On March 26th, 1830, following a reprint of the text from the title page of the Book of Mormon, this announcement appeared in the Wayne Sentinel:
The above work, containing about 600 pages, large Duodecimo, is now for sale, wholesale and retail, at the Palmyra Bookstore, by HOWARD & GRANDIN.
The initial printing totaled 5,000 copies. Not much is known about the sale of the books, but according to one formal statement made by a contemporary of Joseph Smith,
“After the Book was published, I frequently bantered with him for a copy. He asked fourteen shillings a piece for them; I told him I would not give so much; he told me had had a revelation that they must be sold at that price. Sometime afterwards I talked with Martin Harris about buying one of the Books and he told me they had had a new revelation, that they might be sold at ten shillings a piece.” (Sworn affidavit of Henry Harris, quoted in E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 252)
Today, nearly 170 years after the first Books of Mormon went on sale, over 140 million copies have been distributed. It is currently for sale in U.S. bookstores with a cover price of $24.95.
A few statements by LDS leaders demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is very important to Mormonism.
“Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 2:52)
“There will be more people saved in the kingdom of God–ten thousand times over–because of the Book of Mormon than there will be because of the Bible.” (President Ezra Taft Benson quoting Apostle Bruce McConkie, “A New Witness for Christ,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November, 1984, 7)
“All scripture is not of equal value. The book that is the ‘keystone of our religion’ and that will get a man ‘nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book’ [i.e., The Book of Mormon] needs to be studied con¬stantly.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and a Warning, vii)
“The fact is, we do not depend on the Bible or on traditional biblical interpretations for our theology. We do not know that the Book of Mormon is true or accurate from what we might find in the Bible. It is the other way around: the Book of Mormon has been given to prove the essential truthfulness of the Bible (D&C 20:11; see also 1 Nephi 13:39–40; Mormon 7:9).” (BYU Profes¬sor Robert L. Millet, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6:1, 1994, 198)
A very sobering statement for Latter-day Saints comes from early LDS Apostle Orson Pratt:
“This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and re¬ceive it.” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 1:1, Liverpool, October 15, 1850)
Buyer beware.
—
“You must understand that there is only one door to salvation, and that is Christ; there is one way, and that is Christ; one truth, and that is Christ; one life, and that is Christ. Salvation lies in Jesus only…” (read more)
He did have the most convenient revelations, don’t you think?
Considering the other thread regarding what Mormons think about the Bible (Whitsett), I find Millet’s quote to be rather revealing. If a group of people do not depend on the Bible for their theology, then can they be considered a people with a high view of the Bible? I have always said Mormon theology is backward from biblical Christianity, and Millet confirms this for me: “We do not know that the Book of Mormon is true or accurate from what we might find in the Bible. It is the other way around: the Book of Mormon has been given to prove the essential truthfulness of the Bible.”
Oops. I threw my two copies of the Book of Mormon, along with all the videos and pamphlets, right into the trash soon after I found this website.
You know, God speaks to me too. When my kids made fun of me for going to church and I had to give them some words about respect, God said to me “Now you know how I feel.” And when the father of my two youngest children was missing visits with them to spend all his time with his new fiance, God said to me “You are never alone. I have always been with you.” And when I lost my job at the local school due to an unethical administrator, God said to me “I have something better for you.” And now I’m in a better paying job that I love. So how come when Joseph Smith has a thought, about something as trivial as the price of a book, it’s counted as a revelation from God? I don’t get it. Again, his boasting is sickening.
First of all the quote about the price is not from Joseph Smith. It is taken second hand from a book that had the express purpose of destroying Joseph Smith and was written by a man who was a member of the LDS church until he was found guilty of sexual offenses and excommunicated. This man searched out only those who had the same desire he had as sources. How reliable do you think this book really is?
Also, the price of 24.95 is not accurate. A simple copy is only about six dollars. I got the Tripple Combination (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Gret Price) for around eight. The price is only in the twenties or higher if it is a large print addition, or has a good cover. It is also true that you can get a copy of the Book of Mormon for free if you contact the missionaries in your area.
MEGAN
God is always convenient for his saints.
LINDA
Why shouldn’t it be called a revelation? Everything you say concerning your communication from God is also revelation. Revelation is simply God speaking to man. We all can have revelation for our own lives, while others receive revelation for others as their calling and authority necessitates.
“The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and re¬ceive it.” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 1:1, Liverpool, October 15, 1850)”
I thought everyone receives general salvation (i.e. being saved) regardless of belief.. Mr. Pratt does a good job of screwing up doctrine there.
The price that was first “revealed” and then later reduced by “revelation” I believe would be applicable only to Joseph Smith’s day, unless this was an eternal commandment like polygamy and then it would have been only been eternal until revoked by another revelation. The early Mormon prophets, especially Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, seem to play loose and free with revelation – never really taking their “revelations” all that serious. It seems like it’s okay if they’re wrong or have to change a revelation. God is not the author of confusion.
If God talking to man is always revelation, then I still think it was extremely arrogant of Joseph Smith to have it revealed to him, and only him, the official “authority” from God; and with that authority he goes on to denounce the Bible. And when he did that, he and his followers have to reduce everyone else, including other religions, archeologists, translators, scholars, even God and Jesus, to a very low level. They are not, in his teachings, reliable or worthy to get it right. Apparently only Joseph Smith is. Then I know you’ll say, “Well look at the fruit of his labor.” David Koresh and Jim Jones were self-proclaimed men of God also, and we all know what happened to them. There are a lot of parallels between them and LDS. The way outsiders are viewed as Satan, the leader is the only true man of God, and you have to hide yourself away from the outside world (and early LDS certainly did that by moving to Utah.) I would say just read the Bible for yourself. You don’t need Joseph Smith. God certainly didn’t.
JEFF
Elder Pratt did nothing to contradict any doctrine. When he says saved he is speaking of living with God the Father, which would be in the Celestial kingdom. The general salvation that you refer to speaks to being admitted into the Terrestial of Telestial kingdoms. This is not truly a general salvation, but a partial salvation. To be truly, and completely saved is what he is speaking of.
MOBABY
I know of no time that doctrine was ever changed, except as concerning the Law of Consecration. This was changed to the Law of Tithing, because the original proved too dificult for the general membership. However, we are still taught consecration as the higher, of greater law, and the one that will be lived in the milenium.
You speak of polygamy as though it was denounced when it never was. To make it possible for the Church to grow and spread it had to be discontinued for political reasons, but it will be practiced again.
I have never been confused regarding the doctrine of the church.
LINDA
Was Moses arrogant when he claimed to have the Law revealed to him? Was Abraham arrogant when God made his covenant with him? Was Peter Arrogant when he opened the gospel to the gentiles?
All these men were called when they were alone, and the people only had their word to start with. All of them also had other faithful people that were placed under them (Moses had his Father-in-law, Abraham had Shem, and Peter had the rest of the apostles. Both Moses and Peter were accused of acting contrary to the gospel at times. Even Christ was accused of blasphamy for claiming to be the Son of God.
See a patern here? God has always worked through prophets. It is also true that a great many of those prophets were rejected and many killed because the people of the time thought them arrogant for preaching against them. It is easy to except a person who lived long ago as prophet, but it is very difficult to except one of your own as a prophet.
