Martin Harris: A Sincere Book of Mormon Witness

Mormon defender Daniel Peterson recently published an article about Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris. Appearing in the LDS-owned Deseret News, Dr. Peterson’s article, “Defending the Faith: Martin Harris: ‘Native honesty’ and life-long testimony,” is summarized:

“A recently republished document written by a man who disliked Mormonism but knew Martin Harris testifies yet again to the solid good character of one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.”

MartinHarris2As his source, Dr. Peterson focuses mainly on an article published in the mid-1800s by the Christian Mirror of Portland, Maine. The Christian Mirror article was a reprint of an article written as a sort of obituary for Martin Harris (mistakenly believed to have been killed in Nauvoo, IL) and published in the Rochester Daily Democrat. Written by former Palmyra, New York resident Alvah Strong, the article is a personal reflection from one who knew Martin Harris as early as 1828.

I was unable to find the Christian Mirror article (online) to which Dr. Peterson refers, but I did find what appears to be the original article published by the Rochester Daily Democrat on June 23, 1841. The article does indeed praise the character of Martin Harris. Dr. Peterson relates the essence of Mr. Strong’s tribute,

“‘We have ever regarded Mr. Harris as an honest man,’ Strong wrote, referring also to Martin’s sturdy ‘native honesty.’ ‘He had long sustained an irreproachable character for probity.’ As Strong recalled him, Harris seemed to be sincere, and he had dedicated himself to the cause of Mormonism ‘even at the expense of his own pecuniary interests.’

“There is a particularly rich historical portrayal in one of Alvah Strong’s sentences about Martin:

“‘By his neighbors and townsmen with whom he earnestly and almost incessantly labored, he was regarded rather as being deluded himself, than as wishing to delude others knowingly, but still he was subjected to many scoffs and rebukes, all of which he endured with meekness becoming a better cause.’…

“…Strong remembered Harris as a humble, hardworking and sincere man, deeply devoted, notwithstanding mockery and opposition, to what he genuinely believed to be true.

“This is no insignificant fact: Martin Harris testified to the end of his life that, with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, he had ‘seen the plates’ and ‘the engravings which are upon the plates.’”

I believe just a couple of significant statements that Alvah Strong made about Martin Harris are missing from Dr. Peterson’s article. To put them in a fuller context, this is from the Rochester Daily Democrat:

“Though illiterate and naturally of a superstitious turn of mind, he had long sustained an irreproachable character for probity. He became an early believer in the doctrines of Mormonism, and neglected no opportunity of inculcating them, even at the expense of his pecuniary interests. By his neighbors and townsmen with whom he earnestly and almost incessantly labored, he was regarded rather as being deluded himself, than as wishing to delude others knowingly; but still he was subjected to many scoffs and rebukes, all of which he endured with a meekness becoming a better cause.”

And:

“We have not seen him since, and had supposed, until we saw the announcement of his death, and the cause of it conjectured, that he was still among the most zealous and conspicuous of Jo. Smith’s followers. But we were mistaken — Mr. Harris’s native honesty had gained the mastry of his credulity. He had been so long a confident of Smith and his leading associates, and had seen so much of their villainy, that he undoubtedly felt it a duty to expose them and their debasing doctrines. Hence his lectures against Mormonism in Illinois, and hence, too, his probable murder by some of that sect.” [Like the error of Martin Harris’ reported death, the report of his lectures against Mormonism seems also to be in error.]

Dr. Peterson made it clear in his article that Alvah Strong was no fan of Mormonism, and that comes through loud and clear in the Rochester Daily Democrat obituary. Nevertheless, perhaps Mr. Strong’s testimony to Martin Harris’ “superstitious turn of mind,” the context of the proselytizing nature of his “earnest and incessant labors” with his neighbors, and his “native honesty” being presented as something that finally overcame his unfortunate tendency toward gullibility, are important elements for readers wanting to understand Alvah Strong’s attestation of Martin Harris’ character.

