BYU professor Robert L. Millet spoke at Education Week in Provo, Utah on Tuesday (August 19, 2008). According to a report on the Deseret News blog Mormon Times, “false ideas” about the LDS Church held by non-members come from “dumb Mormons” who don’t really know what the Church teaches.
Though said in jest, Dr. Millet’s words must sting Latter-day Saints who are trying to do as LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard directed: to use the internet and other forms of new media to engage public discussions about the LDS Church. Mr. Ballard said,
“We cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches.”
Yet, according to Dr. Millet, Church members are ill equipped to explain what the Church teaches. Mormon Times reported:
Church general authorities find the situation frustrating as well. Millet told how, after a question and answer session with non-Mormons, an apostle told him, ‘We have a lot of work to do.’
“That work is to help those who are not LDS to understand its doctrine. It also includes getting members of the LDS Church to know the doctrine. ‘We’ve got to get on the same page,’ Millet said.”
Getting on the same page sounds like a great idea, but I don’t know why there would be any optimism about actually accomplishing that goal. Throughout the history of Mormonism, even the leaders of the LDS Church have been unable to “get on the same page” doctrinally.
For example, in his Education Week lecture Dr. Millet told of an LDS apostle who was asked if Mormons believe they will become gods and “be in charge of universes and planets”:
“According to Millet, the apostle said he didn’t know anything about that planetary stuff, but that the point was for us to strive to become more like God and more like Christ. The apostle quoted several scriptures that indicated the possibility of becoming more like God, including 2 Pet. 1:4 which speaks of partaking of the divine nature. Details of the post mortal condition are sketchy, the apostle said according to Millet, but looking forward to living forever with his family, ‘That’s godhood as I understand it.'”
A student manual produced by the LDS Church for its Church Educational System provides the details of which this apostle seemed to be unaware:
“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 132, 1976)
Some LDS leaders can’t even stay on the same page with their own teachings. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provides an example of this. In his book The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, Mr. McConkie wrote:
“Salvation is free. Justification is free. Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned.” (page 346)
In another book, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Mr. McConkie wrote,
“‘Salvation is free’ (2 Ne. 2:4), but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” (volume 3, page 426)
Dr. Millet himself has not always been on the same page as LDS leaders. In Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical, Dr. Millet explained that Christ’s Atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane, and was finished on the Cross:
“We believe that what began in Gethsemane was completed on the cross, and that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross are a vital part of His overall atoning mission.”(page 84)
This teaching is at variance with LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie who wrote:
“And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily into the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained yet the shame and the pain of his arrest, his trials, and his cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies and sufferings in Gethsemane. It was on the cross that he ‘suffered death in the flesh,’ even as many have suffered agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that ‘he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him’” (The Mortal Messiah, pages 127-128).
It seems unreasonable and unfair of Dr. Millet to chastise “dumb Mormons” for not having a firm understanding of LDS Church doctrine when those responsible for formulating and explaining that doctrine apparently don’t understand it either.
Germit,
Can’t agree more about the miraculous nature of the Bible. I think Elder Ballard summarized it well in May 07 Conference.
“It is a miracle that we have the Bible’s powerful doctrine, principles, poetry, and stories. But most of all, it is a wonderful miracle that we have the account of the life, ministry, and words of Jesus, which was protected through the Dark Ages and through the conflicts of countless generations so that we may have it today.
It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men’s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.”
Elder Holland followed in this last conference with a talk “My Words Never Cease”. I highly recommend taking a look at it. I don’t believe it is a conflict to believe that just because God has miraculously preserved the Bible that He would not provide additional witnesses. Holland does a great job describing that.
As a side note. Just had a meeting with a bunch of 17-19 yr. old youth. If the Jesus’ atonement is not making this generation (via gospel covenants) into a royal priesthood then I cannot imagine what might be. Being “perfected in Christ” is what comes to mind, despite how wretched Sido and Rickb feel the human race might be. Onward “youth of the noble birthright, carry on!”