Also If the Bible is sufficient for us, why was not the Old Testiment sufficient for the Jews? Why was Samuel called to be a prophet after Moses, or Elijah after Samuel? To claim that we no longer need prophets is arrogant. If they of the ancient world needed prophets we need them. Even after Christ assended he left prophets to lead the people. Why are we so special that we do not need such men no?
Thank, Sharon, for this interesting piece. The quotations you have gathered are insightful.
A number of them drew my attention. One I’d like to comment on is by Orson Pratt. In it, he states that “The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it ….”
I would like to respond to this claim. If true, as I have not received the Book of Mormon, then I cannot possibly be saved.
Really? Well, the Bible tells me something very different. As a Christian, I rejoice in the wonderful truth revealed in the scripture:
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (Titus 3:3-8)
“He saved us.” As a Christian, I have already been saved. Something for which I pray I will always proclaim his praises (1 Peter 2:9).
Any one else find interesting how copywriting the book was one of the first things Smith did?
Moses wasn’t arrogant when the Red Sea parted for him. He had more than just his words for people to rely on. And no one from the Bible reduced God to a man as Joseph Smith did or discounted the scripture the way he did. And if JS’s revelations came so fast and furious, how come a map or actual location of these civilizations was never revealed to him?
Michael P said it was interesting that one of the first things Smith did was to copywrite the BoM. I find it more interesting that he attempted to sell the copywrite.
vwbrown–
I agree. The whole idea is suspect. Of course, it was all by revelation. God told him to sell it, and then when it failed, he said God then revealed something different.
Shemawater wrote “To make it possible for the Church to grow and spread [polygamy] had to be discontinued for political reasons, but it will be practiced again.’
…ooooh, I can’t wait. (Not)
Do Mormon women know this? What do they think? Why does the “will of God” have to wait for political reasons? Or are you waiting for the word from your prophets? What are they waiting for? Don’t they have Joseph Smith’s mandate already?
Civilized society (and not just America) has wisely dumped polygamy in the “abuse-of-women” basket. You should be ashamed to even think of reintroducing this poison.
And before you start quoting Abraham and the Patriarchs to me from the Bible, show me first where God commands them to get into polygamy, as Joseph Smith asserted in D&C 132. I think you’ll find that God might as well have commanded Noah to get drunk. (Gen 9:21).
Shemawater–
First of all,when Moses got arrogant, God quickly pushed him down. Remember, he was not allowed to enter the promised land. Same idea with Peter, though he saw his error and wept. And people thinking someone is not acting accoring to the Gospel is a different thing than actually doing so. So you have to tell us where Paul didn’t act, and your reference to Christ is not even worth commenting on.
The whole topic of the backing off of polygamy is skewed. You say God took it away for political reasons, but that it will return. Are you saying God is more concerned with politics than he is with his law? Are you saying he told people to drop it so they could become a part of a political nation when God doesn’t view people in terms of political nations? The Bible doesn’t say that, and I doubt the BoM does either.
This is all off the topic at hand– the copyrighting of the BoM, but it is related, of course, arguably it all is, in that you buy this hook line and siner without thinking it through. For example, why would God want his work to be protected by civil legal rights when his law trumps all? Is it so that no one would be able to skew the BoM? Or to make sure the rightful profit got credit for it? Do we care about that stuff when it comes to God’s word?
“Do Mormon women know this? What do they think?”
-Most do, and it is for them to come to terms with it. I know my brother has said that God would have to strike him with lightning before he would take a second wife. Most in my family have a difficult time with this.
“Why does the “will of God” have to wait for political reasons? Or are you waiting for the word from your prophets? What are they waiting for? Don’t they have Joseph Smith’s mandate already?”
-God allows men to live as they chose. He will do nothing to force any man to act in any way. However, he does make provisions for the faithful to live in harmony with the rest of the world. If that requires us to discontinue a devine, yet unnecessary practice, he will allow us to do so. He wants all his children to be saved, and so will only require that which they are capable of.
“And before you start quoting Abraham and the Patriarchs to me from the Bible, show me first where God commands them to get into polygamy, as Joseph Smith asserted in D&C 132.”
-Show me where they were condemned for it. Abraham was a great man. He had two wives at the time that God made his covenant with him. Jacob had four wives. He was the chosen leader of the covenant line, and his name changed to Israel, all after he had these wives.
No, the Bible does not say they were commanded. However, it does not say they were commanded not too either, and they were given the favor of the Lord both before and After they took plural wives. If it is such a vile practice why were they not chastised and rebuked? Why were they chosen above the rest? It stands to reason that they were chosen because of their righteousness, and that they were not chastised because it was not wicked.
MICHEAL
Moses was not arrogant, and never was. He was chastised for smiting the rock in frustration instead of asking it for water. He never elevated himself higher than he truly was, which is what arrogance is.
Peter was never arrogant, and wept because his Lord was going to die.
I know you don’t see these things in the same way I do, but when you understand the way I see them you can see how rediculous the claim that Joseph Smith was arrogant sounds.
As to politics verses the law of God, do you not recall Christ saying to “Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and unto God what is God’s.” Does this not tell us that we must follow the laws of the nation we live in? If Joseph Smith had not gotten the copyright than, by the law of the United States, which we have been commanded to follow, others could have taken and rewritten the text.
God’s law only trumps in the final judgement, or in matters that are under the direct influence of His church. We, as a church, cannot execute anyone, even though the law of God may require it, as that is only in the power of political government.
When it comes to polygamy the same applies. What would have happened it the church did not discontinue the practice. We would have been forced into the isolation of the mountains, and the work of God would have been stopped. If not this than we would ahve had to conquer the nation and set up a theocracy, which would have resulted in hundreds dieing that were meant to receive the gospel.
In order to fulfill his grand design God had to play into the politics of the Nation.
OK, so going against God because you think your way is better is not arrogant? Or denying Christ because you are so prideful you cannot allow yourself to be freely associated with him is not arrogant? Arrogance is at the heart of the matter in those two situations, so no, I don’t get how you see it. Going against God is arrogant on its face, which is why Smith was arrogant. He went against what God said. Up and down the line he is rebellion to God’s word.
Giving to Casear what is his was given in the context of paying taxes. So, how does that play into this discussion? I think anything physical that is claimed by the state can be taken. However, it would be a mistake to think that the reference would apply to anything spiritual. Polygamy was a spiritual matter, and it was something that salvation depended on, at least in the words of the D&C.
You say God law trumps only in the final judgment, but what is that judgment based on? Our adherence to his law while we live. I know you may inject something that we do have spiritual lives after our physical and that will be taken into consideration, (and this allows, in fact, a continuation of polygamy in this world), but this doctrine must include your actions while on earth. Why else all the hoopla of following the law, as you do? If what we do on earth does not matter, why shouldn’t we do whatever we want? That cannot be, as you would grant.
If you are concerned about your ancestors being trapped in the desert, do you need to look further than the example of God’s treatment of the Jews in the desert? Or of David as he feld persecution? What about Daniel in the lion’s den? What is the common theme: God protected them from harm without forcing them to give up a tenat of faith.
The polygamy politics argument fails that test, because your god told you to give up a tenat that your salvation rested on because of political expediency.
Shemawater wrote “No, the Bible does not say they were commanded [to practice polygamy].”
We can agree on that….
…which means that Joseph Smith got it wrong when he said they were (check the language in D&C 132, if you dare).
