On March 4th 1843 the LDS Prophet Joseph Smith told the Nauvoo City Council:
“I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.” (History of the Church 5:296)
After Smith’s death and the prophetic mantle passed to Brigham Young, the second LDS prophet expressed some similar thoughts:
“I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course.” (Journal of Discourses 4:43, September 21, 1856)
Later that same day LDS Apostle Jedediah M. Grant preached:
“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye … I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood … Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid.” (Journal of Discourses 4:49-51)
For discussion: What message do you think these LDS prophets, seers and revelators meant to convey to their listeners? What did they mean by their remarks?
§
For further reading see Blood Atonement – If It Was Never Taught, Why Do So Many Mormons Believe It? by Bill McKeever.
I think the message is pretty straight forward. Threats of killing the faithful, or should I say unfaithful, is a good way to get people to fall into line with the group. But, we’re dealing with a different type of Mormonism here. Today’s Mormon church bears little resemblence to that of the founders. Different day, different rules, different culture. It’s like situational ethics. These guys can’t be judged by todays standards. I’ve said it before, this is the beauty of Mormonism. Constant revelation, constant change; in today, out tomorrow….truth as a function of feeling. This is no big deal within the Mormon system….but it really provides marvelous insights into the mind-set of the early Mormon leaders. I shouldn’t add this for propriety sake, but this type of behavior is what cults do to control people.
I’d add on to what Falcon wrote with this: it does further bring into question the history of the church. One questions what those “abonimations” were. One questions the motives of the leaders who said them. It, at least to me, further provides evidence the origins were of shaky foundations…
And I agree with Falcon, though, that the beauty of the church is its ability to shift, and I cannot say these would be applicable today. And I do think most Mormons will shrug at the quotes.
Hello.
I am seeing two examples (perhaps three) of logical fallaces in the above article:
1) Appeal To Fear, in which a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by increasing fear and prejudice towards their audience. The example is the quote by Brigham Young.
2) Appeal To Emotion, which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The example is the quote used by Jedediah M. Grant. It can also encompass what is known as Wishful Thinking.
From what I’ve read above, I am becoming more and more aware of the social mechanisms used by the LDS Church to stop your thought process and accept two contradictory ideas as completely true (i.e. doublethink). What kind of behavior is this for the “one true Church” to manipulate their member’s minds like that? That is not how you bring people in to know Christ.
……and another thing. This is really interesting theology, this blood letting. The quote by J. Grant contends that sins are forgiven through a rite of baptism (that’s interesting) but some sins are more severe and must require the shedding of blood. I guess in old Jedediah’s program the blood of Christ is not a sufficient payment for someones sin(s). So beyond the attempt to control the group, the theology is really twisted. Please, do any of our LDS friends see how dangerous this “I got a message from God” can be? Especially as it relates to the topic being discussed here. It leaves open the door to a lot of manipulation and outright abuse. By the way, this practice is seen in different forms within various religious traditions. The difference is, when someone pulls one of these “I have a word for you from the Lord” routines, I feel perfectly free to dismiss them or if necessary chatise and rebuke them. All in an attitude of love and compassion of course…ahem!
God was clear in the OT, If ANYONE speaks for the Lord and it did not come from Him then they need to be put to death.
So how can Mormons honestly believe God changed His mind, and in less than 200 years.
Plus how many Mormons will read the post but then go onto say, it’s really Anti-mormon or were twisting it? Rick b
Quotes like those cited show the huge disparity between early and modern LDS theology. This evolution in LDS theology serves as a huge red flag to anyone seriously evaluating the truth claims of the LDS church. Most LDS members, on the other hand, have been taught to dismiss teachings like these as off-the-cuff remarks rather than see them for what they were — systematic teachings that were only removed when they became embarrasing.
Oh why not, lets throw in this one as well –
D&C 42:18-19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.
What do they mean? Exactly that – CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for murderers.
Why? In the OT the shedding of animal blood in sacrifice was used to ‘cleanse’ the people of sin. This was done in the similitude of Jesus’ sacrifice for us as His sacrifice was the last blood sacrifice for sin in general. BUT, those who committed murder AND sexual sins (ie adultery, fornication, rape, etc) were required, in most instance, to give their lives. This was outside the usual animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sins. In order to be truly repentant a person in the OT had to repay or give back with interest that which was done. For example if someone stole something they had to either pay in whole plus more for the item, or give it back plus more. This included those who borrowed an item and it was stolen from them, the borrower had to compensate if the thief was not found. Then the ritual sacrifices had to be done. When it comes to murder or sex, how does one compensate? You cannot give a person their life/virginity/integrity back. So God required more than the animal sacrifice – it had to be a life. This is referred to somewhat in Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Yes the LDS church has taught for capital punishment in the past, and it still, as far as I know (note my knowledge I could be wrong), believes in it, however, it is up to the laws of the land to determine these things, the LDS church will not be vigilante about it.
