Prophet-Preferred Prophet-Test
On November 1, 1831 Joseph Smith convened a conference of ten Mormon elders. The agenda for the meeting was to make decisions regarding the publication of Joseph’s revelations. According to an article in Mormon Times,
“Joseph said that since the Lord had given the great blessing of so many revelations, the elders should decide what testimony they were willing to attach to the book. After several present arose and said they were willing to testify to the world, Joseph prepared a statement for the witnesses to sign. The contemporaneous minutes described it as a revelation.”
However, some of the “potential witnesses” had doubts about some of the revelations. They were not prepared to testify to the truthfulness of Joseph’s revelations until God confirmed it. Before they would sign their names, they wanted a spiritual witness similar to that which had been reported by the Book of Mormon witnesses. “The conference was deadlocked.”
But then Joseph received a revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 67). Mormon Times reports,
“The Lord gave a challenge for the elders to choose the ‘least’ of Joseph’s revelations and then choose the ‘most wise among you’ to see if he can write a similar one. If he could, then their reticence over the language was justified. If not, ‘ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true’”
Nobody was able to write a revelation on par with Joseph’s, so five elders (and later thirteen others) signed their names to the document, which read in part,
“We, the undersigners, feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the Earth and upon the islands of the sea, that God hath borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments are given by inspiration of God and are profitable for all men and are verily true.”
I don’t know in what manner the latter thirteen men believed God bore witness to them about the Book of Commandments, but for the initial five, it was under fascinating circumstances.
The men had doubts about some of Joseph’s revelations; nevertheless, when Joseph claimed that God, via another revelation, was granting them a test whereby they could know if Joseph’s revelations were true, they accepted it. The test was highly subjective at best. Could anyone write a revelation like Joseph? For whatever reason–whether because of scruples over falsely claiming to speak for God, or a lack of creative writing skills, or a biased judgment of the results–that group of men couldn’t do it. Hence, the only possible conclusion was that Joseph’s revelations were true. Is this really a sound test of a prophet?
Joseph was not the first man to use this argument to “prove” his position. Muhammad did the same thing.
“While Muslim apologists today tend to focus on supposed scientific evidence for Islam, Muhammad offered a very different argument. The central argument of the Qur’an may be called the ‘Argument from Literary Excellence,’ which claims that the Qur’an is so masterfully written, so brilliant and awe-inspiring in every detail, it could only have come from God. We find the basic reasoning in Surah (Chapter) 2:23-24. It reads:
“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers. (Qur’an 2:23-24)
“According to many Muslims, no one has ever been able to meet this challenge, and the Qur’an must therefore be from God.” (David Wood, Is The Qur’an a Literary Miracle?)
Are you convinced?
The question has been asked, if the Book of Commandments was true, why did it require such extensive revision just two years later (for its publication as Doctrine and Covenants)? Maybe these revisions are part of the reason why, despite the testimony that God bore record to their souls, at least eight of the Book of Commandment witnesses later abandoned the church that is built on Joseph Smith’s revelations.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Comments (110)
I believe it’s the “Temple Lot” sect of Mormonism that won’t accept anything from Joseph Smith beyond the original Book of Commandments. They see him as having thrown a rod and gone off into apostasy, a fallen prophet. He gives them every indication to believe this since his gross immoral behavior, lies, megalomania, and occult practices nullify his claims as a prophet.
Here are some prophetic errors that we can apply to Joseph Smith and Mormonism:
1. Lack of accountability for prophecies that do not come true or bear witness to the person receiving the ministry. Deuteronomy 13:1, Deuteronomy 18:22
2.The attempt to establish doctrine or practice by revelation alone, a part from clear Biblical support.
3. Dogmatic assertions in delivery of prophetic words.
4. The use of “prophesy” for controlling purposes.
5. Manifesting an attitude of superiority through the possession of a secret body of information (wearing a garment of pride).
Christians have a respect for and a high standard for prophecy based on the Biblical text; First Thessalonians 5:20, First Corinthians 14:39, Colossians 2:18
The standard for prophets and prophesy in Mormonism is so low that just about anything a leader says qualifies until a latter leader says something else and then it’s all attributed to having received more “knowledge and light”. The endless redos in Mormonism gets to the heart of the problem which is the Mormon prophets have no integrity.
It would have been interesting to find out how the names of these guys were discovered. However, that in and of itself may have revealed too much information about how and where some of this historical evidence is.
Here is one prophecy of smith’s that is interesting, I leave if for all of you to decide if he really was a prophet:
“And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that NOT MANY YEARS shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable FOR EVERY WORD I SAY, wishing nothing worse to my fellow-men than their eternal salvation; therefore, “Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are THOSE NOW LIVING upon the earth WHOSE EYES SHALL NOT BE CLOSED IN DEATH until they see ALL THESE THINGS, which I have spoken, fulfilled.” (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316).
Was the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country prepared? I must have missed it.
Falcon,
It makes me wonder why the Temple lot sect is still in existence. Its one of the smaller branches of the J.S. restoration theology organizations. There must be a reason why its so small, it seems contractory to believe some of the story,and reject most of the rest. That they own the temple lot has been a problem for the LDS movement in general. One branch has the lot, the other has the money, power and influence…except for the temple lot. There are prophecies concerning that which remains to be fulfilled if ever.
A better test might be if you have ever found other works which are more beautiful, inspiring, reguardless if you have written them or not. There is something ’stopping’ in the idea of trying to create something to be better than someone elses as a competition, or to prove something.
I think chief seattle out did Joseph. A lot of people find inspiration in his speech of 1854. This weekend I met a guy who claimed to related to chief seattle. So I looked up information. Its interesting,because this guy also claimed to be attacked and left for dead, and to be revived by the touch of god, who told him his name was jesus. His personal belief combines traditional native american belief, and some aspects of the christian faith. I didn’t understand it, but just listened.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html
Enki,
There’s an interesting comparison of the beliefs of the Community of Christ, Temple Lot (Church of Christ), and the SLC LDS. I have a chart here I ran across on the internet doing a search. Joseph Smith’s son headed-up what came to be known as the Community of Christ. They are quite traditional (Christian) in most of their basic doctrines. Speaking of copyrights, who do you think owns the copyright to the Joseph Smith “translation” of the King James Version of the Bible.
Look here’s the bottom line, the SLC bunch really doesn’t want their folks poking around in anything that might “reveal” the truth of Mormonism. When someone has bought something emotionally, they’ll do whatever they can to rationalize their continued faith. The reality pill just gets too big for many Mormons to swallow. It was the same back in Smith’s day right before he got shot. It’s really too bad he did get shot. The religion would never have survived had he lived.
Falcon,
I agree, the LDS people couldn’t be able to view him as a ‘martyr’. In addition there would be that much more revelations and prophecy etc. to examine. Who knows what direction the church would have taken, had this not happened.
Yes, I found that strange even when I was active in the SLC. I remember some more fanatical members that did research on doctrinal statements made by previous presidents in the journal of discourses. I remember that not was not a welcome thing to do, especially not to present it as doctrine, or to provide additional light on current practices. Others were always quick to state that these were not cannonized scripture. I found that strange, because most members considered current statements made in general conferences as modern revelation because it was spoken by a particular authority.
I understand the J.S. translation copyright is held by the RLDS church, which is now Community of Christ. Didn’t the government divide up various copyrights,and various properties?
The weirdest part is the accusation that members make is that apostates only point out doctrinal or historical problems as a way to cover up sins. Or that other people are just being critical and prejudiced against the LDS people. Maybe, but not in the way that they think. They also claim that people won’t be happy, and will continually ‘kick against the pricks’ once they start to criticize the church, spending their life doing something worthless, or even helping to inadvertently advance the cause of the LDS faith.
Writing ability does not make one a prophet. And frankly, even if that were the standard, the Book of Mormon would not qualify. It amazes me that folks would just accept this as a standard for truth:
And it came to pass that many tellers of tales did go forth on the face of the earth, bringing forth an abundance of histories of imagination that did spring forth from within their own hearts. And it came to pass that tales that verily did surpass the tale which Joseph Smith did write. And it came to pass that these writers did go forth with fiction which did surpass greatly the dung which came forth from false deceivers who brought forth lies of abundance so as to deceive even the elect. Receiving the better portion, so as not to deceive, these writers did tell tales to inspire rather than deceive as Joseph Smith and Muhammad did of old. And it came to pass that…
That’s my shot at it -
There is no testing of prophets or prophesy in the Mormon church. Once someone has accepted Mormonism as true, the questioning stops. At that point, everything the leaders say, is true. However there’s the “old guy” clause in Mormonism. That means, of course, that anything an old dead guy said can be flipped by the current live old guy. Mormonism is a religion of transitions. That is, it changes and the changes are seen as the revelation of more knowledge, wisdom and light. It’s perfect because errors aren’t errors, there’s just new information. What a deal!
Now contrast that with Biblical Christianity. We’re taught to question everything when it comes to the prophetic. People who don’t are in violation of the Biblical principle and are vulnerable to being duped. First Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 gives instructions on the use of spiritual gifts. In fact the apostle Paul says in First Corinthians 14:1 “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy…..one who prophesies speaks to men for edification, and exhortation and consolation…..Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.”
First Corinthians 14:29 says “And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” It would seem to me that in the example given in the article above, the other men didn’t do their job in judging Joseph Smith’s prophetic utterances. Smith was a rogue prophet who needed to be called out and silenced. However these men let him bully and bluff them.
Without exercising the authority to judge and call “prophets” into account, people end-up with false prophesies by men who truly do not have the Spirit of Christ.
Verily, verily I say unto you that unless thou havest a copy of the King James Bible handy thou may notest prophesyeth like unto Joseph Smith, Jun. For he taketh many plain and precious truths and stringeth them together in a nonsencical plethora of words. And behold a great light is coming into the world. The field is white for the harvest and if you knock the door will be opened. For the internet and the Bible and many precious books have been written exposing the fool for what he is.
Enki: I posted this monday on the previous thread, in response to your questions regarding copyright. I wonder if you saw it? It seemed to address a question…
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Mormon
It’s really kind of funny, if it we’re not so tragic. Joseph Smith challenging his home-boys to a prophesy smack down. This guy was a manipulator and conniver of the first order. He knew how to dominate his underlings and they wouldn’t stand up to him. He had insights into human nature about how to play the big con. Were any of these guys going to stand-up to him? I don’t think so! When at least one of the people in Nauvoo said, “enough”, he had violence committed against him. This is what happens when people follow a man instead of following God. Mormons have elevated Joseph Smith to the stature of a man who was intimately connected with the Almighty. He was, in effect, a very clever individual who knew how to play the psychological manipulation game. It’s interesting, Grant Palmer reports that every time Smith got into trouble, his “first vision” story grew in detail and stature. Mormons who find out the history of Smith and the early Mormon church come to a decision point. It’s all a matter of how much Kool Aid a person is willing to swallow.
What is done in nearly every cult is the simple tactic of blame shifting. smith was an expert at this. If you can’t see the angel and the plates, the fault is yours. If you don’t understand the revelations, the fault is yours. If someone made an accusation against me, they are haters. They are jealous. They are covetous. If one of my prophecies doesn’t come true, you were unworthy, the fault was yours. If the ten tribes (where are they hiding ‘in the north’ anyway) do not return and a temple built in this generation, the fault is yours. Even though god himself told me it would happen, if it does not, the fault is yours.
You (who are not of us, who have left us)can’t interpret the revelations correctly, the fault is yours. You don’t understand our doctrines. The fault is yours.
When DO the smithians take responsibility and hold smith accountable for the conniver he was? When will they stand up and say, yeah that was just plain wrong, incorrect, false, and move on? smith laid down the rules of the con-game almost 200 years ago, and they are still being followed. Don’t you FEEL it? If you don’t…hey it’s YOUR fault…don’t you know that?
