After reading some of the Google news alerts that came across my desk in the past couple of weeks I was left pondering several questions. For instance…
On August 27th this headline appeared: “Huckabee Denies Mormon Slur.” The story was actually a transcript from a Rush Limbaugh radio interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. At issue was the comment Mr. Huckabee made during his campaign when, responding to a reporter’s question, he asked, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Mr. Huckabee explained to Mr. Limbaugh,
“It was a question that I actually asked of the New York Times Magazine writer, because he knew a lot more about Mormonism than I did. It appeared as 11 words in about a 10,000-word story, and that got all the play.”
The question I ponder from this story is this: Since Mormonism teaches (and hence Mormons believe) that Jesus and the devil (Lucifer) are brothers, why was Mr. Huckabee’s comment labeled a “slur”? Would it have been a slur if Mr. Huckabee had said, “Mormons believe in baptism for the dead, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe God appeared to a farm boy in upstate New York, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, don’t they?”
On September 3rd the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story titled, “Utah Democrats back off religion-based attack on Palin.” The article reported,
“The Utah Democratic Party charged this week that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a ‘devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination’ and questioned whether LDS faithful should vote for her.”
As it turned out, the charge against Mrs. Palin by the Utah Democratic Party had no basis in fact:
“Palin is not a member of the church the Democrats are referencing, that church denies it is anti-Mormon and there’s no evidence of any anti-Mormon rhetoric from its pulpit.”
The Democratic Party has backed off and now says they have no plans to make Mrs. Palin’s religion an issue in the election. But one question I have been asking myself since reading this article is this: If it is bigotry to not vote for a Mormon because of his religion, isn’t it also bigotry to not vote for a non-Mormon because of her religion?
Someone who appears to be LDS (identified as ne1410s) left a comment about the Salt Lake Tribune story that included this:
The Utah Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of. Stan Lockhart’s phony righteous indignation doesn’t change the fact that the Assemblies of God [the denomination in question] are indeed anti-mormon. This is from their official web site:
http://www.ag.org/Pentecostal-Evangel/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm
The link provided by ne1410s does indeed go to the Assemblies of God web site, to an article which appeared in its denominational magazine Pentecostal Evangel in 2002. Written by former Mormon Jim Spencer, the article, titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” begins,
“Notice that the title of this article is not ‘Are Mormons Christians?’ That is a somewhat different question. No one can see into the human heart but God. No one but God is qualified to judge hearts. But, does Mormonism teach a consistent biblical doctrine — a Christian doctrine? That is an important question because we can judge the teachings of an organization. And we must do so if we are to faithfully discharge our responsibilities as Christ’s disciples.”
What follows in Mr. Spencer’s article is a look at several key doctrines (i.e., the nature of God, priesthood, grace, scripture, etc.) and how the LDS understanding of these doctrines differs from that of historic (biblical) Christianity.
My question: If it is “anti-Mormon” for a non-LDS organization to delineate some major differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity, is it also anti-Mormon when the LDS Church does the same? Or, if it has to do with the perspective of the author, should the LDS explanation of how Mormonism differs from other religions be deemed anti-evangelical? Or anti-non-Mormon? Based on the distinctions listed and explained on the LDS web site, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints an anti-[fill-in-the-blank] denomination?
On September 4th the East Valley Tribune (Arizona) ran “Group uses billboards to reach out to ex-Mormons,” a story about PostMormon.org. The article described a recent billboard ad sponsored by the group:
“It features a generic smiling family of eight, a Post-It note that reads ‘You are not alone!’ and the Web site address: www.PostMormon.org.
The article went on to interview and record the stories of former Mormons and the feelings of loneliness they experienced after leaving the LDS Church. The article quoted an LDS spokesman in Arizona:
“I think it is another instance of people who have decided to leave the church. Generally, what we find is that oftentimes people who leave the church don’t leave quietly. [They sometimes] leave bitterly and want to make some sort of a statement.”
One Mormon (lmoll4) commented:
“Whether or not you believe what the church represents you should out of respect for other people who do believe, just leave it alone. Because you have left the church I am not going to attack you so I would hope that you would do the same. In this country we have freedo[m] of religion. Please be respectful of that.
This story raises yet more questions in my mind. If it is true that those who leave Mormonism and talk about it, that those who make statements about it are bitter and disrespectful, is it true that people who talk about having left another religion for Mormonism are also bitter and disrespectful? Are people who talk about their spiritual journeys into Mormonism attacking those who have not made the same journey? Are they infringing on the Constitutional rights of others to freely practice their own religions?
Just wondering…
Friends, as you engage in discussion please be aware of the Mormon Coffee profanity filter that removes the Mormon N-word from comments.
(quoting Robyn) You all are coming from a background that is based on misunderstandings about our religion. Really? We are? Those of us who were Mormon and even held callings (wasn’t Arthur a bishop? Please, monsieur, correct me if I’m wrong) -we are coming from a background of misunderstandings about Mormonism? Please enlighten me on that one. (not being sarcastic here, btw)
Obviously the Mormon church is based on the story of a revelation to a boy of 14 who prayed to know which church to join. Was he 14? Or was he 15? 16? Depends on which version of the First Vision you read. We all know he was told to join none of the churches that existed. Then why did he later (1828) join the Methodist church??
If you were right, Mormonism would have died off long ago. If you are right, why hasn’t Christianity died off? Or Islam, or Buddhism for that matter? Mormonism hasn’t died off because God allows us to choose our choices and the power of the devil in this world is strong.
When I think back to my memories as a Mormon, I recall feelings of encapsulation, sort of like being in a bubble, or a padded room if you will. 🙂 I don’t remember if it was specifically taught or just a common knowledge, but the feeling was that NO ONE outside of Mormonism REALLY knew what it was all about. People who haven’t been taught the (restored) Gospel were just speculating and getting their information from rumors and suppositions. Nobody who really had a testimony ever left the church -if someone left (which I had never heard of), or didn’t join in the first place, it was because they were too wicked (unconfessed sin, etc) to truly accept the gospel, aka not being able to “cut it”. It is also this thinking that asserts all fo-mos and ex-mos are bitter. But I get the feeling this might be where Robyn is coming from in stating that we all misunderstand. *Disclaimer: this is only my opinion. I related the feeling as offer of one explanation*
Post 2b continued…
Blowing my second post here and I haven’t even read the new article posted today. Oh well…
Dictionary.com also defines “anti-” as “opposite of”. I would say that’s an appropriate description of this site and the Christians on it. Mormonism is opposite from Christianity, and in that case, I will be labeled as such. Unfortunately, Webster hasn’t caught up with the 21st century completely -commonly, when people use the word “anti” they use it in a way that means hateful or bitter, not simply opposed to. Anything not Mormon faith-promoting can be called anti in the original meaning of the word, but in today’s meaning, it has a new vehemence applied to it. Thus, anything labeled as the n-word can be disregarded as others have pointed out. Yes, I am @-Mormonism because I am not for it (opposed) and am opposite to it.
Reggie, this has been answered numerous times on other threads but the reason we ev’s aren’t “battling out (our) own differences” is because we all agree on what saves us (grace through faith in Jesus Christ) and that’s what really matters. The other issues we disagree on are secondary and not saving. We “come together to refute (your) religion” because your beliefs are contrary [or could that also be called antary?] when it comes to what gets us into God’s presence.