But if you are looking for a reference in the NT then a similar sentiment is echoed in Rom 1:29-32 Being filled with all unrighteousness,… murder, … Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.
EV
What is the point of keeping murderers, rapist, and worst of all child molesters in prison for life? Has this made our current society better?If you only had a limited amount of resources would you keep building new prisons or feed the poor? You’ve got to make a righteous judgement someday!
Woenigma, I think you missed the boat on this one, and assume none of us are for captial punishment. See, in the quotes above, none of those crimes are stated, and the abonimable sins are left open. We are questioning what is meant and why was this stated in such an aggressive manner. Some even say that there are many among this group who had already committed such sins. That is really a bizzarre thing to say to a group of followers, no?
Ralph, you said
First off, the verse in Hebrews in not speaking of us dying as a punisment for commiting murder.
And when you say, God required more than an animal sacrifice, Again, God was not saying ours lives to cover sin. Moses and David commited murder, Cold blooded murder, not Thus saith the Lord, kill this person or these people. How come their lives were nor required by the hand of God and their blood spilled to atone for their Sins? Rick b
RickB,
David did commit murder, but the way in which he did it covered up the evidence so that he could not be implicated. It was a war and many men died in war, so David sent Uriah to the worst area in which there was little chance of survival (which by the way could have backfired if Uriah didn’t die). Since there was no evidence nor 2 or 3 witnesses as the Law stated David could not be held accountable for the murder by a normal court of law. But God did see it and He judged David through Nathan the prophet – and the penalty/sentence was David’s first born with Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:15-31). In the bible Dictionary on the LDS site you can read what our church teaches about David, but here is a sentence from there – Like Saul he was guilty of grave crimes; but unlike Saul, he was capable of true contrition and was therefore able to find forgiveness, except in the murder of Uriah. As a consequence David is still unforgiven…
As for Moses, i cannot answer that one, except that if you saw someone in the process of beating another person to death would you step to stop it? I think this is what Moses did, but in order to stop the Egyptian from beating an Hebrew (described as one of Moses’ brethren – indicating how Moses saw the Hebrews) Moses decided that he would have to kill the Egyptian. Why I don’t know. Was it “cold blooded murder” as you call it if you are assisting/defending a weaker party against a stronger party? My thoughts are it isn’t. But the story is vague in what exactly happened or the circumstances surrounding the event, so I can only give my opinion.
Michael P.
Why are you trying to make it into more then it is? If you think there is more to it, say it. My understanding of Blood atonement is that some sins, like Ralph put, require your life. Like Murder, rape and child molestation. Joseph Smith was killed by some that were very close to him. William Law was his 1st or 2nd counselor and William was part of the mob that killed him. There were people among them that did not understand what was revealed and thought it was in the best interest of religion to stop it, not unlike Judas (go ahead roll your eyes at that one), and there were bad people along for the ride or taking advantage of the brotherhood protection. Brigham was always specific and to the point, he did not believe in sugar coating it to keep believers. I have always believed and been taught growing up, there is no forgiveness in this life or the life to come if you commit murder knowingly with intent. Admitting and repenting for your actions and blood atonement were your only hope.
MichaelP,
You asked what were the sins referred to. We teach that there are 3 major sins that are very difficult, if not impossible to gain forgiveness for.
The first is denying the Holy Ghost – this has no forgiveness at all as Jesus taught in the NT. Not even if one had their blood shed in capital punishment.
Second is murder, or shedding of innocent blood. To gain any modicum of forgiveness after murder, if you knew and had a witness of the truth, then you must willingly forfeit your life by the shedding of blood, as taught in the OT and D&C, and as I pointed out, referred to in the NT (but not properly expounded upon).
Third are sexual sins, more especially adultery. Capital punishment for this is covered in the OT, but early prophets (especially Brigham Young) taught this. I cannot find anything in the D&C about capital punishment for adultery so I don’t think its taught as much or as strongly as capital punishment for murder.
As for your question about the quotes “Some even say that there are many among this group who had already committed such sins. That is really a bizzarre thing to say to a group of followers, no?” – I don’t know about people in the congregation being murderers as Woenigma referred to (I am not saying he is wrong), but there were possibly some that were adulterers and thus needed the reprimand. As for being a ‘bizzarre thing to say to a group of believers’ well Moses and all of the OT prophets said, taught and encouraged this to their group of believers. And if you take it in context, everyone who was there in these meetings would already know of which ‘abominable sins’ they were talking about, having been taught in the past about them, so there was no need to specify which sins.
