Purging the Church
The Bible talks about church discipline. With a double emphasis on holding firmly to the truth and living a moral life, the New Testament says the church (the body of true believers) is to call sinners to repentance. If someone is accepted as part of the visible church but refuses to repent of sin, whether it is of a moral nature or a heretical nature, the church is to turn them out of the fellowship.
For example, 1 Corinthians 5 tells of a man in the church who is proudly unrepentant of his blatant immorality. Paul instructs, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:2). Following this pronouncement Paul includes, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13).
When Paul wrote to Titus, he warned about a person who “stirs up division” within the church with unsound doctrine. Paul says, “…after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).
Jesus spoke about what to do with unrepentant people in the church also. After approaching the person twice with a call to repentance, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” Jesus said (Matthew 18:15-20).
In 2 Corinthians Paul warns the church about people who teach heresy for truth. He calls them “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Paul told the Corinthians, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?…’Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord’” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Why do I bring this up? A friend of mine once said, “Mormons want to be embraced as part of the Christian church, but they wouldn’t be happy with the reality. For if they were part of the visible church, they would be subject to discipline for believing the heretical doctrines the LDS Church teaches.”
What would the result of such church discipline look like on a corporate scale? It would look exactly like what we see today. In obedience to the mandates of Scripture, the greater Christian church would denounce Mormonism and remove it from among us. The Christian church would purge itself of LDS heresy. It would have nothing more to do with Mormonism. We would be obligated to obey the command to be separate from the LDS Church, for what fellowship has light with darkness?
If Joseph Smith and his followers were ever embraced as part of Christianity, if Joseph ever taught his followers the true nature of God as God has revealed Himself in the Bible, when Joseph began to teach that God the Father became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances, that there are multiple true Gods, and that human beings can become the same sort of God as God the Father has become if we but follow the same path of obedience, everything would have changed.
At that point Christians would have been obligated to call Joseph Smith to repentance for his false teachings. Historical evidence suggests that this very thing transpired. But Joseph refused to repent. Therefore, by necessity, compelled by the Word of God, Mormonism would have been (and has been) cut off from the tree of Christian fellowship.
Today Christians continue to call believers in Mormonism to repentance for the sin of idolatry. We plead, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). Put them away, friends, and enter into the joy of the Lord.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Comments (215)
Sharon,
The reality is that LDS do not desire to be “embraced as part of the Christian church.” I have no desire for this. What I and other LDS want is for non-LDS Christians not to bare false witness about our religion. We would like to speak for ourselves. We are Christians and do not appreciate small-minded religionists telling the world we are not, manipulating perceptions of those who don’t know any better.
You can keep the false doctrine and pagan-based practices inherited from generations of apostasy all you want. I don’t pretend to represent your beliefs to anybody. And we would appreciate the same in return.
Jim,
You believe that the LDS religion has the true Christianity right? (Wasn’t it Heber C. Kimball who said that the LDS religion had the true Masonry?) In any event, we both recognize a difference. Fundamentally – we don’t have the same God, and we don’t have the same Jesus.
What I wonder is why you still cling to the hope that it is “our” Christianity that is wrong, of the two? Your religion started on the Bible, by producing a book that was supposed to be like it. Looking for your “gospel” in either of these books, as seen by The Mormon Gospel article, is a dead-end. Your gospel is not in either of those books.
So… if your religion started on the Book of Mormon, and it doesn’t even contain your gospel, how can you stand and tell everyone that it’s your version of Christianity that is true?
We also know that your branch of Mormonism… the Brigham Young branch… well, it followed BY’s leadership. Which means that what he said was important to your branch. And yet, you deny his sayings or claim that what he said was just thinking-out-loud (you know, the Adam-god thing). Clearly, your branch of Mormonized “Christianity” doesn’t follow your main break-off guy. So again, how can you stand and say that yours is the correct version?
The issues go on and on. I could go on and on with them here, but I won’t, because you’ve been here, and you know what they are. But your version of Mormonism, your version of Christianity, what do they even agree with, historically or scripturally speaking? Nothing. That’s right. Nothing, but what you believe.
I didn’t say any of this to condemn you, but to challenge you to challenge yourself. Why aren’t you challenging yourself with what is written out here, Jim?
Hay OJ,
What are we specifically bearing false witness about when it comes to Mormonism?
1. Joseph Smith used a seer stone, a stone he also had used to find bury treasure, in writing the BoM. Is that right or wrong?
2. Joseph Smith “married” at least 33 women, one of which was a girl about 14 years of age and others who already were married to other men. True or False?
3. Mormons believe that there are countless gods in the universe. These gods progressed from once being men. Mormon men think they will also progressed to becoming gods? True or False?
I could produce an endless list of “accurate” facts about Utah style Mormonism. It’s not that difficult. The problem is, Mormons don’t want people to know what they (Mormons) would rather not become generally known.
So speaking of the big whine about Christians bearing false witness about Mormonism, let’s flip that puppy. Do Mormons bear false witness against Christianity? Of course they do. What about the false claim of the great apostasy of the early Church where by all of the Mormonism of the first century was left out of the corrupted Bible? What about the lies told by Mormonism regarding the Council of Nicea, it’s meaning, outcome and historical facts leading up to it. Mormons bear false witness that the doctrine of the Trinity was manufactured at the Council of Nicea when historically we know the doctrine was written about early on by the Church fathers. What about the Mormon false claim that Christians believe that receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior gives them license to sin as much as they wish.
I’m sure other Christian posters can add more. Mormons like to pass themselves off as Christians for PR purposes while at the same time attacking Christianity. Mormons would certainly be subject to Church discipline based on the heretical teachings, beliefs and practices.
Well I guess it’s time to post my list again of what orthodox Christianity holds to as fundamental doctrine. The Salt Lake City Mormon church has beliefs about most of these that would lead to their expulsion from the Christian Body.
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Trinity, One God, Three persons.
3. The Deity of Christ. Jesus is God.
4. The virgin birth of Jesus.
5. Christ died for us. The blood atonement.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
7. Saved by grace a part from works.
8. Jesus second coming.
9. The judgment of God.
Mormonism originated with Joseph Smith who was a creative religious entrepreneur. He started out somewhat orthodox and wandered way off the trail. There was a point at which he would not have been given the boot. At first, he would have been seen as odd and somewhat of a kook, but could have remained in the Christian church. But when be changed his mind on who God is and let his sexual lusts rule his life, he would have been gone and rightly so.
The two major “assumptions” i see without evidence in this thread are as follows:
1. That LDS church is heretical
2. That the “Larger” Christian church is not heretical.
I have seen more evidence on this board to contradict these two assumptions than i have seen in their support.
As for a “seer stone”, i suppose that is what many might say about talking burning foliage at some time in history.
I surely am surprised at how vigorously the Ev comes to defend and perpetuate the Nicene Creed.
Especially when they try to defend the Trinity…with assumptions that contradict each other until their poor rationale falls upon the floor. For example, the notion that the Son was not after the Father and prove of such must be seen by the Son’s presence in the scripture “in the begining”…but yet at the same time emphatically claiming that God has no begining
You see, the Ev has to rely on parlor tricks, scientific reasoning ,and other such nonsense because a rational and intuitive discernment of the scriptures just does not support the gradual erosion of the “larger” church which history documents all to well.
…or you could just “assume” otherwise.
O.J.,
Just curious. You don’t what to be embraced
as part of the Christian Church, yet you said
” we are Christian “. If you claim to be a
christian, are’nt you then a part of the
Christian Church?
This is an excellent post. We will get the Mormon arguments that have already been presented. Such arguments will appeal to faulty reasoning and premises. There will be attempts to bully their views without any reference to biblical truth. They will refer to us as creedal Christians and make an appeal to what they perceive to be abhorrent traditions–while they ignore the heretical traditions of Mormonism. Throughout Christian history, creeds were established to fight against heresies. This was the purpose of the councils, of which our Mormon posters seem to be ignorant. The letters in the NT are more often than not addressing heresies. We will see Mormons eisegete the biblical text without any understanding of the principles of biblical interpretation. What else should we expect from adherents to a man-made religion that is steeped in synchretism and built on the faulty premise of becoming gods? The gospel of Mormonism is about the spotlight being focused on each individual Mormon as opposed to being focused on Jesus Christ, which is why works-righteousness and worship of the Law are at the top of their religion.
Sharon presents a sound argument for the rejection of Mormonism as part of the Christian family.
Peace…
Mike R,
We define the church and christianity differently. Evangelicals define Christianity and the church as equivalent. We do not. EVs have a definition for “the church” that is very fitting when you consider their definition of God- mystical and impossible to define. (Here come the posts countering this claim- but it is the truth).
We believe Christ formed a church- an actual definable entitiy with boundaries and authority and leaders. (How else could one be removed from the church for apostasy; and who decides to do the removing?).
To us, Christianity includes all those who believe Christ is the Savior of the world and the only means of salvation. We recognize that there are lots of folks outside our church who are Christians, but do not belong to Christ’s actual church.
So it makes sense for me to say that I have no desire whatsoever to belong to that group of Christians that are outside Christ’s church. But I am absolutely a Christian, and resent people claiming otherwise. I couldn’t care less for the lists and Pharisee-like criteria that falcon and others post.
sub,
*a magic seer stone used for scrying and conjuring and the burning bush are the same?
*I offered to have Andy and I do an off-blog study with you on the nature of God and the doctrine of the Trinity but you failed to take us up on the offer. I guess it’s much easier to repeat confused Mormon talking points than come to any understanding of the nature of God. I keep hoping that someday you’ll squeeze out of the Mormon box and do some real scholarship.
*”rational, intuitive, discernment of the scriptures” from a Mormon? I almost fell off my chair laughing.
As to how the SLC Mormon church handles it own “heretics”; Lyndon Lamborn showed-up at church one Sunday because he heard the Bishop was going to announce his (Lyndon’s) excommunication from the pulpit. I guess on the advice of legal counsel the Bishop thought better of it and didn’t do as he originally intended.
Who are the heretics in Mormonism? I have an interesting chart here regarding the doctrines of the Temple Lot, the Community of Christ and the Utah Mormons. The Temple Lot folks got really hot when Joseph Smith decided to change the original Book of Commandments. Seems Joe went heretic on his own religious invention.
About a month ago I went to the local mosque. I talked to the Imam there. I told him that in my opinion the thing that gives Islam a bad name and confuses people the most are heretical Muslim groups; I mentioned The Nation of Islam. His response was so telling – that is not Islam.
I am sure many have already made the connection. There is a particular American born group that has Christ in its name, its people (currently) claim to be Christians, yet it is “not Christian”. Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be not just be a church, but the church. It, however, is not Christian just as The Nation of Islam is “not Islam”. And if you think Christians treat their heretics badly, just see how Muslims treat their heretics.
The Nation of Islam is an American-born, heretical organization in regards to Islam just as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an American-born heretical organization in regards to Christianity. World religions defend their borders; there is nothing wrong with this in fact it is quite natural and normal.
Consider the words of Craig Blomberg in The New Mormon Challenge. BTW, this book was edited by Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen (notice Mosser & Owen). On pg. 324 & 325 he writes:
“Suppose suddenly a group of Caucasian Swedes announced that God had given them a hew work of scripture that contained many of the teachings of the Qu’ran in it.
A contemporary prophet had translated it into Swedish from ancient tablets purportedly written in an otherwise unknown language called reformed Persian, but those tablets are unavailable for anyone to examine. Despite Muslim convictions about the inerrancy of the Qu’ran, this new religious movement claims that Islamic scripture is corrupt, missing many fundamental doctrines that the prophet Mohammed promulgated, including an account of Sweden being settled by middle-eastern Arabs long before the Vikings. What is more, the cardinal tenets of Islam – the monotheism of Allah and Mohammed as the prophet who brought final, definitive revelation from God – have been disproved; in fact, the Qu’ran’s original views more resembled the polytheism Muslims believe Mohammed rejected than the monotheism centrally proclaimed throughout their history.
While Mohammad himself was a great spokesman for Allah, there is a Swedish prophet continuing to receive revelation from God today who can supersede anything in the Qu’ran that he wished. Meanwhile, the standard summary of Islamic religion is to be rejected as “abominable’, and most of Islam’s holy men are viewed as corrupt.
The analogy could, of course, be extended . But could we seriously expect any faithful Muslim today to simultaneously reject this new sect’s claims to have restored original Islam and yet accept it as a legitimate expression of the Muslim faith?”
Yeah, Mormons are Christians too
We see that the Mormons are making biblical references to authority without exegeting what the text actually says. This is on par with how they operate. Christ surely did build a Church, but it wasn’t on the rock of revelation or on a human being named Peter–Jesus Christ built His Church on Himself: He is THE Rock!
I’m glad guys like OJ don’t want to be called Christian in the biblical sense. But, we have to understand that Christian in the Mormon sense is built on a foundation of JS, who is undoubtedly a heretic.
I understand that Mormons will resent not being considered Christians. I used to resent it as well. It’s just that I’m able to admit that I wasn’t a Christian in light of biblical truth. I believed in a Jesus that only got me so far, then I had to do the rest. I believed in a Jesus that actually lied when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, because the apostasy that Mormonism claims to have had happened is dependent on the premise that the very Church Jesus organized did not last past His death. I now believe in a Jesus who has all power and authority to save me on His merits–He doesn’t need my help to get me into the presence of God.
So, “Who do you say that I am?” The Mormon response is incongruent with the biblical text.
Peace
David W
interesting story about your visit to the mosque. Unfortunately, it just does not provide such a solid case for your position.
I too find it a great analogy for modern Christianity. For you see, the many heretical sects outnumber the one true “church” in Christianity as well. The have propogated much like the ‘lost’ children of Islam. So here we see the singular Mormon church represented by the CoJCoLDS…surrounded by so many culturally diluted, government sponsored, and socially eroded…none of which are ‘Christian’.
Yes, the connections is clear….Mormons are Christian…not Christians, because for the purposes of this discussion we are singular and to assume are ‘resentful’ is just plain ridiculous.
jackg
“He doesn’t need my help to get me into the presence of God.”
you are right about that! But you sure need to help yourself get there.
Sharon,
We have got to be consistent. If we are going to call Mormons heretics, and they are, we have got to call someone else a heretic. Today is Martin Luther King Day and the man was most definitely a heretic. He denied the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.
Mormonism is not Christian on its face. However, there is a group that is even more dangerous. According to Walter Martin, liberal Christianity, not Mormonism, is the most dangerous cult (at least it was in the 80’s). They have the whitest fleece but inwardly are “λύκοι”.
Dr. King should have been rebuked for heresy and adultery. In fact, several of the ministers in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were sleeping around. No one man is above rebuke – not Joseph Smith, not Dr. King, not any pastor, no one. Some Mormons may think that we single them out (like Joseph Smith should get away with sleeping with married women); consider that even a bishop of Rome – Pope Honorius – was excommunicated and anathematized (along with Bishop Sergius) by the 6th, 7th, and 8th ecumenical councils as well as pope Leo II. Granted, the excommunication/anathematization was posthumous but better late then never. Earlier, Origen and Pelagius (both religious men who regarded themselves as Christians) were excommunicated. A healthy church is one that purges from time to time.
O.J.
I had to read over your reply a few times in
order to see your reasoning.
Here’s what I gathered:
Anyone who believes in Christ is a christian but
they are outside of Christ’s actual Church.Only
Mormons are therefore in Christ’s actual Church
and therefore since Christ’s actual church is the
only true Church, then those in His Church,the
Mormons, are the only true christians.All those
who are outside of the true Church, are in effect,
in another church.This other church would’nt be
that of the devil would it?
Sub,
Awe, but now we have the same dialectic! You and I are not “Christians too”. Of course you think you belong to the church of the Lamb (along with the other 400 or so Mormon denominations) and I belong to the church of the Devil.
I applaud your honesty in this post. I just wish that Joseph Smith was as honest as you are now.
So we’re back to the good old “Who’s a Christian and who’s not?” question again. How about the question – Who gets to define the word ‘Christian’? The LDS critics like those on this site? The Traditional Christian community? The non-Christian community? The general consensus of the world community? The LDS church?
If we say the LDS critics, then of course the LDS church is not Christian.
If we go to the general Traditional Christian community we would get a mixed answer, from my experience. All of my friends from a Catholic, Anglican, Protestant and Pentecostal background have told me that I am Christian, even when I have explained that I believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are 3 separate individuals, and that we will be held accountable for our actions on the Day of Judgment, which is when Jesus’ atonement takes action, rather than saved right now despite works. Even the old man I bumped into on the street proclaiming Jesus (he was born again) acknowledged I am Christian, just had another Jesus. The only ones I have heard say that the LDS church is not Christian are those on this site and other LDS critic sites.
The non-Christian community class the LDS church as Christian, just an offshoot, sect or cult.
Going on my experience with my friends and the non-Christian community, the general consensus is that the LDS church is Christian.
Finally the LDS church says it’s Christian.
The main criterion for claiming Christian is a belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer and The Son of God. This excludes Muslims before anyone says that they believe in Jesus – to them He is just another prophet.
It’s like Bill Clinton – When he claimed innocence, would someone who did not believe him but backed his party still be classed as a democrat? If you believed his claim and someone else did not, do you believe in the same person? Or are they different Bill Clintons?
We believe in Jesus Christ, just differently and we acknowledge that.
The apostle Paul was really firm with Timothy in telling him to guard the Gospel of Jesus Christ which was revealed to him and then verified by the other apostles in Jerusalem. Paul said in the first chapter of his letter to Timothy, “…instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines…” Mormonism gets about as strange as it comes. Paul could have been describing Mormon prophets and Mormons when he said, “…they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.” At the end of this section Paul identifies and describes God saying, “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.” Amen.
Paul describes the heretics when he says, “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,….” This is Mormonism in a nutshell. Those that have accepted this religion have paid attention to exactly what Paul says they would. When someone’s conscious is seared, it is very difficult to see the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In Second Timothy Paul writes to his son in the faith that he should, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.”
As Christians we do guard the standard of sound words. Mormons have no “sound words” when it comes to knowing God and the Gospel of His Son Jesus Christ.
Hey OJ, Here are some issues I see with what you said as your first post.
Many Former LDS leaders stated that Christian beliefs were hatched in hell and Christians are poor, miserable blind etc. If that stuff is true then how can you say your a christian? If you need the exact quotes let me know I will post them.
Then you said
Here are some more problems, Who said that are Church was wrong and an abomination? JS said that about us, How come it is wrong of us to defend ourselves against what your leader said about us?