Here is an interesting quote by another self-proclaimed Prophet, you may find interesting: The parallels to smith are startling:
“Let me get something settled cause you’re gonna hear all kinds of stories about me. Yes. As an Adventist I did fall. She was the most prettiest girl you ever saw. And when she came to that church and got up there, and she sang that song, and she looked at me – right dead at me. And I went to feeling those feelings. I didn’t know anything about the word of God yet. But I knew that she was wearing that dress. She looked like a banana that’s fixing to pop out of the skin. And I said, “I don’t want that.” But I was deceived anyway – cause I heard specifically that she wasn’t gonna be at her fathers house. And her father was the minister. So now you know the story. And ever since then I’m just a devil. Well OK. I’m a devil who knows a little bit more about the Bible then anybody else does.” –David Koresh
no LDS here yet?
liv4jc and mobaby, you crack me up! have you ever seen this: http://www.bookofzelph.com/
?
I seriously cry every time I read it
setfree,
One of my all time favorite websites. It is beyond clever and funny.
grindael,
I’ve come as close to ever to jumping up and shouting alleluia to your post above about blame shifting. Excellent work.
I think one of the toughest things/hooks for Mormons to overcome is this idea that they have and are hearing from God. This is powerful stuff and extremely tough to get past because it makes the person feel so special and connected. I’ve been thinking about writing more about this but quite frankly, I don’t think many Mormons have the spiritual ears with which to hear what I’d say.
Most of you know I got saved during the Jesus movement of the very early 70s; which was also a time of the charasmatic renewal in many mainline denominational churches. It’s taken me literally years to sort through pentecostalism especially the “hearing from God” aspect of having a personal relationship with Christ. I’ve had to discard many things on the road to developing a deeper understanding of God’s personal revelation along with the proper use of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Not to go too deeply, but the bottom line is, of course, “voices” come from lots of different sources; many right out of people’s own imaginations. However, “it” can sound very compelling and convincing. Mormons need to take a careful look first of all at who they call “God”. I would ask, “Are you getting your revelations from a god who progressed from his status as a man?” Quite frankly, that’s all I have to know to dismiss Mormonism and Joseph Smith.
The more difficult “prophets” to deal with are those who claim the basic doctrines as orthodox Christianity but who obviously are not hearing from God (even though they think and claim to be).
I have had 30 years to contemplate my removal from smith’s (so obvious to me now) fraudulent claims to prophetic insight.
The problem I see most of those who follow in the train of his ruin having, is that they refuse to look at the abundant evidence that unmasks him for what he was: a very shrewd, invent as you go along leader of a dangerous cult.
There is plenty of black and white evidence to discredit him, but those that believe in him always try to explain it away with the most trivial of excuses. I made two videos that I have posted on You Tube, one on the first vision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPooi2Kfx7o and one one the Kinderhook Plates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeLlOLswyuQ
The comments smithians have made about them are revealing. They will take as scripture some things that William Clayton wrote down for smith, but that he conveyed to him the Kinderhook plates were authentic, they do a complete 180 and say William Clayton was not close to smith at all, that he wrote down hearsay, any excuse to shift the truth from what it was: that smith was fooled by them, and badly.
This is the MO of the smithian church, and they have brainwashed the members to pay no heed to facts, (we Christians have some evil agenda so can’t be trusted to get it right) to question any source that does not come directly from SLC or authorized sources.
When they do look at the facts in their true light, they leave the church. I say this to all the smithians, try on the hat of common sense, and listen to what it tells you. smith saw God in 1820 but later wrote that no one could see God without the priesthood. There are too many to mention. They grasp at straws when it comes to proving the BOM. The devices they have nowadays to look in the earth should have uncovered massive evidence at Cumorah, but nada, nothing, zip. What does common sense tell you? In 1835 he said God is a Spirit, in 1843 he is an exalted man. All I can do is shake my head and pray for them.
The full quote from D&C 67:5-8 says
(bold mine)
The text in bold is one thing to keep in mind. They knew JS and knew that he was not very literate or word knowledgeable, as testified by his wife Emma and others. So part of the ‘deal’ was for their best/wisest to write something similar to what JS wrote in comparison to their knowledge/literacy.
Now who was to be the judge? ALL the men in the room, INCLUDING the doubters – EXCEPT JS. What does the above article say – ”Nobody was able to write a revelation on par with Joseph’s…”
From this it appears that they all tried, not just their wisest. It also states that all the men there, including the doubters decided that no one could match what JS had written. They were the judges of the work that whoever tried to write wrote, not JS. So it was their decision, not JS’s that even the wisest amongst them could not write up to par with JS.
What their criteria were and how they judged the writings I don’t know because I wasn’t there. What ‘stopped’ them from writing on par with JS I don’t know either. But from all the information given they decided without JS and they went ahead with endorsing it – indicating that they did decide for themselves it was true.
This has got to be the wackiest “revelation” I have ever heard. If God is sending down angels to confirm the BOM, confer the “priesthood”, baptize people, etc. Why in the world would He tell a bunch of men to write a book of commandments and compare it with smiths and if you can’t then smith’s must be true?
I am also tired of hearing how illiterate smith was. He was a bad speller, but he did not lack intelligence, he had whole portions of the Bible memorized. He was an expert at manipulating people – and conning them out of their money, time and resources.
He took characters from the Detroit manuscript,
(found by a partner of smith’s father-in-law) said they were from the BOM and gave them to Harris to take to Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill at Columbia. He knew Mitchill had pages from the Detroit Manuscript in his possession, knew they were (at that time) an enigma, and would therefore (smith hoped) look at the “caractors” Harris had and see a resemblance. This, (smith hoped) would be enough to convince Harris smith was a prophet and he would finance the BOM. Mitchill sent Harris to Charles Anthon, and ultimately Harris wound up doing what smith wanted, giving him (smith) money. For an excellent article on this go here: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm
This MO was repeated by smith with the Egyptian papyrus and the Kinderhook plates. That many of the men who were duped by this wacky revelation
left smith is not surprising. He had problems keeping counselors and apostles throughout his life.
smith couldn’t even keep his own ‘revelations’ intact, he made so many changes to the book of commandments that it boggles the mind that anyone could believe that this man was a prophet.
Again, apply common sense here folks. It just doesn’t work.
Ward,
Yes I saw it, thank you for the link. It does address most of the questions I had. Thank you for taking the effort to find it.
Setfree,
That site really is a difficult blow to mormons thats for sure. It seems unkind, but there are difficult issues its pointing out. I honestly don’t ever recall any ‘zelph’ in sunday school, seminary or any other church gathering.
The sadest part to me is having native american ancestry, and being involved in the LDS faith. I met a number of native american LDS people. My mother played this vinyl record, “Lamanite generation” I used to think of it as being so supportive and happy, as the music was honestly lively and uplifting.
However, all my life I noticed that many LDS church members weren’t really culturally aware or sensitive to real native americans. But only to made up stories about native americans. I understand that the BOM is generally appealing to people in South America on the basis that its ‘positive’ about native americans.
But I often found it difficult and often insulting to be referred to as “Lamanite”. I never recall anyone referring to native americans as ‘Nephites’. On two accounts, nephites were really supposed to be a white race, and they went extinct. Laman and lemuel were accused of being slothful and indulgent, they weren’t busy bodies like the Nephites, and the worker bees. I think this is a cultural misrepresentation of some tribal customs such as potlatching.
Ralph,
I started reading a book about drawing. “Anatomy and perspective”. Its amazing that drawing can be so simple or very complex. It does comment about the creative process and being authentic to yourself, experience and style.
“It is useless to imitate the style of the great draughtsmen-to try to draw with the fluency of Raphael or Degas; such drawing is born of rare talent, profound study and observation, and constant practice. Much better to do a less spectacular study, but one which represents first-hand observation.”
I personally have tried to imitate the ’smoky’ style of Leonardo da vinci. I have a pretty good imitation of the mona lisa in my note book, but only in pencil. Most people might not be impressed, because its already been done. I envisioned doing my own original work in his style, but I found that very ’stopping’ in the creative style. It was from a different time period, and from another person.
Taking the challenge to make a Chapter like whats in the Koran, or the book of commandments has some similiar properties. The writer immediately has a picture in his/her mind of writing something that sounds like either. The person may be a good writer, and write something better when the pressure is off, and when it comes from personal experience. Its unfair for Joseph or Muhammad to suggest this test after their work is already finished. Do you care to make a better painting than Leonardo Da Vinci? What happens to your creative process when its approached this way?
I think that we should also bring into focus some of Joseph Smith’s other “revelations”. There’s an account written by apostle Orson F. Whitney in 1888. He was the editor of Heber Kimball’s diaries and also his biographer. When this was first published, polygamy was being practice by the LDS church members.
Before he would trust even Heber with the full secret, however, he put him to a test which few men would have been able to bear.”
What was this test. Well it seems that the prophet was requiring Heber to surrender his wife to him. What a guy. What a prophet. What a gross manipulator.
“The astounding revelation well-nighy paralyzed him. He could hardly believe he had heard aright. Yet Joseph was solemnly in earnest. His next impulse was to spurn the proposition and perhaps at that terrible moment a vague suspicion of the Prophet’s motive and the divinity of the revelation, shot like a poisoned arrow through his soul……
“Three days he fasted and wept and prayed. Then, with a broken and a bleeding heart, but with soul self-mastered for the sacrifice, he led his darling wife to the Prophet’s house and presented her to Joseph.”
Well Joseph wept at this proof of devotion and told Heber that he didn’t have to go through with it; this was all the Lord required.
Bottom line here, what does this situation tell us about the thinking process of Heber in passing the test? He was willing to sacrifice his wife to Joseph Smith. Is this warped thinking or what? Heber may have thought he passed the “test” but he really didn’t pass the important test. Smith’s asking really gets to this “prophet’s” depravity.
Falcon,
Abraham was tested by the hebrew god to sacrifice his only son to him. You know the story and how to find it. The only difference is that one test is coming from god, and the other through a person. From a mormon perspective it was from god through their ‘prophet’. It was something unexpected, as I understand many early LDS converts came from puritan backgrounds, a surprising number from John Lathrop himself. This includes several LDS presidents.
I’ve presented this video before on other occations. These Inuit christian ministers suggest taking communion. However, its really a test, eat organs of animals which are forbidden. Its really a deprograming ritual. It is intentionally jarring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDVqpxxkUM
If you are already a christian, this probably doesn’t seem like much of a test, after all its bringing these people to the truth.
To make this real, I will post a ritual which dedicates your soul to satan. Does that make you uncomfortable? Eating forbidden organs, and abandoning so many aspects of Inuit culture was probably as big a test to them, as many people here to dedicate to satan.
Write the following prayer:
Before the almighty and ineffable God Satan/Lucifer and in the presence of all Demons of Hell, who are the True and the Original gods, I, (state your full name) renounce any and all past allegiances. I renounce the false Judeo/Christian god Jehova, I renounce his vile and worthless son Jesus Christ, I renounce his foul, odious, and rotten holy spirit.
I proclaim Satan Lucifer as my one and only God. I promise to recognize and honor him in all things, without reservation, desiring in return, his manifold assistance in the successful completion of my endeavors.
It is important to bathe before any rituals you perform, this is done out of respect. When you are ready, you can light the candle. Take the needle, prick the index finger of your left hand, squeeze some blood out.
Sign your name in blood.
Recite the prayer either aloud or in your head
Fold the paper and let it burn in the fire of the candle. Many of us have stayed and meditated until the candle had burned itself out.
At the end of the ritual, close with the words “So mote it be.” And a Big “HAIL SATAN!!”
Does that make anyone uncomfortable? This is probably what it was like to do the christian ritual for these inuit people.