Cluff, seriously. Smith was a “chaste” man? I would be happy to back up my dogmatic assertion in contrast to your inability to do so regarding the Biblical “commandment” for men to be polygamous. The numbers range from 27 to 80 women that he married while he was still alive. That is just a touch different from nuns taking a vow of celibacy.
“I don’t care about women who claimed to be “sealed” to JS. I want evidence of sex. I need evidence of marriage on earth, not temple sealings.”
I am afraid I cannot produce a Monica Lewinski-esque dress, but lets look at the documentation instead.
There is an article from MRM who sponsors this blog that deals with this issue.
http://www.mrm.org/topics/joseph-smith/joseph-smith-and-polygamy
There are multiple references from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry that back these claims up.
The book “In Sacred Loneliness” details all of the sad stories of Smith’s wives, that a bunch of them were teens and a bunch were already married when he decided to marry them. I am sure that in marrying a bunch of teenaged girls and women who already had husbands, he was just doing it out of the kindness of his own heart.
I guess there are people who still think that Bill Clinton was set up and has never cheated on Hillary. The ability of people to delude themselves never ceases to amaze me, especially since I was doing it too back when I was a mormon (“pre-fo-mo”). You refuse to investigate for yourself or even consider the facts, but I hope those current mormons who are lurking and just reading these exchanges see how spiritually and intellectually bankrupt these arguments are and investigate the true story of mormonism for themselves.
DoF,
“As a side note. Just had a meeting with a bunch of 17-19 yr. old youth. If the Jesus’ atonement is not making this generation (via gospel covenants) into a royal priesthood then I cannot imagine what might be. Being “perfected in Christ” is what comes to mind, despite how wretched Sido and Rickb feel the human race might be. Onward “youth of the noble birthright, carry on!””
Guess what, those noble youth are sinners just like you and I. The Bible is abundantly clear that we are utterly sinful, which mormons reject to their eternal peril because if I am a basically decent person I can save myself with a little help from Jesus.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Rom 5:12)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. (Gen 8:21)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psa 51:5)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6)
Get those young people back together and tell them to stop relying on their good works, repent of their sins and place their faith entirely in Christ!
cluff said
Let me remind you of something here, A topic was done showing NINE DIFFERENT FIRST VISIONS
Which first vision do we trust, which first vision did JS recive the “Priesthood” so as to see god and live?
If their was nine, spanning years, how can we trust JS to be true. Along with the No temple being built yet, another failed prophecy so far is the White horse prophecy. Seems Mitt could have made it come true, but failed and failed again when he was not chosen to even be the Vice pres pick. Track recored for your prophet stinks. Rick b
RickB,
Thanks for putting something up there that might get one of those men to talk about the “first” vision. I am trying to get an answer on what constituted their claim of an apostacy. There has been text typed in that refutes that claim, and it was even text from their doctrines. I totally agree that the evidences that have been laid out does not help the cause for the claims that they stand on. I would just simply like someone to bring to light why the “restoration” was even put in place. To say that it was because of the Nicene Creed seems to be making a mountian out of a molehill. They say that it is tough to swallow, but Joseph Smith taught the Trinity when this all started. Seems to me that God would have had the “restoration” pretty well laid out for someone who was “chosen” to bring this to light. Let alone give the man correct geography, language, and ancestry, besides what the book “View of the Hebrews” shows us. W/LOVE
Sido,
Perhaps the people that you interact with are that evil, but these youth are not. Do they commit sin? Of course. However, I see a fundamental difference: They actually believe the Savior when He tells them what He can make of them. I don’t believe your interpretation of the scriptures allows the Savior to do anything with you but leave you in your evil/sinful state.
Let me ask these questions:
1) Can anybody be righteous? holy? pure? good?
2) Can anybody do any good or good works?
3) Can anyone please God?
One problem I see with this insistence on the “filthy rags” concept. It does not allow the Savior to make you what He wants. To me it is the antithesis of faith. And what is Sido’s final accusation? Put their Faith in Christ. You can put your faith in Christ and deny his power to make you holy, pure, without spot. But these youth are putting their faith in Christ by being righteous, doing good works, pleasing God. That is real Faith.