By the way, my religion? Christian. Sect? Non-denom/evangelical. Church? Foothills Community Church. They have a website if you would like to check it out and find out more about what we do/believe: http://foothillsonline.org Sermons from the beginning of the year up to last Sunday are available to listen to online or download in mp3 format. I mention that so you might listen to a couple and get a solid understanding of what my pastors and my church teach; there’s also sections specifically about what we believe, and what our missions and values are.
Reggie wrote: “the reason why so many religions exist today is because of the different interpretations. HOw many different religions use the Bible, yet believe completely different things?”
To quote a favorite teacher of mine, do you read ALL your mail the way you read the letters in the Bible? When the cable bill comes, is it your interpretation that they owe YOU $50 instead of vice versa? Largely the new testament is made up of mail from one person, who had a particular meaning in mind, to another person/group who understood most if not all of that meaning. Reggie uses denominationalism to substantiate his belief that we cannot know the truth about the meaning of the words in the Holy Bible. I was told as an LDS that THIS is why we need a prophet. After having the mormon scales drop from my eyes, the Bible became largely clear to me. Example: As an LDS I never knew that there are three places in the NT that say we no longer need prophets. LDS claim the Bible is too complex to read and “get.” But Jesus said that if we abide in HIS WORD, that we WOULD know the truth—not that we’d be too confused to get it. There is plenty of clarity in the Bible for those willing to drop their “traditions of men” and read it for what it says. LDS claim that the Bible is incomplete and mistranslated, an allegation completely unstubstantiated by scientific research.
I love it when an LDS tells me, “I’ve read the Bible X number of times, I know what it says.” Then how come they don’t know we are saved by grace, never by works? How come they don’t know there is only ONE GOD? LDS leadership tells them they can’t trust the Bible and they need to look to a so-called prophet to give them truth. But MY Lord said I’d know the truth by abiding in HIS word; that HE is the Truth. How wrong I was to doubt Him and worhip the idol mormon god. Regg, drop the LDS bias, open your eyes and read what the Lord Jesus Christ has to say. Its something different than you think.
I love it when an LDS tells me, “I’ve read the Bible X number of times, I know what it says.” Then how come they don’t know we are saved by grace, never by works?
Maybe it’s like what that apostle (oh who was that? I can’t remember!…grr) taught about reading the BoM -you don’t have to understand the words, you just have to get through the pages bit by bit and voila you’ve read it! A few months ago my pastor related a story about a Bible competition: someone read off a passage of scripture and the contestants had to correctly identify where to find it. It was down to just 2 guys who were going back and forth for quite some time and finally someone won. The other guy storms out of the building to his car, grabs a gun, comes back and shoots and kills the winner. Obviously this guy knew the Bible backwards and forwards, but did he really understand what it was saying? My pastor told this story to show the difference between “knowing what it says” and living what it says.
Peace out.
Andrea- Thanks for your comments. I agree with a lot that you said. I believe you when you say that the differences between your particular christian sect and others are not important to your/our salvation. To take your point further, and apply it to this thread, I don’t believe whether or not Mormon’s should be called christian, whether one is anti- or not, whether Joseph Smith had 1 wife or 100, whether Kolob is a real place or part of some sci-fi series, etc. are important to your/our/my salvation either. These are things that you/others bring to the foreground, when in reality, they mean nothing to our salvation. We preach Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of The Holy Ghost, Obedience to God’s laws (including eternal Marriage, Word of Wisdom, Tithing, eventual consecration, etc.)… and after ALL we can do to be good people and follow God’s laws, we recognize that we would still fall short of salvation. Hence our need for a Savior and Grace. So if agreement/discussion on those topics is what brought you here, let’s focus on that, not on all of the noise/rumors/lies/etc. that is being tossed around carelessly/offensively.
Missu- I am not making excuses like you say. And my message never said that we “cannot know truth”. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Regardless of what Paul meant when he scripted so many truths, today people have taken many of those truths, and retranslated/reinterpreted those truths. So you and your Christian counter parts believe different things as well, despite reading from the same bible. And if you didn’t have different beliefs, then there wouldn’t be so many different sects. I’m not criticizing the fact that you have different beliefs than other christians, i’m simply stating the obvious. Yet, the differences come from the same book we all use. I believe the opposite of what you claim i said. I know we can “know the truth about meaning of the words in the HOly Bible” despite denominationalism. Does that clarify?
You talk about clarity. It will help me have clarity if you can explain the LDS interpretation of the following verses:
“I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
“Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
“I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”
“I am the Lord a there is none else, there is no God beside me…that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.”
“…there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.”
“To whom will ye liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?”
“I am God, and there is none like me”
When God says not only that HE is the only God, that He is the first and last, that HE knows of no other God, and that there is not even ANYONE LIKE HIM, that HE’S the Savior, how can that possibly be interpreted to say, that there is only one you need to have to do with, that he had a couple of helpers who did the heavy creation lifting, there are some who will come after him, and that there are many who will be like him?
I don’t get it.
reggie…did you read my reply (I might have gotten swamped under by the megablogatrons) or do you just feel it isn’t important that Mormonism isn’t taught in the Book of Mormon?
Also…since you are curious about sects…what do you think of all the other groups who use the BoM and claim to be the TRUE church Joseph Smith restored? (Church of Christ, Temple Lot…Community of Christ…Strangites…FLDS) Whether or not you accept them as valid…they still exist as a testimony that “sectarianism happens.”
Someone here was interested in what denominations we Biblical Christians who blog here belong to. I think others have pointed out that it’s kind of interesting, the fact that we all come from different traditions but we all sound a like in our doctrinal approach. There are nine essential doctrines of the Christian faith that those of us who are writing here subscribe to.
1. The Bible is the Word of God. The whole transcript is an inspired, faithful, and infallible record of what god intended us to know about Himself.
2. The trinity-one God, three persons. The Church recogizes what the apostles and prophets had always taught-the Messiah shares the nature of God, as does the Holy Spirit.
3. The deity of Christ-He is God-not a god.
4. The virgin birth of Christ.
5. Christ died for us. The blood atonement.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
7. Saved by grace apart from works.
8. Jesus’ second coming.
9. The judgement of God.
Now that’s just a list without any definitions. However if each of us Christians were to explain what we believe about each of these essential doctrines it would be pretty much the same thing. Now am I anti if someone comes to me and says he/she has a revelation from God and it runs contrary to these essential of the faith and I tell them to take a hike? And if they go around preaching their new revelation and I expose them by pointing out the differences, am I anti?
By the way, what’s my denomination? I don’t have one. What Church do I delong to? I don’t. I belong to the Body of Christ. I pray, read and study the Bible and expect that God will speak to me. I believe that what went on in the Book of Acts can happen today. I’m not proud of the fact that I’m not a joiner, it just works better for me.
Reggie and Ralph: take a look at Falcon’s list, that is a very good rough outline of orthodoxy, if there is anything missing, it’s not standing out to me just now. Most of what is talked about is peripheral to this list and salvation (notice I didn’t say UNIMPORTANT or UNEEDED). RALPH: as far as I know, even the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics could own this list , although they would want to add something about the teaching authority of the church, so we would ‘agree to disagree’ about that, but not the list itself.
THe UNITY of the various groups and kinds of believers represented by Mormon Coffee is more telling than the differences, and speaks to the organic, Holy Spirit rebirthing as opposed to organization-joining nature of the true church.
FALCON: YES, you are definitelly @nti: @NTI-HERESY.