Linda wrote “Oops. I threw my two copies of the Book of Mormon, along with all the videos and pamphlets, right into the trash soon after I found this website…”
Linda, I don’t know anything about you other than what you posted above. I’d like to offer this to you…
1 I cry aloud to the LORD;
I lift up my voice to the LORD for mercy.
2 I pour out my complaint before him;
before him I tell my trouble.
3 When my spirit grows faint within me,
it is you who know my way.
In the path where I walk
men have hidden a snare for me.
4 Look to my right and see;
no one is concerned for me.
I have no refuge;
no one cares for my life.
5 I cry to you, O LORD;
I say, “You are my refuge,
my portion in the land of the living.”
6 Listen to my cry,
for I am in desperate need;
rescue me from those who pursue me,
for they are too strong for me.
7 Set me free from my prison,
that I may praise your name.
Then the righteous will gather about me
because of your goodness to me.
Psalm 142.
Martin,
Wasn’t polygamy in the O.T. a part of a breeding program to create the jewish race? I find it interesting that David was a participant with many wives. Perhaps he was selected for his literary skills, didn’t he compose about 70 psalms? Solomon had many wives and concubines, and also the son of David. Perhaps he had many of these admired traits.
“The biblical accounts identify Solomon as the son of David…The Bible accredits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem,[2] and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power…” Wikipedia, Solomon
It might be a sterotype, but I have heard a jew on the radio saying that he was proud that he, like other jews did better than gentiles on his S.A.T. scores. There is also a stereotype of the jewish lawyer, scholar, writer, intellectual. These are all ‘good’ stereotypes(actually any typing can be hurtful). The down side to this breeding program is the increase in genetic diseases.
Polygamy and monogamy are unnatural directed methods of procreation. Its very obvious to me that polygyny can geometrically increase chromosomal and genetic disorders, especially when the gene pool is restricted, and there are many women and few men. This is especially marked in the FLDS community, and from what I have heard to a lesser extent the LDS community. Its a complex topic. But, I do believe that monogamy also accelerates the creation of ethnicity by reducing genetic diversity. There is the possibility that this process is not entirely good.
The researcher, Weston Price has commented on the excellent physical condition of ‘primative peoples’, with special comment on dental developement and health. The focus of his work is primarily from a nutritional perspective, however, its my feeling that one cannot seperate one factor from all else. Their location, customs, genes may all come into play, in addition to their dietary habits. I particularly found it interesting that at least two of the peoples he studied had institutional ‘wife sharing’ or ‘wife lending’. But from within the culture its probably more like ‘husband sharing’. This amounts to ‘adultery’ from a christian perspective. But, it could be one of the many factors that kept these ‘primative people’ healthy genetically.
“Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
This link does not go in depth into the culture of any of the peoples, except for their dietary habits, and other habits which directly affect dental and reproductive health. Weston Price is considered ‘fringe’ by some people, and even a ‘quack’ by others. However, in my own personal life I have noticed that my dietary habits have had more impact on my dental health, and general physical health than just hygiene alone. During some periods of my life the standard western dental protocol entirely failed in the abscence of sound nutrition.
Martin,
I can’t believe you wrote what you did!! What made you write that!!!?
I have been reading Psalms, exactly that chapter, in the last few days, and certainly praying that prayer because of some issues I’ve had to deal with lately. I’m amazed at how God works, so precisely, every time I need Him.
Maybe you wrote it because of what I had written about God speaking to me. I should clarify that these things happened throughout the last 10 years and not in a short time span, thankfully. So I have had my share of hard times, I guess. But if I had to list all the blessings God has given me also, it would be far too lengthy for this blog.
So thank you so much for your words.
Linda
MICHEAL
“so going against God because you think your way is better is not arrogant?”
-Moses did not say, nor do I believe he even thought, that hitting the rock was better than asking. He was annoyed and acted rashly, but not once does he claim that it was better.
“Or denying Christ because you are so prideful you cannot allow yourself to be freely associated with him is not arrogant?”
-Where were the rest of the Apostles at this time? Peter had been told by Christ not to interfere, yet he was the only one that followed the crowd and was there while Christ was being mocked. When confronted he never denied that Jesus was the Christ, but to stay out of it, as he had been instructed, he denied being a close associate. Why was he there if he was not to interfere? Because he wanted to. Because he wanted to step foward a be at his Lord’s side. But he had been told not too. So, when the cock crew he knew that Christ was not going to ask him to step forward, and he went and wept for his Lord.
“Giving to Casear what is his was given in the context of paying taxes. So, how does that play into this discussion?”
-This is a direct command to follow the law of the land as far as possible.
“However, it would be a mistake to think that the reference would apply to anything spiritual. Polygamy was a spiritual matter, and it was something that salvation depended on, at least in the words of the D&C.”
-This does not say the practice is require, only the acceptance of the practice. You do not have to have plural wives to be exhaulted, but you have to accept that it is just for other to.
As to the Law, marriage is controlled by mortal law, and therefore must be followed by mortal law. As a church we do not have to perform a marriage that is permisable by law, but we cannot perform one that is forbidden by law.
“You say God law trumps only in the final judgment, but what is that judgment based on? Why else all the hoopla of following the law, as you do? If what we do on earth does not matter, why shouldn’t we do whatever we want? That cannot be, as you would grant.
-We are judged by God’s Law, but God’s law commands us to follow the law of the land as much as is possible. It also states that if the land commands us to do that which is evil (at least to some extent-such as military actions) it is the leaders of the government who will be held accountable for our actions. the great example is war. the soldiers who must fight an unjust war because of the laws of their nation are not held responsible for any action that is a direct command. Those will be the sins of the one giving the command. God’s law makes provision for everything. If it did not than his church could not be set up except as a sovereign nation.
“Or of David as he feld persecution? What about Daniel in the lion’s den? What is the common theme: God protected them from harm without forcing them to give up a tenat of faith.”
-You will note that I said unnecessary practices. David was living under a theocratic tyoe monarchy. His laws were those of God. He only acted as an executive. Daniel was protected for not denying God. This is a necessary practice. If the United States tried to outlaw the Temple ceremonies I ganuntee the church would not stop them, and teh Lord would bring in his power to protect them. If the Government made it a crime to pray (like with Daniel) he would again protect those who stayed faithful.
However, if the government made it illegal to drive personal vehicles on sunday the church would likely purchase large vehicles (buses) and reschedule meetings so that the could go and pick all the members who lived to far away to walk.
“The polygamy politics argument fails that test, because your god told you to give up a tenat that your salvation rested on because of political expediency.”
-Again, it is only the acceptance of the doctrine, not the practicing of it, that is required.
MARTIN
“We can agree on that….which means that Joseph Smith got it wrong when he said they were (check the language in D&C 132, if you dare).”
He did not get it wrong. His statement was that they were thus commanded, not that that command is recorded in the Bible. There are fifteen chapters in Genesis that tell his story. Do you really think that these contain every single thing that the Lord ever told Abraham, or every point of law that he was to follow.
In truth, very little of Genesis has anything that states direct commandments, except in individual events. We never have the command to sacrifice, yet it is understood to be a command as all the faithful are shown to participate. The laws of chastity are never outlined, and no where do we see a command not to steal.
These things are not actually stated until the Law is revealed to Moses, yet it is understood that these ancient patriarchs lived by them. In like manner, the law of Marriage and polygamy is not stated in the Old Testiment, but we can assume it was commanded because of the manner it which it is discussed in the naratives.
Shematwater,
Thankyou for your response. Lets follow this through in the context of believing the Bible or not.
