In this month’s First Presidency Message (February 2009), Dieter F. Uchtdorf wrote of how Joseph Smith’s First Vision blesses people’s lives. He wrote,
“Through his [Joseph Smith’s] work and sacrifice, I now have a true understanding of our Heavenly Father and His Son, our Redeemer and Savior, Jesus Christ, and I can feel the power of the Holy Ghost, and know of Heavenly Father’s plan for us, His children. For me, these are truly the fruits of the First Vision.” (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, First Presidency Message, Precious Fruits of the First Vision, Ensign, February 2009, page 8 )
Beginning with the First Vision, Joseph Smith’s work brought about the understanding within his community of believers (i.e., those who believe in him as a true prophet) that Heavenly Father is an exalted Man, a God who achieved Godhood “the same as all Gods [had] done before [Him].”
Joseph’s work brought about the Mormon understanding that Jesus Christ is the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and the “mother in heaven,” a Savior whose atonement paid for many–but was insufficient to pay for all–sins.
Joseph’s work brought about the LDS understanding that the Holy Ghost is a third god relative to this earth, a “spirit man” whose comforting presence within each Mormon believer flees at the first sign of trouble.
Joseph’s work brought about the Mormon understanding that God’s plan is for faithful and worthy Mormons to someday achieve Godhood, create their own worlds, and populate them.
Accompanying President Uchtdorf’s article in the Ensign were “Ideas for home teachers.” It was suggested, “Ask the family [you teach] what they feel are the fruits of the First Vision.” (Ensign, February 2009, page 8 )
For me there is one big, broad piece of fruit resulting from Joseph Smith’s First Vision story: Heresy.
—
For more information about the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and gospel plan of Mormonism:
Who is the One Mormons Call Elohim?
Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism?
Latter-day Spirit
Celestial Marriage & Eternal Exaltation
Sharon,
Your reviling of the LDS Church as being heretical is like the pot calling the pan black. From the perspective of traditional, orthodox, Christianity there is much in evangelical theology which is considered to be heretical (ie the rejection of the priesthood, ordinances, covenants, theocratical structure).
The Pharisees and Saducees of Christ’s time regarded HIm as being a lying, blaspheming, heretic who was possessed of the devil. Consider how wrong they were! Like the Pharisees and Saducees of Christ’s time evangelicals look beyond the mark and condemn that which is of God.
STeveH: this might sound or seem odd, but I appreciate your straightforward statement of where the two positions stand, Some might find you too confrontational, but I do not……I think you assess the situation correctly: and that is : ONE of us, is in serious error, heresy, pointed toward damnation……. how could it be otherwise ??
the animus between us is NOT the product of crankiness, or fixation on facts, or anything human (though that can play a part) the conflict is built into what we believe, there is no “bridge” that will span this…
good post
GERMIT
Mistake #1 regarding the 1st vistion: Jospeph Smith, lacking wisdom, prays to God (not such a bad idea…..) and takes absolutely no counsel from other wiser, older christians…..this is because they had all fallen into apostasy, I suppose….but JS taking his OWN counsel , without a moderating voice…..this is trouble.
MrGermit,
You are one of the few reasonable voices of moderation amongst the “evangelicals” for which I applaud you.
Regarding your comment:
“I think you assess the situation correctly: and that is : ONE of us, is in serious error, heresy, pointed toward damnation……. how could it be otherwise ??”
I would respond by saying that in as much as the Pharisees and Saducees rejected Christ and relied solely upon their faulty interpretation of the scriptures so to do the evangelicals rely solely upon their faulty interpretation of the scriptures and reject Christ anew.
If one is willing to put their faith in Christ and ask Him directly (as did Joseph Smith) one may find the truth directly from the Lord. However, such action takes humility and sincerity, virtues which are simply beyond reach of individuals who revile against God.
A further point, the fourteen year old Joseph Smith did indeed counsel with wiser and older Christians (his parents) concerning the great revelations and visitations of God which he had experienced. They told Joseph that it was of God.
Imagined what would have happened if Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) had relied upon the counsel of “older and wiser” Jews after he was visited by Christ on the road to Damascus? Do you think that the Pharisees would have approved and validated such a visitation from Christ?
The point is that to rely solely upon a faulty interpretation of the scriptures and totally disregard the Lord who provided such scriptures through his divinely appointed prophets can only lead to spiritual stagnation. The great power and authority of the LDS Church is that we acknowledge that Christ lives and that He continues to speak to us directly.
STeveH: you wrote
You are one of the few reasonable voices of moderation amongst the “evangelicals” for which I applaud you.
I’m trying to remember what aftershave I wore today so as not to change it….ever…… I appreaciate the compliment, knowing your views, I can be pretty sure it’s not flattery
I would respond by saying that in as much as the Pharisees and Saducees rejected Christ and relied solely upon their faulty interpretation of the scriptures so to do the evangelicals rely solely upon their faulty interpretation of the scriptures and reject Christ anew.
I’m assuming that you’d put eveyone except your own group in the “pharisee and saducee bucket….” Is that right ?? everything after the apostles died out and were killed….that’s pretty much it, correct ?? maybe some a little more truly biblical than others ?? but if I understand the LDS position, ALL of them (us) apostates….
If one is willing to put their faith in Christ and ask Him directly (as did Joseph Smith) one may find the truth directly from the Lord. However, such action takes humility and sincerity, virtues which are simply beyond reach of individuals who revile against God.
the irony here is that the protestant position is much more direct, in terms of human middle-men…..if an individual “comes to Christ in prayer” but determines a package that is radically different than SLC, then what ?? So, Rome has the Vatican, you guys have SLC……and the difference is……???? not saying there is NO difference, but do you see the connection ?? I have NO such agreement with ANY earthly agency, you can call that ‘rebellious” I suppose, but how is my deal “LESS direct ??” it looks like more direct to me, even if it’s wrong……
I’ll look into the apostle Paul situation….I don’t think it was a “just me and Jesus” scenario, but I haven’t read much on that….thanks for the thoughts.
