Mormons’ Divided Sense of Self
According to Boyd J. Peterson, author of Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life, many Mormons suffer from a divided sense of self. Mormon Times reported,
“…members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints live with contradictory public images.
“‘They are both revered and reviled, feared and revered,’ Petersen said. Outmigrants, those Mormons who have left Utah, ‘have this divided sense of ourselves.’
“Mormons have their own sense of themselves and their church. They also look closely at what others think about Mormons and Mormonism.
“This divided self, or ‘double consciousness,’ is common with minorities, Petersen said….
The Mormon Times article noted that one “coping mechanism” used by minorities, including Mormons, is “special coded language.”
“It allows them to speak to two different audiences at once. It is a form of doublespeak, and Mormons use it to both give information and to hide information, according to Petersen.”
This really rings true. There are many examples of this behavior in Mormonism that could be put forth; I’ll name a few.
Remember when, in late 2007, Mike Huckabee suggested that Mormonism teaches Jesus and the devil are brothers? The Associated Press reported,
“A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
“‘We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,’ said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. ‘That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.’”
Ms. Farah engaged in doublespeak. She did not clarify doctrine, but instead used coded language to appease two different audiences. She satisfied the non-Mormon audience with something that sounded orthodox, yet Mormons understood that she was only telling part of the truth (see The Relationship Between Jesus and Lucifer in a Mormon Context by Bill McKeever for more information on this example).
How about Gordon B. Hinckley’s response to a doctrinal question in 1997? Richard Ostling, writing for TIME Magazine, asked President Hinckley if the LDS Church held to the idea that God the Father was once a man. His reply:
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it” (“Mormons, Inc.,” TIME Magazine, August 4, 1997, page 56).
Mr. Hinckley artfully deflected the question. Non-Mormons hearing his answer were placated and believed Mr. Hinckley had just denied the heretical teaching that God was once a man, while Mormons understood that this core LDS doctrine, though a mystery on some levels, was nevertheless affirmed by their prophet.
FOX News asked the LDS Church 21 questions about Mormon beliefs. Among the many good examples of doublespeak evident in the Church’s answers we find this:
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?
A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.
In an older Mormon Coffee post, Aaron pointed out the way the Church used doublespeak to answer:
“Mormonism has a long-standing unrepudiated teaching on the literal nature of Christ’s conception which redefines the term ‘virgin’ to allow for having had sex with an immortal.
“By saying that the Church ‘does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived’ they gave an ‘out’ for all the Mormons who redefine ‘virgin’ as ‘not having had sex with a mortal man’, and by saying ‘the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary’ they gave the impression to the masses that they positively affirm the traditional notion of ‘virgin’.”
People who engage in faith conversations with Mormons encounter Mormonism’s coded language and doublespeak all the time. It really is used to “both give information and to hide information.” It’s an interesting (though frustrating) phenomenon. What has been your experience with Mormonism’s coded language?
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Comments (94)
I’m wondering how Mormons justify this type of double-speak. It’s really typical of groups that want to hide what they really believe. I think one of the rationalizations that Mormons use is that unenlightened folks really can’t understand these deep spiritual truths. In-other-words, you have to be totally indoctrinated into thinking Mormon before you can really understand.
It’s harsh, but I call this double speak lying! Joseph Smith was great at it. He denied he was practicing plural wifery while at the same time doing it. Let’s face it, if Mormons were upfront about what they believe, they wouldn’t get a second meeting with a prospect.
I’ve been constantly hit by Mormons here on MC saying that I was wrong about various aspects of their religion. Actually it’s a pretty typical charge leveled at all Christians here. The bottom line is that it isn’t that we’re wrong, but that we don’t spin it the way the Mormons do. Mormons want these various aberrant teachings and facts about their history to be whitewashed, sugar coated and made palatable.
It’s funny though, the exMormons consistently say the same things that those of us who have never been in the Morg say. They are the real threat to the Mormon trait of obfuscation by double speak. Mormons have a reputation of being dishonest about their religion. Their double-speak has contributed to this well earned reputation.
True. This whole “faith promoting events” thing is another example. “We will promote faith in our religion amongst our members by hiding some things that really happened, because those things do not “promote faith” in the religion. Fancy way to say “let’s just lie about it”
Saying Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers is like saying a 10 Karat diamond is nothing but common carbon. It is overlooking the most obvious, important, and true essence of who He is and instead referring to a manipulation of trivia and claiming it is our doctrine. It is like claiming George W. Bush and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stand for the same things because they both inhabited the same country (USA) at the same time in 2001. It is incredibly misleading.
President Hinckley’s statement was spot on. We know extremely little about this concept. And it is rarely taught in our church, even when talking about the Godhead and the plan of Salvation. What he said is absolutely true.
We claim that Christ was conceived in a natural manner to a virgin Mary. We do not need an “out” on this claim. This is where EV critics become ignorant of modern scientific achievements. Can you think of a way for a woman to become pregnant without having sex? Come on- think hard….. Wait a minute, there is a way. In fact, doctors do this all the time. It is called in vitro fertilization. But I am sure God could not come up with something that complicated and difficult.
My favorite definition of wisdom is seeing the context of things. Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have absolutely no wisdom regarding our doctrine or any inclination to see the context of things LDS. All things are absolutely black and white, and the most negative assumptions must be accepted without further thought.
And this from folks who cannot provide a linear, rational answer for the simple question as to how they know the Bible is true.
This was made even more clear at the next General Conference, where Hinckley essentially winked at his audience over the interviews. Even Mormons who argue that Lorenzo Snow couplet theology is expendable and even false should recognize that for many other Mormons Hinckley’s statement functioned the way Sharon described.
A few weeks ago at Temple Square I was talking to a Mormon in the company of some non-Mormon tourists. Anxious to do damage control, he answered “no” when I asked whether he believed God was once perhaps a sinner. I sensed some ambivalence in his tone, but he was relentless with the answer. However, when the tourists left and it was just him and me, he added the explosively relevant nuance: He believed God never once sinned as God, but that before becoming God (as a mere man) he may very well have sinned. It was a wicked and demonic way of hiding information so as to avoid giving a clear answer to the spirit of question. All he would have had to say to the original question was, “before he became a God, yes perhaps, but after achieving godhood, no”. Five seconds of nuance can pre-emptively negate the need for ten minutes of probing and clarification, but I think some people actually prefer making others feel like they just don’t understand and need to be an insider to understand.
It is that kind of pattern that makes me especially appreciative of meeting Mormons who are blunt about such issues. It is a breath of fresh air!
As you can tell, I have become jaded over the years over this issue. It’s not an exclusively Mormon problem, but rather a universal human problem. But Mormonism seems to have fleshed it out in its own distinctive cultural way.
Olsen, answering a question with truthful content in a such a way that dodges the spirit of the question is (if I’m getting his thesis right) what Princeton moral philosopher Henry G. Frankfurt calls “bullsh*t” (literally; please forgive his crude term). Sunstone did an entire presentaton on this, with the following description:
In the presentation, which you can listen to for a few bucks, one of the main examples of this given is Hinckley’s dodging over the Lorenzno Snow couplet theology issue. This equally applies to the virgin birth issue. It is true that modern scientific advances give us things like human artificial insemination, but that dodges the issue of whether that is what was meant by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage, and especially Bruce McConkie. I personally know Mormon friends, and I have talked to many, many Mormon strangers, who have either affirmed the conception of Jesus was via sexual intercourse, or who incline toward it with the qualification that “we just don’t know whether or not it happened that way.” The cold hard truth is that the Mormon institution has not sufficiently reversed what was historically fostered. Appealing to alternative possible methods of impregnation doesn’t itself preclude God the Father having had sexual intercourse with his spirit-daughter. See more on this at mrm.org/virgin-birth. The Mormon theological context does nothing to mitigate this issue, but only to exasperate it, since Mormonism affirms a kind of naturalistic materalism as well as the necessarily embodied nature of the potentially billions of exalted gods, including our particular Heavenly Father.
Take care,
Aaron
I started to post something on the Virgin birth and our Heavenly Father, but the entire subject reeks of such blasphemy, that I relented. I find the spirit brother subject to be intolerable as well, it reduces Jesus to the level of a created being – not the great I AM come in the flesh. I have experienced this kind of obfuscation first hand when Mormon missionaries told me they too “believed in the trinity.” Only after pressing, defining terms, exasperation, did the missionaries relent and say they believe in three separate gods. Do I think the Mormon missionaries knew that their beliefs were different from mine? Absolutely. Do these kinds of slight of hand deceptions matter? When you are trying to define and understand the ultimate truth about the nature of God and man and how we are to relate to Him, I think they do matter. If you’re talking about plot lines in a science fiction novel or film, slight deceptions through omission and misdirections are essential to keep the story going. I think Mormons are also just trying to keep the story going and not lose their audience who would turn away if they knew the truth.
I am sure Aaron did nothing to lead the Mormon interviewee in his exchange. I can just imagine. After 5-10 minutes….. The bias is so obvious. Aaron assumes the guy was “anxious to do damage control….” He of course can see into the guys heart and knows his intention.
EV LDS critics are like the proverbial child in the back seat of the car- are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet…..
They have to have absolutely everything laid out in front of them 2 inches from their noses. If we don’t know the answer, they will make whatever assumptions they feel necessary to come to the most negative conclusions possible. It is so very predictable.
I have at times been tempted to plant made-up information against the BOM, etc. just to see how quickly these folks will jump on board.
We maintain that Jesus was literally the physical offspring of God the Father- this is absolutely scritpural. We do not know anything more than that Christ was the Only Son of God according to the flesh. Insisting on knowing the details of how this happened is silly and childish. Even from our limited perspective, we can see there is a very legitimate way for that to happen without sexual intercourse.
The EV explanation provides no more insight than that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. What does that mean? Please provide a perfectly clear, complete explanation that is consistent with the physical processes we know as mortals. If you cannot provide this, I will provide your answer for you.
Aaron says he is “appreciative of meeting Mormons who are blunt about such issues. It is a breath of fresh air!” So if somebody disagrees with you, they are not being honest? That is so convenient.
And- “Hinckley essentiallly winked to members?” You will see what you want to see. Reluctance to go up against journalists known for doing hack jobs is quite understandable to most people.
What you say here doesn’t preclude the possibility that it happened via sexual intercourse, nor does it address whether Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie had something like human artificial insemination in mind or whether we should take their statements at more face-value.
Aaron,
I do not believe it is consistent with the nature of God for Him to have had physical, sexual intercourse with Mary. (I feel so irreverent even typing those words). I do not believe He did so. But that is my belief based on scripture, ancient and modern.
I cannot say what Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie had in mind, and I will never know in this life what they had in mind. Maybe they had no clue about the details (like me) but they did know that Christ was literally the Son of God in the flesh, and God accomplished such a thing through a natural, physical way according to the laws of the Universe without breaking moral law.
Why can you not understand this or leave it at that? Is your explanation any better? Any more clear? I don’t have all the answers to this, and you don’t either. So what?
Just because a person has the right to say whatever they want doesn’t make saying some things right. You massacre my religion every chance you get through manipulation of information and innuendo. It really gets old Aaron.
OJ,
If I can be so blunt, it gets really old that you and others will defend your church and what you hope is true about it (i.e. priesthood power) at ALL COSTS… meaning it doesn’t matter what your prophets do, that they don’t agree with each other or with your scriptures, that they lie to the LDS population and the world at large about what they believe, etc etc. You seem not to care about any of this, because you are stuck on this particular salesman, and you don’t want to let it go. You’ve been sold a lie. We (including Aaron) are here to make you think about it. But you disregard or come up with flimsy answers for the hard stuff, because you want to keep what you have already bought.
