Bill, Randy, and I had a good night at Temple Square talking to people about the priesthood ban and the theology the Mormon church once used to justify it. I also used the occasion to talk about the unique priesthood of Christ. If you’re visiting because of having seen an advertisement for SeedOfCain.com, allow me to direct you to our two articles and one tract relevant to the event:
- Black Skin and the Seed of Cain (a good primer)
- Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology or Explicit Renunciation
- Thirty Years After the Priesthood Ban was Lifted (PDF tract)
A disproportionate amount of blacks were taking our tracts. Great discussion ensued for all of us with various folks. It is sad that so many black Mormons have settled for less than full dignity in the Mormon Church, but I encouragingly heard from black Mormons that wanted an institutional apology from their leadership. If you’re interested in hearing more of this, I found an MP3 with John Dehlin (liberal Mormon) and Darron Smith (black Mormon) speaking about the appropriateness but unlikelihood of institutional repentance coming from the LDS Church.
Some news stations/papers interviewed Bill. That went well (this was partially a day for making a public statement).
[SWF]http://www.youtube.com/v/Ri5aV4xaMOs&hl=en,425,344[/SWF]
From experience, I’m a big believer that Temple Square evangelism is ten times more effective and meaningful when one shows up on a non special-event day. In other words, if any of you Christians ever want to do some tracting, I’d highly recommend showing up on a regular Thursday choir practice night over going out of your way to try to talk to Mormons during an event like Conference. People aren’t as defensive or hardened in their temperament.
When we go out we all have iRiver MP3 recorders around our neck. This is largely for protection. The slanderous lies one hears on LDS apologetic discussion boards about outreaches never ceases to amaze me. I hope they think twice now about what they write online.
Speaking of “lies”, at one point, I talked to a group of tourists waiting to cross the street, telling them to “be careful, because Mormonism teaches you can become a god, and that God was once a man who had to become a god.” The LDS sister missionary with them vehemently denied it, saying, “That’s a pack of lies!”
Some other Christians (who we know from Manti) were there too, and looked like they were having some great conversations.
My daughter is still LDS, 14, and will not believe me when I tell her about the priesthood ban for people with black skin. Such a stance is so abhorrent that the church stays away from such dialog. You know, I really feel kind of bad for LDS who are forced into defending indefensible claims and teachings by their founding fathers.
What I would like to point out is that LDS doctrine focuses on man’s divine heritage because Heavenly Father is divine. Does this divine heritage only hold true for non-blacks? Here’s another question: did we have the opportunity/ability to repent in the pre-mortal existence? If the premise of the blacks not receiving the priesthood is because they were not valiant in their “first estate,” then wouldn’t it stands to reason that there would be no more black people born? Why would God still allow the mark of Cain on those who obviously repented in the pre-existence and who are now worthy to receive the priesthood and all the blessings afforded every “worthy” member of the Church? Shouldn’t the fact that they are born with a black skin mean that they are still cursed?
I know the LDS will say that even though they don’t understand how it all works, they “know” that both the ban and subsequent uplifting of the ban on blacks holding the priesthood is true because the Holy Ghost has borne witness to them (again the emphasis on feelings), and this is from a church that claims that “the glory of God is intelligence.” I don’t see anything intelligent in accepting doctrine on blind faith without testing them against God’s word–the Bible. I don’t see anything intelligent in the rationale used for keeping the LDS priesthood from blacks and then giving it to them. Praise the LORD that He is the only High Priest, and that through the Spirit and our testimony of Christ that we become part of a royal priesthood, a priesthood of believers that give us authority to minister to each other in the name of Christ.
continued
jack G said, “Here’s another question: did we have the opportunity/ability to repent in the pre-mortal existence? If the premise of the blacks not receiving the priesthood is because they were not valiant in their “first estate,” then wouldn’t it stands to reason that there would be no more black people born? Why would God still allow the mark of Cain on those who obviously repented in the pre-existence and who are now worthy to receive the priesthood and all the blessings afforded every “worthy” member of the Church? Shouldn’t the fact that they are born with a black skin mean that they are still cursed?”
I myself would like to know the answer to that question.. If they are no longer a cursed race, why are there black babies being born still? And shouldn’t the current black LDS people be getting whiter?… Hey, I didn’t say it, the “prophet” said it.
Contrary to LDS doctrine that states we are born children of God and, therefore, have divine nature, the Bible teaches us that we were “sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). Does this sound like divine nature or sin nature? We become children of God as we believe in Jesus Christ (see 1 John 5:1).
The idea that black people were not valiant in a make-believe pre-existence is ludicrous and abhorrent. Those who hold to such beliefs will never see that they need to apologize or repent because they credit their faith to God via make-believe revelations to a false prophet. I can’t believe that I once held to such views. I never thought I would denounce the LDS Church. Such a doctrine does not represent the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–my God.
Part One
In the battle for souls, it seems some marketing hype has crept in. Logic tells us everyone thinks his brand of religion is the correct one otherwise they would leave. Recently, the LDS Church has been making serious conversion inroads amongst Catholics in Latin and South America in addition to other places including Africa and Asia. One has to wonder if the recent Vatican letter to Bishops about cooperating with the Utah Genealogical Society isn’t an outgrowth of that Mormon success.
