Errol Louis, columnist for the New York Daily News, wrote an opinion piece about Mormonism for the online publication last Sunday (25 November 2007). More specifically, the article was about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism; but in the course of Mr. Louis’ remarks, he provided some basic information about the LDS belief system.
Though not LDS himself, Mr. Louis did a fair job representing the various aspects of Mormonism which he chose to discuss. Nevertheless, his column brought criticism and accusations from some members and friends of the LDS community. One reader noted:
“This is just Mormon bashing (and very uninformed bashing at that) disguised as an opinion piece of thoughtful commentary. 90% of the statements regarding Mormonism are either totally incorrect or given a spin to make the beliefs of these wonderful people sound ridiculous.” (tpdrjkt Nov 26, 2007)
What? Ninety percent of Mr. Louis’ statements regarding Mormonism are “totally incorrect” or spun to make Mormons look silly? This didn’t seem right to me, so I pulled out the fact-based statements about Mormonism (as opposed to Mr. Louis’ statements of opinion) to get a better look. Here they are:
• “…the [specifically] Mormon holy books [include] the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price…”
• “Mormons, it turns out, believe human souls have existed for all eternity, temporarily inhabit physical bodies and can eventually evolve into gods. They also believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that tribes from Israel traveled to what is now America, built ancient cities and fought epic battles…”
• “Needless to say, there’s no physical evidence of the cities or the thousands killed in the ancient wars of the Mormon holy books, and DNA evidence rules out American Indians as descendants of ancient Israel…”
• “I want to know more about Bishop Romney’s beliefs and actions related to the Mormon religion’s odious and longstanding practices of racial segregation…”
• “Brigham Young, an early father of the Mormon Church, preached, ‘If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain [those with dark skin], the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.'”
• “Mormons barred blacks from becoming priests or taking part in the religion’s holiest rituals. This went on until 1978.”
I’m having trouble understanding “tpdrjkt’s” complaint. None of the above statements are “totally incorrect” and there doesn’t seem to be any added spin. Yet “tpdrjkt” is not alone with his concerns over Mr. Louis’ remarks. Consider this:
“Br. Louis, Italians have a name for what you’ve been told about the LDS Church: Baloney. For reasons of their own, certain vocal people love to spread the twisted stories you re-told. There are too many in your column to correct without a column of equal size. ..we mourn especially the twisted version of LDS racial beliefs you’ve been fed.” (Carelli Nov 26, 2007)
Another reader questioned Mr. Louis’ education. Wondering if such a man could possibly have any friends, “Leinads” complained that the article is filled with errors. Really, the accuracy of only one fact-based statement made by Mr. Louis can be reasonably disputed; that is, that Mormons believe human souls “temporarily inhabit physical bodies.” Mormonism teaches that the bodies inhabited by human souls after resurrection are different from earthly bodies, but they are, nevertheless, “physical.” Mr. Louis’ use of the word “temporarily” was imprecise; all other points he made are correct, amply supported by the teachings of LDS leaders.
So what’s all the commotion over Mr. Louis’ statements regarding Mormonism? Why are these pretty standard LDS doctrines labeled “baloney” by Mormons who should know these things are part of their church’s teachings? Is it possible they really don’t know?
Another New York Daily News reader took issue with Mr. Louis’ quote of Brigham Young. I wonder if it was the inclusion of the Mormon Prophet’s harsh words that generated the disclaimers from Mormons and their friends. The reader wrote,
I doubt if Brigham Young said any such thing. That is an outrageous quote attributed to Brigham Young – what is the source of that quote? I have an extensive database of thousands of Mormon references and find no match for a [s]ource for that quote. An[t]i-Mormon attacks, which I have studied for many years, have a long history of misquotations or outright false alleged quotations – so what is the source for this quote, because I do not find it in any Mormon sources? Even if he said such a thing, that is only his opinion, and personal opinions of Mormon leaders are not sources of Mormon doctrine or official Mormon beliefs.” (chuckb20DN Nov 26, 2007)
If “chuck20DN” had trouble finding the Brigham Young quote, he should have Googled it. When I searched for “seed of cain” the first hit was a link to an article on MRM’s web site which provides the Mormon source for the quote (Journal of Discourses 10:110) as well as additional related teachings by LDS leaders.
This reaction to Mr. Louis’ article strikes me as smoke and mirrors. Why is it Mormons seem to have such a hard time owning up to what Mormonism really is (or has been)? I ask (tongue-in-cheek), why are “ninety percent” of the criticisms brought against accurate remarks about Mormonism “totally incorrect” or spun to make the journalists look bad?
Agreeing with a popular misquoting of the Bard, “Methinks the [Mormon community] doth protest too much.”
It’s interesting that I was thinking the same thing as I came to Sharon’s last paragraph. It has always been a mystery to me why Mormons tend to run away from their own doctrine, history and embarrassing proclamations by their religious leaders and prophets. I’ve been around people who crerate their own reality based on their desire for things to be a certain way. It seems to me that Mormons try their best to project an image of being clean-cut wholesome God fearing people. As far as I know, they try their best to be such. But when those outside the Mormon Church expose the beliefs and practices of the Church, it’s just too much for Mormons to accept. The charge of Mormon bashing, when the undeniable truth about the Church’s doctrines, beliefs and practices is presented, is really a pretty weak defense.