GERMIT
It seems that the use of the word heresy and heretical has truly lost its meaning in the Mormon camp. For something to be considered heresy, it needs to be measured against that which is orthodox teaching. SteveH would have us believe that Christian orthodoxy is believing in a god who was a created being, who was once a mere mortal and worked his way to godhood. This introduction by JS violates established Christian orthodoxy through the ages. God is and always has been God. If Mormons want to dispute that, they can. However, their view will always be seen as heretical. For SteveH to bring in the comparison of Jesus to JS is rather offensive, but quite in line with the Mormon’s exalted view of JS. I thank God that my salvation rests on whether or not I accept Jesus Christ as LORD, Savior, King, and God. I don’t have to accept JS as anything. He quite literally does not play a part in the salvation equation. Rejecting JS is not the same as rejecting Jesus Christ, as SteveH implies. And, to condemn Christians for believing in a “faulty interpretation” of the Bible is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.
Peace and Grace!
jackg,
Christ said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” Matt 10:40
This principle is as old as man. A person who accepts God’s prophets accepts God. A person who rejects God’s prophets rejects God.
I don’t think SteveH was comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus in importance or greatness. Do you think he was? A person who accepts Christ’s modern prophets accepts Christ. A person who rejects Christ’s modern prophets rejects Christ. That does not mean Christ’s prophets are Christ.
The “orthodox Christianity through the ages” contradicted by Joseph Smith parallels quite nicely the orthodox mindset of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. They argued that His teachings were new and not consistent with what God had revealed previously. They rejected His authority and demanded signs. Of this mindset Christ said, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.”
germit- If you don’t mind me commenting on your question “I’m assuming that you’d put eveyone except your own group in the “pharisee and saducee bucket….” Is that right ??” In my opinion, modern day saducees and pharisees are those who focus on technicalities of creeds and tradition in an attempt to lift theirselves above others, and who are so willing to condemn others to burn in hell. That can define persons from any faith and religion. But it does fit certain groups better than others.
keep the faith
fof
FoF, Jesus is not referring to the prophets, but to God the Father. The prophets did not “send” Jesus, they simply pointed the way. And on the other topic, no human being can or should condemn anyone to hell. It is God alone who does that.
Megan,
Thanks for the comment.
What am I missing? Christ was adressing His apostles when He said “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” I think it was pretty clear what He was telling them- if people reject you (the apostles), they reject Me (Christ). Those who reject Me (Christ) reject Him that sent Me (the Father).
As far as condemning people to hell, LDS critics do it all the time on this site.
Germit- interesting comments. Allow me an observation- Your connection to Christ could seem more direct because you have no church structure. On the other hand, we could say we have a more direct link to Christ in our reliance on personal revelation for determining truth. I say this realizing these are gross oversimplifications, but an interesting juxtaposition.
Peace
fof
FoF: I shamelessly stole the following from “LDS and Evangelical conversations” from a post by Bridget Jack Meyers…..who obviously reads a LOT more than OPRAH the magazine
See William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics 3rd edition p. 43-44:
How do I know that Christianity is true?
In answering this question, I have found it helpful to distinguish between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. …
I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such an experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” “Christ lives in me,” and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.
the point being: ev’s are, or should be, very much into personal revelation and experience……you cant’ get more linear thinker than Mr. Craig…..and there he is going ga-ga for experience….even apologetic nerd-boys rock the house now and again…..
so it seems you guys don’t have a lock on experience or personal revelation……I will admit a difference, if this is a difference: we submit all experiences to the AUTHORITY of scripture just to make sure that what we THOUGHT was the Spirit was not bad pizza, or an 80’s flashback, etx…….
the “you” of Matt. 10 could rightly be interpretted “the followers of Christ”; this fits better, I’d say , than “prophets” tho I know there is ONE reference to prophets in v.41. the lions share of verses in the chapter make more sense, to me, in reference the followers of Jesus (HIS disciples: which for THIS group were apostles, but in future generations would expand to mean a much broader group) the REALLY good news: this group is doing the ‘work of the kingdom’, they proclaim that the kingdom is at hand (v.7) this, then is something that Joe-six pack (diet cola, I’m sure) is called to do….not just a ‘clergy class’.
PS: to Bridgetjack: I hope you don’t mind the ransack…..with attribution…..
JackG,
My how you love to totally distort everything I wrote. I never made ANY of the assertions which you claim. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
My point is if an evangelical is to denounce another Christian faith as being heretical (which seems to be the fashion here) they should take a good hard look at their own doctrine first. Evangelical theology is a derivative of Protestantism an as such is set against the TRADITIONAL, ORTHODOX theology of Apostolic Christianity (ie Catholicism). By its very definition Protestantism is a heterodox religion – its genesis is based on a protest against the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, by definition, Protestantism and its derivative Evangelical theology is heretical from the perspective of the vast majority of Christendom.
Notwithstanding these plain and obvious facts evangelicals insist that they have the copyright and trademark to Christianity and condemn every other Christian faith as being heresy. All of which underlines the intellectual shallowness of their position.
When I read the article this post is about, the part that stuck out to me was the following…
“As we remember and honor the Prophet Joseph Smith, my heart reaches out to him in gratitude. He was a good, honest, humble, intelligent, and courageous young man with a heart of gold and an unshaken faith in God. He had integrity.”
If I was to list the attributes of Joseph Smith, I don’t think many of those would make the list.
What exactly are the “fruits” of JS?
I think both evangelicals and Mormon faithful are somehow able to find exactly what they look for. Both good and bad has been written of the man, and each year that passes more so called “evidence” is created on either side. I read my family journals, and find mention of many positive character traits and adoration. I read the many so called “facts” about the man posted here and I find a dramatic contrast.
I think that is exactly why the apostle Paul recommended that our faith be founded in the witness of the spirit rather than the wisdom of man.
1 Cor 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Is that not exactly what Elder Uchtdorf said about JS? The witness I share with him is one of the overwhelming power of the Holy Spirit on this matter. That is what Paul recommended that is what I have recieved. What more do we need? Nothing.
JackG,
You said – “It seems that the use of the word heresy and heretical has truly lost its meaning in the Mormon camp. For something to be considered heresy, it needs to be measured against that which is orthodox teaching.”
The Trinity was formalised by the Niceaen Creed about 400 years after Jesus Christ. The reason for calling the meeting was because of the differing views of God and Jesus and to get something down on paper that all could agree on. There were a few parties represented that supported these different views. After the Creed was drawn up the original supported a Binitary God – ie Father and Son,. It was not until 50 years later that they decided to include the Holy Ghost and formed a Trinity. Once the Creed was finished all who decided to believe differently were classed as heretics.