Shakers_DancingIndeed, the fuller picture of what Alvah Strong wrote about Martin Harris fits well with other historical accounts about the man. Another resident of Palmyra wrote this about Martin Harris:

“He was first an orthodox Quaker, then a universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.” (G.W. Stodard [Stoddard], November 28, 1833, Early Mormon Documents, 2:29-30)

Following his excommunication from the Mormon Church in 1837,

“Martin Harris remained at Kirtland for the next 30 years… In this period of his life he changed his religious position eight times, including a rebaptism by a Nauvoo missionary in 1842. Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker belief…” (Improvement Era, March 1969, 63)

According to Phineas Young, who wrote a letter to his brother Brigham in 1844,

“Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon.” (Wayne Cutler Gunnell, BYU Dissertation, 52, quoted in Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 106)

In November 1846 the Mormon publication Millennial Star recorded,

“One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit and temptation of the devil a number of years ago—turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy. He was filled with rage and madness of a demon. One day he would be one thing, and another day another thing. He soon became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another, as if reason and common sense were thrown off their balance. In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the ‘Shakers’ or followers of Anne Lee. He tarried with them a year or two, or perhaps longer, having had some flare ups while among them; but since Strang has made his entry into the apostate ranks, and hoisted his standard for the rebellious to flock to, Martin leaves the ‘Shakers,’ whom he knows to be right, and has known it for many years, as he said, and joins Strang in gathering out the tares of the field.” (GospeLink, Orson Hyde, “Martin Harris,” Millennial Star, 8:124)

So while it seems pretty clear that Martin Harris was, as Dr. Peterson wrote, a man who could be counted on to be “deeply devoted…to what he genuinely believed to be true,” there is no reason to believe that he ever knew what actually was true.

A Mormon Student Manual says,

“Many in the Christian world are sincere, and their false doctrinal conclusions are not their own fault.” (Old Testament Student Manual 1Kings-Malachi Religion 302, 15-21, Isaiah 29:24, 166)

This charitable sentiment could easily be applied to the “humble, hardworking and sincere man,” Martin Harris.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Book of Mormon, Mormon History and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Martin Harris: A Sincere Book of Mormon Witness

  1. fifth monarchy man says:

    shem said,

    Than what of Judas, or Balaam, or Korah(who was a leader among the Levite, called of God to minister in the Tabernacle), or David (called of God to be king, and yet fell into murder).

    I say,

    are you sure you want to compare Harris to these men?

    1) Christian’s don’t trust the testimony of Judas or Korah
    2) Korah and David sinned like everyone does but they did not commit apostasy like Harris. There is a huge difference
    3) Balaam was a pagan never part of the covenant community
    4) Korah’s sin was actually trying to claim that he was called for an office that he was not called for. do you really want to say that Harris was like him?

    peace

  2. grindael says:

    To show you how ignorant Shem is, he chooses Judas to use as an example as someone who was supposedly a great witness and one someone could trust, but then fell away. This is probably news to Shem, but that is EXACTLY why Jesus chose him:

    64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

    This alone proves that Old Man is correct. Notice what Jesus says in verse 65. “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them” Those people don’t “fall away”. Simple as that. Jesus knew this. All Shem would have to do to know it is simply read the Bible.

    Jo, Marty, Ollie and Davey were not men “enabled” of the Father. They were lying, conniving, superstitious men who got their “claim to fame” by being part of the “Gold Bible Business”, and Davey and Martin in particular finally got sick and tired of Jo’s antics and left him, but couldn’t deal with the fact that they had been duped and so clung desperately to the little attention they got from being a “witness.”

    Cowdery was different tho. He was on a level with Jo. He knew it all was fake, and he wanted to return, but was too prideful to do so. He also didn’t want to make things worse (since he had already denied his testimony once) just in case he could “get back in”. But Brigham was having none of that. It was only because of Young’s brother Phineas that Cowdery rejoined the Church, but he was dying by then anyway, was broke and and thought perhaps they would treat him like some celebrity. He was right. They do now. Fat lot of good it did him then, or any of them for that matter. They will go down through the ages as the dupes who believed in the Gold Bible.

  3. Old man says:

    Fifth monarchy & Grindael
    Thanks, you summed up in a few words what I had intended to say (plus a little more) last night but as I said previously, changed my mind after typing about 10,000 words (a slight exaggeration perhaps) I should take a leaf out of your books & learn to be a little more concise.
    Perhaps it’s my age but I do tend to ramble on at times. 🙂

  4. shematwater says:

    2 Colossians 2: 18 “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind”

    In my reading of this verse it speaks of those who try to claim authority on a subject when they have not had a vision. Those who claim to know things they couldn’t know without seeing it for themselves. Very different than your reading.