Because any non-Mormon has no right, no authority, and no basis for making any critical or factually cited comment about the LDS faith system; the LDS will will *always* portray the comments of those critical to the LDS Church to be out of context, incorrect, spun, ignorant, hateful, hurtful, anti-Mormon, etc. Without the active membership-in-good-standing, you simply do not have the gravitas required to comment on the LDS Church.
For Instance …
If you quote Brigham Young from the Journals of Discourse, you either made it up, took it out of context, or it was not scripture – but ignore the fact that quotes of Brigham Young, from the Journals of Discourse, are littered throughout the LDS training materials.
If you cite ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness’ — Kimball wasn’t a prophet at the time he wrote it, but ignore the hundreds of references to the book in LDS training manuals.
If you cite Joseph Smith Jr’s lying about polygamous wives — he was just ‘lying for the Lord’ to protect the LDS Church (which makes it okay).
This is all true of non-LDS commenting on the LDS Church, unless of course someone GLOWS about the humanistic properties of the outward LDS Church facade (great people, love families, humanitarian, etc) — in that case, nothing is wrong with non-LDS making comments.
The non-LDS golden rule is: If you are not LDS and you have nothing good to say about the LDS Church, don’t say anything at all. It makes the skeptic out to be full of sour grapes — or full of the spirit of Satan, depending on the severity of the claims.
It’s a pretty handy self protection mechanism, me thinks.
well… as a Mormon, there are certainly things in the church’s past that are difficult to accept. To be fair to the EVs that quote some of those things, lots of them are probably true. At the same time, to be fair to Mormons there ARE things that EVs take out of context.
Errol Louis wanted to know more about the “Mormon religion’s odious and longstanding practices of racial segregation” (referring to the fact that black men weren’t given all the privileges of the priesthood until 1978). First, let me say that racism is ugly. Thankfully, my parents brought me up in such a way as to love my fellow man (as is the case with almost every Mormon that I’m associated with).
That being said, there’s still the fact that black men weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978. If you can suspend your disbelief for a moment, I’d like to propose something. IS IT POSSIBLE that the withholding of the priesthood from black men came as an instruction from the Lord? “SURE”. Would the Lord do such a thing? “Yes, it’s happened in the past.” Yeah, but, did it happen in the New Testament? “Yes”. Why would the Lord do such a thing? “I don’t know… but, I know that he did it during Christ’s time, so I have to concede it is possible today. The Lord’s timetable is not our own.”
I apologize to those of other races who have suffered acts of racism. I do not mean to be inconsiderate. I’m just trying to point out that perhaps we need to consider other possibilities.
I appreciate the recognition that racism is nasty but I think we have a difference of understanding regarding the “priesthood”. I’m going to need a little more of an explanation of as to the priesthood in Christ’s time and God’s instruction (at that time) regarding it. I’m not aware of any instructions or the instituting of the priesthood in the New Testament Church. Hebrews (in the NT) discusses it in regards to Christ being the high priest, but I don’t see it as one of the Churches “offices”. Mentioned, however, are things like apostles and deacons, but no priesthood. So the idea that God didn’t allow dark skinned people to be priests is pretty weak considering the NT doesn’t teach the institution of it. So references regarding the NT priesthood and God’s instructions concerning it would be helpful.
DJ1989, I see two problems with what you said. 1, These so called, Mis-quotes by use, I agree they might happen, but rarly if ever do I see LDS giving the correct view with quotes or scripture to support it.
Then with the Priesthood, if God allowed it, why would he tell people like BY it was FOREVER, then later remove it less than 100 years later? Rick b
The preceding sentence of the BY/JoD quote used in the article should have been included:
Brigham said it was the law of God in regard to the African race. Seems pretty clear.
It should also be noted that the current “Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young” manual, references the Journal of Discourses 1193 times. This is a manual being used in ward houses and homes around the world, TODAY. 1193 times the JoD is quoted through a second-hand source (and many times *misquoted* through unorthodox editorial changes, like changing the word “wives” to “[wife]”).
Check it out for yourself. In the book, the references to “DBY” (Discourses of Brigham Young) map to the Journal of Discourses. Its online at the official LDS gospel library:
http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/teachBY/Start_Here.pdf
Once you get to chapter 2, “The Gospel Defined” – virtually every paragraph maps back to the Journal of Discourses through the DBY references.
Falcon-
Let me explain why my argument is not weak. First, I apologize for the ambiguity. Often, we write something, thinking that we are clearly guiding the reader down a certain path, only to find out that the reader’s own thoughts/experiences helped guide them down a different path that was not originally intended. (So often is the case with Bible interpretation, by the way)
My intention was not to say that in Christ’s time, black men weren’t allowed to have the priesthood (which the Bible does NOT comment on one way or the other, so it would be pure conjecture to say that it was or wasn’t so at the time). Actually, my intention was to say that Jesus, did in fact, prohibit certain gospel blessings from going to other groups of people (race & nationality) until the time was right. Except for individual cases here and there, the gospel was, by the Lord’s instruction, not to go to anybody but the Jews. That meant that the Gospel was not to go to the Romans (or other Gentiles), nor to the Samaritans, nor to anybody other than the Jews.
So even though there wasn’t specifically a case of segregation of black men, per se, there was a type of segregation that occurred by Jesus himself. The Lord’s timing is not necessarily the same for all of His children. But, as the Bible also shows, that practice changed.