I’m probably going to get into trouble for mentioning this but there are 4 Bible dictionaries that state explicitly that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is not found in the NT. It appears to be an evolution of ideas formed around the middle to end of the first century but more so after the first century – ie not from Jesus’ time and half of the NT time.
So based on this data, how do we know what the original Christians (ie Jesus and close disciples) believed in as anything other than that is heretical – not ‘orthodox teaching’ as you have stated.
We LDS teach that through the First Vision these truths have been restored – which are the fruits of this occurrance. There are many verses in the Bible that support the theology that Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 seperate beings. Although there are no verses that denote some of our other beliefs about God and Jesus, there is enough to support modern-day revelation through prophets and thus supports the revelations that we have these days which explain our beliefs.
Ralph wrote “[The Doctrine of the Trinity] appears to be an evolution of ideas formed around the middle to end of the first century…”
and “…We LDS teach that through the First Vision these truths have been restored – which are the fruits of this occurrance. … Although there are no verses that denote some of our other beliefs about God and Jesus, there is enough to support modern-day revelation through prophets…”
OK, here’s a mind-trip that makes my head hurt.
1 If the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the middle of the first century (which would not trouble me if you wanted to express it that way), then it was being formulated in the living presence of the apostles and NT authors. Did I miss something, or is there something bad about having these people around during these formative times? Did they sit back and watch as the Church started to invent a different Christ to the one they knew from their own first-hand experience?
2 Likewise, if the Bible was getting written around this time, was it being revised by the trinitarians in defiance of apostolic witness and teaching? Are you questioning the integrity of Peter, Paul, John and the rest of them in their leadership of the church?
3 If the Bible got “published” with the blessing and sanction of the apostles and witnesses, what was it that needed to be “restored”? By saying that the Gospel was “restored”, you’re really saying that a fellow living in America some 1800 years after Christ knew him better than the people who were around at the time.
4 How can you claim to have “restored” the Gospel of the early Church when your ideas of God (that he was once a man, that he has a physical body and lives on a planet next to a star named Kolob – oh and he needs several wives to propagate), the condition of man and the “way” (exaltation through the works of the temple and priesthood) are in direct contradiction and opposition to what the apostles and eyewitnesses taught.
5 If JS did “restore” the Gospel, or at least set it back on track, why oh why oh why does the LDS church continually revise it? First polygamy was absolutely essential for a man’s exaltation, and now its prohibited. Brigham Young taught that the Adam God theory should be obeyed at all costs, then Bruce McKonkie (?) taught that a person would be damned if he believed it. Black preists were out, then they are in. Endowments used to include total immersion, now they just dab some water around, contrary to JS’ explicit instructions. If JS or BY turned up today, I think that they’d denounce the whole current LDS movement as apostates worthy of the fires of hell!
The simpler and better explanation is that JS dreamt the whole thing up for his own purposes and pleasures. The immediate “fruit” of his visions – about a dozen adulteries, several illigitimate children, “translations” that were nothing of the sort, the re-badging of Freemasonry rituals, a gunfight at Carthage Jail, to name a few.
Jettison Joseph Smith! He’s nothing but a road-block in your journey to the Christ of Scripture.
Martin,
Maybe if I copy/paste the actual quotes from one of the dictionaries, it would explain what I said better.
(Harpers Bible Dictionary)
So it states that the main evolution of the Trinity was post-biblical, although a growing ‘trend’ of thought started during the writing of the Bible. This means to me that the early ‘Christians’ (ie Jesus and His immediate followers) MAY OR MAY NOT have believed the same especially if the MAIN evolution of the idea was post-biblical.
The 2 scriptures in the quotes above (Matt 28:19 and 2 Cor 13:14) can also support the LDS point of view of 3 separate beings in the Godhead.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states under the article “Trinity”
(Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, p. 782,).
Again, this states that the concept of the Trinity is not “clearly detected” within the NT canon and appears to be a post-biblical evolution.
So we really do not know, due to so much confusion and static dogma in history, how the first Christians believed about God and how Jesus taught them to believe. So as I said earlier, anything different to what Jesus taught is heretical, not the ‘orthodox teaching’ as JackG said.
SteveH: you seem very sure that the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox view of protestantism in general is “heresy”. Do you care to back that up with some sources…if the case is as strong as you say, it shouldn’t be hard to bring those out.
Thanks…..and by sources, I mean RC and orthodox sources, of course. Thanks.
GERMIT
MrGermit,
Do 500 years of sectarian violence stemming from the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-reformation (one of the bloodiest periods of European history) satisfy your request for historical validation? Really, the point is self-evident.
Conversely, you could watch Pastor Hagee’s rather virulent denunciation of Catholicism being a cult to get a more contemporary perspective on the issue.
SteveH: thanks for the post…..I’m going to insist on some kind of present day reference from somebody official, RC or eastern orthodox telling me that what you say is the case….I was raised RC, so I am not naive about the historical hostility, much of this is as much political, economic, and cultural , as it is theological….but that’s another thread.
the most recent comment from Pope Benedict that comes to mind (maybe 2 yrs ago or so) said that all protestant churches are “defective” (I laughed at that…..who could argue against THAT ??? lol ) but I don’t recall anything about “heresy” or being outside of the kingdom of GOD. I’ve heard some teaching by Bishop Timothy Ware (he now has a greek name that escapes me) or the eastern orthodox, and again, I don’t recall anything about the protestants being “heretics”. IF you have a source, please bring it out…..shouldn’t be that tough. thanks GERMIT
AS for Hagee: that guy is a nut…..not saying he is not a christian, but he’s not ‘my guy’ and even though he is probably considered under the ev. umbrella, I trust him as far as I can throw him……see also Joel Osteen for more of the same……. different kind of nut, but you know what I mean…..Hagee’s hostility does NOT prove your point: you said the catholics consider US heretics…. you’re up…….
Sharon,
Your statement that LDS believe in a “Savior whose atonement paid for many–but was insufficient to pay for all–sins” doesn’t exactly seem honest. Is the implication that we believe God is not powerful enough to take away all our sins? If so, this is disingenuous.