PS to Reggie: issues that you see as not that important still speak to the character or nature of your leaders, past and present, and given the importance you stress on their role and function, these topics are fair game and relevant to many a discussion. You might want to get used to that or you will be constantly perturbed. Wouldn’t want to see that. GERMIT
LDSSTIT- sorry, i thought i said that we don’t preach mormonism, and neither does the BofM. We preach/teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the BofM, along with the Bible, PofGP, AofF, DandC, etc. teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, despite the fact that you don’t see the words “Celestial Marriage” or “Baptism for the Dead” in the BofM, doesn’t mean that the principles aren’t taught there or in other true scriptures. You also talk about the word “one”. We believe that One means one in purpose, unity, knowledge, thought, etc. John 17 Jesus prayed that the saints could be one “as we are”. I’m assuming he was praying to the Father… right? One personage, or one in unity, knowledge, perfection, etc.? We believe the latter. There are other examples of two people (twain) becoming one flesh. I would pose the same question. Through modern day revelation/scriptures/etc., we believe One doesn’t need to mean one in the same. I’m sure you’ve had those questions posed before, and you’ll come up with a refutation that i’ve heard before. But that’s what we believe.
I don’t know much about the breakoffs that you mentioned. I’ll do some reading. But i can’t legitimately make any sort of accurate comments about those sects.
Missu- “… and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorfied together.” We believe this. We believe that we are children of God, and that if Children, we are heirs to his glory. A joint-heir is one who inherits equally with all others who are joint-heirs. If you have a joint account with your wife/husband, then you both have the right/privelege/accessibility to the benefits of the account, equal rights/priveleges/accessiblities. I believe that we have access to all that our Father has… joint heirs with Christ. What is salvation? What is eternal life? What is exaltation? I believe that inheriting God’s glory is.
This is good for me guys, thanks
The break off groups from the LDS church, that Titanic mentioned, have all but died out. The Ch. of Christ “temple lot” has 2,000 members. Community of Christ has about 250,000,but that is an old number before many broke away from them. FLDS are another matter. I don’t even know what they believe about the Book Of Mormon. I would be surprised if “Strangites” had many members, but I don’t know.
Why are all of you are so worried that we don’t believe in the divinity,grace,sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is the whole reason for our church. We worship Him. Whether you use the term Christians to describe us or not, does not change our belief in Christ. Maybe we should think up our own term, like Christianites. Would that make you happy. Most people who aren’t ev. Christians think that a believer in Christ is a Christian. It’s all a matter of semantics. We will go on enjoying the blessings of our church. We will study and try. We will take the sacrament each week to remember that Christ has paid for our sins. I will say that there are too many members of the LDS church that do not understand doctrine well. How many Ev. Christians don’t? Religion is an individual thing. People are on diff.levels in their spiritual maturity. Not eveyone can spend all of their time studying. I’m sure most could do much better. When I was in Seminary and Institute I loved it because I was learning a lot. Some members are not converted because they don’t do what they should. But many have a good understanding and knowledge. I personally have much to learn. Another comment, I believe that everything that you all believe THAT IS TRUE, the LDS church also believes. We read the same Bible. All of the skewed things you say about our church are not inspired by the spirit. Yes the devil is very strong in fighting the truth. No one answered my authority question. Bye for now.
Oh come-on Robyn. You’ve got more on the ball than to use LDS slogans like “all of the skewed things you say about our church are not inspired by the spirit.” That type of clap-trap may make it out in the wards, but around here it’s just surface level gibberish. How do you know it’s not inspired by the Holy Spirit. We’re the defenders of the orthodox Christian faith here. And you say “the devil is very strong in fighting the truth”; apply that to the LDS. That’s the group that fell away from traditional Christianity and founded a heritical sect with a false prophet.
It’s up for grabs as to whether or not you LDS folks worship Jesus. We went through numerous posts on another thread and watched the LDS contributors try and figure out if they indeed worship Jesus. Mormons don’t believe in one God. That’s a fact! The Father is a god, Jesus is a god and your uncle Frank is counting on becoming a god.
Whew! That was a lot of anti, huh?
reggie…don’t you think it would at least help your case if we had seen Jesus ordaining people to a “priesthood” in the Bible or the BoM? I think it says alot that you DON’T find it in either one if Jesus had believed in that and needed to transfer His authority.
robyn…I believe if you google the internet you will find upwards of 50 different groups (some say closer to 100) all claiming to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH founded by Smith and based on the BoM. I don’t care if they have 1 member or 1,000,000…my point is that human nature alone will cause people to differ enough to go their own ways and separate. Unlike all these churches, NONE of the churches Smith mentioned in the 1800’s would have claimed to be the ONLY true church. Most Christian churches today wouldn’t make this claim. My point is…sorry Joseph…it happened to you too buddy. We humans just like to argue…look at 1 Corinthians 1:12-17…it even happened back at the beginning!!
Martin wrote, “My problem is that I can’t talk to my Mormon colleagues because I am an ‘anti’.”
No truer words ever spoken, brother. Like I said earlier, once you are in the “anti” box, you are soundly dismissed no matter how true your position, no matter how well supported.
My son is experiencing this with his LDS roommates. He left mormonism a couple of years ago, largely because of early mormon history such as the contradictory (let alone untrue; needless to say if there is a contradiction, one or both statements of necessisty are false; but I digress) statements of BY and others. He has been soundly told by his LDS roomies that they are in no way interested in what happened “back then.” Why, the church does so much good today! Its frustrating that the LDS care not one whit about Adam/god, blood atonement, blacks & the PH, polygamy, and a zillion other things that lie at the root of their organization–man made in its essence. Yet oftentimes we Christians are expected to sit by while LDS demean, belittle, and lie about Christianity, or even truth itself.
Truth is not absolute and less important than feelings to the LDS. If truth mattered, then the clear biblical teaching that there is One God and only One would sink in.
Alas, truth is a moving target for the LDS: one minute Adam is god, another minute he is not; one minute blacks will NEVER hold the PH, the next minute they can and do; one minute polygamy is a requirement for the CK, then it’s not even “doctrinal” (GBH). But they say their doctrines are everlasting! No wonder its so tough to discuss doctrine and/or witness to the LDS: its like attempting to nail jello to a tree!
Last post for today. I’d still like for Reggie to let me know how the LDS can possibly misinterpret the Isaiah passages I cited earlier. G’nite, all.
Thank you Reggie for your words about the meaning of “one” and the thoughts on “joint heirs”. I appreciated the point you made about “they twain shall be one flesh, as another example of how the word “one “is used in the scriptures. I would like to quote Elder M. Russell Ballard on this topic of grace and works.
“And if we exercise faith in Him, repent, and are faithful to the gospel covenants we make in the ordinances of salvation, our body will be glorified like the sun (see 1 Cor. 15:40–41). With great emphasis I want to say that all of this is made possible through the grace of Jesus Christ. That is why the great Book of Mormon prophet Nephi wrote,“And we talk of Christ,we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ,and we write according to our prophecies,that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Ne. 25:26).
In the Christian world, there has been much debate regarding the relationship of grace and works. To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints both are core doctrines. Just as a pair of scissors requires two blades to function, the Lord’s grace and our works of faith in Christ, personal repentance, and receiving saving ordinances are required for eternal life in God’s presence.
Our works consist of placing our full confidence and trust in Jesus Christ and then exercising our desire and willingness to live by His teachings. We do this by repenting of all our sins and obeying the laws and ordinances of Christ’s gospel. As we do this faithfully over our lifetime, we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost and our nature is changed.