Ralph, I have read large portions of the D&C over the years and I am not impressed. As I sarcastically posted above, Joseph Smith, Jun. inserted many portions of Biblical texts into his revelations and probably had many hours alone to conduct such writing. JS lived in a different world where the pace of life was much slower; no television, radio, telephones, etc. to distract him from reading and memorizing the Bible, which was the book many people used to learn how to read. It was the one book most families owned, and many of our common cliche’s that have been passed down have Biblical origins. We also haver personal testimonies the the Smith’s were not the most industrious people in the county, often choosing treasure-seeking over back-breaking to try to make ends meet.
The over-arching theme I see in the D&C is spiritual coercion: Unless this person or that does such and such they will be either blessed or cursed by God. People of all ages have been gullible to the charismatic imposter, not willing to believe that anyone would be so bold as to lie in the name of God. The instances are too numerous to list, but I rememember bringing certain instances to my less-than-interested wife, and laughing at the utter stupidity of JS or going on an irritated tirade about how JS manipulated people to give him money, build him a house/hotel, etc. Men of God don’t act with such dishonesty.
Enki,
I would say that using the example of Abraham being commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac would be perfect for a false prophet to demand all sorts of things (tests) from his followers. My experience here on MC is that Mormons try to find something in the Bible to justify the most egregious actions on the part of Smith. That’s a fairly typical cult reasoning tactic. David Koresh commanded his number one leader to surrender his wife and the guy did it and Koresh impregnated her. It was a loyalty test but also a way for Koresh to satisfy his own lust.
Mormons are conditioned to believe and do what the leaders demand/command. It’s because they have bought the false notion that the leaders hear from and speak on behalf of God. The leadership knows that once people start questioning and holding them to account it’s over for that follower. The person must either be bullied into submitting or leave the group. That’s why excommunication is such an effective tool. It’s the old, “submit or lose everything” scenario. If the person is no longer “hooked” and doesn’t care the game is over.
Enki,
An LDS girl I once knew told me she was having “bad feelings” about what I was going to be doing that night. This was a normal thing for me to accept, as a Mormon, that someone else may have God speak to them about/for me. However, what did happen that night was that I did my homework, and she slept with her boyfriend for the first time.
Part of what I know now, and love about Christianity, is that it’s personal between you and God. You may have what He is already telling you confirmed to you by different godly people in your life. (For example, you have been thinking that you have a lot of clothes you never use, and one day feel like donating them, and that same day have someone tell you about a charity drive). But the LDS church takes a position BETWEEN you and God, and assumes the role of telling you what to do and also judging your worthiness.
I don’t know why so many people want a go-between, but I suspect that 1) they don’t know enough about God and are afraid of Him and/or 2) this is what they’ve always known, and they don’t want to make waves, for themselves or anyone else.
What brought all this up is what you said about Abraham. Yes, God had Abraham do something, and like so many other things in the OT, it was to point to Him and the Salvation He would be bringing about through Jesus.
God has, and shouldn’t He have?, absolute rights over us, as our creator. But when men like Joseph Smith try to usurp that kind of power… well, I just think it shows who they are trying to be…
Setfree,
I see the “go-between” existing in non-LDS Christianity as it does not allow for people to receive their own personal revelation on truth and whether the Bible/BOM and prophets are true. Instead, they are to rely upon the interpretations of others and the work of science and tradition. The LDS church places nothing between man and God in this arena. It is all between the individual and the Almighty from our perspective. Revelation is the foundation for all true religion.
lots of different Ideas. My appology for being over the top if I have been.
Enki,
Thanks for writing about Abraham, I was thinking of doing that as well but since you already have I don’t need to. But I would add that the Bible teaches that we need to give up everything, including our families if needs be, for God and His Kingdom here on this earth. If (and I am saying ‘if’ for those few non-LDS here) JS was a true prophet of God, then if he asked for someone to divorce their wife and give her to him because that is what God wants, that person should do it.
Falcon,
The big difference in the cases between JS and David Koresh is that JS did nothing with his friend’s wife. JS stated that it was a test and that his friend did not have to give his wife to JS – whereas, as you said, David Koresh had his way with his friend’s wife. And before you bring up the other women JS was sealed to that were married to other men, there is no evidence of any physical interaction between JS and these women so if you imply any differently it is just your opinion until some hard evidence is found.
Setfree,
We teach that a person only receives revelation for the things they have jurisdiction over. Ie a parent over their children; a bishop over the ward functions – not individual family functioning; the prophet over the church functions; etc. Your friend had no jurisdiction over you so they would not have had any revelation for what you were doing, but she would have had it for what she was doing. Maybe she was projecting onto you because she knew she was going to do the wrong thing.
Again we see the twisting of what true Christians believe in this statement by Olsen: “as it [Christianity} does not allow for people to receive their own personal revelation on truth.”
This statement could not be more false, for we have the Spirit of Truth as revealed by Jesus in John 16:
12″I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”
What Christians DON’T believe is that men like smith and the current “prophets” of his church are reliable ’spokesmen’ for God. We believe that no one can get in between us and Jesus. The Spirit of Truth leads us and guides us to all Truth. Jesus gave us the answer, believe in me. Smithians ‘Truth’ is superseded by men, they have the ultimate word in your life. Christians ultimate word is Jesus. The Spirit of Truth led me out of smiths cult, and his trivial mind games of scripture writing. Smithians can say there is nothing between them and God, but we all know this is not the case.
The point of my first post was who were the judges and how did they judge if what was written compared to JS’s revelations.
The judges were all the men in the room except JS and including the ones who doubted him. If they were the judges then how can anyone argue with them if they decided that no one could write up to par with JS? Especially from the quotes above it appears that more than one person tried to write and all present agreed that no ones’ writings were up to par.
What were their criteria for judging? I don’t know. Enki, I know that no one can really copy the exact style of another person, but in this case we do not know if that was one of their criteria. All we know is that the task was about writing something that looked like it could be revelation from God. How can anyone judge this? They would have to have their own criteria for it as we all look at things differently.
Ralph,
I agree that the girl was “projecting” her negative feelings about what she was considering doing onto me. My point was that, Mormonism being as unclear and subjective as it is, she felt righteous in her interpretation of her feelings. I absolutely agree with Falcon that JESUS IS MY MEDIATOR, the ONE AND ONLY GO-BETWEEN between me and God, while Mormonism, Catholicism and other “religions” put men in the middle, men who want to usurp Jesus’ authority.
Olsen,
I would argue that Christians believe in continuous revelation more than Mormons do. Christians believe that God is always revealing things to them personally, things that are consistent with what He has already revealed, just in stronger and deeper ways so that their “heart-knowledge” is increased. Mormons believe that new revelation that doesn’t agree with what God already revealed now comes down through Joseph Smith, and whatever subsequent prophet messes around with what Joseph did, and gets away with it!
Setfree and grindael,
It is easy to demonstrate my point.
All I have to do is ask you how you know for yourself that the Bible is true.
The response is invariably a combination of “testing” the scriptures (against exactly what is unclear if the whole question is whether the Bible is true), an observation about a high percentage of agreement among surviving manuscripts, statements about the Bible saying it is “God breathed.” In my experience the Holy Ghost is an adjunct and accessory in this equation, but He is not the primary source of truth.
In our religion, revelation has not changed since the days of Adam. It is personal and real. It is available for every sincere truth seeker. In my opinion, your criteria for determining what is “God breathed” does not stand if evaluated objectively or with any amount of reason.
How did non-prophets know that a prophet was a true prophet before the scriptures were compiled? Do you khow few people in earth’s history would have any possible way of knowing who was a prophet if what you are saying is true?
Setfree- I don’t think I understand your statement: “Christians believe that God is always revealing things to them personally, things that are consistent with what He has already revealed, just in stronger and deeper ways so that their “heart-knowledge” is increased.”
Do you see the phrase “consistent with what He has already revealed?” How do you know what He has “already revealed?” That is my point. You cannot simply say “the Bible.” This is extraordinarily circular.
If your criteria were true, prophets like Moses and Abraham would not have been considered prophets. They both functioned from revelations that stood on their own- direct communications from God. Was the Law of Moses “consistent with what God had already revealed?” Nope. Was Abraham’s command to slay Isaac? Nope.
Olsen:
What you are missing is the basis upon which a prophet is judged to be a prophet. Could you please elaborate on the post above where smith says that all must flee to Zion, (Missouri) where the ten tribes would join the saints before the coming ‘apocalypse’ that smith predicted would happen before those that were still living in his time had died.
As far as I can tell, they are all dead, and smith’s prediction failed. It is cut and dry, black and white, from your own church history. What is different about smith, young and those that followed is the false belief system they follow. The life of smith attests to his lack of any prophetic gift. He is the hinge that opens the gate to your whole belief system, and he fails miserably. Therefore, ALL of it must be thrown out as false.
How can a prophet teach God was a spirit in 1835 and then he is an exalted man in 1843? That is also in your own writings. A prophet that claimed to have SEEN God? What he could not remember from one year to the next? You accept blindly smith’s faults, and try to explain away all the inconsistencies. Blind faith in a man.
We are skeptical, because Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the other apostles TOLD us to be. They said men like smith would come, that false prophets would try to deceive us. That is why God in his wisdom gave us the Bible. We not only judge smith by it, but EVERYONE, Koresh, Benny Hinn, and all the Pulpit Pimps active today.
The gospel is simple, it is only men who make it complicated with beliefs and rituals not necessary to have a relationship with our creator. If or when a true prophet comes along, I guarantee you he will be nothing like smith.
Ralph and Olson Jim, besides the fact that the revelations in the D&C are patently spiritual coercion to get men to give smith money, property, adulation, women, etc., they are also…I want to say “stupid” and at times “hilarious”, but that is subjective…So I’ll piggyback on Grindael. There is a reason why God gave Israel the standards in Deuteronomy 13 and 18. Any fool can say that God told them something, but if that something contradicts the revelation about who God is, or a predicted future event does not come true, then the person is a false prophet. As has been pointed out on too many occasions to list, ol’ smitty failed both tests numerous times. God’s name is not Elohim, Jesus is not Jehovah of the OT (well He kind of is because He is YHWY as much as the Father is, but not in the modalist sense the BoM points to), and the Holy Ghost is not a separate God (when is he supposed to get a body so he can go throug the Smithian crucible, anyway?). Why didn’t the Civil War (if smith predicted it) bring about worldwide famine and pestilence and the return of the Messiah? The Mormon’s got their butts kicked out of Illinois and the United States did not get broken into potsherds. Where is the parchment that says that John is still alive (D&C 7)? How did it get to America? These are fools playing Ouja board games. Why didn’t smith use his own words instead of stealing pieces of scripture from the Bible in his revelations? To anyone versed in the scriptures they are just a bunch of nonsensical disjointed statements made to sound spiritual because they quote the Bible. I truly find it hard to believe that men as well spoken and intelligent as you two could read such drivel and believe it. It’s truly disapointing that I work with LDS police officers, lawyers, and judges every day who make rational decisions in every other area of their lives, and based upon physical evidence and circumstances put people in jail, but can’t see smith for the fraud that he obviously was.
Setfree and Grindael,
Wow! You covered a lot of real estate and things you don’t like about Joseph Smith and others. You are free to believe what you will about Joseph Smith and everybody else.
But my question was simple- how do you know the Bible is what it claims to be? How did those people who did not have access to the compiled scriptures know when a prophet was true? How did they know the standards given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18 were true? How did Abraham know it wasn’t a “false spirit” that gave him instructions to slay Isaac?
These are fundamental questions that you apparently cannot answer.
Again, in rejecting Joseph Smith, you rely 100% upon perceived physical evidences and proofs. You base such rejection on criteria whose foundation you cannot rationally establish. How do you know those criteria are true? How did the ancient Israelites know the criteria were true? Ultimately, you are taking somebody else’s word for it. You do not relying on revelation, but tradition and the words of others.
