Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
125 Responses to Why are you trying to earn grace?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
…ctd…
All the Christians I know (1) would say that they came to a point in their lives when they realized that their relationship with God was broken. They decided to turn around, throw themselves on His mercy and seek His forgiveness.
That’s repentance, and you can see the actual moment of someone repenting in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:18. Notice that, in his appeal, the Prodigal Son offers no hint that he merits his father’s mercy (Luke 15:21) – no baptism, no laying on of hands, nothing. The father’s declaration that his son is “alive” (Luke 15:24) is the clearest picture of the Biblical concept of justification that I can think of.
The parable has an interesting coda; the unfinished exchange between the father and the stay-at-home son, who had been doing it by works. The tacit question that Jesus asks through this is who really knew the father; and who was truly justified?
(1) Footnote – usually it is both a past identifiable crisis and a continuing reality.
…ctd…
…ctd…
Where I think this issue gets most problematic is not when I consider my relationship with God. All of us can, rightly or wrongly, claim to be on a right relationship with God, though the more honest we get, and the better our vision of a Holy God gets, the more we realize that we have no intrinsic right to stand in His presence.
The more problematic question is when I consider someone else’s relationship with God, particularly in the context of Church Membership. At what point does a person’s actions disqualify him or her from membership?
For my guidance, I look to the Creeds. There’s one line that states
which might seem strange, coming from a protestant. That’s because the word “catholic” means “you don’t need to pre-qualify to get in”. Two things are worth noting here; one is the emphasis on subscribing to a set of beliefs, the other is that baptism is seen as important. In fact baptism is seen as concrete proof of a person’s obedience to the Faith. Likewise, in the broadest sense, refusal to be obedient to the Faith may be considered to be grounds for excommunication.
Finally, though this might seem similar to the LDS view, there is one profound difference that cannot be overlooked. In the orthodox perspective, a person’s salvation is NOT bound to his or her Church membership. Our salvation is hid with Christ in God (c.f. Col 3;3); it doesn’t disappear because someone took it off a role.
The reformation put a stop to the Roman Church’s claim to mediate a person’s relationship with God, but, ironically, it seems that Joseph Smith reinstated it.
The important inference from all this is that in seeking the salvation of all men, we’re not trying to recruit them into our organization; we’re trying to bring them into faith in Christ. There’s a difference. If they join my church, that’s a bonus, but if they don’t, I’ll be happy, as long as they find a spiritual home somewhere
Nice job Martin and I in no way want to diminish your efforts here but let’s face it, once we know what Mormons believe regarding who God is, that pretty much ends the discussion, at least for me. I really don’t care what their articles of faith say and their attempts to find some Biblical support for them. It’s a moot point. I’ve come to the point where I think that any discussion with Mormons beyond the nature of God is a waste of time, unless of course the discussion can bring them to a point where cracks begin to appear in their testimony and the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ shines through.
If we were having a discussion regarding the statement of faith of say the Seventh Day Adventists, we would at least have a basis in recognizing the fact that we both acknowledge the same God. That’s the point of Christians examining the statement of faith of various denominations.
We could even have a legitimate discussion with the Community of Christ Mormon sect because at least they’ve moved their doctrine closer to Christianity. But by having a discussion on the aof with a SLC Mormon we are giving some credance to the idea that there are some similarities between Mormonism and Christianity. There is not. They have a different God, Jesus, and of course the Holy Ghost and an energy force they call the Holy Spirit. They have a dual plan of salvation; one a universal salvation and another one that will lead them to becoming gods themselves. So what do I care about their aof and their view on grace vs. works? Why would I even entertain such a discussion?
Jacob, It’s fine you want to through out the A.of.F. to support what you believe, well how about you answer my questions that LDS clearly seem unable or unwilling to do, Like Why did Jesus say, The only work WE MUST DO, is to BELIEVE on Him, not believe and…
Rick b
Rick,
It really doesn’t matter what Jesus said…..in the world of Mormonism. Mormons have “revelation” that supersedes everything including previous revelations. Mormon “doing” is a very necessary part of their dual system of salvation that will lead them to join the pantheon of gods who, through their efforts, have completed the course and been found to be righteous enough (to become gods).
Whatever Jesus said is of no consequence in the Mormon program. Jesus is a tag on and doesn’t even show-up until the last point of their canned testimony. Besides the Mormon Jesus isn’t the Jesus of the Bible. He’s the spirit offspring of the Mormon god and one of his many wives who lives on a planet somewhere near the star Kolob. He’s a good example to Mormons of what hard work, perseverance, and commitment to the principles of Mormonism can do for a person.
So until Mormons come to know who God is, there perception of Jesus and His words will be skewed, misinterpreted and misapplied.
Good to have you back BTW. How are things in the kitchen?
Not only is he stating to believe on Him, but believe what he says.
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.
I believe in Christ, and I believe what He says. How more plain can the scriptures state it.
Janet.
Jacob –
You asked “What is it that helps you determine your belief in Christ?”
First off – I want you to know that I am answering this honestly – what I will write here is not just “the correct answers” but truths that have really transformed my life in Christ.