Tell me I’m wrong…
setfree,
It’s a psychological trap called “rescuing your equity” and that’s why Mormons will do whatever is necessary to protect the fable and the man with the magic rock.
I don’t see why the Mormon church didn’t issue a statement in regards to Huckabee’s statement that went like this:
“As Mormons we believe there is a mother god and a father god and that they procreate spirit beings. Satan is one of the spirit beings they procreated and is, therefore, everyone’s brother; especially Joseph Smith’s.”
Now what’s so hard about that? It’s an accurate reflection of what Mormons believe. I’m just glad I’m not a Mormon because I wouldn’t want to claim Satan as my brother. Mormons don’t seem to mind though! How would you like to introduce Satan to someone at a family reunion? Forever families get stuck with some strange members.
Same as saying (and teaching) that temple stuff is “sacred” as opposed to “secret”. I, for one, was astounded to find out. It was so OPPOSITE to what I had been taught all my life. I truly believe if Mormons knew what was going on in there, they’d up and quit the program before they went through with it. But, now, that’s why it’s a secret, isn’t it? So that they go through their first covenant with Lucifer before they find out…
The problem, Olsen, is that your own personal non-authoritative individual opinion (that God did not have sex with Mary) is not clearly the official position of the church, and leaders like Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie made it clear that the conception was done in a natural, non-figurative way the same as other children are begotten on earth. And that line of thinking by Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie, along with a few other factors, has fostered a strain of belief within Mormonism where it is perfectly acceptable to believe God did or perhaps did have sexual relations with his spirit-daughter.
If your Church leaders taught and your larger Church fostered and acqueisced to a belief that Jesus was a flying spaghetti monster, yet backed off so far as to say there was no official position on whether Jesus was a flying spaghetti monster, but that no one really knows, it wouldn’t completely solve the problem. And for a random member to say, “well, *I* don’t believe he is a flying spaghetti monster” wouldn’t erase history or have some magical reversing effect on the rest of the religious people affected.
Integrity demands a few things: 1) that the institution and its members admit that it was indeed taught 2) that the institution and its members admit that it was wrong for the church to have acqueisced to the belief among its members 3) that the institution officially repudiate the belief as wrong with clear and explicit language so as to not let it perpetuate among members used to a cryptic two-audience language.
This was precisely the problem with Adam-God in late 1800’s and early 1900’s that stirred up the Presbyterians to whistleblowing. It took a long while, but the Church finally did #3 yet without #1 and #2, denying that Young ever taught it.
If you think that was inconsequential, think about all the Mormon fundamentalist splinter groups that have made Adam-God such an important issue. Those are real people, Olsen, with names and families and emotions and minds and lives and stories.
The cowardice of Mormon leaders to be up front about its own historical teachings, let alone institutionally apologize for anything, affects people I love and cry over and pray for and talk to a lot. I take this real personally. It’s easy for internet-defenders of Mormonism hear to give a sleight of hand when they’re sitting behind a keyboard with a TV-dinner, oblivious to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people outside of their own bubble remain to this day affected by the words spoken by Mormon leaders.
Embarrassing Mormon teaching often dies slowly so that the Church saves face. But the transition time required for its death coldly and wickedly waves a flippant hand of indifference to the fact that millions of people have been affected and would be edified by public institutional repentance.
Take care,
Aaron
Ambiguous and misleading language is a lesser evil in light of the fact that Mormon leadership, in times past, has lied outright about polygamy. Mormons were accused of polygamy by non-Mormons in the early days of the church. Individual members denied its existence (some probably out of ignorance). There were non-Mormons who saw with their own eyes that some Mormons were practicing polygamy prior to 1835. The LDS church issued a statement in 1835, condemning polygamy, affirming monogamy, and denying the existence of polygamy in its ranks and accused their accusers of defamation and lying.
Also, the D&C for a long time after 1835 condemned polygamy even though polygamy was practiced by some Mormons (including Joseph Smith) before and after 1835. When the LDS church finally came out and openly affirmed polygamy, many Mormons (especially the European ones) left the church. They were lied to as well.
LDS leadership lied again about polygamy during the Read Smoot hearings. So for me, I view double speak and coded language as the norm when dealing with Mormons. In light of the outright lies about polygamy, assuming that Mormons use coded language to deceive is not a stretch.
Olson,
“I have at times been tempted to plant made-up information against the BOM, etc. just to see how quickly these folks will jump on board.”
Mark Hoffman did that very thing although not with the BoM. He deceived the highest levels of LDS leadership (Seers and sages who allegedly have the Holy Ghost and should know better) in order to get them to pay big money for his forgeries. At one point he approached the Tanners, thinking that they would certainly jump at the chance to obtain something that would damage your church’s image. They did not bite. There is enough legit information out there about your church that one does not have to make stuff up to demonstrate that it is false.
If I were to cut and paste the quotes from the mormon posters after the words EV, I think the reverse is true about who is massacring who’s religion. The concept of mormon double-speak goes back to smith (always to smith) who lead the way and taught expertly how to lie and deceive people about what he was truly up to and believed. On the one hand, mormons will take the Book of Mormon as scripture because it was penned by smith, but then pick and choose his other statements that they do not wish to or cannot defend. What this all boils down to is this: Should statements made by Young, Pratt, Cowdery, Talmage, smith, and a host of other APOSTLES & PROPHETS, be taken at face value that they know what they are talking about? This is the essence of mormon double-speak. One the one hand, we have smith saying in his prophecy on the return of the ten tribes, that “I am accountable for EVERY word I say” (emphasis mine). But on the other hand he says: “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” What is to be believed here? There are numerous accounts of smith getting his dander up at being questioned about doctrinal issues, or his qualifications as a prophet, and on more than one occasion, he physically assaulted those that questioned him. Young claimed that any sermon he gave over the pulpit was just as good as any revelation in the standard works. Later ‘prophets’ back-pedaled on this, because they cannot reconcile former outrageous teachings.
Maybe the question here is this: Just what is a mormon apostle or prophet? Who are they, and what authority do they have? We have this statement by Cowdery made in 1831, as quoted by McConkie in ‘The Promised Messiah’: “In the general charge to all of the Twelve, Elder Cowdery said: “It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven to yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony of God will NEVER SUFFER YOU TO FALL, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven. “Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off your doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief: and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination IS NOT FULL AND COMPLETE till God has laid his hand upon you. WE REQUIRE AS MUCH TO QUALIFY US as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid his hands upon his disciples, why not in latter days?” Has this changed in the mormon church? If the 15 ‘prophets’ are special witnesses to Jesus (having SEEN him) should not all mormons believe them when they preach over the pulpit? Mormons accept the letters of the apostles (in Jesus time) as scripture, and it that applies then, why should it not apply now?
This all ties in with the doctrine of having your calling and election made sure, which smith states is this: “After a man so devotes himself to righteousness that his calling and election is made sure, “then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter,” the Prophet says. “Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even he will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and HE MAY HAVE A PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of the mysteries of the kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions — Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.” It is an unspoken belief in the mormon church that these men have had this experience as part of the qualification of their calling to an apostle. If they have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, then why would they teach doctrines that were not in harmony with what God revealed to them? Why the need to disavow Adam-God, men living on the moon, and Young’s statement that Jesus was conceived by a process ‘just like any other man.’? Why the double-speak?
This is what I was taught as a mormon, and why I am no longer a member of that cult. When one prophet flat out contradicts another, there is no harmony, and the whole house of cards falls down. McConkie goes on to say:
“Few faithful people will stumble or feel disbelief at the doctrine here presented that the Lord’s apostolic witnesses are entitled and expected to see his face, and that each one individually is obligated to “call upon him in faith in mighty prayer until he prevails.” And then, he concludes with this: “All of the elders in the kingdom are expected to live the law as strictly as do the members of the Council of the Twelve, and if they do so live, the same blessings will come to them that flow to apostles and prophets.” If this is the case, we should have thousands of mormons who have seen Jesus proclaiming it from the rooftops. They should be able to answer any question of the kingdom with perfect knowledge and clarity. The burning in the bosom would not be necessary to sustain you for your whole life, why you have the obligation and the means to see Jesus face to face, just like all the apostles do. Why is it not one mormon testifies to this? When I left the church, I was not told by anyone, but hey you can’t leave, I’ve SEEN Jesus, and you can too! MANY of the earlier saints professed this, but the modern mormon church is strangely silent as they backpedal and backpedal.
Here is McConkie again: “I repeat: apostles and prophets simply serve as patterns and examples to show all men what they may receive if they are true and faithful. There is nothing an apostle can receive that is not available to every elder in the kingdom. As we have heretofore quoted, from the Prophet’s sermon on the Second Comforter: “God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.” (Teachings, p. 149.) It follows that everything stated by Elder Oliver Cowdery in his charge to the apostles could also be given as a charge to all elders. Every elder is entitled and expected to seek and obtain all the spiritual blessings of the gospel, including the crowning blessing of seeing the Lord face to face.”
What he is saying here is there is no need in the mormon church for speculation. ALL the apostles and prophets have had this second comforter as part of their calling and having had it have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. So Hinkley saying, I don’t know about that, or dodging the question is totally at odds with what is taught by smith as to what he should be doing: revealing that he KNOWS what the answer is because he has SEEN JESUS and knows the mysteries of the kingdom. But alas, these prophets are only cult leaders, and double speak is all they have.
grindael,
There’s been a recent revelatory change in Mormonism. The 15 big wigs are no longer claimed to have seen Jesus. Actually the way the cult operates it’s not all that tough to “see” Jesus. You can do it right now. Imagine what Jesus looks like. There you go. You’ve “seen” Jesus. It’s the same method Joe’s plate witnesses used to “see” those golden tablets.
In the old days Willford Woodruff even had the original signers of the Declaration of Independence show-up and demand temple work be done for them. He was either into second sight vision or he was conjuring spirits. None-the-less I’m sure the Mormon church would have a great double-speak on this also. I’ll see if I can create one because I’ve learned to speak Mormon in the last two years.
falcon,
This’ll be my last post for the day, since we only get 6, and I wanted to make a point with the last 5. I’m one of those people who take things at face value, applying common sense to everything I do. I made the mistake of taking smith & Co at face value, and unlike other mormons, could not reconcile the fact of dealing with lying prophets. It makes no sense. You either are or are not a prophet. Is God only God when he is acting as such? This would disavow and make void the whole sacrifice of Jesus and his promise that we are saved by His Grace and His Grace alone.
Carefully read, the life of smith plays out like the jumbled mass of confusion it was. He was influenced by everyone. He got the united order and the priesthood doctrines from rigdon, polygamy from converts of jacob cochran, masonic rituals from his exposure to masonry. He tried to incorporate everything he read or had experience with into mormonism, twisting it to fit his interpretation of it. Only he could translate egyptian (BOA), kinderhook plates and a host of other documents (he even re-did the Bible cause that was not good enough for him) He was the ultimate authority on everything, he was a better lawyer than anyone, better wrestler, better at languages, etc. It was all about smith, smith, smith.
When his life is measured in the crucible of truth, it comes up far short of what he is proclaimed to be. I’ve said this before and will say it again, a well rounded study of his life will give an open minded person only one conclusion, that smith was a liar and a fraud, and the only course of action is to reject him, and his doctrines with contempt.
That many mormons still believe in him, I am sorry for, but does that change the FACTS? NO.
Aaron is totally correct about mormon deception, it is taught to all missionaries, and the only way to get a straight answer is to pin them down. That it is an ongoing practice is born out right here on this blog.
Why is it that every thread goes down the same path. Answers to the main claim against mormonism in each thread results in a slew of rediculous comments about every possible controversy about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, Brigham Young, etc. etc. Then LDS posters are accused of avoiding questions and burying their heads in the sand if they don’t answer every question over and over and over from all the brilliant, well-informed critics.