Such a statement is like saying a parent who does not give a child everything that the child wants without any effort on the part of the child is demonstrating inadequate or “insufficient” parenting. A parent might attempt such a thing- to give everything and expect nothing from a child, but that would spoil the kid rotten. God does not need or depend upon our effort- rather, WE NEED THE FRUITS OF OUR EFFORTS in order to become what we are capable of becoming.
On the trinity trail- some who were present at the counsel of Nicea stated that the largest group attending that counsel were of a faction that argued for “subordination,” – the idea that Christ is subordinate to the Father, implying two separate beings. I don’t have the exact quotes in front of me, but can get references if desired.
fof
More on the trinity-
I am taking this from “Of Simplicity, Oversimplification, and Monotheism” by Barry R. Bickmore:
-Christ noted “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
-Christ asserted that only the Father knows the hour of Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24:36).
-Paul wrote that the Father is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6 New English Bible) and that after the resurrection Jesus will “be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28; see 15:24—27).
-Hippolytus of Rome wrote that the Father is “the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself.”
-Irenaeus referred to John 14:28 and insisted that the Father really does surpass the Son in knowledge. He also wrote that “the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all.”
-Clement of Alexandria taught that while the Father cannot be known, the Son is the object of knowledge.
-Athenagoras spoke of the “diversity in rank” within the Godhead.
-Tertullian claimed that there was a time when the Son did not exist with God and that “the Father is the entire [divine] substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.”
-Origen labeled Jesus as a “second God.”
-Novatian taught that the Holy Spirit is “less than Christ.”69 Eusebius of Caesarea called Jesus a “secondary Being.”
-By the time of the Council of Nicea (AD 325), subordinationism was still the conservative stance. J. N. D. Kelly of Oxford describes the most numerous group at the council as “the great conservative ‘middle party,'” whose doctrine was that there were three divine persons, “separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.”
These might help establish the fact that the concept of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate beings was certainly not just existent in the early church, but the predominant theology.
fof
For those of you interested in discussing the Trinity, I would encourage you to check out Rob Bowman’s The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study at IRR.org. You will find a clear definition of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which you can then use for the basis of your discussion — that way everyone ends up talking about the same thing.
OK Germit,
I’ll have a shot at this one. For all you out there that ridicule the LDS view about getting a revelation of the truth of the LDS church from the Holy Ghost yet accept what Germit quoted by William Lane Craig, I will pull out a few small sentences from his paragraph –
” How do I know that Christianity is true?
…distinguish between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true…
…I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God…
…that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to.”
(emphasis mine)
For those who need to look up a dictionary like I did – veridical – adjective 1. truthful; veracious. 2. corresponding to facts; not illusory; real; actual; genuine
Now do you know why we LDS do rely on the testimony of the Holy Ghost regardless of any so-called evidence against our belief? Just read the last paragraph again where he says that the witness (experience) of the Holy Ghost provides both a subjective and objective assurance and knowledge of truth and that any “arguments and evidence INCOMPATIBLE with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…” What he has said is almost LDS teachings and yet you all ridicule us for it.
FOF,
You’re presupposing JS was sent by God. You ignore the evidence against him. That’s your right, your prerogative. But, unfortunately, your presupposition is faulty, and is merely your opinion. Therefore, JS has nothing to do with my salvation. Everything I need to know to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is in the Bible. You can challenge my presupposition that Christ fulfilled the Law and is the embodiment of God’s grace. But, if you do that, you’re attempting to diminish the Person and Work of Christ.
Sorry, SteveH, but reading your post once was enough. Say what you will, but your position is not unique to the Mormon propaganda out there. I don’t think I twisted anything. Perhaps, all I did was reflect what you wrote and even you don’t like it. Something to think about.
Ralph, the councils were designed to eradicate heretical teachings that were creeping into the Church. Everything JS has brought into the discussion would have been refuted, just as it is being refuted even as we type. Also, the Mormon presupposition that truth needed to be restored presupposes that the Holy Spirit was somehow taken from the world after the promise of Him being sent to the world was realized on the Day of Pentecost. Are you willing to say the gift of the Holy Spirit was given and taken away from the earth? If so, what biblical reference do you have to support your position?
Peace and Grace!
Ralph: LOL: looks like I stepped in something….. let me clean off and ping back, maybe reading a little more of Mr.Craig will help me out ……or maybe the hole just gets deeper………..
GERMIT
JackG,
I do not refute that the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the earth, nor do I believe that it was ‘taken’ away by God. I believe that it was taken away by the unbelief of people. God does not move away from us, we move away from Him. That is the sense within which I mean. If we live a life as Jesus wants us to and follow His teachings, then we will be receptive to the Holy Spirit. And if we use this gift frequently and follow the guidance it can give us then we will have it grow stronger and more manifest in our lives. However, if we were to not listen to the Holy Spirit, we become less responsive to it until we are able to ‘block it out all together’ and we will not feel its guidance and influence. In this way the gift has not been taken from us but we have removed ourselves away from it. This is what has happened to the world tocause the apostacy. The apostles were killed and the truth lost by unscrupulous men who changed the doctrine to suit their ideas. They led the people astray, and although the Holy Spirit was available to them they lost the capacity to understand and recognise it.
So it was not God nor the Holy Spirit that left, but man. But in a way, it can be seen as the Holy Spirit being removed because its influence was not present much anymore.
As far as the Councils, yes they were set up to remove what was seen as heretical teachings – but in order to define what was heretical they had to come to an agreement as to what they wanted as standard teachings first. There were a few parties/theologies involved and the ones with greater support and louder voices won. After the creed was drawn up, anything else was then considered heretical. According to one webpage I have read there were at least 3 factions (deity theologies) represented – Arius was one. What would the Christian movement be like now if his party had the greater influence?
When I think of Joseph Smith’s first vision, I think of his account which is published (I believe) as part of the LDS Pearl of Great Price.
If we look at just this account in gauging the fruit of his vision, there are three items that stand out for me as a Christian:
1. In his vision, Joseph sees God the Father as being a man in appearance, and Jesus Christ as another man. This would tend to rule out my belief that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). It would mean that Jesus Christ is someone other than God. Jesus Christ would have to become something less for me if I believed this vision.
2. Joseph recounts something he was told in his vision: All those who profess a faith in the statements of belief (creeds) of Christianity are corrupt. To me, this says that all Bible-believing Christians are corrupt. I am corrupt. States like Alabama? Corrupt. George Washington? Corrupt. We’re all corrupt. But not Joseph Smith.