My faith is not about me – it is about Jesus crucified for my sins. My focus is on Him. I worship, adore, and lift up Jesus in my life as my savior. My trust is in His finished work on the cross – not on ANYTHING I do or say. Salvation is by grace – so I need do nothing – focus on Jesus and His amazing love for me, His sacrifice on the cross – God became a man and completed EVERYTHING necessary for my salvation. As the apostle Paul said in Scripture “Believe and be saved.” There is nothing I can add to what Jesus has done for me. I rest in Him. When my sin comes in and causes me to doubt I turn to Jesus and say – who has saved me? Did I save myself? Am I meriting God’s favor? NO – JESUS did all and paid for all my sins – look to him and believe! I will dwell with God eternally because of the work of Christ on my behalf – believe and be saved.
I am a baptized Christian – Jesus has brought me into His Church and by baptism taken me as an adopted son. Baptism is not a work we do for God, but rather it is something God uses to bring us into the Church – it is the sign of adoption, where I identify with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. I am washed in the waters of baptism and covered by the blood of Christ.
Jacob mentioned oneimportant aspect of Mormonism, and I know for the sake of discussion it is not being talked about. But he mentioned accpetic Smith as a prophet as a difference. I don’t necessarily want the discussion to change to Smith, but I do want to point out that this is a huge and loaded difference. If not discussed, it needs to be remembered as a primary difference between our faiths.
Janet,
I see you have resorted to the perceived ultimate defense against those such as I who know the Mormon program, and which is a fruit of Mormonism: superiority in knowledge. I used to be as pedantic as you in defense of Mormonism; but, alas, the truth was revealed to me: JS left me as an orphan to defend his heretical teachings. So, because I know where you are, I can empathize with you and pray for you. You are merely a victim of the lies of JS, a false prophet, and of the cover-up of a false church–the LDS Church.
I see you are still trying to misuse the biblical text with your insistence that your Acts 2 qoute supports your view of baptism as a requirement. It would be great if you would research and do some biblical exegesis on the passage to see what the verb tense is actually stating. It’s not an imperative as it is when Peter says to “repent.”
Martin,
The LDS can’t jettison the 8th AOF, because it is the cornerstone of JS religion. That AOF is the key that unlocks the door to heretical teachings that are so easily accepted by the Mormon faithful.
Blessings…
Well it’s that time in the program where I list the essentials of Christianity. Take them as AOF if you want and think about the distinctions between what basic orthodox Christianity believes, going back to the first century and what Joseph Smith the false prophet taught regarding these things.
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The nature of God; one God, three persons.
3. The deity of Christ. He is God.
4. The virgin birth of Christ.
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. (The final judgment)
Now we could start with #1 above and work our way all the way down to #9 and it would be evident to anyone that drawing the sharp distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity on these things, demonstrates the huge gulf that exists between the two. Mormonism is the result of the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith and his penchant for grabbing ideas here and there and making it up as he went along. The problem is Smith and the LDS church by extension who promote their false notions. The rank and file members are not off the hook however because if they would actually spend sometime doing some serious study, they would find that the nonsense put out by the LDS church is total fiction. But until people are ready to actually do some thinking outside the LDS box, they will stay in the box. The greatest tragedy in Mormonism, among many, is the fool notion to “Stick with the leaders. They will never lead you astray.” Talk about mind bending indoctrination.
There is One God. He is eternal. He is unchangeable. There is one church, one faith, one Savior, one plan of salvation. It’s not Mormonism!
Janet said
Janet, this is a great dodge of answering my questions, and it says to me you dont know the Bible and you are a liar.
If you are to believe what He said, as you claim, then you need to explain why Jesus did not baptize, why did Paul say Jesus did NOT SEND him to baptize if that is required? Why did Jesus say the ONLY WORK, notice it is a single work, and that is to believe. Not believe and…
Why is it if we are under grace then we are condemned if we try and keep and live the law. You can dodge all you want, But I will keep bringing it up and calling you guys on it. Unlike many others, I will not let you guys get away with things.
Letting you guys lie, dodge questions and teach false doctrine and drag souls to hell, is not a bad thing. Now a days to many Christians feel calling sinners to repent and outing false doctrine is mean and should not be done, thats why many will not do it. I do not fall into that camp, I know what Jesus said and teaches.
Falcon, things are going good in the kitchen and with school, you can follow things I do on my food blog. Rick b
Rick,
Glad school is going well.
Note number 1 in my list above. This is why you can’t get a straight answer regarding the questions you ask. Mormons, as you know, have a totally different view of the Bible than Christians. To us the Word of God is authoritative as to doctrine and practice. To Mormons the Bible is just an ancillary scripture, helpful only as far as it can be molded to fit Joseph Smith’s warped view of God, salvation, marriage and any other topic that fit his fancy. Smith wads a total disaster as can be seen from his own “translation” of the Bible. If anyone wants to know just how messed up that guy was, just take a look at that production. The guy was definitely working off the top of his head. He didn’t go much deeper than that.
This bears repeating here. I saw it on a Mormon site: http://mormonmatters.org/2010/03/03/jacobs-ladder-more-on-faith-vs-works/ and this was our friend Aaron’s comment:
BiV, I acknowledge that there is a range of Mormon views on this, but the 2009 Gospel Principles essentially promotes a repentance-that-bring-forgiveness paradigm that is similar to Spencer Kimball’s six steps. Even with a selective, partial adherence to this standard, the sum-total effect I see it having on Mormon culture is to foster a view of forgiveness that is not free and full.