How come we as Christians see LDS knocking on our doors then flat out lying to us, and we have given examples of this, Case in Point, I called an LDS member out on this board not that long ago for out right lying about me.
I said once before and will say it again, if you feel LDS members do not lie to us when they knock on our doors, please come to my house, I will contact LDS members and show you how they do it. I’m not saying the Christians have never lied or never will, I am honest enough to say it happens.
But LDS are famous for lying to me and dodging questions. You feel we are attacking you guys, well then be more open and honest and start answering questions. Rick b
Ralph said: “It’s like Bill Clinton – When he claimed innocence, would someone who did not believe him but backed his party still be classed as a democrat? If you believed his claim and someone else did not, do you believe in the same person? Or are they different Bill Clintons?
We believe in Jesus Christ, just differently and we acknowledge that.”
So… are you saying that you (Mormons) believe that Jesus is a real figure, but you do not believe what He said about Himself? Because honestly, I see this as a truth about Mormonism.
The Bible defines who a Christian is. Critical is the answer to Jesus’ own question, which I already referred to. It’s about the authority of the Bible. It will always boil down to that. I had to come to the realization that the Bible is indeed the inerrant Word of God; it’s the same path anyone has to trod before they can learn the truth regarding Jesus Christ. I used to believe the JS lies, but no longer. Praise be to God.
Sub,
The idea of helping oneself is not biblical. Once a person realizes that all they could ever merit for themselves is death, then they can understand the beauty of God’s grace. Even the ability to believe is generated by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, go ahead and argue for works-righteousness, and I will argue for the merits of Jesus Christ on the cross and resurrection as the sole source of salvation.
Peace…
Jackg,
In response to Jesus’ question I concur totally with Peter (Matt 16:15-16) – He is The Son of The Living God. Is that all I need to do to claim being Christian? Good, then I am Christian. But you claim that He is the Son of the Holy Ghost – Hmmm !
Does the Bible define who is Christian? The word is only used 3 times in the KJV. Two of those times, especially where it mentions the first use of the word, the word is used and made-up by the non-believers to classify these people that believed in the person Jesus who claimed to be a Christ. So it was the non-Christian people who gave the word life and meaning, should we use their definition? That would then place the LDS church under the banner of Christian. The third use of the word was a reference to the people who died in the name of Christ after persecution from the non-believers. This use has no definition surrounding it at all, except that anyone who claimed to be Christian were persecuted and in some instances killed for that title. I don’t think someone would claim to be Christian in those circumstances unless they were definite about their faith and position within that faith. Those who were killed would most likely not have been questioned first about whether they believed in the Trinity or salvation by faith despite works. In the view of the persecutors anyone who said they believed that Jesus was Christ, the Son of God and their Saviour and Redeemer would have faced the mob. Is this the definition you are looking for in the Bible?
I know a year ago or more Sharon tried to claim a definition from the Bible for ‘Christian’, but really, the only 3 places it is used only gives the meaning as one who believes in Jesus as their Saviour and Redeemer and the Son of God. So do you want to go by this Biblical definition?
[The blog post Ralph references can be found here.]
As a Christian, I always wondered why God states, “thou shout not”, is keeping the commandments not a directive to do something or is it
only a guide after one has stated the prayer of Faith, and is saved by His Grace? Does Grace supersede ones works to obey or be obedient?
“Paul said in the first chapter of his letter to Timothy, “…instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines
…actually strange is how the Ev insists on perpetuating the notions that God is schizophrenic, that Christianity is Greek in origin, and that Jesus is both the Son and the Father.
or this latest strange out-of-context emission we see
from jackg
The idea of helping oneself is not biblical
to be fair, this statement is true in theory, but the Ev application illustrates something entirely different. You see the Ev is like that guy who needs help fixing his car, so he asks you to “help” him fix his car…..then he stands there and watches you fix his car…so, in fact you did not “help” him fix anything, you actually fixed the car for him while he remained inactive. It would be like praying to God because you need a new job, but then you don’t submit resume’ anywhere and just assume God will provide a job for you…..how do you think that works out for you?
Easy-believism runs rampant through the Ev population. The true meaning of ‘thanksgiving’ is often lost among them and their intellectual endeavors.
Salvation merely gives us ‘permission’ to enter God’s presence, our work prepares us to be in that presence, and our “thanksgiving” is what gets us there.
Psalms 100:4
1 John 4:16
James 4:8
Janet
good question you pose, i will certainly be surprised to read a direct answer from the Ev here.
The basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity have been well defined. If someone goes outside the boundaries of the established standard they are a heretic. Mormons tell us that their “prophets” get messages from the Mormon god. So when the Mormon oracle speaks, he is revealing the mind of the Mormon god. Mormons can’t get away with saying that the Mormon prophet, when speaking forth on matters of doctrine, is right sometimes and wrong (misspeaks, gives opinions) at other times. That’s way too convenient even for Mormons; to give that much of a fudge factor to their prophet who hears from the Mormon god.
I suppose there are times when the concept of “progressive revelation” might work as in the case of blacks and the priesthood, but in most cases in just doesn’t wash. For example, the incarnation of Jesus isn’t something the Mormon god is going to change his mind on and neither is the doctrine of Adam-god. It’s either right or wrong. I would also place the doctrine of polygamy in the same category since, according to the grand pooh bah Smith, it’s necessary for reaching godhood/highest level of the Mormon Celestial kingdom.
So Mormons are heretics as far as any claims to wanting to be included in the family of Christian denominations. The basic point is that Mormonism has no claims on Christianity.
You know sub
Every time you post you reveal more of your ignorance. Why don’t you spend some real quality time in study. “Christianity is Greek in origin”? Please expound on this claim. I’d really be interested in your secret information.
The offer still stands to do an in-depth study on the doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose repeating that the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible is about as deep as any Mormon dare go.
Please provide us with information regarding the Mormon claim that Mormonism is original Christianity. That would include giving us information that the apostles practiced polygamy, that they taught that men would progress to be gods, that they engaged in secret Masonic ceremonies in Christian temples and on and on. It’s a lot easier to repeat Mormon talking points without providing any documentation.
Get yourself out of the Mormon box sub. The air is much more clear and invigorating out here.
Some Evangelicals are still preaching that it’s necessary almost without exception that one has to practice Polygamy to reach the highest degree of Heaven, Celestial Glory. This must be basic 101 teaching of how to misrepresent LDS Doctrine without any source or references. Amazing how our Doctrine seems to change daily.
Janet,
What did Joseph Smith teach regarding the necessity of practicing polygamy to reach the highest level of glory in the Celestial kingdom? That’s what is being stated here. If that’s what the Mormon god told Smith, then the Mormon god isn’t going to change his mind on something as critical as that, right?
Regarding your other question, I would suggest you read and study the Bible and what it says on the relationship between law and faith/grace. Just a couple of verses; Romans 3:20 states “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” That verse states the purpose of the Law. And further in Romans 3:21-24 it states, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”
Janet,
I can understand your confusion because Mormonism is not Christianity. It’s a different religion that borrows some Christian terms and attaches different meanings to them. In Mormonism there is a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit and a different plan of salvation. Mormonism is based on the musings of a false prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus warned that false prophets would come and if possible lead away even the elect. The spiritual delusion hanging over Mormonism has caused the followers of Smith to be seduced into following a false Gospel that is a useful counterfeit for Satan. We have many exMormons who post here, who testify daily to their new life in Christ after years of entrapment in the maze of Mormonism. It would do you well to listen to their testimonies of the living God who released them from their bondage to the false gospel of Mormonism.
Sub,
“actually strange is how the Ev insists on perpetuating the notions that God is schizophrenic, that Christianity is Greek in origin, and that Jesus is both the Son and the Father.”
And this is not slander and misrepresentation?
The basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity have been well defined. If someone goes outside the boundaries of the established standard they are a heretic”
a bold statement, unfortunately no single “Christian” organization subscribes to the same basic doctrines.
The Ev seemingly unaware of their own John Nelson Darby, or Ecumenism, or the Lambeth Conferences, or of the basic meaning of Dispensationalism.
David W
My first claim
many Ev would state, that God is the Father and the Son, and that one was not before the other…thus rendering, at least, a dual personality and/or disordered thinking unto God…ergo ’schizophrenia’.
My second claim
The Nicene Creed and most of what Constantine organized to maintain the ‘monarchy’ is often used as support for Ev criticism and claims. And the Ev relies purely on Greek entymolgy with little, though seldom, appreciation for Hebrew text or context or cultural translation….ergo Greek.
My third claim
related to first claim and a little to second. Best illustrated by falcon’s self-imploding argument about the Trinity where he would claim that God had a “begining” – “in the begining” to support his assertion that the Son had “always” been. The support of that ill-fated logic has been supported by many Ev posters in one manner or another.
So, no, it is not anymore “misrepresentative” than the mildest of falcon’s posts….and its far from slander…slander is a malicious and false staement, like the claims that are posted that sexual deviance was the motive for LDS polygamy…a supposition that has no evidence and is intended to damage JS’s reputation….that is slander….why do you ask, are you proclaiming your disdain and condemnation for slanderous posts?
falcon
you may be confused, because when you write about “Christian” you obvioulsy subscribe to the rather-off-the-mark pop definition of Christian – one derived from Apostasy.
Maybe “Christian” should be defined? i spell it L-D-S
Falcon, you wrote,
Perhaps what you are referring to is the authoritative teachings of Brigham Young? Or maybe you meant Joseph Smith’s teaching as found in D&C 132? See here for more info and references.
Ralph,
Who do you say Jesus is? Answer that question, and then we will know if whether or not you truly believe in the biblical Jesus or the Jesus JS made up, which is a counterfeit Jesus. If your answer is correct, then you will see that you can’t also claim to be a Mormon. We all have to go through this process, Ralph. I know it’s difficult to acknowledge that the belief system in which you have operated all your life is built on heresies uttered from the mouth of a false prophet, someone you were taught to revere. I know the position you’re in, Ralph. But, ultimately, the time will come for you to humble yourself and admit that the testimony you share is not built on biblical revelation. We will all come to that “moment of truth,” Ralph. I pray that when it presents itself to you, that you will be humble and courageous enough to walk out of the darkness of Mormonism and into the Light of Jesus Christ.
sub,
Easy-believism…really? It’s clear you don’t really understand the cost of discipleship. The problem is that you are still operating from a backward theology. Salvation becomes reality when one confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Repentance will naturally be the fruit of that confession. The process of sanctification requires diligence and discipleship, and there will be a change in thinking and behaviors. This is the natural outflow of a saved person. In other words, you don’t have to clean up your life in order to be saved. Cleaning up one’s life is the natural process of the saved soul. You want to make it “hard,” so that way you can say that you are some special person who can succeed in the “hard” and “demanding” road of salvation. It’s all about you, sub, and that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for your charge of “strange out-of-context emission,” then perhaps I am in line to be your next “prophet.” You just identified the teachings of JS and your subsequent leaders rather aptly.
Peace…
Ralph said
Ralph, we have been over this before with you. You cannot simply say I believe in Jesus and be saved if the Jesus you claim to believe in is not the Jesus/God of the Bible.
I believe it was you, but it could have been another LDS member, I recall a LDS member admitting LDS and Christians do not hold to the same gospel, I know many LDS do not like to admit that, but that was why I do my “What if” Question. What if I dress as a mormon, call my self a latter day saint and go door to door with the gospel of grace and no works and the trinity.
You guys would attack me for that, yet you jump on us for correcting you guys for saying your just like us but teaching a different gospel.
Remember, God said I place my word above my name, He takes His word seriously, and if you then say the Bible is wrong or is full of problems then you are calling God a liar. If you go onto say, well the God in the Bible is not how I believe Him to be, but in fact I believe this instead, Again your calling God a liar.
I said this before and I will say it again, go back and read the book of Job, Job’s friends were way off base on what they thought and believe about God and who he was, What did God do, He rebuked them all and only spared them if Job prayed for them and offered up a sacrifice.
Their are other cases, like with Moses, he was denied going into the promised land because he misrepresented who God was.
You cannot teach a false gospel and call it truth and fact and expect God to allow that to slide. God call that a false witness, and a false Gospel.
I’m a professional baker and work in the culinary arts. Years ago restaurants were taking skate wing and a round cutter and cutting out round circles and calling them scallops because it was cheaper. Cont.
Cont,
Do you want the real scallop or do you want a counterfeit but then not know because your being lied to? A lie is a lie is a lie, you simple cannot change Gods word and call it truth. Rick b
“Salvation becomes reality when one confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Repentance will naturally be the fruit of that confession.”
…so it is be saved and repent? all this time i thought it was repent and then be saved…wait a second, does baptism come last?, cause i did that already.
“I know it’s difficult to acknowledge that the belief system in which you have operated all your life is built on heresies..”
i thought the trinty debate was in a different thread. Though, it is encouraging to see an Ev finally admit its ‘hard’ for themself. But, don’t forget, repenting is supposed to come later.
Sharon
not to nibble on the “distraction”…but,
a peculiar take on D&C 132:52 and an even more peculiar take is offered up for the “polygamy” described in D&C 132:58-66. I really should take more time to see how far the MRM main site takes things.
D&C 132 overwhelmingly deals with celestial/eternal marriage regardless of it being mono or poly. As i read, Polygamy is not put forth as a “requirement”.
sub,
Go back to the fifth post on this thread and there are listed the doctrines on which basic orthodox Christian denominations are judged by regarding being “Christian”. I have posted this list countless times and I guess I have to do it about every tenth post.
So what’s the deal with Darby and dispensational theology etc. I’m really missing your point. You obviously think you have something really hot here but I’m not seeing it. If you’re really interested in the different points of view regarding certain aspects of Christian theology, I would suggest that you purchase “Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine” by H. Wayne House. The description of the book is:
“Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine provides students of theology with precise and condensed summaries of the concepts and arguments from the fields of theology and doctrine. It does this by introducing readers to important terms and positions and their meanings.”
You could really use this. It would broaden your horizons and get you some accurate information. The problem is, it will raise havoc to your Mormonism. Once Mormons broaden their limited perspectives, they don’t remain Mormons very long. So on second thought, you probably don’t want to take yourself up another level. It’s a lot more emotionally safe to stay in the Mormon box.
Sub, you bring up the point of, Baptism.
Many LDS teach we must be baptised to be saved. Here is another change to the gospel from you guys. If baptism really is required for being saved, then why does the bible tell us “Jesus Did not baptize”?
Call me crazy, but if it is REQUIRED TO BE SAVED, I would think Jesus would have clearly made it known and did it.
Then Paul said he did not come to baptize and he even forgot how many he baptized. Again, call me crazy, but if I must be baptised to be saved it sure would be nice to have God tell me this. Rick b
sub,
Sorry if I confused you. I know you’re stuck on works being a prerequisite to salvation. To repent is to “turn away” from the lifestyle that is not congruent with the lifestyle of a follower of Jesus. It’s agreeing with God that the lifestyle one has been leading is contradictory to the life God has chosen for that person to live. This can only happen after our relationship with God is changed from that of creature to that of child of God. It’s a new relationship that is ignited when we are justified by our faith. I cannot change behavior until I truly have faith in Jesus Christ and am empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so. Until that paradigm shifts occurs for you, you will always struggle with your works-righteousness dilemma. As for baptism, it is not efficacious. It is a sign/symbol of accepting Jesus and of sharing in His death and resurrection. In other words, you don’t need to be baptized to be saved. Any inference to the contrary merely reveals faulty exegesis of the biblical text.
Peace…
Sub, Rick B,
Baptism in whose name? If you are baptized in the name of a false god (the Mormon god), this baptism is in no way valid. Baptism in the name of the Triune God is important – I think sometimes Christians devalue it; however, if one goes by Scripture it is clearly one of the ways we are to relate to God. Baptism is a sign and a seal of salvation, wherein the one being baptized identifies with Christ and is buried with Him in his death – covered by His blood for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is a means of grace, whereby we apply and depend on Jesus death and resurrection for redemption. It is not magical, but is a gift which God has given to us – just as Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper or Communion for us to have fellowship with Him. Baptism is not essential for salvation, but neither would I divorce it from salvation. It is not a work we do, but something God uses to create faith in our hearts and draw us to Christ crucified for our forgiveness. If someone is doing being baptized in the name of a false god or doing it as a work of righteousness for the dead it is not true baptism.
I think Jesus did not baptize because it would have made a special class of believers “I was baptized by Jesus!” Believe me, with our sinful hearts, people would have been proudly prancing around about it.
“..however, if one goes by Scripture it is clearly one of the ways we are to relate to God..”
yet another illusion perpetuated by the Ev…the “Triune” is not Biblical Doctrine nor is it of an Apostolic witness…3 in 1 or 1 in 3 is not scripture based…period.
…but, please, feel free to prove otherwise and you will most likely prove something you did not set out to prove….but don’t let that “dissuade” you – prove the Trinity “by going by Scripture” as you emphatically claim above.
“Baptism is not essential for salvation”
1 Peter 3:21
Acts 2:38
Romans 6:3
and most important —-> Matthew 3:15
Jesus is showing humiliation is he not? is He not putting on a display of perfect obedience? on fulfilling all righteousness? showing that compliance to all of God’s laws is necessary to have the Heavens open to Him? is it not here that we witness all of this?
It is through “Baptism” that readiness for compliance to God’s will is confirmed.
So, as the Ev promotes here, the outer inevitably confirms the inner, inseperable and undeniably.
So, if i may flirt with double entendre, you will be Baptized because otherwise you have not been “Baptized”.
(and i wuold wager that you are far off base on why Jesus did not baptize, but a good guess.)
if nothing else, its posts like this that prove this site is entertaining.
jackg
i think you have “repent” and “forsake” confused.
Sub,
From your post it does seem like you have a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Also, the Trinity is not just an “Ev” thing.
Also, I think you know little of church history and the original languages. I can assure you that there are many “Evs” that do know Hebrew and Aramaic and who do not rely “purely on Greek entymolgy”. Furthermore, I am not so sure you realize that a good portion of scripture was written in Greek. At least part of Christianity “is Greek” as that is what the NT was written in. I do not know why the original languages matter to you who thinks Biblical authors (at least Luke and Matthew) got portions of their books wrong.
So, if it ok for you and falcon to misrepresent each other (I am not saying you do but that seems to be the argument of your post – moral equivalency) then can we drop the “lies, misrepresentation, distortions, etc.” canard?