Grindael- you said “We are skeptical, because Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the other apostles TOLD us to be. They said men like smith would come, that false prophets would try to deceive us.” Perfect demonstration of circular logic- how do you know that Smith was one that the apostles alluded to? How do you know they weren’t talking about the religious teachers you adhere to? You response is no doubt- “because the Bible says so.” Circular logic and enormous assumptions are everywhere in this.
I can say I know Joseph was a prophet as a result of direct revelation. And I have just as much intellectual evidence to support such knowledge as you have for your beliefs. But I have direct revelation- independent of any other mortal. It is a gift and blessing available to all who seek it.
Again- how do you know the Bible is true?
Olsen,
You still did not answer the question. Sidestepping again. How do you account for the prophecy about the return of the 10 tribes from the north, and smith saying it would happen before all those alive at the time of the prophecy died? From your own History of the Church. How do you account for his saying God was a Spirit in 1835 D&C and then an exalted man in 1843. Just answer these two questions please. The assumptions are not enormous, they are smiths own writings, beliefs and words. The criteria are his OWN WORDS. That is enough for me.
Olsen,
I don’t really expect an answer to the above questions, because I know you have none. Let the quotes speak for themselves. As to how I know that Jesus was talking about smith, well, you have the quotes, his teachings, his lecherous activities, his murder plots and death-threats, treasure hunting, arrest, failed money-making and bank schemes, phony visions, corrected revelations, belief in men in the moon, non-supported fantasy novel (BOM), the Kinderhook plates, the phony translation of the Book of Abraham, his lies to his wife, friends and fellow church members, his direct lies (& a revelation to boot) claiming there was no polygamy when he was practicing it, his plagiarisms, ego mania, his drinking, fighting, breaking of the word of wisdom (yup, that would be hypocrisy), belief in the occult, and adultery (and probably rape of Fanny Alger). Did I miss anything? With smith there is no telling. David Koresh was a minor false prophet compared to smith. But they both suffered the same end, ignominious death.
Fool me once, shame on me… I once was as you are, duped and compliant in fear of my soul from the cult. I haven’t made the same mistake of trusting any man with my salvation again. I get it direct from the source, Jesus. As to direct revelation in smith’s church, well, satan can appear as an angel of light. In smith’s case, perhaps it was captain kidd.
There ain’t nothin’ perceived here my man. It’s all smith, all the way.
Grindael,
I jumped into this thread to ask a very basic, straight-forward question which you have not attempted to answer. The whole laundry list of things Joseph supposedly did that prove he was not a prophet is simply your distraction from my question.
I couldn’t care less about discussing your long list of things- we have all been down that road too many times.
If you don’t want to answer the simple queston- how do you know the Bible is true- that is fine. But leaving a void in such a fundamental question has to make you wonder about everything else.
My point in jumping into this thread is to demonstrate that evangelicals who criticize LDS claims to personal revelation really don’t have a decent answer to this question- HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE?
Olsen Jim,
There is a thing called belief, which is faith. I believe the Bible is true. I used to say: “I know the BOM is true. I know JS was a prophet. I know…etc.” The truth was I didn’t know anything, just as you don’t know anything. I know (but not really, it’s just an expression) you will jump all over me how you know the Church is true, how the Holy Ghost bore witness to you and all that, but in the end you don’t. It’s about faith. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. That’s part of my personal creed. You see, I have confessed to God that I don’t know if He really exists or is just a figment of my imagination, but I believe. Jesus didn’t say, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever knows WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (typical Mormon verbiage in a typical Mormon testimony about JS, etc.) about him shall not perish but have eternal life.” No, OJ, it’s not about knowledge but faith. I will be the first to confess to God that I believe with all my heart that He is real, and that I have sensed Him in my life in miraculous ways. But, still, I’m human and do not know anything for certain. I think the better question regarding the Bible is this: Is the Bible authoritative for your life? I can say absolutely! Can you? And, if you say you do, then you better be careful because you just might have to admit that JS was a false prophet. That’s the natural conclusion one comes to when the Bible is authoritative for their life as it is for mine.
Blessings…
Olsen,
I knew you would not answer the two questions, because you cant. Typical response. You see, I was where you are too. I was in smith’s church for 13 years. I spent my teenage years there, and went on a mission for two years, and went to BYU. What you are doing is an old tactic, that we learned in the mission field. It is called turn the topic on the one asking the questions, because you cannot answer them. Shift blame and divert. The cult has taught you well.
You try to stay in control by dodging the hard questions you cannot and will not answer. You are naive to think that those that post here have no clue as to who smith was, and what he taught. I will say with confidence that I know more about smith’s church than 90% of the members of it do. I did not learn what I did from former mormons, or any non-mormon contemporary sources. I read and memorized large portions of the BOM, and smith’s other ‘revelations’. I read the JOD (all volumes) History of the Church, Books by Nibley, and Dean C. Jesse, and a host of general authorities. I went on a mission and memorized the seven (don’t know if it changed) flip-book missionary lessons faster than anyone in the history of that mission. I won awards from my mission president. I went into a predominately catholic mission and had great success using the tactics taught to me by those that trained me.
I left smith’s church while at BYU. I found a plethora of contradictions and flat out lies that had been withheld from me. It was at a time when there was unprecedented access to church archives. It was only AFTER this I pursued every avenue of knowledge about smith, and was able to take that knowledge without the cults influence and make an informed decision about smith and the rest of the so-called prophets.
If you had really read my posts you would know that I already answered your question. Take some time, and re-read what I posted, you will find the answer there.
jack- fine. Substitute the words belief and knowledge. Why do you believe the Bible so much that it is authoritative in your life?
Grindael- glad you have read so much about the church. Your questions of me came AFTER my question to evangelicals. It is pretty standard for people to take turns in such discussion, and it seems a little out of turn for you to say I am avoiding your secondary questions. Who is dodging?
As I said before, your answer to the question- how do you know the Bible is true likely involves statments about a high degree of agreement among surviving manuscripts, “testing” the scritpures, and statements about the word being “God breathed” and a great deal of circular logic.
It is surprising to me that you avoid the question. My answer to the question is the basis for my life, and it just seems a little peculiar that you come across as so certain of so many things, yet cannot seem to answer this very fundamental question with any clarity. This is exactly what I intended to point out in this thread.
Olsen,
I asked you three times for an answer. Nothing. Like I said, I answered the question. Go look. (Hint: it was right after your first post) What you want to do is obvious. I will re-iterate why I believe the Bible is the word of God, and you will liken it to your experience with the BOM or smith, thus creating an impasse, which you will hold up triumphantly as proof of your claims. Play your game. The Bible answer is much more deep than your shallow circular logic statement. The Bible is everything the BOM is not.
The focus is on smith. smithians will do anything to shift the blame away from him and turn it on the ones who rightfully question everything he did. This is what you are doing, and man, gotta give you an E for effort on that one.
Two questions. Not one mormon has answered the one about the 1835 D&C teaching of God as a Spirit, Jesus as Flesh and the HG as the mind of God verses the 1843 exalted man doctrine. I’ve been asking for months now. Perhaps if you look hard enough, like smith did, you will find a magic stone that might help?
Olsen Jim,
It’s really sad that you just don’t get it. I believe the Bible to be God-breathed. Do you? Authoritative means that I will use it as a standard of measurement rather than my own experiences, which is what Mormons do. It’s the measuring stick for those who claim to be prophets. This is where it’s clear that JS was a false prophet. So, try to diminish what I said. It doesn’t really matter in the long run if you believe what I say or not. What matters is whether or not you believe the revealed Word of God pertaining to Jesus Christ and salvation. Praying for you, OJ.
Blessings…
Olsen Jim,
Could you please explain to me what the basis for your life is? Thank you.
Jackg
Ralph,
About all the test proves is that J.S. was better at writing, and under the circumstances he could make it appear to be a revelation better than those who took part in the challenge.
Have you tried to produce a master piece better than Leonardo Da Vinci? I would find that an intimidating challenge, and might actually find my innate talents rather ‘locked up’.That is part of the problem with this test. The other problem is that Joseph was already complete with a number of works. He was a seasoned debater, writer and already had considerable influence over others. I don’t know that anyone passed the test in Islam, but it appears that people still reject the koran without submitting to this test.
Its totally possible for someone to write well, influence others, even make very good contributions to the community, and still not be a prophet. Although here a number of people might disagree if J.S. made a positive contribution to humanity overall.
OJ, there are numerous scholarly works providing evidence that the Bible is “true”, now whether it is from God, or reveals truth about God, that we take on faith. The Bible details ancient civilizations that actually existed, for instance, we know that there was a place called Ur in Sumaria (Chaldea) and the people who lived there worshiped idols, specifically Nanna the moon godess. What does Genesis 11 tell us about Abram? That he was called out of Ur of Chaldea. It was a physical place. We know that Eqypt was a real country/region and guess what? We can still go there today and look at historical writings that detail rulers called Pharaohs and learn of their religious worship and custom. The Bible speaks of that. We know that Babylon existed, and just like the Bible says, it has been destroyed and is no longer populated. The nations detailed in Daniel arose as the messenger of God predicted, and the theories about the late date of the writing of Daniel have been refuted. At one time historians doubted the reality of a king of Babylon named Belshazzar until records were discovered listing him as co-regent with Nabonidas, just like the Bible says. Same with the Hittites, etc.
This lends credence to the Bible, so we can trust that it is a least accurate in temporal things. When it comes to spiritual claims we see the veracity of the rest of the Bible and use that to bolster the evidences in our lives, the spiritual “witness” that we get that Christ is Lord and died for our sins. I cannot “prove” that the Bible is theopneustos, but I can prove that the BoM is not based upon historical truth. I can prove that the BoA is a fabrication. I can prove that JS was a false prophet, and I can prove that the D&C are nothing but spritual coercion and lies. Can I prove that beyond the shadow of doubt to unreasonable people? No. You are unreasonable, but reasonable people leave Smith’s church when confronted with reasonable evidence.
drumroll…
did you get your question answered OJ?
how about you answering some of the questions asked of you today?
grindael,
Very good account of how you worked your way out of Mormonism. My observation is that Mormonism relies heavily on subjective feelings as proof of the “truth”. Once you got the facts (about Mormonism) you made an informed decision that Mormonism and the claims of Smith are not only false but preposterous. So Mormons hear the Joseph Smith story and it makes them feel good. The emotional warmth convinces them that God has spoken to them. Every time they experience good feelings relative to a Mormon religious experience, it reinforces what they have accepted as true.
That’s why Mormons are taught to stay away from anything that makes them feel uncomfortable (about Mormonism). If the organization can keep the membership away from anything that would provide solid evidence that Mormonism isn’t true, they’ve kept them in the box.
Mormons learn the lines of the script as you have pointed out to one of our Mormon posters. It’s just, push the button and the canned response plays out its tune. It all makes life comfortable, secure, predictable and emotionally snug.
Olsen Jim,
Your comment to Grindael on “How do you know the
Bible is true?” ,struck me as strange since you,
as an LDS, believe it to be one of your Standard
Works and he also believes it to be the Word of
God. But I realize what you were attempting to
prove, which I found even more strange because
given your churchs’ authorataive claims,he was absolutely correct when he said that we should be
cautious concerning any would-be prophets.Not only that, but since you would claim to be a
christian then you should get your instruction
from Jesus, correct? Jesus instructs all of us
to “beware” of false prophets [Matt.7:15] His
disciples were obedient to His instructions[1 Pt
2:1 ], you claim to be a disciple don’t you?
Furthermore, your very own apostles and prophets
have repeatedly told you to test for false
prophets by using the scriptures as a measuring
rod, a criteria you seem to feel is frivolous.
