[SWF]http://www.youtube.com/v/tKib69ceWTo&rel=1,425,355[/SWF]
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Fist,
Thanks for the warning that not all websites should be believed. I agree. But does that mean that all shoudn’t be believed? Let’s look at the fine job IRR.org has done with photocopies of The History of the Church.
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-false-prophecies.html
Smith stated that Patten was to go on an earthly mission and not to “spirit-prison.” Patten died in battle and not at the hands of “a mob” as you’d have me believe.
Let’s look further at statements of Smith:
Do you see it? “…because God commanded it, …by vision and by the Holy Spirit.” Does that sound like a revelation to you? It does to me.
Are you telling me that LDS authorities, even Joseph Smith, are now but commentators? If that’s the case then you don’t need them any more than I do.
RickB, by your own admission, you have shown me you think it’s important to have multiple witnesses by your statement that the bible contains “66 books by 40 authors” and that seems to be enough for you. But why not have another set of authors and books from an people who inhabited the ancient americas? You can’t argue that the christian faith becomes stronger when the testimony of two nations preach the same gospel.
Imagine if we only had the four gospels, granted those I believe are the most important books in the Bible, wouldn’t you then miss the writings of Paul, Peter, etc? There is nothing wrong with having another testament of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, in regards to your other statement that Jesus was never found quoting Book of Mormon prophets. The people Jesus taught were not familiar with American prophets nor there scripture. He quoted scripture they were familiar with.
Accepting the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and PoGP is a matter of faith. God would have a faithful people, he does not want to prove everything to his children, because their is importance in learning the principle of faith. I’m sure you agree with me on that. Now if we exercise that faith it begins to turn to knowledge. For instance, if I exercise faith in some principle of the gospel like tithing, I may not know in the beginning why I am asked to make that sacrifice, but as I exercise my faith in that principle I begin to understand more and more the importance of tithing and also the blessings that I recieve for parting with some of my weekly allowance. So it is with the BoM, D&C, PoGP.
Infant baptism may not be an issue with you, but it has with some, supposing there children are consigned to endure hell if they are not baptized shortly after being born. A completely abominable doctrine in the sight of the Lord.
One more thing RickB, Jesus himself said “except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Jesus was also baptized, why? Did he need to be baptized to wash his sins? No, he was perfect, but he did it as an example for us to follow.
Russ, once again it seems a matter of the source we are getting our information from. I say it’s a mob, you say it was in battle. Well, it was a battle with one of the many mobs the saints faced in the early days of the church. It was in attempt to rescue three latter day saints who had been captured by a mob, call it what you will.
I don’t see anywhere it states “earthly mission” as you have made me believe 🙂 D&C 114 simply says “that he may perform a mission unto me next spring”
As for your quote, I have not read the entire church history as it is quite a large volume, and so I would have it read the quote you are pulling from in it’s entirety to make sure things were not taken out of context. but I don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make with the quote you posted, it states “President Smith stated that the meeting had been called, because God commanded it, and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit…” That’s fine, I don’t understand how this proves David Patten was prophesied to serve an earthly mission? It may have been revelation to call the meeting, but I am not making the connection you are making, it seems to be far fetched.
IRR.org states: Joseph Smith – “Verily thus saith the Lord …” David Patten to go on a mission the following spring (1839). — Doctrine and Covenants 114:1-2 (April 17, 1838). In fact, Patten died in battle, Oct. 25, 1838. — History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 171 (October 25, 1838)
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-false-prophecies.html
Now unless all 12 were to, as you say, preach the gospel according to LDSism in “spirit prison,” then we know Smith had in mind “this world.”
You’ve not convined me that Smith had in mind anything else besides Patten living through the spring of 1839.
Fist full said
First off, Jared was around during the tower of Babel, so it would stand to reason people should know of him. And then, I was not around during the Flood of Noah, or during Moses times, or the Time of Jesus or any one else, then I was not around when the supposed prophets were here in the americas or when JS was alive. So according to your logic, I am not familer with any of them, so what you said really makes no case.
Then just because I said we have 66 books and 40 authors does not mean that if it were simply the OT and NT which still is two books, that I would be less likely to believe them verses believing 66 books, understand?
Then the Bible contrdicts the BoM and the BoM contrdicts the D and C and all three contrdict the Pearl and the pearl contrdicts itself. So we have serious problems with that. I still dont buy your infant baptism thing, so let me ask you this, the Bible is Clear, we are saved by Grace alone, and the Bible is clear, Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. How does the BoM make it any more clear, so I can understand even better than that? Please explain. Rick b
Rick B. I personally believe the BoM was plagiarized and now we see it in the BoM.
No answers until that one statement is cleared up.
Rick claims no one wants to answer his question, yet circumvents his on very nicely. You’re not off the Hook good buddy. If you believe it was plagiarized we need some evidence to back up your (opinion). Opinions are based on evidence, even circumstantial.