The scriptures inform us that Jesus grew from“grace to grace,”until He received a fulness of the Father’s grace. What I understand that to mean is that He obeyed His Heavenly Father’s will and by so doing He received an increase of our Heavenly Father’s power. Cont.
Reggie, in a post above you mention that the becoming gods, Kolob, and all the perpheral stuff don’t really matter.
Are you sure about that?
To me, these things are actually paramount to the entire issue.
If what you expect to see at the end goes beyond God and God alone, you’re out of his will.
You can say those rewards you’ll get as an heir are secondary matters, and what really counts is how you live your life today misses the point badly.
God and God alone is our focus. Its not on living that life and doing all you can do to gain Christ’s atonement– its about God. Its about loving and living a life with Him at your side. Wanting, or expecting, anything besides His company at the end takes you away from Him.
Like it or not, your faith does do this. By focusing on such things as an eternal marriage with your wife in the celestial kingdom is a great example. By expecting to become a god does this. By believing you can save another after they themselves have died does this.
The matters of Kolob and the like have huge ramifications. These particulars are not unimportant, and to brush them aside is to ignore the largest issue of them all: our eternal salvation or damnation.
cont. Thus He increased in the divine attributes of godliness until He was perfect in virtue and holiness like His Father. Jesus thereby showed us the path of holiness and then promised us:“If you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace” (D&C 93:20).
This man is an apostle of Christ. I believe that his interpretations of the scriptures are much more accurate than those I have heard by the Ev. Christians. That is the choice that individuals have to decide on. Is this restored gospel of Jesus Christ his true gospel? I’ll ask a few questions.
1. What would Joseph Smith hope to gain at the age of 14 by making up this story?
2. Why do the lives of our General authorities only reflect goodness and Christ-like attributes, notwithstanding that they are human and make mistakes in their lives occasionally I’m sure.
3. Where do the other Christian religions get their authority to baptize?
4. Why did Jesus spend so much time teaching people how they should ACT?
He didn’t just go about teaching that He would suffer for their sins and they would be saved by faith in Him. There were things He wanted them to DO.
I hope that someone reading all of this stuff on Mormon Coffee will realize that this opposition to the LDS church is just a lot of misinterpretations of LDS doctrine. We believe in the one and only Savior who ever lived. He restored His truth which had been lost by the mistakes of men through a boy who was to be His prophet to bring His work about. If He needed to do that, He needed to-despite the feelings it might hurt. I’m sure the ministers of the time thought they were teaching the truth, but were missing some important things. With sincerity-
Robyn,
I’m happy to give my take on your questions:
1) What would JS have to gain? Why would a 14 year need to gain something to produce a story? You were 14 once, did you have a reason for everything you did? Hate to answer this one with questions, but the question itself is flawed. The answer is really that he probably didn’t hope to gain anything. I don’t see anything important there.
2) Why do the lives of the GA’s only reflect goodness and Christ like attributes? So does the Dali Lama, so this point also proves nothing.
3) Where do other Christians get the authority to baptize? Directly from Christ.
4) Why did Jesus spend so much time teaching people how to act? Actually, he spent more time teaching them to change the attitudes behind the acts. His was a message of attitude, not of action.
Yes, there were things he wants us to do, but more than that, he wants our hearts.
Reggie gave some advise in another post, and that is to look deeply at what others say and believe. What I think he means is that we are to try to understand what the other is saying, and why they are saying it. I think you honestly believe what you are saying, and I think this is because you have felt so good with the belief and want it to be true so bad. I think you will go further and say you know it is true. I accept that. But now, do you want to see what it is we mean when we question Mormon belief and why? Are we being mean, intolerant and/or unreasonable?
Robyn said, “the Lord’s grace and our works of faith in Christ, personal repentance, and receiving saving ordinances are required for eternal life in God’s presence.”
Robyn, in my opinion one of the key differences between LDS and Christians lies in our understanding of the word “repentance.”
One of the LDS scripture mastery verses tells us that a person is truly repentant when they have forsaken their sins (D&C 58:42-43). If they have not forsaken their sin, they have not truly repented and they cannot be saved in their sins (Alma 11:37) and Christ’s grace is not sufficient for them (Moroni 10:32). The D & C also says that if you sin again after you have repented all of your former sins return to you (D& C 82:7).
But, here is the good news according to the Mormon gospel:
I Nephi 3:7 promises that “the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”
According to this verse, it is entirely possible for a person to completely abandon their sin so that Christ’s grace can be applied to their account.
When do you get the grace according to Alma 11:37 & Moroni 10:32? Only after you have stopped sinning.
So, since you are a Mormon, are you perfect? Have you completely abandoned your sin?
Since I am not a Mormon myself and never have been, I can only imagine what it might be like to have been taught this definition of repentance. I can speculate, however, that a person might either feel guilty all the time for not measuring up (which would be the only truthful response, imho) or they would attach varying “degrees” or levels to sin and compare themselves to others in order to feel satisfied with their level of righteousness.
(cont…)
The actual definition of repentance, however, is a “change of mind” or, in the Greek, literally, ‘to think differently after.’ In Scripture we see that repentance and faith are inter-connected so that when we change our mind and start agreeing with what God has revealed to us about Himself and His Son, Jesus Christ, He counts our faith as righteousness (Romans 4-5). Once we have been justified by faith, we have peace with the one true God, and the desire of our new, born-again, regenerated person is to live for Him and to glorify Him with good works (Romans 6:18).
This is the good news from the Bible on the relation of grace and works:
“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:2-5).
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1)
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galatians 2:16).
“I’m sure the ministers of the time thought they were teaching the truth, but were missing some important things.”
Robyn, I couldn’t help commenting on this statement – I’m not sure if you’ve looked into the teachings of one of the ministers of Joseph Smith’s time – Charles Finney. He was formerly a Mason, but after converting to Jesus Christ he left the Masons, finding their practices incompatible with following Christ.
He wrote a book against Freemasonry titled “The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry” to expose the evil behind the masonic practices. You can google the title of his book to find an online version if you want to check it out.
I find it interesting that his “anti-mason” efforts resulted in a huge decrease in masonic membership.
Makes me think about the fact that Joseph Smith became a 33rd degree Mason and introduced masonic rituals into the LDS endowment ceremonies. Perhaps introducing covert masonry into the LDS religion with a “Christian” cover helped to improve the overall masonic membership numbers, I don’t know. Appears that way to me. Would seem to be a logical strategy of the enemy. Something to think about.
One thing that is for sure, you mormons sure do have a way with your words. You sound a little like Bill Clinton when he asked what they meant by the word “is”. No wonder Smith came up with his own dictionary, not only did the early church miss out on some stuff, obviously he was to restore the english language. I guess that got lost somewhere in the “translation”. Let me ask you a question,and please just use your head on this, no feelings. Why would Smith need to change the definitions of “certain” words, if his prophesies where really true?
W/LOVE
ROBYN: As usual, you ask very good questions. I’ll have at the list. You long post of about a week ago was very good, by the way, I’m going to print that out and save it.
1) JS story was written long after he was 14, but I won’t nitpick the age thing too much. Joseph’s story has Joseph at the center of it: how many 14yrolds, or 44 yr olds for that matter, wouldn’t want to be the center of the story, esp. the story THEY happen to be telling? I could throw in, at this point, what elements of his personal and family history might drive the telling of such a story, I won’t go into that detail here except to note his family’s deep and almost constant poverty, itinerant “lower class” (in qts because class is nothing to God) status, and general constant upheaval. Wouldn’t it be great to rise up out of this ‘pit’ and BE someone?? I realize this kind of conjecture is just that, conjecture.