By the way, and I tire of repeating this: We do not rely on our good works for anything pertaining to salvation. Please quit insisting that this is our doctrine, that somehow we believe in our own works separated from the Savior.
2 Nephi 2:3
“Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THY REDEEMER; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.”
DOF,
Just thought I might pipe in a little. We are covered in filthy rags, that is what sin does to our appearance. What covers it up is the blood of Christ. You say that those youth have their “faith” in check. That may be true to some extent, but where does it go when their requirements don’t keep up with the ones that they are to live up to. That puts their “faith” into trying to do them. That is not of Christ, that is of man. That puts the chasm(doubt) inbetween them and what is of expected of them by your authorities. The greatest misconception that those young men have, is that they have something else to do before they can be as great as you. One thing that they do have on you is that they have this information age, which is probably more expansive than in your time, which when that doubt comes into play, alows them to use it to find that answer they are looking for. When that double speak starts to fly, they will seek the Truth. There is nothing to stop them, other than the fear that has been instilled in them. I pray that they are given the strenth to seek it out and use what God has given them to find that answer. You also my friend. W/LOVE
DoF,
“Let me ask these questions:
1) Can anybody be righteous? holy? pure? good?
2) Can anybody do any good or good works?
3) Can anyone please God?”
No, no, and no.
Outside of Christ, the unregenerate person is both completely incapable and completely unwilling to do anything pleasing to God or inherently righteous. Did you read those Scriptures. What part of “dead” in tresspasses and sins is unclear. Dead men don’t please God, thus the need to be born again which is a concept completely foreign in mormonism.
“One problem I see with this insistence on the “filthy rags” concept. ”
Sorry, you will have to talk to Isaiah about that. His words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not mine. It seems what you really have a problem with is not me, but with the Bible.
“You can put your faith in Christ and deny his power to make you holy, pure, without spot.”
Where am I denying that? In fact that is exactly what Christ does, but what you are missing is that it is what CHRIST does, not what we do. A sinner doesn’t stop becoming a sinner when they become a Christian, but that sin is no longer counted against them because of the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to them by faith through grace. Those youth can put on a dandy show of being good kids, but that will avail them nothing. We have been over and over this, but you have the order backwards. You don’t make yourself righteous to be made right with God, God reconciles Christians to Himself and in response they become more righteous. But it is never our righteousness that saves us because it is never perfect. If we could attain perfection, there would be no need for the cross.
Arthur:
I can’t see how JS’s behavior was any different than that of Brigham Young, or the prophet Abraham, or that of my great grandfathers for that matter. He was “in the closet” with his practice, but it is possible that God commanded him. If any one of them can be considered chaste, then JS can be.
You must remember that I accept the BoM as scripture and the BoM DOES use the word COMMAND with respect to polgamy. (Jacob 2:30)
If I can accept the practice by my ancestors, then I can easily accept it from JS. I will continue to thank God that I am not required to practice polgamy.
If the prophet Abraham could have 4 wives and still be considered a prophet by Christ, and still have angels appear to him, then JS can do the same. God is the same from century to century, it is people who change. It seems obvious that it was the Greek culture that rejected polgamy, not God.
My opinion on the subject remains the same:
We “shall not kill” except in times of war when god commands us to defend our freedoms. In a like manner we “shall not practice polygamy” except in times of few men when god commands us to defend the rights of women to be married and have children.
It has never been about lust, but has always been about righteous posterity, and the rights of single women to have family.
The FLDS have corrupted the practice for 2 reasons:
1. God commanded that the practice cease.
2. The Church no longer has more women than men.
RickB:
Do you believe the prophet Jonah was a true prophet?
Johah 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD…
4 And Jonah … cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
If you apply the same logic to Jonah that you apply to JS, then you have to reject him as a prophet.
The city of Nineveh was NEVER overthrown.
Now that we know that Jonah was not a prophet, should we reject the Bible as a true book of scripture? To be consistent, RickB will need to say yes. To say no would be a double standard. Agreed?