Other denominations have felt the Mormon missionary sting as well. The latest rounds of anti-Mormon backlash seem to be part of an amplified turf battle. When Mormonism was merely an isolated oddity, other denominations didn’t seem too concerned about them. But that has changed. Mormons have serious and growing influence. Until fairly recently, Mormons seemed content to stay in Utah and the western U.S. wastelands. But since WWII they have added something around twelve million to their number. Even the august Southern Baptist Convention’s Dr. Richard Land has openly acknowledged the 300,000 Baptist converts in the heart of Bible Belt to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened Evangelical eyes to the competition. One only has to visit the SBC official website bookstore to see how seriously they take it.
Just this hour I talked to active Mormon Jason B. of JosephSmith.com. He wouldn’t even answer the question, “True or false or I don’t know: The curse of Cain teaching taught by Brigham Young is false.” He doesn’t necessarily embrace the curse of Cain teaching as taught by Brigham, but neither does he reject it. Jason is an odd one, he believes the ban was wrong (contra Hinckley who said, “I don’t think it [the ban] was wrong”), yet he won’t denounce the idea that skin color could be due to pre-mortal moral failures and successes.
I consider it racist to even be open to the possibility that skin color is decided by pre-mortal ethical failures or successes. If I’m right about that, then racism is alive and well.
When I asked him if the Church should apologize for the ban if it was, as he called it, “wrong”, he said no. When I asked, “What public sins are exempt from confession?”, he referred to those situations that put “the church in a bad light”. So, the ethical line of thinking is this: If it puts “the church in a bad light” then there is an exemption for publicly confessing and apologizing for public sins.
What is really sad is so many mormons do know the truth, yet like this Jason Guy, they refuse to answer simple honest questions. And they wonder why people believe they are liars and use deception.
And for the LDS who can honestly say, I never knew, then I suggest you open your eyes and review your history, because if you choose not to, then your a liar and being dishonest to refuse looking at the truth, while saying your church is true and correct. Rick b
Aaron,
I’m shocked at the fellow you mention, Jason. I’m not shocked because thats how he feels because I have heard of multiple cases where people admit to ridiculous doctrine like that and not even blink. I am however, shocked that someone can HONESTLY feel that way?
Are they so sucked into the LDS PR machine that they lose all rational thinking?
To the LDS people who are white… How do you think thats supposed to make a black person feel? You’re church is saying “You are black and I am white because I was more righteous in the pre-existence than you were.”?
Aaron,
Many many Mormons (especially those in Utah) do not know how “cultish” they sound. Normally, I do not like the word “cult”, or its derivatives, but it is the best word to use here. Sometimes when they, or their church, is acting “culty” (like having men in black take photos of you) they don‘t know how bad it looks. There is a myopic tendency in all religions, but Mormonism surpasses all (except for maybe Islam) The highly nuanced language, the issue dodging, and the appeals to only go to the “Chevy dealer” for info doesn’t help. When you don’t come clean on an issue, it only adds to the negative impact of the issue itself. Seriously, many Mormons do not get that for non-Mormons “because the church says so” for some reason just doesn’t cut it.
The reason Mormons aren’t embarassed or ashamed of the racism or the polygamny or any number of issues, is that they believe their religion is true. Mormonism, to them, is incapable of error. It’s the real deal. How do they know it is? They prayed about it and got a “spiritual” feeling. A great test for the truth. With this type of “truth test” anything and everything is accepted. We’ve examined here, in the past, the outrageous and down right pathetic pronouncements of Mormon prophets, apologists and teachers. Nothing shakes the faithful. When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done. I remember the old movie from the 60s with Rod Taylor called “The Time Machine”. He travels to the future where this group of people hypnotically marches off into these caves whenever an alarm siren goes off. When they got down into the caves they were lunch for the creatures that lived there. Rod Taylor finally teaches them to not blindly march into the cave and to fight back. There are two kinds of Mormons. The ones that don’t know any better but still keep marching and the ones that do know better and just keep marching. Hard to say which is worse.
Pingback: FAIR Blog » Blog Archive » Hypocrisy and a Placard
Falcon,
Going on the ‘history’ lesson you gave us in “A People Extraordinarily Given to Unusual Religious Beliefs” I find your comment rather amusing when you said ” How do they know it is? They prayed about it and got a “spiritual” feeling. A great test for the truth. With this type of “truth test” anything and everything is accepted.”
Now lets look at 2 of the histories you gave –
”Spurgeons’s own conversion is remarkable…Then I had this vision-not a vision to my eyes, but to my heart. I saw what a Savior Christ was…Now I can never tell you how it was, but I no sooner saw whom I was to believe than I also understood what it was to believe, and I did believe in one moment.”
”Wesley reported that: “In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate-Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ. Christ alone for salvation. And an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” John Wesley’s spiritual breakthrough came when he realized that he couldn’t work his way to salvation.”
All of the people that these two affected changed because of ‘spiritual experiences’ while they were preaching. It was not through the sit down and study the Bible as you keep saying is the right way to do it.
Since I believe that the LDS church is the only true church then I will echo your sentiment and state that ”With this type of “truth test” anything and everything is accepted.”
But realistically we LDS do teach to go and study the scriptures first and work out if you believe in them or not, THEN (ie not before) ask God, at least that is what Moroni 10:3-5 says to do.
Ralph,
When you say “we LDS do teach to go study the scriptures first and work out if you believe in them or not”, does that also mean you study the historical, anthropological, archaeological, linguistic, and other scientific evidences/support as well to determine if the scriptures are valid? It really would seem that that should be your first step in determining truth, wouldn’t you say? If not, wouldn’t your faith be considered blind?
Aaron–
Sins that put the faith in a bad light… I love it. And what, exactly, would those sins be?