I understand that neo-orthodox Mormons (often silently and ambiguously) reject traditional Mormonism’s harsher repentance-unto-forgiveness paradigm, but even with a softer Mormon view of the repentance that brings forgiveness I see a a problem still. Real forgiveness removes from me any condemnation forever. Whereas degrees of rewards for traditional Christians are not differentiated by any degrees of condemnation, Mormonism’s three-kingdom (and even three-CK-sublevel) partitioning ends up functioning as condemnation. Even if one approaches the issue of bottom kingdoms as self-imposed limitations, it still seems like a big problem because surely in forgiveness God promises to eventually free his people from their self-condemnation and self-imposed limitations.
All that to say there are two problems: 1) The traditional repentance-paradigm for achieving forgiveness in Mormonism is far from free, as prerequisite requirements are often tacked onto a broken heart and an desperate faith. 2) Mormonism doesn’t necessarily promise the “forgiven” complete freedom from condemnation (self-condemnation included) or endless ever-increasing joy.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron S.
Aaron’s footnote is also informative:
PS Five years later Marion G. Romney taught:
“The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now.” (“In Mine Own Way,” Ensign, Nov. 1976, p. 123)
Janet said:
I could never imagine being more happier, more filled, more knowledgeable, more understanding, and more relieved then when I first gained my testimony.
Funny, she sure hasn’t shown much knowldege of Mormonsim on this site. All she does is attack others with a greater knowledge than she has.
It does not, and never will change the TRUTH.
Thank you Martin for your response. I like to see the views of the opposite side so as I can better explain myself as far as my belief and faith.
I will accept the point of allowing the 3rd Article of Faith as it does lead into the 4th.
Next, I can fully understand your view of the fear of one boasting his own hand in his salvation. That, I can find, is a truly acceptable point. We must always remember that nothing were possible without the great atoning sacrifice of our Savior.
I think (note that this is an opinion) that this comes from the problem with the Israelites and what happened with them and the Law of Moses. In the Old Testament, pick a book, you have so many laws and ordinances set it it can make your head spin. Even though the original intent was to stear the hearts and minds of the children of Israel to look towards the coming of the final sacrifice, they, the Israelites, had turned more towards the idea of following the law was the only important thing. They forgot the purpose of the Savior and boasted in the following of the rituals and traditions as the saving point of their lives. This is the main reason why they did not recognize Christ as the Savior they were to have. Instead they savior they thought would come would simply be someone who rescues them from their temporal problem of being ruled by the Romans.
So, boasting of following the law at the expense of following the Savior like they were supposed to do became the problem.
As I have had experience with others bringing in their own views of how a religion should be when entering into my church, it can be a big concern to re-educate so to speak (I know a threat of brainwashing may come from this statement) as to the true nature of what our religion is. This may have been a strong point to bring across to those first hearing what the gospel of Christ is.
.ctd.
.ctd.
That following the law, commandments, baptism is not what saves you. It is the sacrifice of the Savior. They didn’t want these people to make the same mistake as before by boasting as they did that they were sons of Abraham and that they follow the law. Christ is the Author of our salvation. I hope you can accept that I say this in complete honesty.
As members of our faith, it is not a point for us to boast of baptism or following the commandments as if that action alone saves us, but to remember constantly that it is the Saviors sacrifice that saves us. We follow these things because it is what we believe the Savior has asked us to do. How else do you reconcile him saying, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” I love him, and I will follow his commandments. I was not baptized so that I can boast of my action to world, but I do boast of the great saving ordinance of Jesus Christ.
I hope that helps you in understanding my view on this matter. I welcome any questions you may have about what I have said.
I now have a question for you. You in so many words say that you faith in Christ is enough for you to consider your salvation. If I am wrong in my assumption, please let me know. My question is, what do you consider about the committing of sins. Do you feel that dimishes in any way your consideration of salvation? I mean after your faith in Christ has been set, is repentance an ongoing process or simply a byproduct of your faith? If it is a byproduct, then how do you reconcile a man who claims to have faith in Christ but leads a life that is contrary to the teachings thereof? Is it that he has not truly shown faith or do you believe that repentance may have a necessity in the continuing of that faith? Again, I ask with an honest heart to know your views and mean no offense if you do not accept the premise of the questions themselves.
Now I have a word or two with some of the posters here.
It is clear that you all completely understand all there is about the LDS church as your posts show. It is appearant that we can provide you with no new news about our faith.
I would most welcome any questions you may have (I apologize in advance if you feel you have been asking many questions that you find are not answered).
I would ask though that you refrain from simple gainsay and ask true honest questions. I am sure this is a post for discussion of our beliefs, not degradation. I of course applaude your zealous efforts to try to convince us of our false teachings as I have had equal desire to teach people of my true teachings. But, it seems obvious that there are those who post only to belittle in some ways our faith. I am not complaining about anti-mormonism. I would simply like to have an open discussion of honest opinions and views. To simply call someone a “liar” for making statements on how they understand a scripture is truly counter productive. Besides someone who makes a statement about something and you say they don’t know it doesn’t make them a “liar” but ignorant. Claiming a lie is very hard to prove if you do not know someone’s understanding of an issue. However, if you do know Janet personally and that she is making a false statement, by all means, I would like to hear your explanation. But simple name-calling doesn’t move forward the purpose, I think, is the nature of this blog.
Is this a blog for Evangelical Christians to guide members of the LDS faith to what they believe the truth to be, or is this a blog to openly belittle the LDS faith and those of that faith who choose to join this blog?