Some prophecy, even in the Bible is CONDITIONAL. The city of Ninevah repented, the overthrow of the city stopped.
In Jackson county, the saints got too vocal, and the state of Mo issued an extermination order.
Just as unlikely as the city of Ninevah repenting?
Cluff…was that a serious post or a joke? I can’t make myself believe that you REALLY think those two situations are parallel.
If you were serious then why would Jesus have given a prophecy to Joseph that HE KNEW would never come to pass? Jonah didn’t know the people would repent but God did or He wouldn’t have sent him.
I suppose that’s the difference between the God of Scripture and the LDS gods…how can you worship a deity who doesn’t know any more than you do?
I did have one zealous young mishy lie to me on the phone about this…he said they did build the temple but it got torn down when Missouri gave them the boot.
Just seems to me for being a “restoration” that Joseph created way more questions than he ever answered. I guess to hedge my bets I could become a freemason and at least I would know the words and grips to get into the CK (ha!).
SIDO,
You say No, no and no. But start the next sentence with”Outside of Christ”. Mormon doctrine is that all of these things are possible WITH Christ.
Dead without Christ. That is LDS doctrine. That is what you are advocating. I am simply here to say that you are attributing a doctrine (works alone) that we have never believed.
I find your comment on “born again” foreign to Mormonism completely ignorant. Mosiah 3 should suffice. As long as you make these erroneous post, I will have to place the facts in the hands of the independent observer.
LDS doctrine:
Through Christ all things are possible, especially the following:
Can we please God? Yes Heb 11:6 (with Faith)
Can we be Holy? Yes Heb 3:1, 1 Pet 2:5,9; 2 Pet 3:2; 1 Pet 1:15-16
Can we be pure? A resounding Yes
Titus 1: 15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Sound familiar?)
1 Jn. 3: 3
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
Can we be righteous? Yes
1 Jn. 3: 7
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. (Strong language, wouldn’t you agree Sido?)
Sido: “what you are missing is that it is what CHRIST does, not what we do.” I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I quote scriptures, GA’s, etc. and still the accusation flies. Also, if this is true, then your answer should really be YES, YES, YES, but WITH CHRIST. Would you like to revise your answer?
Titanic,
Do you think that Jonah just made up the 40 day thing? Why not 10 days or 60 days. Would seem rather odd to place a demand and time restraint on God unless Jonah was completely sure of it (ie God said it)
4 givn:
4 give me but I don’t understand this
“but where does it go when their requirements don’t keep up with the ones that they are to live up to. That puts their “faith” into trying to do them.”
Maybe you could be more specific.
Also, “We are covered in filthy rags, that is what sin does to our appearance. What covers it up is the blood of Christ” Well said. But is that it. Cover us up, the score is even. This life is intended to be so much more. For sake of position I will quote a Christian favorite and stay away from my own canon.
“The command BE YE PERFECT is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly…The process will be long and painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.” Mere Christianity p176
Quit different than “cover our sins” concept.
Defender…I’m not saying God didn’t give Jonah the message. I’m saying the Assyrians were enemies of the Jews…he was only too happy to tell them they were about to be destroyed. He had no idea (or desire) for the people to actually repent!
But my issue is way bigger than Jonah’s fish. My issue with Cluff is how Jesus could “revelate” to Joseph that he would build a temple in Independence if He knew it would never come to pass!! One of the two of them is bearing false witness…my money is on the farm boy with a penchant for tall tales…Blessings!!
Cluff, Do you or any LDS who quote from Jonah read all of the book or even understand it? You guys are wicked in heart to say God is false for sparing the people. I bet you do not even know why Jonah tried running away.
Read this
Jonah knew even before he left God would spare them, Jonah wanted them dead so He ran away.