Part Two
What makes this growing influence even more troubling to traditional Christianity is Mormons tell investigators they don’t have to rely on a priest or pastor to interpret scripture or provide the last word on doctrine. Mormons say everyone can find out for themselves whether what they preach is right or not. One just has to read the Book of Mormon humbly and honestly desire to know whether it is true. If they are teachable and are willing to apply what they are told they can successfully ask God for confirmation. If they have faith God will tell them they can discover for themselves whether Mormonism represents Christ’s original church and doctrines. Obviously the other denominations take umbrage with the implications of that claim.
Some say the Mormon claim attacks traditional Christianity’s very existence. Mormons don’t agree saying these other denominations are evidence of an ongoing gradual reclaiming of the Church which has been underway since Martin Luther. They say the advent of Mormonism caps the movement and adds to what traditional Christianity teaches. They say they have come to make some corrections to inaccuracies which have crept into the old canon and to re-establish original ordinances lost over the centuries. Given there is a considerably firm and fast difference between the old traditional Christian doctrines and LDS doctrine there isn’t much wiggle room for negotiating a compromise in either camp. Mormons say compromise, in large part, is what caused the problems in the first place. Mormons offer Old and New Testament passages to support their position and then say serious investigators should put Mormon teachings to the test by asking for Holy Spirit confirmation – even everything the LDS Church teaches from the pulpit.
Part Three
The interesting thing about how this whole affair has evolved is the way the traditional Christians have responded. Rather than acknowledging the effectiveness of recommending people humbly approach God in prayer and fasting to get confirmation of what they teach, they chose to demonize Mormons and attack them as an enemy. They have placed the correctness of the Nicene Creed as foundational to their doctrine and no discussion or dissent can be tolerated. Logically then, if the NC is not correct then much of their religious doctrine is not correct. No where in traditional Christianity is there any significant reappraisal of those doctrines. It seems that if a denomination or researcher wants to be part of the acknowledged Christian club they have to keep mum about many salient Creedal problems. The common bond amongst traditional Christians is found in the nature of the Holy Trinity. Mormons acknowledge a belief in God the Father, Christ and the Holy Ghost but say they are individuals and not an unknowable amalgam as the Creeds say. So, in this part anyway, the whole affair comes down to a difference in God’s nature.
Part Four
Traditional Christians go on to use individual differences between the two doctrines as proof of Mormon heresy. But their proofs almost always are filtered through the lens of the Nicene and other traditional Creeds and rely on human understanding and tradition as they willingly acknowledge. But Mormons say the discussion ought to be whether God has in fact opened the canon and restored prophets and apostles to lead His restored Church. They say all these other contentions are subordinate to what should be the primary discussion. If what Mormons claim is in fact true then the detractor’s claims are essentially meaningless because Mormon theology really does come from God, human failings excepted. Mormons offer direct access to God as their way to prove what they proclaim. Their detractors offer tradition and the understanding of men as theirs. Or so it seems to me.
JLFuller, interesting comments.
The discussion does, in many ways, follow the out line you presecribe. However, your conclusion about Christians is off, I think. It is about God’s nature.
Actually, that’s exactly it. God, to us, is a single God acting in three ways to work in our lives. To you, God is an exalted man, as are Jesus and the Spirit. From this, we get very different ways to relate to God. In one, God is above us, and nothing we can do will get us near him because he is so much more than we are. The other offers a way to work to be like him, to be the same as him.
The way we live our lives is directly related to these views of God. Rather than go into the mistakes you make regarding Christian views, I think I will leave this piece at the very real and important differences in how we view God. Views, that not only affect our day to day living, but our eternal salvation.
I’ll let others, if they so choose, address the mistakes. God Bless.
Ralph,
I appreciate the argument you raise. I know what Joseph Smith and John Wesley taught. By their fruits we can judge who was called by God to minister to humanity. Without going into a discourse on Wesleyan theology, I will just say that Wesley teaches within the framework of the Bible. Joseph Smith teaches outside that framework. JS teachings are the product of synchretism, blending heretical teachings with some biblical truth. It’s Baal-like in nature, and the Spirit has borne witness to me of its heresy. One such heretical teaching is that blacks were not as valiant as whites and, therefore, were not able to hold the priesthood. That’s bad fruit, Ralph. You have to call a spade a spade. Remember there are false spirits, and humanity is prone to follow them. I have followed a false spirit. Perhaps you should question if whether or not you are. As for John Wesley, his emphasis was on entire sanctificationw which, simply stated, is being perfected in love. The fruits are there for all to judge.
JLFuller,
I believe that most of what you wrote amounts to a straw man arguement designed to suggest that Christians feel threatened by the Mormonism. I disagree that the LDS church is growing as fast as you claimed in part one, and you fail to mention the poor retention rate and number of people (such as myself) who have chosen to leave the church because it isn’t a fully honest institution (the church ain’t perfect, and I’m not talking about the members). You suggest that Christians feel threatened because the traditional veiw of the Nature of God understood through the bible. The LDS church offers an alternative based on the claims of one man: Smith. Now, to me it all hinges on Smith. I’m sure you realize (perhaps you don’t) that he gave multiple differing versions of the first vision story (included one recorded by Lucy Mack Smith) that differ significantly on the nature of God. One would even support the Trinitarian view. Which version should we believe? And why do you think he gave multiple versions of this most important event? Does Smith’s charactor on face value give us any reason to believe a word he claimed? You can believe Smith’s version of the nature of God if you choose, but I think I’ll stick with the Biblical view, thanks.
Christians aren’t at all threatened by the LDS church, rather it is the souls of people we care deeply about (read: my parents and siblings) who are threatened. I pray daily that they will begin to ask hard questions, rather than believing well-worded straw man arguements.