I’m going to run out of words, but this example is also perfect for illustrating, that in Jesus’ time, DOCTRINE CHANGED according to the words of LIVING PROPHETS that received REVELATION, all of which are absent from the EV beliefs, and seem to be some of EVs greatest criticisms of the Mormon church. And I might add, are all reasons, for me, why it makes it close to impossible to accept that EVs are teaching the true gospel. Not once in all scriptural recorded history did God not guide people with prophets.
DJ1989 said
Thats not true, Adam and Eve both before the fall and after the fall did not have to follow a prophet.
then DJ1989 said
Again, this is not true. Before the nation of Isreal was created, their was simply the Human Race, neither Jew nor Gentile, God told Eve that a saviour would come someday. This saviour was to to die for the Whole world, not just the Jews. The Jews in the OT were to set themselves apart, so the gentiles would see God work in them and then say, we want to serve that God, then convert to judism.
Read the account of the Passover, Some Jews did not put up the Blood and enter the House, so they died, yet some of the egyptions entered into the house with the Jews and were saved. So you are in correct. Rick b
dj1989
Here’s a couple of instances to consider regarding Jesus and the Gospel and it being for the Jews only: the Roman Centurion who’s servant Jesus healed (Mat.8:6-13), the Canaanite Women who’s daughter Jesus delivered from a demon(Mat.15:22-28),the Samaritan woman at the well. It was the custom of the Jews not to even travel through Samaria because they considered the Samaritans half-breeds. Jesus not only traveled through the country but he brought the Gospel to the woman who then ran to town and brought more people out to Jesus. It is true that Jesus’ focus was on the House of Israel, but He didn’t hesitate to minister to those outside of that group.
I will write more later regarding revelations by Mormon prophets, but let me say that Mormonism stands or falls on Joseph Smith. To me it’s quite easy to see (the evidence) that he wasn’t a prophet and that his revelations were not only false, but designed to draw people away from the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Rick B-
Your rebuttal didn’t address AT ALL what I said. My comments were talking specifically about the time of Christ (as I said). The case of Adam & Eve, as well as the Passover with the ancient Israelites, has no relevance. However, the fact that the Lord had different instructions for them, and different instructions for the Jews in Christ’s time, again illustrate my point that revelation given through living prophets is how God operates. To say that God doesn’t operate like that today is wrong. The Bible certainly doesn’t say that God will stop calling prophets in future times.
But, I digress. Falcon, again, I’ve already addressed your “examples” in the previous post, When I mentioned that Jesus did minister “here and there”, I was talking about your examples. Nevertheless, he still focused on the Jews.
Finally, it is perfectly fair for you to judge for yourself whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not, and I would vehemently fight for every person to have the right to do so. I’ve done what I need to do to make the judgment for myself. For my part, I believe that he was a prophet. But, even if you don’t accept him as a prophet, the fact that EVs fight the possibility of prophets in modern times is highly suspect. The mere idea is not only NON-Biblical (not found in the Bible), it is ANTI-Biblical (contrary to what IS in the Bible).
DJ said
Please re-read again what you said before, you said
Which did you mean? If your reply to me was correct, then your first quote should read, Not once in the NT recorded history. Then as the prophets go, read the Book of Hebrews, Jesus is our high priest and prophet, we do not need others like JS, to tell us things, then if these things do not agree with the written word, they are to be rejected. Rick b
What do you do when someone is saying something you don’t really want to hear?
You put your fingers in your ears and utter “la-la-la I can’t hear you.”
Of course there are false statements made about every religion and some people just open there mouth with the most random things which are to be taken with a grain of salt. But its absolutely ridiculous to call YOUR OWN PROPHETS TEACHINGS OF THE LAWS OF GOD, anti-Mormon.
Mormon leaders are doing a very good job of breaking the lines of communication with and spoon feeding Mormon doctrine to their lay members.
Outside sources are simply citing inside sources but because it’s brought up by an outside source, its completely false? It just seems ignorant to me.
dj, I wouldn’t say that evangelicals “fight the possibilities of prophets in modern times,” we just fight the messages of prophets whose teachings don’t line up with the Bible. The Bible is the measuring rod by which all revelations can be measured; God, in his unchanging nature, doesn’t reveal something to someone that contradicts what he revealed to someone else.
As bsb puts it, “self protection mechanism” That is my experience looking at the LDS faith also. I have not heard any current LDS members ever take a stand and say, this is what we believe. They(LDS)seem to have adjectives like “maybe”, “I think”, they didn’t mean that”, “possibly”….. and the list goes on and on. Missionaries go out after little training and are taught that what they say is true and correct and that their testimony is all they really need to know.
RickB,
Adam was a prophet after the Fall, he was the first prophet on this earth. Before the fall prophets were not needed as Heavenly Father came to Adam and Eve directly. It was the Fall that made it necessary to have prophets because of our separation from God in this mortal state. As for segregation in the Bible by God I can think of 3 times – 1) there is the curse of Cain to distinguish him and his seed from others; 2) the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood given only to the Levites; 3) the blessings of God and the Gospel going only to the Israelites until Peter received revelation to the contrary.