    Acts 2: 13,23 “Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine…Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
    Thus it was the men who denied the miracle that were pricked in their heart. They had rejected the tangible evidence but then accepted the evidence of the spirit.

    John 1: 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
    Matthew 3: 13-14 “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?”
    Before John ever saw the heavens open and the spirit descend he declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God. So before he had the evidence that you speak of he still made the claim. On what did he base that claim if he had not yet received the evidence.
    Matthew 16: 17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
    It was not the miracles that caused Peter to make the statement that he made, for Christ declared directly that it was the Father that revealed this truth to Peter. It was not revealed through any evidence of man (which includes the evidence of Peter’s own eyes and reasoning). It was the Lord that revealed it.

    As to the evidence you give, none of it is really evidence of anything.
    1. The miraculous coherence of the scripture with itself.
    This is argued by many scholars and discrepancies are found in the Bible, thus accepting this is more a matter of faith than evidence.

    2. the miraculous preservation of scripture
    Other records are also preserved over time in the same way the Bible was. While this preservation is uncommon it is not necessarily miraculous.

    Both of these first evidences are not really evidence of anything, but are something that those who already believe put forward as confirmation of faith, rather than proof of it.

    3. the testimony of the apostles
    How many people reject this, and even point to apparent contradictions in these testimonies.

    4. the empty tomb
    Again a matter of faith as very few believers have ever seen this. This more a part of the testimony of the apostles and not a separate piece of evidence.

    5. the very early testimony of over 500 eyewitnesses (1Co 15:6)
    Since we don’t actually have the testimony of these witness, and very few people ever had, we are again relying on the testimony of only a few to verify that these people saw anything. Thus, again, this is part of the apostles testimony, not a separate piece of evidence.

    6. fulfilled prophecy
    Again, this is a matter of faith rather than proof. The Bible may claim that many prophecies were fulfilled, but with no corroborating evidence the acceptance of that claim is a matter of faith.

    7. various Philosophical proofs
    While these are nice, they are hardly evidence of anything. They are merely a way of explaining the conclusion one has already reached.

    8. obvious design in nature
    So obvious that many people can’t see it, right.

    9. the transcendental argument
    10 . the Sensus divinitatis
    These are just some of the philosophical proofs, and are thus not separate pieces of evidence.

    So, out of your ten points you really only give 3 pieces of evidence; the scriptures, personal testimony, and philosophical reasoning. Actually, this is really only two, because the scriptures and the personal testimony are the exact same thing. None of these prove anything and are all subjective in nature. You have no concrete evidence of anything. All you have is your belief in the words of certain men that these things are true. You have no more evidence than we do.

    Old Man

    Your argument is your proof and thus is no argument. A person who falls away clearly didn’t have the spirit, because if he did he wouldn’t have fallen. Where does it say this in Bible? It doesn’t, but it is a convenient argument anyway.

  5. Old man says:

    Shem
    It’s clear from reading your post that the teaching of Scripture & by Scripture I mean the Bible, means very little to you. In order to promote LDS heresy & to score points over Fifth Monarchy man you are quite prepared to use atheist arguments. However, FMM will answer you in his own way.

    You say to me
    “Your argument is your proof and thus is no argument. A person who falls away clearly didn’t have the spirit, because if he did he wouldn’t have fallen. Where does it say this in Bible? It doesn’t, but it is a convenient argument anyway.”

    Cleverly worded but so wrong, I’ll leave Gods word to show you just how wrong
    John 14:6
    “and I will give you another helper to be with you FOREVER”
    2 Corinthians 1:22
    “ and who has also put his SEAL on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a GUARANTEE”
    Ephesians 1:13-14
    “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were SEALED with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the GUARANTEE of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”
    Ephesians 4:30
    “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were SEALED for the day of redemption.”

    Understand this, the Holy Sprit will NEVER leave the true believer; that is Gods promise to us as you have just read. We obviously can & do quench the spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) we do make mistakes & we sin. We can grieve the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) but no matter what we do God will always draw us back to Himself. Once we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit our salvation is secure,
    Your biggest problem is that you live in the Old Testament, You cannot accept the new covenant because to do so would mean abandoning treasured but false doctrines. David along with many others did indeed have the Holy Spirit with him but it was Not permanent read Psalm 51:11
    “Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.”