Hay Ralph,
Go back to the posts you quoted and listen to the audio messages that I am posting there. I think you’ll find the answer… let me highlight.
Emotions don’t prove the truth. Emotions are the result of what someone is thinking about. That’s the basis of Cognitive Therapy. Teaching people to change their feeling state by changing their dominant thoughts. Wesley came to understand what God had done for him in Christ Jesus and he felt good about it. It warmed his heart. The feeling was a result of what he came to understand and was thinking about. I don’t know if Spurgeon’s vision was an actual vision or if he was speaking metaphorically. In the latter case if it was a feeling, perhaps a deeper understanding of the Gospel caused a feeling. The feeling would confirm nothing as of the truth of the Gospel.
Now this (emotional response to a thought) is different than say getting Baptized in the Holy Spirit and giving evidence by speaking in tongues or prophesying. On the day of Pentecost the disciples received the Gift of the Holy Spirit and it was supernaturally manifested in tongues. Read chapter 10 of the Book of Acts. The highlight: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.
This was no confirmed feeling. It was a supernatural event which led Peter to say: “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
Mormons, through the power of suggestion and a cleverly designed presentaiton, can lead someone to have a positive feeling about the BoM. It’s really not that difficult to pull off. Poeple have/had emotional reactions to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, “Tom Sawyer” and Huckleberry Finn”.
Falcon,
That’s a good point you made and I will give two examples to your example. My wife and I were watching “Castaway” featuring Tom Hanks. She was absolutely convinced that the movie was true. It just seemed so real. The slam-dunk was when she saw Fred Smith, CEO and founder of FedEx, welcoming “Tom” back home after being on that island for all those years. I had to reason with her that it was not a true movie and that Fred Smith just played along. Heck, this movie generated a lot of business for his company so it was a win-win for him. Anyway, she saw the movie, was emotionally moved and was convinced that it was true.
Now for the Mormon connection. On one of my afternoon visits at one of the Mormon wards where I live I was asked by the teacher of the Gospel Essentials class what I thought about Joseph Smith’s First Vision. I told him I had some issues with it mainly because of the contradictions in versions starting in 1832. He didn’t know what I was talking about. I pulled out the January 1989 Ensign magazine that did a complete feature of all of Smith’s versions to the First Vision. He took it, slumped down into his chair and became very troubled.
I asked him how he came to know that Mormonism was true. He said he watched “The Restoration” video. He said, “I know they were only actors, but when I saw the man playing Joseph see God and Jesus in the woods something told me that it was true.” I replied, “That was it? You didn’t do any scripture checking/testing? What about Moroni 10?” He said, “I prayed after I saw the movie and was told it was true, then later I read Moroni 10.” I replied, “You saw a movie and prayed about it and that is your assurance?” He nodded his head “yes”. I couldn’t believe it. He did say to me after reading the Ensign article: “This [First Vision] could be a hoax.”
That was a shocker hearing that. Who knows what is going on in people’s heads. It’s spiritual warfare.
Berean
The fact that there are multiple accounts is meaningless. Other people recorded what Joseph said long after the fact. Just as in other biographiers and accounts of other people in history, such productions are from memeories of several people. These varying versions are due to the innacurateness of memory and records they kept. For example, The History of The Church is a compilation of Jospeh’s story and history amongst the Church recorded by other people. It is attributed to Jospeh but he didn’t write it. In fact it wasn’t written until after his death. Also, I would like to hear the you Gospel Essentials teachers side of the story. Not that you would fabricate what he said, but that perceptions by one person may not be shared by others. Eye witness accounts are not always identical amongst witnesses. Just ask a cop at a traffic accident.
Folks
We see here and elsewhere LDS detractors jumping to conclusions, misreading what others say and in general, looking for the lurid side of events. As in all things, look for an agenda. Does the writer (speaker) have a history of one-sided views of a subject? It is OK for people to take sides? Of course it is. But if they pretend to be objective and claim to not have an agenda, then I suggest you investigate what they say very closely. Look at thier history. In the case of detractors with a definite and demonstrated anti-Mormon bent then what they say must be balanced with what others on the other side say. We will gladly answer any question put to us. But we will not argue about it. But the other side is quite willing to do so. So, when confronted with two differing versions the investigator has to decide which to believe. I suggest that if you want to know what a Baptist believes you ask a Baptist. If you want to know what a Mormon believes ask a Mormon.
JLFuller, OK, so lets ask what evangelicals believe. OK? Do you want to know, or do you want to keep your bias in the vision of what it is we believe?
Yes, I am jumping to conlcusions on what you believe because I have not once seen a Mormon accurately, or even honestly, try to state what we believe.
You also say you, speaking as “we”, will not argue about it, and answer any question put to you. OK, so is the Mormon church in error with its past policy regarding blacks? Remember, answer the question, and don’t argue.
MichaelP
“The common bond amongst traditional Christians is found in the nature of the Holy Trinity.”
I said that in part three above. This is important because I think it goes to the heart of the historic Chritian view of Mormon theological differences. We are not Christian, according to many historic Christian denominations because we reject that view of God,s nature. But the Trinitarian view is not found in the New Testament. The Mormon view is. Defenders of Creedal Christianity willingly acknowledge thier view was shaped in the 4th and 5th centuries. But nowhere have I found any discussion about the Trinitarian-New Testament problems. Is that because it is settled doctrine as they see it? I believe it is. Creedal Christians have settled in their minds that it is true and accurate. But it is based on tradition and the understanding of fallible men five hundred years after Christ and the apostles died. Doesn’t that give some people a problem? I suggest it does. It may not trouble you and that is OK. But there are other readers of this post who may not have been confronted with this issue before who may want to think about it.