FYI, I do think Joseph Smith was a sexual predator, but that is another topic for another day. Suffice it to state that the idea of contending for the faith and the purity of the church should in itself not be a sore spot for Mormons. Consider, if we are right and you are wrong about the things of God then should we not purge Joseph Smith and his “church”?
Mobaby,
Dont misunderstand me. I never said dont bother getting baptized, I believe we should do it, I’m just saying that if you do not you will still be saved.
Here are some problems I see with the LDS and baptism. Lets say I have LDS knock on my door and I believe them right off the bat, am I saved for believing them? No I am not. Now they tell me I need to be or must be baptized, So I say ok, when and where, I am on my way their and get killed, murdered, simply die of natural causes, or whatever am I no longer saved?
Well to many honest LDS I would get a lesser heaven if I was even saved. Let now do that with Christians, if I believe and confess Jesus I am saved just as the Bible says. What If I excepted Christ in Hati then the earthquake hit and I died, I was not baptised so am I saved? Yes I am.
Thats the problem with works based salvation, Plus go back and read what Paul said to the Jailer, The jailer said, What must I do to be saved. Paul said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus, Paul never said, Believe and be baptized. Only faith in Jesus saves us. Simple put it is Jesus period. Not Jesus And……..
Rick b
RickB,
I never said anything about all one needs to do is believe in Jesus and they are saved with a license to do what ever. I was not even talking about being saved in the first place. I was responding to Jackg’s comment that to be a ‘Christian’ one needs to get the answer correct to the question ‘Who do you say that I am?’ I answered the question in agreement with Peter – Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The living God. That is what I believe, that is what the LDS church teaches. If that is all that is necessary to be put under the unbrella of the term ‘Christian’, then that means the LDS church is Christian.
Jackg,
I did answer your question but here it is again – I agree with Peter, Jesus is The Christ and The Son of The living God. This answer totally complies with the LDS teachings so I don’t understand what you are trying to say when you mentioned that the answer is incongruent with LDS teachings.
In actuality, it is incongruent with your teachings as I pointed out above. You believe that Jesus was sired by the Holy Ghost so He is not the Son of the living God, but the Son of the Holy Ghost, according to your doctrine. Or at least that is why we had the discussion a few weeks ago about how Jesus was conceived.
Mobaby,
The only reference to baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is in Matthew. The rest of the NT says baptism in Jesus’ name only. So who do we believe – Matthew or the others in the NT? Because of this there are some theologians that believe that the Matthew verse is an add-in to try and ‘prove’ a Trinity. But the last part is neither here nor there, just an interesting tid-bit that people are theorising on but can’t prove without the originals. Does this count as a contradiction in core doctrine in the Bible?
Ralph, I understood you, my point to you was, Just because you say, I believe in Jesus, or Jesus is God or Jesus is the son of God means nothing when you look deeper into who do you believe that Jesus is.
The Jesus I confess and the jesus the lds confess have the same name/title on the surface, but when we dig deeper they are not even close to the same. Rick b
Let’s put to rest some of the lies and misconceptions mentioned on this thread, by the ‘so called’ “LDS Christians” (LOL) & explore what their leaders have said and done in regards to polygamy & verify that “the claims that are posted” concerning “sexual deviance [as a] motive for LDS polygamy” really are true & “one has to practice Polygamy to reach the highest degree of Heaven”…[You can have one wife in Mormonism & reach the Celestial Kingdom, but you will be one of the ‘lower gods’, & those that HAVE MORE WIVES WILL BE ABOVE YOU IN STATION & POWER]. Janet, if you would READ your own History, others would not have to PROVE IT TO YOU.
If Celestial Marriage is all about having ONE wife, then why all the opposition to it from WITHIN the church? Why did Smith, Young, Taylor & a host of others FLAT OUT LIE that polygamy was even being practiced in the Church until 1852? Why was it even practiced, when the High Council in Nauvoo voted it down? Why did Smith then ex-communicate and slander all those who opposed it. This is the TRUE history of what went on, and I will show it to you. genius & the other Mormon posters are being naïve, deceived, or CHOOSE to believe & propagate a lie, but the HISTORY is there for all to see. Mormon claims about progressive revelation are LIES, the PROPHET IS A DICTATOR just as SMITH WAS & this has always been and always will be how the Mormon Church Operates. Lets take a stroll down memory lane, shall we, and PROVE how Mormons BELIEVE THE LIE, and WHY they need to be PURGED from TRUE CHRISTIANITY:
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (- 12AOF, written by Smith.)
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; & one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again.” ( – HotC:2:247 – 1835, D&C Section 101:4) – This is a very important scripture & was used over and over to deny polygamy & that they were committing fornication to practice it.
“Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time.” ( – Smith, May 1, 1838 in Teachings:119) –Why were people asking???
So here we have it established that:
1. Mormons believe in obeying, honoring & sustaining the law.
2. Mormons believe that one man should have one wife. (as quoted from their own scriptures)
3. Smith confirms (no polygamy) in 1838 (after having affairs & plural wives)
4. Remember, it takes a Church Vote to incorporate any ‘supposed new revelation’ & make it binding on Members ….
But what was really going on???
A Woman named Fanny Alger (Smith’s first plural wife (that we know of), stayed at Smith’s home as a housemaid in Kirtland during early 1833. She was 16. Benjamin Johnson called her “a varry nice & Comly young woman,” & Fanny lived with the Smith family from 1833 to 1836.
Martin Harris related that Smith’s ‘servant girl’ had been the subject of his [Smith’s] “improper proposals to her, which created quite a talk amongst the people.”. Mormon Fanny Brewer said this: “much excitement against the Prophet…[involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself & a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection.”
William McLellin (one of Smith’s early apostles, in a letter to one of Smith’s sons,) said that when Emma discovered Smith and Fanny in the Barn, the ensuing confrontation between Emma and her husband grew so heated that S. Rigdon, F. Williams & O. Cowdery had to mediate.
After Emma related what she had witnessed, Smith, according to McLellin, “confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him.” Cowdery may have forgiven his cousin Smith, but he did not forget the incident. Three years later in Missouri he would call the Fanny Alger episode “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” (bye bye Oliver)
Note that Harris & Cowdery are two of the three witnesses to the Book Of Mormon. This was to be the ‘secret pattern’ for Smith over the next 11 years. Here is what Smith said about “how hard’ it was for him to practice polygamy (notice this happened after the Alger affair). As related by Mary E.R. Lightner, one of Smith’s plural wives who he had sex with when she was married to another man, (non-mormon), & who went to Utah:
[Smith] preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it.[in secret] I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. [Like Adam-God was given to Young???] An angel came to him & the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand & told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.”
“Well,” said I, “don’t you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?” Said he, “No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light & Satan’s angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and ‘42 & said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. [He had no problem with Fanny Alger] “But,” said he, “they called me a false & fallen prophet [I wonder why?] but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie;[unless He tells the Church to practice Monogamy & Smith Polygamy & lie] all that he gives me[WIVES] I shall take with me for I have that authority & that power conferred upon me.” (-1905 Address at BYU)
The ‘sword’ story is verified by multiple Mormon sources. If polygamy is so ‘non-essential’ to the Church, then why this story? Why would Smith have to practice it at all? And I don’t want to hear the garbage about ‘restoring all things’ because if you go down that road, polygamy must be ‘essential’ & you have a real problem with it’s repeal later. This whole story is a redundant conundrum, but we will get to that, yes we will.
In 1838 Smith ‘married’ Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris while she was still married to her first husband & Smith was living with the two. (See Mormon Todd Compton’s book, In Sacred Loneliness). Compton writes that Sarah Pratt reported that “while in Nauvoo Lucinda had admitted a long-standing relationship with Smith”; and that there is an “early Nauvoo temple proxy sealing to Smith….”
From this & the Alger ‘affair’ sprang the questions that Smith was forced to answer about ‘fornication’ & his public declarations about there being ‘no polygamy in the Church’ and flies in the face of this revelation:
“…..neither shall anything be appointed unto ANY of this church CONTRARY to the church covenants. For ALL THINGS must be done IN ORDER, and by common consent in the church…” (D&C 28:12-13.)
That Smith had polygamy on his mind since 1831 is evidenced by this ‘revelation’ he ‘received’ which in part reads:
“[I]t is [God's] will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.” (Original in Church Archives – never published in the D&C but verified by Joseph Fielding Smith in a letter to J. Baily in 1935:
“The exact date I cannot give you when this principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith, but I do know that there was a revelation given in July 1831, in the presence of Oliver Cowdery, W. Phelps & others in Missouri, in which the Lord made it known
through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Whether the revelation as it appears in the D&C [w]as first given July 12, 1843, or earlier, I care not. It is a fact, nevertheless, that this principle was revealed at an earlier date.”
You see, Smith was eyeing the Indian lands in Missouri & wanted a claim by intermarriage with them & invented ‘revelations’ to do so. It is not hard to see Smith next eyeing the wives of his fellow Church members & then re- introducing the doctrine as we see here:
Zina Huntington was living in the Joseph Smith home when Elder Henry B. Jacobs married her in March 1841. According to family records, when Zina and Henry asked Joseph Smith why he had not honored them by performing their marriage, Smith replied that “the Lord had made it known to him that [Zina] was to be his Celestial wife.” Believing that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man,” the devout Elder Jacobs consented for six-months-pregnant Zina to be sealed to Joseph Smith 27 October 1841. (“History of Henry Bailey Jacobs.” By Ora J. Cannon, page 5-7. also, “Recollections of Zina D. Young” by Mary Brown Firmage)
Zina and Henry lived together as husband and wife until the Mormon pioneers reached Mt. Pisgah, Iowa. At this temporary stop on the pioneer trail, Brigham Young announced that “it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, & get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit” Young then called Jacobs on a mission to England. He was so emotionally ill they had to “put him on a blanket & carry him to the boat to get him on his way”. (“Short Sketch of the Life of Henry B. Jacobs” By Ora J. Cannon)
Henry returned from his mission and settled in California. But he was still in love with his wife Zina, now a plural wife of Brigham Young. Henry’s letters to his wife Zina were heartrending. On 2 September 1852 he wrote: “O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” “I am unhappy,” Henry lamented, “there is no peace for poor me, my pleasure is you, my comfort has vanished…. O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again, answer the question please.” In an undated Valentine he added:
Zina my mind never will change from Worlds without Ends, no never, the same affection is there and never can be moved I do not murmur nor complain of the handlings of God no verily, no but I feel alone and no one to speak to, to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother, I do not blame any person or persons, no–May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever. Tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had, all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our god Joseph [Smith].” (source above)
As noted above, It takes a Church Vote to sustain a revelation and make it binding in the Church. This was NEVER done with the revelation on Celestial Marriage & Polygamy in Smith’s lifetime. At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William Law were Joseph Smith’s counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body of the church, rather than the Q12. Since all of those men were strongly against polygamy, Smith’s secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders of the church which he himself established. When Smith tried to have his “revelation on celestial marriage” sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated as explained by Todd Compton:
To Be Continued…
Ralph,
I understand that it’s hard to get past the notion that creation and sexual intercourse go hand in hand. Since I understand the theological challenges to which the LDS Church has subjected its members, I can feel for you and your desire to express yourself in a way that will champion your faith. The conclusions you draw are a total misrepresentation of what Christianity teaches regarding the virgin birth. I believe it was a virgin birth, but apparently you think sexual intercourse had to happen somewhere. Tell me if I am wrong in this assumption.
sub,
Your desperation is clearly evident. Praying for you, man.
Peace
Jackg,
Go back to the discussion about the Virgin Birth – I never advocated for the position of a physical union. However I still believe that Heavenly Father is the literal physical father of Jesus. How this occurred I do not know, I could be wrong but I do not believe that it was through sex – but this has nothing to do with my salvation so it does not concern me that much. If we look at the question and Peter’s answer again, Peter professed Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of The Living God. He did not say the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor the Son FROM the Triune God. He said the Son OF the Living God.
RickB,
I agree that we believe in the same historical figure, but our beliefs differ when it comes to His deity, etc. But that does not mean that we cannot be labelled Christian.
I am a human, just like you, just like everyone on this blog. However, I am caucasian – some on this blog aren’t. I am male, some on this blog aren’t. I am Australian, most on this blog aren’t. See I am human the same as everyone, but there are major differences in our looks, backgrounds, etc that make us individual.
The Christian community has many denominations that have differnces making them all individuals. In fact within these denominations are also divisions. For instance the Lutheran church in Finland allow fornication and so does the Pentacostal church here in Newcastle. The Anglican church in England a few hundred years ago also allowed it. Where as the Bible speaks out against fornication, and so does the Lutheran church in Australia, and the Pentacostal church in America and the current Anglican church. These are differences you are willing to set aside under the name Christian.
We LDS believe in Jesus as The Christ and the Son of God, thus according to Jackg we are Christian like you, but we have different beliefs. We are a denomination, thus you cannot say that you represent the LDS church, just like you and I cannot say we represent the Pentacostals or Lutherans, etc
Ralph,
Your correct on the denotations but the problem is, if you deny the Bible or teach things that go against Gods word then your not a christian.
You need to read the Bible better, the Bible says things like, Wolves will arise from with in and destroy, deceivers will come, false prophets and false Gospels. If these things are true, then you cannot say we have different belief’s yet follow the same God.
The Bible tells us to search the scripture to know if these things are true. Jesus tells us that not everyone who says LORD, LORD will enter heaven but be told by Jesus Himself, I NEVER KNEW YOU.
The question people need to ask themselves is not Do I know Jesus, but does Jesus Know me. Rick b
“In early 1843 Austin [Cowles]….played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Parley P. Pratt. These men—the Nauvoo Stake President, his first counselor, and an eloquent apostle—would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.
Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent. Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12.
Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles,& Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.
“Undoubedtly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith’s revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes, ‘President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councillor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council.’ Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin ‘was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.’ After resigning his presidency, he ‘was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place.’
…..Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as his first counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was ‘cut off’ from the main LDS church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the ‘Nauvoo Expositor,’ the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the ‘Expositor’ press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that led to his martyrdom.” (“In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph
Smith”, pp. 549-550.)
Bigamy, & Polygamy were illegal in Ohio, Illinois, & Missouri. Smith broke the laws of the land & defied his own Church Councils to not START, but CONTINUE to practice polygamy, which he did in secret with a select few that he bullied & manipulated into it.
Here is a flat out lie, PUBLISHED in England and WRITTEN by John Taylor:
“We are accused here of polygamy,… and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;… I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330… Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,…“‘ (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, page 8; published in “Orson Pratt’s Works,” 1851 edition).
Notice Taylor’s linking of fornication with polygamy? Then he has the audacity to quote from the 1835 D&C Article of Marriage about having only ONE wife. Two YEARS later the Church would ‘officially’ vote to sustain D&C 132 & polygamy. And how did the Church Leadership feel about these ‘wives’? Above you read that Young referred to them as ‘property’. Here are some gems from Heber C. Kimball, counselor to Young & other Prophets & who gave his 14 year old daughter to Smith:
“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.” (- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, quoted in The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.)
Speaking to a group of departing missionaries…
“Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.” –( Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30).
and again…
“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they[the women] are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen” (- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.)
It gets better & goes back to Smith as it always does, for he is the PATTERN that these later leaders followed & worshipped. Benjamin Johnson tells the story of how this all sprang from Smith & the tactics Smith used to ‘persuade’ his fellow conspirators:
“About the first of April, 1843… we sat down upon a log he began to tell me that the Lord had revealed to him that plural or patriarchal marriage was according to His law;
and that the Lord had not only revealed it to him but had commanded him to obey it; that he was required to take other wives; and that he wanted my Sister Almira for one of them, and wished me to see and talk to her upon the subject.”
Smith then tells Johnson he will preach a sermon that night to make it ‘clear’ about the doctrine of polygamy & that only Johnson would ‘understand’:
“At the meeting he read the parable of the Talents, and showed plainly that to him that hath shall be given more, and from him that had but one should be taken that he seemed to have, and given to him who had ten.”
This was the justification for taking other mens’s wives, and Smith would do this again and again, going to men he could manipulate, telling them he wanted their wives, and then after they agreed telling them it was a test. In some cases he was entirely serious (as quoted above) for he did send men on missions & marry their wives in secret, & he did tell some that if they would help him gain one woman or another, their whole families would ‘be saved’, & he did break the laws of the land and his own church to do so & he did this with underage women on more than one occasion.
Hyrum Smith then told Johnson:
“Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law.”
Johnson continues:
He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet.
Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira’s ROOM AND BED, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M.”
She was engaged to another man, so Smith backed off. But then Johnson suggests Smith take his serving girl as a wife instead & Smith replies:
“No, but she is for you. You keep her and take her for your wife and you will be blessed.”
Johnson was elated:
“This seemed like hurrying up my blessings pretty fast, but the spirit of it came upon me, [I BET] and from that hour I thought of her as a wife that the Lord had given me.” (Johnson Diary) Notice that Smith equals Lord.
No Church vote here, nothing but the Smith brother’s assurance that it was a ‘revelation’ from God. Smith would hold out the stick and the apple repeatedly to these men to get his hands on their wives & their sisters. Here is Sarah Whitney’s account of what happened to her:
“[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”
Why would she feel ‘like an abused child’ if she were only ‘sealed’ to Smith? The answer is obvious. Smith’s 1843 “revelation on celestial marriage” which is still Mormon scripture as D&C 132, states that the purposes of “plural marriage” was to “multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63).
To be Continued…
Evangelicals ask the following: ” What did Joseph Smith teach regarding the necessity of practicing polygamy to reach the highest level of glory in the Celestial kingdom? ”
My understanding is that one must at least believe in their hearts that the principle of plural marriage is God Given and Gods law when required. Would love to see where it has to be practiced to achieve the Highest Degree in the Celestial Kingdom. Source and quotes would be most appreciated.
J.
Ralph,
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You’re demonstrating double-talk, which was previously addressed. I know exactly what’s in your head because it was once in my head: in some way you can’t really articulate because even the thought of it is innately heretical, you believe there was a physical, sexual relationship between God and Mary. You try to get in the back door by couching it in terms such as ” However I still believe that Heavenly Father is the literal physical father of Jesus. ” “Literal” in the Mormon sense IMPLIES a sexual relationship. We are not naive to the language used by Mormons. Ralph, I have been taught the same garbage you have been taught. You can’t trick me with Mormon-ese. I speak it fluently!