Ralph said
Like I said before, if this were true, then we have a problem, Cain Murdered Abel, Yes Moses Murdered a man, the Bible says Moses looked both ways, this shows he knew what he was doing was wrong, also being the pharoah’s daughter’s adopted son, he could have stopped the abuse apart from murder.
Yes David willfully had a man murdered. Read the account, David tried have his crime of Adultery covered by having the guy sleep with his own wife to make it look as if it were his child, after David could not get that to happen, he had the man put to the front of the battle, but keep reading, it goes on to say, David had the men pull back so the poor guy would be killed, if that is not murder then hiring a hit man is not murder either, since you had another kill for you.
Then read about Samson, he killed men for their clothes to pay a debt on a riddle that he lost, God never commanded that riddle or those men to be killed for their clothes. Need I point out some more cases of the OT saints commiting murder apart from Gods commands? Or point out the sins of adultery? Yet all these people were loved and used by God and were forgiven, despite the LDS church teaching otherwise. Rick b
Well, Cain murdered out of jealousy over Able and to gain his flocks. David murdered to cover up his mistake, and he lost his position. Moses took a man’s life to save another. Samson made a lot of mistakes. And, even though in the end he accomplished his mission to destroy the Philastines he broke a lot of commandments along the way. He didn’t even stay totally true to his nazerite covenant.
I find it odd that Cain is on the list of “forgiven”.
RickB,
I agreed with you that David did commit murder, so why are you arguing that point?
I am still not convinced about Moses. Yes he looked left and right, but look at the political context. He was an adopted grandson of the pharoah, and his being Hebrew was well-known. At that point in time the Hebrews were slaves and an Egyptian killing an Hebrew was allowable. But an Hebrew killing an Egyptian was definately not allowed. So from what I gather, Moses decided that the only way to stop the Egyptian from killing the Hebrew was to kill the Egyptian. To me that does not constitute murder.
As for Cain, Samson and David being forgiven for the murders they performed, can you give me a chapter and/or verse in the Bible stating that this occurred and EXPLICITLY stating that the forgiveness they received was for that murder and nothing else?
If you read the Law of Moses, capital punishment was used in the case of murder and most (not all) sexual sins. BUT there HAD to be 2 or 3 witnesses for the sentence to be performed. If there were no witnesses, or only 1 witness, then the offender got off free. When the Israelites settled in the land of Israel, this was still the law, but there were also cities of refuge for murderers. If they were able to get to those cities they were allowed to live, as long as they stayed in those cities for the rest of their lives. So yes some got off free, but that does not mean that their blood was/is not required of them by God.
Ralph and Woenigma, did not Christ say that if we lust after another, we have already committed adultury? Or if we are angry with someone, we have committed murder. Read Matt 5:21-28. So, Christ is changing those things right there.
But further, if these men (David, Moses, etc) committed these crimes (David committed two of them), then he should not be saved, but a read of the Psalms says that we will be with God forever.
Woenigma, I really am not sure if I expect you to understand our criticism. Of course you won’t think its a big deal. To us, however, it does raise some questions. Since you agree and think that BY was a great man, I don’t expect you to question him. To us, it seems intimidation may be at work. And this fits with many other aspects of early Mormonism that we see as problematic. No need to get offended, just understand that we view early Mormonism very differently than you do.
Your wrong about Moses, but I guess that is one we will not agree upon. I know you did agree about David, I was just putting it in the list again.
As to your view about the Cities of refuge your wrong you better re-read that again. They were set up not for people who commited cold blooded murder, they were set up for accidents that look like murder, also known as man slaughter. Let say two guys are working in a field, the ax handle flys off and hits his buddy in the head and he dies, to some it looks like murder, yet it was not.
Read Jesus dying on the Cross, He said Father forgive them for they know not what they do, We commited man slaughter, and He is our City of refuge and our high priest who can never die. unlike the priest who could die in the city of refuge. the avanger of blood in the OT could kill the person if the walked out side the city. the avanger of blood cannot touch us because we have Jesus. rick b
Ralph, LDS teach people who commit murder and Adultery must have their blood shed to atone for their Sins. We both admit King David is guilty of Both, I believe he was for given you do not. So first explain why he is made mention of in Hebrews 11, we call it the hall of Faith, then please explain how God says this stuff about King David?
Wow, David the Murder and adulter walked in Gods ways? He was a righteous person? Man if he was not forgiven I will be surprised.