Don’t you people get tired of saying the same things in response to every issue? Is there no discipline to stay on topic in any thread? It feels like the movie Ground Hogs Day!!! If your arguments are so water-tight, why don’t you stay on topic?
Aaron- so Thomas Monson, Boyd Packer, Gordon Hinckley are cowards and liars?
It is amazing to me that you guys can look at the lives of these men and see such sinister people, yet you see no evidence of an apostasy over the last 2000 years. Talk about irrational.
Yeah, the great “apostasy” so on topic. How about that Mormons use guarded language around non-Mormons because their beliefs are kooky and on their face are outside the pale of Christianity? How is that for “on topic”.
Irrational that we do not accept that a total apostasy took place and that this for you is a foundational belief? There is so much evidence for this apostasy that Mormons can not tell us who started the apostasy, when, where, and what texts point to it happening. Yet we have an 1835 statement of the church denouncing polygamy all the while church leaders practicing it. D&C 101:4 affirmed monogamy and denounced polygamy but the highest leaders were practicing plural marriage. And we are supposed to trust that Mormon leaders are not being deceptive? If high ranking Mormons can lie to the U.S. Senate what is stop Peter priesthood from lying to us non-Mormons, or at least using coded language?
“ridiculous comments”?
List some and we will be more then happy to document the accuracy of the comments. I can always tell when the Mormons have their backs up against the wall. We have a bunch of exMormons commenting here with very factual information. They’ve lived the life and turned over every magic rock they could find in getting the truth about Mormonism. The problem is our Mormons posters are held accountable to folks who have the goods on Mormonism. It’s not like Mormons entertaining each other with tales of Zelph down at the wards!
On topic for Olsen
Olsen, your “prophet”, the LDS man standing closer to the LDS god than anyone else on earth, when asked if the LDS Church held to the idea that God the Father was once a man, said:
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it”
Do you think he was telling the truth?
why or why not?
Olsen Jim,
You said, “It’s amazing that you guys can look
at the lives of these men and see such sinister
people…”
Perhaps you could remind me where I referred to
your leaders as “sinister”? I don’t think you
understand the issue here.It’s not the lives
of these men, its their teachings.Can you
remember that? Are all false prophets/teachers
immoral? Can a man be in serious doctrinal error
and still be a very good person? Teachings that
deceive, deceive good people.
Since you seem reluctant to believe the words of
Biblical Apostles, perhaps you should heed the
words of your own apostles:
” True and saving worship is found only among
those who know the truth about God and the
Godhead…”
Jim, the stakes could’nt be higher.
It’s interesting to note that your first comment
on this thread actually proves the point this
thread is saying–denial, and “double speak”.
Which LDS poster is it that always claims, “You have no proof that JS had sexual relations with the women he had plural marriage with”? This is typical of smithian double-speak. Men don’t destroy printing presses if what they are doing is commanded by God. The plural wives of BY and the rest of the prophets and members had children by these men. They learned this practice from the “prophet”. Were these births then the same as Jesus’ birth, manifested by some unknown type of intercourse that left the woman a perpetual virgin?
If your teachings are so true, then why not lay them on the line. I had two missionaries visit my house two Sunday’s ago (first time in 13 years). I asked them, “All right guys, lay it on me. What’s the good news?” The answer? “We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by believing in Him you will be saved.”
My response? “That’s it. That’s all I gotta do is believe in Jesus Christ?”
“Well, you have to be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
“That’s all? Then why do I need to read the BoM?”
“We believe that if you read the BoM and pray about it you will get a testimony from the HS that it is true?”
You see, the web of lies just gets bigger and bigger. There is no talk of endowments, tithing, eternal marriage, temple ordinances, magic undies, none of that stuff. When questioned about this stuff smithians won’t just lay it on the line, defend their “restored” beliefs,be honest, and say, “This is what we believe and it’s true.”
As a Christian I am free to say, “There is a God. You and I have broken His laws. You are a blasphemer, a liar, thief, adulterer, etc. And so am I. If God gave us what we deserve we would spend eternity in Hell. We cannot pay the penalty for the violation of God’s law. Jesus Christ paid that penalty for you in His blood. Confess your sinfulness before God, turn from your sinful life, believe Christ paid for your sins, and you will be saved.”
“What else?”
“Nothing.”
How about this divided sense of self?
Suppose the prophet were to announce today that polygamy would be reinstated?
Would all the Mormon men rush to get more wives?
How would the Mormon women feel about it. For that matter, how DO the Mormon women feel about it coming in the future?
I think part of the Mormon double identity comes from this “well, this is now, but that is then” mentality.
“That was then”, when Joe Smith sneaked around and got other people’s wives. “That was then” that he didn’t have to obey the word of wisdom. “This is now”, so it’s different now.
“This is now” when it sets our teeth on edge to imagine having several wives. “This is now” that we are not perfect. But “that is then” when mysteriously we WILL be perfect, and we will be okay with polygamy.
etc
Let’s stay on topic, shall we? Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs) or deliberate ambiguity.
Are many religions guilty of this to some degree? I would answer in the affirmative. True Christianity in it’s pure form, (as defined by Jesus and HIS Apostles) is simple. The Pharisees and Sadducees were classic examples of propagating deception, having based their whole lives on works and the letter of the law.
Jesus taught us to love one another, and to call on His name and we would be saved. His anger at the ruling class of his time shows how much He detested any religion based on works, and especially the twisting of the commandments of God for self aggrandizement.
Petty rules and regulations, used by many cults to strike fear into the hearts of their members, have no place in the true and simple teachings espoused by Jesus. His gospel is not one of coercion, but of grace out of which flows desire to help others.
Jesus told us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church, and they have not. Though men come and go, (as do their deceptive practices), the words of Jesus (found in the Bible) stand, and where two or three are gathered in his name, there he will be. That has never changed, and never will.
Why does someone or an organization have to practice “double speak”. There are a couple of reasons. One would be to develop “in group” communication; the language and vocabulary that makes a group feel special. The other reason is to hide the group’s beliefs and intentions. Mormonism and Mormons are expert at this. They can’t afford, at least from a PR stand point, for the practices of the religion, the history and beliefs to become common knowledge. If this were to happen Mormons would fail in their attempts to appear as a mainstream evangelical religion. At-the-same-time, recruitment would suffer greatly.
So Mormons learn to avoid, obfuscate, and lie to cover-up what the religion is all about. Why are Mormons so ashamed of their religion’s beliefs, practices and history? The old timers weren’t. But I think that since societal pressure has been put on them to change things like polygamy, discrimination against blacks, and temple rituals, they have moved away from their concept of divine revelation to a desire to be accepted.
It is always difficult for men when they make statements of a sweeping nature to defend them if the statements are not backed up by the truth. When one says, God TOLD me this, and it will come to pass, there is a burden upon that man for the statement to bear fruit. In smith’s time, the mormons made a lot of sweeping statements as they were caught up in the moment of the times, and now, down the line it has become evident that history has not bourne them out. There are two ways to approach this, one is to admit, like many religions have that the one who made the statements was incorrect, or to try to explain the statement away as not what they really said, disavow them and move on.
In the case of the mormons, they have put smith and the early leaders on such a pedestal that now they are cornered into defending statements that have not bourne fruit. A lot of people now have to live with a system based on teachings that were false, and generated by men that were no different than many others that history has produced.
The problem the mormons face today is that many of the members sincerely believe in smith and the early leaders, and have convinced themselves that these teachings “fit in” somehow and that though there is no rational explanation for them, they can invent one, and the rest of the world will go along with the irrational conclusions they draw to try and prove them correct.
It is now a system of double standards, denial and outright lies. Many scholars in the mormon church have been intimidated by the hierarchy because they have dared to take smith and the early leaders down from those pedestals and admit that there were some serious problems with early teachings and lifestyles. They have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, and with the advent of the internet the information is now widely available, much to the dismay of the leadership today….
Mike R made a comment on another thread (Prophet Preferred} quoting Gordon B. Hinckley when he did a Time interview back in 1997, as Aaron did above. I find Hinkley’s response remarkable as did many others. It generated so much surprise (at the time) that letters were written to the First Presidency of the Church to ask if this was actually Mr. Hinckleys belief. They were answered back that Mr. Hinckley was misquoted in Time! This is believed by mormons today, (see Olsen’s quote above about journalistic hack jobs). Come on, Time Magazine?
Here is the full transcript of that question, as given by Time Magazine:
“Q. Just another related question that comes up in the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet…
A. Yeah?
Q. …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A. I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”
Does this sound like a hack job? Why would Hinckley make these statements? All mormons need to ask themselves this question. This is not only remarkable, it comes as close as you can get to an outright lie! What is the motive behind this evasion? We all know the answer, but some are too blind to see the forest for the trees…
In 2008 Hinckley did an interview with Chris Wallace from 60 minutes. His answers to these questions are revealing and this gets to the heart
of exactly what Hinckley was trying to do:
“From 1830 to 1978… blacks could not become priests in the Mormon Church, right?” Wallace asked.
“That’s correct,” Hinckley acknowledged.
Why?
“BECAUSE THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH AT THAT TIME INTERPRETED THAT DOCTRINE THAT WAY,” Hinckley said.
“Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, ‘Cain slew his brother and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin,’” Wallace remarked.
“It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flicks of history,” Hinckley said.
“Skeptics will suggest, ‘Well, look, if we’re going to expand, we can’t keep the blacks out,’” Wallace said.
But Hinckley called that “pure speculation.”
Another curiosity: the church owns more than 3,000 acres in northwest Missouri, where Mormons believe that Jesus will return for his Second Coming. Hinckley preferred not to talk about Jesus returning to Missouri or about sacred undergarments. He said that those points miss the point. HE WANTED TO PORTRAY MORMONS AS MAINSTREAM, not extreme, and for that Hinckley had hired a Jewish-owned PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM. Mormons hiring Jews to help spread the Word?”
What it comes down to is the supposed “true church of God” has to hire a PR firm to bolster it’s image. Do the prophets now take advice from PR firms? Are the former prophets now relegated to just men who “interpreted doctrine” and not given commandments directly from GOD? This gets stranger and stranger… This is the kind of thing that a cult would do….not the true church of Jesus Christ! Too bad Koresh and Jones did not have the money that Hinckley had access to and had the foresight to hire a PR firm and maybe they too would have survived…
The above interview was re-aired on 60 minutes in 2008…
When I had to discipline kids in school, I use to ask myself, “Is this behavioral incident an ‘event’ or a ‘pattern’?” Now it’s fairly obvious why I’d ask that question. If it was an “event” the consequences for the student would be different than if a “pattern” of unacceptable behavior was emerging.
In Mormonism, we are dealing with a pattern of lying. We can’t sugar coat it. It’s all about Mormonism’s attempt to hide information regarding its history, beliefs and practices. We see here on this thread the degree to which the Mormon posters will go to provide themselves with explanations that will placate their fears and suspicions that the Mormon church is not as advertised. I can’t imagine wanting to believe something so bad that I would sacrifice my judgment and integrity in an attempt to maintain my belief in a fraudulent system.
It’s an emotional hook. That’s why exMormons talk about the cognitive dissonance they experienced in Mormonism. Mormons who question are fed mottos and slogans to deal with the uncomfortable feeling that something just isn’t quite right in Mormondom. For some these pithy little sayings can sustain them for a time. But at a certain point the questions become too great to be sustained by surface level explanations and insider double-speak.
So the question remains, why do Mormons practice double-speak? What we hear from Mormons about this is that they don’t do double speak. In-other-words they issue a denial. The denial itself is a form of double speak. Another technique of course is the “you just don’t understand” approach. This communicates that it’s the fault of the hearer not the speaker of the double speak. And when all else fails, our Mormon friends pull-out the “misquoted” technique.