Do you think the entire book is plagiarized, part of the book, or a little of the Book. What evidence confirms your (opinion), Rick.
Did you dream it up, read it somewhere else, or research it on your own? You glaze over it as if you have evidence, if you’re not sure, than you should have said, ” I have heard, I read it, someone who new someone, or I just think. You see Rick, someone lurking or a guest might think you have inside information that will allow then to go to, where they can verify your (opinion).
I love how the Mormon prophets state things as fact or Scripture such as Adam God, BY said it was scripture. But you non prophet LDS tell us because you cannot handle what was said about Adam God being scripture that it was his opinion, can you provide evidence it was BY mere opinion in the light of fact he said it was Scripture?
But yet I claim up front I believe something is my opinion and admit openly that not only is it my opinion, it is hard to prove and admit why I think it is both my opinion and hard to prove, then add I know how you guys will try and get around it and you think after all that I am not being honest enough, man, you better review your prophets facts before claiming it is really their opinion, they not even as honest in stating it was their opinion as I was. Rick b
Rick you’re missing the whole point, which doesn’t surprise me.
I have asked, and asked this question countless times, even at CC.
No one responds, they go on to peripheral topics, which really means nothing at all for one reason. You can yak, yak all you want about he said this, and than they said that, but really they meant this. I have address this to Aaron, and no reply except stay on topic. His particular peripheral agenda is Sexual Generation, and I see he’s not getting much action there, (0), replies.
“The first is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion.” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon.) A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.” Ezra Taft Benson
Hey Rick, here is a fact, an honest opinion by our prophet, who owns up to his statement, why don’t you answer the question?
if you can prove the Book of Mormon was, (opinion), plagiarized,
than all the rest would just go away as lies by our prophets.
Easy and simple, take the bait Rick, lets debate the merits or fraudulent things of the BofM. I won’t hold my breath, the best have tried and failed, and since you hide behind your (opinion) lets just agree you would rather talk about the fluff. Aaron wants to talk about sex. Well back to CC, more interesting stuff going on there.
Russ please read D&C section 114 in it’s entirety, go to the source, rather than some anti-mormon website. It was a call to serve a mission plain and simple. No prophesy. Judas was called as an apostle, and in Matthew 19:28 promised he would sit on the twleve thrones with the other apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Judas never fulfilled this promise of the Lord, and that was by his own choice. But the Lord was not false prophesying, Judas was called but not chosen. David Patten was called, and due to circumstances was not able to fulfill his mission on this side of the veil, but perhaps still did on the other side.
RickB, first of all I commend you for at least understanding in part the history of the BoM. Now, it was not Jared who was a prophet but the brother of Jared. The short history of the Jaredites, as they are called, is given in the book of Ether. Most of that took place in the Americas. And then we have Lehi, who was the father of Nephi, and Ishmael and his family who’s family came over around 600 b.c., and the rest of the Book of Mormon is about their descendants(who eventually met up with the mulekites as well). Now we have two prophets that the Lord could have possibly pulled quotes from that Jews might recognize, the brother of Jared, and Lehi. Very unlikely though considering the nature of their prophesying. You mean to tell me the Lord quoted every prophet in the bible? That argument is weak.
Also you said,
“And then, I was not around during the Flood of Noah, or during Moses times, or the Time of Jesus or any one else.. So according to your logic, I am not familer with any of them, so what you said really makes no case.”
Actually you are familiar with them aren’t you? Which is the point I was making. Not that you lived at those times. The Jews were familiar with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, etc. So the Lord quoted scripture they were familiar with.
Apology for back to back posts, but I have one more thing to say. Russ you seem hell bent on showing Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and so far unsuccessfully. Well what of his prophecies he made concerning the civil war which came to pass? What about his prophesy that the saints would gather in the Rocky Mountains, and many others. I invite you to sit back, kick up your feet, and read up on some history at this website, where things are not taken out of context, and which show some of Joseph Smith’s prophesies which came to pass at
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml
Hank said
It’s like this, I state I have an opinion, you do not like it, yet many LDS state things as fact, then others come along when we use these “Facts” to say, look the BoM is false or Mormonism is false. then you turn around and say, sorry that was His opinion.
Why can you cry Opinion, but when I state my Opinion then its unfair? Then you say, the best tried to prove the BoM wrong and failed, it’s more a matter of you choose to believe what you want no matter what evidence it put forward.
Then as to lets debate what problems were/are in the BoM, we have covered some already in former posts and others will surly be put forward by Aaron and Sharon at some point in time.