JLFuller,
I thought you were to answer the questions posed. I don’t see an answer in your post.
Looks like that was your third for the day, so I will look for a response tomorrow…
I apologize if I seem curt here, but when you say you will answer questions posed, please answer them. That you didn’t and the vast majority of Mormons don’t, is why so often describe your faith as someting along the lines of slippery.
As to the trintarian beliefs, they existed long before they were codified in Nicea. This has been addressed elsewhere in this blog, if you wish to find it. But that the word “trinity” is not in the Bible, a common argument against it, is a pretty silly argument, don’t you think?
JLFuller,
The early church councils were specifically called to combat heretical teachings. Creeds were formulated and constitute dogma, which is what one needs to believe to be a Christian. The LDS Church also combats heresy within Mormonism, but without councils. The LDS way is to have the most current President of the Church supersede any previous president (I can’t call them prophets, I just can’t). Case in point: JS taught that the first principle of the gospel is to know the character of God (General Conference, April 7, 1844, History of the Church 6:305). BY taught that the first principle of the gospel is Faith in God (Discourses of Brigham Young, p 154, and also found in Journal of Discourses 13:142). That which you hold to per LDS Articles of Faith is the latter (AF#4). Another case in point: BY taught that Adam is our father and our God (President Brigham Young, June 8, 1873, Deseret News, June 14, 1873, p 308), which he called the Adam-God doctrine that he received through revelation. With regard to this heretical and embarrassing teaching, Pres. Spencer W. Kimball stated, “We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine (Deseret News, Oct. 9, 1976, p 11 and Ensign, Nov. 1976, p 77).
Yes, we believe the issue of the trinity was indeed settled during the early councils by men who were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. True, these men were more than likely very fallible, but so is every person born on this earth. You would be hard-pressed to take the position that LDS leaders are infallible, especially in light of the teachings that need to be pronounced as false by later presidents. The thing to understand, JL, is that God does His work of redemption through a fallen humanity that is by nature fallible.
On a Mormon blog, Mormons rip into Robert Millet for “perpetuation of false teachings” concerning race and the ban.
Be sure to read the comments. If you listen to the presentation, you can skip to minute 13.
JLFULLER said:
Dude, if you were any more full of bull, I would need to build a fence around you to keep you in.
How come you say, LDS cannot really trust History of the Chuch to be Accurate, Yet even LDS prophets quote from it as if it were truth and accurate?
How come if we mention Adam God, LDS claim it was written down incorrectly, yet BY said it was scripture even over into volume 4, moths later?
We use the JoD, and LDS says, anti mormons are using Incorrect, non-trustworthy Books, yet, LDS quote from it, and even go so far as to say, King Follet Discourse is the GREATEST SERMON ever given, and take doctrine from it. So can you explain these problems. Rick b
cont’d
I can admit that the early church fathers were fallible, but we don’t put our trust in men, we put our trust in Christ’s words when He said, “All this I have spoken while still withyou. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14: 25-26). It is the work of the Holy Spirit that was established by the councils. The apostles might have been killed off, but the Holy Spirit wasn’t, neither were all believers extinguished from the face of the earth. There could be no spiritual dark age because the Spirit continued to work through men. Your attack against “fallible men” is pure LDS propaganda. With regard to tradition, there’s nothing inherently wrong with tradition. After all, your belief is grounded in a faith tradition, as well. Also, the Mormon view of God is not found in the Bible. Where does it say that God had a beginning, lived a life that probably included sin, and then progressed to the status of godhood? The teaching of the trinity is found within the framework of the Bible; a god that was once imperfect and in need of a savior himself is not. Hopefully, this is something you might want to think about.
JLFuller,
Yes, please tell us where in the Bible and in the BoM it supports the mormon view on the nature of God explicitly? Namely:
Where is God was once a man?
Where is multiple Gods? (and I’m not talking about those that are “called” gods)
Do I really have to point out to you all the scriptures where God says he is the ONLY God? ESPECIALLY in your very own Book of Mormon?!?
Note: My punctuation is for emphasis because I haven’t yet learned how to do all the neat text stuff, haha
And about the trinity and the creeds – I would say it behooves a Christian to read the Bible after hearing about the Trinity and discern for themselves using both holy spirit and exegenisis of the scriptures/scholarly work to see if it makes sense. This is why its important even after hearing a sermon from a Christian pastor to not believe word for word everything they say, but to compare those words with God’s Holy Word.
We read in Genesis 1:1 God (Elohim) this is a plural noun speaking of more than one person. Yet (Bara) is the Hebrew verb for Elohim but it is in the singular. We find 3 in one. We again find this in verses 3:22 where God says man has become like one of us. And we find it in 11:7 at the tower of babal, 3 in one. Then we read in the 10 commandments number 3 says You shall have no other gods before me.
We read in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear 0 Israel the Lord our God is ONE.” God, Not 3 separate Gods. Now I know mormons claim we are not worshiping other gods, Just God the Father. But the scriptures clearly teach there are no other Gods period. Read Isaiah 45:6,14,18,21,22 46:5,9 47:8,10 and 48:12 these all teach their are no gods before me and none will be after me, God states I know of NO OTHER Gods. So if the mormon Godhead is true, and God was once a man as mormonism teaches then his Father would be a God, so God would know about him would he not? If Jesus and the Holy spirit are Gods, God the Father would know about them would he not? So if God the Father states their are no Gods before him or after him How can Worthy LDS members become gods, or how could God have a father who is a God, or how could Jesus or the Holy Spirit be Gods and God the Father not know about them? This tells me we can find the 3 in One Godhead (Trinity).