2)why do GA’s only reflect goodness??
IF in fact yours is a false gospel, then what LOOKS like goodness might not be so good: the real enemy of the true religion might not be hell-raising and riotous living as much as it is some kind of dead moralism: a system that promises life, looks a lot like life, but is in fact NOT AlIVE. Wasn’t this Christ’s complaint, generally with the Saduccees and Pharisees ?? They looked very good…on the outside. And as Michael noted, your guys probably aren’t any nicer than Shaolin monks, are they headed to heaven for their ‘niceness and goodness’?
3)we get our authority straight from Christ: a cursory reading of Matt 28 and the companion verses in Luke SEEM to suggest that baptisimal authority goes to the disciples, but this thot vanishes when you look at ALL the commands given (going to the ends of the earth and making disciples, teaching them etc..) and comparing with the rest of the NT: these commands were given IN THE HEARING OF THE SMALL GROUP OF DISCIPLES, BUT WERE INTENDED FOR A MUCH LARGER APPLICATION: BAPTISM,MAKING DISCIPLES, TEACHING, cont’d
I would challenge anyone building a case for “priesthood authority” from Matt 28 to show me throughout the NT where baptisms done ONLY by those with this position and ‘authority’ was the pattern. In fact Paul goes out of the way to mention he had baptized very few at Corinth, as if to say “WHO performs the ceremony is no big deal whatsoever, the ceremony itself is, of course a big deal” (BornAGain, don’t you dare pull on this thread, don’t go there girl)
4)why did Jesus teach so much on how to act??
One main reason: to show us how pathetically far from God’s standards we all are. To show us, plainly, that God’s bar is WAY up here, and all of us are WAY down here. To me this is the entire point of the sermon on the mount. Jesus will not LEAVE us in this ‘mirey clay’, once we know that we can NEVER please God by our actions, we are then ready to cry out for the Messiah’s salvation, and we’ve beat this thot to death, so I won’t go on with this. Ev. christians believe in DOING, or should, but the #1 job is believing in Christ, entirely, for a blood bought salvation that works do not help….and then saying ‘THANK YOU’ with a life given over to HIM.
last PS: you are right, Robyn, that the level of doctrinal education for the avg. ev. christian is very low. I’m embarrased at how little I know. This is a very uniform problem throughout the church, and not limited to any one group.
TITANIC: thot you wouldn’t mind the ‘blogatron’ if it were at 5:30 am. Like your posts.
I think the question here on this thread might be “What motivates we Biblical Christians to get involved in apologetic ministry?” This is a real subset of the entire Body of Christ. I don’t know how big it is in numbers of people, but for me, I had been saved probably about ten years and came to the point where I felt woefully unprepared to defend my faith if I had to. I’m also very interested in history and also in 19th century utopian societies. Talk about an odd ball! So I embarked on a program of getting myself up to speed on the doctrines and history of the Church. This of course led to a comparison of Biblical Christianity with other religious sects. The short of it, I find it interesting. I’m especially interested in the psychological, emotional, and “spiritual” effect the organizations and doctrines have on it’s adherents. Specifically, the Mormon members belief that they are getting revelations from God and experiencing spiritual manifestations. Particularly interesting to me is the “spiritual veil” concept. A former Mormon poster talked about the veil being thin and how during the temple ceremonies a particular phenomonon might occur where apirations of the dead would materialize and could be viewed. So I asked the simple question, “What’s that about?” I could understand why someone would think they are having a bonified, from God spiritual experience which would deepen their resolve and reinforce the idea that their beliefs are true and that they’re really into the God zone having experienced this. That’s why, in my opinion, evidence that runs contrary to the Mormon belief system is rejected by Mormons.
Anyway, I find it all very interesting and I guess the fact that I question the Mormon history, practices and “spiritualism” would make me an anti.
Morning all…I never answered that question either about why I’m here…I started being interested in the aberrant groups back in the 80’s (books like “The Cult Explosion” by Dave Hunt and then “Kingdom of the Cults” by Walter Martin were my first reads). I’m interested in religions in general and I’ll read about most anything. I simply find the “gadflys” to be the most important for Christians to know about (think Lee Strobel’s book “Case for the Real Jesus”). Those that would deny the truth of Scripture and the historic Christian faith. I would put Mormonism in that category. I see the gadflys as “anti” in the truest sense of the word.
To express my motivation I would recommend everyone (my sarcastic self included) on this blog read Os Guinness’s book “The Case for Civility” and try to find Ravi Zacharias’ presentation in 2004 at Temple Square on “Who is the Truth?” He really gets to the heart of the matter…if we don’t have love in our hearts for the “other” we aren’t really wanting people to come to the Truth. We are just so much “sounding brass.” With love and blessings!!
reggieswood said: “We preach Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of The Holy Ghost, Obedience to God’s laws (including eternal Marriage, Word of Wisdom, Tithing, eventual consecration, etc.)… and after ALL we can do to be good people and follow God’s laws, we recognize that we would still fall short of salvation. Hence our need for a Savior and Grace.”
The sad part about this is that Mormons truly believe this is “good news.” Hey, here’s some good news about Jesus, if you don’t do enough works and finish all your hometeaching and get married in the temple (oh, and I hope your husband remembers your new name), and on and on and on, then Jesus will step in with His grace and save you after everything you have done to be a good person. It’s sad when people don’t get it and persist in preaching a man-centered theology. Reggieswood, I didn’t see anything about Christ and God’s grace until the tail end, and that’s the problem with Mormonism. I find it curious that Mormons don’t respond when something is preaching them the truth about Jesus Christ and how He alone can save on His merits alone (like Robyn), but would rather debate and defend their leaders and their brand of gospel that is bereft of God’s grace so they can focus on how wonderfully they’re doing with their obedience and going to the temple and on and on and on. Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and what he preached questions the foundation of Christianity: God’s Sovereign Word and His Mercy and Grace. Very sad that Mormons are blind to the red flags that cry out to them to turn to Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
I think that Elder Ballards words explained our position about grace and works well. The differences between our beliefs in this stem from wording. Our doctrine is very Christ centered. The strong members of the Church of Jesus Christ know that we rely on Jesus Christ. I have read the scriptures that JessicaJoy cited and I do understand what you are saying. I have come to see that it would take forever to “explain” the problems with your understanding of our doctrines. That’s why I have not attempted it. But also because I’m not the most knowledgable person to do it. I would have to first go through everything that you misunderstand and explain what we really believe. Wish I was that well read. All I will say is to state again that whatever other Christians believe THAT IS TRUE we also believe. We believe that we can only be saved by the grace of Christ. If He had not atoned then we would be lost. We believe everything true about Christ. Much of it is the same as what you believe because we believe in the same Jesus of the Bible. That is where Joseph Smith first learned of Him and believed. You can twist any meaning you want. It is easy to make good look bad and bad look good. You will throw that back at me, I know. I need to be a better example of Jesus Christ. As a member of what I believe to be the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I should do much better. I cannot deny the many times when the Holy Ghost has told me of the truth of my church. Joseph couldn’t deny a visit from God and His Son. And for those who think it is not uncommon for 14 yr. old to make things up I say that there are not too many who would make up a story such as that. There are many evidences to the strong character of him as a boy. Come on! So much came from this story, a made up story would have come to naught.Love-
Robyn,
You are right that there are things that we will put back on you. For instance, you say everything we believe, you also believe: we believe in only One God. Do you? Are you sure it is only One God?