The language of D&C is quite clear. Joseph Smith reasons that God commanded the Patriarchs to engage in polygamy, therefore the modern day equivalents (meaning Smith and his entourage) should follow suite and imitate them.
As we have agreed, there is no such explicit command in the Bible. Smith infers it from the text. He inserts a command where none exists. He also ignores a command where one exists, namely circumcision.
The LDS reasoning on polygamy is that the Patriarchs were righteous people, therefore what they did must have been in response to a command from God. Smith, it seems, can’t trust the Bible enough to believe that God’s blessing can remain on the Patriarchs even though they sometimes get it wrong. He’s limited into thinking that God blesses these people because they were worthy. He can’t believe that God blesses them because He chooses to bless them, despite their unworthiness (see Deut 9:6). There’s the whole dimension of election that Smith completely ignores. The whole issue of why God elects Israel also fails to register (Hint – its not because they are special, its because they are ordinary).
Smith’s reasoning falls apart with Noah. Does Noah get drunk at the Lord’s command(Gen 9:21)? If you are going to infer the command about polygamy, why not infer the command to get drunk? While we’re at it, why not follow David into murder and adultery (2 Sam 11)? Surely these guys were patriarchs too?
Even if, for sake of argument, there are implied commands to engage in polygamy, why neglect the explicit commands? The Bible has much, much stronger, more explicit directives to practice circumcision. God almost kills Moses over the matter (Ex 4:24-26).
Given that LDS don’t circumcise their sons, it seems that Smith could not bring himself to believe that this explicit command carried more weight than the implied command to engage in polygamy.
Why didn’t Smith restore circumcision? I suspect that he wasn’t circumcised as an infant, and the pain would not have suited him because his, err, “interests” were otherwised fully employed servicing his wives, of which he accumulated a new one about every month in the years 1842 to 1844. That, and the fact that the rate of new conversions would have been dramatically cut (pun intended).
The LDS teaching that God commands polygamy is based on an understanding of the Bible that doesn’t fully trust what the Bible actually says. It also demonstrates that Joseph Smith didn’t have the faintest understanding of the Bible’s message and context.
This irritates me because the Bible was not written by idiots, yet the LDS message tells the world that it was.
Martin,
Excellent post! I especially liked your last line because it is so true. You make a great point regarding circumcision; I have never tied it all together the way you do. Thank you for your contributions to the discussions!
Peace and Blessings!
Shemawater,
OK. So, Moses who directly disobeyed God’s intructions, annoyed or not, is not arrogant? Aren’t we supposed to follow his every word? Moses did not do that, and assumed authority he did not have. That he was annoyed does not matter.
Yes, Peter followed Christ there. But so what? Getting there but not having your heart there in line with Christ keeps you from crossing the finish line. Its good effort, yes, but not complete. His heart was rebelling and he assumed his own reputation was better apart from Christ’s.
Unto Ceasor, care to expan how we are to obey all the laws of the land? What if the laws of the land dictate you forgo your faith? Directly, or indirectly? Does that still apply?
Do you want to quote the direct portion from the D&C? What does it say? Something about salvation depending on it… This is very questionable language that on its face suggests it is mere advise.
So, God allows irresponsibility if we “follow the leader”?
So, David, Daniel, et al disobeyed laws and were persecuted because they the rules were not necessary?
It seems the crux if this direct discussion would be best termed: polygamy was not necessary, so God could throw it out. Is that right?
In that context, is JS’s copyrighting, and then subsequent sale, necessary? Why might that be more important than Peter denying Christ? JS was required to do that, but Peter was not?
MARTIN
I answered you very honestly and return with mocking.
“He can’t believe that God blesses them because He chooses to bless them, despite their unworthiness (see Deut 9:6).”
-God blessed Israel because he made a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he would if these three men were righteous. He is fulfilling his covenant to righteous men that he would give the land to their children.
“Smith’s reasoning falls apart with Noah. Does Noah get drunk at the Lord’s command(Gen 9:21)?”
-Have you ever drank fruit punch that was a little firmented without knowing it. I believe he was commanded to be an husbandman, and made a slight mistake in his work. Human error in trying to obey the commands of God.
“If you are going to infer the command about polygamy, why not infer the command to get drunk? While we’re at it, why not follow David into murder and adultery (2 Sam 11)? Surely these guys were patriarchs too?”
-Have you not read the entire section of 132 in the D&C. The law says that when God gives a person something they cannot sin in claiming. It also says that if God commands something you cannot sin in obeying. The two great examples were Abraham, who was righteous to offer up Isaac even though he had been commanded not to kill. The other is David who took another man’s wife that was not given to him by the Lord, and did so through murder, and thus stands condemned. He was not condemned for taking Abigail to wife as he was given her by the Lord.
“The Bible has much, much stronger, more explicit directives to practice circumcision. God almost kills Moses over the matter (Ex 4:24-26).”
-Because this was discontinued at the time of the Apostles. It was commanded to set the Israelites apart. Once the gospel was actively preached to the gentile this distinction became a hinderance and was no longer required. (Acts 15)
MICHEAL
You are not listening to what I have said. God allows us to do away with what is not necessary. I specificly stated that laws prohibiting those things that are necessary would cause great problems, and would bring the wrath of God against the government. Did you not read that part?
There are things we will never give up, regardless of the law of the nation. But there are somethings that can be given up in order to live peacefully.
God has never thrown anything out, but he does not require everything at all times. However, even though we are not required to live it now, we must understand that it is devine and we must accept that we will live it in the future.
As to Moses, if he was assuming authority he did not have why did the rock give the water. No, he had the authority to do what he did or he would not have succeeded. Thus he did not assume authority, nor did act in opposition to God. He was not acting in arrogance. If he was he would not have asked God in the first place, he would have simply done it.
Concerning Peter you say “Getting there but not having your heart there in line with Christ keeps you from crossing the finish line.” This missed the major point I made. Peter was there because he wanted to be with his Lord. He denied being a close associate because he had been commanded by Christ not to get involved. His heart was there and it was in line with Christ. His only mistake was putting himself in a position that he was forced to lie, but there is nothing arrogant in the desire to be with Christ.
As to the copyright, I am still waiting for an actual source, which I have not yet seen.
Actually, I am listening to what you are saying. I am questioning it, though.
To better understand, remember that we beleive that God’s word is eternal and unchangeable. In other words, he does not change the requirements he puts on us. The requirements that he puts on us are that we remain clean in his sight. In short, all the OT laws were designed to keep people clean or by providing cover for their sins. Christ did away with these because he himself provided cover for all of our sins. Thus, your assertion that God allows us to do away with what is not necessary makes no sense because the only thing necessary is faith in Christ, and Christ alone, who provides that cover. And as long as we are within Christ we are OK. It is when we act on our own that we lose that cover and go against God. It is God’s will that we remain in Him, and not try to do things on our own.
Moses, thus, when he went beyond what God told him to do, became arrogant and thought his way was better. Moses, you forget, was prohibted for getting to the promised land because of this transaction.
Peter, when he denied Christ, no matter if he wanted or was ‘commanded’ not to get involved (you have to explain this more), thought his reputation better apart from Christ. Remember also that when Christ told him he would do this swore he would not because his loyalty was so strong. It is this context that dominates the story, so whether or not he was commanded not to be involved or wanted to be there is really missing the point and is little more than red herring.