What about this,
Again I say Wow! David’s heart was PERFECT before the Lord, David went Fully after the Lord, but, but, I thought He commited Murder and adultry? I thought he was supposed to have his own blood spilt, I dont recall any verse where God wants this to happen to a righteous person? or a person who’s heart is PERFECT and fully commited to the Lord. if you need Ralph I have so many more verse about David alone I go do another 3 full replys. So can you explain? Thank you, Rick b
RickB, No where do those scriptures EXPLICITLY state that David was forgiven for the murder of Uriah. There was a time in David’s life when all these things could be attributed to him, and after the murder of Uriah he did try and get back on track in the ways of God, so even after the murder these things can still be attributed to David. BUT no where does it state that he was forgiven. He made two big mistakes in his life but apart from those he did follow God all his days. So can you show anywhere where it EXPLICITLY states that David, Cain or Samson were forgiven for their sin of murder? This is what you require of us LDS when we state our belief, and you keep saying that you do not believe anything unless it is explicit in the Bible.
As for David’s heart being perfect, I thought you Evangelicals did not believe that the heart could be trusted. You like to keep throwing in the scripture that states that the heart is evil and deceptive. You also keep saying that all are sinners and no one is perfect until they accept Jesus, so why are you pointing out this about David?
This is David talking to the LORD after he was confronted by Nathan the prophet:
Psa 51:14-17 “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: [and] my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering.”
These scriptures describe the character of God:
Neh 9:17b “but thou [art] a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.”
Psa 103:8 “The LORD [is] merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.”
Psa 145:8 “The LORD [is] gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.”
Joe 2:13 “And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he [is] gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.”
Jon 4:2 “And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, [was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou [art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”
Nah 1:3 “The LORD [is] slow to anger, and great in power…”
RickB/Shelli,
Psalms 51:14-17 actually says “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness“ I guess this is referring to the murder he committed. Then he says “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering” In the Mosaic Law, sacrifices were made for sins to gain a forgiveness of the sins, but these were animal sacrifices. So this here is talking about animal sacrifices. The Law of Moses (and God at that time) clearly states that the punishment for murder is capital punishment – so David was under this requirement. But clearly, from these verses above, an animal sacrifice was not enough to gain forgiveness for David.
As I have also said, David covered up the murder by making it look like an act of war. This means no evidence AND NO WITNESSES as in the Mosaic Law 2 or 3 witnesses were needed to gain a conviction for murder – so David could not be held accountable BY THE LAW for the murders. But God knew and did hold David accountable. God judged David through Nathan the prophet in 2 Sam 12. Waht was the punishment for the murder? Verse 10 “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me” and verse 14 “Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die”. So blood from David’s family was spilt as a consequence, rather than David’s blood. But this does not mean that David was forgiven.
Other murderers would have also been able to escape the law because of lack of witnesses or by other means, but this does not mean that their blood was/is not required of them. Just because they got away does not negate the Law of Moses for those who lived under it.
The other verses you have referred to do not say anything at all about David being forgiven for Uriah’s murder. They only, as you said, refer to God’s character.
David commits adultery with Bath-sheba.
He arranges to have her husband killed. (2 Sam.1)
Nathan confronts David and David confesses (2 Sam. 12:1-12; Ps. 32, 51)
God forgives him , but determines David will pay back fourfold: the death of his infant son; the rape of Tamar, his daughter, by Amon, his son; the murder of Ammon by his half-brother Absalom; the relellion of Absalom against his father’s own throne (15-18).
2 Samuel 12:13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.”
That sounds like David being forgiven.
I’ll conceed about David, Falcon just because I don’t want to argue anymore. But it does come down to interpretation of the Bible as the LDS Bible study helps interpret this differently. If you want to see how just go to the reference in the LDS scripture website and follow the superscripts.
I for one don’t concede that point.
“HEB hath caused to pass; i.e. he was not punished immediately by death; but he did not escape punishment.” And we also have D&C 139:39. Besides, what about David and all his wives. Was he forgiven of that as well?
Psalm 32:5
5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the LORD “—
and you forgave
the guilt of my sin
BINGO!
We hit it again. The LDS Church is a different system. It is not orthodox Christianity. The point of view of our Mormon contributors is that of their religious system. It has nothing to do with mainstream orthodox Christianity. So within the LDS system, our Mormon friends are correct. Within orthodox Christianity they are wrong. So folks, pick your system. One system provides salvation and one does not.
Michael P
Matt 5 confirms we are in more trouble now then in the OT. Jesus gave us a higher law, to not even think about sin OR we are “IN DANGER OF THE JUDGEMENT”. How in the world do you EV come up with no judgement after Matt 5? Hence why all churches have gone astray, we don’t even understand what is plainly in the Bible.