Then we can read many places in the Old Testament Like Joshua 5 for example about the Spirit of the Lord. This angle of the Lord tells Joshua to remove his sandals for he is on Holy Ground, we read God saying the same thing to Moses in the burning bush. Here we find an (Angle) Saying your on Holy Ground and allowing a mere human to worship Him. Every case in the bible where God sent an angle to give a message to someone, and that person tried to worship the angle we find the angle saying get up, get up do not worship me. The one angle that wanted worship was lucifer and look what happened to him.
You know, I was thinking about God saying He “knows of no other Gods”.
The question is, “why are you lying to me God?”
An observation of mine is that God not being fully honest, mirrors the leadership PR system of the LDS church.
Don’t be up front and honest about all the teachings of the LDS Gospel, only give bits and pieces. Heck, deny it if you need to so that hopefully when they are ready (i.e. indoctrinated) enough to hear these un-biblical heretical teachings, it will go down a lot easier. Milk before meat my friends, milk before meat.
What the leadership of the LDS doesnt show is that the meat is laced with poison that if taken plain would make you throw up. The milk has a drug that neutralizes the part of the poison that makes you throw up so that you can continue to eat and eat, being completely oblivious of the poison you are shoving down your throat.
The question is why is the current LDS leadership shying away from unleashing their gospel in full force? Why hold back? Why now be ambiguous and say you can become “like God” when you know full well what you mean is “Become A God”. Oh how I wish Brigham Young was still alive. He didn’t hold back, and although I disagree with his lies, at least he boldly spoke them instead of hiding behind a “you cant understand yet” curtain.
Hi! I’m new to this blog and found it looking for sites dealing with Mormonism. I run a home-based business with my husband and so am not in the “blogosphere” much. I am so interested in groups which deny the Trinity; however, that I felt compelled to jump in. A contributor on one of the other pages of this blog addressed the fact that there are certain basic tenets of Christianity, that, though the word label we have affixed to them may not appear in the Bible, the tenets are backed up by Scripture passage upon Scripture passage. The Trinity is most certainly in that category, founded upon verses from Genesis to Revelation. For brevity’s sake, I will quote just a few and am using the New King James Version.Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. A reading of Revelation 1:10-18 (especially vss. 10,11,17, and 18) plainly reveals that Jesus refers to Himself as the “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” Isaiah 45:21 the LORD refers to Himself as, “A just God and a Savior.” Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Additionally, 2 Peter 1:1 says, “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In Isaiah 45:23, God says of Himself, “That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath.” Phillipians 2:10 and 11 says, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Isaiah 46:6, speaking prophetically of Jesus, says, “Now this is His name by which He will be called: “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” In Exodus 3:14, God says that His name is ‘I AM.’ In John 8:58, Jesus refers to Himself as ‘I AM.’ In John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” Romans 10:13 states, ‘For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” See also Acts 4:10-12.
To JLFuller yes I’ve heard that stuff about Martin Luther being in some way ‘part of the restoration’ or ‘going with the limited light he had’ (my quotes not yours) but my specific question to you would be what EXACTLY did Martin Luther ever say or write that the LDS in general, or you in particular, would care to own ?? the comment has always seemed loose and ill defined to me, almost as if it were more PR than something you really mean. I’m not Lutheran, but I can’t (off the top of my head) think of too much that the two of you might agree on. THANKS
I want to add to my above post something that helps one see, as one reads carefully through the Bible, how many times God the Father and Jesus are referred to in the exact same way, According to a site called Bible Bell, translation of the names and titles of God in KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, and others was done as follows. LORD (notice all caps) = YHWH (the name of God, translated as Jehovah in the KJV, NKJV, and other translations, but some prefer YAHWEH). Lord is adonay (God’s title). GOD (notice all caps) is used for YAHWEH or Jehovah, because the translators did not want to write ‘Lord LORD’ when using God’s name and title together. God = Elohim (“mighty ones” – name used for God, for example, in Exodus 20:7). Hayah = I AM (the name by which God referred to Himself when speaking to Moses in Exodus 3:14 and the name by which Jesus referred to Himself in John 8:58, according to the Bible Bell site). So, when God refers to Himself as LORD in Isaiah 45:5 (“I am the LORD, and there is no other…”)and then Jesus is spoken of prophetically in Jeremiah 23:6 as, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, there is no way of getting around the fact that God the Father and Jesus are both being referred to as LORD (i.e., Jehovah or YAHWEH).
Also, by way of making logical connections, Romans 10:13 says, “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” Therefore, it is obvious when Acts 4:12 says, speaking of Jesus, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” that Jesus is LORD!
Please allow me to add one more beautiful Scripture passage – Colossians 2:8-10, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”
germit,
From what I recall, some Mormons claim that Luther “prepared the way” for the restoration of the true gospel. I.e. by rejecting catholicism, or aspects thereof in his 95 Theses he began the protestant reformation that culminated in the LDS view with the Mormon gospel. I’ve also heard the American Revolution and the First Ammendment to the US Constitution taught in Mormon circles in a similar vein. This of course in no way implies that anything Luther said supports the Mormon gospel other than to say the Catholic Church isn’t “true”. Simply, I think Mormons view the Protestant Reformation as God paving the way for the possiblity of Smith’s restoration. I have no idea if this is actual Mormon doctrine or if it (like so much else) is simply a faith promoting opinion that floats through the church.