Well Jacob5 I don’t know what this blog is for. You’ll have to have the MRM staff answer that one for you. A couple of thoughts on the matter. I’ve been out here for a couple of years and this is about as tame as I’ve seen it. Bill McKeever implored the posters to dial it down a while back and the posters have done that. In the old days we’d get some pretty nasty Mormons posting. A couple just couldn’t get control of their emotions and are still somewhere in time out sitting on the naughty chair.
On another note, I think this is a pretty tough venue for Mormons because (Mormons) tend to interpret hard hitting posts as attacks. It’s part of what I’ve seen as an inbred persecution complex in Mormons. Actually, some of the most pointed commentary comes from the exMormons.
Anyway, you seem like a nice sort and I’d encourage you to hang around.
Jacob5,
Your last paragraph was well stated. I personally
suscribe to the first part of it.
Jacob5,
Thanks for your response. I’m out of time at present, but I would like to respond to your questions later.
falcon,
We’ve known each other on this blog for some while. Whereas I respect your personal perspective (talking to Mormons is nothing but “banging-head-against-brick-wall”), and I recognize the apparent fruitlessness of it (in terms of the responses we get from regular posters), I’m not willing to cave into defeatism just yet. Call me deluded if you like, but I’m sure there are some Mormons out there who are genuinely curious, who are trying to make sense of it all, who actually do have an impulse to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ. As long as I see that impulse in someone, I’m happy to talk to them, and being challenged in my own faith is part of the deal. Who knows, I might learn something new.
Jacob 5,
Here is an example of the kind of responses we get from some of the Mormon posters here. Perhaps this will ‘enlighten’ you as to why such as I and Rick B take a hard tack with ‘some’ of the Mormon posters. This is taken from the ‘New Theological Project Thread’ and are excerpts. Someone brought up Smith’s men in the moon statements, and janet went to extremes to discount it, concluding (copying apologists) that Oliver Huntington was ‘old’ when he made the recollection, and that he was only one witness. She then ranted we are:
My response was this:
Smith wanted this view to be taught to ‘the boys and girls in the Seminary System.’ However, U.S. astronauts walked on the moon six months before he became president of the church in January 1970.”
Now why would Fielding Smith have this view? He knew & believed what his great-grand uncle taught: there were men on the moon! Yeah, these guys were prophets!
Falcon responded:
Janet responded:
I posted (to get out of ‘peripheral’ issues):
Let’s just get to a couple of ‘important’ matters here. One is this: from the Woodruff diary:
And Janet’s response to this?
Joseph Fielding Smith, It was his personal opinion and he was wrong about it. Big deal. Apparently Woodruff was wrong, big deal. Does that prove or disprove the Book of Abraham? that is for many, and I mean many more investigators to decide for themselves. Many, more that half the wold disbelieves the Bible.
The scrolls have been proven NOT to be written by his ‘own hand’. I responded:
Woodruff was TOLD BY SMITH the writings were in the HAND OF ABRAHAM. It was NOT his OPINION. He kept long & accurate diaries. Smith was a fraud, patriarchal blessings are a fraud, & Mormonism is a fraud.
I quoted, to show Woodruff a false prophet (by bearing witness by the power of God that the following was all true and would come true):
Again, Janet responded:
How would she know when she ‘skips over’ the quotes from Mormon sources? This person makes no sense and understands little about the Mormon Church. I then showed Smith’s large incursions into debt borrowing (over 100,000) on his failed Kirtland Safety Society & other ‘ventures’ in which a majority of it was NEVER paid back showing his financial gains. Smith fled Ohio to avoid prosecution. Janet’s response? Ignored the evidence and did not answer.
The only person I have EVER had a meaningful dialogue on this blog is with Jim Olsen, and I know he does not like me. As for character, I believe he is of the highest. (& I would put Ralph in there also) I do not agree with him, and he does not answer a lot of my questions, but when he does, he honestly tries & though I feel his answers are naïve, he still makes an effort to be factual, but even he abandons threads and does not respond to many quotes by his leaders. I do not see this with a lot of other Mormon posters. Perhaps you’ll be different and not respond to serious questions the way that others like Janet do. (or fail to do).
Very good grindael.
You’re turning into the MC historian with your recall of the highlights of the Mormon poster Hit Parade or Cavalcade of Mormon Posts.
It has recently been pointed out to me that we have to remember that Mormons really believe the Smith tale and just can’t figure out why we Christians don’t jump on board the sinking ship LDS. We of course look at the facts of Mormonism and realize we’re dealing with a bunch of folks who have emotionally drank the LDS Kool Aid and are now casting about to find any shred of evidence that their mental hallucination has some basis in fact. What is most troubling is the conclusion they circle back to, despite the evidence, “therefore the church is true.” It’s totally bonkers to those of us who have examined Smith and his story and see it for what it is.
I think for me, this is the most interesting part of the give and take with hardcore Mormons. Sincere as the day is long with a desire to believe Mormonism is true, these folks are a study in cult manipulation and indoctrination. I have to take it on the word of my exMormon friends that have been there that this is a mind-set that is extremely difficult to break loose from. Yet most do but it takes a long time to recondition the thought process. The first faze, I’ve observed takes anywhere from nine to eighteen months. That’s where the chains of thought control are broken. Then it takes upwards of another three years to purge the thought process of the influences of distorted thinking. It all depends of course, how long someone has been caught in the endless maze.