But I keep coming back to the obvious, why do Mormons have to practice this evasive form of communication? Bluntly, they have a bad product with a bad history. If they were selling a tangible product, they would have had to issue several recalls.
Grindael,
Thanks for bringing out additional information on Gordon B. Hinckley’s public interview’s and his PR technique.
You said “Are the former prophets now regulated to just men who ‘interpreted doctrine?’ and not given commandments directly from God?” That’s a good thought you brought out. I believe this is exactly what LDS leaders have been doing. Whether it’s Jesus and Lucifer as brothers or Brigham Young’s doing with scripture re: The Virgin Birth, it’s all their interpretation. The big question is,is it a ” rightly dividing ” (interpretation– 2 Tim. 2:15.) of God’s Word? If it is then it is good doctrine ( 1 Tim. 4:6). Otherwise it is condemned and to be avoided.
Falson said “And when all else fails, our Mormon friends pull-out the ‘misquoted’ technique”. I started out witnessing to JW’s. They never denied teaching doctrines that were later discarded, their prophet simply said “We have new light now” etc. In my experiences with LDS it is just as Falson said. Either outright denial that a certain doctrine was ever taught, to, the ‘misquoted’ alibi. I was sure surprised at this behavior. As I later learned from other Christians, my experiences with LDS was’nt unusual.
Sharon,
You quoted something very interesting.
“… one “coping mechanism” used by minorities, including Mormons, is “special coded language.”
Are Christian missionaries always on the level on every doctrine when approaching non-christians in other countries? Something interesting is the advice to avoid the use of the term ‘born again’ or ‘rebirth’ when witnessing to buddhists. This is because rebirth sounds like reincarnation, this is a bad thing that buddhists hope to avoid.
Then there is also the following advice:
“5. While using bridge concepts (see “Bridges for Evangelizing Buddhists”), be careful not to reduce Christian truth to a form of Buddhism. Buddhism has been good at accommodating other religions. Do not say “Buddhism is good, but Christianity is easier.”
The comparision of the 8 fold path comes very close to this.
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/buddhism.shtml
Potentially this is kind of an off topic. But I included this commentary and comparision with Buddhism/christianity, because it looks like kind of coded language, or hiding complete concepts. Another way of looking at LDS responses to difficult questions is that they are attempting to use ‘bridging concepts’.
I know from my Inupiaq heritage that christian missionaries were sometimes rather veiled with certain concepts, or outright changed certain teachings. For example, ‘hell’ was no longer a hot place with fire, because that was an appealing place for the Inupiaq people. Instead, hell was now an ice cold place, far colder than anything that was known on earth.
Jim Olsen,
You stated the following.
“President Hinckley’s statement was spot on. We know extremely little about this concept. And it is rarely taught in our church, even when talking about the Godhead and the plan of Salvation. What he said is absolutely true.”
That is not my experience. I heard that quote “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” quite often in church services, and meetings. But I haven’t attended LDS church services for a very long time. Perhaps this is something which isn’t quoted often these days.
This statement is also implied by the doctrine of eternal progression. So it seems a natural quote to bring up in reference to that teaching. Its also actually APPEALING to some non LDS people. I mentioned that once a few years ago to a somewhat ‘bored’ catholic, he had never heard of the posibility of humans becoming a god, he instantly found that appealing, and said he would work very, very hard to make that happen. So its not like this concept is disagreeable to everyone.
I think the issue about the virgin birth has to do with its nature as a miracle. In a sense mormons don’t think its a ‘miracle’ in that it didn’t violate any physical law. I think most christians aren’t concerned with god bending,or breaking any biological or physical law. From what I understand is that they feel he is the writer of all laws and can change them on specific occations.
However, some people have tried to explain the virgin birth as being physically possible with biological laws. Also without sex, and even artifical insemination. Parthenogenesis is one possible explanation, and I have heard that its been observed in mammals on very rare occations. That it would result in a male child is much more difficult to explain, and would make the event very very highly unlikely. That is the difficulty in explaining the doctrine of the virgin birth as being in accord with biological laws.
Enki’s question indirectly asks if it is OK to modify language when teaching about Christian doctrine.
Broadly speaking, I’d say that it is (OK); especially when the words or idioms used could mean different things to the speaker and the hearer. One example, as Enki, points out is the concept of “rebirth”. To a Buddhist it means (in my words) going back to earth for yet another round of trials and works in order to get a high enough grade for enlightenment. To the Christian it means a new start; inheriting a different legacy to the one you were born with.
So the Christian views rebirth in a positive light, but the Buddhist might view it as “you have failed, so try again”. In this case there may be other, better ways to convey the Good News that God can make a new creation of you.
Approaching the Gospel from the perspective of communication theory is, I think, highly beneficial. What I get from it is;
* The bulk of the Christian Gospel actually comes to us in the form of stories and scenarios. We choose the best words and idioms to describe these stories and scenarios, but when language changes, the stories and scenarios remain the same. This is why we claim that the Christian Gospel has not changed since Jesus.
* Our language always needs to compromise literal fidelity with dynamic equivalence. What’s more important; the words or the message?
* By the same token, there can never be a “correct” translation of the Bible.
* Historic Christianity has always sought to clarify meaning, particularly in response to its critics
…which brings me to my last point…
* The deliberate obfuscations of the LDS movement cannot be reconciled with the Christian traditions of truth-telling and truth-proclaiming.
As others have noted above, this is not an issue about presenting a message in a way that the audience best understands it. Its about people who should know the truth, yet hide their “light” under a bucket, just in case we (potential converts) don’t like it
Martin,
Ok, so the examples I gave are not instances of double-speak? And what of bridge-concepts?
“By the same token, there can never be a “correct” translation of the Bible.”
If that means a fixed translation for all time, I accept that. But that is a continual point of examination made regularly on this blog. One example is “The was with god, and the word was god” Thats one point which bible literalists know is a correct translation or not. “was a god” or ‘the word was divine’ are not accepted translations.
“Our language always needs to compromise literal fidelity with dynamic equivalence.” All I can say is that is potentially a can of worms to open.
The title is good- “Mormons divided sense of self”. I always thought that schizophrenia affects 2 in every one of us.
Falcon said -
“Why does someone or an organization have to practice “double speak”. There are a couple of reasons. One would be to develop “in group” communication; the language and vocabulary that makes a group feel special. The other reason is to hide the group’s beliefs and intentions.”
What does it mean Matt 13:10-14? Isn’t Jesus hiding His message from a certain section of the population? I mean, He openly admits to hiding the full message doesn’t He? Isn’t this double-speak as defined above? I understand that it is different from the accusations and examples thrown at the LDS church here, but it still is double-speak.
As far as the ‘you do not understand’ comments, they are perfectly valid. In previous posts/blogs, many Evs have tried to place the LDS teachings into the Evs understanding and then lambasted the LDS for saying something incorrect. For example Martin said that he didn’t want to become God because then he would have to sacrifice himself. We LDS teach that God and Jesus are 2 separate beings and that Jesus was sacrificed, not God. So that showed that Martin did not understand LDS teachings. And the list goes on.
I know many here have read into the LDS church and its doctrine and understand the majority of it, but to fully/properly understand it you cannot use your (ie Evangelical) methods of thinking.
Ralph,
I guess you don’t understand your own religion either. If (as smithians say) Jesus is A God, then Jesus, as A God, sacrificed himself. Jesus was the GOD of the Old Testament, was he not? The Great I AM, was he not? If God (the Father) is Adam, as BY states, then God came down to the Garden of Eden, (and He must have been talking to Jesus, one of the Gods according to smith) was kicked out of the Garden of Eden by God (Jesus?) and then lived on the earth and died (again). If he progressed on some other world (perhaps Kolob?) and became a God, then to become Adam, die again and what be subject to sin again and be ressurected by his spirit son Jesus? Wow! All this taught by your prophet BY, and smith. Now, since God is Adam, he scarificed himself, did he not? He died again, did he not? So if all of you become Gods, will you start off your earths by becoming Adams, and dying again. So according to mormon logic, Martin is dead on. Wow, you mormons are so up on your own religion. I guess you are too busy trying to cover things up instead of reading what your prophets have said. Oh yeah, according to Hinkely, it was only Youngs opinion or interpretation….implying they are just ordinary men who dont actually speak to God. Man this gets confusing…could you sort it all out for me…I would really like to know how all this works.
Olsen,
The best evidence for the truth of the Bible is that there are about 2 BILLION Christians. There are about 9 MILLION smithians. I’ll take the Bible, thank you very much.
Enki commented
Enki,
If the Christian doctrine of the Divinity of Christ rested solely upon John 1:1, then I would agree that it would have a weak foundation.
But, it doesn’t. We gave covered this before, and its a big subject, but there’s a tsunami of other texts in the NT that point to the divinity of Christ. These include explicit statements like Phil 2:6-11 to the scenarios in which people worship Jesus (Matt 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38). Also, who has the right to judge Israel (Matt 25:32), to send prophets (Matt 23:34), who is greater than the Temple itself (Matt 12:6)? Who can say of himself that he is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), or that he is the bread of life (John 6:35), or that he is the ressurection (John 11:25)? Given that there is only One who can occupy the role, who else can be the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 22:6, 22:13)?
All these idioms and metaphors point in one direction only; Jesus is fully and wholly God, worthy of our full and unmodulated worship and adoration.
In fact the Christian Gospel requires us to change everything we think we know about God to what we see expressed in Christ (John 1:18 – note God’s habit of revealing himself to humanity in the light of this discussion, see also Col 1:15). If you want to know what kind of God He is, look to Jesus.
Also
Maybe, but the issue I’m thinking of is the question of what’s more important; the words or the message?
I don’t think the question can be resolved one way or the other, but rather that Christians need to be mindful of both (contrast the murk an darkness of LDS doctrine). We cannot use the exact words of the Bible because nobody speaks Koine Greek or OT Hebrew anymore (I understand that modern Israeli is derived from OT Hebrew, but it differs in many respects). That means we have to intelligently understand what the words mean in order to express Biblical texts in our modern language.
Here’s an example. In Matt 4:17, Jesus preaches “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near”. Commonly, we interpret this to mean something like “give up your personal sins and get religion”. Placed in the context of the many and varied Messianic expactations of first century Israel (and noting that Josephus uses a virtually identical phrase when talking a rebel down from the hills), Jesus’ statement should be understood as “give up the agendas that you have developed to make the Messiah arrive, because he has just done so”. This exegesis also sheds light on Romans 10:6-7. The message is that we cannot bring God down to earth by the mechanics of our religion or way of life, but He comes in His own way and on His own terms.
The English translations of Matthew rightly retain the original phraseaology, because that is what Jesus said. May these words stand there for a long time to come, to correct us when we go off on our own spirals of thought.
So, how do we explain this to our audience? I am not at all embarrassed at the original form of words, but we may benefit from some additional explanation. The challenge, of course, is to make damn sure that the “additional” explanation fits with the original message
Ralph commented
Ralph,
I’ve got the feeling that you’re misquoting me. Perhaps you could remind me?
At the risk of contradicting myself earlier, I don’t have a problem with sacrificing myself. It’s just that it might not do much good. In particular, my death will do nothing to pay for someone else’s sins, because it would be barely enough to cover my own.
I believe I have commented extensively on the love of God, which is fully expressed in His self-sacrifice. If Jesus were not fully (the One) God himself, then the cross is a gross example of child-abuse.
If you are right, then why didn’t the Father come Himself? Why delegate to the Son? According to LDS “doctrine” they are both exalted men, so why require the Son to go through with the cruxifiction? Was is a rite of passage? If Jesus did this for his own exaltation, then he did it for what he could gain for himself, not because it was a selfless act of self-giving love.