When I consider this, it does not upset me, as I cannot take it seriously. It reminds me of the 8th chapter of Romans:
Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for his own? No one–for God himself has given us right standing with himself. Who then will condemn us? No one–for Christ Jesus died for us and was raised to life for us, and he is sitting in the place of honor at God’s right hand, pleading for us.
The Christian’s sins have been forever removed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians are holy and without sin in God’s sight. It makes me wonder: What sort of being would single out all Bible-believing Christians for condemnation?
3. Joseph recounts something else he was told at this time: all the historic statements of belief (creeds) of Christianity are an abomination in the sight of God. (A number of the creeds are not much more than chapter-and-verse taken from the Bible, such as the Apostles’ Creed.) The final fruit would seem to me a rejection of every tenet central to Christianity.
Whether one believes Joseph’s vision, it is not the soft, milk-toast vision it is sometimes presented as.
Brian,
Thanks for your post
Hope you don’t mind some thoughts in response to your post.
Have you ever seen God? Me neither. And if not, then He certainly could be considered invisible to you and me, even though He could actually possess a visible form somewhere we cannot see. Stephen saw Him right before he was martyred “standing on the right hand of God.” It seems to me that both were visible to Stephen. In fact, that phrase “on the right hand of the Father” is used everywhere in the New Testament. And if Christ is in the express image of the Father, that would certainly suggest that the Father looks like Christ. And Christ was resurrected. So what of Christ’s resurrected body? Where is it? And how does it relate to the Father and Holy Ghost in the trinity?
You stated that Joseph claimed to have learned that “all those who profess a faith in the statements of belief (creeds) of Christianity are corrupt.” Come on my friend- that is not what he said. He said that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” And the statement of “professors” relates to ministers and preachers, not your average Joe who believes what they taught. I always understood it was referring to the leading class of religious teachers who were not sincere in their desires, but who advocated an adversarial, arrogant, and self-serving religion (think pharisees, etc.). I think you may be painting with too broad a brush here (“single out all Bible-believing Christians for condemnation?”) If anything, LDS are accused along with Joseph Smith of being too universalist for believing that all people will have a real chance to hear the gospel in its fullness and clarity.
Step back and look at Joseph’s approach and forget about the claimed result for a moment. Read the JS history up to the first vision part. You have a young man confused by the big and contradictory claims made by many religous leaders to which had access. He was not educated and had no means. He sincerely just wanted to know who was right and who he could trust and believe. (stay with me here) That description fits the majority of humanity who have lived on the earth. He goes directly to God in prayer believing that God loves him and will help him. I see this as exactly the suitable setting for God to reveal something if He ever wanted.
I have wondered if all the claims made about JS by critics even matter. If he was not controversial at all, or if there was nothing negative known or thought about him, would he be dismissed categorically simply because such revelations and things do not happen in our day. Forget the doctrinal differences too. Is it possible for God to call a prophet in our day that would be acceptable to EVs?
Thanks,
fof
I know what, why don’t I start a church and try doing it using just the Bible. Here are some of the basic principles I will teach for it –
Be A Sinner
Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning
There Is No Free Will
Polygamy Is Permissible
The Bible Could Use Some Improvement
I got these all from reading the Bible only – (plus just for you lot I will stick in the Trinity as the deity to lessen complications for my question). Which of these teachings would any of you have problems with – ie which are ‘heretical’? I ask because the fruits of this religion will grow from these teachings.
…back on thread…
Which version of the first vision are we supposed to be talking about?
Is it the version where JS sees one being, or the version where he sees more than one?
Ralph,
Maybe I’ll join your new Church (the one that uses just the Bible), but I suggest we modify your list somewhat…
“Be A Sinner”
…but being a sinner is part of my human condition. I cannot not be a sinner, but I’m not finding excuses for my sin (I’m not proud of it and I don’t recommend it). I will always (and I mean it) be dependant on the Grace of God to justify my inclusion in His Church. Hey, what’s the alternative? Do we only welcome “non-sinners” into our community? Do they have to pre-qualify? What does that say about our God? A god who didn’t love sinners wouldn’t tally with the behaviour of God as described in the Bible.
“Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning”
…but do it anyway…
“There Is No Free Will”
…maybe you missed all the stories where people make choices about what they do, and are held accountable for their decisions…
“Polygamy Is Permissible”
…but its not treated as normal behaviour because it always ends in disaster (I’m thinking of Sarah’s attempted murder of her rival wife, Hagar)…and it is prohibited in the Church (1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:12, Titus 1:6)…”All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor 6:12 – there are more readable translations than the KJV – try the NIV, for example)
“The Bible Could Use Some Improvement”
I’d have to disagree here, but with a qualification. The Bible is exactly what it should be, but we do need to work hard at improving our understanding of it.
Martin (and others),
That list I wrote is a list from Martin Luther’s writings. It is his ideology – and there are more comments that can go on the list. You can find them on this website –
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm
I am sure some of you would have disagreed with some of those points – especially the one about the Bible as Martin did.
Now I know you would all say – “That’s Martin Luther – I am not beholden to him” but whether or not you subscribe to his ideas he is considered as one of the fathers of the Protestant movement which most of you have ‘benefited’ from in your religions. His ideology formed part of the basis of your theology, even though you may have removed yourselves from some of it. So what are the fruits of that religion? It is your religion and ideology.
The article in the February 2009 Ensign that is the focus of this thread by Sharon had another “whopper” in it that really stood out to me. Dieter Uchtdorf made this statement:
“Before I recognized the tutoring of the Spirit testifying to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, my youthful heart felt that he was a friend of God and would therefore, quite naturally, also be a friend of mine. I knew I could trust Joseph Smith.”
Much could be said about this statement, but I would like to focus the attention on that last sentence where Mr. Uchtdorf said, “I KNEW I COULD TRUST JOSEPH SMITH.” It’s too bad that the youthful Uchtdorf could only look at Joseph in a youthful way instead of with the adult eyes of careful examination of who this man really was and what his claims are.