One example would be, According to how the BoM was translated, their should be zero mistakes, yet we have over 4,000 changes, some are major Doctrinal changes. Adding a Coma, or a period or semi-colon should not change the meaning to go from, Jesus is God, to Jesus is the son OF God. One states He is God, one says he is the Son of God, Big difference. then you quoted JS saying, the BoM is the most correct book, how can it be the most correct book, with 4,000 plus changes in it? Rick b
fistfullofsteel is Nostradamus a prophet as well, a lot of his predictions came true? As for Joseph Smith Jr.’s prophecy of the American Civil War, if you read the rest of the passage it states that the American Civil War should have poured out into other nations, this was not a prophecy about two separate wars, but one war that pours out over all nations, and should have not ceased without the “full end of all nations.” (D&C 87:1-6) But thank you for bringing it up, it was yet another false prophecy of Joseph Smith Jr.’s.
Lautensack
Lautensack, The prophecy of the civil war was right on, but that section of D&C 87 doesn’t strictly speak about the civil war. I want to share something with you from Orson Pratt’s journal, from his experiences as a young missionary:
“When I [Orson Pratt] was a boy, I traveled extensively in the United States and the Canadas, preaching this restored Gospel. I had a manuscript copy of this revelation.. and I was in the habit of reading it to the people among whom I traveled and preached.”
How did his listeners respond? Did they say, “Well, it takes no prophet to see war will start in South Carolina”? No. Said Orson: “As a general thing the people regarded it as the height of nonsense, saying the Union was too strong to be broken; and I they said, was led away, the victim of an impostor.”
When South Carolina’s secession threats cooled down after 1832, did Orson begin to doubt the prophecy? No, because “I knew the prophecy was true, for the Lord had spoken to me and had given me revelation.” But year after year passed away without war, and now and then “some of the acquaintances I had formerly made would say, ‘Well, what is going to become of that prediction? It’s never going to be fulfilled.'” Orson replied, “Wait, the Lord has his set time.”
… When war broke out in April 1861, 28 years after the prophecy was pronounced, the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury newspaper carried a lengthy article entitled “A Mormon Prophecy.” “We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851,” the article began, referring to the civil war prophecy. “In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.” The article reprinted the entire prophecy, then noted how events were fulfilling it, and concluded regarding Joseph Smith: “Have we not had a prophet among us?”
to get the entire quote refer to the website listed above. As for Nostradamus, he was very general in his predictions.
In Acts 16, Paul cast out a demon who posessed a girl that brought in a lot of money by telling the future…I’m just throwing that out there…
FALSE PROPHECY given by Joseph Smith, D and C 84.
the 10th President/Prophet says:
this show Joseph Smith was/is a false Prophet. Nobody is alive today to see this take place, The place where the temple was to be built has not been built as of yet. Then to make matters worse, The LDS do not own the land so they cannot build even if they wanted to.
Yeah, I did read it in its entirety.
Patten and 11 others were to live until at least spring and go on an eartly mission.
Oops.
What about the other 11? They didn’t go on their earthly mission either.
Oops again?
Yep.
fistfullofsteel, D&C 87:1-3 currently reads as follows (emphasis in bold mine.)
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
According to The LDS church website verses 1-3 spoke of the American Civil War. Now my question is do you hold that this first war mentioned in verse one “beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina” is not the same war mentioned in verse two “And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.” if it is the same war then is this not a false prophecy since the Civil War did not become a World War? If they are not the same war what is the basis for such a belief contextually?
Lautensack
Rick, If you can prove the Book of Mormon was, (opinion), plagiarized,
than all the rest would just go away as lies by our prophets.
Spelling, commas, periods, question marks. Big deal.
Where did an uneducated farm boy, get the story?
Rick you afraid to tackle that one. Buy showing it to be copied, plagiarized, stolen, or made up. Pick one.
RickB, let’s discuss section 84. Since you’ve italicized the issue in your statement above I will not list it again. Lets discuss the word generation. Now at times generation is meant to be those now living. But remember when the Savior revealed the signs of his second coming and said “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” Everybody present who heard the savior died long ago. Joseph may have been using the same meaning. Now the saints were kicked out of Jackson county before they could make progress on the temple. A revelation recorded by Joseph later on reveals the mind of the Lord concerning the matter, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings….
Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.” D&C 124:49,51 Now your quote by the 10th President was Joseph Fielding Smith? who was president of the church 1970-1972. correct me if I’m wrong but your quote is dated 1931? Seems a little inconsistent. Also it seems he is giving his opinion as he states “I firmly believe” I also looked for the book on google but couldn’t find it.
Russ, you keep stating the same thing over and over again. Tell me where it says earthly mission? Tell me who the 11 others were who you say didn’t serve a mission? You are just making claims.
Let me get back to the video.
I think the ‘aresenic’ bit is a little heavy.
But that aside, the basic thesis of the video is correct. Differences in religions do matter – or else none of it matters. I think everyone on this blog will likely agree on that point.
That said, there are a lot of people who don’t think it matters. That, I think, is most unfortunate.