So lets recap. You have Jesus’ instructions and
you also have your leaders instructions.Do not let your personal revelation leave these behind.
It’s kind of ironic, but even Brigham Young
would agree with Grindael here.
” Take up the Bible, compare the religion of
the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if
it will stand the test…” [J.of D. v.16p46] p
Olsen Jim is concerned that nobody appears to answer his question
…so, as a fully qualified “nobody”, I’ll give my answer.
There’s a large amount of archaeological and historic evidence that broadly supports the Biblical narrative; cities, people, languages cultures etc. In fact, the more I find out about these evidences, the more “three dimensional” my Bible reading becomes (e.g. the origins of the Samaritans and Jesus’ encounter with one in John 4). This is worth mentioning in contrast with the BoM.
But, that may not be the point. To me, the Word of God is partly about looking at the stories, and partly about what we should make of them (see Jeremiah 1).
So, to me, the question parses into whether I believe the Bible’s accounts are “true”, or at least “truthful”, and whether the rendering of the accounts reflects “The Truth”, or God’s perspective. I believe that the Bible is “true” in both departments, but that is a decision I have made. That is why, when I say “I believe the Bible to be the Word of God”, I can say so with a clear conscience.
Regarding this decision, the statement “I believe the Bible to be the Word of God” also means “I take the Bible to be the thing that guides me in my beliefs and in my living”. The rest, they say, is history, but I can testify with countless generations of Christians that the Bible brings life and liberation. I struggle to explain how, but it does.
My major objection to the LDS movement is that it advances its 8AOF (“We believe the Bible to be the Word of God…”) without a clear conscience; fundamentally because it does not listen to what the Bible teaches (e.g. how many “gods”?).
I feel that when the question is put by OJ and his fellow LDS, they are being hypocritical. The one and only reason behind the question is to get the Christian to doubt the Bible, so that LDS can substitute it with their own “revelations”
Is the question, “Is the Bible true?” or is the question, “Is the Bible accurate?”. Am I splitting hairs here? I don’t think so. Ask the same questions about the BoM and you will get a “No’ answer to both questions. We’ve been over this countless times but for some reason (which I think I know pretty well) our Mormon friends don’t get it.
Actually we’re dealing with a favorite Mormon tactic here which is basically, “When the BoM is called into question, attack the Bible.” It’s the same tactic that is used when the veracity of Joseph Smith is called into question. That is, try to find a person in the Bible that had some short comings and equate Joseph Smith’s character with that person.
Actually I thought that Mormons believed the Bible is true so why is the question regarding its truthfulness even being asked? The fact of the matter is that the BoM is a fantasy woven out of whole cloth by a very creative guy who used several different sources to spin his fable. His “witnesses” “saw” the golden plates with “spiritual eyes”. It’s called second sight vision and was a common trick Smith borrowed from his occult experiences.
I would suggest that if our Mormon poster wants to know if the Bible is true and accurate, that he actually do the scholarly work of studying the Bible. He could start with “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Geisler and Nix. The four main sections are divided into: part one, Inspiration of the Bible, part two Canonization of the Bible, part three, Transmission of the Bible, and part four, Translation of the Bible.
In the general conclusion to their book, Geissler and Nix state the following:
“The general purpose of this book has been twofold; historical and theological. Historically and critically, it has been an attempt to answer the question as to whether the Bible of the twentieth century, based as it is on the critical Hebrew and Greek texts, is a faithful reproduction of the books produced by its original authors. The answer is by now obvious, and it is this: No book from antiquity comes to the modern world with greater evidence for its authenticity than does the Bible. Both the kind and the amount of evidence that supports the fidelity of the present critical text are greater than for any other book from the ancient world.
Directly related to this historical conclusion is a theological one. For if there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical documents are genuine and authentic-that they stem from alleged periods and authors-then one must face seriously their persistent claim to divine inspiration. When these claims are thoroughly examined and honestly faced, one can but conclude that the Bible as a whole claims to be the Word of God, and the evidence confirms that claim.”
Mormons face a real dilemma because in order for Mormonism to be true, then Christianity must be proven false. Hence the Bible needs to be down-graded and all sorts of wild conspiracy theories must be developed so that Mormon “revelation” can coopt God’s revealed Word. But then that’s how we get to men becoming gods, and gods having goddess wives, and perpetual procreation in the after-life and all sorts of dubious claims that only the truly deceived and thoroughly indoctrinated Mormon can believe.
Where did Olsen Jim go?
Was on a trip away from computers. Will respond soon.
Grindael,
The way a person comes to know the BOM is true is the same way a person comes to know the Bible is true- you are absolutely right.
People can talk about archeology and historical correlations all day. But if their testimony of the Bible is primarily based on those things, their testimony is anemic and shallow.
After all- I could argue that the religion of ancient Egypt is THE true religion because we have tons of physical proof that their civilization existed- pyramids, tombs, hieroglyphics, mummies, etc. (hear me liv4jc?).
Although many here do not seem to understand my point (they think I am “bashing” the Bible), I am attempting to show the idiocy of claiming historical or archeological evidences are the appropriate criteria for determining if the Bible or the BOM is true. That is why I point to ancient prophets such as Moses, Enoch, and Noah. How were the people to whom those prophets preached supposed to determine if those great men were true prophets? Historical evidence? Archeology?
Were the Israelites expected to “test” the revelations given through Moses with previous revelations? Were they supposed to compare the tablets to something? There certainly were no previous precedents for these new revelations through Moses, yet they were expected to follow without historical evidences, etc. (prior to the exodus).
Martin- recognizing fulfilled prophecy is certainly one reasonable consideration in determining if scripture is true- not necessarily the best (because we may not always understand or perceive when they have been fulfilled), but an appropriate consideration. The most important prophecies found in the BOM have either already been fulfilled or are beginning to be fulfilled.
In short, true religion has always been based on personal revelation. A religion based on anything else is no religion at all. The thought that a person needs to consult “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Geisler and Nix” (note to falcon) or any other man-made “authority” in order to gain a testimony is as ridiculous a claim as any I have heard. Such a requirement would leave 99.999% of mankind out in the cold- not having the tools needed to know what is true or who to believe.
Why should a person not also consult an atheist’s book on the topic? How does a person discriminate and navigate through such floods of intellectual data?
Falcon and others like to say that after an LDS gets “all the information” they quickly leave the church. But this is clearly not true. I have studied all the same topics (and more) than those who make such claims, yet am convinced that Joseph was a prophet. Because I disagree with you, I am “unreasonable.”
I believe many EVs actually have testimonies of the Bible through the Holy Ghost. They may not recognize that fact or admit it in their discussions with LDS. But that is what I believe (or at least hope). And this is a huge double standard- expecting a different standard or criteria for the BOM.
Thanks to Paul for warning us about “man-made” doctrines perpetuated by the likes of smith:
“I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and PREACHES A JESUS OTHER THAN THE JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a DIFFERENT SPIRIT from the one you received, or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.”
“And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be CONSIDERED EQUAL with us in the things they boast about. For such men are FALSE APOSTLES, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for SATAN HIMSELF MASQUERADES AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
Thank God for the simple gospel of Jesus as taught by HIS apostles. The cult seeks to masque itself so well as to deceive the very elect. And they do, and will continue to do so.
OJ wrote
Yes, the Israelites were supposed to test the prophets, for example Deut 13:1-5
No, the test criteria does not relate to archeaological evidence and the like, but it does relate to the introduction of “strange” gods, whom Israel “did not know”. Smith’s “revelation” that God is an exalted man, lives on a planet near a star called Kolob and busies himself impregnating his countless wives certainly fits into this category.
…ctd…
Also (from OJ) Were they supposed to compare the tablets to something? There certainly were no previous precedents for these new revelations through Moses, yet they were expected to follow without historical evidences, etc. (prior to the exodus).
There were, however, precedents for Suzerain Treaties to be written on tablets of stone. Whereas these treaties were between greater earthly Kings and lesser vassal states, Moses’ “revelation” initiated such a treaty between the Creator of the Universe and a rag-tag bunch of escaped slaves.
But OJ misses an important point. The “preamble” to this treaty refers to God’s majesterial actions in the past, to which Israel was commanded to look. Here it is from Ex 19:3-6 (which leads into the 10 commandments in Ex 20)
Though there are a very few exceptions, the God of the Bible normally appeals to His people to consider their past history as He deals with them and reminds them whom He is. Consider the Babylonian exile, and the amount of scripture that was written around this period. Also consider how Stephen defends his faith before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7.
So, the Bible places a great deal of emphasis on looking to His past actions when considering current “revelations”.
That’s why Biblical history is important.
The appeal to personal revelation is an exercise in avoiding the revealed truth that contradicts the heretical teachings of a line of false prophets that began with JS. Throughout the centuries, the Holy Spirit (Who has always been with humanity since Pentecost–He didn’t go anywhere like the Mormons claim) has illumined Truth through a broken and fallen humanity who struggle to navigate through a broken and fallen world, asking questions about God and our relationship to Him. This is called theology, and we are all theologians because we all ask questions pertaining to God. Throughout the past two thousand years, orthodox theology has been hammered out and expressed in what are called creeds by men who worked from within the parameters of the biblical text. JS worked from outside these parameters, which is why his teachings are considered heretical. One such Spirit-filled and Spirit-led man taught what we know as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I am speaking about John Wesley, and his quadrilateral was designed to help us understand the proper balance between scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Of the latter three, none of them outweigh scripture in value. Ultimately, tradition, reason, and experience must be measured against the Bible because it is God-breathed and authoritative. Again, Mormonism being backward, it relegates the Bible to a subordinate role in this matrix, elevating personal “revelation” to the standard against which everything else is tested. Such an approach invites false spirits to lead astray otherwise intelligent people.
Blessings
OJ, I don’t think you even read what I posted. I clearly stated that we use the correctness of the Bible in temporal things to authenticate the spiritual witness we have to it’s truth. Nobody can prove that the text was inspired by God, although prophecy points to its supernatural origin. I can’t prove that Jesus actually performed any of the miracles that authenticated His message that He was sent from God, but I trust that the eyewitnesses to those miracles, and those who interviewed them (in the case of Luke and Paul) faithfully recorded the events.
When I was converted I had hardly read the Bible at all, and I barely understood what I did read. My conversion was a supernatural event. I have revealed in my posts before that I had no love for God and loved my sinful lifestyle. The last thing I wanted was to become a Christian. But after my conversion I instantly loved God and my Lord Jesus Christ and believed that I was a sinner in need of God’s grace.
I read the BoM and about Joseph Smith after my conversion and realized how ridiculous the account was. My testimony is that I know the truth as revealed to me by God through the Holy Spirit and His revealed word in the Bible, which I also believe is “true” by faith, and accurate by history and archaelogy, etc. I know that the teachings of the BoM are fanciful, based in a world that never existed, and there is no proof for them. I know that Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
liv4jc,
Thank you for your honesty. I completely agree with you when you say “my conversion was a supernatural event.” That is my whole point. It was not the physical evidences that changed your life or made you believe in God and want to follow Him. It was a spiritual miracle. I think most people here would say the same thing if honest.
All the evidences are nice and nifty- they may confirm your faith and the things you experienced spiritually. But they are not the basis for your faith or belief. Am I right?
There are people on both sides of the Bible question- those who say it is a fairy tail with contradictions. They appeal to what they consider convincing scientific evidence that proves it is false. On the other side, there are those who see evidences for the Bible in science and throughout the natural world.
The same is true of the BOM. There are arguments against it, and arguments that support it. Both sides appeal to logic, reason, and evidences. I myself cannot understand how anybody who has made an honest study of the BOM can not see the overwhelming evidence for its authenticity.