That is the sad thing I see at the wards is the little kids that know nothing about Joseph Smith other than what their parents tell them. They are told what their testimony is and they practice it. When I grew up I was taught John 3:16 for memorization. The little kids run to the stage on the first Sunday of the month for testimony Sunday and bear their testimony on something they know nothing about because they don’t have the mental ability to test the claims of Joseph Smith with biblical scripture. They repeat what their parents have told them. In just about all cases I have witnessed it’s just a few lines into it and the child freezes because of the audience in front of them and they forgot their lines just like a kid at the school Christmas play. They look up at the ceiling and then there is silence. More often than not, the kid finally bolts off the stage running out of embarrassment because the child forgot what his parents told him/her. Is that from the heart? Nope. These kids haven’t reached the age of accountability in Mormonism and been baptized, but somehow they have a testimony of a person they really know nothing about. Some would call that brainwashing.
It is regrettable that little Dieter back in the day wasn’t inoculated to this deception and wasn’t told the whole story of Joseph Smith. Well, it doesn’t matter now because the elderly Dieter knows it all now and more since he is the second counselor. He has access to the prophets vault and has seen ole’ Joe’s seer stone. He knows the scoop and the dirty, but he’s got a testimony regardless. I often wonder how many of these at the top know this is a bag of trash but stay with it because they don’t want to face the public shame among Mormons of calling the Mormon religion what it is and as Sharon so correctly defined – heresy? How many of them are willing to spend eternity in the lake of fire rather than accept a short period of time of unwanted attention from among the brethren? I’ve read the stories from the ex-Mormons who say that many of the Mormon leadership know that it is false but stick around because of their wives and they don’t know where else to go.
If only the Mormons would be truthful with the investigators and the new converts on what the Mormon Church really believes. I am baffled with what I hear new converts saying that they think the Mormon Church believes when in fact they couldn’t be more wrong. I had one woman who is a new convert last Sunday tell me that she believes that people in other faiths besides Mormons can have eternal life in Jesus Christ and that the LDS Church believes in the Trinity. I wanted to congratulate the missionaries for another great job of untruthful duping to boost their baptism quota. I guess some day her and others will find out, but then they will be in deep like Uchtdorf and won’t leave. They trusted Joseph Smith and it’s going to cost them dearly in eternity.
(Part 2)
Why don’t I trust Joseph Smith like Uchtdorf? I’ll cite 20 reasons (this is a short list!) on why I don’t trust Joseph Smith and why I think the fruits of the first vision have rotted.
1. Joseph Smith got mingled up with the culture in where he was living at the time which had an unhealthy and unbiblical interest in folk magic in which the Smith family were noted as being involved in.
2. Joseph Smith knew as much about the Bible to be dangerous in his supposed claims that are the focus of the First Vision (distorting the text in James 1 as the basis).
3. Joseph Smith couldn’t make up his mind later in his life on what version of the First Vision he wanted to go with. There was the 1832, 1835, 1838 and 1842 accounts which all varied in extreme ways. He couldn’t make up his mind on how old he was and who he saw. If someone supposedly saw God or Jesus (he says they were separate), then they would surely remember it. Joseph couldn’t make up his mind and this is an immediate red flag for someone that is a pathological liar.
4. Joseph Smith was involved in folk magic (occult) that had him looking in a seer stone in his hat and writing words down that appeared through the stone as supposedly coming from God in the form of the Book of Mormon. This is called divination in the Bible and it’s an abomination.
5. Joseph Smith was a plagiarist of the Bible and dropped whole chapters and texts into the Book of Mormon. Bible stories were retold with changes of names and places (Alma sounds a lot like Paul – one example and there are many more).
6. Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church in 1828 which was eight years after God supposedly told him that he should “join none of them”. He was expelled for being a necromancer and a glass looker.
7. Joseph Smith made claims about seeing Jesus that cannot be supported by biblical scripture that tells us very clearly when and where Jesus will be seen next AFTER the ascension.
8. Joseph Smith’s true colors were revealed with the Kinderhook Plates episode – false prophet.
9. Joseph Smith again revealed his true colors as a false prophet with the translation of the Book of Abraham which has shown to nothing more than a common Egyptian funeral text from the Book of Breathings. Joseph Smith couldn’t translate Egyptian symbols.
10. Joseph Smith and his involvement with the Kirtland Safety Society fiasco.
11. Joseph Smith committing adultery with his 16 year-old housekeeper Fanny Alger.
12. Joseph Smith hiding his adulterous flings and secret marriages from Emma Smith, his legal wife.
13. Joseph Smith making his moves on Jane Law, the wife of his First Counselor, William Law.
14. Joseph Smith putting the moves on Orson Pratt’s wife, Sarah, while Orson was in England proselityzing Joseph Smith’s gospel.
15. Joseph Smith putting Heber Kimball through mental hell with having to give his wife, Violate, to Joseph in plural marriage. He later allowed his 14 year-old daughter, Helen Mar, to take Violate’s place. (What a guy, huh?)
16. Joseph Smith introducing Freemasonry practices into the Mormon religion.
17. Joseph Smith’s abuse of power as town mayor in destroying the Nauvoo Expositor that revealed his polygamous ways and heretical doctrines.
18. Joseph Smith abandoning the Mormon people to flee to Montrose, Iowa to avoid arrest for his crimes against the state of Illinois.
19. Joseph Smith shooting three people and killing two at Carthage Jail all the while making himself out to be a martyr and applying the title of Christ from Isaiah 53:7 to himself (“he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter”).
Last but not least and the most important of all:
20. Joseph Smith and his heretical teachings on the nature of God that changed over the years and only grew worse towards the end of his life (King Follet Discourse). Joseph’s teachings are in direct contradiction to holy scripture in the Bible and for this reason he has deceieved millions. He was a liar and a false prophet. He should not be trusted for any reason despite what Mr. Uchtdorf says.
Ralph,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have to say, however, that the following statement you made is mere speculation and not grounded in the biblical text: “The apostles were killed and the truth lost by unscrupulous men who changed the doctrine to suit their ideas. They led the people astray, and although the Holy Spirit was available to them they lost the capacity to understand and recognise it.”
The only fact in the above statement is that the apostles were killed. However, when one understands the priesthood of believers, and that God–not men–ultimately leads His people, it is not so difficult to understand the perpetuation of the Holy Spirit through godly men who were still empowered with the Holy Spirit. The fact that unscrupulous men tried to introduce heresy is the reason for the early Church councils. Additionally, a student of the early Church will soon realize that God was moving in the world through men who had relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit, and we see this evidence in the early writings of the Church fathers and the council decisions that were made.