The rest of what you say is a convoluted attempt to remove yourself from the fact that you do not believe in the biblical Jesus; otherwise, you would have to reject the the lies of JS that Jesus is the brother of Satan, or that He had a beginning somewhere in time despite the fact that God is not governed by time (nor any other laws for that matter).
Praying for you, Ralph.
Blessings…
Smith would make ‘proposals’ to many of the wives of his followers that were rejected by them. This account by Sarah Pratt is indicative of how Smith handled their rejection:
“Sometime in late 1840 or early 1841, Joseph Smith confided to his friend that he was smitten by the “amiable and accomplished” Sarah Pratt and wanted her for “one of his spiritual wives, for the Lord had given her to him as a special favor for his faithfulness” (emphasis in original). Shortly afterward, the two men took some of Bennett’s sewing to Sarah’s house. During the visit, as Bennett describes it, Joseph said, “Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as God granted holy men of old, and as I have long looked upon you with favor, and an earnest desire of connubial bliss, I hope you will not repulse or deny me.” “And is that the great secret that I am not to utter,” Sarah replied. “Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove recreant to my lawful husband! I never will.” She added, “I care not for the blessings of Jacob. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me.” But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent. Finally Sarah angrily told him on a subsequent visit, “Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will make a full disclosure to Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it.” “Sister Pratt,” the Prophet responded, “I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?” “If you will never insult me again,” Sarah replied, “I will not expose you unless strong circumstances should require it.” “If you should tell,” the Prophet added, “I will ruin your reputation, remember that.” (Article “Sarah M. Pratt” by Richard A. Van Wagoner, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72.
Sarah Pratt became a vocal opponent of polygamy & was excommunicated for it. She would make this comment about her husband, Orson Pratt:
“Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention.”
That these liaisons Smith had with the women were sexual in nature she also verified to Smith’s son, Joseph III:
“I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: ‘You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don’t you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?’ He answered: ‘If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?’ I said to him: ‘Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.” (Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886) & above)
Smith repeated this scenario with Nancy Rigdon, & Jane Law, who reacted with as much indignation as Sarah Pratt did. Smith carried out his threat to Sarah Pratt & Nancy Rigdon, & the Laws & others left the Church over Smith’s behavior. Smith & his brother then started an all-out smear campaign against all that opposed them. They got Church members to swear out affidavits against Mrs. Pratt who, when they were confronted by her had this to say:
“It is not my fault; Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. Joseph and the Church must be saved, said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers.” (Van Wagoner, 1986)
As one former member Tal Bachman so aptly put it:
Here is the ‘Lord’s Prophet’, a foster father who secretly had sex with his teenage foster daughter – and Smith did that TWICE (with both the Lawrence and Partridge sisters). He secretly had sex with his housemaids & did it while publicly DENOUNCING polygamy in his church charter. He secretly propositioned other men’s wives, even telling them that unless he could “marry” (have intercourse with) them, that an angel would murder him. He slandered women who rejected his sexual advances, as he did with Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt. This 38 year old man secretly had sex with fourteen year olds, and in so doing, consigned them (& the husbands of other wives) to lives of loneliness, devoid of love. The truth is Smith was a loathsome character, not a ‘prophet of God’ let alone the ‘restorer’ of the True Christian Church. (paraphrased, see source below)
“Everywhere Joseph Smith went, in the service of his cult of self-aggrandizement, he gave the finger to American law, American religion, American tradition, American mores, American culture, everything that those “in his own time” regarded as sacred and necessary. And as a consequence, everywhere he went, almost EVERYONE got totally sick of him and his band of deluded, obedient followers. The illegal banking, the vigilantes, the false prophecies, the mockery of a religion most Americans thought true (Christianity), the bloc voting, the occultism, the furtive sexcapades, the shameless public lying, the destruction of other’s private property, the delusions of grandeur (“God is my right hand man”, “I have no law”, etc.), announcing other’s people property belonged to “the Saints” by divine right, etc., etc…”(direct qoute:
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_talbachman_section5.html)
This is the man revered as ‘the Prophet of the Restoration’ by the Mormon Church. By no stretch of the imagination is polygamy a ‘Christian’ doctrine, and any church that would allow it, and STILL believe in it cannot be classified as ‘Christian’. Why was this ‘hard’ doctrine introduced by Smith? Why did Smith re-invent God? To justify the ‘patriarchal order’ & give himself free license to other men’s wives & everything else they had. This is the LIE of ‘progressive revelation’ & Smith & those that followed him still exercise the right as prophets to DICTATE Church policy & revelation. If the founding fathers of Mormonism did not obey their OWN rules, how then can they be hailed as prophets & restorers of Christ’s Church? Here is what Young said about those who deny the practice of polygamy:
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further, and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.” (Deseret News, November 14, 1855)
Now let’s read the text of Section 132 and examine it:
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines – Behold and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter…”
It is obvious the revelation is about POLYGAMY. It is the context of why Smith ‘went to the Lord’ with the question and it is the ‘Lords’ answer to Smith why he was COMMANDED practice it:
“Therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same [POLYGAMY]
.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . . “
This is what Young was referring to above, and since the Manifesto in 1890 ALL Mormons are damned for not following it. Later in the revelation it says this concerning David:
“David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me…”
The whole revelation is about POLYGAMY, & the Celestial Marriage part of it is to show the ‘sealing power’ of the priesthood & how it justifies the ‘patriarchal order’ which is polygamy. How can Smith justify this revelation in direct contradiction to the BOM:
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:24). It then goes on to say, but if I want to raise seed up to myself it is justified… but here the BOM is saying that specifically David & Solomon were NOT justified under these grounds & in D&C 132 it says they were.
LURKERS
There is so much information that is there in your OWN history. Read it with an open mind. They tell you there are rules to be followed, but Smith never followed his own rules. He thought himself a god, and acted like he was one. Will you stand with Smith, or will you stand with Jesus? How can anyone believe in a man who took these liberties with his closest friends? How can you believe the lies? How can you have an apostle (John Taylor) writing that the Church was NOT practicing polygamy when he was doing so himself? Ask yourself: Why did these men lie? Who is the father of all lies?
Last, but not least JANET, is the quote from the Lion of the Lord Himself, Brigham Young:
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).
Here is the conundrum of polygamy come full circle. Eternal Principle Commanded by God, & rescinded by men, but only those that practice it can become gods (so that lets out all the rest of you Mormons). The principle Smith died for, thrown out by men forced to do so by the American Government. That Section 132 is all about polygamy is evidenced by the division this one revelation caused within Smith’s church. I am sure that if Smith had ‘explained it away’ as Celestial Marriage, [as Mormons do now] his counselors would have accepted it gladly. But the revelation was twofold, the sealing power & celestial marriage & the requirement of polygamy & these men knew Smith had his eye on their wives. They rejected polygamy & Smith. Who was ‘destroyed’?? Not Emma. She lived to be an old woman & Smith died with guns blazing little more than a year later. This is Mormon ‘progressive revelation’ & it is false, unscriptural & not Christian.
For further clarity:
“The doctrine which Orson Pratt discoursed upon this morning was the subject of a revelation anterior to the death of Joseph Smith. It is in opposition to what is received by a small minority of the world; but our people have for many years believed it, though it may not have been practiced by the elders. The original of this revelation has been burnt. William Clayton wrote it down from the Prophet’s mouth; it found its way into the hands of Bishop Whitney, who obtained Joseph Smith’s permission to copy it. Sister Emma burnt the original. I mention this to you because such of you as are aware of the revelation, suppose that it no longer exists. I prophesy to you that the principle of polygamy will make its way, and will triumph over the prejudices and all the priestcraft of the day; it will be embraced by the most intelligent parts of the world as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people.
You have no reason whatever to be uneasy; there is no occasion for your fearing that a vile mob will come hither to trample underfoot the sacred liberty which, by the Constitution of our country, is guaranteed to us. It has been a long time publicly known, and in fact was known during his life, that Joseph had more than one wife. A Senator, a member of Congress, was well aware of it, and was not the less our friend for all that; so much so, as to say that were this principle not adopted by the United States, we would live to see human life reduced to a maximum of thirty years…
We could not have proclaimed this principle a few years ago; everything must abide its time, but I am now ready to proclaim it. This revelation has been in my possession for many years, and who knew it? No one, except those whose business it was to know it…
Without the doctrine which this revelation makes known to us, [polygamy] no one could raise himself high enough to become a god.”(B.Young, August 28th, 1852)
So you’re a mind reader no Jackg? I have not and do not believe that Heavenly Father and Mary had sex. I have never entertained that thought. Not because it is reprehensible to me, but because I just don’t believe in it. I do understand that some LDS do, but that is their choice. It has nothing to do with my salvation. The fact that Jesus is the literal Son of God does not automatically mean nor does it imply sex was involved. I am a biologist and I know there are a couple of different ways available for reproduction in humans to occur – mainly sex, artificial insemination or IVF are involved. God most likely knows of more as there are a number of different reproductive ways in the animal kingdom on this earth. Also, in biology sexual reproduction means the exchange of genetic material, it does not have to involve sex. There is no intellectual disconnect for me on this one because of what I know from my uni courses and that I know that God knows more about biology than my professors.
Yes you have a background in LDS, but that does not mean you know everything. You only know what you have had experience in. It also does not mean that you understood everything either while you were in the church. It’s the same charge others have placed against subgeneous and Pookachamp who said that they converted from an Ev background to the LDS church and now they are telling what they learned while in their old church. They are being told that they did not fully understand what they were taught. You also did not understand all that you were taught. I have been a member all my life (39 years) and I still don’t understand all of what is taught. I learn something new at least once a month.
You see, Ralph, using the word “literal” helps you to say one thing and mean another, and then when confronted resort to old and tired tactics. As for whether or not believing in heresies or even leaving the door open for them is not a salvation issue–you’re just fooling yourself, Ralph.
As for how much I know, didn’t know, what does that really matter? In the end, I know that the LDS Church is a false church set up by a false prophet and teaching false doctrines. How much do you need to know–or not know–before you allow yourself to be moved from the lies of JS to the truth of Christianity? The glimmer of hope I see for you is that you can say you don’t believe in the doctrine of God and Mary have sex EVEN though you see that the Church has the door wide open for those who want to believe in it. Okay, I will accept your claim that you don’t believe God had sex with Mary. I just want you to see that your attempt to leave it open for others puts you in the same boat under the label of Mormonism. Ralph, God wants you to get out of the false church. The fact that you see a Mormon teaching (and please don’t go into the “official church doctrine” rhetoric)as reprehensible means that you are being wooed by the Holy Spirit to the truth about JS church.
Praying for you, Ralph.
Peace…
Last, but not least JANET, is the quote from the Lion of the Lord Himself, Brigham Young:
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).
I appreciate the reply and quote, I am now wondering if the whole paragraph could be posted? It would help solve this often used single sentence but does not accurately represent Brigham’s quote above. I often wonder why some will misrepresent the facts, is this not suppose to be a forum that discloses total honesty and openness. Just wondering.
[Janet, please feel free to go ahead and post the entire paragraph if you'd like. -Mod]
=== MODERATED ===
The moderator issued a level 1 yellow card on this comment.
=== MODERATED ===
For all our Lurker, we find that the copy and paste of some various accounts of Joseph Smith polygamous doings by Evangelicals here at MC which can be viewed as a take it or leave it according to whom you want to believe.
Example is given of reports by a Dr. John Cook Bennett, once a member in good standing. We find a very confused soul, who seems to have need for vindication after being excommunicated for adultery by Joseph Smith. So as not to bore you with the likes of long copy and pasting as we have see by some, I will direct you to another point of view.
The Saintly Scoundrel – The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett
by Andrew F. Smith
http://www.salamandersociety.com/museum/bennett/
Janet,
Are you really challenging the notion that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?
I was away from this blog for more than twelve hours and the place kind of exploded with fabulous posts by my Christian friends. I love to watch the dynamics going on.
grindael,
Your posts are volumous and right on the mark. I always can tell when the Mormons have been hit by a tidal wave of pertinent information because they pull out the “cut and paste” charge. Your work flows and is fully documented and is complete. Excellent!
jackg,
I like the way you are able to relate to Ralph’s thinking process and reasoning. You lived inside that world and know how these folks think. Keep posting!
I think Mormons would do well in doing a little research and see why a Mormon sect such as the Temple Lot left Smith’s religion and called him a fallen prophet. Even those Mormons see Smith as a heretic within his own religion.
They should also do a little study on why there’s an FLDS and why the Salt Lake City Mormons are seen as participating in a Mormon apostasy.
Christianity has a basic set of doctrines that is substantiated by the Biblical text. Mormonism is outside the scope so far that they couldn’t even be considered heretics. Heretics at least retain some semblance of the Christian religion. Mormonism does not.
Janet said
Janet, Even if people post more than a quote, LDS who simply want to believe the false teachings of their church will no matter the evidence.
I know from past experince, I had LDS over to my house, I pulled out the JoD or the original D and C with the lectures of faith bound into it.
I would use these to show LDS from their own scripture, when they could not pull the Cut and past issue, they would resort to, I dont understand what I’m reading, but yet they could not clear up the issue for me either.
Or they would say, since it is not stamped with the currant “Official” LDS stamp for books it could not be trusted. I know from experience you guys will seek to throw out evidence no matter how solid.
You can go to my blog from a while back, I scanned actual JoD book copies onto my blog for LDS to read, I would scan 3 pages, a page before the quote, the page of the quote and a page after the quote for more than full context, yet LDS would still deny what is written by your prophets. Rick b
Ralph,
One of the obstacles in defining the term,
” christian”, is that it has such a broad
meaning in society today.I remember reading
years ago that in rural England, I think it
was, that a clean bed in a motel was referred
to a ” christian” bed.Also my Pastor actually
witnessed to a man who said he was a christian
because he lived in America.
So I appreciate you using Peter’s confession
in Matt.16.
The problem is however, that as Peter came to
realize, there would arise those who would claim
authority as prophets/teachers who would interpret
what Peter had once proclaimed. This came to be
a paramount concern to Peter [ 2Pt.2:1 compare
2Tim.2:15-18 ], and should also be to us today.
The Mormon leadership, in their efforts to be
included as a Christian church, has, in my
opinion, diluted the description of who is a
christian.There are those who today would agree
with Peter’s confession, but then proceed to tell
you the other beliefs of their “christianity”.
A few examples:
Marcus Borg,American theologian. His friend,Tom
Wright, Bishop of Durham (2006) tells us that
Borg does not believe that Jesus rose bodily
from the dead.He goes to say that Borg loves
Jesus and believes in Him passionately.He further
stated that he would’nt want to say that Borg
is’nt a christian.
John Shelby Spong, popular Episcopalian Bishop
(retired now), has problems with God being a
“person”.His definition of the Trinity(in his
book,Why Christianity must change or Die) is
Life is good(Father), Life is loved(Son)
be all you can be(Spirit).
The Rev.David Hart,Church of England priest.He
converted to Hinduism and changed his name, yet
he was still allowed to continue to minister as
a priest.He says that Hinduism accepts the
Divinity of Jesus, and that he has not explicitly
or implicitly renounced his christian faith.
In the Times Online,9-8-2006 there’s a picture
of him offering prayers to an idol of the
elephant god .
from http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-11/
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham attained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to tit in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” – the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
cont.
Well the remainder of my post was lost I guess
since it did’nt go thru.Rather than re-doing
it I’ll just briefly tough on the high points.
Ralph, the reason I referenced these three men
was because they would all say they’re christian,
and it seems like you might also.This is to
broad of a definition , in my book.
In your reply to Jackg, you stated that the Mormon
church was a christian denomination among the
christian denominations. Yet I had a statement
from Ezra T. Benson where he was not so accomm-
adating as you. He said that the Mormon church
was not just another church, it was not one of
a family of churches.It was the only true church.
If the Mormon church is the only true church, then
Mormons constitute the only true christians, and
since the claim is made that there is only
ultimately 2 churches in existence today, one
being the Mormon church, the other, the Devil’s
church, then all other “christians” are in that
church.
Brigham Young said that all other christians are
not actual christians as the New testament defines
“christianity”
Lastly, I referred to how your leadership did’nt
want the news media in 2008, to refer to the FLDS
as “mormons” because it might confuse the public.
Yet in a press release a spokesperson for the FLDS
said that they deserve the name Mormon, since
among other things, they are faithful to the
truths Of the gospel as restored thru Joseph Smith.
I also offered to cite statement by several recent
LDS authorities where the called the FLDS such
names as “cultists” and “apostates”. Is this
because the FLDS are not true Mormons?
Ralph, the problem is not you.I believe that you
truely are striving to serve God and that you
believe you’re a christian. It seems that road-
blocks have been placed in your path preventing
you from fully experiencing Jesus. These road
blocks are the interpretations of the written
Word by prophets in the latter-days(Matt24:11)
Jackg,
Someone on this site a while ago identified themselves with a denomination (can’t remember which) that holds strictly to the 2nd commandment about graven images. They believe that there should be no depictions of God or Jesus in any type of media – ie no statues, crucifixes (I know the difference between crucifix and cross), pictures, etc. When I questioned them about other Christian religions who do display a depiction of Jesus their statement was that these other religions do not understand the 2nd commandment properly so they can still break it and be saved. This is a large disparity between one Christian movement and the main body, but the group that is hard line are willing to overlook the other denominations’ practice, and vice cersa. Then there are differences in some Christian denominations that allow or do not allow sex before marriage (fornication) but still call each other Christian – as I mentioned above. The list can go on. So why can’t we LDS allow some ‘free thought’ on matters that do not affect our salvation, like how Jesus was conceived?
As I also explained, Jesus being the literal Son of God means that He gained some of His genome from God and the other from Mary. It does not mean or imly sex occurred. Just like my friend who had a child throgu IVF, his child is literally his child, but no sex occurred for the child to be conceived.
Setfree,
Did you fully read and understand the quote you gave? It states that to be ‘classed’ as a polygamist all one needs to do is accept that it was from God and that if they got a chance to be in a polygamist relationship that they would. This is opposed to the people living at that time in the LDS church who were thinking that they will not accept it because if the LDS church dissolved then they could get better offers from outside if they were not polygamists. It all has to do with what is in ones heart, head and faith, not that they have to be in a polygamist relationship.
Janet,
I remember learning (when a Mormon) that those of us who didn’t marry in the temple, but otherwise led a “worthy” life, got to be in the celestial kingdom as “ministering angels”, or servants, to the ones who became gods. In your opinion, would you say that’s what BY meant when he said “Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory…”
Do you expect to be a polygamist wife in the hereafter? why or why not?