But I realize that such an understanding is based on spiritual events and miracles, just like the Bible. The perspective of confirmatory evidences comes AFTER the supernatural. And this is the double standard that non-LDS Christian critics of the BOM will not own up to.
I am arguing that if what EVs are saying is true that their testimonies of the Bible are based on physical evidences, their faith is shallow and weak and is subject to every wave of the scientific sea.
The Bible contains objective truth – it claims things that happened outside of me and are true rather I believe them or not. The atonement is an objective event – either it happened or it didn’t, whether I believe it or not. I absolutely believe the testimony of Scripture is objectively true apart from anything I may think or feel about it. If it could be shown to be demonstrably false, then I would say give it up, throw in the towel, walk away – it’s a fraud. Hypothetically, if the archeology did not support the Scriptures, if evidence mounted that Martin Luther wrote many of the books in the Bible with no historical documents attesting to historical roots could be found I would toss those books and RUN away from them. The BOM fails the historical test – it was written thousands of years after the face purporting to tell the history of a people unsupported by ANY other evidence. Likewise, the Koran fails the historical test – it was written about 600 years after the face, purporting to tell the truth about Jesus. Mohammad wasn’t there. Joseph Smith wasn’t Both the Koran and the BOM must be discarded as true historical documents. If Christianity is not objectively true outside of any feelings, testimony, or subjective feeling then it should be discarded as well. However, the Scriptures do hold up to the historical tests and warrant our trust and faith in the One True God.
mobaby,
What were the folks to do who lived before the objective archeologic evidence supporting the Bible was available? Throw away the scriptures due to lack of physical evidence?
And your claim that the BOM has no objective proof is simply false. It is just that in the instance of the BOM, you take the side of the skeptic, just as many people do with the Bible. You simply do not accept the available data that would suggest the BOM is what it claims to be. Plenty of people do the same thing with the evidence supporting the Bible. What is the difference? There is none.
Why do you not believe the ancient religion of the Pharoahs? There is even more archeological evidence to support their civilization. What is the difference?????
Olsen Jim said: “I myself cannot understand how anybody who has made an honest study of the BOM can not see the overwhelming evidence for its authenticity.”
Sadly, the evidence is really absent. I used to run around and tell people the BOM was true. But, there is no evidence for it except to make an appeal to a “feeling” that the Holy Ghost revealed its veracity. The thing about the BOM is that D&C contradicts even it. JS just couldn’t get his theology straight. The BOM says today is the day for man to prepare to meet God, meaning this life. JS teaches a universal salvation, and then adds exaltation because he was so special he needed to tell the world that he and anyone else who believed his heretical teachings could become God.
When reading the BOM, there is really an absence of grace in the purported character of God. The BOM portrays God as a heavy-handed law giver at the expense of grace. JS continues this line of teaching with the WOW. Now, we have a God who will keep us out of His presence if we drink coffee or smoke cigarettes–all outward behaviors that have nothing to do with the condition of our hearts. There will be Mormons who will try to argue that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes won’t keep anyone out of God’s presence. If they do, they are either lying or don’t really grasp the correlation between the temple recommend and being in God’s presence. To believe that JS was used to usher in the “fulness” of the gospel is to deny that Jesus Christ IS the fulness of the gospel. And, therein lies the difference between Christianity and a cult.
Blessings…
Olsen Jim,
Big difference: The resurrection trumps anything the Pharoahs or their gods did. Do I believe the Pharoahs existed? yes, I do. The Bible tells of Egypt and the Pharoahs and so does non-Biblical evidence. The attestation to the reality of the Egyptian world is there in ruins, writings, land mass – Nile River etc., and culture. The Bible tells of Egypt as a source of deliverance by Joseph and as a source of confrontation. Again and again the Bible has been shown to be an accurate testimony of rulers, societies, lands, people etc. Again and again. Are there things in the Bible that are not attested to in other ways – of course – but I will stand on the side of Scripture every time as it has been accurate over and over, deflating theories of Bultmann and the higher critics. Events and people the higher critics have claimed the Bible “got wrong,” over and over have proven out the trustworthiness of Scripture. The world now has entire copies of the Bible COMPILED BEFORE Bultmann said they were even WRITTEN (300AD). We have sections of the NT that date to 50AD and 70AD. Rulers the critics have said did not exist, we now have tablets inscribed with their names.
We do have archeological discoveries in the Americas that tell of societies and people – none of it correlates with the BOM.
The Bible has never been without historical and archeological evidence. Certainly we have evidence now that at some point was lost and has now been recovered – but it has never been without evidence.
In contrast, the BOM stands alone, devoid of evidence, written nearly 2000 years after Christ, and the Book of Abraham tells a story supposedly from Abraham’s time FOUR THOUSAND YEARS after the fact. No other ancient documents or evidence support the stories these books tell – both books fail the historical test. Both Muhammad’s Koran and Joseph Smith’s BOM and BOA do not stand up to basic historical tests.
That there are verifiable historic and geographic content in the Bible is not disputed, but have you ever heard of the style of literature called ‘historic fiction’? It is using historical people, events and places to make a story and has been a technique used since about 1100 BC. This date includes the Bible manuscripts we have today. So yes, there could be many people, events and places that match up with history, but this does not prove the Bible to be true. Look at the movies ‘Enigma’, ‘Pearl Harbour’, ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ‘Titanic’ and ‘Forrest Gump’ – they have many things that are historically correct, but they are fiction. Even ‘The 3 Musketeers’ is based on historical characters, places and events but is still fiction. What about the controversial ‘Da Vinci Code’ or ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’? The former admits to being fiction but has many historic and geographic congruencies – the latter actually tries to be non-fiction but is also historically and geographically correct.
According to many shows I have seen and books I have read, when it comes to the ‘important’ people of the Bible, eg Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Moses, King David and King Solomon, there is no evidence of their existence. There is very little evidence of any of the Israelite/Hebrew importance found in the Bible until around the era of King Ahab. So there goes the historically accurate argument – if the main world events are referred to but the main characters cannot be found in history.
I know the Bible is true, and I have received that knowledge by the Holy Ghost – what more evidence do I need? It is nice to have some physical evidence, but that is not what faith is all about (Matt 12:39; Hebrews 11:1). The same goes with the BoM – Besides the spiritual witness I have of it, I also have found other, external evidences indicating to me that it is true.
mobaby,
Do you understand I am arguing that the historical, archeological evidences in no way prove the spiritual claims of the Bible. That is why I ask if you believe in the religion of the Pharoahs. Historical evidences alone do not translate into testimony of spiritual truth- it must come from some other source.
You are free to base your testimony of the Bible on what you perceive as physical and historical evidences. That is fine. I just think an objective religious person will take you less seriously because such a foundation does not result in saving faith.
You say:
“We do have archeological discoveries in the Americas that tell of societies and people – none of it correlates with the BOM.”
You are on the wrong side of that claim. The best-informed critics insist on a higher level of evidence than correlations because they know the correlations between the BOM and ancient MesoAmerica are big and numerous. They insist on finding proper names and manuscripts of the BOM in tombs, etc.
You also say-
“the Book of Abraham tells a story supposedly from Abraham’s time….. No other ancient documents or evidence support the stories these books tell.”
Are you serious? You are truly demonstrating how behind the typical BOA critic is with the available data. There are numerous extra-biblical, ancient writings that corroborate most of the stories in the BOA. You ignore data just as the atheist who insists the Bible is a fairy-tale.
Martin- Deuteronomy 13 CAME FROM MOSES- IT WAS A NEW REVELATION. You are claiming that something from Joseph Smith was inconsistent with that revelation. That is fine. But I am asking, how were those Israelites supposed to know that Moses was a true prophet IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I don’t expect EVs to agree with my testmony, I just want them to understand my point about the source of spiritual truth. And that ain’t happenin’ here.
OJ asked
I’m time-limited at present, but here’s a thought (and I may be corrected); the “signs” that Moses did to establish his credibility were for Pharoah’s benefit, not the Israelites.
If this were the case, then the Israelites could be defined by their belief that Moses was a true prophet. In other words, believe that Moses was a prophet and you follow him out of Egypt with the rest of Israel; believe he wasn’t and you stand condemned with the rest of Eqypt. (Its a “justification by faith” thing, not a “justification by being born into the right family” thing)
Is your question the wrong way around? You believe Joseph Smith, so you follow him. I believe in Jesus Christ so I follow him. You cannot serve both masters; it just can’t be done.
Am I fully convinced in my heart that Jesus is a true prophet, and the Bible is true? To be absolutely honest, on some days I feel better about it than on others. Does that worry me? Well, the Bible is far more concerned about what I do about it than how I feel about it. After all, I still need to decide to put one foot in front of the other to follow the Prophet, even if my heart has some doubts (which is more frequent than I’d like).
What I can “know”, however, is what I have decided. If I have decided that the Bible is the Word of God (and hang the consequences), then I can “know” I have made that decision, even if I allow the possibility that it is wrong. In doing so, I have identified myself with the “Tribe of Christians” (as Josephus calls them), and I travel with them where they are travelling.
My objection to the LDS 8AoF is that it falsely advances the idea that LDS have made the decision to follow the Word of God (a decision that they must “know” in the fullest sense of the word), when, in fact, they have decided to follow an entirely different “revelation”.
Olsen Jim,
I am interested to see the ancient manuscripts of the BOA. But I know they don’t exist. Likewise, the BOM. The Bible is attested to by thousands of Scriptures in many different places. We know it is a book of antiquity. Where is the textual trail to the BOM and the BOA? There is none, because it came from the testimony of one man, just as the Koran did. There is just as much evidence for the Koran as for the BOM. The internal evidence and external evidence for both books reveals both are frauds. By your standard, one should simply pray about the Koran and if it is revealed to be true, follow. Apparently there are millions who agree and are following Islam. How do you differ from them?
The books you hold to be true are not historical documents by definition. No true historian would say these books are what they purport to be. Whether one accepts the spiritual message of the Bible or not, it is most definitely a historical document. Before you can trust the spiritual premise of a book, it must first show itself to be an accurate representation of reality.
Evidence for the Scriptures from the Savior – Jesus often referred to what we know as the Old Testament. Not once did He ever question the validity or reliability of Scripture He quoted. He always quoted it favorably. Jesus claimed to be God in flesh and rose from the dead validating that claim. His view of the Scriptures should carry some weight.
Concerning Ralphs objection to lack of supporting evidence for characters in the Bible: As I said, again and again Scripture has been proven out (against the claims of critics) with solid historical and archeological evidence. The Bible has been found to be an accurate representation of reality. I have seen the British Museum display showing a huge relief sculpture of the Assyrians battle with the Israelites and King Hezekiah (produced by the Assyrians in that time period). There are weapons from the battle on display.
My question would be: when does the Bible become an ancient historical document worthy of your trust? When does it pass the scrutiny level and move beyond mere personal testimony, to a reliable source for historical information? How many times do the facts, names, events, etc. it records need to be proven out for the Scriptures to become a primary source, something you would look to as an accurate representation of facts due to it’s amazing reliability? If any of the Scriptures failed in these tests – I would say toss it out. If Christ could be shown to not be resurrected, then abandon the faith and turn back from Christianity. But that is not the case. Scripture has been shown to be a reliable historical document. I trust the spiritual message it brings, and believe that it is the very word of Jesus to us today. When the scripture is read or preached, it is attested to by the Holy Spirit and is the very voice of Christ to us today. The Scriptures call us to repent, trust in Christ alone through grace alone for salvation. As we hear Christ preached through the Holy Scriptures, God builds faith in our hearts to believe and trust. “Believe on the the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, both you and your household.” (Acts 16:31) – not maybe, not possibly, not if you do all the right things, etc. It says “YOU WILL be saved.” Believe and be saved. God gives us His means of grace – the preaching of the Scripture, baptism and communion to further build up that faith in our hearts. Through baptism we identify with Christ’s death and resurrection and put to death the old sin nature/Adam. Through communion we participate in the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. God has given us these great gifts to build faith in our hearts to trust Christ alone for salvation.