If you are right, God is not love, he is just another Joe looking for promotion.
Leave it to Ralph to accuse Jesus of “double speak”. That’s the problem with Mormons, especially Ralph; they have fanciful ways of interpreting the Bible. Ralph does at least admit that Jesus teachings in the parables are not the same as Mormons who willfully lie and cover-up the truth as to hide what Mormonism really is.
Actually Jesus’ words regarding the parables are perfectly applicable to Mormons in one significant way. Not being “born again” it is impossible for Mormons to understand the things of the One, eternal, everlasting, and unchanging God. Mormons have substituted a different god, a different jesus, and a different salvation and reduced what they can’t hope to understand as believers in another “god”, to manageable human wisdom. Mormons can never hope to grasp the secrets of the kingdom of God as long as they reject Him for a god of their own making even seeing themselves as gods in embryo. This blasphemy goes beyond a simple not understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it is wholly opposed to God. Mormons in their foolishness would rather create an idol consisting of a former human who became a god, then recognizing the awesome God who has revealed Himself in His written Word the Bible and His Living Word Jesus Christ.
That’s why we as Christians are so often frustrated in our conversations here with Mormons. They have neither spiritual ears or eyes. Their rejection of God is led by one who they claim as a spirit brother, the father of all lies, Satan. Spiritually blind and deaf, Mormons will never understand the things of God until they reject the idol with which they have replaced Him.
Ralph,
Most LDS are not quite as forthright as you have
been when it comes to admitting certain Mormon
teachings.You were open in the past not to deny
your future potential to become Deity.I think
the topic on this thread would’nt be happening
if Thomas Monson at next Conference would proclaim
over the pulpit that he(like you) was going to
be Almighty God,ruling over a vast world comprised
of his millions of children all who adore and
worship him and who loudly shout to him,Holy,Holy
Holy,Lord God Almighty! [compare Rev.4:8;19:6].
Ralph, you admited this to be your future position
last month to me.Could Pres.Monson be as open?
Hopefully that would be the end of LDS style denial and double-speak.
Martin,
I am sure the New World translation of the Bible probably places all those other passages in a different light, based on how they translated John 1:1. Doesn’t the understanding of a translator make a difference of how something gets translated? Somehow, the JWes as an organization find their translation acceptible enough that its a continuing organization. There may not be a correct translation, but by your definition there could be translations which are less accurate than others.
Reguarding the issue of “literal fidelity with dynamic equivalence” I was thinking of that phenomona in general, in more broad terms. I have seen a bible ‘translated’ into street language. That was such a poor translation,it didn’t do justice to what I thought was the christian message. On an even more ridiculous level there is a bible translation into pig-latin, and ubie dubie. I am sure that christians would have some tolerance, and perhaps even some fun. Especially with children who might not otherwise be interested in the text.
Grindael,
There are about 837 million hindus in the world, and around 1.57 billion muslims. If you take the figure of 2 billion christians, you could divide that into catholics, liberal christians, etc…
Martin,
On August 25th in the blog “Do you really want to become a god?” you wrote –
Looking at that, I believe I have interpreted it correctly in that you are saying that the LDS God (Heavenly Father) came down and was crucified, not Jesus. In essence you are putting a Trinitarian view into an LDS doctrine.
Grindael,
I do understand my own religion to a certain extent. I do not understand all of it, though. I don’t think anyone fully understands their own religion. Yes, Jesus is a God, but He is not The God – ie Heavenly Father. Martin was referring to Heavenly Father when he made the comment (see above).
Falcon,
I am just showing the definition of double-speak given above (” The Mormon Times article noted that one “coping mechanism” used by minorities, including Mormons, is “special coded language.”
“It allows them to speak to two different audiences at once. It is a form of doublespeak, and Mormons use it to both give information and to hide information, according to Petersen.”)
Why did Jesus talk in parables? So that He could talk to 2 different audiences at once – ie those who had the Spirit and could understand; those who did not have the Spirit and would not understand. That, by the above definition, is double-speak.
Grindael,
I forgot one thing. I mentioned this to you a while ago. We LDS use ‘God’ as a title not a being as you Evs use it. This can also be seen in the Bible when it talks about the ‘gods’ of the Jews (ie – ‘Ye are gods’ found in Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34), which many here interpret it as the Jewish judges. Then there is Satan being titled ‘the god of this world’.
When it comes to the person of The God we call Him Heavenly Father. Whereas you Evs use this as a title. This is why I said on that blog I first mentioned this to you – if you don’t use this to interpret things, then you will not understand the LDS way of thinking.
MikeR,
I don’t know if we emphasise this. I don’t know if we teach this.
Seriously, we teach that we too will create worlds and populate them just as Heavenly Father did here. We do not, however, focus on the glorification that you are emphasising here. In fact I don’t remember ever hearing anyone going down that path of having countless minions worshiping them. I do know that many of my friends and I joke now and then about how we are going to create certain things. For example, my mum loves black berries so she is going to create a bush without thorns to make it easier to pick them. My dad loves mangoes so he is going to create them to grow as large as watermelons. And so on and so forth. I would love to create a planet with a nice 6 foot swell and endless beaches and blue sky just to take the board out. Fun fun fun in the sun sun sun.
But since we do not understand fully what the whole thing is about, many voice their opinions like this. But as I said, no one I know of has ever said or thought anything about receiving praise. That does not mean others have or have not.
Ralph,
How sad it is to see how blinded you are in
believing such heresy.First,(last month) you
admit that you’ll be an Almighty God one day.
Then here you admit that you’ll create worlds
and populate them as your God has done here,yet
then you back-peddle and deny that you’ll be
worshipped by those very children that you have
populated the world with! Is’nt this what you are
doing right today? i.e. you and milions are
worshipping your HF, the one you hope to be like.
God help you Ralph. Just because you do’nt “focus”
on this heresy does’nt negate it.
You may try and make light of all this, you may
even as you say “joke” about some of it, but I
must tell you that one day if you don’t repent
and turn to worshipping the One True and Living
God, it is’nt going to be a “joke”.It’s a life
and death situation for you. Also, its not “fun,
fun,fun,in the sun,sun,sun” for anyone to reject
the truth of God and believe a lie [Rom.1:21-23],
rather, its darkness forever[2Pt.2:1-4].
You said that you do not understand this fully.
That is’nt the point.You believe it because your
Apostles and Prophets have taught you.They will
be judged for teaching false doctrine and you’ll
be right with them [Matt.15:14; Isa.9:16].
My prayer for you is that you’ll come to experience a relationship with the One true
God Almighty who loved you enough to send His
Son to die in your place that you could receive
a full pardon from your sins and live with Him
forever. He is so Majestic! He is so Unique!
Isa.40:25
MikeR,
I didn’t deny that I would be worshipped, I just said that no one I know has ever mentioned/discussed that nor to my understanding thought about that aspect, including me. Sorry if it seems that that is what I wrote. I did fail high school English and have difficulties writing my thoughts coherently.
Am I blinded by heresy? No, I don’t believe so. I believe that I am in the correct path towards living with Heavenly Father through the eternities. It is you I believe that has faith in an heretical and false doctrine. But that’s a different argument all in itself of which neither of us can ‘win’ at this point in time. We both have our evidences and can quote scripture to ‘prove’ our point. So I find it amusing that the Evs on this site keep pushing this agendum and calling us LDS to join the dark side of the force… oops sorry – convert to Evangelical Christianity.
Ralph,
Was a mormon. I quite well understand how mormons distinguish their gods. Unfortunately, your former prophets did not use this double-speak term as mormons of today do.
“Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos…” smith, teachings 151
“Motherhood lies at the foundation of happiness in the home…God has laid upon men and women very sacred obligations with respect to motherhood…” JFsmith, gospel doctrine..
“Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel; and all who are thus saved become sons and daughters unto God in a distinctive sense.” talmage, articles of faith
“God is in the still small voice.” smith, DHC
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” smith, DHC
There’s plenty more, but you get my drift. Which God is which? They did not always distinguish, tho the official stance is that mormons pray to the Father thru Christ, (mcConkie). They also title God The Father Elohim, Michael, Adam, & God. Anyone reading mormon history from the beginning to the present would be confused, unless of course you studied it for years (like I have) and have a grasp on EXACTLY what they are saying. Again like I told YOU previously, you can’t tell me I don’t understand mormonism, I understand and comprehend it perfectly. Try the double-speak elsewhere, thank you.
Ralph
The Bible in both Old and New Testaments explicitly and repeatedly affirms that there is only one God (e.g.,Deut. 4:35-39; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Therefore, the Bible most definitely rejects any sort of polytheism, including henotheism.
The Scriptures also very clearly teach that God is an absolutely unique being who is distinct from the world as its Creator (e.g.,Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 11:3). This teaching rules out pantheism and panentheism, according to which the world is either identical to God or an essential aspect of God. Since He is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, God is totally unique, so that there is none even like God (e.g.,Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40-46; Acts 17:24-28). The Bible, then, unmistakably teaches a monotheistic world view.
As far as Psalm 82 goes:
Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges by virtue of their position as judges representing God; it is, therefore, a figurative usage which applies only to those judges and does not apply to men or even believers in general. If this interpretation is correct, Psalm 82:6 is also irrelevant to any doctrine of Christian deification.
In John 10:34-35 Jesus is understood to mean that if God called wicked judges “gods” how much more appropriate is it for Him, Jesus, to be called God, or even the Son of God. If the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus’ point would still be basically the same. It is also possible that Jesus was implying that the Old Testament application of the term “gods” to wicked judges was fulfilled (taking “not to be broken” to mean “not to be unfulfilled,” cf. John 7:23) in Himself as the true Judge (cf. John 5:22,27-30; 9:39).[18] Those wicked men were, then, at best called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in a special and figurative sense; and at worst they were pseudo-gods and pseudo-sons of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is truly God (cf. John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20
Ralph,
Your point about being worshipped as a God: that it is not taught, etc. Could be answered easily. Just ask any member of the quorum of the 12 or the first presidency. One of the requirements of their calling is to know the mysteries of the kingdom because they have seen Jesus (having received the second comforter).
This would be the easy way out for any question, but…unfortunately you have the modern GA’s relegating former prophets statements to “interpretation” and modern prophets are strangely silent on any doctrinal issue contested in the church.
For a church having so many who claim to have seen God and conversed with him, they sure don’t seem to know or be able to verify much of anything.
Ralph,
Thanks for the reminder (I’m flattered that someone has actually taken the trouble to read and remember what I wrote).
I was musing on the kinds of choices we make, when we have freedom of choice. God, who is constrained by absolutely nothing (because He is not a created being like me), has absolute freedom of choice. So, I find it absolutely remarkable that His choices lead Him to the suffering of the cross.
Like I said, if it were up to me (and no-one could blame me for doing what I wanted), I’d choose an easier route. I defy anyone of us to say otherwise.
That’s part of the difference between God and me. He is love because that’s what He is, and He answers to no-one but Himself. I can know love because I am made in His image. However it is something that I need to learn and acquire, and I am answerable to Him for it.
Maybe one day I will learn to be loving like Him, but I will never love independently from Him. How could I? Whatever love I have, I have because of the presence of His Holy Spirit in my life. If He is not there, love is not there either.
God is love. No God, no love.
Ralph,
May you one day realize that no one here is
asking you to convert to Evangelical Christ-
ianity.We are pleading with you to leave the
false prophet you’re following and convert
TO JESUS.It’s Jesus,not a church; it’s JESUS
not an organization. in HIM alone is eternal
life [ Heb.7:25 ].
I wish Pres.Monson would publically proclaim
as you have done, that he will one day be
worshipped as Almighty God.This is textbook
Mormonism.The world needs to hear him admit
this.