Lautensack, it is my opinion that the wars spoken of in verse 2 and the end of verse 3 refer to world wars I & II, and possibly future wars. Contextually that’s how I read the scripture, verse 2 does not imply it is a continuation of the civil war into a world war, it simply says to me, that eventually war will be poured out upon all nations, but that the first of these wars will begin in South Carolina. I want to quote Ezra Taft Benson, one of our more recent prophets on the matter of Joseph’s prophecies:
“In 1832, he prophesied that the southern states and northern states of the United States of America would shortly be divided in civil war, that this war would be the beginning of world wars which would eventually involve all nations and result in the death and misery of many souls. Specifically, he said that the great Civil War would begin with a rebellion in South Carolina (See D&C 87). This prophecy was published to the world in 1851.
The Civil War began with the secession of South Carolina from the Union, and other states followed. When Lincoln sent provisions to the Union forces at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, the Confederate forces opened fire on the fort. Since that fateful day in 1861, the world has seen as a result of warfare the death and misery of many souls.”
By the way, I think Donny brought up a good point and one or more of you should address that. For instance, I heard one of you state that baptism isn’t really that important, some thinking baptism is not necessary, and others saying it is. Well what is it? Do you have clearly defined doctrines? If so, what are they?
fistfullofsteel, has the Prophecy yet come to fulfillment then in your opinion, since there has been no true World War involving all nations.
Also please explain verse 3, “For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” I clearly do not see how this is speaking of more than one war, perhaps I am just ignorant, but I believe my grasp upon the English is fairly good. I see the Southern States calling on other nations even Great Britain, and they (either Great Britain or the Southern States) calling on other nations to defend themselves against other nations (Either the Northern States or someone else) and then war pouring out on all nations. It is a continuous action. As Benson put it one would have to disregard portions of the English language in order to come to this conclusion, or simply blindly follow the prophet.
As for baptism I do not believe it is necessary for salvation, but rather the out pouring and public display of faith. I believe that there are those who are weaker in faith that believe it is necessary. However baptism is a secondary issue within the Church, this is why both Baptists and Presbyterians are considered denominations within the Christian Faith (not that either believe baptism is necessary that I know of). It is the things of first importance that we agree on, namely Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Deo Gloria (For the Glory of God Alone), Solus Christus (Salvation through Christ Alone), basically the Gospel, for more on the Gospel see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I might also suggest the book of Galatians.
Lautensack
Lautensack, I appreciate your candour, and that you ask valid questions. If you recall, the south did call upon the aid of Great Britain, and also sought help from France. After war had been poured out on the nations of the earth, Great Britain was threatened by Nazi Germany, after which she called upon other nations for defense. Now it is true that war has always been upon the earth, but in the past century wars have become increasingly multinational, rather than just wars with neighbouring countries. Is this not a fulfillment that was has been poured out on all nations? And the prophecy may yet not be all fulfilled. Also, I think you would agree with me that the Lord’s time frame is often different than our time frame. When the scripture says “and then war will be poured out upon all nations” it is possible that it is many years from the time the revelation was given and also many years after the civil war. And now, what basis have you to dispute that Joseph was not correct in saying that war would begin in South Carolina and that it would be between the northern and southern states? You have none. The prophecy was given and subsequently fulfilled. You can wrest the scriptures all you want but it doesn’t take away the truth of the matter.
I am concerned my christian friend that you have abandoned the doctrine of baptism. Was not Christ himself baptized? Matt 3:15, “Suffer it to be so now.. to fulfill all righteousness”. Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. John 3:5, “Except a man be born of water…he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48. Or perhaps you have never read those verses? I think you have as you seem to have a good understanding of the bible. How do you explain these verses when they speak so plainly regarding baptism?
fistfullofsteel on January 3rd, 2008
Been following your post and you for the most part have been dead on right, great research.
Lautensack, you also ask good question and have been very civil and polite.
You had to abandon the doctrine of baptism, because you kind of b between a hard spot and a rock. To accept it as a primary principal you would have to deny faith and works. Since you cannot explain James 2 verse 14. I feel you will continue to stumble, in a false believe that your faith alone will bring Eternal Life. Note I did not say saved, for all men are saved, the gift of the resurrection was to all.
Who Will Be Resurrected?: Every person who has been born (and thus died) on Earth will be resurrected. It is a free gift to all and is not the result of good works or faith. Jesus Christ made the resurrection possible when he himself broke the bands of death:
“As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22.)
Explain James 2 Verse 14?
Hank, I don’t know why you would think this verse is the feather that broke the camels back for evangelists, but for any who do just even a little research, prayer, and pondering, its fairly obvious what the verse means.
First of all, you should post the verses after that –
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
It explains that anyone can say they have faith, even the evil ones. But what does that profit?
For example, take Abraham. He had extreme faith because he was willing to sacrifice his son. If Abraham just said “okay, I have faith in You”, and did nothing, than it clearly shows he had no faith at all. To have faith is to have complete trust in God. So much that anything he asks of you, you will try your best to accomplish. God commanded us to love one another. To say you have faith in God and to not even try to attempt to show that love to another and sit idly by, shows that you don’t really have faith. Now it is God who is the ultimate judge on whether you had true faith or not. So one shouldn’t compare ones works to another. The poor widow who gave only 1 penny gave all she had, showing that she had true faith.