You ask for a source on JS’s copyright: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_Book_of_Mormon_copyright, and this post discusses some interesting related issues as well.
The discussion of polygamy, as an example is best started with this quote from D&C 132: “4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” This states it is everlasting, and if you don’t follow it, you are damned and cannot enter his glory. Nothing before or after this clause insinuates anything different. In fact, in vs 3, it states that all who hear the command must obey. So, you have a command that is determinitive on salvation for all who hear it. You have heard it, so you are required to have multiple wives. Unless, that is, God can turn his back on his own “everlasting covenants”. An everlasting covenant, unless you wish to offer another definition, is one that is permanent and by nature necessary (why else would it be eternal?)
Finally, to review, God’s law is ultimate and unchangeable. Our role is to act within his will, and not the will of a government. Can we give that which is physical and does not interfere with our physical state to that government? Yes, but when we act outside of God’s will we act in such a way that demonstrates our will is stronger. His will is not determined by following orders from a heirarchy of men, but from following his will directly. The examples of this principle are throughout the Bible. Your interpretations of Moses and Peter miss the point because they miss the immediate context. They stepped out of the will of God, out of arrogance, and were punished. They missed the only requirement God has for us: to stay under his cover.
…on a slightly different tack, and back on topic…
Was Joseph only partially serious about his “revelations” regarding the price of the Book of Mormon (see Henry Harris’ affidavit)?
I mean, I could read Joseph’s remarks as a bit of banter, and not take offense.
Given that this exchange occurred relatively early in Joseph’s career (I’m guessing, soon after the first publication in 1830), its possible that even he did not take his own “revelations” too seriously at the time.
“To better understand, remember that we beleive that God’s word is eternal and unchangeable.”
-I understand what you believe. I also understand that in believing so you cannot except the idea that God can require different things at different times. With your belief it does sound strnage and impossible. However, it is not impossible with the LDS understanding of God. It would take too long to give a full explanation here however.
“Moses, you forget, was prohibted for getting to the promised land because of this transaction.”
-I do not forget, but I will also say that he was translated, as was Elijah. HIs entire life shows a personallity devoid of arrogance, and I do not see it in this act either.
“you have to explain this more”
-I will explain more, and what I say is not missing the point. He did swear his loyalty, and I firmly believe he intended to fulfill that promise. He was the one that drew his sword and smote the ear of the soldier in defense of Christ. He would have taken on the entire troop by himself. But Jesus held him back, told him not to. Now Peter is confused. He wants to be with Jesus, to help and protect him, but he has been commanded not to. Yet, he still hoped that after a short time of persecution Christ might still ask him to step forward, and he wanted to be ready for this command (he hoped for it), so he followed them. When he was recognized he has to make a choice: Does he admit who he is and join Christ which would be directly against the command to not interfere, or does he deny being a close associate and thus obey the command to not get involved. It is a dilema, but he chooses to keep the command to stay out, and so he denies it. When the cock crew he remembered what Christ had told him earlier. He realised that he was not going to be asked to join Christ, and so he left and wept.
This is what I read in the Bible. I see it as clear as anything. I know it is not directly stated, but it is much more in line with the personality of Peter that is presented throughout the Bible, and therefore I except it. It has no arrogance in it.
“D&C 132: “4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
-You miss the important word -abide- which simply indicates acceptance of it, as I said. I have read this more than once and still see this.
We do have a very different understanding of things. From all that I have read the Law of Moses is not the same law that was practiced by the ancient Patriarchs in tGenesis, nor was it practiced after Christ. The Gospel taught by Christ was lived in Genesis, but the Law of Moses was given , adapted to a lower spiritual capacity. I cannot give references in this post, as I do not have time, but will shortly.
““To better understand, remember that we beleive that God’s word is eternal and unchangeable.”
-I understand what you believe. I also understand that in believing so you cannot except the idea that God can require different things at different times.”
If God is unchangeable, why does he change? And do not tell me that God changed by bringing Christ and then opened the Gospel up to the Gentiles. A careful reading of the Bible says something different.
Wow. In all due respect, you are way off on Peter. That is quite the psychological projection on what you want him to do. Even if true, though, why did he deny when he so proudly stated that he would NEVER do so? To your credit, you acknowledge your discussion is not mentioned, “I know it is not directly stated, but it is much more in line with the personality of Peter.” But the personality of Peter is carelessness and over excitement to help. It was pure and simple arrogance. Peter did not realize that only Christ could get things done. Peter kept trying to do it his way, and each time, he failed, until he realized that Christ was exactly who he said he was. Let’s take your take, even. If Peter wished to help when Christ said no and followed along so that he might be able to help, what does that say about Peter? Does it say that he trusts God or himself more? The answer does not depend on whether he was sincere in his love for Christ.
To abide in: to remain; continue; stay: Abide with me.
2. to have one’s abode; dwell; reside: to abide in a small Scottish village.
3. to continue in a particular condition, attitude, relationship,
So, you have to stay in that covenant. Abiding is much more than mere accepting. You also do not address v 3 of that same passage: “prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.” This is much more than an admonission to accept. It is a command to follow. In fact, this was why so many were reluctant (and even still are reluctant) to give up the practice.
The “Laws” may be different in practice, but the goal was the same– to keep us clean in the sight of the Lord. This differs greatly from something like polygamy which had nothing to do with staying clean before God.
BTW, you never commented on JS a) getting the copyright or b) trying to sell it.
I believe God is unchangable. He will not give us more than we can handle. This will never change. Thus, while his nature remains the same, his law can be adapted to fit the needs of the people at any given time. HIs nature has not changed, but his actions adapt to the situation.
As to Peter, I still do not see what you describe anywhere in the scriptures. I see a man who who loves Christ, and wants to be like him. However, he knows who he is and follows the Lords commands as best as he can. He never does anything without the permission of Christ, and even though he fails to do somethings he is often the only person willing to try. Now, all the apostles had an understanding of the Massiah that said he would be a great military leader to liberate the Israelites. Peter, as the leader of the twelve became their spokesman with Christ in asking him to clarify and explain what they had been taught all their lives.
The apostle I see as being arrogant is Judas. Again, not all I say directly in the text, but through an understanding of psycology and a careful reading of the narative I believe it is fairly accurate. Judas aslo thought of a military campain, and believed that the twelve were going to be the governors when israel was liberated. When he saw that Christ was delaying, not understanding the true intent and mission of Christ he betrayed him as a way to force his hand, trying to get the war going. Afterwards he realized he had made a mistake and that is why he tried to return the money and later killed himself. This was arrogance.
As to abiding in the covenant, this still does not mean every man has to have multiple wives. Think of the Law of the Nazarene in the Law of Moses. It was a voluntary service that some elected to participate in. Not all were commanded to be part of it, but all were commanded to accept it, and encourage those who did choose to live it. They were to abide in that covenant. In like manner, we are not all required to have multiple wives, but we are required to accept the doctrine and encourage those who wish to live it. We are commanded to abide the covenant.
As to verse three, this is a command to a people, meaning exactly what I said, that the people must accept it. It is not a command to each individual. As a people we are to practice and obey this covenant.
Shematwater,
You speak out of both sides of your mouth– God is unchangeable yet…
God being unchangeable must by definition by more narrow than what you describe. God’s plan from the beginning was that we be clean. His plan always looked to Chris, and the laws of the NT foreshadowed Him. Prophecy looked to him. God’s plan has never changed. And the plan was simply that– to stay clean. Polygamy, or being black, or accepting Adam as God, etc have nothing to do with staying clean.