I would have highlighted it differently -
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham attained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” – the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
So… does that describe you, Ralph? Are you a polygamist in your heart?
Janet, will have it for you shortly…
“Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught
and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”–the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” –Brigham Young, JOD11:269-27
Ralph, You were talking about a person that called themselves a christian and other detonations that appear to do things that go against Scripture, like allowing sex outside of Marriage.
Ralph, here is the problem, Way to many people try and be politically correct and refuse to call sin, sin. Then people like you come along and say, look these so called believers claim to do this or that.
Here is how it should be handled, if you see someone or some denomination allowing sin to go on, either confront them, or if you cannot, like I cannot call a church in England to account, then be public as best you can, and on sites like this simply say, listen this person or group is living contrary to scripture so I do not believe they are believers or know the Word Of God and probably do not even know God.
Problem is, way to many people refuse to do that, and then when people like me do do that, we get attacked by believers that live in sin. I can handle those attacks, sadly to many cannot so they give in if they even try saying anything to begin with. Remember these things, Search the Scriptures as the Bible tells us, Deceivers will arise from with in our own ranks as scripture tell us, and Jesus will say to what appeared like believers, I NEVER KNEW YOU. They did miracles and cast out demons in Jesus name, Yet Jesus still said, I NEVER KNEW YOU. Rick b
Young speaks here about living polygamy and not coping out because of threats or worldly desires, etc. (like Utah becoming a State if they gave up polygamy). Young would not, neither would Taylor. It was W. Woodruff who finally gave in to the US government.
He says that the man that has the worldly desires in his heart and passes on polygamy, will come short of dwelling with the Father & the Son. He then says you only get to be gods if you ENTER INTO polygamy, not if you ‘believe it in your heart.’
You don’t get the blessings if you refuse to accept them [polygamy] while you are here on earth.
Janet,
Seekers of the truth do not limit themselves to ‘friendly’ sources. Both sides of the issue should be presented and weighed. I quoted from mormons and non-mormons. JC Bennett had problems, to be sure, but even some of your Church Scholars quote him now and again. I ask everyone to read up on everything quoted here. Then you will find the truth.
As for Bennett, they guy I got the quote from, Richard Van Wagoner, is a Mormon. He used the quote from Bennett, weighing it in the light of what Sarah Pratt herself said. Most Church Historians believe that Sarah Pratt did NOT have an affair with Bennett as was claimed by Smith & believe the Hyrum Smith affidavit story.
Be that as it may, read up on it yourself. There are plenty of articles in Dialogue, I know, I’ve read lots of them.
Janet, another thing I noticed also. Many LDS Once confronted with very extensive quotes and sources either run away from sites like this because they cannot refute the truth, but also so badly want to believe what they want to believe, or they leave peoples homes and do not want to talk any more, or they seldom stay but then simply say things like, thats your opinion, or you really do not understand what your reading. Yet they also will not help us to understand what we read. where will you fall? Will you run away, or defended the things that cannot be defended, or will you seriously look into both sides and all the evidence? Rick b
In regards to different denominations allowing say fornication and regarding it as ‘ok’ and then being recognized as Christian I would have to ask…has anyone here done that? Has anyone heard Rickb or Jackg or Sharon or Aaron say that the church that just ordained an openly gay clergy is scripturally Christian? I think you’ll find that no one would. I’m as open about my concerns for Mormonisms false teachings as I am oh say the Emergents like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. So I assure you that you’re not being called out because your Mormon but because you aren’t following scripture and we’d do the same to any other ‘christian’ out of love and concern for them and those they influence.
Let me add to rvales,
I will gladly call out any person or church, the problem is just like mormons they do not want to talk about it or listen to scripture. Then as I pointed out, I cannot talk specially to an entire Church. Like the Church of England, I live in MN, I cannot afford to go to England.
But then on the other hand, no Church is simply going to allow me to walk in, go to the pulpit and openly call out a church for sin. Trust me, I would if I could, I’m just the sorta guy that would do it. Rick b
Rick,
You hit on some excellent points regarding Mormons “discovering” information that makes them uncomfortable or is contrary to what they are told to believe; even when their own church authorities have been authors of the material. Mormons are well trained to run away from anything that is “uncomfortable”, being told that it is Satan pulling them (away) and trying to deceive them. So Mormonism, with its built in “bad feelings-good feelings” paradigm, effectively keeps folks away from the truth.
It’s a big part of the con and the sowing of confusion. That’s why when Mormons get the courage to do some real independent thinking, they don’t last long in Mormonism. It all comes down to losing their fear and their losing confidence in the LDS church. Once that happens, the flood gates are open and they flow out of the sect.
Jesus said He was the Bread of Life. He said that He was Living Water. Once a Mormon gets a meal of this spiritual Bread and Water, Mormonism, for them, is over.
Praise be to God!
Falcon,
as I believe you know many a mormon that knocks on the door of people like us here, the LDS do not stay long, they honestly cannot contend with the truth so they leave. That in it’s self should speak volumes, sadly they dont care. Rick b
Ralph, Sub,
Please provide a Scripture reference for baptism in the name of Jesus (ONLY). I have looked, I don’t see it, but I could be missing it somehow. In Matthew 28:19 it is very clear and it is included as part of ‘what we are to do as Christian’ or as it is called – the Great Commission – to go out and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I see Scriptures that say “you were baptized into Christ Jesus” and I believe that is what happens – the believer is united with Christ in His death on the cross and resurrection. I just don’t see ANY scriptures that say “go out and baptize in the name of Jesus.”
As I said, without the truth of Jesus death on the cross as the basis of your salvation, your baptism, and your walk with God then baptism becomes just another meaningless work of self-righteousness. Baptism divorced from the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – is just another item to check off on your list of works of self-salvation. Baptism in the name of the non-existent Mormon god is completely without value of any kind. I think of all the hours of worthless effort baptizing dead people by proxy, dunking the same people in the names of dozens of other people, over and over, in a never ending purposeless ritual. So really, discussing baptism with a Mormon is a non-starter, without understanding the nature of our salvation through Christ alone, and in the name of the one true God it’s pointless to discuss. The nature of God and Salvation are the starting point, before anyone comes to understand baptism.
[Janet, please feel free to go ahead and post the entire paragraph if you'd like. -Mod]
This quotation is often used in anti sources. Unsurprisingly, they do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion:
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us…It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
Source, Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City,” (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269.
Janet,
I don’t think this helps your cause. The whole idea of becoming gods, which is what BY means when he refers to reigning as kings in glory is not biblical. His message is still the same: polygamy is required to attain the highest level in the Mormon perception of “heaven.” What you have presented only strengthens our claims regarding BY teachings. Regardless, it’s all heresy.
Peace…
All I can do is produce the full context, if it means something other then what I discern then we are at loggerheads. I did not post it to address the doctrine of becoming a God, I posted to address the misrepresentation of Evangelicals concerning that one must practice polygamy to abide the highest degree of Glory. I wish we could stay on topic.
J.
Janet,
What you posted supports the lie that practicing polygamy is THE way to attain the highest degree of glory. Please show me what I am missing here? Am I only one missing Janet’s point? As far as the charge for going off topic, I think I addressed your issue. Becoming a god is attaining the highest glory. It seems, Janet, that you are not being forthright in what you present and what it implies, then try to accuse me (in this case) of misrepresenting the Mormon teachings and going off topic.
Peace…
Janet,
The FULL context is obvious in the paragraph above. Young was stating that the Saints already practicing polygamy & those it was presented to then were not embracing the doctrine in their hearts, and did not even have faith in the principle. That was why he mentioned the women, and how HARD it was on them. He then goes on to say that if they are doing this because of persecution, or expected persecution, or for worldly reasons, it was wrong. Then he says that ALL WHO DO NOT ENTER INTO THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY WILL NOT BECOME GODS, & that means bye bye to the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
Nice try with your explanation though, and you did not address all the supporting doctrine that I posted. (D&C 132) etc. This is the tactic of a lot of Mormons, to take a piece of the whole and make an issue of it or change the subject. You have not quoted one source to say that what Brigham Young said IS NOT TRUE. You have not refuted that Smith & the Apostles under him & Young lied about it in print. And your tactic of printing the whole paragraph is obvious, but you are dealing with a lot of former members that have their own copies of the material, and unlike many mormons, have read it.
But if you want some more, I definitely can oblige you on that.
Janet,
Tell me if you agree or disagree with this but it seems like the BY quote is saying that polygamy is the ideal. The only part of the quote that might mitigate the thrust of it is this, “you will be polygamists at least in your faith”. It seems that if a person is able to enter into polygamy then one should according to Young. Do you disagree? What is your take on it?
Mobaby,
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:16 They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The first and third are Peter baptising people – he was with Jesus when Jesus gave the Matt 28:19 commission but he is telling people here to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ/Lord ONLY. The second appears to be Philip and the fourth is Paul. They all state (in the KJV) that these people were to be baptised or were baptised ‘IN THE NAME OF Jesus’ (or another of His titles). There is no other person’s name mentioned here for baptism.
Here is a link discussing a little of what I said earlier about it appears that the Matt verse is an inclusion in the text. This site has links to other sites.
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html
As I mentioned above, this is neither here nor there as we LDS baptise as described in Matt. It’s just interesting that we all place a doctrine/practice on one verse when there are others that state differently and the verse in question might not be part of the original manuscript.
Ralph,
Thanks for sharing those verses. I did a search in an online Bible called http://www.Youversion.com and those verses literally do not come up, I wonder why? I read a number of verses in the gospels, and none but Matthew 28:19 seems to ‘describe’ baptism in terms of ‘do this.’
I have often heard baptism pronounced as “I baptize you in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Buried with Christ in His death, raised to walk in newness of life.” – even with infants I have heard something like this. It kind of covers both I think? It is both the triune God and the person is specifically identified with Christ in baptism.
Thank you for sharing – it is interesting.
I would think it would be obvious to Evangelicals that if we believe and trust in our Prophets, then we would come to believe that polygamy as stated in the BOM, preached by JS and BY were from God. Why would that not be obvious. Why would I apply for a Temple recommend and state I believe in JS but that he got plural marriage wrong?
J.
Again we have a difference of opinions about what BY stated or did not state. Obviously the anti’s get it wrong since it is more an agenda to prove all our doctrine wrong, so I will have to agree that when you twist it to mean what you want it to mean, you win every time for your cause.
The other posting is fine, but it prove very little since its just a matter of finding witnesses that either speak highly of JS or those who find fault.
None of it is relevant since it does not prove the BM true or false. Going down the road of peripheral issues does not dwell with facts and evidence which can or cannot be refuted.
J.
Janet
That’s your defense? It’s not relevant? Maybe not to you, because you choose to believe a lie. Have you ever asked yourself WHY some who post here do? It is not all about ‘finding witnesses’ either. Most of the quotes I use are from your own prophets and those close to them. It was all sure ‘revelant’ to me when I was a Mormon. How do you accept that John Taylor, who became a supposed prophet of god, could publish a tract denying polygamy was practiced AT ALL in his church, when he was doing so himself? What kind of PROPHETS do that? Some of us are here Janet, because we were duped by smith and the Church, and don’t want anyone else falling into the same bottomless pit. It is not all about having some ’secret’ agenda. The only ones who were keeping ’secrets’ and lying were smith, young and the others they bullied and coerced. Who goes to a married woman and whines to her about angels who are going to kill me if I don’t spiritually marry you? Who does things like this? How is any of this stuff scriptural? How can you revere smith when he was doing this AS TESTIFIED TO BY ACTIVE BELIEVING MORMONS???? I’m not ‘twisting’ anything, you are refusing to believe the truth, but maybe, just maybe there are some lurkers out there that will & I continue to pray for that.
Grindael,
You said, ” It was all sure relevant to me
when I was a Mormon.”
That’s a good point, and one that most Mormons
are reluctant to admit.
Janet,
You stated that you had to ” apply for ” a
Temple recommend. Is this like applying for
permission to enter your very own Father’s
House( Temple)? Do you have any scriptures
from the Standard Works that teach this vital
procedure?
Again, many of the question are so irrelevant. Does it really matter to Evangelicals if we apply or are interviewed? Twisting was used to denote that someone can quote a single sentence and twist it to mean something other then what was originally being taught. Hence I gave the full account of what some anti’s seem want to criticize by using only that which would seems to merit or qualify a certain focus.
Question, why the misrepresentation using only one sentence, is the truth beyond giving every lurker an opportunity to see in full someone’s thoughts, or complete sermon?
I fear that some are a little hasty in the condemnation dept. to actually allow for open minded and honest discussions. Of course that is my take since I have arrived here.
J.
Janet
Do Mormon Apostles know what they are talking about? Here is one who spoke on Plural Marraige, and this quote is so clear, that even a believing Mormon should be able to figure it out:
“… if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other.” – Apostle Charles Penrose, quoted in “Plural Marriage,” Millennial Star, volume XLV, no. 29, July 16, 1883, p. 454
It is like I said above, the reason why there was so much opposition to Joseph’s revelation (section 132)is because they KNEW it was about polygamy, and that it was REQUIRED as part of the celestial marraige covenant. Here is a Mormon Apostle telling you that in no uncertain terms. Why don’t mormons get this?
Here is the Prophet that repealed Polygamy, writing down in his Journal a revelation from God ten years earlier:
“… wo unto that Nation or house or people who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham [polygamy] which leadeth to a Celestial Glory… for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned Saith the Lord.” – Prophet Wilford Woodruff, in Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 1833-1898,, under January 26, 1880, v. 7, pp. 546
What changed in ten years? Either these men believed God or they caved to men. It is obvious what happened, they did not want to lose their lands, temples, homes & worldly possessions. They caved! How is this like Peter, & Paul & the rest of the Apostles who stood up to the governments of their day and died to do so???? How is smith like Peter or Paul? He died for polygamy. He did not die for Jesus. These are the questions you need to be asking, not saying this is not relevant. If you want to be like those in the early church and keep your comfortable lifestyle & believe in a lie, then go ahead. But don’t say we ‘get it wrong’ for some agenda.
“Their present objection to the Latter-day Saints, they say, is plurality of wives. It is this principle they are trying to raise a persecution against now. But how was it in Missouri, Kirtland, Jackson county, Far West, Caldwell county, in all our drivings and afflictions, before this principle was revealed to the Church? Certainly it was not polygamy then. No, it was prophets, it was revelation, it was the organization of an institution founded by revelation from God. They did not believe in that, and that was the objection in those days. If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.” – Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, pp. 165-166.
How am I ‘twisting’ this quote??????
In response to a letter “received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . .
They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet; I am no imposter; I have had no dark revelations; I have no revelations from the devil; I made no revelations; I have got nothing up of myself, The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth.
And they say if I do so, they will kill me, 0, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not byway of instruction, (Joseph Smith, Contributor 5:259)
Joseph Smith was MURDERED. Gods law needs to be lived when commanded no matter what the Government states, and when told to stop, the people would also need to obey. Meaning obey God.
J.
Mobaby and Ralph,
Once again, the CARM website has an excellent answer to the question of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost vs. baptism in Jesus’ name. Please see: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pentecostal/must-baptism-be-jesus-name.
The first bit of it is as follows:
Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula “in Jesus name” and not the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity. To support their method they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus’ name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine. Following are some of the Bible references they quote.
•Acts 2:38,” Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
•Acts 8:16, “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
•Acts 10:48, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
•Acts 19:5, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
•Acts 22:16, “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’
Let’s take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, “in the name of the Lord” is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, “Stop in the name of the Law!”. We understand that the “name of the Law” means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism “in Jesus’ name.” To baptise in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Consider the following:
•”And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in (continued below)
what name, have you done this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health” (Acts 4:7-10).
•Acts 4:17-18, “But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.”
•Acts 5:28, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
•Acts 5:40, “And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them.”
•Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”
“Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.’ He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all…. and he will remain single forever and ever.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873
“The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change his law of celestial marriage.” – Prophet Lorenzo Snow, Historical Record, 1887, v. 6, p. 144.
If polygamy is not a requirement of ‘celestial marriage’ then what is Lorenzo Snow talking about??? How is it NOT obvious what Brigham Young is saying??? How much ‘proof’ do Mormons need??? The Mormon Prophets NEVER intended to stop polygamy, but when faced with the fact that the Lord would not save them, they caved to the U.S. Government. Now your leaders teach you that the principle smith died for, that so many went to jail for and was a requirement for godhood in the celestial kingdom, is nothing. Here is what Hinckley said about it:
“I condemn [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law.” – Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, on Larry King Live, September 8, 1998.
Wow! NOT DOCTRINAL?? I suppose I’m ‘twisting’ this quote too??? There is so much more & all you LURKERS have to do is some research. Why did Joseph F. Smith authorize plural marriages after his second manifesto? Why do mormon prophet after mormon prophet lie??? Ask yourself these questions. You place your faith in a system perpetuated by lairs and frauds. Do you want to believe them, or Jesus & the Bible. Remember who the father of lies is.
Janet,
Funny, Penrose made the second quote in 1912, after the manifesto. I guess he called himself a liar, didn’t he????
Yeah, I want to believe anything this guy said:
“I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White…. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.” – Apostle Charles W. Penrose, in D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 18, no. 1, pp. 11-12; – see the entire essay here http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml
This was a revelation? Now do you see why Penrose changed his tune by 1912???? Lies upon Lies upon Lies…
Thanks gpark – the article on CARM is a helpful clarification.
I understand the argument that these verses are not describing the baptismal formula but rather it is Christ and His authority who acts through baptism. I believe it is correct, the Scripture commanding the Church to go out and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the triune God is very clear, whereas the others are not saying “go and do this!” And indeed we are baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.
I have not studied the Bible much on the topic of baptism, it is something I would like to do – look at Church history through the ages on baptism together with the Scriptures.
Twisting? I would at least think one would post the whole context before making such a ridiculous criticism.
Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying — they told “The Salt Lake Tribune” — that it’s difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it’s secretive. There’s a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty — they say they do, in gathering evidence.
Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you’re forceful here tonight, but maybe — they’ve been saying that it’s rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. We’ll consider it.
Larry King: I’m giving you an idea.
Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.
Larry King: Would you look better if you were…
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know that we would or not. As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.
Larry King: You condemn it.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
In context Hinkley is obviously stating that the practice is not doctrinal or in affect since the manifesto.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It’s a civil offense. It’s in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that’s a responsibility of civil officers.
Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah — before we get back to morals and morals, is — the big story, if you don’t know it, is polygamy in Utah; there’s been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson — is the governor — of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?
Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.
Larry King: You could have a certain amount of…
Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from — between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us.
Twisting? Pretty much missed the whole sense of the interview by our Evangelical friends.
“The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us.”
If it was not Gods law during JS restoring of the true Church, then why would Hinckley go on in the same interview and acknowledge that revelation was received from the Lord that it was time to stop.
Misrepresenting an interview by only providing a shorten version is typical of those with an agenda to falsify, I see it no other way and I hope all our Lurkers see the same phony dog and pony show going on here.
J.
Janet,
. . . Or shall we say “HankSaint”. You are about as honest as Hinckley. I see it did not take long for you to come back
D.
“… if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other.” – Apostle Charles Penrose
So, who has repudiated the doctrine? It still stands as once being a commandment given by God. It was also revealed that it needed to end, not that the doctrine was not still Gods law. One only need to read the BOM and see when it is warranted and when it is not.
J.
Hank,
“So, who has repudiated the doctrine?”
In keeping with the title of the thread – “Purging the Church” – it is of interest that 2 Quorum of the 12 members, John W. Taylor & Matthias F. Cowley, left the quorum over polygamy and were later disciplined over their involvement with it.
Wilford Woodruff stated, “We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage.” Given this statement, and the events surrounding Cowley & Taylor, I would say the designation of “repudiated” is legit. Interestingly enough, the Manifesto of 1890 allows for plural marriage, just not were it is illegal. As such, some Mormons married on the high seas after the manifesto.
When I was Mormon, I wept when Spencer Kimball passed away. When I was Mormon, I respected Gordon B. Hinckley as a kind and gentle prophet of God. I met Thomas S. Monson while serving my mission to Sweden. I thought he was a great man, and I loved his writings. When I heard Neal A. Maxwell speak at BYU when I was at the MTC, I was so impressed with how he articulated his message that he became one of my favorite leaders. Mormon leaders are great at leading their people, helping them to stay the Mormon course–and they are very sincere. It’s important to understand this in order to grasp how Mormons can defend their leaders despite biblical evidence against the teachings of these leaders. I used to defend them as well. As a young boy, I was shown the photo of JS and told that he was a prophet of God. Naturally, I believed the teachers who taught me and accepted it. I was shown the BOM and taught that this book was from God through JS. Again, I trusted in and believed my teachers. I say all this to clarify how difficult it is to admit that the leaders you were taught since childhood to respect, honor, and revere were merely false “prophets.” Mormonism is a web of false teachings innocently perpetrated by kind and sincere people. I have no clue why I wrote this, but it was something I had to add to this conversation.
Peace…
Janet said
Yes Janet it really does matter. The reason it matters is because if you READ the OT you will find exactly what took place to enter the temple and who was and was not allowed. The way LDS set up the temples is not even close to how God set them up.
Plus you will not find anywhere in the Bible that teaches if you cannot enter the temple you will get a lower heaven or maybe lose salvation all together. I spent a lot of time on the FairLDS boards, Many an LDS stated they lied to get into the temple. You can say then it was not a LDS member but a person pretending. But Some of these LDS either were Mods on the board and their Avatar stated as much or you can go back and read their hard core defense of Mormonism and see that they were truly LDS.
So it’s sad that to be honest with the leaders you could be denied entrance into the temple, It’s that hard is it? Plus it’s sad that God did not say this must be done so man decided’s who can enter and worship. So yes Janet it matters more than you care to think. Rick b
Janet said
Janet do you really believe JS was murdered because he went from teaching and believing in plural marriage to no longer believing in it?
Do you really believe God is so weak He could not protect a Prophet? Have you not read how God protected Moses, or the Apostle Paul or the many others that Followed God? Did you never read these verses here,
Call me crazy but if God Really did say to JS this is a law, and I God Command it, then God should have protected JS.
Now you say JS was Murdered, I see it differently, JS According to the D and C claims he knew he was going to die, He claims he died like Jesus died, yet He shot 3 people, 2 of which died, then JS tried running like a coward and tried jumping out the window.
Is that how a maryter goes? Did Jesus Fight back? Did Jesus try running away? Nope He did not. JS was no maryter and did not willing go to his death. Rick b
Janet,
Well, if one really wants to take all of this back to Sharon’s original article, all of this discussion is supposed to relate to what the body of Christ should do “about people who teach heresy for truth.”
As others before me have stated on the various threads on this website, that which constitutes “the truth” cannot be everchanging, in a constant state of “flux.”
2 Tim. 3:6-7 (NKJV) references “gullible women…always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Over the years, plenty of gullible men have joined them!
1 Tim. 2:3-4 (NKJV) indicates that “…God our Savior… desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Many will not see the truth but not because the truth is not made available in the Bible (Old and New Testaments).
In reading Lee Strobel’s THE CASE FOR CHRIST and other sources, one becomes aware that chronological order was not the method used for determining the order of the books of the Bible and that most of Paul’s epistles pre-date the Gospels. According to Dr. Craig Blomberg, quoted extensively in the above-referenced book, Paul’s “writing ministry probably began in the late 40’s [with] most of his major letters appear[ing] during the 50’s. [And] we find that Paul incorporated some creeds, confessions of faith, or hymns…[that] go way back to the dawning of the church soon after the Resurrection.” Examples given are: 1) Phil. 2:6-11 – “6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, [continued below]
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” 2) Col. 1:15-20 – “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” 3) 1 Cor. 15:3-7 – “3 For I [Paul] delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.”
The first, earliest creeds leave no question as to who Jesus is, why He came, and what our response to Him should be. Then the heresies began to creep in – the lies of Satan, the “vain imaginings” of men – Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, etc. These same lies resurface throughout the years as Satan encourages men to question the Deity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the trustworthiness of Scripture, the true content of the Gospel message, and more.
Please don’t just run through the above verses. [continued below]
They say so much about who God is, who Jesus is. (Notice that at the name of Jesus EVERY knee should bow, yet Mormon posters on this site and your own ‘prophets,’ have indicated that they do not worship Jesus.) Notice that Jesus “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,” because He is God. See how far trying to make Himself equal to God got Satan. He and his fellow rebels were thrown from Heaven. See Luke 10:18 – 18 And He [Jesus] said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. See, also, Ezekiel 28:12-19. See 2 Peter 2:4 – “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;” and Jude vs. 6 – “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day…”)
Notice that Jesus is “before all things,” just as Jesus identifies Himself in Revelation. (See Rev. 22:12, 13, 20 – ‘12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!’ Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, not just IN the beginning, but He IS the beginning. See 2 Tim. 2:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began…” As Paul S. Taylor wrote, based upon the writings of Ray Comfort: “God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created…He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being…Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. [continued below]
Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God’s eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum. (Found at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html.)
Continuing “revelation,” as espoused by LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cults is nothing but the same old lies of the Deceiver used to keep people “always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim. 3:7
*…most Bible quotes from NKJV, occasionally KJV.
David,
I agree with you, this is HankSaint & so I’m outta here. I’ve made my point & could counter the Hinckley quotes, but I will not banter with HIM. See Ya’ll on another THREAD. Hank do you know what an IP address is? Im sure Bill & Sharon & Aaron do…
Gpark said
Well David seems to think Janet is really Hank saint, If this is the case then this is a great example of some LDS being so very open to the lies and deception of Mormonism and pushing lies. As I said in a prior post, Hank accused me of lying yet it was he who lied about me. Now he comes back knowing full well he in fact lied.
All this is great evidence to the LDS like ralph and other who feel LDS never lie or use deceit. Thanks for being the example. Rick b
Janet, in order to put the speculation to rest, are you, or are you posting comments written by, another Mormon who goes by HankSaint?
jackg
One more comment before I leave this thread:
Thanks for your comments, they mimic my experience very closely. I went on a Mission to New Mexico, & then went to BYU & left the Church shortly after that because of what I learned from the REAL Mormon History. Back then (30 years ago) there was no flood of info like there is now. It was a painful process of talking to Church History Professors, and riding around and hitting used bookstores all over Utah & tedious library searches… Even then I steered away from the ‘anti’ literature… and still take all that with a grain of salt…although there is value in reading it and evaluating it & sometimes posting it.. I met Hugh B. Brown, Nibley & many others…but their sincerity could not repudiate History. I did slideshows & lectures on the dead sea scrolls & Nag Hammadi, to try to bolster church doctrine. But the evidence was overwhelming against smith, young & their teachings & lifestyles. What has happened to many like Eugene England and D. Michael Quinn & others shows you they DO have something to hide. Just wanted you to know I totally relate to your remarks, thanks.
There should be no speculation, I’m not posting as another Mormon called Hanksaint.
Janet
gpark wrote about the formulation of the New Testament, including comments on Phil 2:6-11, eg
gpark,
Thanks for the refresher. We’ve been through this a couple of times on this board, but it’s an important point to make.
As I understand it, it looks like Paul borrowed a very early Christian Hymn or confession of Faith. Given that Paul probably wrote to the Philippians in AD62, and Phil 2:6-11 predates this, it may be the first “Christian” scripture to have been written.
As you note, it has a very high Christology. It also borrows phrases from the OT, (e.g. Isaiah 45:23b). Now, here’s something to ponder; why would the original author (who pre-dates Paul) take OT scriptures that reference (the One) God, and apply them to Jesus?
Kind of blows the whole argument that the divinity of Jesus was “invented” at the Council of Nicea, about 300 years after the event, out of the water.
Did God protect Peter? as I remember it, he chose to be crucified upside down. One might consider Peter only an apostle, but to the LDS we consider him the President or Chief Prophet, Seer and Prophet, seer, and Revelator. I find the fact that God did not save JS from death irrelevant to the assumption that God must always protect His Prophets.
J.
Something that I’ve always found interesting about JS death was that it happened no long after he said he had more to brag about than even Jesus when it came to keeping a church together. God will only take so much.
Janet, I never said God must or would protect His people in every case. But In JS case, JS made some bold claims about going to the slaughter as a sheep, and being put to death like Jesus died, None of that is even close to the truth or even what happened. Rick b
Bold claims, and no quotes or source?
If one lies to get into the temple that is between them and God, same with revealing the ordinances that go on therein. Gods judgments will be fair and very final. Man is free to choose, it is a Gift from God that he gives freely to all, choice is a very powerful and wonderful gift, it is also a huge responsibility. Those who once were members in good standing and now have apostatized will be dealt with with love from a understanding God who will judge the hearts of each soul accordingly.
J.
Janet,
When God judges your heart how do you think you’ll fair?
Janet said
Are you speaking to me about JS in Jail? If so I will provide many exact quotes with sources but then the question remains, what will you do with that information? Will you simply blow it off as fake or will you do something with it. Rick b
“JS made some bold claims about going to the slaughter as a sheep, and being put to death like Jesus died.”
Bold claims? no quotes or source?
Janet, here is some info.
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
SECTION 135
Martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his brother, Hyrum Smith the Patriarch, at Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844. HC 6: 629—631. This document was written by Elder John Taylor of the Council of the Twelve, who was a witness to the events.
1—2, Joseph and Hyrum martyred in Carthage Jail; 3, Preeminent position of the Prophet acclaimed; 4—7, Their innocent blood testifies of the truth and divinity of the work.
1 To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls.
2 John Taylor and Willard Richards, two of the Twelve, were the only persons in the room at the time; the former was wounded in a savage manner with four balls, but has since recovered; the latter, through the providence of God, escaped, without even a hole in his robe.
4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:
CONT
7 They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations;and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.
Notice in the verses I highlighted, Their was an LDS witness who wrote this stuff down.
It states that had innocent blood, Yet shooting back and killing 2 people is not what maryters did or do, show me one case from the Bible where Jesus or and OT or NT maryter fought back and killed anyone.
We read in the account, JS leaped from the Window, Again show me where Jesus or any OT or NT maryter tried to run and escape, If JS really felt he was going to die as stated then why would he try to run away?
JS said I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”—
Do people who think this really fight back, run away and kill people?
You know Janet, your not helping the case of Mormons, You seem to ignore question asked of you. Me and other Believers are always stating LDS seem to dodge questions and you did just that. You never answered me on what you will do with this info, you
cont you claim I made bold statements, yet this is all from the D and C your standard work, Sad that you seem to not know or forget about what your Standard work teaches and taught. Then when you claimed I made bold statements it really would have helped out if you were more specif as to who you were addressing instead of simply putting it out as to implying it could be any one of us you were speaking to. Rick b
Thanks Grindael. It’s amazing how God is saving Mormons like you and I! Keep up the good work!!
Janet, many times us believers have said you LDS really do not want to hear the truth. Here is another example that happened to me.
It’s going on about 4 years now but me and a friend drove to utah to visit the temple and speak with people. I dont recall exactly what building I was in, but it had a garden roof top. Any way their was a female missionary giving a tour to a group of people, my friend and me were asking question to another Missionary and pointing out what we felt were problems with the LDS gospel.
A lady in this other group over heard us and stated that it was interesting what I was saying, no sooner did this person speak up then the missionary I was speaking with started to take us away, and the missionary leading the other group bold said, time for us to move on. How very sad.
Then I was touring another building and brought up the subject of JS killing 2 people and shooting 3 people at the jail, The missionary I was speaking with walked away and came back with a security guard that was the size of Frankenstein’s monster, he was dressed like an FBI agent with the black suit and ear piece to speak with others.
He flat out told me I am not allowed to ask questions that cause controversy, I told him the question was an honest question and it was in the LDS church history. He flat out told me I need to keep my mouth shut or I will be removed. So please tell me how it seems you guys claim fair and balanced truth with stuff like that. Dont try and tell me it never happens. Rick b
RickB
Lovely story. Can’t help myself, gotta give some more ‘gems’. Where did this attitude of being ‘dictators’ of Religion come from? Smith & Young & their ‘patriarchal order’, (of course). It is Church rule by force & if you don’t comply you are ejected, disfellowshipped (banned). There is no love & understanding there. Here is the grand poobah of all the Mormon Dictators, the “lion of the lord” himself:
“The man whom God calls to dictate the affairs in the building of his Zion has the right to dictate about everything connected with the building of his Zion, yes even to the ribbons the women wear; and any person who denies it is ignorant.” – Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 298, February 3, 1867
“President Young is our governor and our dictator. It is for me to walk with him, and for you to walk with those who go before you.” - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 19, July 16, 1854
“[Heber C. Kimball] declared to the people that Brigham Young was his God, and their God, and the only God they would ever see if they did not obey him: ‘Joseph Smith was God to the inhabitants of the earth when he was amongst us, and Brigham is God now.’ This strain was caught up and reiterated by many of the elders, from Orson Hyde, the president of the twelve apostles, down to the most ignorant teacher, and to question it openly was to be put under the ban.” - T.B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873, 1904 edition, p. 294 Just to verify Stenhouse, ( here is this quote:
“You call us fools: but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a God, and also upon Brigham Young, our Governor in the Territory of Deseret.” - Heber C. Kimball, JOD:5:88-89.
RickB
Not sure if you know about this quote or not:
“If Joseph Smith, Jun., the Prophet, had followed the Spirit of revelation in him he never would have gone to Carthage and never for one moment did he say that he had one particle of light in him after he started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo.” - A Series of Instructions and Remarks by Brigham Young at a Special Council, Mar. 21, 1858, Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives. Also See: http://webpages.marshall.edu/~brown/suc-pres.html under “24 Jun 1844″
Gee. A prophet with “no spirit of revelation in him” as observed by another prophet. Then all those (ahem!) BOLD statements can be taken for what they are….Mormon embellishments & lies. (Hey, ask Paul Dunn about this Mormon trait in their leaders & followers – but hey, he was only following his role model smith here.)
Funny how in his last letter to Emma, he mentions nothing in terms of this. It is only the mormons who were with him that ascribe these statements to him. Gee, I guess if death by shootout verifies the validity of prophethood, then David Koresh should be hailed by all Mormons as a GREAT PROPHET. He even was accused of molesting minors, the same as smith. And why was smith at the Carthage Jail? Put there by traitors and wicked men? Knowing ALL the facts this is the most laughable statement you quoted. He was put there for fooling around with married & single women in arrogance of the law, lying about it, and destroying other people’s property who had the moral fortitude to stand up to him. He died in a shootout, guns blazing, as far from any prophet or apostle or true martyr in the bible as you can get.
I stated the facts, where did the mormon, ahem, and Janet go?
grindael said
I never see any love from the mormons, here or the ones on the street. They tell us were wrong and tell us we misquote or do not understand what we read, but yet when do they ever try and explain in love what were missing? Rick b
“being put to death like Jesus died”
I appreciate the efforts of your research, but what struck me as something I had never heard before was the above, which you still have not sourced or provided a quote.
It is true about that the rest of what you quoted is standard knowledge, that we teach and preach to all who will listen.
Thanks again for your efforts, I hope you can produce the rest of what you sated was a bold statement made by JS.
Janet.
Janet,
Please read Acts, chapters 6-8, in their entirety, paying special attention to the death of the martyr, Stephen, in Acts 7:54-60 and to the prophesy about Jesus’ death from the OT book of Isaiah (rendered as Esaias in the KJV) in Acts 8:32,33. For further context on the second account, read Acts 8:26-35.
*The Isaiah prophesy in Acts comes from Isaiah 53:7-8.
Janet, I did not mean that JS was crucified, but went to his death like Jesus. JS was not a lamb going to the slaughter, JS did not go quietly like Jesus, Jesus never opened His Mouth or fought back.
JS did say that was how he was going to die, Like Jesus. Rick b
Thanks again for your diligence. My interpretation of your “bold” statement went beyond the “Like a Sheep” which showed his true character of an innocent man, I took it as the description of “being put to death like Jesus died, on the Cross. We are just having miscommunication here. I see that you are right, and then again I totally agree that JS went like a Lamb to his death, an innocent man that as of to date no one has provided any evidence to refute this.
Janet
JS Was far from an innocent man, He shot 3 people 2 died, he took many little girls as wives, that has been covered here before. Killing two people and trying to run away is not even close to being a maryter and knowing your going to die. Rick b
Twisting the truth without facts again?
Doing Violence to Journalistic Integrity
Craig L. Foster
“In seventeenth-century Chesapeake Bay and environs, it was common for young women to marry at age sixteen or younger. Both brides and grooms were very young in colonial America.83 In fact, American marriage laws borrowed heavily from traditional English common law. Under the common law, the age at which the law conferred nuptial rights on individuals was twelve for women and fourteen for men. Most states and territories accepted those two ages as the minimum ages for marriage. Even as late as the turn of the twentieth century, seven states still allowed twelve-year-old girls to marry. Utah’s minimum age for girls was fourteen.”