Then this is what God said to Jonah,
Read all of chapter 4 for full context. Jonah had remorse for a mere gourd that he had no control over, but wanted Nineveh destroyed, even though it was filled with babies and little children.
rick b
Defender,
I am sorry about that. Let me try it this way. The youth you spoke of will face a time, if that is not present now, that they will see double speak in the doctrines that you hold dear. That will raise contravercy in what they were taught to start with. They will question what the “works”(temple rights,bapt.ofdead,etc.) have anything to do with their salvation. When that happens they will either seek it out for themselves, or they will be scared by the threats, or warnings instilled by the authorities.
As to quoting C.S. Lewis, that is fine, but I don’t think that his word is Gospel. The fact is, Christs’ blood is the only thing that “covers” up our sins. That doesn’t mean that we use his name for making a religion to fit into what “feels” right. There are many “spirits” that are of influence on our hearts. We are to test them, not only by what we feel, but also with our minds. If we are to test the words of Smith, we may have feel something good in it, for most of it is copied from others. Then when we apply the use of our knowledge to it, we find that some are merely just made up stories that have some Biblical “context” mixed in. Remember, that Joseph has claimed to have put himself as the Judge. That is something that I hope that you don’t take as Gospel. When you meet the Judge, I hope that you don’t ask, “But, where is Joseph?” W/LOVE
We started off this blog with Mormons not knowing their doctrine…now in the end I am being charged with “doublespeak”. Good to hear from you 4givn.
I assume the traditional definition implies that I know the “real truth” but somehow misleading others by carefully worded language. I assure you this is not the case. So these youth will never have to face that problem. Perhaps, in the end, they may feel that I am delusional or deceived. But they will never doubt the sincerity of my belief.
Lewis’ words are not gospel? I thought he was the Christian “poster child”. But that begs the ?. Who can I look to as an authoritative voice for Christianity? The Pope, Jeramiah Wright, Jerry Fallwell, the local minister? I don’t mean to be fascicious, but I have asked this before with no response. Surely someone has to have some authoritative voice. If everyone is going to say the Bible means different things, who is right?
I agree about Christs’ blood.
I think we have hashed through the feeling/spirits discussion before. I know I have had revelation and it is more that a feeling. Could it be a false Spirit, I suppose. But I have thoroughly tested Smith.
The copy thing is interesting. I find it amazing that JS is accussed of so many extremes. He copied it, he made it up, he got it from Satan, he was a very cunning intellect, etc. Copied may explain some things (portions of the BoM), but there is so much more. I cannot accept this. He made it up. I cannot buy it. Too complex (BoM) alone. If someone can produce a better version, I may consider. From Satan? I suppose this could be it, but that doesn’t “feel” right. I have seen the fruits.
Judge? I don’t know what you are referring to. I will remind you that the 12 apostles will be “judges”. Matt 19:28. Is that gospel to you? That doesn’t, in any way, negate the ultimate Judge. If JS is really an apostle it would be reasonable that he would also be designated a judge of this dispensation.
DoF,
“Sido: “what you are missing is that it is what CHRIST does, not what we do.” I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I quote scriptures, GA’s, etc. and still the accusation flies. Also, if this is true, then your answer should really be YES, YES, YES, but WITH CHRIST. Would you like to revise your answer?”
No I wouldn’t because you and these kids are worshipping a false Christ and following a false prophet. You quote scripture, good for you but you only believe the Bible when it can be twisted to serve mormon doctrines(AF #8). Demons and atheists alike can quote scipture, but He is not their Lord. What you are relying on is your own righteousness. To achieve exaltation, you have to go through the temple. To go through the temple you have to get a temple recommend. During the interview process the questions revolve around your worthiness. No recommend=no temple=no secret handshakes=no exaltation. Drinking a cup of coffee can mean you are not worthy to go into the temple and thus for a cup of coffee you miss out on exaltation. But as a consolation prize, you get a heaven that is just mediocre. Yet you still claim that you are saved by faith? Mormonism is a rewards hierarchy, universalistic faith, except of course for murderers and fo-mo’s. Christianity is a faith based on grace, there are none worthy of heaven, none deserving of salvation but Christ nonetheless died that some may live.