God has His plan and His own time frame for things. Before coloured men were allowed the priesthood they were allowed to join the church and allowed full fellowship in the wards WITH white people. There was no segregation of black wards and white wards whereas other churches (not all) in those earlier days did have that kind of segregation. This may be a rumour (so correct me if I’m wrong) but I have heard that Joseph Smith did ordain a black man to the priesthood, but it was only one.
As for the article, the writer’s main complaint I could see was about the killing of anyone who mixed their seed with blacks being a law of God forever and if this is the case what is Mitt Romney going to do about it. That’s an easy question to answer – he will do nothing because that law is not in effect anymore, and as Mitt Romney keeps saying, his religion will not tell him what to do to run the country. Now before anyone points out that it says “Forever”, the Bible is full of that kind of speech but then things changed and it turned out not to be forever. So saying it’s forever and then changing it because God wants it changed is a Biblically correct pattern of speech.
Prophets in our time. I’ve written several times on this topic, but I’ll highlight it again. 1st Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 addresses the topic of spiritual gifts which includes the gift of prophesy. Ephesians 4:11 addresses the ministerial offices of the NT church which includes prophets. If a prophet comes up with something “new”, “a word from the Lord”, and if it doesn’t line-up with the Word of God, the Bible, we dismiss the “word of the prophet” as inaccurate and untrue. That’s how we/me operates. The minute Joseph Smith came-up with his prophesy(s), I would have told him to hit the road.
Ralph, can you please give me Chapter and verse that says Adam was a prophet. I do not remember ever seeing that, If you cannot find it, then can you tell me why you say that he is/was a prophet when the Bible does not teach it.
Then Ralph you said
I do not recall the Bible telling us exactly what the Curse was, you say it is Black Skin, so please provide Chapter and verse for that also. Then as far as the Curse goes, re-read the Bible about the Curse, Cain Killed able, cain was fearful others would kill him, so God showed mercy to Cain and put a mark/curse upon him, so if anyone killed him, they would be killed. How is that, segregation in the Bible by God?
Then you said this,
The first mention of Gentiles isn’t until
Genesis 10:5. You can read it on your own.
Ralph said:
“3) the blessings of God and the Gospel going only to the Israelites until Peter received the revelation to the contrary.”
The following Scriptures refute this statement:
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
look up:
Isaiah 60:3
Is. 62:2
Is. 66:19
Here are more Scriptures:
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and [things] wherein [there is] no profit.
Look up:
Mal 1:11
Also in the New Testament:
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Rom 2:10-11 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
There are more; I can put more on here if you want them. The point is that all along, the LORD planned that there would always be a way for ALL people to have a relationship with Him, and the blessings that come with it.
Thanks for your time, Shelli
Another example of a non-Jew under the protection of God: Rahab.
God’s will has always been for all to believe in him. Even Jesus talked about this in John 10.
RickB,
Verses explicitly stating that Adam was a prophet from the Bible are not in existence, but we read –
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.(KJV)
Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.(NIV)
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets (KJV)
Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways (NIV)
I put in both KJV and NIV to show they say the same thing because the NIV is a later interpretation of the scriptures.
Both these verses say that God worked through His prophets in at least the Old Testament (I will not argue about this day and age as we are focusing on Adam). Just because it does not state explicitly that Adam was a prophet, given that God only revealed truths through His prophets in the Old Testament times and He did reveal truths to Adam, this implies that Adam was a prophet.
Ralph,
I think this is one of those situations where the saying “torturing the scriptures” could be applied to Adam being one of God’s OT prophets. The above explanation and deduction sounds to me like….”a dog has four legs and is an animal therefore all four legged animals are dogs”. Whoever God reveals His truths to is a prophet???? You use the phrase “God only revealed truths THROUGH His prophets” and then “He revealed truths TO Adam” I think revealing “through” and “to” are not the same thing.
Ralph, I gotta say, that is one long stretch your making. I do not believe Adam was a prophet and the Bible does not state that either. Rick b
Falcon.. I’d like to address what you said earlier about prophets in our time. By no means do the scriptures in 1st Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 , nor the scripture in Ephesians 4:11 say that prophets can not, or will not, be called of God in our day. God’s method has always been to call prophets. Usually, I can see EVs point of view. I may not agree with it. Usually I say to myself “well, that’s their way of interpreting that scripture”. But in this case, there isn’t even room for interpreting it the way that you are.
Second…You said that, “If a prophet comes up with something ‘new’, ‘a word from the Lord’, and if it doesn’t line-up with the Word of God, the Bible, we dismiss the ‘word of the prophet’ as inaccurate and untrue.”
I need to tread lightly with this next point. But, there is something wrong with that mental process, especially if you believe in the Bible. EVs say that the Bible is the “Word of God”. I say that the Bible is the “word of God”. The first suggests that the Bible is the last word that God has said on the subject of the gospel. The latter suggests that the Bible is in fact words given from God, but by no means does it limit God’s power or disposition to give more words. When EVs say “The Word of God”, what they are saying is “the only word of God that has been revealed, and can ever be revealed” for people as a whole. They treat the Bible as “the complete guide to every gospel doctrine”. It is a shame, because none of the Bible was individually written as such, nor serves as such when combined into one large book.
Another reason that that mental process does not work is because God DOES change his word from time to time, as illustrated in the Bible. But, when people use tradition, and the wisdom of councils of men, as their basis of comparison (which is, in my opinion, what EVs do almost exclusively), then there is room for error. It’s really close to what the Pharisees tradition was.