Facts or speculation? Three shot two died?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#cite_note-14
Joseph Smith, Taylor, and Richards attempted to defend themselves. Taylor and Richards attempted to use walking sticks in order to deflect the guns as they were thrust inside the cell, from behind the door. Smith used a small pepper-box pistol that Cyrus Wheelock had given him when Wheelock had visited the jail earlier that day. Three of the six barrels misfired, but the other three shots injured at least three of the attackers.
You can quote from Wiki all you want, I own the original hard covered book, History of the church. It is more in depth that the sound bite you posted. But again no surprise, you guys fight for a lie.
Answer me this, The Bible is very clear, Jesus went as a lamb to the slaughter, Jesus never opened His mouth, He never tried to defend himself or run away.
JS claims he went to his death the same way, Please answer honestly and stop deflecting to other issues. Do you believe JS went the same way, Yes or no. If no then that opens a can of worms. If you say yes he did, then give a detailed response as to how fighting back and running away is the same thing Jesus did.
Something to think about also, If you ignore what I asked, then you are only proving what we say and believe, you guys cannot defend you faith, you claim you have love but do not show it by explaining where we are wrong and doing as the scriptures say, and correct us and turn us from error. Rick b
RickB,
You have been given the answer a few times – you just don’t want to accept it because it does not fit your agendum.
There were 3 other people in the room besides JS. He saw his brother shot and die in his arms. Two of his friends were in the line of fire and trying to stop it. So he fired the gun in defense of his friends so they would not get killed like his brother as the mob were really only after him. When his gun ran out of bullets he saw one of his friends shot and disappear under the bed, unknown as to whether he was dead or alive. So without any more bullets and one friend left standing he tried to draw fire and go out the window. This worked as the last friend standing was unscathed because everyone was focused on JS. Now you can say what you want about what I have written but that is another plausible scenario, that he was just defending his friends and not trying to save his own life. He went to the window where he was fully exposed to the mob outside the building – that would definitely get him killed and he knew it.
We are not mind readers, we were not there, thus the story can be construed in more than one way. Since you have an agendum against the LDS church you want to portray it as a desperate, cowardly man trying to run from a mob. most LDS see him as someone who was trying to save his friends at the expense of his own life.
As far as the men who were shot by JS, John Taylor reported that he ‘heard’ that 2 of them had died but did not see their bodies or graves, but there is sufficient evidence to show that they did not actually die. Although JS pistol only shot 3 rounds he reportedly hit 4 people (Questionable isn’t it? most likely someone got shot by their own people in the mob accidentally). These 4 men were indicted for the murder of JS but 3 of them disappeared before they were caught by the authorities. The evidence indicates more that they skipped town and did not die.
So the story of JS murder is open to interpretation.
Ralph, I notice LDS seem to ignore questions. They use smoke and mirrors, You can answer this question if you like but I do want Janet to reply for herself.
Question will be laid out so easy a 2 year old could answer it.
This is what the Bible said about Jesus going to his Death.
Now can you show me where Jesus Spoke evil about those who accused him? Can you show me where Jesus Fought to defend his friends from the mob in the garden? Can you show me where Jesus tried to come off the cross and run away? It cannot be done.
Now this is taught about JS,
Now it says in the D and C JS shall Die, It seems he knew he was going to die, Yet he tried to run away, Jesus Did not. JS tried leaping from the window, Jesus did not try to run away. JS claimed he was calm as a summers morning, I would beg to differ from what I read.
Now no dodging the question or trying to change the subject, If you agree with this, then tell me how JS went to his death like Jesus, show me exactly what I’m missing.
Yet if JS did not go to his death like Jesus, Then how can you guys teach he did? The scriptures do not agree with LDS doctrine. Rick b
Facts:
“Joseph Smith ran toward the window where he was shot in the back from inside the jail and shot in the chest from outside the jail”.
“They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner.”
See History of the Church, 6:602-618
“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall be said of me—He was murdered in cold blood”
Martyr:
1. a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles
2. one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles
3. someone who dies defending his or her faith
4. any person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause.
“His appearance and demeanor conveyed plainly to my mind that he realized he was going as a lamb to the slaughter. I should judge his feelings to be similar to that of the Savior when he uttered those memorable words: ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Thomas Cottam, Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The Nauvoo Charter gave Smith Dictatorial Powers in Nauvoo, and he used & abused them freely. [Go here: http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/061696.html for an excellent recap on the Nauvoo Charter & what really caused the exodus from Nauvoo]
Due to Smith’s sexual advances to Jane Law & others, many of his own turned against him and out of this sprang the Nauvoo Expositor affair. Abusing powers granted by the Nauvoo Charter & feeling safe with Legion of 5,000, smith had the press destroyed.
It is interesting that in a letter to Brigham Young dated June 17th, (recalling the 12) Hyrum Smith has this to say:
Communicate to the others of the Twelve with as much speed as possible, with perfect stillness and calmness. A word to the wise is sufficient; and a little powder, lead and a good rifle can be packed in your luggage very easy without creating any suspicion.” HC:6:487
These are not the words of peace-loving Christians, even in the face of mob violence, especially with a legion at their disposal.
Here, [June 20th] Smith says that:
I gave directions to Theodore Turley to commence the manufacture of artillery. He asked me if he should not rent a building, and set some men to repairing the small arms which were out of order. I told him in confidence that there would not be a gun fired on our part during this fuss.” (source above)
This is hailed as a prophecy by in HotC 6:521, but who fired a gun? Smith himself & his brother Hyrum’s who had one that misfired. Funny how this is overlooked (even though he was defending himself.)
Meanwhile Governor Ford, arriving at Carthage, declared that Smith had broken the law in wrecking the press and not giving the Church dissenters a trial. He objected to unusual searches of houses and the powers Smith had exercised in acting as judge and issuing writs to free himself and others.
He said the prophet had assumed too many powers and that he, along with those who were involved in the action against the Expositor, must stand trial at Carthage. Ford said he would call out the state militia if Smith did not surrender himself as ordered. Ford, who promised to stay at Carthage, returned to Nauvoo & was later accused by Porter Rockwell [who was accused of shooting Gov. Boggs of Missouri at the behest of Smith] of complicity in the Smith’s murders. On the 21st, smith says this about his brother Hyrum:
“I wish I could get Hyrum out of the way, so that he may live to avenge my blood, and I will stay with you and see it out.” (source above)
Is this the attitude or words of a martyr? Here is a letter to Emma, dated June 25th:
Dear Emma.—I have had an interview with Governor Ford, and he treats us honorably. Myself and Hyrum have been again arrested for treason because we called out the Nauvoo Legion; but when the truth comes out we have nothing to fear. We all feel calm and composed.
This morning Governor Ford introduced myself and Hyrum to the militia in a very appropriate manner, as General Joseph Smith and General Hyrum Smith. There was a little mutiny among the Carthage Greys, but I think the Governor has and will succeed in enforcing the laws. I do hope the people of Nauvoo will continue pacific and prayerful. Governor Ford has just concluded to send some of his militia to Nauvoo to protect the citizens, and I wish that they may be kindly treated. They will co-operate with the police to keep the peace. The Governor’s orders will be read in the hearing of the police and officers of the Legion, as I suppose.
3 o’clock.—The Governor has just agreed to march his army to Nauvoo, and I shall come along with him. The prisoners, all that can, will be admitted to bail. I am as ever, Joseph Smith.
Notice no mention of mistreatment by the Governor or that ‘he was about to die’ as mentioned by others, although I do not doubt the intention of the Carthage Greys in reference to the violence they wanted to perpetuate on smith. Again, on the 26th, another letter by smith:
Carthage Jail, June 26, 1844.
His Hon. Judge Thomas.
Dear Sir,—You will perceive by my date that I am in prison. Myself and brother Hyrum were arrested yesterday on charge of treason without bringing us before the magistrate; last evening we were committed on a mittimus from Justice Robert F. Smith, stating that we had been before the magistrate, which is utterly false; but from the appearance of the case at present, we can have no reasonable prospect of anything but partial decisions of law, and all the prospect we have of justice being done is to get our case on habeas corpus before an impartial judge; the excitement and prejudice is such in this place, testimony is of little avail.
Therefore, sir, I earnestly request your honor to repair to Nauvoo without delay. and make yourself at home at my house until the papers can be in readiness for you to bring us on habeas corpus. Our witnesses are all at Nauvoo, and there you can easily investigate the whole matter, and I will be responsible to you for all the trouble and expense. (source above HotC vol. 6)
Again, no mention whatsoever by Smith in his letters about dying as a martyr or that he felt his death was imminent, even to his lawyer. All the affidavits that appear in the HotC are sworn out years later, and all of the comments about his going like a lamb to the slaughter are made by mormons.
In his last letter to Emma, smith had this to say:
Carthage Jail, June 27th, 1844.
20 minutes past eight A.M.
Dear Emma.—The Governor continues his courtesies, and permits us to see our friends. We hear this morning that the Governor will not go down with his troops today to Nauvoo, as we anticipated last evening; but if he does come down with his troops you will be protected; and I want you to tell Brother Dunham to instruct the people to stay at home and attend to their own business, and let there be no groups or gathering together, unless by permission of the Governor, they are called together to receive communications from the Governor, which would please our people, but let the Governor direct.
Brother Dunham of course will obey the orders of the government officers, and render them the assistance they require. There is no danger of any extermination order. Should there be a mutiny among the troops (which we do not anticipate, excitement is abating) a part will remain loyal and stand for the defense of the state and our rights. There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive, but I anticipate no such extreme, but caution is the parent of safety.
Joseph Smith.
P. S.—Dear Emma, I am very much resigned to my lot, knowing I am justified, and have done the best that could be done. Give my love to the children and all my friends, Mr. Brewer, and all who inquire after me; and as for treason, I know that I have not committed any, and they cannot prove anything of the kind, so you need not have any fears that anything can happen to us on that account. May God bless you all. Amen.
The closest we get here is smith saying ‘I am resigned to my lot’. This could be a reference to anything, imprisonment, etc.
Even though there was threats, we see nothing in smith’s correspondence saying he was going like a ‘lamb to the slaughter’, or felt he was going to die right then.
As the mob was approaching, the jailer became nervous, and informed Smith of the group. In a letter dated July 10, 1844, one of the jailers wrote that Smith, expecting the Nauvoo Legion, said “Don’t trouble yourself … they’ve come to rescue me.” Here was Smith’s great opportunity to give himself to the mob, (to save his brothers) but no, instead he thinks it is the Nauvoo Legion come to rescue him. The Governor had made passes to several people who could see smith, & one of them was Cyrus Wheelock, who gave smith the revolver he used. Hyrum also had one, which he (misfired) just before he was struck by the bullets that killed him.
Allen J. Stout, from his journal relates:
“And while they were in jail, Brother Joseph wrote an official order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the Legion and reserve him from being killed,but Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders, and we were kept in the city under arms, not knowing but all was well, until the mob came and forced the prison and slew Joseph and Hyrum Smith and wounded John Taylor severely.” (http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/AStout.html)
The Carthage Greys [headed by Lt. Frank Worrell] reportedly feigned defense of the jail by firing shots or blanks [ Worrell later refused to answer whether rifles carried by the Greys that day had been loaded with blanks & would later die by the hand of Porter Rockwell] over the attackers’ heads, and some of the Greys reportedly joined the mob, who rushed up the stairs.
The mob fired shots through the door and attempted to push the door open to fire into the room. Hyrum Smith was shot in the face, just to the left of his nose. He cried out, “I am a dead man!” and collapsed. His body received five additional gunshot wounds.
Joseph Smith, Taylor, and Richards attempted to defend themselves. Taylor and Richards attempted to use walking sticks in order to deflect the guns as they were thrust inside the cell, from behind the door. Smith used a small pepper-box pistol that Cyrus Wheelock had given him when Wheelock had visited the jail earlier that day. Three of the six barrels misfired, but the other three shots injured at least three of the attackers.
Here we see that Smith did not go “as a lamb to the slaughter”, but fully intended to have the Nauvoo Legion come and rescue him. He could have ordered his friends out [in advance]if he really thought them in danger, but he did not. Again, being a ‘martyr’ in the traditional sense is not denying your religion in the face of torture or death. Smith was not ‘put to the question’ as many others who died for Christ were, and was nothing like Peter & Paul who willingly submitted to their deaths. Smith died in a gunfight, trying to leap out the window after his brother & Taylor were riddled with bullets. Most of the statements about smith ‘returning’, and the quotes of his predicting his death were made by Mormons, and should be dismissed as such. What is telling is the written letters that smith sent out from the jail that show smith fully expected to be vindicated. He was not, & died in a gun battle.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=444
By April 1844, dissenters openly challenged Joseph Smith’s leadership by organizing a reform church and publishing a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, for the purpose of denouncing him. Perceiving the Expositor as a threat to the peace of the community, the Nauvoo city council, with Joseph Smith presiding as mayor, authorized him to order the destruction of the press—an act that ignited the opposition. On June 12 the Prophet was charged with riot for destruction of the press. After a flurry of legal maneuvers, Joseph submitted to arrest at nearby Carthage, the county seat, under the governor’s pledge of protection. Joseph had premonitions of danger, and the vocal threats of hotheads in adjoining towns gave substance to his fears. On June 27, 1844, while in Carthage Jail awaiting a hearing, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed when a mob with blackened faces stormed the jail. The next day the brothers’ bodies were returned to Nauvoo, where ten thousand Latter-day Saints gathered to mourn the loss of their Prophet.
Still does NOT prove he was some kind of martyr. He wasn’t. And cutting and pasting Mormon Apologist sites doesn’t make it so. They did not ask him to ‘deny’ his religion. He was murdered because he kept flagrantly breaking the law, and it was instigated mostly by his own people who had turned against him. They were in a position to know.
Joseph Smith wrote
(noted above in Grindael’s quote from Joseph Smith’s last letter to his first wife, Emma).
Well, it seems that Jesus didn’t pay much attention to this “one principle which is eternal”.
(John 15:13).
I suppose it takes a guy like Joseph Smith to correct the mistakes that Jesus made (LOL).
Seriously, though, I don’t see any basis in the Bible to throw away your life lightly, wantonly or stupidly. However, if there is “one principle which is eternal”, it is that self-preservation doesn’t work.
(Luke 17:23)
(John 12:25)
It shows you just how much Joseph Smith had faith in God.
Janet, I do not believe JS was a maryter, I dont care how you define it, JS tried to run away to save his hide, He did not willing lay down his life as it is portrayed. If He was like Jesus He would have willing died, not tried to run away. Huge difference. Please explain how Jesus willing suffered and died for us, and JS tried running away, how is that the same? Rick b
“…Joseph had premonitions of danger…”
I understand wanting to believe that JS confirmed himself as a prophet because he could see that his death was a-coming
but seriously, it’s so laughable
personally, if I was sneaking around behind parents’ backs, coercing their teenage daughters…
sneaking around behind husbands’ backs (even my own close friends and followers) propositioning their wives…
sneaking around behind Uncle Sam’s back, threatening revolution…
etc etc etc…
I think I’d probably be able to see danger coming
lol
Good point, Martin!
RickB,
The phrase ‘going like a lamb to the slaughter’ has been used by many people, not just those describing Jesus or by JS. And I don’t remember being taught that JS was referring to this statement about Jesus. So I don’t see any connection between the use in these two circumstances.
Next, I am not a mind reader, nor was I there to see the circumstances but JS could just have been talking about that one point in time where he decided to turn around and go towards imminent death, not the actual point in time of his murder.
Grindael,
What is wrong with keeping a loaded gun in case of bandits? Jesus’ apostles kept sword with them. That is how Peter was able to cut the ear off one of the people who came to arrest Jesus.
Ralph, I know you dont agree, but it really is sad how LDS must defend their teachings and defend the prophet because there are so many problems with the LDS gospel. It’s going to be a sad day when each LDS member dies and stands before the Lord and Hears the word, Depart from me I never knew you. Then you will be cast away and tormented with the fact you knew you believed and defended a lie. I know you will say it will never happen, but then when you die and you hear those words, you really will not be surprised. Rick b
Rick,
I wonder if we even need to stand before the throne of Christ seeing as you have already taken care of the judgement. That is about as arrogant and unchristian as anything a person could say. It rings of Pharisaic thinking.
I am soooo glad judgement is in the hands of Him who knows the heart, motives, and desires of everybody. For all the faults of LDS, I have found it rare for them to make such utterly ridiculous and haughty statements.
Have you ever read Gal 1 8-9?
Have you ever read the Bible where Jesus said, People will stand before Him and He will tell them I never knew you. Rick b
OJ
Could you please define ‘unchristian.’ It seems the term gets thrown around a lot but without any standardized definition to help offenders recognize and curb their ‘unchristian’ characteristics.
RickB,
Are you Christ? Do you have the ability to determine that another human being will be cast out by Christ?
rvales- I think the good Samaritan is the best definition of a Christian- I think Christ would take that over any definition created by those focusing on boundaries and technicalities.
How is what has been said here opposite of the good Samaritan?
rvales,
RickB told Ralph that at the last day Ralph will be cast out from Christ and hear the words “Depart from me I never knew you. Then you will be cast away and tormented…” If that is not ultimate judgementalism, I don’t know what is. That typifies very well the self-righteous religionists who passed around and left the man on the road who was ultimately saved by the Samaritan.
Why did Christ use a Samaritan in the story? Based almost entirely on religious grounds, the Samaritans were despised and viewed as lesser humans. Those who passed by with their noses in the air were those from the favored religious circles. Christ was teaching the fact that religion is of no use if it does not affect the way we treat those around us. Those who felt they were chosen and saved were the snobs who neglected their neighbor. And that was the antithesis of a follower of Christ.
Christ had the authority to make such judgements on earth. It is more than a little presumptuous for one to assume that authority.
Would it have been ‘unchristian’ if Rick B had said that to a hindu or muslim or atheist or scientologist?
rvales,
You ask “Would it have been ‘unchristian’ if Rick B had said that to a hindu or muslim or atheist or scientologist?”
Absolutely.