You look at these kids and say “see how good they are”, but when God sees them He sees sinners rebelling against Him and enemies of Him. When they stand before Christ, He won’t care how much scripture they can regurgitate or their testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet. They are either His or they are not, and that determination has nothing to do with the works of man. The Christ that you worship and the Gospel you teach these kids has no power to save anyone. These kids have placed their faith in their feelings, not in Christ.
Cluff,
“It has never been about lust, but has always been about righteous posterity, and the rights of single women to have family.
The FLDS have corrupted the practice for 2 reasons:
1. God commanded that the practice cease.
2. The Church no longer has more women than men.”
What about the women who were already married? Why did Smith take them as his wives? I would hazard a guess that if you look at the stats of the time, there was not the disproportionate male-female ratio that mormons always quote to defend polygamy. Do you really think that Smith was marrying other men’s wives and girls as young as thirteen just so they could have a family? I would bet that given a few years, a 13 year old could find herself a good mormon hubbie. Without being too crass, Smith found out that be being a “prophet” of a people who had their entire lives invested in his claims, he could use that office to pick up extra women.
When Abraham took another wife, he did so in direct disobedience to God because he lacked faith in God’s promise to provide a son. He eventually cast out Hagar and Ishmael. When David took Baathsheba, it was a sin against God. Read Psalm 51 where David repents of that sin, and begs God to restore him. Where is Smith or Young asking for forgiveness for their sin? Smith was “in the closet” with his practice because he knew it would cause a stink when it got out, which it did. I would be more forgiving of his indiscretion if he admitted his sin and repented of it. Instead he made up a “revelation” to cover his sin. This is where believing the story instead of knowing doctrine comes in. If you read the Bible and look at polygamy in the Bible, you will see that the Bible describes and condemns polygamy.
In fact polygamy negates the entire mormon priesthood, because mormon men trace their lineage back to Smith and yet he and Young were unworthy Biblically to be elders based on 1 Tim 3:2. Turn in your vial of olive oil!
Sido (and hopefully silent bystanders)
I made a post earlier about how the LDS can never win an argument here. Sido’s last post exhibits that plainly.
I asked some fairly straight forward ?’s to which he replied. Then I plainly exhibit with a “few” NT scriptures (sticking to a level playing field, although it killed me to leave out the restoration scriptures) that his position is completely erroneous. And what do I get in return? Same old false Christ, false prophet, etc. Accusations only? What about those scriptures? Can you explain them? Why should I listen to Sido if he preaches something contrary to his own Bible and then refuses to explain his position in relation to those verses. Instead, he cont. to “educate” us about what we believe.
Temple necessary? Yes. No coffee? Yes. Why? Because the Lord said so. That is enough for me. That is real faith. We can argue if that was really a commandment, but if it is then the discussion is over.
When God looks at these kids:
If they have Faith He is pleased with them
Heb 11.
He sees them as righteous if they are righteous
1 John 3:7.
He sees them as pure if they are purifying themselves 1 John 3:3.
How do they do it? By their Faith in Jesus Christ.
This is NT doctrine! I don’t see how it can be any more clear. I must be missing some context or something?
Much different gospel than Sido is preaching. I am still awaiting an explaination.
DoF said
Dude if you were more full of BS you would explode.
At the very least I have answered this question and I know others have as well.
It’s like this, LDS claim we Christians cannot agree so that means the Bible must be false since they cannot trust us. What about the LDS, FLDS, RLDS and all the other mormon offshoot groups who all hold JS to be a Prophet, but after that point they cannot agree. All these groups claim, We prayed and were told were correct.
So if you and the FLDS dont agree and you believe each group is wrong, but you believe you prayed and were spoken to by God as being correct, then who is really correct and who can I trust since even you guys cannot agree?
Then as I have said before, We christains all agree on the main Points, Jesus died for us, Grace alone, Virgin Birth Etc. it’s just we do not agree
on minor points, like Calvinsm, Women pastors, which view of the rapture is correct Etc.
Also I believe that even these minor points are fully resolved in Scripture, it is more a matter of people dont like what God said, so they claim it is false.
