religion.
Perhaps the “I am” did arise in some very early texts, as your sources suggest (and I haven’t had time or energy to look into them, unfortunately).
If it did, I wonder what path the idea took between the apparently diverging views of the monotheistic Hebrews and the pantheistic Egyptians.
PS It might be controversial to say so here, but I don’t have a big problem with the Hebrew scriptures borrowing stories from surrounding cultures (though its rather speculative to assert they did so all the time). If they did, then the real question concerns how they used them.
Martin,
I appreciate your honesty and openness. I don’t know if the egyptians were pantheistic, they were polytheists or perhaps henotheist for sure.