RICK B are you saying when Jesus said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” refers to our sinning now? AS in, forgive us for everything because we do not know right from wrong?
Jacob5- My understanding of David is he will not die the second death (death of the spirit) but he will not be exalted. D&C 132
May I repeat myself?
Mormon friends you obviously do not understand the Christian Gospel. And it’s important within your religious system that you not understand it. I have no gripe with you regarding your system. But understand, it is the product of a man who in order to sell it, had to degrade and impugn Biblical Christianity and, in the process, Mormonism had to declare the Bible corrupted. That technique and approach is an honored cultural tradition within Mormonism.
God did set an unattainable goal; sinless perfection. Now, I’m perfectly content to accept Jesus shed blood as total payment for my sins. I have an attitude of not wanting to sin, but I sin. Thanks be to God for providing the remedy for my hopeless condition. Paul pretty much lays out this perspective when he says, “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!” and “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (see Romans Ch. 6) But my point is that it’s important within the Mormon system not to “get” this. Not getting it prevents the faithful from receiving the free gift of salvation that God offers through His Son Jesus Christ. Who benefits from this cloud of deception?
Falcon
You are right on with your statements about the difference between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity but, there isn’t anyway to reason it because Mormons are seeing the Christian gospel message through a skewed view. The reason Jesus said the things he did in Matthew 5 is because our condition is one of the heart and there isn’t anything we can do to change that. We can try and try to do the right thing but you know we can’t and if our Mormon friends will be honest they know it too. That is the beauty of Gods Grace it is free. Is it that hard of a concept to believe?
God knows our hearts and he says they’re wicked but he still loved us enough to send his son to die in our place. He asks us to believe but not blindly…he gave us tons of evidence from reliable eyewitnesses and historical facts. Mormonism or the BoM can never stand up to the same scrutiny that the Bible has for over the last 2 thousand years. Orthodox Christianity taught me that by faith in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection that that is enough to save me. Then God powers me with His Holy Spirit so I can live the Christian life. If I make a mistake (which I undoubtedly will) I know that I’m forgiven. It is a huge relief and gratitude to know that Jesus paid the sin price that I could not. I never have to worry or stress out about trying to live up to a standard that is just not possible.
For falcon,
I agree. Mormon’s aren’t apart of the Christian orthodoxy. I would, however, like to see where it says we declared the “Bible corrupted.” We say we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. As to your comments about the unattainable goal. Does God set a goal so that we can fail. This is not the God I believe in. I believe that we do receive commandments not to fail, but to show how we follow God. The law was not made to crush man on the cliffs and reefs of impossibility but to help man come to and understanding of what it is to be like God. For He is a perfect Man who abides the law for all eternity. And in order for us to attain that goal He gave His only begotten Son to accomplish that which we cannot do ourselves, which is to take away those sins we repent of and to be able to return to God.
Woenigma,
I agree with your statement. David lost his exhaltation. Even though he lived a good life before and strived to live one since, that one awful decision ruined him.
Jacob5
First off God is not a man but is a spirit. (There are so many differences). Secondly I view myself as a sinner not just a person who commits sin. Do you understand the difference? God views man as fallen because of sin. We’re born that way and because God knows we are not able to keep His standard or law He provided a substitute. Jesus
Before I believed that Jesus was the only way to the father I was separated from God because of my sinful nature. When I came to the realization that I was lost and would be separated from God for all eternity I though what must I do to be saved? The Bible clearly teaches “for there is no other name by which we are saved” ACTS 4 also John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Clearly this is saying Jesus is the only way.
The good news is this salvation can be for you too.
Do you believe God is constantly changing his mind about granting us entry into his kingdom every time we sin? How do you know you won’t die with some un-confessed sin? With Mormonism there are just to many chances that you might not get it just right, so to me anyways, you are always just a little unsure. Please answer me honestly if that’s true.
Mormon: God is a Man who got to be God by his exactness to the Law. IOW, the Law is God. In the second anointing, if i am worthy, I can be anointed to be a god. No Bible support.
Christian: God is God (and a spirit at that), and the Law emanates from Him. Biblical support.
===
Mormon: The Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. (Literally interpreted it would be a “DUH” statement, but what we really mean is: we are free to listen to, extract out of context, or ignore whatever we choose, since we never go so far as to actually study the Bible or any of its sources for context.)
The Book of Mormon is the “most perfect” word of God (but we don’t acknowledge that the “as far as it is translated correctly” should also be logically applied given the history of the BoM.)
Christian: The Bible is the word of God. To understand it we must interpret scripture with scripture, examine context and history, and be willing to consider the language source when trying to interpret correctly. (Duh!)