Now is that so hard to understand?
The big diff. between the LDS and trad. Christians is this. We strive give all that we have because God has given us so much already (offered us salvation, for free, as long as we have faith in Jesus Christ). The LDS choose to be caught up in rituals and good works so they can merit themselves the Celestial Kingdom.
Ephesians 2:8-9 my friend.
And just a side point.
James 2:19
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Doest us well to believe that there is ONE God? So it doesn’t do us well to believe that there are MANY Gods? Hmm, someone should have let Joseph Smith know. Wait, God already did let him know by his word (The Bible). It’s just that that wasn’t enough to whet Joseph’s appetite so he had to make some changes.
Hank, Christians believe all will be resurrected believers to eternal life and non-believers to eternal death. As for your “trump card”, Jas 2:14ff I of course turn to Rom 8:13ff and Ezk 36:26ff it is the work of the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the flesh and it is Him who causes us to walk in His statutes. This is what we call the Doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints. The difference between the Historical and Biblical Christian faith and any other faith in the world is that there is no merit attached to these works, why, because we were created to do them. Basically God forgives our debt against Him through the Son, and we can accept this dept relief or say I will go it alone. The problem is if all you are doing is the things you were supposed to be doing anyways. We were not created to sin, we were created to Glorify God and enjoy Him forever, sin is the big thing that gets in the way.
Fistfullofsteel and Hank on baptism, First I have to say your exegesis of John 3:5 is off because it is not talking about baptism at all but rather a natural birth, Born of Water, and a Spiritual Birth, Born of Spirit, in full context we see this when Jesus says “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (v4)
As for my stance on baptism we know Peter did not believe baptism removed sins, rather it was for the remission of sins, which I take to mean because sins are remitted,(Acts 3:28) and Peter states that it is an appeal to God for good conscience. (1 Pet 3:20-21) Paul never said that baptism was in the Gospel(1 Cor 1:17;15:1-4) and that the Gospel alone was the Power of Salvation (Rom 1:16) we also see His sins washed away without Him being baptized (Acts 22:16) As for Mark 16:16 we see that condemnation comes from lack of belief not lack of baptism. As for your argument well Christ was baptized, Did Christ sin, what sins were being washed away from His baptism, was it not simply an act of obedience?
Jeff B and lautensack, I actually agree with most of what you have to say concerning faith and works. Problem is, your views and other denominations views are not always the same. I have had some tell me that all they need to do is confess Jesus Christ and they are saved, period. They don’t need to live the commandments, observe the sabbath day, etc. To me this makes no sense. Matt 7:21-23, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I totally agree with you that we can never do enough works to be saved of ourselves, we need Jesus Christ, and we have to have faith in him, which is shown by the fruits we sow.
Regarding baptism lautensack. Let’s first discuss John 3:5. Nicodemus was confused at the statement that man must be born again, asking “can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” After which Jesus replied “..Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now this is figurative of a natural birth, but in fact speaks of a spiritual rebirth, the context of the scripture clearly gives it this meaning. For Christ first states that man must be born again, and follows that statement by saying how he must be born again, which is a spiritual rebirth by spoken of in verse 5, then verse 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Being born of the flesh, which is when you are naturally born, and then again being born of the spirit, being spiritually born again. Christ was indeed baptized, although not because he needed a washing of sins, but because as you said an act of obedience. cont..
The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi explains this very well..
2 Nephi 31: 4-7, 13
“4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word..
The response Paul gave was simple, Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Nothing more to do. Sadly he forgot to say, you must also be baptised.
Now lets add this, if I must be baptised to be saved, why do we read an account of Jesus NOT BAPTIZING?
then why do we find Paul saying he did NOT come to baptize and cannot even remember if he baptised at all or even how many?
Rick b
fistfullofsteel wrote:
I actually agree with most of what you have to say concerning faith and works. Problem is, your views and other denominations views are not always the same.
I actually disagree, most denominations within Christianity believe that works are unnecessary and without merit but instead are the outpouring of God’s Grace upon us. Here are some links to support my views.
Points 4 and 5 of the Baptist Faith and Message
Article 8 through 10 : The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church
Chapter 16 of the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Of Good Works according to the Lutheran Church
The Westminster Confession of Faith part 16 Of Good Works
Cannon 10 of the Cannons of the Council of Orange 529 AD
Article 5 : The Lausanne Covenant 1974 AD
As for your note on John 3:4-6 The fact that Nicodemus says “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” To which Jesus replies “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” It is not a second birth by water, by the flesh, but a birth by the Spirit, being made alive in the Spirit though we were once dead in our trespasses and sins.