    From the time of Christs ascension the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the true believer has been a permanent one & this is precisely why your LDS witnesses fell away, because they were NOT true believers.

  6. Old man says:

    Sorry, for the mistake. I typed John 14:6 when it should have been John 14:16

  7. fifth monarchy man says:

    Hey shem,

    You said,

    In my reading of this verse it speaks of those who try to claim authority on a subject when they have not had a vision. Those who claim to know things they couldn’t know without seeing it for themselves. Very different than your reading.

    I say,

    Your reading is simply incorrect.

    The Greek word for “not” is an insertion and is not present in the best and earliest Greek manuscripts. That is why it is not found in any modern translations of the text. I apologize but I forgot that I was dealing someone who’s tradition forces him to needlessly rely on the less than ideal translation from 400 years ago instead of the actual text.

    No matter the Miracle of the Bible is that no truth relies on just one passage. Here are some other verses that show that visions are not necessarily evidence of truth.

    quote:

    And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.
    (Jeremiah 14:14)

    and

    Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.
    (Lamentations 2:14)

    and

    They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word.
    (Ezekiel 13:6)

    etc etc etc

    you said,

    They had rejected the tangible evidence but then accepted the evidence of the spirit.

    I say,

    You are mistaken the Spirit is not evidence!!!!
    The Spirit is a person he melts hearts of stone so that rebels can accept tangible evidence. (John 3 5-8).

    you say,

    Before John ever saw the heavens open and the spirit descend he declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God.

    I say,

    You are making unwarranted assumptions. scripture does not say that John saw the Spirit descend at the same time everyone else did. the fact is his experience was different

    The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
    (John 1:29-32)

  8. fifth monarchy man says:

    shem,

    Your comment about my short list of evidence seems to boil down to something like…… “Not everyone accepts these things so they are not evidence.”

    You completely misunderstand what evidence is and totally miss the point.

    from the dictionary quote:

    evidence – 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
    2. Something indicative; an outward sign
    3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

    end quote:

    It’s clear you don’t understand the nature of the evidence I presented. but we can’t engage in a discussion of the weight of individual evidences unless you understand what evidence is.

    Feelings are not evidence and the “Holy Spirit” is not evidence.

    Evidence is not proof and it does compel rebels to become saints. Evidence is just something that is helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

    The testimony of the Holy Spirit can be evidence but in order for that to be the case you need to verify that the spirit that is testifying to you is indeed the Holy Spirit and not a demon or you own imagination

    This is not rocket science it is just basic logic and definitions

    peace

    peace

  9. shematwater says:

    Old Man

    You have still not proved anything. If God was willing to take the spirit away in the time of David why is he not willing now?
    You give some nice quotes, but they don’t proof your point.

    John 14: 15-16
    “If ye love me, keep my commandments.
    And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;”

    The only guarantee we have is predicated on our keeping the commandments. All the other verses you site follow this same principle. We are sealed by the Spirit, but a seal can be broken, which happens if we transgress the law and fall from faith.
    This is clearly taught in Christ’s parable of the Sower, which shows that many people will accept the gospel in faith, and thus be sealed, and then will fall away (Matthew 13: 1-9, 18-23).

    Fifth

    “I apologize but I forgot that I was dealing someone who’s tradition forces him to needlessly rely on the less than ideal translation from 400 years ago instead of the actual text.”
    I could do without the thinly veiled insults, thank you.

    “The Greek word for “not” is an insertion and is not present in the best and earliest Greek manuscripts.”
    Well, according these people http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/col2.pdf, the negative is part of the sentence and thus is rightly translated as the KJV has it, which is partly why I never really trusted the newer translations. I am no Greek Scholar, but I don’t say things blindly.

    However, I would agree with you that a vision is not a guarantee of truth, but since this topic was primarily concerned with visions, and Old Man was basing his argument off the vision of Paul, I made the very justified and logical statement that if we are going to accept such things as evidence than the LDS has the testimony of many.