===
Mormon: The Grace of Jesus’ atonement only applies after doing all I can do, except in the case of murder, and in some cases, adultery and apostasy, where Grace is not sufficient without “destruction” (which in times past was interpreted as the shedding of one’s own blood). Plus, if I receive the Second Anonting I am given a free pass to sin (even if those given such a pass have no desire to use it). Non-biblical.
Christian: Jesus’ atonement is sufficient for all. He is fully God. Biblical.
===
I can recognize and try to sympathise with the sincerity of Mormons who try to practice their faith well. But the Mormon Gospel is not Christianity. It is not legalistic nor heterodox Christianity. It is its own Gospel. The doctrinal divide is WIIIIIIIDE even if we can get along socially.
Well the Bible, pick any translation it won’t matter, because certain things will not be found there (and we’ve been down this road before) There is nothing in the NT regarding plural marrage, temple rituals, mother and father god, god having been a man who reached godhood, etc. I have been informed that the Mormon view is that these things are not in the NT because they were removed during the great apostasy after the apostles died. Quite creative by Joseph Smith I would say and just happens to fit in perfectly with his religious invention. Sinless perfection? I don’t think so. It’s illogical to assume that Jesus would die for us so that we could reach sinless perfection. He died for us because we can’t achieve sinless perfection. Do you Mormon folks know anyone who has pulled it off? We are declared sinless by God’s gift of grace and our faith. Mormons are not seeking to be “like god” but to be a god. Big difference. It is true, orthodox Christianity and Mormonism have nothing in common. Joseph Smith planned it that way.
Excuse me, I should have said we are declared “not guilty”. Although the Bible does say “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people…..for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jeremiah 32:33,34
I like God’s program better than Joseph Smith’s.
Falcon said
I would add to that, that this is much that the LDS believe and teach that is not found in the Bible and they give the lame excuse Falcon said. Yet sadly many things are also not found in the BoM either. Why? Rick b
Jacob5 said,
Unfortunately doesn’t your church teach that God gave Adam and Eve two commandments one of which could not be fulfilled without breaking the other? Seems like your God also give commandments that ensure we fail, even when we were very good. If you want I can list sources which verify this within your church but I hope that wont be necessary.
However under your Palagian assertion are you living the commandments completely and have you denied yourself all ungodliness?
Lautensack
Here we go with the if you don’t follow your commandments, than your church isn’t true argument.
God did give Adam and Eve the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. He also did say that they were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now, had there been no fall of Adam the plan of salvation would not have come to pass. For Adam and Eve were in a state of sinlessness as well as being incapable to creating the human race.
So those types of failures do exist in the history of mankind, but God being all-knowing new that it was a situation that was going to happen and had planned it out to reverse the short term failing. Examples, Joseph and his brothers. David and Bathsheba. Judas and his betrayal of Christ. Were these failures of mankind purposefully set up by God? Or is it simply that God has a plan greater than the individual participants?
As for the commandment following argument. If all mankind followed the commandments there certainly wouldn’t be a need for Christ’s sacrifice, but as mankind are all sinners, this calls for the necessity of Christ’s infinite and eternal sacrifice. I certainly don’t have to answer you as to my current state, as much as you don’t have to with me. But simply either claiming faith in Christ or just following the commandments are not single saving entities in and of themselves. But it is through faith in Christ that we follow His commandments that brings salvation at the end of the life, because I find it difficult to believe that any man is capable of 100% assurance in this life of salvation, but after completing the test and after your final judgement will it be known for sure. At no point is man perfect in this life.
so Jacob,
instead of God lying to Adam and Eve and saying do not eat of the tree, but He really wanted them to, why not simply be honest and say, here you must eat of this tree?
Then How can you say they could not have kids because they were not fallen yet? you mean God is not powerful enough to create them to have kids in a pre-fallen state? they need to fall first?
Then, how come in the Bible, before the fall God says be fruitful and muliply? I thought they could not do that before the fall, so why would God tell them to do that if they needed to fall first?
Rick b
Where was the lie? It was still a commandment. They still died.
As far as the fall. God can not create anything that is corrupted. So, Adam and Eve were created in an uncorrutable state (ie. no death, disease, pain, sin, etc.). Therefore being in this incorruptable state, they were not fallen, as they had direct communication with God. I refer to the whole, no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. Heck you even believe in the whole original sin situation. Not that I do but, even if you argue that children are born in sin, then does this not refute your whole statement about whether or not God could create them with the capability of having children.
I believe that they were incapable of having children because their bodies were still in a pure uncorrupted state, and as you well may understand about the whole process of giving birth, there the forms of illness, pain, etc.