I remember watching Lyndon Lamborn’s presentation and when he said that the “world of possibilities” were now open to him, he looked and sounded like a guy who had had a huge burden lifted from his shoulders. And this was a guy who it appeared to me had liked being a Mormon. However when he began to seriously study his religion, he had way to much integrity to do the “mind snap” required to stay in a cult.
So we go from men on the moon to Apostle Smith’s rejection of science mix it in a bowl bake it for 30 seconds and bingo out comes a unbaked cake full of bad ingredients. Chuckle. How one can go back to the time of JS, accuse him of remarks made by a man who remembered said events some forty years later, gets the story wrong by claiming JS father gave him his patriarchal blessing and not even producing anything noteworthy to show JS wrote or spoke to others of this singular event. Amazing, but good tabloid reporting.
I have to admit, Grindael gives his best to promote his agenda of misinformation and misrepresentation, going after events of historical uncertainty and yet gives them credence as if these stories were eye witnessed by himself.
Connecting the dots as he tries to do is really remarkable and I applaud his ability to think out side the box. It might help though to look at both sides of every accusation, criticism, and talking point to see if his facts are 100% accurate. Since I have thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the mix so many times, I feel he now is hanging on to old theories that have both some truth and lots of factual errors, most have either limited amounts of witnesses or plenty of those who have left the Church and become sworn enemies. Chuckle, I take it the dots can be connected when limiting your evidence to one sided views.
Janet.
I notice no scholarly refutations by the chuckler, just more ranting, and really, I’m not at all surprised.
Janet said
I would find this funny if it were not so tragic in the sense that Janet says stuff that she herself will not do.
I am going on what, 5 times now of asking Janet to explain some things in the Bible that were said or done By Jesus, that the mormons and Janet herself claim to believe, yet really do not believe due to what they say and do instead.
Yes Janet, I believe you are a liar. Like it or not, your actions bear this out. Rick b
Ah, the little details. Smith Sr. DID preside at the meeting where Oliver’s father gave him that patriarchal blessing. Both Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young DID believe in men in the moon. Where could they have gotten that from? I wonder. And Woodruff’s blessing at the hands of Zebeede Coltrin (President of the Seventys)? Woodruff wrote it down in his diary, and affirmed the truth of it (by God no less). I know it might be hard for some Mormons to believe these things, but there they are in black and white. Denying and accusing others of misinformation (once again and big drum roll here) WILL NEVER CHANGE THE TRUTH.
On Lightplanet (a Mormon site) in trying to distance Smith from the Moonmen lunacy (pun intended), had this to say about the Patriarchal Blessing Huntington was given by his father:
This type of blessing would not be unusual considering the public opinion of the time.
Wow! So if popular opinion comes to believe that there are men living on Alpha Centauri, are Mormon Patriarchal Blessings going to start reflecting that too?
What a weird, whaky way of trying to justify how men use God to give blessings that are nothing short of pure fantasy.
Absolute zero integrity, that’s what is on display here with the latest greatest attempt by our Mormon poster. Full fledged unsubtantiaed rant. grindael comes out and nails it every time. The ball is thrown high and hard over the plate and once again the Mormon flails away with the bat not even coming close to getting a hit. And yet in the mind of the Mormon, she is a ball player. It kind of reminds me of these folks that come in to audition for American Idol and couldn’t carry a musical note in a basket and yet think they are great singers. It’s called total delusion and it’s the hallmark of the Arrogant True Believing Mormon.
I must admit my friend Rick The Hammer gets a little rough here but he like the rest of us gets frustrated with brain lock we encounter. But step back, take a deep breath and realize that what these folks have to do to maintain faith in what is nothing more than a feeling. It’s a mindset that that won’t be overcome with evidence and logical thinking.
It’s amazing that Chuckle affirms belief in the LDS standard works, all of which, besides the KJV bible and D&C (because he admitted that they are his personal revelations, and not based upon translating other historical records), have no external proof of their origin other than the claims of Joseph Smith, but attacks Christian posters when they provide quotes from former LDS prophets and apostles based upon the reasoning that there is no external proof that those claims are true other than faulty personal recall, second hand information, or misinterpretation. Chuckle is obviously an intellectual, but the intellect stops when it comes to comparative reasoning. I have often said that those who affirm belief in extra-biblical works, but deny the sufficiency of scripture resort to the same arguments made by radical atheists and bible haters like Dr. Bart Ehrman. Chuckle and “her” like-minded counterparts affirm the charges that much has been lost from the biblical text, believing that JS was a prophet of restoration, when there is no supporting evidence for this claim, but refuses to see that the BoM, BoA, past presidential prophecies, statements gleaned from the TotPJS, JoD, etc., provide great evidence that the church is false and was and is led by false prophets and apostles. Unlike the BoM, BoMoses, and BoA we have manuscript evidence for these statements in the form of diaries and written historical record, including false prophecies and commands in the standardized D&C, even after it has been “cleaned”. This has been shown time and time again by Grindael and others, but loyalty to the LDS church and prophets, not Jesus Christ and His word recorded in the bible, keeps them from accepting the mountain of evidence against the church. Plugging your ears, closing your eyes, screaming, “LALALALALALA!”, and admitting that you don’t read the longer posts does not change these facts.