    You said ” You are mistaken the Spirit is not evidence!!!! The Spirit is a person he melts hearts of stone so that rebels can accept tangible evidence. (John 3 5-8).”

    I am not sure what being born of the spirit has to do with it, but the Spirit is most definitely evidence. He is the witness, the testifier of all truth that enlightens the mind.
    Romans 8: 16 ” The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”
    It is by the spirit that we know we are children of God.
    1 John 5: 6 ” This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.”
    It is by the spirit that we know all truth, for the spirit is truth, and is thus the greatest evidence of it.
    John 15: 26 ” But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:”
    It we are to accept the testimony of apostles, should we not more-so except the testimony of the Spirit.

    You say: “You are making unwarranted assumptions. scripture does not say that John saw the Spirit descend at the same time everyone else did. the fact is his experience was different.”
    If my assumption is unwarranted than so is yours, and even more so as you have no evidence that John say this at a different time. You quote John 1: 29-32, but this is not a direct account. There is no mention of Christ’s baptism at all, but only the testimony of John. In the text itself it can be inferred that his two statements were said at different times, as they are given as two separate declarations. So, verses 29-31 are what he declared before he performed the baptism, and verse 32 is after the baptism, which puts the account in harmony with the other accounts of Christ’s baptism that we have.
    I may be making an assumption, but at least I have an actual reason to be making it.
    You said “Your comment about my short list of evidence seems to boil down to something like…… “Not everyone accepts these things so they are not evidence.
    You completely misunderstand what evidence is and totally miss the point.”

    You completely misunderstand my point, which is that given your evidence your claim that we have none if not only false but ridiculous. You base your opinion on unverified claims of a half-dozen men, and then tell me that my accepting the claims of several hundred is not evidence.
    In saying what I did I was simply applying the standard that you yourself applied to me.

    I have evidence for my faith, despite your claims to the contrary, and my evidence is no less real of reliable than yours. I rely a great deal on the Holy Spirit, and yes, that is who I rely on so it is evidence, as you said, so stop claiming that it isn’t. However, there is a whole lot more evidence than just that, including almost everything you listed as your evidence.
    So stop telling me that we have no evidence for anything, and that we rely on feeling, because you obviously are clueless as to our faith and what it is based on.

  10. fifth monarchy man says:

    Hey shem,

    you said,

    I made the very justified and logical statement that if we are going to accept such things [Paul’s experience] as evidence than the LDS has the testimony of many.

    I say,

    Paul’s experience was not a subjective vision. Nonbelievers who were with him also saw the light and heard the voice of Jesus although they did not understand it.

    Please present any evidence for the LDS that is comparable to this event… I would love to see it.

    You say,

    but the Spirit is most definitely evidence. He is the witness, the testifier of all truth that enlightens the mind.

    I say,

    Come on use your head man this is not difficult
    A witness is not evidence!!!!!!!!!! A witness’s testimony might be evidence!!!!

    If you asked me what evidence I had that I’m an American citizen It would be meaningless for me to say”My Mother” in the context of evidence such a statement is pure gibberish .

    In-order to be understood in the context of evidence I would instead have to say something like “My Mother told me that I was born in the US ”

    Do you understand?

    you say,

    You base your opinion on unverified claims of a half-dozen men, and then tell me that my accepting the claims of several hundred is not evidence.

    I say,

    Hold on. We can have a discussion about the weight of particular evidence but first we need to come to an understanding of what evidence actually is.

    You say,

    I have evidence for my faith, despite your claims to the contrary, and my evidence is no less real of reliable than yours.

    I say,

    Fine. Please present some of it here. So far you have not provided any evidence whatsoever,

    You say,

    I rely a great deal on the Holy Spirit, and yes, that is who I rely on so it is evidence, as you said, so stop claiming that it isn’t.

    I say,

    It is not my claim it is basic definitional English.

    Persons are not evidence!!!! Persons can provide evidence but persons are not evidence. I’m not sure how I can make this any more clear but I’ll give it a shot

    Suppose you asked my to provide evidence that I’m poor and I said “My evidence is my wife”. You would be right in scratching your head and saying “Huh what are you talking about?”

    On the other hand if I said “My wife will tell you that I haven’t brought home a steady paycheck in years” Then my statement would have meaning. We might disagree on the weight of my evidence but at least we would be communicating meaningfully.