Eric
eric017,
Although it is not official Church doctrine, Mormons do hold to the opinion that the historical events you cite did pave the way for the “restoration” of the Church. It was an opinion that I taught as a missionary for the Church, even though it has never been taught as official Church doctrine. I used it to reason with people, and part of that reasoning included the idea that there was no Spirit through the dark ages, and that the renaissance period also played a role in God’s plan to restore the gospel to the earth. It is only because of God’s relentless grace in my life that I no longer hold to these opinions. Hope this response helps as what you say at the end of your entry is the best way to view this issue.
Thank you jackg and eric, that helps: I guess giving the existing structure (roman catholicism) a good shake could be seen as a help to later LDS efforts, LDS authors don’t seem to explain this in any detail (Coke Newell comes to mind) hence my question. If any saints want to weigh in and add to the above, great. One irony that occurs to me is that the beliefs of upstate NY circa 1820 could NOT have been all that different than what Luther held to (with Lutheran priesthood being a possible exception). so how is that faith, the faith of the man who “helped” also “corrupt” and “an abomination” ?? Puzzling, at least to me
I had an unfortunately short dialogue today with my LDS carpool. I stated that I had been reading lately in multiple sources about the priesthood ban for blacks. After a few minutes I asked about the inerrancy of the prophets, because I haven’t read literature with the full unbiased analysis on it yet. This led to them asking if I had any prophets in mind; they suggested Brigham Young. I said yes along with a couple other old prophets and apostles.
I then learned something new from them, and for this debate I will summarize their comments as those of the LDS faithful (because it is reasonable for this instance). They separated out church doctrine from church policy given to the LDS faithful by prophetic revelation, and they stated both our potentially fallible (not just potentially errant).
I asked, half knowing the answer, how do you verify prophetic revelation? They responded that they need 2-3 witnesses (the Bible and the BoM count) to verify prophetic revelation. Then, it was stated the context had to be found. If contradicting statements could be found within Scripture and the prophets(but 2-3 witness were found), and we could not find any errors in the context (i.e. people spoken to, verse objective, time frame, culture, etc.), it is more than likely we are unable to interpret properly, and we today are wrong.
As the carpool stop had arrived, they quickly laid out Matthew 8:28 with its corresponding Gospel verses to state the Bible was not only errant but fallible because one story is right, the other wrong. If there was time or the Bible in hand, I would have suggested that both were right and must be right in order to be based Biblically. If the Bible were in error, then where does it end? Then, to close the conversation quickly, the LDS trump system was thrown out (new prophets over old, etc.) followed by, some of the prophets just said some crazy things.
I was shocked and am prepared to renew the conversation with my justification tomorrow for God.
Falcon,
Sorry I didn’t reply earlier but I didn’t see your comments until now.
Firstly, from my understanding Wesley said that he was looking for truth and that during the sermon he felt his heart strangely warmed and received an assurance that Jesus had saved him. Where does it say that he studied the scriptures and came to that conclusion? He subscribes his conversion, in your quotes, to that feeling. But basically my point about those two stories is just being a mirror. You say that we LDS are wrong to use a spiritual witness, but you allow someone like Spurgeon or Wesley to say they had a spiritual witness. So I am not letting you off with those remarks.
As far as the gift of tongues, I have had experience with this and so have quite a few others that I know. So according to your comments does this make the LDS church true? Also you have just pointed out a scripture that I didn’t know about showing the importance of baptism. Why would Peter want these people to be baptised by water if it was not necessary?
You say that we LDS use a powerful method of suggestion and cleverly designed presentation to sway peoples’ feelings to a positive about the BoM and declare that if they feel that way then it means its true. I have seen this happen in other churches like the Pentecostals, the Vapaa Kirkko (don’t know the English name but it’s a Finnish Church), Hillsong, TV evilangelists (which I know most of you do not agree with but I am including them anyway) and there are more. So the question that you and many have raised remains, how do we know who’s ‘feelings’/’spiritual witness’ are correct? It is a difficult question to answer but I have my answer and I am going to stick to it. I am a researcher by trade and I have done much research into the LDS church and there was a time I questioned everything, including my own belief in God. I never questioned God’s existence, just do I really believe in Him. I found my answers to my questions and here I am still LDS.
germit
Martin Luther began a process that brought about change. He essentially opened the door. He, and others, paid the price so that others could begin the work of reclaiming what the early church fathers corrupted. It is the process that is important here. Early reformers such as Tindale, Wycliffe and Calvin started the reform movement each adding somethng that culminated in Jospeh Smith and the restoration of the fullness of Christ’s original gospel.
A couple of folks have repeatedly asked about the 1979 proclamation making the priesthood available to all men. I suggest interested people go fairlds.com and read what LDS scholars have to say about it. I don’t know why God didn’t want black men to hold the priesthood and so far as I know, no one else does either. Many anti-Mormons think they do and quote things said by people living in different times as conclusive. But current Church leadership says otherwise. Interested people will find many opinions opinions by LDS members on the subject, but I don’t know.
Part Four
So much energy is put into defaming the Church that I find it confusing. Why would some people get so animated about something they claim is untrue? They can’t just make their statement. They have to go on and on about it. Some say it is because they “love” Mormons. What a bunch of malarkey! I understand why scholars do their research. They are interested in discovering the truth about things. To them, they are engaging in a process of discovery. They look honestly at all the available information on the subject and discriminate between the supported and unsupported, what they can prove and what they can’t. Then they present their findings to their colleagues for peer review. Their intent is to add to the body of knowledge in a dispassionate and conservative manner being careful to screed out the unsupported and unprofessional biases.