DJ,
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t believe any Evangelical on here would argue that an all-powerful God might see fit to place a prophet on this earth. Evangelicals, though, believe the Holy Bible to be a clear outline of the most important doctrine humankind needs, i.e. Salvation.
However, this isn’t even the argument that Falcon brought up, so try not to side-track the conversation. The problem is that if any NEW scripture/revelation comes up, it MUST be compared to God’s written word. If it contradicts it, it is to be condemned.
As for your claim – “God DOES change his word from time to time, as illustrated in the Bible.”
Please reference 3 doctrinal issues in where God changes his word.
Also I would like to add a few verses.
Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Prov. 30:6 “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”
Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Hmm, Joseph Smith added to and subtracted quite a bit of whats in the Bible. Plain and simple, Joseph Smith added to His words doctrine that is contradictory. Theres an issue.
DJ said
We say that because that is what God said.
Read,
God places His Word above His name, we know how He feels if you take His name in Vain.
So read this also
We read that the Word IS GOD, Jesus Is God, we find God Places Jesus above His own name.
So the Word is God, now read this,
DJ,
You have me confused! I listed the 1 Cor. 12,13, and 14 reference and the Eph. 4:11 reference in response to the Mormon claim that only they have prophets. I readily admit I am pentecostal in my Chrisitan belief and support the prophetic office. Those of us who believe the Gifts of the Spirit are operational today stand on the Word of God the Bible as our standard. Anyone claiming to be a prophet, who speaks a Word not consistent with Bible doctrine and practice is dismissed and not to be listened to. Mormons have a far different view of God’s Word (the Bible). The Mormon approach to the Bible and also to their own (Mormon) doctrine and practice leaves the impression of being not as respectful to tradition. Everything is subject to change. Personally, I just don’t see Mormons as legitimate, solid Biblical scholars. Scripture, doctrine and practice is seen by Mormons through the lens of reasoning started by Joseph Smith and continued by subsequent leaders. Their teachings really have no Biblical basis and therefore are rejected by those of us who see the Bible as God’s final written revealed Word.
Falcon, So I used different words. Just read Amos 3:7 it uses the word “TO”. And it says that God will ONLY reveal His plan TO His prophets. So I don’t see it as “torturing the scriptures”. Unless you want to believe that God revealed nothing to Adam about His plan (again Amos 3:7).
RickB, Just because you cannot believe it does not make it incorrect. And just for fairness sake, just because I can believe it does not make it correct. But if you are wanting things to be EXPLICITLY stated in the Bible then I fail to see how you can believe in the Trinity. There are no verses that EXPLICITLY state a Trinity. No this is not ‘old ground’, I am talking about EXPLICIT sources right now because that is what you want us LDS to give you for our proofs (and yes, I have read that material you referred me to, but I still stand be my comment that there are no scriptures that either imply or are explicit about a Trinity in the Bible, but that’s another topic).
Hi guys, it has been awhile.
I don’t blame Errol Louis for having a bias in terms of mormons and their erroneously perceived opinions on blacks. I would be skeptical if I were a non-mormon black woman. Misunderstandings are a part of life, and I know the church welcomes any questions or inquiries into our actual beliefs for those who are genuinely interested in the answers.
Falcon said,
“It has always been a mystery to me why Mormons tend to run away from their own doctrine, history and embarrassing proclamations by their religious leaders and prophets.”
Yeah, that’s why we have over 60,000 missionaries around the world because we desire to remain in the proverbial cave when it comes to our beliefs. Falcon, get a clue…just because we don’t associate with evangelical characterizations of our beliefs and our religious leaders–can only make your statement fit the usual evangelical bias stemming from genuine run-of-the-mill ignorance…evangelicals think they own Christianity…and everyone else must answer to them instead of God Himself.
Amanda, those 60,000 missionaries use Preach My Gospel, which on p. 50 reads:
Maybe the Correlation Committee thought there was something embarrassing about Mormonism’s view of the Fall?
Ralph,
The word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible so therefore there can’t be a “trinity”. As far as I know the word “grandfather” is not in the Bible? So following your logic, there are no grandfathers.
Amanda dear, I’ve missed you. You always remind me that these sweet little Mormons can actually be quite snarly. Our Christianity is based on the Word of God and reveals who He is. Mormonism presents a totally different picture of the nature of God. It’s based on the teachings of a false prophet Joseph Smith. Mormonism is stuck with some very embarrassing teachings and writings and when the light of truth is shone upon them, Mormons cry foul. The article that introduced this topic was accurate but as usual, Mormons don’t want to own their history and doctrine if it’s not Norman Rockwell like.
Amanda,
Falcon stated a fact. Even your own apostles say “Milk before Meat.”
Even my own little brother in law (Just received Aaronic priesthood) said to me. “You don’t need to know a whole lot to get baptized.” (This came up because he asked me when I was going to get baptized and it wouldn’t be right of me to turn on the “fire hose” of things he wasn’t taught. I told him I was still learning.) The boy means well as he wasn’t taught any other way. He has never been presented with historical facts about his church. I also GUARANTEE he’s never been taught of Joseph Smith’s many wives. Why would I say this? Because my wife (22 years old and LDS her entire life) didn’t even know about his many wives until about a few months ago when I was talking to her in the mall.