Olsen,
If the BOM is true as you say…and a huge battle with millions dead took place at Cumorah, then were is the archeological evidence? There is nothing there, nothing. I’ve been there more than once. No one has found a thing.
Can you answer this one question? Your track record is so bad, I don’t expect it. You claim there are numerous confirmations of the BOM authenticity, but you list none. You have no evidence to back it up.
On the other hand, the Bible has mountains of evidence to back it up.
BOM or Bible? I’ll take the true book over the fairytale every time.
The responses to my questions have been very revealing (no pun intended). They help prove my point about what people rely upon as sources of truth.
Martin- Thank you for actually addressing the questions I have brought up instead of incessently spouting off the same old points of contention about lack of evidences, etc. Your point is a good one about Moses- he certainly did provide some good evidence (Rather God did) of God’s power. But was this the ultimate determinant of whether he was from God. After all, didn’t the priest of Pharoah come up with some pretty good miracles of their own?
But immediately after describing Israel’s following Moses you turn around and ask “Is your question the wrong way around? You believe Joseph Smith, so you follow him. I believe in Jesus Christ so I follow him.”
Were the Israelites not following God when they followed Moses? Could I not claim just such a thing with Joseph Smith? Consistency…
I give you credit for understanding the issue and trying to address it though.
mobaby- with all respect, I don’t think you are following my argument. You are still arguing that the physical and historical evidences of the BOM and BOA are not adequate. Although I could argue you are wrong, that IS NOT THE POINT OF MY POSTS.
What evidence is there for Adam and Eve and the history in Genesis? Seriously. Why don’t we consult the Smithsonian about the garden of eden? Is “objective science” the appropriate means of determining if that book is true?
Grindael- I could go down that trail as has been done so many times- the result is always the same- we end up seeing the debate exactly opposite. Did you know that the massive military force of Attilla the Hun possessed millions of horses. It was said that each of his soldiers had 10 horses. But archeologists and researchers are baffled as to why they have uncovered only a few horse remains in that region. Crazy.
I think the Community of Christ Mormon sect has pretty much run-up the white flag on the BoM. Their members have a couple of different options regarding this tome, giving their people the choice of electing to see the BoM as a “spiritual” book. So in other words, it’s not an actual history of anything.
I’m wondering, are there any nonMormons scholars out there in the world that believe the BoM reflects actual history? I doubt it! Because to come to that conclusion, a person has to have a “feeling” that it’s true.
There are all kinds of books written on the historic and archeological basis of the Bible. Our poor Mormon posters are stuck with an emotional attachment to a book that has zero basis in reality. Defending the BoM as a real history would be like trying to make the same claim about “Harry Potter”.
OJ,
Why would anyone follow Moses, after seeing…
his staff eat the staffs of the Egyptians,
the plagues on Egypt,
that they didn’t die when they applied blood to their doorposts,
the sea open up so they could cross and then swallow the Egyptians,
manna and quail provided in the desert…
On the other hand, we have the Egyptian mystery religions… what, again, is it that they promise that is any good? Why do you like them better? (and before you say you don’t, since Mormonism is related to them through freemasonry, yes, you do)
As for your other argument, doesn’t one really need to consider the “whole ball of wax”?
Shouldn’t a TRUE Faith/religion/gospel have not just one part, but ALL of the parts?
Meaning:
1 – miracles and prophecies (and prophets who are confirmed by them) that show the omnipotence and omniscience of the God being promoted,
2 – Archeological or historical or philosophical or whatever other kind of EVIDENTIAL BACKING
3 – Realistic/Practical help for life’s biggest problems
4 – An absolute, unchanging, standard of morality
5 – Spirit confirmation
??
Shouldn’t the TRUTH be true no matter where you look, and when?
Olsen Jim,
Your attempt to push the arguement back to a time
generations before Moses as a way to prove that
since they supposedly did’nt have an objective
standard available to evaluate false prophets,
that is our same predictament today, so we must
rely on feelings to be our standard. Is this
really the issue for us today? Jim, TODAY we have
a standard.TODAY we are told to apply the Word
of God in order to test any would-be prophet’s
teachings[Ex.18:18-20; Gal.1:8-9].Even your own
leaders admit this.
Neither Jesus nor those He discipled to carry on
His instructions in reguard to truth applied your
reasoning in evaluating prophets.Have you forgotten how your leaders dealt with Brian
Mitchell? Did they just rely on a inner feeling
that he was a false teacher/prophet or did they
apply the criteria found in the Bible in testing
him? Their answer for his excommunication was
” for activity promoting bizarre teachings….
far afield from the principles and DOCTRINES of
the Church.”
A lot of “what if’s” on your part merely deflects
the issue. Today, we have a solid standard to
test any prophet.I’m thinking that the rational
you espouse is for a reason.Perhaps LDS don’t
want to measure their beliefs by the Bible is
because they realize the Bible does’nt clearly
proclaim the doctrines that are unique to
Mormonism.
Setfree,
The points you make are exactly what I am getting at – a book cannot be trusted for spiritual truth if you can’t trust it in any other area. The BOM fails on this account, while the Bible has proven over and over to be an accurate historical text. The BOM fails as a historical document – it was written nearly 2000 years after Jesus life and there is no evidence it’s account can be dated prior to the 1830s. This leads to the conclusion that the BOM was the creation of Joseph Smith and was not based on any ancient text divinely received or otherwise (other than the large sections pulled from the KJV Bible).
Olsen Jim,
What separates you from a Muslim who believes the Koran is an accurate accounting of the life of Christ and a guide for proper spiritual life? What are the historical texts containing the BOM and BOA to which you allude?
On Adam and Eve – as I said not everything in the Bible is confirmed elsewhere, however, those things that can be tested have revealed the Scriptures to be accurate. Internally within Scripture, the NT does speak of Adam as being the one man through whom sin entered the world, and Christ being the second Adam took sin away and conquered death. If Adam and Eve are discounted, then you must discount Jesus for He believed the Old Testament and spoke positively of it.
OJ, you always want to talk about belief and faith – without a foundation in truth belief and faith are useless. I have a claim to truth, you have a claim to truth, the Muslim has a claim to truth, etc. on and on it goes. My assertion is that if your faith is not objectively true then it is worthless. No subjective feeling or experience is enough. I also contend the BOM is NOT a historical document and can be shown to be a creation of the early 19th Century – completely divorced from the subject it claims to give a historical account of. There is not one shred of textual history supporting the BOM. It is a fraud and can be easily seen to be such.
Ralph,
One sure way to spot historical fiction – they always slip up – there are numerous details that don’t align with reality, that fail to pass the muster. Inevitably, no matter how good the author, there will be anachronisms, historical mistakes, errors. I submit that all of these problems are found in the BOM.
Olsen,
As usual, you use a lame argument to bolster the fradulent claims of the BOM. Horse BONES? Attila the Hun? Come On. There is too much wrong with that to even address it.
The Hill Cumorah has no evidence, not an arrowhead, sword (according to smith they had plenty of those)or anything else. There were millions of em running around central New York and no one has ever discovered one iota of evidence to support ANY BOM claim. All the LDS apologists do is SPECULATE. It’s been proven that the ruins in Central America have nothing to do with the BOM.
I love the little maps they sell with all the places listed around all the Maya and Inca ruins..It is so misleading and phony.. Is that all you have?
How about my post above on Smith’s false prophecy about the return of the ten tribes and Zion being built before everyone died that was living at the time of smith…He even prefaced it with ‘by the authority of Jesus Christ’ … that right there shows he was a false prophet and the BOM not even worth considering…
I never see you defending smith or rebutting anything, just asking lame questions about the authenticity of the Bible. Is that how they teach you now to defend smith’s cult?
Duck and Run J. Duck and Run.
I get a kick out of our Mormon friends thinking they are hearing from God. What is God telling them? Well He’s telling them that He isn’t who He says He is in the Bible. BTW, does God reveal Himself in the BoM. Why yes He does and guess what? He’s amazingly similar to the God of the Bible. So when did God decide that He wasn’t the One, Only and eternal God? Beats me! Joseph Smith got a follow-up revelation and wouldn’t you know it, a brand new god. Only this god is a whole lot different than Smith’s previous revelation.
Other sects of Mormonism, especially the Temple Lot folks figured the whole deal out and said that Joe went way off the tracks.
Joseph Smith, some say, started out right on the money and then fell (as a prophet). His sexual exploits were only a part of the evidence the rest being his aberrant evolving theology. Our Mormon posters don’t get it. Fortunately a whole bunch of Mormons do and are making the decision to leave. Mormonism is bleeding members and of those who are left, few practice the religion with any real enthusiasm. Before it’s said that this is opinion, how many of the men have risen to the full priesthood? How many pay the full tithe?
No this is a religion that with the advent of the internet, cannot hide anymore.
this is a religion just like all the other ones that circumvent the problem of owing God everything by doing good works
Setfree,
Do you remember your BoM? How does this sound
I know you don’t see the BoM as God’s word for you, but this quote from it is what we LDS believe and it shows that we LDS believe exactly the opposite to what you just stated.
At the risk of getting flamed by some of the Evs here, I’ll admit to having some tolerance for the LDS’ argument about lack of archaeological evidence. Yes, there is much in the Bible that is supported by archaeological evidence, but there are some parts that aren’t (the early chapters of Genesis, for example).
I could debate this with more “literalist” Christians, but I see this debate confined to an agenda that says “we accept that the Bible is the reliable Word of God, but how do we understand it within its historic context?”.
This is entirely different from the debate that starts with “we believe the Bible to be unreliable because it does not support our prophet’s revelations”.
In my debate, I’d even accept a “ceasefire” on some issues because they might not be ultimately proven one way or the other. However, this would exclude stand-out issues like there being only One God, or the full deity of Christ, or justification by faith, or the importance of truthfulness.
So, I’ll accept that there will be some things about the Bible that we might not “know” for sure, which is a roundabout way of answering OJ’s previous question about how we “know” that the Bible is true.
Personally (another confession), I want the Bible to be true, and I gravitate to those friends and resources that affirm my feelings in this direction. This gives me some sympathy for those in other religions who behave in the same way. Its a very human behavior, and it takes a great deal of courage to follow one’s convictions if they lead away from that environment.
If LDS believe the Bible to be the Word of God, will they have the courage to listen to it, trust it and follow it, wherever it leads; especially when it calls them “out of Egypt” (out of the LDS movement)?
Ralph, the passage is in your Book of Mormon, just like several passages are in your scriptures that say that there is only one God.
Do you faithfully live by those passages as well?
I hope you’ll answer my above question, but let me present a little clearer answer to yours.
It is just as possible to avoid Jesus and the cross by keeping the commandments as by breaking them. What I mean by this, is, if you accept God’s FREE FORGIVENESS, instead of EARNING YOUR FORGIVENESS, then you find yourself in the position of being in total debt to God. You feel as though He can now ask anything of you, including your life, marriage, religion, friends, whatever, because you owe Him EVERYTHING for having bailed you out without charge.
You, Ralph, are still pushing Him away by working for what He freely offers you. The same can be said of Mormonism as a whole
Martin,
My point is Christianity stands or falls on the reliability of Scripture, while Mormonism stands or falls on the reliability of the BOM. The Bible, whether you believe the spiritual message or not is a historical text. The BOM is not a historical document. That is the high level view of what I am arguing and that argument can most certainly be won.