Also, we believe that once you die, there are no other chances to repent. Do you believe that?
How about baptism? Do we believe baptism is necessary for salvation? Do you? Who must baptize for it to be valid and then am I validly baptized?
See, everything we believe you do not believe.
As to Joseph Smith’s story, do you really want to study the huge impact many youth throughout history have had on it? Joan of Arc. David. Mozart. Do we really want to go on? A simple story, whether told my a young man, or by an old man, only needs to gather some momentum to make an impact. So, yes, I think that Smith’s story was just that. I think he sold it well, and I think it evolved as he got older. I also do not think this is hard to believe that the phenomon could happen.
You say it would take too long to define how we misunderstand your beliefs. Perhaps it would be a good exercise for you to try to wrestle with the critiques we have put forth. Tell us why we misunderstand, and correct us. Think about why we might think something about your faith and clarify it.
They say the best way to learn something is to teach it, to explain it to others. So, why not take this forum as a chance to do so.
We all might learn something from it.
robyn…strong character as a boy? He was arrested for swindling people and claiming his peep-stone would lead him to buried treasure. Does the church deny this? He used the same stone to “translate” the BoM…is that not true?
As to your authority issue…where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptize? Also if Jesus believed in the Mormon priesthood why do you find no evidence of anyone receiving this in either the New Testament or the BoM?
Robyn,
I beg of you to focus on what JessicaJoy wrote and discuss that with us. What she said is why we call the LDS gospel the “Impossible Gospel.” The simple question of you is this –
Have you denied yourself of ALL ungodliness?
As you know, Moroni 10:32-33 states that as a requirement for the grace of God to be sufficient for you. If you have denied yourself of ALL ungodliness (sin), then you are perfect.
According to the Miracle of Forgiveness, in order to obtain forgiveness for a sin, you can’t commit that same sin again. The issue with that is even one sin makes you a sinner and seperated from God.
So now that we agree that everyone is a sinner and no matter how good you try to be, you will still be guilty of sin, what do we have to offer?
God’s grace is a gift that none of us deserve. However because of the unfathomable love He has for us, he still offers it to all who simply trust/believe/have faith in Him.
We are dead in our sins.
Ephesians 2:5 – “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
To make an analogy- If you are physically dead, what can you possibly do for yourself? NOTHING.
How an LDS member can read Romans and not understand exactly how helpless we are, is beyond me.
The law was given to show us how bad we are. Jesus Christ was given to show us how weak we are, and how powerful He is, and that with him, we can rejoice for He is our strength!
Hello All!
I am new to this as I have just learned about it today. I have enjoyed reading over some of the comments that have been made. There are really some great ideas and discussions that have been going on, so I suppose I just couldn’t resist being a part of it. Just to introduce myself I am a Mormon! I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for all of my life. I served a 2 yr. mission and very much enjoyed doing so. I promise I will try not to be contradictory in my statements but to simply tell what I believe and why. My intent in joining you all is simply to gain knowledge and understand viewpoints.
Well now that we got that out of the way the one comment I would like to post is concerning an above statement regarding repentance. The statement was such that from the Mormon perspective (as I understood the comment) in order to be saved me must live a perfect life giving up all sin in order to be saved. Also the Book of Mormon scripture Moroni 10:32 was used in conjunction with this statement. I would like to quote the entire scripture here to get the full meaning.
“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”
This scripture speaks of the importance of loving Christ with all your might. It’s meaning is that by accepting Christ (which we all believe is necessary) we can be saved ONLY through the Atonement of Christ (i.e. “perfected in Christ” as said in the above scripture). Now what would need to be addressed is the definition of “accepting” Christ. Which I believe we would agree on if we could fully see the others perspective.
Okay, got a lot to say, so little room…
3. Where do the other Christian religions get their authority to baptize? Germit touched on this (thanks!) but I don’t hold the belief that authority is needed to baptize someone. Germit said “WHO performs the ceremony is no big deal whatsoever, the ceremony itself is, of course a big deal” Exactly! If you put all this emphasis on WHO has the AUTHORITY, then the focus is on the person performing the baptism, and less focus is on the fact that a person is being baptized to signify that they are dead to their old life and raised to a new life in Christ. It is not the act of baptism that washes away sin, so who “dunks” you doesn’t matter so much. When my pastor performs baptisms, it’s not about John Thompson baptizing them, it’s about the baptizee’s (yeah I just made up that word) commitment to Christ.
Robyn said “And for those who think it is not uncommon for 14 yr. old to make things up I say that there are not too many who would make up a story such as that. There are many evidences to the strong character of him as a boy.” Lucy Mack Smith has told of her son’s ability to create elaborate stories, even as a young boy. So while not many may make up a story such as that, it’s not impossible for one to do so. “So much came from this story, a made up story would have come to naught. Ever heard of Scientology? All that stuff about aliens is just a made up story right? Not to thousands of Scientologists, so your assertion that “a made up story would have come to naught” is groundless.
Also, your statement that “whatever other Christians believe THAT IS TRUE we also believe” is sort of an oxymoron/Catch 22. You qualify the statement so that it supports your statement. The things that you say are true, are true because you also believe them. The only things that are true are those you believe to be true therefore you also believe them to be true. Do you see what I’m saying?
Missusslats said, “He has been soundly told by his LDS roomies that they are in no way interested in what happened “back then.” Why, the church does so much good today!” LOL –totally reminded me of a Utah politician (former Utah Attorney General David L. Wilkinson) who had a platform for eradicating “the scourge of cable TV porn”. When asked about why he’s not going after the Marriots for allowing porn in their hotels, he responds “because they give so much money to the Church.” True story.
Robyn my heart aches for you—you sound just like I did when I was LDS. “…Our doctrine is very Christ centered…We believe everything true about Christ…You can twist any meaning you want.”
The LDS are not “Christ-centered!” What is the ultimate that LDS theology has to offer by way of the hereafter? SELF EXALTATION! “For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3)”. We are warned about this trap by God’s holy word, yet the LDS fall in anyway.
The LDS don’t believe “everything true” about Christ! The Bible is clear that there is ONLY ONE GOD (see clear, unambiguous statements by God Himself from Isaiah that I cited above); that Christ is the One and Only God, come in human flesh (For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us…His name will be called… Mighty God, Eternal Father…Isa. 9:6); that nothing existed before Him, not the mormon god Elohim, not intelligence, not element (All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3; For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible…Col. 1:16); that you cannot be with God the Father for eternity by perfecting yourself with works but only by the grace and shed blood of Jesus Christ alone (…if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace Rom. 11:16; [God] who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. 2Tim 1:9).
It is the LDS who “twist meaning!” How in the world can Christianity be twisting those straightforward, understandable verses above, or those cited previously (one God and one God only)?
It is the LDS who inflict their eisegesis upon those verses, using traditions of (mormon) men and call it truth?
Robyn,
Did you watch the Book of Abraham video on the front page yet?
I don’t exactly know the reason I am focusing on you, perhaps my story of why I’m on the blog in the first place is the reason..
I was born and raised Christian – went to a few different denominational churches which, go figure, all held the same major doctrine to be true. My two older half-brothers ended up converting to Mormonism after dating a couple mormon girls for a while. (one has left the church now, along with his wife who was a bishops daughter in Utah), and the other is still LDS.
All I knew back then was Mormons have some pretty buildings that my mom wasn’t allowed to go in for their weddings.