Example, women Pastors, I believe Scripture is clear, women are not meant to be pastors, but women who want to be pastors simply dont care what God said, so they ignore solid scripture. As a result they are still saved, but will answer to God himself someday. Rick b
I liked Arthurs comments regarding polygamy, I hope it gives our Mormon friends something to think about. Cluff mentioned one reason polygamy is no longer necessary by saying “The Church no longer has more women than men.” It depends on what version of history we choose to look at regarding this false justification for polygamy: “The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Mormon Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Mormon Church. The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, pages 390-391)
DoF, It sounds like in addition to faith in the Christ of Mormonism, you are also placing your faith in your obedience and adherence to the Mormon law, as you said, “Temple necessary? Yes. No coffee? Yes.”
I don’t think anyone here is looking to “win an argument”, just point Mormons to the truth of Jesus Christ.
jer1414:
I was curious about the 1880 census, so I looked up my polygmous ancestors. I found only one household and only one wife listed, with no record of the rest of the family. That makes me question the earlier census records.
I would be more interested in the male/female ratio in Nauvoo, before polygamy was practiced more widely.
Generally even today the Church tends to baptise more women than men. I doubt that was any different 150 years ago.
Arthur said:
“In fact polygamy negates the entire mormon priesthood, because mormon men trace their lineage back to Smith and yet he and Young were unworthy Biblically to be elders based on 1 Tim 3:2. Turn in your vial of olive oil!”
Try:
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
It seems that Abraham’s polgamy did not negate his priesthood. In fact, his grandson Levi and his descendents were the ONLY one who held the priesthood for how many generations?
Any limitations you place on JS or Brigham Young for polgamy will need to be cross references in the Bible for limitations on Abraham and Jacob for the same practice.
That is unless you insist on applying a double standard on a God who does not change.
Let see how well you standard for priesthood applies to Abraham and Levi:
Arthur said:
“In fact polygamy negates the entire Levitical priesthood, because Levi must trace his lineage back to Jacob and yet he and Abraham were unworthy Biblically to be elders based on 1 Tim 3:2. Turn in Levi’s vial of olive oil!”
Ah Cluff my friend, you are being too clever by half. The eldership spoken of in 1 Tim is NOT the levitical priesthood, because that priesthood has been done away with. The levites served in the temple to administer the temple sacrifice, and with the perfect and complete sacrifice of Christ there is no need for continued sacrifice and no need for the levitcal priesthood. The office of elder in the Christian church is not equivalent to the levitical priesthood, as we have but ONE High Priest (not every really old mormon guy) in Jesus Christ, who both mediates the New Covenant and Himself provided the propotiation for our sins.
Mormonism makes such a confusion over the priesthood and the temple. Again, following the story. See the Bible mentions Aaron and the Levites, and Melchizidek, and so do we so it is Biblical. In fact it is not because a) the mormon priesthood functions nothing like the OT priesthood and b) Christ is our only high priest. Same with the temple, there is a temple in the OT so we need a temple now, even though the temple is made obsolete by the cross and the mormon temple also functions nothing like the OT temple. Again we get back to the buying into the story instead of digging into the doctrine. Baptism for the dead, polygamy, the temple, the pristhood, on and on it goes with reading mormonism into the Bible where it doesn’t fit.
I did a brief post on this mistake of description versus prescription on my blog, with permission I will post the link here:
http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2008/09/prescription-versus-description.html
DoF, this is my third post of the day, I will get back to you tomorrow but the Bible is clear that we can do nothing to earn God’s favor.
Arthur:
Priesthood is priesthood, what disqualifies for Levitical will disqualify for the higher priesthood most certianly.
Moses held the higher priesthood, and IT was given him via Abraham and Jacob.
Lets see how that one reads:
Arthur said:
“In fact polygamy negates the priesthood Moses held, because Moses must trace his lineage back to Jacob and yet he and Abraham were unworthy Biblically to be elders based on 1 Tim 3:2. Turn in his vial of olive oil, and rewrite the rest of the Old Testement”
Lets see if your back pedaling can dig you out of that hole.