You miss the point of my bringing up Adam/God in the context I did. I mean it to question what else are we supposed to take seriously from your past? And then, consequently, how do we know what you bring up today is to be eternal? Of course, you will deny that BY ever spoke those words, but the historical record shows something different. And it is not isolated.
For example, our discussion of D&C 132 is right on point. On its face, it is a command to have multiple wives, not a command tro accept the practice. Vs 3 cannot be isolated fromt he 4th.
But you know, even if we accept your definition, you say “as a people we are to practice and obet this covenant.” So, when you ban the practice for the whole people, are you still not disobeying the eternal covenant? You focus on “abide” while I focus on “practice” and “everlasting”. If it has been banned, it is not everlasting. If it is banned temporarilly, isn’t that a bit’ convenient’?
Finally, and out of order, Peter. Peter did love Christ. He did go out of his way to please him. But he tried using his own efforts. He tried to force the issue. Perhaps I need to define arrogant in the sense I use it: arrogant means putting oneself above another because that person thinks his ways are better. In this sense, Peter was arrogant. He tried to do things his own way, and no matter his sincerity in loving Christ, he could not let go of that part that said his way was better. In other words, he could not submit his entire will to Christ. When he tried to walk on water, yes he took a step or two, but then failed to give his entire faith in Christ, even though he wanted to be with him so badly.
Peter learned his lesson, eventually. He learned that it is when you put your entire faith in Christ and in Christ alone that you can be with Christ. But, it took, among other things, his boasting that he would NEVER deny Christ, then have Christ call him out on that boast, and to Christ’s chastizing it come true.
“God’s plan has never changed.”
-I never said it did. His plan is to make our exaultation possible. However, as not all people are the same, each generation must be approached in a different way to make this plan possible. We are not all commanded to build arks, as Noah was. We are not all given the strict ceremony that are contained in the Law of Moses. We are all given those laws and commands that will enable us to progress as the plan of God requires.
“Polygamy, or being black, or accepting Adam as God, etc have nothing to do with staying clean.”
-But obeying the commands of God do, as does believing the doctrine that he has taught through his prophets. If God gives a command than to obey it cannot make you unclean, but to disobey will. Just as Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his son, which goes against the command not to kill, was clean in his obedience. If God commanded us to live polygamy than we would be unclean not to. If he talk that the black race was not to hold the priesthood, than we would be unclean to reject this. (I do mention the Adam-God as it was never taught.)
“I mean it to question what else are we supposed to take seriously from your past? And then, consequently, how do we know what you bring up today is to be eternal? Of course, you will deny that BY ever spoke those words, but the historical record shows something different.”
-I will denby nothing, nor will I claim that anything spoken by those early leaders is not eternal, unless they said so themselves. However, I have read these quotes you mention, and they still do not speak to Adam being God. I will give a second post and explain these.
“For example, our discussion of D&C 132 is right on point. On its face, it is a command to have multiple wives, not a command tro accept the practice. Vs 3 cannot be isolated fromt he 4th.”
-I did not isolate anything. I pointed out that both verses were saying the same thing: That this command was to the people in general, and not individually, just as the Law of the Nazerene in the Old Testiment. We are all commanded to abide the covenant, which is to accept and support the practice.
“So, when you ban the practice for the whole people, are you still not disobeying the eternal covenant? You focus on “abide” while I focus on “practice” and “everlasting”. If it has been banned, it is not everlasting. If it is banned temporarilly, isn’t that a bit’ convenient’?”
-If God tells us not to practice it than we cannot be disobeying. It is convenient, but so was the parting of the Red Sea, as was the changing of the original law to the Law of Moses. God is a convenient God for his people.
Also, I would also point out that it is not completely done away with. While no man can have more than one wife while alive, if the first wife dies he can be sealed to a second, and thus he will have both in the eternities, so the Law is still everlasting.
I am done speaking of Peter. We will never agree as to what his character really was, so we will have to wait and meet him when he comes with Christ in the second coming. All I ask is that you try to see what I see, even if you don’t agree with me.
ADAM GOD THEORY
first quote
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, page 51
What does this say? It says that Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Now, I understand how this sounds. But let us put this in perspective with other doctrine.
First: God, the Father of our Spirits, is the God of countless worlds, all of which have his children on them. We find this in the Book of Moses chapter one.
Second: Jesus Christ is the savior of all these worlds, as he is the savior of all his Father’s children.
So, what does Brigham Young mean? He means that Adam is the God of this planet, under the direction of God the Father and Jesus Christ. As such he is the only God that we will have daily contact with, and who coordinates all angels and such occurances on this planet. He is not the God we worship. He is not the Father of our spirits. He is the Father of our physical bodies and the leader of all those that live on this Earth.
second quote
“Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there.” Journal of discourses Vol. 5 page 332.
Again, what is he saying. He is saying that Adam is the leader of this planet. Notice that he was in the grand counsel, but he is not identified as the head of that coucel. He was a great figure in the spirit world, the greatest of all God’s children except Jesus (in authority). He had a job, a mission to do in that counsel and on this earth which he fulfilled. It is through him that all angels opperate on this earth, but he is still under the authority of Christ and the Father.
As you can see, when all the doctrine of the church is understood the idea that they ever taught Adam was God the Father seems a little rediculous. When you get into the deeper doctrines, the true mysteries of God, you cannot take only one idea, or one thought. All must be taken together or you will never truly understand them.
Shematwater wrote “He means that Adam is the God of this planet, under the direction of God the Father and Jesus Christ. As such he is the only God that we will have daily contact with, and who coordinates all angels and such occurances on this planet. He is not the God we worship. He is not the Father of our spirits. He is the Father of our physical bodies and the leader of all those that live on this Earth.”
…how many gods are there? I understand that Shem is advancing a sort of henotheism, so why bother with all the various sub-deities and go straight to the Name that’s above all Names (Phil 2:9). Why assume that the under-gods cooperate with the over-gods?
…what does “father of our spirits mean”? James E Talmadge’s “Articles of Faith” clearly states that something without physical substance cannot exist. Its his argument that God the Father has a physical body. So what are these “spirits”? If I follow this correctly, then our “spirits” were born of God the Father through sexual reproduction in some “heavenly” realm (the planet Kolob, perhaps), but kind-of dropped into the bodies that were physically derived from Adam at birth (or perhaps conception).
It looks to me like a stack of Gnosticism. Its also horribly complicated and speculative for something that’s supposed to be “plain and precious”.
By contrast, the Biblical Gospel is much easier to grasp. It goes something like this;
* God created the heavens, the earth and everything in them (Gen 1:1), including us
* We have sinned, which drove us out (Gen 3:23, Ezekiel 11:9-10)
* God redeems us (requires faith on our part), and brings us back in at great cost to himself (Ex 19:4, Matt 13:45-46)
* The relationship between God and humanity is restored (Ezekiel 48:35, Rev 22:3-4).
* He is Immanuel (Matt 1:23, literally “with us is God”)
I think that if you’ll read your Bible, you’ll find that this message is the same from start to end.
If you research the LDS “Gospel” (and ignore the vacuous claims of consistency in the LDS movement), you’ll find that it changes all the time; the “Adam-God theory” being the prime example.