I know for a fact that LDS missionaries won’t get into any of the meat doctrine, and when asked about it in an investigator setting, they dodge it and out comes their testimony. I have experienced this as well as many other’s I have spoken to. Now, on the other hand, they may be completely ignorant to the facts of their church which I believe is largely the issue. A lot of the testimonies of people coming out of Mormonism stem from when someone mentioned something about their very own faith and they felt embarassed they didn’t know. Thats when an LDS person just relies completely on their very emotional prayer they had, or they do some digging and make a decision.
I think its rather deceitful to have someone make a decision on limited information but with LOTS of great promises, increasing their desire for it to be true, then have them pray about it. Of course they believe it to be true because their heart wants it to be. Ignore what the Bible warns about “other Gospels” and the such.
Amanda, I agree with what Jeff B said. I once had two MM’s come over and they had a third older man with them, I asked him who he was. He said he was the local stake president, He looked to be about 60 years old.
Their was no beaten around the bush with me, I jumped straight into the meat part of it and had the Official LDS stamped books with me to quote from. All three pretty much called it quits in about an hour. They gave their testimony and some lame reasons for not wanting to speak with me. You guys can reply and say things like, well he was with two young MM’s and they were not up to the hard teachings or other stuff.
Funny thing was I stumped the President and got him to admit in front of the youngin’s that he had no answer for things he should have known. So Amanda, while I simply cannot prove what I said, so you might not believe it, but this stuff happens so often you read many LDS blogs and websites and find this stuff being said often by people like Jeff and me. And if their are any openly honest LDS who were young Missionarys or were with the MM’s when this happened, they will know even if they do not openly admit it happened. Rick b
I just watched the video created by Aaron on the most recent blog “Mitt’s Major Speech”.
He interviewed a young man who is Mormon and even he said there are two different sets of doctrines when it comes to missionary work (he knows because he was a missionary). He said something along the lines of “There is Missionary doctrine and then theres the deep doctrine that you don’t get into.”
Now while I don’t condone it and think its very deceitful to come off like “traditional Christianity” but with a few minor differences.. I DO understand why the LDS church does it. You can compare it to smoking. You don’t smoke a whole carton the first day you try smoking or you will become really really sick and might not want to try it anymore. You need to condition your body over many years and then chain smoking will become second nature. In Mormonism, you go through years of mental conditioning.
All I want for Christmas is for Mormonism to go back to its roots and quit putting on “The Christian show.” You know why these “anti-mormons” keep bringing up the same things over and over again? It’s because they don’t want the core of Mormonism to be forgotten and eventually become the new face of Christianity. If the majority of people accepted Mormonism as Christianity, eventually the line will be blurred, and then be completely invisible.
Yes, Amanda, I have missed you too. You certainly do keep things lively. I have to say I had a bad experience the first time missionaries came to my house. After we talked for some time, I asked them about God having once been a regular human who progressed to his current status. They outright denied it–“No, God was never just a human being who became God. He was always God.” I was shocked and confused. I knew I had heard that doctrine somewhere, but unfortunately I couldn’t remember where (I still had a lot of studying to do at that point). I was so surprised, I asked them at least 2 more times and each time they denied that Mormons teach that. After they left I went straight to the web and googled “Mormonism and godhood.” It took about 20 seconds for me to find corroboration, both in LDS and non-LDS sources. I was so angry! They lied to me! So then I called up the missionary hotline and talked to a nice young guy who said, yes, we do teach that Heavenly Father was once a human like us. “Then why did those missionaries lie to me?” I asked. He hemmed and hawed, and as he sounded like a nice guy, I decided to let it go. “I guess it’s a milk before meat thing,” I said. “Uh, yeah”, he replied. So months later when I read the Hinckley interview of him denying that doctrine to Larry King, I was not surprised.
I don’t understand why Mormons deny this doctrine to outsiders. Sure it sounds weird, but so does a lot of stuff in the Bible. Do they deny it because they know it’s blasphemous and goes against what the Bible says?
Hey, can anyone refer me to a link that has the LDS missionary handbook? I’d be curious to see it.
Sorry Falcon, I used the wrong word. I meant that there is no single verse/scripture reference that explicitly describes a Trinity – I know that the term ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible. My point was that if RickB wants us to point to “chapter and verse” that explicitly points to our beliefs, then why can’t we ask the same of his beliefs. And if he cannot give us that then does that prove it’s wrong.
I used two verses describing the fact that in the Old Testament God only revealed His plan to the prophets – and then stated that unless you want to believe that God did not reveal anything about His plan to Adam then these verses imply that Adam was a prophet. To me that is exactly what you do with the Trinity as there are no verses EXPLICITLY describing a Trinity. It was constructed by taking verses from all around the Bible, and according to my belief and understanding they are “torturing the scriptures” with a “long stretch” of the scriptural meaning. But again as I said, the evidence of the Trinity in the Bible is another topic and is not the point of my post.
Jeff B,
As a result of your mentioning the video, I went out and watched it. Except for the blips caused by video streaming, I really enjoyed the presentation, most of all the points made by the young Mormon gentleman. It was really refreshing to actually hear a Mormon talk straight about the techniques employed by MM to avoid drawing distinctions between Mormon beliefs and Ev. Christian doctrine. It was also refreshing to hear a Mormon say flat out “here’s the differnces” between Mormon and Ev. Christian doctrine. I’ll bet that guy will be taken out to the Mormon woodshed if the boys in the black suits ever see that video.