Not all high priests in the Mormon church are old, I was ordained to that office at age 30. I took it as license to sleep through church anyway.
RickB,
BS? That’s your Christian response? I can feel the love. Nice attitude.
RickB quote: “LDS claim we Christians cannot agree so that means the Bible must be false since they cannot trust us.”
Why are you shifting the discussion completely away from the original post? I have never said or hinted that the Bible is false. Where does that come from?
I am venting my frustration. Why? The accusations fly. So how am I to respond.
1) I quote my modern scriptures, authorities. No good. You don’t believe they are called of God. OK, so I shift to plan B.
2) Christian authorities. Lewis seemed good to me. To no avail, his words are not gospel.
OK. Stick to the Scriptures (the Bible), I can hear the screaming. I am reluctant, but oblige.
3) I cite the scripture to show Sido that he, in fact, should believe in being pure, or being righteous. It is no use. His response is I am worshiping a false Christ, with no response to the scriptures cited. If and when he does, I’m sure he will enlighten me about the context or something.
How is that BS? I said nothing about the Bible being false. I trust the Bible, I just don’t trust your interpretation of it.
Back to topic: I was just curious if there was someone in the Christian world, with some clout. Since you all agree on the “major” stuff and since Lewis is a favorite among this crowd, I decided to pick one of his. I quote Lewis to show that he does not agree with you on the “minor point” that the whole Christian gospel points to Godhood. Is that a minor point? If you all agree on the “major points”, I was just wondering if you consider this a “minor” one.
Sido,
EARN favor? Is that what we believe? We don’t preach EARNING anything. But PLEASING God is possible. Being righteous/pure is possible. You said NO, NO, NO. But the NT says YES, YES, YES.
Maybe (I am willing to admit) I don’t know my own doctrine and this thread may validate that. Please enlighten me.
Defender…as an Anglican by membership I will go to bat for this one. The concept Lewis was alluding to is known in Eastern Orthodox theology as “theosis.” Not all Christians, naturally, agree on this concept although Peter does mention being “partakers in the divine nature” in his epistle. Even when context is agreed on interpretations can vary. Surely Mormons encounter this also.
However, that being said, theosis is a far cry from the Mormon concept of eternal progression.
The Orthodox wikipedia article stresses this by adding “Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis – it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.”
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
Cluff, What hole are you talking about? Again you are answering a statement that wasn’t made and ignoring the one that was. OT priesthood does not equal new testament eldership. You are confusing yourself because you are using the same names but you mean something completely different from what the Bible is talking about. Being an elder is not a priesthood office because the OT priesthood no longer exists. The need for a priesthood is gone (He is our High Priest and mediator, prophet, priest and king and we need no earthly, sinful men to ask as priests on our behalf when we have Christ) and the mormon priesthood is completely different from the Old Testament priesthood. That should be pretty obvious, especially for someone with 9 extra credits in religion from BYU.
“Moses held the higher priesthood, and IT was given him via Abraham and Jacob.” Can you show me in the Bible where Moses recieved the higher priesthood from Abraham or Jacob, who were long dead by the time of Moses? Maybe a ghost came and gave it to him? Or even where we see Abraham or Moses holding the Melchizedek priesthood? There is no linkage at all between Melchizedek, the king of Salem and Moses. Melchizedek was a forerunner, a picture of Christ to come who would do away with the imperfect and continual sacrificial system. He shows up all of twice in the OT, because his importance is not inherent but in who he was poiting to, i.e. Christ. Moses was also a picture of the Christ to come, leading His people out of bondage (Egypt vs. sin) and into the promised land.
You are correct though, based on 1 Tim 3:2, Abraham despite His faith would not be eligible to be an elder in a New Covenant administration church. Being an elder is a weighty thing and comes with high standards which is why Christians don’t make 18 year olds “elders” for the most part. Good thing our Sovereign God, in His wisdom, placed Abraham His servant in the Old Testament.
Time to move on, folks. Thanks for the lively conversation on this thread!