The commandment to bare children was given because God knew that that was part of the plan of salvation. They had to have children, but to get to that point, they had to fall and allow for all the other necessities into the world in order to follow the commandment. In a since they could not know anything that is common in our lives today unless they did brake a commandment and understand what seperation from God is and to also be given the hope they could return to him through Jesus Christ.
Jacob5,
One you clearly do not understand the doctrine of original sin. Why are children born with sin? Because they inherit the sinful nature of their forefather Adam, be it federal headship in a legal state or biological, take your pick right now it really doesn’t matter.
As for their bodies being uncorrupted, do you believe that sex is an act of Corruption rather than something done between man and wife to the glory of God? Do you believe that the act of child birth is something corrupt rather than something done to the glory of God? Jacob let me ask you a personal question, do you have to sin in order to have children?
However this is not the point of the subject the point of the subject was that according to your view God does not give men commands that they cannot keep, yet He does according to your view. You believe He intended the fall, the failure of Adam and Eve, for the good of man, I believe He gave the law to show us how much we need Him, increase the trespass, knowing we would fail, and bring us to Him, for our own good. Yet you seem to think while the former is acceptable the latter is not, I must ask on what grounds?
Lautensack
I am sorry if I may have misrepresented the idea of original sin. It is not my place to tell you what you believe in in order to refute your belief. For that I apologize.
Then answer to your first question is “no”. I don’t believe sex is either an act of corruption or sin, but a process of glorifying God by bringing His children into this world. However the process as I said, does involve pains and sorrows that came into this world when fall occurred. (Genesis 3:16) But of your idea, did Adam and Eve bear children in the garden? Why does Genesis only speak of children after the fall? If they were pefectly capable of doing so, then why did they not simply follow both commandments?
Let me ask you, do you find that there is any commandment that you believe in that you can’t keep?
But let’s think this through more. God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree of knowledge. He then instructs Adam that he should not eat it. (Genesis 2:16-17) He then creates Eve and says that Adam should be with Eve. (Genesis 2:24) Then Eve first eats the apple after being beguiled by the serpent. If Adam had not eaten the apple, what would have happened?
The fall was necessary so that mankind could come to be. This isn’t simply a matter of pass fail, but a matter of our existence. Adam went against God’s law and this allowed for mankind’s existence. Just as Judas’s sin led to the sacrifice of the savior. In both cases laws were broken, but it was planned. Unless you want to say that Judas didn’t committ sin because he helped bring about the atonement, do you?
Jacob5,
I try not to enter into the theoretical of did they or didn’t they. The bible is silent on that issue so any argument made is an argument from silence. However were Adam and Eve capable of creating children prior to the fall, I would say yes based upon Genesis 2. Now as to what happened to those children I would say because of Adam’s sin since ALL of creation was cursed and groans because of it (Romans 8) I would submit that had they had children they too would have partaken in the curse. Again this is the theoretical as the bible is silent on it. As for why they did not follow both commandments, frankly they wanted to be God. So they chose to do their own will instead of participating in the will of God.
As for your question to me, I have broken everyone of God’s commandments, and sometimes continue to do so, as did Paul (Romans 7) So yes I believe that there are many commandments I cannot keep, and if I do keep any it is only because of God’s efficacious grace and my participation in God’s will.
I do not know the answer to Eve’s sinning and Adam not and frankly is of little consequence because Adam did sin.
As for Judas, yes he did sin, and he wanted to, he wanted to betray Jesus. I also believed God raised Judas up that He might be glorified in the Cross, just as He raised Pharaoh up that He might be glorified in the Exodus. Jacob5, in your theology does God know everything that is ever going to happen or not? If yes how do you account for His lack of foresight of the great apostasy of your religion in light of texts such as Matthew 16:16-18/Ephesians 3:20-21? If not how do you explain prophecy, is He simply a good guesser?
Lautensack
We cannot forget free agency. God could not tell them to sin or he would stop being a God. He gave them a choice so they could exercise their free agency. I think they finally figured out what their choice had to be when they couldn’t have children (there eyes where open-several meanings). Can you imagine the frustration on trying to keep 2 commandments and they could not. Satan thought he had ruined the plan by having Eve partake, he only completed the plan. See how it was in Gods hands. Romans 5 12-21 restates the purpose of the fall, one for many plan.
Also, Genesis 1 and 2 are about 2 creations (chapter 1 spirit world). In Genesis 1 it is God (along with others, note the word “US” in v26) doing the creating v1 spirit of God. When you go to Genesis 2 it is th Lord God v4 Notice the name change throughout Chapter 2 (things that make you go hmm). There is no Satan in Chapter 1 and no command not to eat of the tree of knowledge only to be fruitful and multiply. The Lord God forms man out of the dust in chapter 2, we are now in a temporal world not a spirit world. In Chapter 1 God creates male and female at the same time and their names are not Adam and Eve. Chapter 3 continues with the temporal creation and that word “US” Chapter 3 v22 comes up again. EV who is the “US”? Think and pray about these 3 Chapters, it’s the key to more! Do you have an open heart and are you teachable?