Jacob5, before we can have a discussion of salvation by grace through faith and belief in the atonement of Jesus Christ you first have to come clean and define what “salvation” is. From my viewpoint there is a great gulf between salvation by the grace of God as defined by the bible, and salvation as defined by the LDS church. Biblically there is only one salvation and that is complete rescue from eternal punishment for sin based upon the substitutionary atonement of God-in-the-flesh, the LORD Jesus Christ. Biblically there is no such thing as universal salvation, as defined by the LDS church, where the spirit and body are reunited forever in a place other than what are defined as heaven and hell. There is no biblical or historical basis for the claim that there is a general saving resurrection, and then greater levels of “salvation” based upon performance, which is what you are failing to reveal. Faith in Christ merits a greater salvation. Next, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one with the proper authority, merits a greater salvation. The next works-based merit comes from accepting JS as prophet (hmmmm kinda like the Muslim Shahada), receiving temple endowments, marriage in the temple, vicarious baptisms for the dead, recurring temple participation for greater revelations, obeying the commandments of God and the restored LDS church (WOW, tithing, fulfilling callings, affirming LDS leaders, etc.). Only if these things are done perfectly will the greatest reward be attained. These greater rewards are gained, not by faith in Jesus Christ alone (you have the wrong Christ anyway), but by using his name as a step-stool as the first step to reaching the higher shelves of goodies in the LDS General Store. This is what your bicycle messengers fail to reveal when they first approach a potential convert. This is what you and Janet are failing to reveal here, but we are not ignorant like the masses to the deception.
liv4jc,
Do you believe in a universal resurrection? In other words, do you believe that all people will be resurrected?
Grindael,
I haven’t read everything you posted, but wanted to say something.
I didn’t mean to exit our discussion on the other thread about polygamy and John Taylor- I intended to provide an answer, albeit not one you will likely accept. Been really busy.
My answer is that I simply do not know why Taylor would have concealed information in 1850. Either they were expressly told to keep it secret at that point, or he lied, or the record of his stump speech is inaccurate.
I don’t know why the early brethren kept polygamy secret initially. I can think of some rational reasons from an earthly perspective, but that again will not satisfy you.
Maybe Taylor simply lied. I don’t think so. But for sake of argument, assume he did. Does that mean that the BOM is false? No. Does that mean the church is not the restored church of Christ? No.
Looking at all these controversies and questions, I see the genius and reason for the manner in which the BOM came forth. It had to be by supernatural means to achieve its purpose. It had to stretch a man’s faith and required that he submit to God and rely on revelation.
In my mind, it is the grand question that settles everything. I know you don’t like that. But would you agree that if the BOM is true, it really doesn’t matter what Taylor said in 1850- at least from the perspective of somebody trying to obtain salvation?
I truly think it is not reasonable to hold the church accountable for every looney idea that has surfaced in the last 180 years. So what if Joseph Fielding Smith wanted it taught about the moon, etc. etc.
Official teachings of the church is one thing, but it seems unreasonable to nail the church as a whole for every idea or belief of every person who has had a leadership role or even a member (I am alluding to you quoting a “member website”).
About the BOA- I recommend Nibley’s treatment of the “by his own hand” issue. I know you probably dismiss him, but it does provide something to think about. In essence, he shows that in ancient times, it would have been very reasonable for a manuscript to be attributed to an individual, even if he didn’t physically write the letters himself, or even if the manuscript was a copy of earlier manuscripts. A written statement from the U.S. president doesn’t claim to have been physically typed or written by the president. If that statement is later found in a historical book, are his words not to be attributed to him?
The first editions of the BOA included the subtitle “A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” The “purporting to be…” statement was taken out later by an editor. That changes a lot. Why hasn’t it ever been changed back? Don’t know.
Even still- Nibley shows that it really isn’t the problem critics make of it when taken in the context of ancient Hebrew or Egyptian literature. He offers multiple examples of this happening in other ancient writings from that era and culture.
Jim,
One of these days, I’d love to see you take a breather, and for one second, let something that is said out here penetrate to the tiniest degree.
Grindael isn’t asking for you to convince him of anything relating to your church. It’s not his acceptance of your rationale that matters. It’s yours.
Being honest is so important. Being honest to yourself is VERY important.
You’re acting as an umbrella – quote after quote from Mormon leader just bounces off your shield as trivial. Now you say that the Book of Mormon being true makes all the rest of it matter nothing, but is the Book of Mormon true?
Can you honestly sit down with yourself and say that even though there is no archeology for it, even with the plagiarism, the absence of DNA, the changes to the wording, the changes to doctrine, the fact that your gospel is not in the book, the fact that no golden plates were ever seen (as in someone’s eyes actually seeing the gold plates), and on and on and on and on…
…with all of the things that place good reason to doubt on the Book of Mormon…. that STILL you should just be an umbrella and let it all bounce off you, unnoticed?
You’re not doing yourself any favor by rejecting Jesus in favor of Joseph Smith.
Of course I believe in a universal resurrection Jim, because the bible teaches that those who are in the Lambs Book of Life will be resurrected to eternal life, while those not in the book will be resurrected, judged according to their works (because they don’t have Christ’s imputed righteousness), and be sentenced to eternity in hell for their sins against an infinite and Holy God.
What I don’t believe in is the idea that Jesus Christ atoned for all men’s sins and is the intercessor between man and God (as the one and only high priest in the order of Melchizedeck), but that sacrifice is not good enough to merit the highest level of God’s Kingdom without other meritorious works (reeks of Roman Catholicism does it not? So much for the Great and Abominable Church of which Mormonism is a cousin).