What I have said is not part of the plain and precious gospel. The Gospel is the plan of salvation, it includes only those things that are necessary for us to progress while in this world. What I have said is not necessary, but is a little extra knowledge concerning the mysteries of God. It is no longer actively taught for this reason.
I do not know how gods are in existance, as they cannot b counted. I do not know all the workings of God and how things are done in the Celetial relms. However, I do know that what I have said is true, that Adam is the god of this world, and that he acts under the direction of God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are the Gods of all worlds created by them.
I can give brief ideas about the spirit. Some I know to be true, but others are theories that I have heard and agree with.
First: Yes the spirit is made of matter, so in a sense it is physical. However, the matter that it is made of is not the same as the matter that our bodies are made of, so in this sense it is not physical. This is told us in D&C 131: 7.
Second: The immortal body does not have blood running in its veins. We know not what fluid it has, but it is not blood. When Christ returned after his resurrection he stated that he had flesh and bones, but he did not say blood. Blood is what makes us mortal.
Third: As a mortal body carries its mortality in the Blood, when it reproduces in conception this blood causes the child born to also be mortal. As an immortal body does not have blood, the fluid that it does have causes the offspring to be born spirit.
The last two mentioned are only theory. I do not know if they are true, but it makes sense. I do believe this is true.
When a mortal child is born a spirit must enter the body or it will have no life. When God created Adam he was not a living soul until after the spirit was breathed into his nostrils. I do not know when the spirit enters the body, but I know it is before birth. I do not know exactly how it enters, but I know that it does.
However, I do not need to understand any of this to be saved in the Celestial kingdom and be exaulted with God. These things I can learn once I am with him. I learn them now so that I won’t have to take the time later.
The simple truth of the Gospel is that we are the literal spirit children of a loving Father in heaven. He has prepared a method, or plan by which we can progress and become like him. He created the Earth made it possible for us to dress our spirits in physical bodies. Through his only begotten son in the flesh he made it possible for us to be redeemed and live with him, and like him, if we but follow the commands of his son. It can not get simpler than this, nor can it get more glorious or precious.
Shem,
I am not sure how to respond.
I think I will focus on the last sentance you wrote: “It can not get simpler than this, nor can it get more glorious or precious.”
Not only does what you say not sound simple, but it actually can be even more simple: once we accept Christ as our savior and our all, we will spend eternity in his everlasting glory.
That’s it. That really, really is it.
To be fair, what happens on the inside and how it changes your life is much more complicated. But that is a separate topic.
Accepting God as our savior is all you need. There is no further knowledge to be had or rules to follow.
And yet the Bible disagrees with you.
Also, while what you say is simpler on the surface, it does leave many questions and is thus complicated.
To be truly simple the plan must state why it is being used, where we start from, what the final goal is, and how we are to reach it. You only give the final goal and how to reach it, but you do not tell us where we started or why we are to follow this plan.
In contrast I have given all four parts, and nothing else.
Why: He has prepared a method, or plan by which we can progress and become like him.
Start: We are the literal spirit children of a loving Father in heaven.
End: To be redeemed and live with him, and like him
How: Through his only begotten son in the flesh he made it possible if we but follow the commands of his son.
The entire plan is outlined. We know where we started from, where we are going, and how we are to get there. We ae told why we follow this plan, and are even told where the plan came from. There is more, but this is the simple outline of the plan. This would be the brief explanation at teh beginning of an intruction manuel telling you the basic idea of what you should expect in the actual instruction.
One reason I cannot except the idea of something for nothing is that it has the appearance of this brief introduction, but than denies the instructions that are supposed to follow. I feel that it is much like taking only the introduction, tearing it from the book and throwing to book away. While the introduction is good, and for many necessary, it is not all that is needed.
Shem,
You need to clarify the logic you presented.
I think you leave out a “what” question. What is this all about?
Here’s a more complete, given what you are seeking, analysis, plust the “what”:
What: God created us and loves us as his creation. He is a perfect and omnipotent being. He wants us to be with him, but the only way to do so is if we are free from blemish.
Why: Because that is what is just, and our being blemish free is the only way, with God’s perfection, that we can reach him.
Start: We fail to live righteously enough to warrant usbeing blemish free, ie we are sinful, and are sinful by nature.
Finish: To be united with our creator and enjoy his fellowship for eternity.
How: By accepting the cover he has given for our sins, Christ, as the only way to meet God in heaven.
See, it is still as simple as I outlined earlier.
You can’t expect something for nothing in this context because you do not fully understand the saving power of God. “He is mighty to save.” Is 63:1, Zeph 3:17.
I did include the what. It is found in both the Why and the How that I gave.
What is it all about? It is about a loving Father who wants what is best for his children. In my explanation the why and the what are basicly the same thing. Why we follow the plan is the answer to what it is all about.
I never said I couldn’t expect something for nothing (though this may have been a typing error on your part). I understand that God has all power. He is mighty to save. What I was saying is that even if he could (which I do not believe) I would not except that gift if I had done nothing. I would not feel right, and I would be miserable through-out eternity. This has nothing to do with the power of God, but with me.
Just as in school I except my grades because I know that is what I earned. However, if I took a test and only answered half the questions and yet still got a 100% correct, I would go to the teacher and question that grade as it is not a just rendering of my work.
shematwater,
I wish you would really examine what you write. What you intimate is a theology that is very man-centered, especially with regard to the philosophy and reasoning you use. The beautiful thing about God’s grace is that we don’t deserve it. It doesn’t make sense. I pray you don’t let that be a stumbling block for you any longer. Think about it…a loving God Who wants to redeem and save you just because He loves you. There is no performance involved; no grade to receive (besides, the only grade we could ever earn for ourselves is a big fat F). It is a gift, and a gift is not earned, but is freely given. The problem seems to be that you struggle receiving the gift because it does not fit into your paradigm. I have been in your shoes, and let me tell you, that “…after all we can do” thing really had me messed up. The first lesson I learned when I became a Christian is that the only thing I could ever merit for myself is death. That’s it. So, I pray that you will receive God’s gift of salvation without letting the junk about not feeling right and so forth get in your way. God has something really beautiful for you. All you have to do is believe. I know, it sounds to simple and trite and, yes, there are those who abuse this, but then it comes back to the idea of whether or not one’s conversion is genuine. I hope you have a blessed Easter, and I’ll be praying for you and yours.
Peace and Grace!
Shem,
You said this: “This has nothing to do with the power of God, but with me.” I think you are exactly right in how you view the issue. Jack did a wonderful job explaining that it is indeed a gift, and it being a gift is exactly the point.
It is a simple idea, but radical, isn’t it? To think that we do not deserve this awesome reward of spending eternity with our father, and yet, he gives it free of charge. You are right to say we do not deserve, and to feel bad about how utterly depraved we are.
But the difference in what Mormonism proposes and what we propose is that cleansing comes the moment you put your faith into Christ, and he does it when you realize that he does it all, all the nasty stuff you’d have to do to earn it– most importantly, he died, the most nast part. He took our punishment for us when he died, today, actually, about 2000 years ago. And three days later he rose and triumphed over death. There is nothing else for you to do but trust that his strength over death will cleanse you.
So will we, when we trust in him.
But Christ has said he will reward us accoding to our works. (Rev 22: 12)
Let me try and explain how I see things through a little analogy.
We depend on God for everything right. For just being alive we can say we owe him one million dollars. For our food and breath and health this debt is increased. So, we work for him to pay this debt. In return he gives us verious blessings that could count as a spending allowance. So we are able to pay off this spending allowance, and may even pay off or daily needs, but our work will never pay off the origanl debt of one million.