Grindael and Mike R,
If I remember correctly, at least one of the earlier prophets did make a comment or two about learning to receiving glory or praise. Maybe Aaron or Sharon could help here (or someone else). But I could be wrong.
Martin,
It was Heavenly Father who is our one and only God who planned and executed the creation of this world. It was Jesus who went with the authority of Heavenly Father and came here to create the world. And it was Jesus who died on the cross, not Heavenly Father. What you have written is Heavenly Father coming down and dying which is why I said you are putting a Trinitarian ides into an LDS doctrine. It does not work.
If you became a god you would be the Heavenly Father for your world and you would not go down and die. You would send your son. That is LDS doctrine.
Ralph,
Back Up. Re-read BY statements on Adam-God. He said God the Father was Adam, took one of his wives to the Garden of Eden to start this world. If Adam was God the Father, who was He talking in the garden to? Jesus? Or some OTHER God? If God the Father took on human form again to become the mortal Adam to start up this earth, did he not sacrifice himself, (becoming human to die again)? That, according to one of your prophets, is LDS doctrine. And THAT is what I was talking about. Your other point, (well known by all mormons or x-m’s, is that the Father, Adam? Michael? Elohim? God? chose Jesus (I guess before he took a memory wipe and went into the Garden) to be the saviour of the world, but his brother Lucifer did not like it and rebelled. Of course, since prophets like hinkley have basically said all former prophets just “interpreted” the scriptures, it all could be just speculation. But Young sure acted like he knew what he was talking about, he changed the temple rituals… Im not putting anything into LDS doctrine. This mess was thought up by none other than your own prophets. Good luck defending it.
Ralph said, “I would love to create a planet with a nice 6 foot swell and endless beaches and blue sky just to take the board out. Fun fun fun in the sun sun sun.
But since we do not understand fully what the whole thing is about, many voice their opinions like this. But as I said, no one I know of has ever said or thought anything about receiving praise. That does not mean others have or have not.
This is the heart of the matter, Ralph. In your mind it’s all about you and what you want to create for your enjoyment. What if your spirit children don’t like surfing, or mangoes, or berries? There is a lack of worship of God in the LDS mind. God has been reduced to a former man, therefore you anthropomorphize who Heavenly Father is, or what he may have been in the past by looking at his creation. You do not worship Him as a being unlike any other who has ever existed. He is One of a kind. Athenagoras, one of the first Christian apologists, wrote in about 165 a.d. “..we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only of the reason…” Look at Isaiah 40:18 and 46:5. Who will you compare God with, yourself Ralph? Your father?
Christians worship God as the One unique God. The angels in heaven do his bidding immediately and those in his presence cry Holy, Holy, Holy, continuously. Those in His presence and those in the presence of the Lamb (Jesus in Revelation 5) bow down and worship, offerine praise. God raised up Pharaoh for His glory (Romans 9:17). God saved us for His glory as evidenced throughout Ephesians 1.
How can you imagine being a god, yet not think about receiving praise for your glory? Because you don’t praise the One True God and glorify Him for who He declares Himself to be in the Bible, Ralph. Instead of worshipping God and praising Him, which was the purpose for which you were created, you have set your sights on becoming like Him; becoming Him.
liv4jc,
You asked “How can you imagine being a god, yet not think about receiving praise for your glory?”
It’s easy. It’s exactly the same when I joined the surf life saving club. I did it so I could do surfing for sport at school. Then as I got older it was because I knew it was an important part of community service – helping others. I never once thought about what praise I would get if I saved someone (BTW never had to rescue anyone in 3 or 4 seasons, boy was I lucky). Most of my friends that are still in the club are there because they want to be for their own fun and helping in the community, not for the praise. When they do rescue someone they don’t actually accept the praise but brush it off as doing their job and what they were trained to do – nothing else.
If I remember correctly you are a police officer. Did you join for the praise of doing a job that kept the community safe? Or for the praise of your actions when you run into a life threatening situation and rescue someone? Did you have in your mind any type of praise at all when you joined, or even now? Or did you join because that is what you wanted to do?
So yes, I can go through life without thinking of that aspect.
See fellas, I’ve been dealing with Ralph for a couple of years. I use to think he was just yanking my chain for his own entertainment and didn’t really buy into the Mormon program to the degree he professes. But then he’s gone on record with so many of his goof-ball beliefs and motivation(s) that I’ve concluded he’s not just a source of comic relief. The guy actually believes this Mormon clap trap.
I don’t think most of you were around when Ralph went on record as saying that he would kill or steal if directed to by the prophet. Now just process that thought for a second (take a minute). We’re not dealing here with your average run of the mill Mormon pew sitter in Ralph. He’s a bonafide Kool Aide drinker. In my opinion his thinking is so skewed and his conscious so seared that to me it’s almost pathological.
But Ralph, despite his convictions for murder and theft is probably pretty harmless. At least he’s not running up and down the street on a bicycle proclaiming the wonders of Joseph Smith and his devotion to the Mormon prophet. And as long as the prophet doesn’t order him to kill me, I feel fairly safe with Ralph wandering the streets.
But Christian friends, think about the mental processes of someone who is that devoted to a cult and cult leader. Nine hundred or so of those folks killed themselves for Jim Jones. A bunch also went up into flames for David Koresh. Seven or eight killed for Charles Manson. And a bevy drank poison to grab the back of the Comet Kahotek. Never underestimate the power of belief.
You missed my point entirely Ralph. The question I asked of you was so that I could answer it. Your response however was great and proves my point: you equate God with us. God is not like us at all. He is worthy of our praise because of His nature, not just for what He does. I don’t do things for praise, but I used to before I understood that all things are to be done for God’s praise and glory. You on the other hand only serve God so that one day you can be like Him. You could care less about thanking Him for creating you, giving you air to breath, allowing you the ability to do all things you do, and ultimately for dying for your sins. In your world God exists merely as a means for you to become Him by following His rules. One day you hope to exist merely to help your children to become like you by following your rules. I appreciate your honesty, but unless you repent Ralph and praise God for dying for your sins, you will not inherit anything from God.
Yes Falcon,
And Israel committed genocide (ie men, women, children and babies) when following Moses and Samuel. And 450 priests of Baal were slaughtered by command of Elijah. What else do we find in the Bible about people following prophets like this?
I have my witness that I am following the living prophet. You can take it or leave it. But my belief in following the prophet in matters like those mentioned does have a Biblical basis, does it not?
Unfortunately there are people out there that do follow a false prophet and have their witness and convictions for it too. And because of this bad things happen. But the Bible warns of this so we must be vigilant in our faith and test what we believe to be sure we are in the right path. This I have done and so far for me, the LDS church passes and I believe it is the truth.
Ralph,
I’m not one bit surprised that you would go to the OT to try and find justification for your willingness to kill, steal (and can we add lie) for the Mormon prophet. Ladies and gentleman welcome to the mind of a cultist! These folks can justify and rationalize anything in the service of their “prophet”. Why do we have Joseph Smith seducing married women and at least one child and those like Ralph justifying and perhaps even celebrating such behavior. So what’s the problem with lying? It’s nothing!
Ralph says that he has tested Mormonism. Now what might we ask is that test? He prayed and Mormonism made him feel good, so it’s true. From that point on, anything that Mormonism does is good, righteous and true. No Ralph doesn’t know God. He knows a former sinful man who he calls god. Ralph has bought the program because he is intoxicated by the thought of himself being a god. Though he denies that he wants to be worshiped and adored, I’m sure he’ll warm to the idea in time.
So maybe our exMormon posters can chime in here and tell us if Ralph practices a particular brand of Mormonism or perhaps he’s just a more zealous member of the clan. He went to the OT to find justification for all kinds of murder and mayhem so I’d like to know is he a typical or atypical Mormon? I mean we don’t have to worry about the boys on bicycles suddenly strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing up unbelievers do we? Ralph seems to want to be recognized as a super duper dedicated to the faith Mormon; the most zealous of the zealots. Is this a game of Mormon poker. You know, “I’ll see your lying and raise you two denials.” And on and on the game could go until we find ourselves the most dedicated true believer.
Doesn’t it make you wonder what kind of test one does to convince themselves that something is so true that they would be willing to lie, steal and kill to prove they’re at the top of the rung of true believers.
I’m really hoping that Ralph is an anomaly and that the average Mormon will only lie and partake in double speak to hide the truth about the faith.
Hi Ralph,
It’s been a long time…hope all is well for you “down under”. I’m coming in a little late here, but I was glancing over your posts and read about you “testing” your faith and your saying “I have my witness”. I have a few questions I’d like to ask you.
Did you follow the mandate by Brigham Young?
“Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will not stand the test.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, page 126)
Or the current instruction by the LDS GA’s:
“If you will follow the doctrines, and be guided by the precepts of that book [the Bible], it will direct you where you may see as you are seen, where you may converse with Jesus Christ, have the visitation of angels, have dreams, visions, and revelations, and understand and know God for yourselves” (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, page 5)
If so, was that testing done BEFORE or AFTER you became a member of the LDS Church? How much investigating and testing (1 Thes 5:21) was done by you before joining the LDS Church? Is your witness of the prophet Joseph Smith based on D&C 9 (burning in the bosom) or did you follow the instructions in the Bible for properly testing a prophet (Deut 18:18-22)?
Finally, this past July we discussed the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity by the early Church Fathers and you read two works I supplied you with. You found out that the LDS Church HAS NOT been telling the truth when it comes to what they tell their people about the Council of Nicea. You stated:
“I agree that the Trinity was not a creation of the Councils in Nicea or other but that they were taught before then. And as you have pointed out, these writings were less than 100 years after the last of the apostles.”
Did the LDS Church fail the test or were you engaging in “double speak”?
Take Care,
Andy
nobleberean@cox.net
Andy,
I was born into the church. My parents were originally Anglican and joined about 2 or 3 years before I was born. I went through seminary from 14 – 18 years old, as per usual LDS upbringing. I went on a mission to Finland, came home and studied at university. I got married about 2 years after my mission and now I have 3 beautiful daughters. I also have a son who was still born about 11 years ago. Now you probably know most of this, but I am putting it in for a reason.
Through all of this time I have done some Bible study – seminary and Sunday school programmes. When my son died (and even a little bit before then) I went on line and did a lot of research into the LDS church including sites like MRM, ULM, Word for the Weary, Saints Alive and Mormon Outreach Ministry plus many others. While going through these sites I found many different interpretations of the Bible from LDS to Lutheran to Evangelical, etc. So I can say I do know a little about the Bible and its various interpretations but I am in no way a serious student or scholar. I can also say that I have had a serious look into the LDS church and its history, teachings, etc.
I have weighed these findings up with my own life experiences and have come to the conclusion that I am in the correct path. I have some ’stories’ very similar to the ones that you wrote out a couple of days ago, including being on my mission and dedicating myself to God and receiving a witness (non-spiritual Falcon) that it had been accepted, because I was allowed to continue with my mission. I had a medical problem come up that would take months or even years to go away. I prayed and asked God that if He wanted me to continue my mission, if I was in the right place He wanted me in, then to take it away and allow me to finish. It went away that night and I completed my mission.
But that is only one small example of many other non-spiritual witnesses I have. But I do also have a spiritual witness.
As far as the Trinity goes, just because the people who teach me about it got the history wrong does not make the church false. Most books/articles I have read regarding the Trinity indicate that the Councils in Nicea initialised the formalisation of the Trinity as how it is worshipped today. Before the councils, there were many different views of God and Jesus and their ‘make-up’, including the idea of the Trinity we have today. So yes, while the idea of the Trinity was around for years before the Councils in Nicea, it was only there at the councils that it was formalised as a doctrine.