Lautensack, I believe in a God who can plan so far ahead that He can think beyond the choices of men. The point is man does have choice, and He did not set up a system where He forces everyone to make the right choice. That was Satan’s plan. So as man has choice, they are fully capable of choosing to not follow God.
That is one of the important things about the atonement is that Christ too had choice. It is fortunate for all of us that He chose to follow God completely. But nevertheless there had to be choice. He suffered temptation above us all so that he can understand the hurts and pains of us all.
So you asked why did God allow the Great Apostasy? Simple, because He allowed man choice. But since He is God, He can also raise up others that can restore His Gospel. He did in the past. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses. These were men who brought back the gospel to the earth after a vast majority of the people had apostatized. I think it is a great thing that no matter how bad the situation, God is capable of raising up one man to return the gospel to the earth, else mankind would never be given a chance to chose to follow Him.
Woenigma,
Clearly the us refers to God, the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We can go to the original languages to see that the God referring to Himself as us is a singular being.
Jacob5, I never said man didn’t have a choice, reformed theology aka Luther and Calvin, didn’t say man didn’t/doesn’t have a choice, though this is often the conception of men who do not understand the teachings of Reformed theology. Therefore to simply rely upon choice of men for the Great Apostasy, which was total this time right, is actually a fatal flaw in your theology and argument because you believe, I gather from what I have read of you, men are inherently neutral if not decent, bordering good, and not by nature depraved. I could understand your stance if you believed that men would so long as they were given a choice would never choose God without experiencing Him, and Him efficaciously moving in their lives, but that would be a doctrine of depravity which you reject. Also in order for this view you present to stand God must NOT be active and NOT be at work in the world because that would impede upon some men’s free will. As for God raising up one man to return the gospel to the earth, doesn’t that impede upon that man’s free will? This is the problem with your argument, in order for God to ensure “free agency” He must impede man’s “free agency.”
Lautensack
Lautensack
What a bunch of nonsense! So there was reformed theology aka Luther which is OK? Please enlighten me on these teachings.
How does God impede man’s “free agency”? We would have a sinless world if we were forced to be perfect. As men being decent it’s as basic as if you go into a store and steal something, you know it’s wrong, where does that come from? As a child you are innocent and honest, where does that come from?
Woenigma,
I am not sure I understand your question on reformed theology. Please elaborate it.
As for your assertion of us being “forced to be perfect” where did I say this? I believe Adam and Eve disobeyed God because they wanted to, they chose to, they also could have chosen not to. In Mormon Theology this is not the case, because had they not broken one commandment they could not keep the other, it was impossible for them to keep both commandments. You could say God forced them to sin, hence the circular, hidden as it may be, argument of God destroying their agency in order to create it.
Why do you know it is wrong to steal? We know because we have been told that it is wrong to steal, be that by culture or the Word. Why do babies cry? To draw attention to themselves and make other serve them. We are selfish hedonists even as children, and if you think children are honest they are only honest if they think it can get them out of trouble, otherwise they lie, perhaps not chronicly but they do nevertheless. Therefore I must wonder where this deception that children are innocent and honest comes from.
Lautensack
Any one that believes children are innocent and honest must not have kids. I have 3 kids, the oldest being 10.
I had to teach my kids to be honest, tell the truth and share, the first words they learned were (MINE) and (NO). I never had to teach my kids how to lie, it came natural. if one of them broke something or got into trouble they never knew who did what. so please explain why kids are natural born liars? rick b
The issue of children in the LDS church is a misunderstood one. Many members think that it means that the children are perfect – as in totally honest, kind, loving, etc. That is not what it means.
Under the age of 8, God has promised that Satan cannot tempt them or have hold over them, thus they are innocent in breaking the law and have no sin. This is so they can be taught to behave and act properly as well as taught about God before they are capable of sinning. The LDS church believes that is what is meant when God told Satan in the Garden of Eden that He will put emnity between Eve’s seed and Satan. So yes, children can be and are dishonest, selfish, etc, and it is up to us parents to teach them the correct path.
Any wrong doing that the children under 8 do is immediately covered by the Atonement of Jesus. Once they turn 8 they lose this immunity from Satan’s temptings and are accountable for their sins. As parents, if we have not taught them properly before this age we are accountable to a greater sin if our children go into erroneous ways, but we are not held accountable for their sins.