Lautensack
Jeff B. says, “The big diff. between the LDS and trad. Christians is this. We strive give all that we have because God has given us so much already (offered us salvation, for free, as long as we have faith in Jesus Christ). ”
Jeff, the only problem I see, and I’m sure it’s easily explained by you and your doctrine. So set me straight on, those who do not proclaim Jesus is the Christ, referring to those who die before hearing the word of God, are not capable because of mental defects, or are located in places around the world where missionaries do not travel. What happens pre-New Testament?
What happens to those before Christ? Is God full of grace and love and has a plan for all His Children or His creation. Please show me scripture where anyone would not be included, how do you answer the scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:29
29Else, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?
For those who haven’t heard, we could be biblical:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Romans 1:18-23 (cf. Psalm 19)
As for those who were Pre-New Testament, they were saved not by looking back upon what Jesus had done for then and having faith in Him alone, they were saved by looking forward to the promised Messiah, the prophet greater than Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15ff), the King who’s throne would be Forever(2 Samual 7:1ff), the Child who would crush the Head of the Serpent(Genesis 3:15), th good servant who God would be pleased to crush for our sake(Isaiah 53:10ff), in our place. There of course are many other passages, the bible is chalked full of them, and they are all about Jesus, so while they may not have known his name, they called upon God, apart from whom there is no Salvation(Isaiah 43:11ff).
As for Baptism for the Dead, there has been countless works written on it, I suggest this article by the late Luke P. Wilson of the Institute of Religious Research.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
I am actually familiar somewhat with the doctrine as I’ve studied Luther, Calvin, and some of the other reformers, which many of your beliefs stem from, and a lot of which I agree with. Even Martin Luther taught baptism was essential for salvation 🙂 Although Calvin did not. Luther also believed the bible to contain some mistakes while Calvin thought it to be infallible, and needed to be interpreted so that it became infallibe, but even he admitted there were small errors. Am I correct in saying you take more of a calvinistic approach to the gospel? None of these reformers I am familiar with claimed to be prophets though.
Speaking of the protestant movement, I have a quote from a baptist minister you might find interesting, who was pastor of the oldest baptist church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, his name was Roger Williams and he refused to continue as pastor because, “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” Picturesque America p. 502
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is that church for which he sought, which is the same church of the New Testament established by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fistfullofsteel, Actually I myself am theologically speaking somewhere between traditional or classical Wesleyan and a Calvinist, but first and foremost I am a biblicist, believing in the supreme will of God and the supreme truthfulness of Scripture.
Yes Luther thought that there were mistakes in the bible, mainly he thought that some books were not scripture, James was one of those books, thinking that it in some way hindered Grace. Luther believed in faith alone through baptism, yet I am not a follower of Luther, but a biblicist and a follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He also believed in transubstantiation with the Eucharist, basically he allowed tradition to rule over scripture which scripture clearly tells us should not happen. (Paul’s Letter to the Galatians)
As To Roger Williams, again I do not follow a man, but you should also know that he preached repentance from dead works and faith fully in God alone for salvation, for this reason I believe (my opinion of course) he would have rejected Mormonism for the farse that it is, I mean the 19th century was a great time in American history to start the “one true church,” everybody was doing it.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
But how many churches starting in the 19th century who claimed to be true have actually survived unto the 21st century and have had continual growth? I do not follow a man either, unless I know he is speaking on God’s behalf. Amos, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” Christ leads the church, and his prophets act as the mouth piece.
Lets go back though to that quote by Roger Williams. He believed the church which Christ established wasn’t on the earth. Do you have the same belief? That it is no where to be found and you are awaiting the return of his church? For surely there was a church which he established in New Testament times. Then where did his church go?
Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism”
Ephesians 4:11-14 “And he gave some, apostles; and some evangelists..For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God..THAT WE HENCEFORTH BE NO MORE CHILDREN, TOSSED TO AND FRO, AND CARRIED ABOUT WITH EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to decieve;” My apologies for using caps but I haven’t quite figured out how to bold a comment.
Hypothetically speaking, who should I believe whether or not I am to be baptized? The bible reads to me it is necessary for salvation but you don’t have the same interpretation. Luther said it was essential for salvation but Calvin says no. Than who am I to believe? Surely if I knew a man was a prophet, than I would naturally want to ask him many questions regarding these things.
Happily, I do know that prophets do exist in these last days, making my interpretation of the scriptures a much easier task.
Lautensack, For those who haven’t heard, we could be biblical:
I guess you tried to answer for Rick B. and conveniently answered only i/2 the question, so from your comment, I take it you only believe those who only have faith in Jesus Christ are offered salvation for free.
“Now is that so hard to understand?
The big diff. between the LDS and trad. Christians is this. We strive give all that we have because God has given us so much already (offered us salvation, for free, as long as we have faith in Jesus Christ)”
Poor Mothers and Fathers who loose a child at birth, or have a handicapped child who can not reason or understand, or many who will never hear the word of Christ, all lost, no hope.
How hard is that to understand!