Neither do I believe that Christ atoned for all men’s sins, but salvation is only available based upon the will of man in choosing whether or not to have faith in his atonement. That means that Christ died for some that will eventually end up in hell, which limits the effectiveness of the atonement. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is applied to the account of the elect based solely upon the grace and mercy of God for His glory, which does not limit the effect of his atonement, but only limits the scope.
This is not to say that Christ death was not sufficient for all mankind, but it was only efficient for the elect. Since nobody but God knows who his elect are, we preach the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ to the whole world without reservation, believing it is available to all who respond to the message. This is know as God’s effectual calling and irresistable grace. See Romans 8:28-39.
Here is the problem that grindael obviously can’t get his head around. Suppose JS and other stated that there were men on the moon and then said “thus saith the Lord”. Wow, I would have to agree that we have a huge problem here, and most likely I had better take a second look at anything else he might have said in the Name of the Lord.
Now can grindael document such a statement, no he can’t but he can throw around all sorts of so called stated opinions and make it sensational, and in doing so it make him some kind of creditable critic. Chuckle.
Grindael may think he has superior mental powers of discernment, but in reality he fails miserably when actual DOCTRINE gets in the way. The first step in spinning a story is to ignore any information that undermines your position. Grindael does this in spades. Next step, support you biases with information, use some truths or any trick in the book that sounds good to the Choir, Falcon, Rick, Aaron, Setfree, liv4JC etc. this usually is followed with, “great job”, “what a history buff”, “you nail it every-time” etc, hence the cheerleading and champion of what is passed of by his peers as real academic achievement.
Of course the applaud is real, and the ego is stroked, then proceed to go on to the next topic all pumped up and ready to address the next talking point. Not exactly though, since there is some residue left over when someone like a Jim Olsen, or a Janet may have touched a nerve when producing at least a little more clarity, more evidence, more facts, more truth, not the least, stayed with the Principles and Doctrine we preach. Not going down some rabbit trail that mostly is there to distract the facts, they can not understand how Mormonism can be so successful after all you do to try and tear it down. Failed miserably to show the BOM is false, and the one I like the best can’t even explain their own Doctrine of the Godhead so that the layman can even understand.
Janet.
Jim,
I’ve read MOST of Nibley’s works and met him once. I spent two years at B.Y.U. On this issue, Nibley was incorrect:
The original statement was published in the Times and Seasons 3 (1 March 1842):704, Joseph Smith as editor, copy by Willard Richards. Concerning the words “purporting to be,” Nibley wrote in Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981), 3-4, that these words were deleted in 1851. However, it was actually the Book of Abraham published in 1878 that omitted the words. This was the second edition of the Pearl of Great Price published before canonization by the church in 1880.
The second edition of the Pearl of Great Price was issued in 1878, after Orson Pratt, Sr., had edited the work with First Presidency approval. It was here that the words “purporting to be” were removed from the heading of the Book of Abraham. George Reynolds during the following year wrote and published a defense of the Book of Abraham as a divine and ancient [time of Abraham] record. (see, The Book of Abraham. Its Authenticity Established as a Divine and Ancient Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News and Publishing Establishment, 1879, p. 49).
And there you have it. They omitted ‘purported to be’ because the Mormon Leaders at the time of it’s first publication as scripture always believed it was written by Abraham himself. Look again at Woodruff’s quote.
Here is Charles Adams (diary entry), who toured Nauvoo with Josiah Quincy:
“He [Joseph Smith] then took us down into his mother’s chamber and showed us four Egyptian mummies stripped and then undertook to explain the contents of a chart or manuscript which he said had been taken from the bosom of one of them. The cool impudence of this imposture amused me very much. “This,” said he, “was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so.
If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it.” Of course, we were too polite to prove the negative, against a man fortified by revelation.”
Quincy was more sympathetic & detailed:
“The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages…. “And now come with me,” said the prophet, “and I will show you the curiosities.” … “These are mummies,” said the exhibitor. “I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!” Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us…. “That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,” said the prophet. “This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis.” … We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration.” (Among the Mormons, pp. 136-37).
From Adams and others who viewed the mummies and asked about the age of the manuscripts obtained with them it is clear that Joseph Smith and the early Mormons represented the Book of Abraham to have been penned by the very hand of Abraham himself.
Along these lines Mormon Scholar Sidney B. Sperry said that “the Book of Abraham will some day be reckoned as one of the most remarkable documents in existence… the writings of Abraham… must of NECESSITY be older than the original text of Genesis.” [written by Moses] (Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, 1938, page 83)
Woodruff diary (again):
“Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God.”
Joseph Smith as quoted in the Times and Seasons:
“A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands. . . . In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall continue to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed. . . .” – Joseph Smith to the Times and Seasons,” Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives.
The Mormon church is led by a man who is sustained by the people as “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.” The Book of Mormon says that a “seer” can “translate all records that are of ancient date” (Mosiah 8:13). Apostle John A. Widtsoe stated that if “records appear needing translation, the President of the Church may at any time be called, through revelation, to the special labor of
translation” (Evidences and Reconciliations, vol. 1, p. 203).
Why are all the prophets strangely silent on the BOA? Where are the Seers the Mormon Church has bragged about for almost 200 years?