Just curious, if sounds like you and your wife are young people and that she and her family are Mormon, while you’re not? How does that work?
Yeah it was refreshing as well to hear the young LDS man speak so openly. I was taken back for a second while he was talking – for a good 30 seconds I was like.. shouldn’t there be an “Ex” before Mormon under his name? I’m serious. lol.
Yes, we are young. I am 24 and she is 22. Both her and her family were born and raised LDS. I was born and raised Christian but didn’t make Jesus Christ a focal point in my life until recently. After my dad passed away when I was 12, we stopped going to church as often and then finally not at all. Anyways. While my wife and I were dating and getting serious about marriage, I told her that if she is fine with the possibility that I may never become LDS, I would marry her. Of course she is rather hopeful and have seen many convert so I know all along she was thinking I was going to. My father in law every now and then sat us down and tried to explain how important it should be to our family that we get married in the temple and be sealed for time and eternity. Anyways, we have two young girls together, a 4 month old and a 19 months old. I have been going to her ward every sunday for the past 4 years out of support for her and said I didn’t mind if our daughters go to learn morals and values, but when they come of an age that they can understand the doctrine, I told my wife I will be letting them know what I believe and why. I will also tell them that their faith is their own path they must walk, and therefore they should study what path they are going to take before just blindly believing in it. I just pray by that time they aren’t caught up in the “Who cares about the history/facts, I got a testimony!”
I’m going to have to be a fantastic father with a strong faith for Jesus Christ’s love to shine through me and reach my daughters. From my viewpoint, I will probably be one if not the only important person in their life that isn’t in the Mormon circle.
God, who at different times and in different ways spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets (Hbr 1:1),
So the acknowledgement that God has spoken, different times, different ways. The Bible, the Old Testament, is the record of the different places and the different ways by which God has spoken to man. In the book of Genesis, we find God speaking to man by angels. There were no prophets in the book of Genesis, but God was speaking to man through angels; they were the messengers. The word angel has as its root messenger. God’s messengers to man.
Then God began to speak through anointed men, such as Moses. And as the people said to Moses, “Now you go up into the mountain and you get the Word of God and you bring it down to us. We don’t want to approach that place. It is terrifying, and we will obey all that God commands you to say to us.” So God spoke to them through Moses, through Joshua.
Then God spoke to them through the priests. So many times they wanted to know the mind and the will of the Lord, and they would come to the priest, who would inquire of the Lord through the Urim and the Thummim. And God would speak through the priest. And then as time progressed, God raised up prophets, and God spoke to the people through the prophets. And so, the Old Testament: the various times, the various ways. Sometimes God spoke to them in very interesting ways. You’ll find some very fascinating ways by which God spoke to man through Ezekiel: lying on one side for a long period of time and then rolling over and lying on his other side.
And so God has spoken, various ways, various times.
It was not always through Prophets, but as the scripture says, “VARIOUS WAYS”. Rick b
well… I think that is a loose interpretation of the scripture in Hebrews. But, I think that it should be read differently. It doesn’t seem to be emphasizing that the prophets were one of the different ways that God spoke to the people, but that BY the prophets, God spoke in different ways to the fathers (or “ancestors”). So, in one case, the prophet receives visitations from angels, and then in another case through dreams, and through another case, through hearing his voice, etc. All being different “ways” at different “times”. But, in all cases to a prophet.
By the way, Rick B. If what you said is indicative of what most EVs believe, then I’d like to just point out that Mormon’s probably have a different definition of what a prophet is. Mormon’s believe that a prophet is defined by a calling from God to be the leader of the people…. God’s mouthpiece on the Earth, if you will. So, according to what we believe a prophet to be, Adam was a prophet, Abraham was a prophet, Moses was a prophet, Isaiah was a prophet, Peter was a prophet.
Though a prophet has other responsibilities, and perhaps there are scriptures that describe “facets” of the prophetic calling, I can think of no verse of scripture that disagrees with that definition of a prophet.
RickB, You just used one of the scriptures I used to ‘prove’ that Adam was a prophet. Yes God spoke in times past unto the fathers in different ways, but you missed reading the last part of the verse – BY THE PROPHETS. There is no comma before this part to indicate it is a seperate section. There is no writing to indicate that this was only after a certain period of time when God started talking by the prophets. It just says that God talked to the ancient people by the prophets. So to me this means that it went through the prophet first, as DJ said.
By the way DJ, your post must have come up while I was logging in because it wasn’t there before and as you can see I was thinking of writing the same thing.
Ralph, you could not be more wrong about the scriptures “being tortured” to prove the concept for one God in three persons–aka the trinity. But unfortunately we are not on that topic so I can’t share the numerous untortured verse references—grr!
Anyway, lately I’ve been thinking about how one interprets the Bible, and how important it is for everyone, both Mormon and non-LDs to follow the specific procedures for exegisis. I’m reading a book right now called,appropriately enough,”How to Read the Bible For All It’s Worth” by theologians Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. So that’s been my project lately.