JLF, OK, so if all I said is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is false, what would you say? If I said it is heresy, and left it there, what would yu say?
You would say, naturally, I am wrong.
I would then provide at least one reason why it is wrong, and you would give at least one reason why it is right.
And we’ve entered the spin zone, so to speak.
To be honest, for me it is less a matter of loving Mormons than it is loving truth. Sure, I want Mormons to be saved, for you are people and face ane eternity of hell, something I do not want to happen to anyone. But I love to word of God more than I love the individual souls with whom I discuss. Preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth needs to be based out of this love for truth, and since I believe Mormons present a false doctrine, my love of truth requires I engage and correct. Ultimately, it is out of love, for Christ.
JLF,
It’s clear that you are parroting everything you ever heard on these subjects. I can say that because I used to parrot the exact same arguments. To say that JS was the culmination of the work the reformers started is ludicrous because JS work looks nothing like the reformation. Also, to suggest that Christ’s true gospel needed to be restored is saying that Christ taught polygamy, blood atonement, and that Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to do. Also, it should be a red flag for you that you even have to entertain an argument why God would not want the black man to hold the priesthood. I know the LDS Church teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, but such a doctrine about the priesthood clearly paints Him as one. You boldly tell us who are non-members to look honestly at all the available information and to discrminate between the supported and unsupported. Personally, I have done that. I wonder if you could do the same.
I find it incredible that you would suggest to know my heart. This is what you did when you said “malarkey” to the idea that we animatedly “defame” the Church out of love for Mormons. We don’t have to defame the Church; the leaders do it all on their own as they trump former leaders and shape the teachings of the Church to fit the attitude of the day. Have you ever considered that someone such as myself hoped that the Church would be true. When my son left for his mission, I wanted the Church to be true. I even began attending services and talking to the bishop. In the end, I had to admit again that the Church is not true. It does not teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible. The reformers worked from within the framework of the Bible; JS worked outside that framework. In fact, he should have said that the D&C was the most correct book on the face of the earth, because it contradicts and trumps even that which the BOM teaches.
Jackg said
Funny you should say that. J.F.S Said exactly that.
So JLF, How do you handle 2 of your prophets not agreeing?
Then JLF, You said Go to Fairlds, Please, If I quote JoD for example you say, THATS NOT OFFICAL CHURCH DOCTRINE. So you refuse to listen, yet you then in turn want me to go to people who CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE CHURCH in an “OFFICAL” MANOR and listen to them. I have almost 700 posts on the UNfair lds board, so I am familar with it.
Then maybe you can explain why LDS deny the JoD and refuse to listen to us quote from it, but then turn around and quote from it yourself,
or take Doctrine from it, Like King Follet Discouse.
I keep using this example because I never seem to get an honest answer, and if I did I honesly dont recall it.
Adam God, 2 Pages long, LDS claim it was written down wrong.
King Follet, 11 pages long, LDS take much of it as offical church Doctrine. And Please JLF Just tell me that is false, I would SSSSOOOOOO loved to provide evidence from your church showing that to be true, so if you want evidence then you better be able to give a good answer as to why your church is lying or why your wrong. Smiling now. Rick b
OK I know JLF is getting a lot of traffice but I swear (ooops) this is NOT intended as a JLF smack down of any kind JLF: would you please take a deep breath or two and then reread your brief post to me from earlier today; if I had the liberty to post back during work hours, you’d already have this. you wrote “Martin Luther began a process that brought about change…” “he opened the door ..” “he paid the price…” you seem like a well read and articulate spokesperson for your faith, so I’m going to insist that you give me something more than what sounds like Mishy-speak. I’m betting you are not a 19yr old missionary and I’m not a fat, bored, couch potato. Well, that fat part is accurate. I WANT THE BEEF< NOT THE FILLER, thank you. if you have some factual basis to what you posted: what process did Martin start, what door was that he opened, “paid the price???? what are you talking about I’m sure the process is indeed important, but bore me with a few facts as well…. I’m assuming that you have these facts, or at least know where they are hiding (and if they might be hiding at FAIRS or FARMS, please be specific in your citation, that would help me out)
I don’t quite understand your quizzical posture toward people getting “animated” about these matters of faith. Granted, “animated” should go hand in hand with charity (the Lords bondservant must be KIND to all, able to teach…..II Tim) but aren’t these really matters of eternal life and death ?? Look at RALPH’s posting for April 28th, which I heartily agreed with. If these matters of the gospel be true, then of course our emotions (yours and mine both) are going to get plugged in, hopefully our minds and souls as well. maybe I misunderstood your post, let me know what you think, and thanks for getting back to me.
AARON thanks for above post to Juvenille Instructor, I found it difficult to follow who believes what concerning the ban, hmmmm, maybe I have a lot of company with that cloud of blue haze (Hendrix metaphor unintentional) here are a couple of quotes I found interesting:
from smb: BYU rel ed is an institution idependent of other similar institutions, has its own rules, its own experts, its own paradigms of religion and knowledge (this reminds me of MAnY other institions, some relgious, some not, by the way)
on this issue(ban of the blacks from the priesthood) particularly it will be nice when they are able to make the transition from outmoded explanatory models to something a little closer to the scriptural witness.
again: the above from (I”M pretty certain) an LDS poster on Juvenille Instructor. “outmoded explanatory models….LOL yeah, that’s one way to say it…..