    Do you understand?

    you say:

    However, there is a whole lot more evidence than just that, including almost everything you listed as your evidence.

    I say,

    You asked for evidence for the broad claim of the existence of God. My very short list was evidence for that proposition.

    I on the other hand am asking for evidence for the specific evidence of the truth of Mormonism as apposed to orthodox biblical Christianity. None of the evidence I provided can serve that function for you.

    Please provide some evidence . I would love to see a Mormon actually provide something ………..anything.

    peace

    You say

  11. grindael says:

    Shem wrote,

    The only guarantee we have is predicated on our keeping the commandments. All the other verses you site follow this same principle. We are sealed by the Spirit, but a seal can be broken, which happens if we transgress the law and fall from faith.

    A person who is sealed by the Holy Spirit will not fall from grace. We have a GUARANTEE by way of the Holy Spirit. Paul explains this, but Shem has probably never read it:

    11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit GUARANTEEING OUR INHERITANCE until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 4)

    He also wrote,

    12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

    18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6)

    On to Romans,

    14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

    21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

    So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (Romans 7)

    1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

    9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. (Romans 8)

    Again,

    For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, GUARANTEEING what is to come. (2 Corinthians 5)

    Again,

    18 But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” 20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21 NOW IT IS GOD THAT MAKES BOTH OF US AND YOU STAND FIRM IN CHRIST. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, GUARANTEEING what is to come. (2 Corinthians 1)

    This is so simple, a CAVEMAN could understand it. But way beyond those who live inside of the Mormon Bubble of forced commandments and denial.

  12. Old man says:

    Shem
    “You have still not proved anything. If God was willing to take the spirit away in the time of David why is he not willing now?
    You give some nice quotes, but they don’t proof your point.”

    And you have still not understood. You are unable to because you cannot comprehend the indwelling of the Spirit that is explicit in New Testament teachings. The Holy Spirit was not a permanent part of a man in O/T times, the Spirit was given according to Gods will to those chosen by Him for His purpose. References to becoming a new creation in Christ cannot be found there; you have to turn to the N/T to find it.

    “The only guarantee we have is predicated on our keeping the commandments. All the other verses you site follow this same principle. We are sealed by the Spirit, but a seal can be broken, which happens if we transgress the law and fall from faith.”

    A man may sin, he may go astray but because of Gods sealing a man who is born again of the Spirit WILL NOT fall away. You still insist on living in the time of the prophets, possibly because you follow a false one. God withdrew his presence from David & that is what you base your argument on but as I have explained, that simply does not apply to the true believer in Christ so once again I’ll give you 2 Corinthians 1:22
    “and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.”
    Notice what Paul says in that verse God has put His seal upon us & HIS SPIRIT IN OUR HEARTS AS A GUARANTEE.
    A Guarantee given by God is a promise; God will not break that promise no matter what we might do. The True believer is sealed to him forever, why? Because Gods word says we are.

  13. fifth monarchy man says:

    Shem,

    Let me see if I can help you out here.

    When you say the the Holy Spirit is your evidence it’s possible that you mean to say something like. ” The Holy Spirit told me that LDS doctrine is true and good”

    The problem with that statement is that I can truthfully say exactly the opposite thing.

    ” The Holy Spirit told me that LDS doctrine is false and evil”

    Now since we know that both of us can’t be correct because the Holy Spirit will not lie one of us must be mistaken.

    So the questions now for both of us are.

    1) How do you know that the Holy Spirit spoke to you about this?
    2) How do you know that you understood him correctly?
    3) How does someone else know you are not misleading them about this?

    I can give a cogent answer to each of those questions that can be verified by outsiders . Can you?

    peace

  14. grindael says:

    Old Man,

    The problem with Mormonism is that Jo invented the “restoration of all things”, and thereby resurrected the Old Testament doctrines and incorporated them (in total error) with Christ’s teachings, which was anathema to what Christ taught. Therefore, Mormons feel free to misquote, misuse and misapply the Old Testament to virtually everything. Jo has Jesus and his teachings being bandied about by “Nephite” “prophets” hundreds of years before he was even born and instituting them amongst themselves before Christ even came in the flesh to do so himself. This is pure lunacy. But for some, it’s everything because they place their faith in the teachings of men and not Christ himself. Such is life, and as Christ said, there will be many who will come and say they are of Christ, when they are not. This is Jo, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones, and a host of others, that they live with inside their bubbles of denial.