A common mistake by many evangelicals is their attempt to make mormon doctrine and beliefs (which sometimes differ- due to personal progression) more mysterious and confusing- when in reality, the gospel is quite simple- and the testimony that you need in order to attend the temple is a very simple one. The issue of who believes they will be a god is simply irrelevant in order to attend the temple. None of us know the mysteries of God…I like what Huckabee said about God…anyone who thinks they get Him entirely, their God is too small (paraphrasing of course)
Those who have certain expectations from missionaries are forgetting these young men are qualified to preach the gospel for very simple reasons, they are worthy and willing. They don’t have knowledge of everything, they are learning themselves…but those who can only be taught by those who have prestigious education/ qualifications are too prideful to hear the message of the gospel, which requires the penitent and humble of heart.
For those who had negative experiences with missionaries, forgiveness might suit the situation. Missionaries often make mistakes, but their sacrifice to me is commendable–their willingness, humbling. I would like to see more credit going out to these young men who are willingly doing what they believe God wants them to do. Christ taught lessons through example–those who think truth can be found through back and forth “i know more than you” stuff is missing the point.
Amanda, I think the MM’s blow away us Christians for sharing what they believe is truth. But I do not fully agree with you on the point of, we have certain expectations of them. It is not so much that we have certain expectations of them, it is more a matter of when asked point blank questions, they tend to pack up and leave and sometimes pull the, I feel a spirit of contention idea. It seems to me in stead of them being honest and saying, I cannot answer your question, let me get a person who can, they say, O no, I feel a spirit of contention, we better leave. Rick b
Amanda, I don’t appreciate being lied to. I don’t think it’s right or godly to lie to a person–ever. Forgiving the missionaries is different from acknowledging their lying as wrong. Now, it’s impossible for me to look in their hearts and know for certain if they were deliberately dishonest when I asked them a simple yes or no question. But I find it incredible that two missionaries would not know if God had once been a human being and that we could become gods ourselves. This is standard Mormon
doctrine–is it not?
It is common for LDS to use the “you will know them by their fruits” test. And if deceit is a fruit in Mormonism (refer to the “Lying For the Lord” article under the Coffe Beans section) then I want no part of it. Satan is known as the Father of Lies, and God is not.
Rick
As a former missionary, I can tell you that missionaries don’t “pack up and leave” because they’re presented with a “point blank” question. Questions are perfectly fine. Debate is not. The gospel is not received through debate. The point that Amanda made is a powerful one. Christ taught through example, and through gentle persuasion. The missionaries are taught that they should do so as well.
As a missionary gains experience teaching thousands of people over a relatively short period of time, it becomes apparent within just a few minutes who is prepared to hear the gospel message and who is not. We try not to spend too much time talking with those who are unprepared, because there are so many more people who are prepared that we need to find. When we meet people who genuinely have an interest in getting to the bottom of those subjects, we talk about them when appropriate. But, it’s very easy to see who is just trying to debate, just for the sake of debating. In those cases, we excuse ourselves and move on.
Unfortunately, because missionaries are young, they can get a little excited and overzealous, and thus need instructions like “do not teach everything you know”. It’s not because there’s anything to hide, but because its like giving somebody a drink of water with a fire hose.
So DJ, did Christ ever teach by lying?
(rolls eyes)
An small analogy – I guess my school teachers were lying. During my time in 1st grade at infants school (6 year old class in Australia we start school at 4 years 9 months or older) I was taught that the only numbers were whole numbers from 0 upwards. Now that I have studied a little more I know that there are infinitely more numbers including negative numbers and part numbers. She left these out, so why did she lie to me (you Ev’s say we are lying when we purposefully leave things out)? During primary school (8 – 11 years) we were taught the square root of numbers and told that there were NO such thing as square roots of negative numbers (my teachers’ words exactly). In my final year of high school (17 years old) I did first year uni maths and was taught about imaginary/non-real numbers which included the square root of negative numbers. For those who don’t know, the square root of -1 is ‘i’ (or ‘j’ for engineers). So all of my primary and high school teachers, except my final year teacher were lying to me about the square root of negative numbers. When asking my fellow high school students in conversations these days who were not in that advanced class nor did maths at uni, they still deny that there is a square root of negative numbers. So was any one else hear taught that there is NO square root of negative numbers? I do not see it as lying, but getting one embossed in the basics first and not trying to get ahead of their abilities/knowledge.
The missionaries do not teach everything to the investigators, but try and get them to have a basic understanding and testimony for conversion and they learn the rest as time goes on. As the scripture says milk first, then meat. Yes, some missionaries might lie and do it on purpose and they will have to answer for it, but personally on my mission I answered all questions as truthful as I was able and I did see people converted because of it despite the questions they originally asked, like our being able to become like God.
Megan,
The fruits of the gospel in my life have been far from what you describe. All I know is what I’ve experienced. I have come to love the Lord, through the teaching of the spirit- an experience I have had often by attending my church meetings. I do know that what is being taught, is true. And that is my testimony. I can’t answer the inherent questions in your last comment because I am not qualified. You are more qualified than I to seek out truth in any given situation as it relates to your life and your decisions. I’m quite confident that as you have sought the Lord diligently and in humility, you have found Him. And I believe that you will continue to be led down the path that He has set for you. I’m pretty confident that you’re doing your best to understand Him, and are being blessed because of that effort.
How do I reconcile the obvious fact that both of us understand Him differently, yet we both have that desire to know Him? Well, that’s in God’s hands…He works miracles, and His ways are mysterious (to us, anyway). I think we can trust Him more that those differences will reconcile someday, as both of us learn more about Him.