Peace and Grace!
Steve H,
You stated the following: “Do 500 years of sectarian violence stemming from the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-reformation (one of the bloodiest periods of European history) satisfy your request for historical validation? ”
I would add the persecution of pagans or ‘witches’ in europe during some periods, which resulted in the deaths of thousands,(at lowest estimate) some of the accused were children as young as 3 years old.
JackG,
I knew you would disagree about the apostacy and how I said that the ‘church’ was changed after the death of the Apostles. It’s just like I disagree with your last paragraph about how the ‘church’ was perpetuated by the ‘priesthood of believers’ that you mention.
But hey, that’s why we are on this site because we believe differently and we do not wish to see the other side suffer an eternity absent from the presence of God.
Martin,
This is the full quote from Martin Lutehr (Martin meet Martin !!)
“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” (‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).
(emphasis mine)
So you can see from what he is saying he does not mean it the same as your clarification.
Martin,
You said the following: “…your ideas of God (that he was once a man, that he has a physical body and lives on a planet next to a star named Kolob ..”
That sounds like a pretty far out idea, however I found some pretty interesting information. If you take a look at ‘the lords prayer’ (actually it should be called the disciples prayer if you think about it.
“Our father who art in heaven…” (isn’t this the sky?)
Compare this with John 8:23
“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.”
Paul described a vision he had…
2 Corinthians 12:2 “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.”
Douglas Ward wrote a commentary about this in “the voice” the online article heading is “The “Third Heaven”. He writes that the first ‘heaven’ is the visible physical world which all people can see. The second heaven is composed of water, a great sea.”cosmic waters” (this possibily explains some similiarities between some christian belief which are similiar to some pagan belief, a sea giving up the dead in revelations) The third heaven is beyond the sight of human beings. So this is quite a long way away, and this is apparently where the nazarene is said to come from. Another possibility is that its in another dimension.
Compare with Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Vol. VI – Acts to Revelation, p. 641.
“… the heaven of the blessed, above the aerial heaven, in which the fowls fly, above the starry heaven, which is adorned with those glorious orbs : it was into the third heaven, where God most eminently manifests His glory.”
I am not sure if LDS text in Abraham says he lives on a particular planet, just that Kolob is near to him.
“…These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: …. ” Abraham 3:3
LDS scriptures state, “…Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations…” Abraham 1:26 But to be true to the text, the pharaoh had significant misunderstandings of alot of things, but apparently he did his best with the knowledge he was given. Apparently he was blessed with the blessings of the earth and the blessing of wisdom, which must have been significant given all the accomplishments of the egyptian culture.
There are some attempts by various christians to link the great pyramid of egypt to the bible, using Isa 19:19
” In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.”
I watched a very interesting documentary about the great pyramid that mentioned that ancient egyptians were fascinated by the north star, and a cluster of stars around it. They were fascinated because it was immoveable. The show also used language pretty darn close to ‘the governing ones’. The big dipper is connected to finding the north star, and the Salt Lake Temple has a depiction of the Big Dipper. The LDS church comments on this on its webpage, “Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints”.
“High on the west center tower is a depiction of the Big Dipper, a constellation used by travelers for thousands of years to find the North Star. It is an appropriate symbol for the temple where patrons come to get their bearings on the journey home.”
I don’t think there is specifically the idea that the north star is Kolob, but I might be tempted to make the connection with the information given above. Its not entirely square with the idea of the third heaven, as that sounds much farther away. It does sound like an idea and a fascination adapted from gentile sources. But as I found before there is a mixing of ideas between all cultures.
Enki wrote “If you take a look at ‘the lords prayer’ (actually it should be called the disciples prayer if you think about it.”
…agreed (why would Jesus ask for forgiveness of sins if he never sinned?)…
“Our father who art in heaven…” (isn’t this the sky?)
…nope (big subject, but the misdirection is because you’re reading it from the perspective of 21st century western deism, not 1st century Judaism)…
Compare this with John 8:23
“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.”
…meaning that Christ operated within the regime of the Father, which is dominated by love, and we operated within the broken regime of human relationships, which is dominated by self-interest…
Paul described a vision he had…
2 Corinthians 12:2 “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.”
…and the point is that Paul demurs about his own religious experiences to avoid getting conceipted. Maybe there is such a thing as a “third heaven” and maybe its just a metaphor or figure of speach, but Paul’s focus isn’t on the experience, its on how it gets used…
Regarding the rest of your post, I can’t comment on the specifics, but why is there this fascination with occultish symbolism and astrology? Why go to the pyramids of Egypt when you should be on the road to Bethlehem with the Magi? Looks to me like the Freemasonic influences on Mormonism are bubbling to the surface again…
Oh, and don’t get started about being faithful to the text of the Book of Abraham. It is painfully obvious that Jo Smith’s “translation” and the source text (the Book of Breathings from the 3rd Century AD) are mutually exclusive documents.
Ralph quoted Martin Luther as follows “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
This language wouldn’t suit me, but it looks to me that Luther was using a confronting hyperbole to emphasise the grace of God (strong language is one of Luther’s hallmarks). Maybe you missed it, but the Grace of God is all about Him clinging to us, not about how we cling to him.
I mean, if Luther really believed that this is how Christians should behave, wouldn’t he have put it into practice? We do know that Luther married once, to Katherina Von Bora, and I don’t recall any allegations against him of improper marital behaviour from either his freinds or his enemies.
Contrast the behavour of a certain Joseph Smith, who peddled a message of outward righteousness but mulitplied his adulteries at an exponential rate before getting killed in a gunfight at Carthage Jail.
So, on the one hand we’ve got someone who said “I am a sinner” yet lived righteously and someone who said “I am righteous” and yet sinned. I know which of these two I’d rather follow.
Ralph,
You also quoted Martin Luther as saying “The Bible could use some improvement”.
Do you know if he was referring to his own translation of the Bible or to the source text?
I suspect that it was the former (Luther’s translation of the Bible to the vernacular was to the German language what Shakespeare was to English – both contributed greatly to the formation of the modern language, sometimes by inventing words that had not been used previously), but you might prove me wrong.
It would seem incongruous for the reformers to promote “Sola Scriptura” on the one hand and then to undermine the integrity of the “Scriptura” to which they were referring. It would also give their enemies plenty of ammunition, but this never seemed to be a major issue in the controversies surrounding the reformation. As I understand it, the battlefront was less “what is the Bible” and more “who has the right to interpret it”.