Everyone comes into their religious faith by a spiritual conversion of some kind (family, friend, evangelism, etc.)- very few have studied the evidence for their faith at that point, but are instead relying on the testimony of those who brought them to the faith. Once you are in, and you discover that things don’t add up – this book about which you prayed and received a testimony doesn’t pass basic historical reliability 101, then you have to question what have I placed my faith in? I am not denying the spiritual reality of the Holy Spirit drawing people to faith in Christ alone through the preaching of His Word. But if one finds that their religious foundation is as flimsy and riddled with holes as the BOM, then the most logical avenue is to abandon it and come to the true Christ of the Bible. And at this point in the conversation, Mormons usually start questioning the reliability of the Bible, it is their default position – “well, yes, the BOM might be unreliable, but so is the Bible” – I think this teaching of Mormons is what makes so many become agnostics or atheists when the weight of Joseph Smith’s many falsehoods becomes too great to bear and they abandon Mormonism. The well has already been poisoned against Scripture – “the Bible is unreliable.” They never examine for themselves the evidence for the reliability of Scripture. In reality, Christians have nothing to fear in examining the evidence concerning the Bible. I am confident that Scripture is reliable and true whether I or anyone else believes it or not. Not everything can be proven, but enough can.
Martin,
One more thing personal thing – do you consider yourself an Ev or Evangelical? Given the state of modern ‘Evangelicalism’ I do not consider myself an Evangelical, although I do try to be evangelical! I think we need another Reformation and a return to Word and Sacrament – preaching God’s Word and administering His sacraments – basically getting back to Christ centered worship that focuses not on us, but on Jesus, the Cross, and the gifts He has given us. Your comment above made me think that perhaps you do not identify yourself as an ‘Ev’ either?
Grindael,
Did I attempt in the slightest to prove the BOM? No. I merely pointed out the fact that scientific evidence does not always explain things we know, such as Attilla and his boys having lots of horses.
You overstate the merits of your side of the argument to such a degree that it can be difficult to take such arguments seriously. For example, “It’s been proven that the ruins in Central America have nothing to do with the BOM.” I really don’t know where to start with that. That is such an unrealistic perspective on the issue, evidence, and the limitations of archeology.
Again- I emphasize that my whole point is to show that EV have a double standard when comparing the Bible and BOM. (I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THE BOM) Either the witness of the Holy Spirit is fundamental to their faith in the Bible (maintaining a double standard when considering their approach to the BOM), or they have no foundation worthy of devotion to the Bible.
If historicity of records is your foundation, you cannot rationally explain why you do not also follow other religions with historical records. That is my point.
By the way- most folks who actually study the BOM believe it took place 3,000 miles from New York.
Martin- thank you for being honest about the Bible. I respect that. Accepting the Bible on faith and through the witness of the spirit does not lessen it in the slightest. Such a witness is the foundation of true, meaningful personal religion. But realize I have a reasonable, Biblical explanation and interpretation for every contradiction you see between the Bible and my religion. Everything in my faith is Biblical. We simply have a different interpretation of the same verses and passages.
Olsen,
You are not trying to prove the BOM because you cant. There is no confirmation at all in ANY scientific paper, ruin, dig, temple, of any central american site bearing one iota of evidence to support the BOM.
I dont follow other religions with historical records because their religions are based on fraudulent claims. (Though I am very well read on most of them) The HISTORY of the Bible bears out it’s truthfulness. We are not living in times when there was no evidence available. We are living in 2009, when all the technology in the world can be used to bear out truth or expose falsehood. Your conjecture is juvenile, and a total side step of the issue. What if, what if, what if will not change the fact that there is no evidence to support the BOM and you cant produce any. Total 180 for the Bible.
By the way, read your church history. I have. Most MODERN mormons believe the BOM took place down in central America because the ruins are there. That was not the case in the early days of your church. You can’t fool me, and you cant lie to me, and I wont play your games of what if speculation. Just answer plain questions, which you have not done as long as I’ve been posting on this site.
I’ve asked many, and you have not answer any. Shows you have nothing to back up what you say.
OJ, can I beg a favor of you
Will you try to answer one of the hard questions grindael has posed, or I put on the other thread, without using any double speak or sidestepping. jUst one question, answered straight forwardly
Ralph, your passage from Mosiah reveals several problems. It is obvious from his writings that smith did not have an understanding of God’s covenant with national Israel verses His covenant with believers. The above quote speaks of prosperity in the land if God’s commandments are kept. This is the same quid-pro-quo covenant God made with national Israel beginning in Exodus 19 and continuing throughout the OT. But personal salvation has never been a quid-pro-quo covenant based upon the necessity of continuing works to keep salvation. Faith is the standard of personal salvation and it is from God. Since Christ paid the penalty for the believer’s sin, they are saved by that propitiatory sacrifice, not by external works that they do. The payment for personal sin is what buys salvation, and you can offer no work or sacrifice to pay for you sin. Only Christ, the God-Man, could pay that enormous price, and the Holy Spirit is the One who opens the heart to see the need for forgiveness through faith in Christ. Apart from His work in the heart no man can even see the Kingdom of God (John 3).
So we see smith mixing New Covenant promises of salvation through belief in Jesus Christ with Old Coventant promises to national Israel (or Nephites), thus turning personal salvation into a faith plus works formula. We see this NC theology imported into OC Israel early on in 1 Nephi (1 Nephi 11), when belief in the Son of God becomes part of the means for national prosperity when it is combined with the keeping of the commandments. This anachronism proves that smith used his understanding of the New Testament to aid in his creation of the BoM.
Ralph,
How would a mormon go about finding out if evolution was true?
The major reason for most Christians disinterest in the BOM is that it truly is not needed as an “additional witness to Jesus.”
The major reason for the BOM coming forth from smith is that he needed an avenue to promote his other blasphemous teachings. It was smith’s “in” to start his own church and kingdom, with him as president, king and then ruler of the entire world.
The Bible has the words of Jesus, and all one needs to come to him. Without the BOM there would be no convenient way for the cult of smith to convert new members. Christians see it for what it is, and though it may have the words of the Bible Prophets and Jesus in it, why would anyone need a shadow copy of the original?
smith’s claim that it came from God as the most perfect book on earth doesn’t pan out when you see so many major changes in it as the years went by.
History does not support it, as it does the Bible, and as with the BOM, the same technique was used for many of smith’s other revelations.
If God gave it to him word for word, as smith and others claim, and if a word was wrong and would not go away (in the stone in the hat) until the scribe got it right, then God himself made all the mis-spellings and all the doctrinal mistakes. This very idea is flawed, as flawed as the real author of the book, smith.
No Christian has ever claimed the Bible to be the most CORRECT book on earth, but it has all the things one needs to come to Jesus and be saved. The BOM is not needed to come to Jesus, and never will be.
Concerning Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview in Time Magazine, and his being less than forthright about the Mormon belief that God the Father was once a man. This was a classic example of Mormon PR at work. The following are Hinckley’s comments followed with ” the rest of the story” in parenthesis, ie the part he wouldn’t tell to a “gentile” audience:
Hinckley: ” I don’t know that we teach it”. (“Actually we have taught it for generations”)
Hinckley: “I don’t know that we emphasize it”.
(“The reason that we are de-emphasizing it is that we can sell our religion to others easier”).
Hinckley: ” 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.”
(“Actually I do know a lot about it as one day I hope to become a God and a celestrial Father just as our heavenly Father is now. Other Mormon leaders such as myself, knew a lot about it and taught it.”)
I guess Mr Hinckley could have given more information than he did but this seems to be the M.O. when Mormons speak to a “gentile” audience.
The above comment of mine should have been on the “Mormon’s — divided sense of self” thread. Sorry
Has anyone else ever considered the similarities between Mohammed and Joseph? I believe that if Joseph had restrained himself just a little better in public in his violent outbursts toward his neighbors that he may have become more like Mohammed the conqueror. He had already declared himself a general of his own militia and was intent on gaining the Presidency. He believed that it was his destiny to set up a theocracy based upon his “revelations”. One can only imagine if he had actually succeded in his ambitions and been allowed to institute his version of Sharia law with men like BY (blood atonement, doctrine of vengeance, Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc.) leading the charge. His ambitions would have been resisted by representatives in Congress, but remember we were dealing with men who had no problem using fear and violence to advance their cause.
Like Islam, smithism has its version of religious courts with the bishopric conducting investigations, asking members to reveal and confess even the most personal areas of their lives (sexual practices between husband and wife). But unlike Islam the smithian law is not formalized and canonized, but is left up to the “revelation” of the Melchizedek priesthood holder issuing the punishment.
One can only thank God that Smith’s life was cut short, alleviating that problem, but unfortunately his death is viewed as almost equal to Christ’s by some of his followers.
Liv4jc,
“One can only thank God that Smith’s life was cut short…”
I think you should rethink that a bit. Wasn’t there a banking scandal smith was involved with? Wouldn’t it have been better if he had gone to trial? There is also a question of supressing the local newspapers, an illegal tactic.
Enki,
smith would have run, like he did from NY, Ohio, & Missouri. It would have been him running things in Salt Lake, not Young and who knows what kind of havoc he would have wreaked. I think we can thank providence for the outcome as it played out in history.
liv4jc asked
Yes,
I have commented that Mormonism is the Islam of North America; and I don’t say it in the perjorative sense that some North Americans will hear it.
A focus on the mechanics of religion as the right way to please God, “new” revelations, the “restoration” and “clarification” of the Gospel, the lessening of the divinity of Christ, the resort to theodicy; the establishment of an earthly kingdom (guided by the prophet), several wives; the list of similarities goes on.
Mohammad also instituted some much-needed civil reform. Did Joseph do anything similar?
Liv4jc
You made some valid points( as you always do),
but let’s be careful how we describe Joseph
Smith’s death.This is a very sensitive issue
with LDS.I’m sure we all agree in not condoning
the violence that took place in that Carthage
jail.
You’re absolutely right, Mike. I wouldn’t condone vigilante justice and I don’t take joy in the fact that JS was murdered by his enemies. My point was that it was God’s providence that he never lived to see the fruition of his kingdom, and the manner of his death was also God’s providence. We are better off for it as a nation. Thankfully the men who follow Joseph now reject many of the teachings of Joseph and his earlier followers, and the church takes great pains to hide them.
The men who killed Joseph were not the men who had him arrested for destroying the printing press which revealed the secret that he was having sexual liasons with other men’s wives. The men who killed Joseph were enemies that he had previously made, and they were not just enemies of Joseph, but enemies of the poor people who he duped into following him with his magical mystery religion. Somehow the 1800’s were very fertile ground for false prophets and preachers (some (I) would say we have many of them among us today with huge followings). Wasn’t Sydney Rigdon a former Millerite, or was it Brigham Young? When I read of the suffering and death that attended the poor people who happened to fall under his spell my heart breaks. If Joseph had been rejected for the liar he was all of that suffering and death in his name would have been alleviated. The same is true with all false prophets: Mohammed, JS, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.
Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. smith with his legion of 5,000 – his arrogant megalomaniac attitude, his drinking, smoking brawling, spiritual wifery and breaking of the law, (repeatedly) was definitely a threat to all those around him. Obviously, smith’s past caught up with him. It happened to smith, happened to many that went before him, and unfortunately will probably happen to many in the future.
Deut 18:20
“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”
and… opes, yep, that is what happened…
Setfree,
JS died? Wow what a blow! I guess he was just a mortal man and not a prophet.
So does this mean Moses is also just a man and not a prophet because he also died (Deut 34:1-8)? How about Isaiah? Jeremiah? Ezekiel? David? Paul? Stephen? Peter? The list goes on from the Bible. All these men died according to the Bible, BUT they were also prophets. JS dying does not prove a thing as he was mortal just like anyone of us and any other prophet.
Actually, no, not all of those were prophets.
And Moses died of way old age. Not in his prime, for committing acts AGAINST God, the way JS did.