Fast forward some years and I start dating a born and raised LDS girl (Lol, I don’t know what it is about my family dating Mormons). I was then curious about the doctrine of the LDS church. I was curious as to why they were any different from the Church’s I have been to. So thus started my studies. I found some things that I asked my girlfriend if they were true or not. She felt uneasy about them, partly because she had no idea, but I’m sure they seemed “anti” to her, so I dropped talking to her about it.
Fast forward a few more years and we are married. (all this while I told her I would support her by going to church with her every sunday, all 3 hours. Maybe one sunday a month I would go to what I called “Taco Quorum” instead of Elders Quorum”, basically – I went to taco bell for third hour. lol.
After a couple more years, my wife, embarassed she wasn’t even told that Joseph Smith had more than Emma as a wife, started looking deeper into the church (Book of Abraham issues, historical issues, Crazy old uncle Brigham Young issues, etc). She still wouldn’t talk to me about this stuff which is why I doubt a posting LDS on here would openly state on this blog that they left the church. Which is completely fine with me, it is meant to be between them and God alone.
So thats why I’m here. I am intrigued especially by the psychology LDS members have, and I feel called to assist God in engaging in dialogue with people of other faith. It is easy to help bring one with no religious background to Christ, but it takes a village (or perhaps, an internet village, i.e. MRM.org) to help bring people of other faiths to Christ, especially a faith that is so convinced of its truth even without historical support.
Robyn,
You’re being inaundated here with information and I don’t know if you’ll read it all but I’m rather enjoying reading it myself. I must say the quality is really good and it’s void of rancor or mere surface level sloganeering. I get a kick out of my fellow Christians here. We’re all like a guy who buys a new Corvette and wants to take her out on the open road and see what she’ll do. Can’t beat passion coupled with knowledge.
Anyway, this Mormon Jesus that you worship (oops I’ve never been able to figure out if Mormons actually worship Jesus) Robyn is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of Biblical Christianity was not procreated in the spirit world by a mother and father god. He is not Lucifer’s brother. He was not conceived, as Bringham Young taught, by a physical union between heavenly father and the virgin Mary. Jesus is a kind of super hero bigger brother in Mormonsim. In Biblical Christianity, Jesus is God. Not “a god”. Not a “created being”. So I think if we work on the nature of God and the doctrine of the atonement, that in and of it’s self will dispell any notion that we’re the same. We’re not. The tragedy is that Mormons are placing their hope in a false Jesus that can neither save them or provide for them eternal life. I know Mormonism feels good to you, but I felt really good when the Packers beat the Vikings on Monday night also.
Jeffrey & Robyn
It was the BOA that put me on the road to apostacy and I’m so glad I gave myself the permission to research it. I highly recommend the video Jeffrey recommends. I didn’t know about it when I researched/left mormonism but found it a bit later. However, it is an excellent, factual presentation and not one bit @nti in its tone. Its a good starting point for the question, Was JS really a prophet? Because if he wasn’t, then the LDS church can’t be true and all their doctrinal interpretations are to be suspect. There are many reasons I left the church but the three big ones…No Zarahemla…Papyri (purporting to be the BOA is fraudulent)…DNA (of the “Lamanites” isn’t Hebrew or middle eastern in origin–ITS MONGOLIAN)…should be enough for anyone more interested in truth than in his own feelings. Our feelings deceive us; truth can be relied upon.
I recommend that video to you, Robyn, because truth has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fear. If the LDS church is true as you firmly state, it will stand, no matter what you read, watch, or think about. If it falls, as indeed it in truth has, then you will be free to know the real Jesus Christ and the “freedom” (as Paul put it) that we truly have in Him.
Thank you Lord Jesus for opening my eyes about the LDS church. I pray some on this blog will have their eyes opened as well.
I believe that truth is absolute. Any truth is from God. If you have any truth, which you do, it is from the Bible, which is of God. I have truth from the Bible, but also modern revelation which is necessary to accomplish the work of the Lord on the earth as we prepare for Christs return. As I said a long while back, you put constraints on God. He has more to teach you. The Bible is not everything that He would ever tell men. My final statement on Mormon Coffee, I don’t really want take any more of my time for this. I know that Jesus is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.You are actually fighting His work and don’t know it. I’m sure none of you would fight it on purpose.
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe (Thank you Thomas Sowell for this reference). Sadly, for the LDS, that is all that is required of the modern-day “brethren” because so many LDS rank and file WANT to believe. It breaks my heart to see Robyn end our dialogue here, but in the face of truth, which is contrary to what she wants so much to believe, she had to bail.
Robyn, I can speak for my fellow Christians in saying that we truly love you and all LDS people so much that we WANT to offend you for the Word. Someone once did it for each of us and I submit that we were never more grateful to any other human than that person, although we may have first been angry–I certainly was.
I hope and pray for Robyn God will put it on her heart to seek truth rather than testimony.
Robyn and others: thanks, Robyn, for staying with us a few weeks and chatting. Send back an LDS replacement, if you happen upon someone that has that desire. You have represented your faith whole heartedly and fairly. THe tilt in numbers works against you on a blog like this, someday I’ll feel the same thing when I venture onto Mormon Apologetic Board or something like it.
Truth is absolute, as you elegantly put it. THe Post-mods don’t care for that, but there it is.
In addition to the truth of scripture there is the truth of the external world, of the way things are made. There is the truth of Indian DNA, and how dissimilar it is to Israelite DNA. There is the reality of ‘reformed Egyptian’, and how unlike any meso-american language it is and the absence of any appreciable trace of it in the new world (except in stories, and the mormon story is NOT the only one to think this up). There is the reality of Masonic ritual, and how unlike anything biblical it is, and how overtly occult it is. I could go on, but I’ll end it there. The same God who talks thru the Bible is ALSO revealing truth, to those who would dare listen, thru SPACE, TIME, AND HISTORY. He is the same God, and HIS ways of getting thru to our thick skulls are indeed many and clever. HE is the hound of heaven, and neither slumbers nor sleeps. I would hope that Robyn, Reggie, BornAgain , FOF, and all the others would give themselves the permission to look into these things and ask of themselves the hard questions. For those like Ralph who have done that and Joseph Smith remains the prophet of God, I really don’t have a rejoinder, but my hat’s off to him for making the search. See ya’ll Friday, and again, thanks Robyn, for the dialogue. GERMIT
I have viewed the video you refer to about the Book of Abraham. It is well produced, but includes nothing new. When a person knows nothing and is presented with facts about a topic, it almost always seems authoritative and objective. The video is not objective or scientific. There are facts, but selected carefully to support one view. And much is left out.
The fact that we almost certainly DO NOT have the original papyri that Joseph translated invalidates a great deal of the criticism offered in such videos. Joseph et al purchased several papyri records in 1835. After his death and later Emma’s, the papyri and mummies were ultimately sold and ended up in the archives of the Chicago museum. A fire in 1871 likely destroyed the majority of these papyri. Those that survived are relatively small fragments and described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics.” They contain the Book of Breathings, so often claimed by critics to be the source of the Book of Abraham. Yet these fragments are very different in appearance from the papyri containing the BOA. Charlotte Haven, a non-mormon, visited the home of Lucy Smith in 1843 and wrote in a letter to her mother: “Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long role of manuscript saying it was “the writing of Abraham and Isaac written in Hebrew and Sanskrit writings of Abraham.”