Here is a Nibley quote you may not have read:
“We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession. Well, for one thing others are far better equipped to do the job than we are, and some of those early expressed a willingness to undertake it. But, more important, it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.” -BYU Studies, (Spring 1968, p. 251)
Don’t see how it can be made ANY clearer. How could Smith claim to be divinely inspired but be so wrong about this? Like Smith could translate a document by revelation and NOT KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM OR WHAT IT REALLY WAS. You just can’t be that naïve. Can you?
And you won’t believe an Apostle who spoke at an LDS gathering that men will never go to the moon, write this down?
The head of the Quorum of the 12 at the time? And teach it? And it was only an OPINION? Come on!
John A. Widtsoe once said in Conference [and I bet Joseph Fielding Smith was there]: ‘We cannot walk as other men, or talk as other men, or do as other men, for we have a different destiny, obligation, and responsibility placed upon us, and we must fit ourselves [to it].’ (John A. Widtsoe, in Conference Report, Apr. 1940, 36. )
Smith once said ‘he was accountable for EVERY WORD I SAY’. He sure was not shy about it and seldom offered opinions. With him it was all revelation & claimed ‘god was his right-hand man’.
More recently Harold B. Lee stated:
“Are you too close to the Brethren [so that you] think of them not as prophets but as men just guessing [such counsel] might be a good thing?” – quoted by F. Michael Watson, Liahona, May 2009
Taylor’s ‘reply’ was published in a pamphlet in England. PUBLISHED. No mistakes there. Come on Jim, these things make no sense when held up to the light of Mormon standards. (We will never lead you astray – we cannot teach that which is false, the Lord would remove us, etc. etc.) Just look at it through undistorted eyes. As for Nibley, He even said his own writings were not accurate a year or two after he wrote them! And. He was paid by the Church! I leave you with a Mormon Wiki quote, always entertaining:
If he did, I must have missed it. Obviously, they are in denial and have chosen not to read, or ignore the quotes above. Who penned this from a modern Bible, is NOT the same as saying this ancient document I got from this mummy was written by the HAND of Paul himself. [They sure have posted NONE OF THE ABOVE QUOTES] & AGAIN, That is NOT what Smith stated, nor those close to him or knew him. The above quotes are the TRUTH of it, and my quoting them does not change it one iota.
Janet: Keep talking to yourself. It is all you are doing. You don’t have enough knowledge of the Mormon Church to touch any of my ‘nerves’. You are amusing though. Keep ranting, you are only helping other Mormons see the ‘real deal’: how to achieve a total mind malfunction.
Janet said
Well it is nice of you to say that, but who is the one dodging questions? You are, how can you say this, when in the light of the fact you are a question dodger. Your telling us we are wrong but you cannot answer questions. Rick b
Rick,
Notice that the Chuckler says I use any trick in the book but fails to mention what they are? [I guess when you quote Mormon leaders, this is some kind of ‘trick’ to such as him]
This claim of using tricks is from someone who falsely changed the date of a quote to try and prove one of his dishonest, pointless meanderings. As a commercial from my high school days said so well, ‘a mind is a terrible thing to waste’.
Problematic, the questions are quiet often very juvenile, or very dated talking points that have seen better days when information was hard to come by. Not so now, we have the internet and along with this fabulous and high tech stream of instant information, we find that much of what you and others claim is easily refuted when context and source is revealed that consistently reveals the problems your questions, accusations and criticism lack in facts and hard evidence.
Chuckle 🙂 Janet.
Oh yes, Janet, your church is so successful. We are all so jealous of the reported numbers that so far outdo Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even the Jehovah’s Witnesses. How does your church do so well? Ask anyone outside of the west coast about the Mormons and the answer will most likely be: you mean the polygamists like Warren Jeffs? Isn’t he in jail? Fact is “Janet”, the Christians who have an interest in defending biblical Christianity and refuting LDS doctrine are a minuscule group attempting to witness to another minuscule group in relation to the other world religions. We do this because some of us have come out of the Morg, while others of us have friends or family still stuck in a false religion. We don’t do it because we hate Mormons, we do it because we feel that your eternal souls are a stake. It’s impossible for us to convert you apart from a work of God that opens your eyes, but God does use MC to enlighten his elect, just like he uses those who witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Believe me, beating my head against the wall is painful, but besides defending the God who saved me, I actually intend on revealing to those with eyes to see and ears to hear that the Mormon church was built on the foundation laid by a false prophet. So why are you here? Trying to spare the sheep from the wolves? Don’t worry, only His sheep hear His voice. You will probably be able to keep most of your flock, unfortunately. Keep using the Jedi mind trick to trying to accomplish your goal. It’s amusing: “This is not the truth you are looking for. The church is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any on the earth. Look away little sheep. Grindael is a dumb dumb dummy. Don’t investigate anything anyone here writes. Believe me, I have a lot of light from going through the temple.”
Great job liv4jc, you nail it every time, what a history buff, rah rah rah…
I make my point by showing that even Grindael quotes me out of context, so why would any one believe anything else he spews as facts.
Example: What he thinks I stated, “Notice that the Chuckler (Janet) says I use any trick in the book but fails to mention what they are?”
What I actually stated, The first step in spinning a story is to ignore any information that undermines your position. Grindael does this in spades. Next step, support you biases with information, use some truths or any trick in the book that sounds good to the Choir.
Number one trick, Grindael ignores any information that undermines him, and that my viewers is whopping whole lot.
I also stated that he uses some truths along with any other trick up his sleeve of agenda driven hate.
Janet.