Fistfullofsteel, here is a list of some churches/religious movements claiming to be the one true Church started in America in the 19 Century that are still around in force today:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints aka Mormonism
The Watchtower Society aka Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Church of Christian Science
Unitarian Universalism
Seventh Day Adventist
Fistfullofsteel wrote:
“Do you have the same belief? That it is no where to be found and you are awaiting the return of his church?”
No I do not believe that the church is gone or has ever been gone since the time of Christ. (Mat. 16:18, Eph. 3:21)
I am not sure why you quoted from Ephesians when you reject so much of that book, however I agree with Paul we have the Prophets the OT we have the Apostles, their writing make the NT, we have Shepherds aka Pastors, evangelists and Teachers so that “we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” I love my brothers and sisters in Christ from other denominations, and while we do not agree on everything we can love each other and not be tossed too and fro by doctrines that are not essential but build each other in our love and our love for Christ. Yet we are also to avoid those who teach falsehood about Jesus. (2 Tim 6:3-10)
HankSaint, my personal opinion about the salvation of young children and the mentally handicapped comes from 2 Samual 12:23 where David assumes God’s mercy on his baby. Of course the child is a sinner, but I believe God to be rich in mercy when it comes to the least of these, saving them for His glory and according to His good purpose.
Hey, I just had a thought…
Let me propose a wild and crazed hypothesis – I mean – I’m not asking for any concessions here – let’s just jump into the deep end for the sheer thrill of it for a minute or two …
You with me?
What if – just ‘if’ mind you – what ‘if’ what HankSaint said up there at the first about the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS being the actual restored and pure Christian religion is actually TRUE! That it’s actually the full meal deal!?!
And that you guys are actually – you know – a little bit WRONG about this! (I know, I know – this is not an actual possibility in the known time-space continuum – there is a danger that a person could just warp right out of existence even THINKING this way …
But, you know, establish religion generally has rejected God’s prophets – I mean it even rejected Jesus Christ, right? So, maybe …
Naw … couldn’t be
Lautensack says,
HankSaint, my personal opinion about the salvation of young children and the mentally handicapped comes from 2 Samual 12:23 where David assumes God’s mercy on his baby. Of course the child is a sinner, but I believe God to be rich in mercy when it comes to the least of these, saving them for His glory and according to His good purpose.
Glad it’s your personal opinion, because there are a lot of EV’s who would disagree with you. How can little children sin?
And now you admit, having faith, claiming it verbally, is not the only way one can be given the free gift of salvation.? And those who live but never hear the word, you did not answer that part.
Well Donny, I know your wrong because Paul said in Gal 1:8-9 any other Gospel. The Gospel the LDS teach is not the Gospel Paul taught, and Many LDS here on this blog at one time or another have admited they believe a different gospel from us. All be it they believe the gospel they have is the true and correct one while ours is false, but at least they admit such. And we can tell by all the differences or out right contrdictions between the Bible and the BoM and the D and C and the pearl, even the Pearl cannot agree with it’s self, and we have no golden plates or reformed egyption to support your other teachings. Rick b
HankSaint,
One I never said claiming verbally, I have deaf mute friends who love Jesus and by His grace are saved. As for children I believe that God saves those according to His good purpose and for His glory, we must remember that both the grace and the faith are gifts of God through the Holy Spirit. We must also remember that it is by Grace through Faith for His glory. Perhaps I simply believe that little children don’t resist the Spirit like so many of those who grow older do. You’re “How can little children sin?” question makes me laugh, if you don’t believe children can and do sin then you clearly don’t have any. As for those outside the realm of child salvation, the man on the island, or the man who has never heard, see my first post on January 5th on this page.
Lautensack
Lautensack, I’m glad you recognize that it is love of God and your fellow man that is most important, and are the greatest commandments. I too feel the same way. In fact there are many things which you have said that I agree with, but not all.
This is a general question, but how many of you have actually gone to http://www.lds.org to learn what we emphasize and teach in the church? How many of you have actually gone to the source to find your answers? There is a wealth of knowledge at the church’s website, awaiting all honest seekers of truth.
The arguments presented against the church are shallow and weak at best, Joseph Smith never set out to deceive any man regarding the gospel, it is easy to see if you read and study about the man himself. He was an uneducated, young farm boy, who prayed to God to know what he should do in regards to his salvation. He couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon, it has been shown that it was written by multiple authors, indeed by ancient prophets who inhabited the Americas who believed in Christ and had hope in him. Any who read the book of mormon in it’s entirety, and claim it is not of God, is a liar before God and will be held accountable at the last day.
fistfullof steel,
I am confident that most of the people who are writing here are very well versed in mormon writings. It is a shallow dodge to suggest, as is standard procedure, to accuse critics of mormonism of not going to the source. Check deeper into the claims of “anti” mormons and you will see reference to primary works, written under the auspices of the church, by men who claim special priesthood apostolic authority. We are not making this stuff up, we are simply examining what mormon leaders have said and comparing it to the Word of God. In doing so, mormon teachings fall woefully short.