But such is the typical way of dismissing the Book of Abraham- attack the method of translation and not even address the content of the translation. The text of the book contains undeniable evidence for the authenticity of the translation. The structure of Abraham’s introduction and explanation of his intentions and reason for recording match the pattern of scribes of ancient Egyptian.
continued…
Secondary discoveries since the time of Joseph Smith support the content of the BOA. The Apocalypse of Abraham, also known as the Legend of Abraham, records a vision of Abraham wherein he is shown the plan of the universe, “what is in the heavens, on the earth, in the sea, and in the abyss.” This is very consistent with the vision in the BOA. (The Old Testament Pseudephigrapha 1:694-5)
In another ancient record, The Testament of Abraham, Abraham is taken up by a dove and shown the judgement and the creation of the world. This is very similar to the BOA, although it is the Holy Ghost who carries him in the BOA. Remember the sign of the Holy Ghost? He is also threatened by death and is saved by an angel of Pta (God) (Testament of Abraham, recession A 12-13).
Many events in the BOA are supported by discoveries made since the time of Joseph Smith. But critics cannot move beyond the Book of Breathings argument. It is the same with the Book of Mormon. Detractors repeat the same things over and over and do not recognize that they are missing the mark. The whole DNA/Hemispheric theory arguments are actually not a problem. They know this, but will not move their end of the discussion to address current issues.
faithoffathers…correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the papyri INSIDE the sarcaphagi? Doesn’t common sense tell you that these would only be funerary documents?
What possible type of preservation of sacred scriptures would involve sealing them inside with dead bodies which would presumably decompose along with the mummy?
Not to mention that text refers to the illustrations…can someone with a literary background give an estimated date for when illustrated texts became commonplace? The only thing I can think of is textbooks where illustrations are referred to in the body of the text…
Off-topic but here goes.
FOF said “The fact that we almost certainly DO NOT have the original papyri that Joseph translated invalidates a great deal of the criticism offered in such videos.” You can keep telling yourself that but it won’t make it true. “There were still handwritten copies of the original translation work which showed the individual Egyptian figures down the left margin of a page, with the English translation right next to it. The handwriting on these copies was by Smith’s regular scribes who helped him in his work. These Egyptian figures are clearly seen in a section of one of the recovered papyrus sections, all in exactly the same order that they appear on the handwritten ‘translation’ pages. (emphasis mine) -from The Egyptian Papyri Were Not All Destroyed This is one of many quotes I could give you showing that the existing papyri does correlate to what JS claimed is the BoA.
Serious question, can you tell me why you feel the DNA/Hemispheric arguments re the BoM are not a problem? Thanks.
Well, that’s all my posts for today -see you tomorrow.
Andrea,
Thanks for the response and question.
The handwriting on the left hand side of those manuscripts is that of William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish. These were men involved in the creation of the Egyptian Alphabet along with several others. These two, along with Oliver Cowdery had sought the ability to translate as Joseph had. The Lord responded “that you must study it out in your mind.” We have every reason to believe these figures scribbled in the margin were made by these 2 people who were trying to associate the hieroglyphics to the text. These attempts at translating were short-lived and unsuccessful. By the way, both of these men apostatized very soon after this, but never leveled any criticism toward Joseph about the translations.
About the DNA/Hemispheric theory- these are not problems because the vast majority of LDS members and researchers believe the Book of Mormon civilizations existed in the southern Mexico/Yucatan and Guatemala area. This theory has had support from many in the church since 1841. But, yes, there have been people who believed the book was the history of the whole western hemisphere. The latter belief is much easier to “disprove,” so that is the concept criticized more frequently. So, showing that there is no evidence linking the DNA of native North American Indians to people of Israelite descent does nothing to disprove the Book of Mormon. It is in this way that they are missing the mark. The hemispheric model is not even what most of us believe. There is a great deal in the Meso-American model that makes sense.
A different topic, but relating to Book of Mormon authenticity- how do you explain the prevalence of chiastic poetry throughout the Book of Mormon? Chiasmus is a parallel, poetic structure found in ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. They are found throughout the Old Testament. Yet they were discovered after Joseph Smith’s time. The Book of Mormon is literally filled with them.
FoF, the poetic patterns found in ancient writings are simply a result of Smith copying the styles of writing found in the Bible. The language he uses throughout the BoM, where he is not outright copying the Bible verbatim, is designed to make the BoM sound like Scripture. For example, verily, verily is used 18 times in the BoM because it sounds like something from the Bible and is familiar. He is translating a Hebrew document written in an unknown dialect of Egyptian into English, and yet the alleged literary style come right over? Seems a bit far fetched. For more on aleged chiasmus in the BoM: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/chiasmusandthebom.htm
By the way, where are those teeming cities described in the BoM? I can show you where Jerusalem is, where Bethlehem is, where Ephesus was, but we can’t seem to find any of the places of the BoM. Odd.
As far as the BoA, when you look at the facsimiles and compare them to the papyri that have beeen found, they are awfully similar and the “translations” Smith made and are still recorded in mormon scipture on the facsimile. Those writings are indefensible as being translated from the papyri which are almost certainly the ones that we have today. The drawings and writings have nothing to do with the supposed translation of Smith, which is doubly damaging because it demonstrates again that he is a false prophet and that the basis of much of mormon theology is completely false.
Arthur said:
“The drawings and writings have nothing to do with the supposed translation of Smith, which is doubly damaging because it demonstrates again that he is a false prophet and that the basis of much of mormon theology is completely false.”
I have evidence that clearly contradicts your conclusions above. My source is Hugh Nibley in his book; Abraham in Egypt. He writes a chapter on Abraham and the Book of the Dead.
Here is a sample:
“The position of the Book of Abraham today is much like that of the Book of Enoch 150 years ago. Ever since ancient times scattered clues, even sizeable fragments of a supposedly lost Book of Enoch, kept turning up, leading to much speculation and controversy as to whether there ever really was a Book of Enoch. (160, Oct. 1975, 78ff.) It was only when one major text, the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, known as First Enoch, was brought to light early in the nineteenth century that scholars started looking seriously and putting together evidence that brought forth one version after another—Old Slavonic, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.—of that same lost Book of Enoch which had so long been viewed as a figment of Gnostic imagination. After all that, it turned out, the Book of Enoch was real.
So it is now with the Book of Abraham.”
He goes on to find significant parallels in various ancient texts attributed to Abraham INCLUDING the Book of the Dead. These parallels mirror the text we use today as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Just because JS didn’t have the complete text doesn’t mean he couldn’t translate it. He was a true seer. New discoveries even today are confirming the transaltion is valid.
I’m having it reinforced so clearly here in this discussion that if someone wants to believe something they’re going to believe it regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That’s why I’ve appreciated the work of Grant Palmer the author of “An Insiders Viewe of Mormon Origins” so much. Palmer, a disfellowsipped Mormon who still attends the Mormon church, is very upfront regarding the problems inherrent in the Mormon narrative and the evidence regarding this.
One of our Mormon posters in the past described such occult practices as seeing the images of dead people through the veil in the temple during temple ceremonies. This is twisted by Mormons to become a “spiritual” experience rather than what it is “spiritualism”.
Trying to find rational, solid scientific evidence for obviously fraudulent “scripture” is driven by the desire to find evedince for the indefensible. In daily life, people make buying decisions often on emotion and then after the purchase attempt to justify (the purchase) rationally. That’s the problem with Mormonism and the witness of the testimony. The folks have bought the program emotionally and are now left to justify it with some sort of evidence which doesn’t exist. It’s tough to give-up the fantasy and much more difficult when it is coupled with emotion and pseudo or occult spiritual experiences.