So you would prefer he sugarcoat the ramifications of not having salvation so that he doesn’t sound mean? If someone where about to walk right off a cliff would you sugarcoat the seriousness of what they are doing or would you be firm with them? Would you enable someone who is addicted to drugs because you don’t want to look ‘unloving’ so you continue to give them money and clean up their messes or would you allow for some tough love and tell them what they do not want to hear or accept? Jesus said he would turn many away who thought they were shoe-ins for the kingdom. Jesus turned over tables and drove money changers out of his father’s house with a whip. Jesus told people they were wrong whether they liked hearing it or not, was Christ ‘unchristian’…no because he loved them and they needed to hear it.. And today Jesus works thru his followers to convict and draw people to him. He doesn’t need to he can just make someone understand but he uses fallible people to accomplish his will. So when you are standing before God and he says ‘Why should you get to hang out in heaven in my prescence’ and you say ‘Well I know I wasn’t perfect but look at all this stuff I did in your name’ and he tells you to depart you can’t say ‘But you never told me I was wrong, I got a feeling from the holy spirit that I was right why didn’t you send me a message’ He’ll say, ‘I sent you Mormon Coffee, I sent you Rick B, I gave you a mind and the ability to reason and most importantly I sent you my Word and you didn’t like what any of those had to say. So depart I never knew you.’ I know it sounds harsh and I don’t presume to know someone’s heart (unlike your missionaries who would tell me that my lack of a testimony of the BoM is the product of my insincere heart and hidden sin) I do contend that the Bible has harsh words for those who think they are going to wow their way into the kingdom with their signs and wonders when Jesus wants us to be 100% dependant on him
Just an observation, but the ultimate act of a good-Samaritan would be to help someone realize that they were eternal danger, and try to pull them onto the right road, right? So much more Samaritan-ish than say, to give them some money or take them to a doctor. Both of those things are only temporal.
Just sayin
It would serve your purpose to convince yourself and others that we are hateful ugly people who only want to tear down the LDS (or anyone else who doesn’t see eye to eye with us) But OJ as people who believe that you are walking the wide path to destruction wouldn’t the truly ‘unchristian’ thing for us to do be let you continue on your merry way? If I truly believed that someone was going to hell, how much would I have to hate them to not say something? OJ the truth is I believe that following the mormon doctrine and precepts will lead you away from God and I love you too much to not contend with you about it. I want to see you in Heaven some day singing praises right along with me to our Almighty God who created us out of nothing for his pleasure and who, while we were yet still sinners, died for us!Romans 5:8
ralph wrote
Ralph,
Read on and see how Jesus reacted to Peter’s use of the sword (Matt 26:52, in particular).
I think there are a number of valid ways to read this. We could say that Jesus did not want to see blood shed on his behalf (either that of his freinds or his enemies). Or we could say that he did not want his legacy to operate in competition to the current civil (worldly) powers (note that a number of Messianic movements had and already tried to do so in NT times). Or we could say that Jesus needed to surrender to the authorities in order to achieve his objective, which was crucifixion. Or we could say pretty much all of the above, as none of them excludes the others.
What is clear, however, is that Jesus is demonstrating the ultimate denial of self-preservation. He is absolutely acting against his self-interests.
What is abundantly apparent from all the extant accounts, is that Joseph Smith absolutely acted to preserve himself, and his self-interests.
If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. Or in Joseph Smith’s case, a six shot pepper box pistol.
(P.S. Its a different thread, but my quick response to the question “should Christians be pacifists” would be along the lines of “its right for me to defend your interests, or even for me to defend my interests when your interests might be compromised by association or precedent, but I would be reluctant to defend my interests at the expense of yours”)
Hey Jim,
Before you call me unchristian here are some things to think about.
True or False, JS said he heard from God and God told him that everything I believe is an abomination in his sight. Can I defend myself against that?
True or False: The BoM claims their are only TWO CHURCHES, The Church of God, the real and true Church, and the Church of the Devil, the One I am in according to your theology. Boy that’s loving and Christlike is it not?
Now more true or false statements from the Bible the Word of God. Are these things I am posting True or false?
Are these found in the Bible?
If so are they unloving Non Christ like statements to say, you will go to hell for not even loving Jesus? Telling people they are false prophets or that false prophets exist?
Hell is real and people are going there every day by the thousands. Jesus said the road that leads to life is very narrow and only a few will find it, but the road to destruction is wide and many are on it.
You say we Christians are not very loving. I have said many times I see zero love from LDS. You guys never sit down and give us details on why or how were wrong. You simply say that we’re twisting your words or we really don’t understand LDS teachings, so were not able… Cont.
Share with you guys according to you. But yet you guys never show us how or where we are wrong, I have had many LDS judge me to my face and say, you really dont want to know, or you really dont care.
Thats Judging, not what I said about going to hell, thats in the Bible. Rick b
Jim,
“Absolutely”
Just because something does not sound nice does not make it “unchristian”. Indirectly you are attacking a widespread Christian belief – that if one dies apart from Christ he/she dies in her sins and thus spiritually dies. This belief is part-and-parcel to many Christian sects; thus, you are calling them “unchristian”.
For the record, we know that LDS soteriology approaches univeralism. Simply repeating that does nothing. While this may not be the thread for it, what we need you to do is demonstrate to us that this belief is correct and that others are wrong.
Hey O.J.
I am going to take a wild guess here and say, I know you clearly did not like what I had to say, but on the other you and other LDS will make no honest attempt to take me on in truth in what I said.
In all honesty how can you, it is clear your Prophets/presidents and standard works judge us and do exactly what you jumped on me for supposedly doing.
Then in honesty how can you refute the verses I posted unless….
Unless you do what all other LDS have done that I have said those things to and that is, they say those verses only apply to a few select people that Jesus or the apostles were speaking to years ago, or it’s ok for them to say those things but not me.
I would also like an honest attempt at an answer from Janet or Jim, I will take one from Ralph, but here is my thinking, OJ and Ralph and others tell me I am wrong or cannot say things then when I call them on it they seem to leave and Ralph comes along to reply for them.
I’ll take any response I can get, but I at least would like the people who tell me I am wrong to defend their position. This is simply why I see no love from the LDS.
You might think it is not loving for me to warn you of the eternal danger that coming, but it’s more loving to warn you and let you do what you want with that info then for you to believe that their will be lesser heavens or even outer darkness that awaits me and yet you refuse to turn me from the error of my ways, then tell me I am judging you, all the while you judge me not worthy enough to hear the truth so you with hold it from me. Any thoughts? Rick b
You guys seem to be trying to convince me that there will be lots of people cast out by Christ at the judgement day. When have I ever denied that? Do you get what I am saying?
It is extremely arrogant and self-righteous for one person to tell another that they are going to be cast out and burn in hell forever. CHRIST IS THE JUDGE, RICKB IS NOT. That is my point. You are placing yourself on equal standing with Christ as judge.
This is my main beef with people who spend a lot of time criticizing LDS or others. It is so in line with the pharisees- it is hard to believe you do not see that. They loved boundaries and excluding people based on those boundaries. They were self-righteous because they were so quick to dismiss and condemn others based on the criteria they had created, mixing their arrogance with scripture.
I am not arguing for “sugar-coating” the truth. I am arguing that a person who feels comfortable saying another is going to burn in hell is sooooo far from Christ.
Yet the EVs here seem so comfortable doing that. It must come from your belief that your salvation is a done deal.
Rvales said “Jesus said he would turn many away who thought they were shoe-ins for the kingdom.” Amen. You are making my point.
Bottom line- I think it is fine to have differences in doctrine and beliefs and to fully recognize those differences. It is an entirely different and inappropriate thing for one of us to claim enough of anything to condemn another to hell. That is flat out dangerous and blasphemous. I would be afraid God might hear me say such a thing.
You criticize LDS for emphasizing works because you claim we seek to lift ourselves above others, yet you are the ones who are so anxious to claim you are saved while others are damned. Can you see the irony?
“ Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Matt 7:1
OJ, First, You quote Matt 7:1, Have you read all of it or only one verse?
Jesus said false prophets will arise and we will know them by their fruits. Please explain how I can tell if a person is a wolf or lying to me, or if their fruit is good or evil if I do not make a judgment?
Then you total missed my questions, Did Paul make a judgment saying if you dont even LOVE THE LORD you will go to hell? When Jesus said not all who say LORD ,LORD will enter heaven. So Do I tell people Jesus said that and you might end up going if you teach a false gospel or do I hope and pray they simply read those verse and never point them out for fear of hurting their feelings or coming across as judgmental?
Plus the statements from your BoM, How can I tell if the Church is from God or of the Devil unless I judge what they teach according to the word of God? Rick b
Again it seems you pick and choose what to reply to while ignoring the rest, and again it shows no love on your part taking the time to correct me. By your actions your judging me and making a judgment that I will not receive the truth or want to hear it even though I am saying I really do want to hear it, so your doing what you accuse me of doing and going against what scripture teaches.
According to James I am trying to do this, but not you guys. Wheres the Love?
Please go out of your way and explain to me exactly how LDS are loving and showing us love. I would love to hear it. Rick b
Jim,
“I am arguing that a person who feels comfortable saying another is going to burn in hell is sooooo far from Christ”
Don’t you see the irony in your statement? You are claiming that someone is, or can be, far from Christ based on that person’s beliefs. Rick is just following through on his set of beliefs; he is taking them to their logical conclusion. If their is a real hell, then real people are really going to go there.
The Judge, Christ Jesus, has told us that certain people are going to hell. If you trust the words of scripture then you must acknowledge that “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (I Jn 5:12).
Jim how can you get around that? An atheist by definition does not have “the Son”. Honestly, at least we are being forthright in what we believe. Consider – if we behaved in the opposite way, concealed this truth, that you would accuse us of being ashamed of it or even being deceptive. And if we are forthright with it, like we are, then we get the response you are giving us now. Contrast our behavior towards the Mormon obfuscation on the issue of eternal progression.
It is becoming obvious that this is a fruitless endeavor.
My point was simple. I feel no desire to answer every possible question that really has nothing to do with my point.
MY POINT: Nobody on this earth can judge the heart of another clearly enough to determine if he or she is going to burn in hell for eternity. To claim otherwise is arrogant and ridiculous, and is nowhere supported in the Bible.
Again- I believe in hell. I believe real people will go there. I just do not believe you people are qualified to say which SPECIFIC individuals will go there. In other words, RickB- you have absolutely no grounds on which to tell Ralph that he is going to burn in hell.
If you insist on claiming your righteousness is good enough to make such condemnations, feel free. Just know that you look ridiculous and self-righteous to lurkers and reasonable people.
RickB- which of the verses you cite authorize you to tell Ralph he is going to hell?
OJ,
I see the Bible clearly teaching that people that are teaching a different gospel or are false teachers and prophets are going to hell.
I see the Mormon Gospel as a false Gospel and a different Gospel. I have even seen mormons on this blog admit as much, they simply teach that it is their gospel that is correct while the gospel I believe is wrong.
Now you say it is a fruitless endeavor, but I see it more as you cannot answer my questions so you try to “opt” out by saying such things.
Again, if Jesus and Peter and Paul and Titus And others said things like, Those who do not even love Jesus will go to hell or teach another gospel, or that their will be false prophets that arise right from our own ranks. If Jesus and these others said it, does this make them unChrist-like or hateful and judgmental?
They said it because Jesus Taught it, so if Jesus said it I can say it also. Please stop with the smoke and mirrors of saying this is a fruitless endeavor and simply answer the questions and again, tell me how are Mormons loving or showing us love by with holding information from us, or Judging us not worthy to hear the truth? Rick b
Olsen
Seems to me the Mormon Church judged a whole class of people and resigned them to be slaves in heaven.
Even a black woman was sealed to smith in Utah as his ‘eternal slave’ in the celestial kingdom.
If this is not ‘judging people’ I don’t know what is? Shall we take a stroll down memory lane and quote what Young and that bunch said about the blacks? How did smith NOT judge all the clergy of the world by saying they were ‘all corrupt’ and an ‘abomination’ to God? That was smith’s whole reason for the restoration! In fact, they went on to say (smith & the early apostles) that all ‘Sectarians’ as they called them, were the Church of the Devil and worked for him. How is this not ‘judging’ and how does this fit in to your logic?
Seems to me the Mormons went down this road at the outset and are STILL doing it with their ‘priesthood authority’ (no baptism but their’s authorized by God – hence no one but a mormon gets ’saved’)
If you would read your own Church History with an open mind, it would answer all your questions, and you would know why those who post here do not believe it or what they say today, because they still revere Young and Smith as ‘great prophets’ who stand at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom judging those who can get in.
Ralph
I have no problem with others keeping guns. I don’t own one, never would & leave my fate to the hands of God. I have personally been robbed and stabbed and left for dead. It is a long story I won’t relate here. I did NOT though, want VENGENCE on these people, I felt sorry for them. This was after my conversion in 2006, before that time, I was a different person.
Smith went on and on about ‘having his blood avenged’ etc. etc. And many of his followers held on to that spirit, and the avenging of those murdered was even put into the temple rituals. This is NOT christian by any stretch. Jesus told his apostles that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
If Smith had been peaceful, he would not have needed the Nauvoo Legion, which he sent word to – to rescue him. He did not surrender willingly to be a martyr, he went back because they would have probably torn up the city of Nauvoo. He fully expected to be divinely rescued, and his letters bear out he was not unduly worried about losing his life at Carthage. The ‘prophecies’ and references to his death were all written by mormons after the fact and have no way to be verified. Show me a document written in smith’s hand or scribed before he was killed to prove this point.
I am not contesting smith’s right to defend himself, we all have that, but calling him a martyr is deceiving, and his attitude and the attitude of those that followed in his footsteps show his true nature, a violent man bent on revenge. This is NOT a Christian trait, & this was bourne out later in Utah with Mountain Meadows and the many many statements of Those who preached blood atonement from the pulpit in Utah.
One of the greatest points on what really happened historically is that the US backed off when the Mormons truly stopped polygamy. They left the Mormons alone when they complied with the law. Ask yourself, why did this not happen at Nauvoo? Because they were lying, the people of Illinois knew it, and would not tolerate it. Porter Rockwell later murdered the man who was the head of the Carthage Greys along with a Mormon Sheriff, (they said he drew on Rockwell, but that is open to debate) who was stirring up the people against the Mormons.
Jim,
“If you insist on claiming your righteousness is good enough to make such condemnations, feel free. Just know that you look ridiculous and self-righteous to lurkers and reasonable people.”
Awe but we don’t. The “righteousness” we claim is a borrowed, or imputed, righteousness (Rom 3:32-25). This is where you are adding Mormonism, or at least projecting your Mormon world view, onto what we are saying. I cannot state for individuals who is going to hell. I do not know who will come to Christ and as such I cannot condemn anyone during his/her lifetime. However, I can state that it is foundational to my beliefs that apart from “the Son” there is nothing that saves a person from the wrath of God That is biblical, indeed, it is part of the gospel that many will reject as foolishness (I Cor 1:23).
RickB and others,
Feel free to judge anybody you desire and condemn them all to hell based on your infinite view of their hearts, motives, and desires. Have fun with that.
Grindael- you have done it again. Only you could think of a way to bring polygamy into this discussion.
David- When did I ever claim that anything other than Christ can save a person? Really- are we having the same discussion?
Jim,
First, correction to my above post the reference should be Rom 3:21-25.
Now, the answer is you did not. However, the implication then is if someone dies apart from Christ, say an Atheist, then he/she dies “unsaved”. So, if i told an Atheist, “You are heading towards hell – repent” would you have a problem with that? If so why?
OJ,
As a born again Christian evangelical if I died today do you believe I would be in Heaven with God?
David and rvales,
Both of you, I think, are getting at the same question- and the answer is that there is only one means of salvation- the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
There are many additional questions implicit in your questions which could take up a lot of space to answer and debate. And I think you both are familiar enough with our doctrine to know the answers.
Put plainly, every soul will have a genuine opportunity to understand and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ- if not in this life, in the spirit world. (This does not mean we get a second chance) And we are not in a position to determine the hearts of others and whether they have had a “genuine” opportunity to understand and accept the gospel. There are waaaayyy too many variables involving the way we are all raised, the teachings we are exposed to, the biases that are impressed upon us- only God knows our hearts.
So for one person to condemn another is so incredibly ridiculous and small.
So rvales- I don’t know your heart. I believe you love God and Jesus Christ. I am in no position to determine where you would go if you died today.
Don’t get me wrong- I believe there are absolutes that must be accepted and ordinances that must be completed. But I would never claim to know whether your exposure to the truth in this life constitutes a “genuine opportunity” and that you wouldn’t be granted a more bias-free opportunity later. Same goes for an athiest.
Jim,
There in lies the difference. I reject the idea that heaven and hell rest on how many or how good of a “shot” someone has. Hence, why I (and possibly Rick) can tell someone to “turn or burn”. Keep in mind that in the scenario I gave to you, the atheist got as least some kind of a shot. Differences in theology lead to different methods of “fishing for men”.
I would point you to the discussion that Aaron and Ralph had concerning hellish heavens to help you understand my position. My system is more “binary” than the Mormon one. There are no terrestrial and telestial kingdoms that “good” or even OK men can go to. I would state that the world as a whole is already headed to hell and that only a few are “saved” and that only through “the Son”. To put it in modern American vernacular – you don’t start out with an “A”.
Olsen
Polygamy really is at the heart of why smith died, is it not? Perhaps if he would have come clean & admitted it, instead of lying, things would have turned out different for him? My point was, in Nauvoo, it led to the expulsion of the Mormons, in Utah the discontinuance of it left them with their property & lives intact. Funny how the one thing smith died for wound up being abandoned by his followers. Made his death kind of pointless.
And Jesus said we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds and souls and then to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31) And that is precisely what I’m doing. I’m telling you there is no second chance. You die and then you are judged (Hebrews 9:27) Those not found in Christ, imputed with his righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 4:22-25) will be judged according to their ability to keep the law and no one is justified by their (in)ability to keep the law (Galatians 2:16) So mormonism with it’s endless covenants and added works completely underestimates God’s Holiness and man’s sinfullness. And it is because of love that we contend with you on these matters so that you have a saving relationship with the Holy, righteous God (something your prophets have said is not something you should or could have).
“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness of everyone that believeth.” Romans 10:3-4
So it’s not judgement that drives us but a love of the Truth in Christ Jesus and a love for our neighbors as ourselves.
Jim,
“Both of you, I think, are getting at the same question- and the answer is that there is only one means of salvation- the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”
Quick question? Salvation meaning: ability to overcome sin, and universal resurrection?
or
Salvation meaning: there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus?
OJ, I notice you have not answered my questions. See your making it hard for me to believe you LDS really follow Christ since you dodge questions and therefore show no love to those you feel are lost since they do not believe your gospel. Rick b