“Any who read the book of mormon in it’s entirety, and claim it is not of God, is a liar before God and will be held accountable at the last day.”
I have read the book of Mormon cover to cover. I have prayed about it. I was even caught up in mormonism. I have no fear of standing before my God on that last day, because Smith was a rogue and a deceiver, and what he taught was another gospel, a gospel that is no gospel at all. My confidence is not in Smith or the book of Mormon or Gordon Hinckley but in Jesus Christ and His finsihed work on my behalf on the cross. That is my boast, Christ and Him crucified and nothing else.
Fistfullofsteel, I appreciate the complements and the insults, but why would I go to a website when some of my closest and dearest friends are Mormons whom I discussed things with regularly, many of whom are both RMs and Temple Recommended Patriarchs of their families. I have read the book of Mormon through quite a few times, and I can clearly see that there it was written by men without the inspiration of God, call me a liar all you want, but the followers of Islam make the same claim about the Quran saying that Mohammad was uneducated therefore that is proof that the Quran is of Allah, God. As for going to the source I have, I’ve gone to the standard works, the writings of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young, as well as other LDS authorities. From the evidence I have gathered Joseph Smith seems to be more of a Kabbalahist than a true polytheist, Young was the one who truly got the ball rolling on that tract. I of course can see that your argument is emotional, and I cannot take away from your existential experience, however just because you have one does not invalidate mine, clearly spiritual experiences are not self authenticating. Hence why Moses and Paul wrote that the Prophets were subject to the Prophets.(Deuteronomy 13:1ff, 18:21ff, 1 Corinthians 14:31-33)
You earlier said that because Calvin and Luther disagreed you were happy to have a prophet to sort things out for you, therefore I appeal to that, which prophet are we to believe, many have contradicted themselves and the standard works therefore do I believe what Joseph Smith wrote in D&C 132 about plurality of wives being essential for Exaltation or do I believe Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration 1 when He himself had plural wives as did many of his successors?
As for me I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet the only thing I have to boast in is the Cross of Christ, the rock upon which my salvation rests the author and perfecter of my faith, and on whom my testimony is based.
Lautensack
I’ll not try to be cute (for a minute)-
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is precisely what it proports to be – the restored Church of Jesus Christ – restored to pre-Roman corruption – restored to New Testament religion. It is Christ’s church. It’s members are the most Christian of all peoples. Joseph Smith spoke the words of Christ.
I have reasons to know that’s true beyond anything that you would allow yourselves to imagine.
I doubt I need to explain to any of you what it means to work with the dedication that you do against Christ and His Church.
Over and out!
Donny,
If you have reasons besides a vague “burning in the bosom” to explain your certainty, please do share. Christ’s church never needed to be restored. It has stood against at all the powers of Satan and the world, and certainly did not require Joseph Smith to rescue it and bring new, contradictory revelation. The strength of the church is in the Word of God, a Word that has stood the test of the centuries. The words that Smith spoke, rather than being the words of Christ, opposed the Word of God and contradicted Christ. I will stand with the Christ of the Bible and His Word, instead of Smith and his words.
Donny said
Which LDS church is the true one? The RLDS/FLDS/ Or the other off shoot groups? It seems they all agree that JS was the true prophet, they all read the Bible and BoM yet they cannot agree out side of that. Rick b
Lautensack said:
Even Martin Luther taught baptism was essential for salvation
Luther also believed the bible to contain some mistakes
I would love to see documentation on this, because that is not what I’ve learned (and I’m Lutheran). Luther’s primary basis of rebelling against the Catholics were that they taught doctrines contrary to the Bible. If he thought the Bible to be in error, on what basis would he rebel against the Catholics? Secondly, Luther did not teach that baptism was essential to salvation. He taught that if a man “despised” either baptism or communion, this was tantamount to saying that he had no sin and needed no grace, thereby denying the gospel. Baptism and communion are seen as a work of God with a visible element by which we receive the grace necessary for salvation. Lutherans believe that one who repents and confesses is forgiven, just as one who is baptized is forgiven, or one who recognizes the body and blood of the Lord in the Sacrament and partakes of it is forgiven. We believe that baptism and communion are ways by which we are forgiven (“means of grace” is the textbook term), and that these are far more concerned by what God does in these ceremonies than by what man does. Necessary for salvation? Hardly. Would a person who is truly saved desire baptism and the Lord’s supper? Heck yes.
Nathan Please to do not attribute that first quote to me, it was Fistfullofsteel. As for where he taught faith alone through baptism I would refer you to his Large Catechism Section 13 and his Short Catechism Section 4.
As for my comment on James, he did believe it was a good book but he did not believe it had apostolic authorship, and he thought it went against the teachings of Paul. You could say he believed in the inerrancy of scripture but that some books of the bible were not truly scripture, or canonical, namely James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, but for my comment on James see Luther’s preface to James and Jude.
Lautensack