  15. shematwater says:

    Old Man

    Hebrews 6: 4-6
    “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
    And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

    The New Testament declares that it is possible for one who has been given the Holy Ghost to fall away, and thus your claim is proven false.

    Fifth

    Nice word games. You just can’t stand to be wrong can you? Let us look at what I originally said regarding the evidence of the Spirit.

    “Of course, the greatest evidence will always be the spirit of God as it communicates to us, and we do not deny this. Just as those on the day of Pentacost were pricked in their hearts, so we have also experienced this spiritual witness that speaks directly to our spirit and illuminates our understanding.”

    You can see that I clearly referenced the communications of the spirit and directly stated that it was through his witness to us that we have the greatest evidence. Seeing as you so nicely explained that this is evidence, stop saying that it isn’t. I gave evidence, and I explained the evidence, and for you to tell me it isn’t when you clearly know that it is is simply insulting.

    Now, this thread is getting old, and I have no desire to return to it, so I will not be posting here again.

  16. grindael says:

    Now, this thread is getting old, and I have no desire to return to it, so I will not be posting here again.

    Hooray! Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it Shem?

  17. fifth monarchy man says:

    Shen said,

    “Of course, the greatest evidence will always be the spirit of God as it communicates to us, and we do not deny this.

    I say,

    once more again persons are not evidence

    the Holy Spirit is not evidence. If I we were talking evidence for me being poor and I said

    “The greatest evidence will always be my wife as she communicates to me”. You would be right to ask what in the world I was talking about.

    Now what my wife says may or may not be evidence but “my wife as she communicates to me” is not evidence by definition. This is not a word game this is simple definitional English.

    You said,

    You can see that I clearly referenced the communications of the spirit and directly stated that it was through his witness to us that we have the greatest evidence.

    I say,

    The Holy Spirit might be the source of evidence but it is not evidence.
    Communication of the Holy Spirit might contain evidence but it is not evidence.

    What I’m asking for is evidence for the truth of LDS doctrine.

    Do you have any? Anything?……..Anyone?……Belluer?

    peace

  18. Old man says:

    “The New Testament declares that it is possible for one who has been given the Holy Ghost to fall away, and thus your claim is proven false.”

    The N/T does not say that & I claim nothing, I give you what Gods word tells us. It’s very late here so I’m not going to say anything further for now. If I have time in the morning I’ll give you my response.

  19. Old man says:

    Shem
    I have a very busy day ahead of me so this will be brief so, bearing in mind the rules of good exegesis let’s look at Hebrews 6
    Paul was addressing, a Jewish audience newly converted to the Gospel.
    He was warning of consequences if they returned to the Old Testament route to God, following laws & ordinances etc. (any bells ringing here).
    Paul is saying, “IF they then fall away” unlike you he is NOT saying they can fall away. Those are two very different statements.
    These 4 verses (Hebrews 6:4-8) are a powerful indictment of living by the law. Paul is telling the Jewish audience that they are not to fall back into the old ways; they must believe that Christ alone is sufficient.
    I’ve lost count of the number of times I have asked you to look at the surrounding verses, a belief or doctrine cannot be shown by taking one verse in isolation, so let’s now look at Hebrews 6:9
    Here Paul is making it clear that in the previous verses he is NOT talking about the things that bring salvation, he is NOT talking about saving faith, he is NOT talking about truly regenerate people & therefore he does not contradict what he has said in the past e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:22

    I’ll leave you with this thought & warning from a Christian author; you might like to think about it.
    “Ironically, those who teach that this passage speaks of the ability of regenerate Christians to fall away are actually committing the very error the passage itself warns against. ….The very assertion that a Christian can lose their salvation is tantamount to saying that what Christ accomplished on the cross was insufficient to save completely and so you need to trust in yourself to maintain your own righteousness……This is a form of legalistic self-justification to believe that you can either attain or maintain your own righteousness before God and it is itself a denial of Christ, the very error the Hebrews were tempted to make, that the author was speaking of.”

Leave a Reply