So many see this as where it was created, which is misunderstanding of events and ideas. Even in Wikipedia it states “Some deny that the doctrine that developed in the fourth century was based on Christian ideas, and hold instead that it was a deviation from Early Christian teaching on the nature of God or even that it was borrowed from a pre-Christian conception of a divine trinity held by Plato. … By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form. … The most significant developments in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity took place in the 4th century, with a group of men known as the Church Fathers.”
So its not just the LDS church that teaches the Trinity was created in the Councils in Nicea, but many others as well. The creed and formalisation of the doctrine was created then, but the idea came about earlier.
Ralph,
What God did you pray to when you wanted your medical problem resolved? You prayed to a god that used to be a man. You prayed to a god that is one of many gods. That’s not the God of the Bible. You need to think very carefully about the god you prayed to, what he provided and what it’s going to cost you in eternity.
Jesus talked about how many people will make claims that even miracles were done in His name and that He will say, “get away, I know you not.” Why is that? People who cast out demons in His name and they are not acceptable to Him. It’s not because they weren’t “righteous” enough. He never “knew” them. Ralph, you’ve chosen a god and a jesus that can’t save you. In the heavenlies there are all kinds of spirits that can provide for you all the signs and wonders that you are looking for when you acknowledge them as your god. This is not good Ralph. But I have my doubts that someone who is willing to kill, steal or lie for a false prophet with a false promise of becoming a god will ever accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible.
The degree that Mormons have to go to rationalize away the fact that Mormonism isn’t in the Bible out to be enough to demonstrate to you that you’re following a false gospel.
Ralph,
Thanks for sharing the above. I was familiar with your personal bio since we have talked in great detail on spiritual matters offline. It never hurts to get a refresher. As I expected, you were born into Mormonism and it’s Mormons like yourself and others in this situation that I have the greatest understanding and burden for. I was born into an evangelical Christian family in Mississippi. I was raised in the Assemblies of God Church (Pentecostal) in Louisiana and Georgia – the South. I could have easily been born into a Mormon family in Utah and I have no doubt would have been busting my butt to become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve if it had not have been for the grace of God otherwise.
I had never heard or seen a Mormon where I lived until the early 80’s when an old woman dressed up like a pioneer came to our church and gave a presentation later followed by the movie “The Godmakers”. She said she was one of Brigham Young’s descendents. I was a teenager at the time and it meant nothing to me. I only knew one kid at school who was LDS and all I was told when I went to his birthday party was that he didn’t drink Coke. When they built the LDS temple in Atlanta I was driving by then. My brother and I with others were told that there were armed guards with machine guns standing at the entrance. Well, you know what we had to do, right? We had to drive there from time to time to take a look. I never saw any machine guns, but it made for great superstition and gave us a reason to go joy riding.
Many years and circumstances later, I am now living in Mormon country. Over the years I have gotten to know many Mormons and my study of the religion has only increased as the years have gone by. I have put Mormonism and its claimed doctrines to the biblical test (Acts 17:10-11; 1 Thes 5:21). I have also taken the advice of Brigham Young in the above stated quote. Result: Mormonism and its prophet, Joseph Smith, have failed God’s biblical test.
Ralph,
I am thankful that whatever had you ill on your mission left you. My father was nearly killed in an automobile accident before he married my mother. He was severely injured when part of his skull cracked open and part of his brain spilled out. His family was told that he would be a “vegetable” the rest of his life and would never walk again. The family prayed round the clock and very soon he was back at work at IBM where he retired after 33 years.
I could give you more from me directly on how God has radically delivered me from many ailments and perilous situations over the years and ask you for an explanation as to the source of my divine help and how you account for it.
Maybe you could help me give an explanation to the middle-aged Jehovah’s Witness man that I have gotten to know the past several months. I went with him to the Kingdom Hall for one of their meetings with a promise of him showing me the Watchtower library that they had there. He kept his promise and there in the library I asked him, “Henry, tell me how it all happened. How and what made you become a Witness?”
He stated that he had been in a Christian rock band earlier in life. The group gave concerts and spoke of Christ, but after the concert the band all did hard drugs. He didn’t want to participate and thought this was hypocrisy (which it is!). He was given a plane ticket home and found himself back in Cleveland in complete despair right in one of the worst winter storms that city had ever seen. Holed up in his little place I guess about to end it all came a knock on the door. It was 80 below 0 (-80 F) outside. He opened up the door and there were 5 JW’s standing there and the rest was history – unfortunately. He said to me, “Andy, this is it (Watchtower religion). Nobody can tell me otherwise.”
I said nothing. What would you have said? How do you explain his deliverance at his moment of despair and desperation? He is spiritually lost, but he acts & lives like a Mormon.
Ralph,
Whatever was the core reasons that drove you to search out the inner-workings of Mormonism is of interest to me whether it was your own personal struggles or the death of your son or both. Your objective and how you looked at that information is also curious to me. Only you know and that is fine for you to keep that to yourself. Based on your LDS background my concern would be that it would be impossible for you to look at it without the “LDS lenses” on. To approach the Bible you have to remove the “LDS lenses” (beliefs) and see what the Bible has to say about a subject first. I asked this of a man I know here in town who is a ward bishop and the son of one of the LDS Apostles. I asked him to show me from the Bible the doctrine that God is an exalted man who at one point was not a god but later became a god. He said he would remove his “lens” and go through the Scriptures and find that. That was last March and I’m still waiting on him to get back to me.
I don’t doubt sincerity. There are millions of people who are sincere and devout in what they believe. Some are so sincere enough to make them crash airplanes into buildings in New York or open fire on US soldiers at an army base in Texas all in the name of God (Allah). JW’s have the Mormons beat when it comes to work/duty. They run circles run around the young LDS missionaries on their bikes. JW’s have time sheets to fill out and turn in to Bethel (Brooklyn, NY). Failure to get out there and get after it means the possibility of being vaporized at Armageddon with the rest of the world and for them that includes the Mormons and Evangelical Christians.
You know the saying: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. One can be very sincere and SINCERELY WRONG. For every burning of the bosom story that you have I can give you two more from ex-Mormons who said they had a burning at one time of the LDS gospel and Joseph Smith and it was just heartburn and they were deceived.
Ralph,
You have the freedom/agency to believe whatever you want. I have prayed that your “LDS lens” would be removed from your eyes. You have seen the research and examined the evidence. You’ve been on this blog a long time. We’ve talked at great length offline on all matters spiritual and biblical. You’ve seen the historical evidence that destroys the claims of Mormonism. You’ve seen the evidence against Joseph Smith and have chosen to believe otherwise for whatever reasons.
I’ve had the JW’s here at my house and have gone to their Kingdom Hall the past 6 months. We’ve talked for hours every week. I have a very large library of Watchtower books and have shown them their written false prophecies going back to 1874. They’ve looked at it, held it in their hands and yes, have even lifted the books to their noses to smell how old these books really are. They have chosen to remain in despite the evidence.
The similarity here is that when the Mormons and JW’s see this, know it and reject it, you have seared your conscience and hardened your heart (1 Tim 4:2). You have rejected the truth that God has given in His Word and are thus now given a spirit of delusion to further believe a lie (2 Thes 2:10-11).
This is not a Trinity discussion, but you are back-peddling on what you said a few months ago. I know you have to. The LDS Church has it wrong and what they tell their people is a lie. I don’t care what Monson says. I care about what the Ante-Nicene Fathers said long before the Council in 325. You’ve read it. Wikipedia means even less to me. Believe me, Wikipedia is no friend of Mormonism and neither are most encyclopedias. Google Wikipedia and request documentation for manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon prior to 1827 or early Church Fathers talking about Mormonism and see what you get: NOTHING. There is nothing historical in manuscript evidence (textual criticism) or otherwise for the claims of Mormonism. Please remove your lens!
Thank you Andy for the excellent posts.
All we have to ask someone who is claiming a miracle is, “Who do you recognize as the one who provided that miracle?” In-other-words, who was the source? We know that the god that Ralph and other Mormons worship and adore is a former human who progressed to godhood and lives with his goddess wives on a planet near the star Kolob. This god is one of many, perhaps millions or billions, of other gods. These are also former men who progressed to become gods and have created their own planets and solar systems. These gods procreate spiritual beings with their countless wives; which by the way they had to have, according to the prophet Joseph Smith, in order to reach the highest level of Mormon heaven.
This god is the one who provided former Mormon prophet Willford Woodruff with an appearance by the dead signers of the Declaration of Independence urging that temple work be done for them. This same Mormon god has been known to provide other manifestations to faithful Mormons including those of dead relatives. This Mormon god provided Joseph Smith with the power of a magic rock to translate long hidden golden plates which were buried. This was the same magic rock that the occultist Smith used to hunt for buried treasure. Smith was led by a spirit being provided by the Mormon god.
So our Mormon friends have attached themselves to a god that is not the god of the Bible. It’s a different god with a different gospel which promises to morph men into gods if they will be faithful to him.
This is the god of Mormonism and this god opposes the God of the Bible, His Christ and His plan of salvation.
Falcon,
whatever.
Andy,
Yes I know others claim miracles and blessings. So what makes a faith true? I have many miracles and blessings in my life and have seen and heard from friends and family about things in their lives. So what separates the true miracles from the false? This can only be determined spiritually. That is why I say that I have a spiritual witness besides all the other evidences I have of my faith.
Yes there are some problems and inconsistencies that can be nitpicked but we are dealing with humans that are imperfect. Only Heavenly Father and Jesus are perfect so they have to use imperfect men to do their work. Thus we teach that the doctrine and gospel is true and perfect, but the people and hence the practice is imperfect. So it does not bother me.
Andy,
I did not back-pedal about the Trinity. I said both times that the doctrine of the Trinity was not created at the Councils in Nicea, but that it was in ideology and belief before. I did say that the doctrine was fully formalated at the Councils in Nicea and officially made doctrine then. Before Nicea there was a group of Christians believing in the Trinity, possibly the majority because of how it became accepted as the mainstream doctrine about God. But there were many other groups that believed differently to the Trinity as well. That was the whole purpose of the Councils in Nicea – to consolidate a doctrine that all could agree to worship and then remove those who did not believe in it.
So while the doctrine of the Trinity was around before the Councils, it was officially formalised and accepted then. That is what the majority of the literature I have read says. That is what I agree on. As far as it being the ONLY and OFFICIAL doctrine of the Christian church, that happened after the Councila in Nicea because that was the purpose of those councils.
My other point was that because of the way this is worded in most books, it appears that this was when the Trinity doctrine was created. This is most likely why people get it wrong.
Ralph
God’s mercy to us, His creation, is evident. Ralph, He has blessed you in certain ways, you’ve experienced that. In God’s economy it’s all for a reason, He wants you to know Him and the truth about Him. It may just be a word or a phrase that someone utters that strikes you different, or it may be a significate episode, where someone talkes to you about Jesus in a way that is somehow different than you expected. This is all designed by God to woo you to Himself.
Janis Hutchinson, for 35 years a dedicated Latter Day Saint had many experiences similar to yours. This is part of her story:
“If God had’nt answered my prayers as a Mormon I wouldn’t be where I am today. He was mindful of me when He began to reveal Himself in quite remarkable ways, the first being that Jesus is indeed the Christ(sometime I’ll have to share that story). He also healed me of tuberculosis….helped me during difficult times,as a widow raising my three children…heard me when I prayed to be led to more truth. He was with me when I was held captive in a small room for nine months by the cult leader of a Mormon offshoot group–and even though I did’nt pray and ask God to help me escape, He spoke audible words to me anyway, saying ‘I shall deliver you’. Then He helped me do just that and brought me into a small Christian church in southern Utah…God’s presence in my life is a living reality to me. Even though many Mormons may not have yet been led out to become full-fledged Christians, God is still mindful of them–especially when they ask for help and guidance.”