Ralph: I like Martin’s take on this ‘Martin Luther” side bar……I don’t care for the wording in his message, but JUDGING BY HIS LIFE, he did not condone that kind of rampant sinning, the same cannot be said of JS , who was full of deep throated admonitions against “whoremongers”……..I won’t throw more fuel on that today. I have a response to the Wiliam Lane Craig thing in the works, but it might be Fri. or Sat. till you see it.
thanks , GERmIT
Ralph,
Concerning your comments about Martin Luther, is this the level of responsible scholarship that you want me to use when talking about Joseph Smith and Mormonism? My point is take a look at the people who put this together. Go to their home page it may be instructive as to their point of view. I did like the quote from your source, “Since his work extends to more than 50 volumes, we won’t even try to give an overview here.” Does this mean that I have free reign to go through all of your Mormon documents and pull out the “more surprising — and, yes, inflammatory — ideas”? Or would you prefer that I quote your leaders in context and allow for and provide an explanation concerning the intent of the entire corpus of of their writing?
You are correct when you say that I am not beholden to Luther and that Protestantism has benefited from his theology. Luther had many beliefs that we and for that mater other reformers of his day found troubling. On the issue of the Lord’s Supper Calvin called Luther “half a papist”. This does not mean that Protestants are forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It means that every generation of the Church and every member of the Church is bound to test its theological claims by the Scripture.
You are not in the same position, you must defend Joseph Smith. You cannot even use Scripture to test your theology because you have cononised your prophets, seting them over and above the revealed Word of God in the Bible. Your entire faith is based on Joseph Smith. You must believe that the first vision occurred exactly as it is written in your sacred works. If there is a Friut of the first vision, it is to prove to Mormons that theirs is a faith based on a word of a single man and nothing else.
Ralph,
Sorry for being late on asking this, but in your post on February 10, 2009 at 5:17 pm responding to JackG you claim the Holy Spirit was not taken away but left because of the unbelief of the people.
This seems to be a regular claim made by people in your Church. Someone doesn’t believe in the BoM, it is because of unbelief they didn’t earn the Holy Spirit. Someone leaves the Mormon Church, it is because of sin, laziness, and unbelief, and they lost the Holy Spirit. Someone doesn’t find Joseph Smith claim to have seen God as genuine, they are just an unbeliever and didn’t earn the Holy Spirit. It seems a little arrogant to me to think that today’s Mormons are so much more righteous than the martyrs of the ancient Church who died with smiles on their faces, proclaiming Christ, as they were torn apart by wild beasts for the entertainment of the pagans. To look down your nose at the saints of the early Church and claim that they lived and took part in the great apostasy seems to be a special kind of hubris. I also find this contrary to the teaching of Scripture, Ephesians 2:1-5 comes to mind.
You see, this is what you have to accept to believe in Joseph Smith’s first vision. Nobody from the death of John to the first vision of Smith in the grove was righteous enough to be given the Holy Spirit. That is a bold claim.
GundeK : on a scale of 1 to 10, I find your last 2 posts somewhere in the “13” range.. very good work, sir…
you wrote:
Your entire faith is based on Joseph Smith. You must believe that the first vision occurred exactly as it is written in your sacred works. If there is a Friut of the first vision, it is to prove to Mormons that theirs is a faith based on a word of a single man and nothing else.
that is a beautiful summary statement ,to me, of what the 1st vision is all about
Ralph: Gundek’s point about odd sources is on target to me….I’m sure you don’t want, and would not accept large extracts fro “the God Makers”….and I wouldn’t give these to you….we all have to pick and choose our sources, and though I appreciate reading from a wide variety , your sources seem on the extreme, “national enquirer” sort of folks…that’s how it comes across to me, maybe the Tanners and MRM is that to you…
I certainly understand that you personally don’t believe the material of all you site….
hope all is well with the Ralph-clan
GERmIT
PS; touche about the strength of witness in the early church….these wwere the folks who were taken to the emporer’s garden party and used as human torches….. this was just before the big apostasy ???? yeah…….right…….
Just a quick thought. It has been stated to me that GOD has no grandchildren. Every generation of true believing Christians have go back to Calvary to truly find JESUS. But Mormons are stuck with J Smith. So let us all return to Calvary and give thanks for “so great a salvation”.
Ralph,
I agree with you regarding our motives. I’m really glad you see that. After all, I was a Mormon and served a mission, so I do know where your heart is on this. You’re right; otherwise, we wouldn’t be here doing what we’re doing. It does get a little passionate at times, though. 🙂
Blessings,
jackg
mrgermit,
Thank you. I have come across the exact same website that Ralph used some time ago. When I was married my wife was Lutheran, I was not a Christian. I spent a long time looking at different beliefs in Christianity, Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, etc. I am not saying that the Reformed tradition is always correct, let God and the Scripture be the judge, but there is a corpus of work for each tradition. It is wrong to let the fringe speak for the orthodox beliefs of any faith. It is just as wrong to extract off the cuff statements out of context to distort the overall beliefs of a theologian.
The first vision of Joseph Smith, places him on a level at or above if not completely against Scripture. To me, this is a flaw in Mormon theology. Taken to its logical conclusion, continuing revelation has to be in conflict with the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, pointing to His greatest Revelation, Jesus Christ, God incarnate. It is the “once for all” that Jude was talking about. The first vision of Smith says the Bible and grace are not enough to come to know God. You require Joseph Smith to really know God and it is only through the mediation of his Church and by his authority that you can receive the grace of God.
Ralph: I don’t want to beat this point to death, but Gundeck’s point here should be a poster, a bi-plane banner, and a tattoo….. :
It is wrong to let the fringe speak for the orthodox beliefs of any faith. It is just as wrong to extract off the cuff statements out of context to distort the overall beliefs of a theologian.
many times the sources you quote are capital “F” fringe….at least to those who post here….. let me know if you think my LDS sources are the same.
GERmIT
OKIE: thanks for the post….my guess is that LDS also are excited about Calvary, or at least the Garden of Gethsemane…..this is (to me) a case of just not seeing the imediment to the cross. I’m sure they see it otherwise.
Pingback: Was Martin Luther a Mormon? Part 5 of… « GUNDECK