So you see Ralph, God is wooing you. He has a plan for you to recognize His grace in your life and by that lead you to Him{1 Jn.5:20]. The danger of not recognizing this is to slowly become what Andy referenced in the two scriptures above[1 Tim 4:2; 2 Thess 2:10,11].
Keep seeking , Ralph, our eyes need to be off of denominations and individuals, They need to be on Jesus. He’ll reveal God to you.
Mike,
Great post, my brother!
Ralph,
It will soon be Thanksgiving Day here in America. I’m not sure if this is recognized in Australia or not, but I’m sure you are familiar with our holiday. I’ve sure got many things to be thankful for as I believe you do too. I could use many posts citing all the things I am thankful for, but I will only state a few.
I am thankful for the gift of life here on this planet so I can fulfill the only reason for me being here: serving Jesus of Nazareth…the one who died for me, paid a sin debt in full that I could not pay by His grace and then gave me the gift of eternal life NOW. After all, the least I can do for all of that out of gratitude is serve, worship and bring glory and honor to the One who deserves it all – Jesus Christ: Alpha & Omega.
I’m not sure about your life experiences, but I’ve stared death “in the face” a few times in my life. After several years in the Army I’m just happy to be here in this country and to be able to wake up and eat breakfast in the morning instead of gunfire/explosions and wondering when or what I am going to eat that day. Life gets real simple. My worst day as a civilian pales in comparison to those days. It’s all a matter of perspective as you know. God was merciful to allow me to live and serve Him in this life and I am thankful for that.
Ralph, I talked with my father today who lives far away. I mentioned him in my post yesterday. I am very thankful for him. After that accident he was in it amazes me how God miraculously restored him and has given him a full life. My Dad was playing games with God up until that point. That event was a turning point in his life and it brought him to the Savior. If he didn’t have the large scars on his skull I wouldn’t have believed the accident ever happened. At 72 he is still brilliant and mentally very sharp. He is a godly man and gives me great counsel when I request or need it. God is good – all the time.
Ralph,
I couldn’t help but to think of your personal situation with the death of your still-born son as I reflected on our own family. I am the oldest of four siblings, but it hasn’t always been that way. There was a daughter before me, but she died very young – an infant. That was 1965 and it is still clear to my folks today as it was back then. I didn’t know her, but I’ve seen her grave at the family cemetery where the marker is. My folks were devastated and it really shook them up in many ways – even spiritually for a brief moment. They trusted God and He did provide and they had four healthy children thereafter. You have suffered that loss as well, but you have been given the gifts of your children now and you are blessed by that. My oldest sister and your son are in heaven with Almighty God. There is strong biblical support for this and that is one thing Joseph Smith did get right was that belief. I think we can agree on that generally speaking, would you agree?
Lastly, I’m thankful that you are here on this blog: Mormon Coffee. I am thankful every time I have the opportunity to discuss spiritual matters with members of the LDS Church. Many will not speak with me nor want to discuss any of these issues. By virtue of you being here and your drawing breath another day, which is a daily gift from God for both of us, we have more time being given to us to dialog. God is longsuffering and patient. It is my prayer that you will be drawn to the Father (John 6:44) and it is also my prayer that He will allow me to be a continued vessel to be used by Him for His purposes in discussing these eternally important issues with people that He loves and wants to come to Him for salvation which is my desire too: the Mormons.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Andy
nobleberean@cox.net
As a Mormon I never use double speak to hide what I believe.
For example, on the topic of the virgin birth of Christ, I have accepted the version that James Talmage put in the notes in “Jesus the Christ”.
I paraphrase here what I remember:
Mary did not have sex with God, but became pregnant through a higher manifestation of natural law. That is how all miracles work. Christ was the genetic son of God, but God never had a physical relationship with Mary.
Now, if you don’t understand the concept, or happen to disagree with my point of view, you will call that statement double speak. If you understand and agree you have no such problem.
GrCluff,
Considering the emotional impact of this doctrine
as coming from Mormon leaders,Brigham Young wisely
opted to not connect all the dots, so to speak.
He left the saints to do that, which was’nt all
that difficult considering how it fits in with
the teaching that God the Father is a man etc.
Those of Young’s inner circle knew what he meant
(Apostle Orson Pratt refered to God being the
“husband” of mary).
I believe it was Talmage who, in the 1890’s, was
used by the First presidency to re-define the
term “celestial marriage”(dropping polygamy from
the definition). No doubt they also welcomed his
take on the Virgin Birth since the Church was
changing and trying to adapt a new image,having
given up polygamy etc.
I guess it comes down to what authority are we
going to trust.Either Mormon prophet Brigham
Young, or holy scripture.
Brigham taught that Jesus was NOT begotten by the
Holy Ghost.
Matthew and Luke taught Jesus was begotten by the
Holy Ghost.
I’ll take Matthew and Luke.
Matt.7:15
Great post, Mike! From a Wesleyan perspective, I call that prevenient grace–the grace that comes before saving grace. It is the wooing stage as God seeks relationship with sinners.
What should bother Mormons but doesn’t is the fact that the teachings and doctrines they adhere to are not true. It has nothing to do with people or practices, but with teachings. I think Ralph is merely trying to rationalize the fact that he believes in nonbiblical teachings, and then accounts for it by saying that people and practices are imperfect. That’s pretty shaky ground to be standing on.
I like Ralph’s question: what makes a faith true? Let’s see: it must be grounded in Truth. How do we test whether a faith is grounded in Truth? Our personal “spiritual” experiences? No. We test it against God’s inerrant Word–the Bible.
No matter how we dice things up intellectually, the argument will always come down to the authority of the Bible. Does one have a high view of God’s Word or not? We just can’t get around it. Feelings, emotions, experiences, are subjective and can’t be trusted. There are false spirits masquerading as angels of Light. I followed such false spirits when I was a Mormon. I am now able to recognize them, and the way I do that is by clinging to the Word of God.
As a Mormon, I used to believe in this “higher law” teaching. It boiled down to God basically commanding us to disobey lower laws to achieve higher laws. This virgin birth debate boils down to that line of thinking. If one reads the comments by the Mormons, it’s easy to see that this is the guiding force of what they post.
“Mary did not have sex with God, but became pregnant through a higher manifestation of natural law. That is how all miracles work. Christ was the genetic son of God, but God never had a physical relationship with Mary.” I think this qualifies as double talk.
Blessings…
Smith’s church HAS changed. It is not longer a church where members believe in their prophets, unless they agree with what they have said. It seems no different than any other man-made religion, for the membership now picks and chooses whatever seems suitable for the individual or the times they live in. This was not the basis for smith’s restoration, it was to be a millennium movement, (over before 1891} and smith once said that Noah was the prophet before the water, he was the prophet before the fire.
Take GRCluff’s comment. He would rather believe James Talmage over Brigham Young. Nothing wrong with that, but Talmage was not a prophet of the church, (and the official spokesman) hence Young’s statements (by smiths own definition) should carry much more weight. After all, the calling of the 12 and the apostles have a pre-requisite to their office, the second comforter, and hence (according to smith) have the mysteries of the kingdom revealed to them because Jesus is supposed to be their constant companion. In Young’s time, he had members of his own quorum of the 12 disagreeing with him, and now you have modern prophets such as Hinckley saying that certain beliefs and statements (like the blacks not holding the priesthood) were only former prophets “interpretation” of scripture. Did not the same Jesus talk to smith, young &and all the way down the line to monson?
Where has the continuing revelation gone then? Seems like it never existed in the first place. Why would the church need to hire PR firms, when they have the constant companionship of God himself to direct them? What does that say about where these men get their revelations from? Maybe their God is too busy to answer their questions, or they had a revelation from God to consult a PR firm.
With smith’s church, almost anything makes sense at this point.
What is the point then, of any mormon going to a general conference of the church? Anything said there is not really scripture, because anything to be accepted as scripture must be voted in by the whole church (the authorities) and bound up in the standard works.
All other comments by all other prophets are pared down to “believe at your own risk”. Since the more modern prophets have discredited many of the former prophets teachings, will future prophets do the same thing to these prophets living now? Since Young changed the Temple Ritual to include his Adam-God Revelation, we can assume from this (and other statements) that it was a Revelation from God. (like his virgin birth teachings) Yet it is not believed by any mormon today (as far as I know). What is the point of a mormon prophet then? Are they just glorified corporation heads?
smith apparently could and would answer any question about anything and knew the answer to everything because God was HIS right-hand man? If modern prophets have been ordained in the same way and have the same keys, powers and calling, why are they strangely silent on doctrinal issues? Why do they lie to the public? smith was proud he was different. so was young. It seems that modern prophets want to cower behind PR firms and use lies and obfuscation to move the church along.
As we gather to give thanks tomorrow I’ll take a moment today to give thanks to God for my Christian brothers and sisters who reach out to our precious LDS friends here on Mormon Coffee. I thank the Lord also for Bill, Aaron, and Sharon for their labor of love. HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
Grindael,
I fully agree with your analysis; the consummate inability of the LDS leadership to explain itself, or even to come to some sort of internal consistency voids any claim it has to be the True Representatives of God.
I mean, if it is their job to convey divine revelation, and they say things like “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it …” (1), then, surely, its the church’s job to sack them and get someone who does know.
This is a double-standard and double-speak of the highest order, and it goes all the way to the top. I don’t have a problem with the possibility that God sends prophets today; however, I’m not going to even consider starting to believe in the LDS prophets until I see the LDS movement believing them and following them.
Do Mormons promote Joseph Smith as God’s anointed prophet, seer and revelator? Yes.
Do Mormons actually believe their prophet, seer and revelator? No.
Or, rather, they want to believe him, but only as far as he affirms their preconceptions and predispositions. Heaven forbid that he would call them to do something radical and distinctive like, for example, get married to at least four wives as a precondition on their exaltation.
Its odd; The God of the Bible calls Abraham out of Ur, but the god(s) of Mormonism call people to stay exactly where they are. The God of the Bible humbles Himself to serve the Church, but the god(s) of Mormonism are subjugated by the “church’s” domination.
(1)Gordon B Hinkley, responding to Richard Ostling’s question, asking if Mormons believe that God was once a man, TIME Magazine, August 4, 1997, page 56.
Is ‘intelligent design’ double speak for ‘creationism’? Some christians attempted to use that terminology to get creationism into textbooks.
Unfortunatelty (IMO) the two terms have become synonymous.
As I understand it, Professor (?) Behe’s original thesis (referring to microbiology) was something like “if it looks like it has been designed, then it probably is”.
But, you can’t leave the thesis there. You have to then ask “who or what designed it?”, which is the point where you enter the “religious” domain. This is where you get everyone and his dog, including the 6 day creationists, claiming that territory as his own.
So, you go very quickly from a valid, but profound (IMO) question, to issues like “why don’t you believe the bible/why don’t you support my church/how can you support gay marriage”.
The “scientific community”, with some justification, considers that these issues should not be on the agenda when it comes to exploring the origins of life.
Personally, I have some sympathy for “both” sides (if there are sides). On the one hand, the scientific community does not want to be drawn on issues that it considers to do with personal faith issues and preferences. It would rather narrow its focus on verifiable data, from which we build this thing called knowledge. There’s merit in adopting the view of a “neutral observer”.
On the other hand, the “faith community” rightly points out that we tend to shape our “knowledge” to suit our personal preferences.
So, what happens when some verifiable data is presented that destroys the scientists’ illusion of neutrality? At least the “faith community” does not pretend to be neutral and, in the case of ID, the “scientific community” has exhibited some very un-neutral behavior.
Which is a long way of saying that I’m fairly undecided on this particular issue, but the dynamics between these two communities follows a fairly predictable path. Both communities believe that their positions are self-evident, but both are also influenced, to greater and lesser degrees, by the promotion of self-interest.
test