When the day of reconing comes and our debt is required we will have to pay it. However, as we could never really pay off that much, Christ, who is our elder brother and who loves us, has told us that on that day he will pay that one million dollars for each of us. Thus our duty is to make sure we owe no more than this. If we are lax in this duty and come to the judgement bar with even one dollar more than this original million we will be cast out the kingdom. but if we can come before God with no extra debt than Christ will claim us as his and we will be admitted into the kingdom.
As to my own personal feelings, I do not think that a loving God would want me to be in eternal misery. The mersy of God will place me where I will feel the least amount of torment possible. Thus, if there is even a small part of darkness in me I cannot be with God, as his light would burn me with torment. I would be placed at a distance where his light would not be a torment, but as close to him as possible.
Shem,
I am going to simply ask you a very short but important question:
What would it take for you to see that the gift of salvation is exactly that, a gift?
It is not a contract. It is not a loan. God sacrificed his own body, because he loves us so, so that we might live, and all we have to do is accept it.
You are right, a loving God does not want you in eternal misery. Rather, he wants you to accept the gift he gives to you. He’s knocking right now so that you can let him in to give you this gift. All you have to do is to accept it.
Shematwater,
“Dear brothers and sisters, the longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the “Mormons” (my change to show my motives) to be saved. I know what enthusiasm they have for God, but it is misdirected zeal. For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God…If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:1-4, 9).
I understand what you’re trying to prove through your use of the scripture passage in Revelations. One, however, needs to understand the totality of God’s Word to be able to interpret it properly. The totality of the Bible points to God’s grace in saving us, and how we are justified by our faith. When we understand the words of Peter and James regarding works, we see that our works are the evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ. It’s about living Spirit-empowered lives, lives that we cannot live on our own under our own power. When we understand this, we can see that Jesus will make a judgment based on our behavior because they will give proof as to whether or not one truly has faith in Jesus Christ. The passage you shared does not give proof for works-righteousness theology. The passage in Romans that I quoted makes that very clear. Now, we also have to understand that, based on the two commandments that represent the 10 commandments, a person who is a believer in Jesus Christ will demonstrate deeds of love. Unfortunately, this is not the place to go into a discussion on sanctification and what that looks like. To bottom line the discussion, sanctification is Christian perfection, which is being made perfect in love. Does this mean our deeds will be perfect? No. But, our motives will be. So, we will be judged according to our deeds, but it’s only because our deeds reveal our faith in Christ or lack thereof. We can understand this because we have the biblical message of grace that literally fills the pages of the Bible.
So, are works important? Absolutely!! Do they save us? Absolutely not!!! For the Mormon, works are necessary for salvation (like baptism). For the Christian, works give evidence of our faith, but we are justified by faith and saved by grace. That’s the beauty of it, Shematwater! God doesn’t want good behavior. He wants our hearts. And when He has our hearts, the fruit will be deeds of love, which means our behavior will be good. I have always said Mormonism teaches a backward theology. Mormonism teaches one must be sanctified (made holy), usually through works and making themselves worthy by those works, to be saved. Christianity teaches that the saved Christian is sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit: salvation precedes sanctification. That’s why Mormons don’t know if they are saved, while the Christian does know. Once again, if we’re talking about the good news of the message of Jesus Christ, Mormonism pretty much offers bad news. Christianity reflects the real good news of Christ crucified and resurrected! His yoke is easy and His burden is light. The stuff JS brought to the world has polluted the truth of God’s Word.
Peace and Grace!
MICHEAL
Who ever said it wasn’t a gift. As I said in my simple analogy, the paying of that original debt was a gift. It was given free to all men. That is the saving grace of God. But after that saving grace has done its work if we havenot done ours we will still stand condemned.
It is a contract. If it were not there would be no point in giving commandments to us. If God can save us regardless of what we do than what is the purpose of telling us to do certain things, and not do others? Why would it matter?
We are under contract to the Father, not the son. The son gives us all the same gift because he loves us. But the contract with the Father must still be fulfilled. (I would refer you to the short video titled “the Mediator” from the Book of Mormon Semenary videos from our church.)
JACK
In general I agree with you. The only real difference is that by your logic works have no real part in salvation. They be the evidence, but if God can read your heart he knows if you have faith. Thus they become only evidence to us, and not to God. Thus our works are only good to show us and the world if we truly have faith. However, if one does not have teh works but still has the faith they are also saved as it is faith that brings salvation.
I know you can say that if you don’t have the works you don’t truly have the faith, but it does not say this. In James 2: 19 we are told that we can have the faith, we can believe in God. Faith without works is dead, but it is not non-existant. If we do not have the works we are no better than the devils who also believe (have the faith).
As to being backwards, do you recall Naaman the syrian. He was cured of Leprosy by Elisha, had not the faith, but by his works he gained the faith. In 2 Kings 6 we read that at the word of a servant he went to Israel to be cured. The king sent him to Elisha and Elisha told him to bathe seven times in the Jordan river. Elisha didn’t even come out to meet him, but sent his servant. Naaman in anger, and lacking faith, was about to leave, but was persuaded by one of his servants to go and do as instructed. He had no faith, but he performed the action at the request of his servant and was healed. After this he wanted to reward Elisha, who refused. His faith was than demonstrated by additional works when he requested tohave dirt from Elisha’s Garden so that he could pray to God while kneeling on the soil of Israel. It was through an act of obedience (works) that he gained the faith that later made it possible for him to do other works.
I do believe that faith will generate good works, but good works can also generate Faith, as is demonstrated through the story of Naaman. Generally I believe it is small and simple works that generate the faith to do the great works of God.
In general what makes the LDS stand appart is that we believe if God commanded something we are to do it as well as we can. If we say in our hearts “We can never do all that God asks, so he will justify us in the committing of a little sin” we will be damned. But if we say in our heart “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know 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,” and we go and work to do all those things that we have been commanded, we will be saved.
God has commanded us all to be perfect (Matt. 5: 48). If he has commanded it I can obey. I cannot do it by myself. I will need his help, and will pray for it every day. But with his help I can be perfect. I can do all things that he has ever commanded me to do, for he will give me the stregth, the knowledge, and the power to do them.
To close I will relate a story. A man was once commanded by God to push a large stone. The stone was great, weighing several tons, and the man looked on the task as though it were impossible. He did not believe he could move it. But God had commanded so he went to work. For three weeks he pushed his shoulder against the stone every waking hour. Those passing by mocked and ridiculed. When God returned the man became angry. “Why do you command me to do that which I cannot do?” God looked at him and smiled. “But you have done jsut what I commanded. I commanded you to push, I never said the stone had to move. You have been faithful to my command, and your reward will be great.”
What would God have done if the man had given up, and when God returned teh man told him, “I knew I did not have the strength, so I waited for you to come back and move it for me?”
Shem,
A simple response, if it is a gift it by definition cannot be a contract, and if it is a contract, it by definition cannot be a gift. The two are mutually exclusive. One is given expecting something in return, the other is given freely with no strings attached.
Shem,
I have a question regarding being perfect: Do you see it as imputation or impartation?
When we read Peter, our works do show as evidence for non-believers. We are to do good works so that they cannot falsely accuse us. So, you are right on that point. Regarding your reference to James, faith is being tested as to whether or not it is genuine. Regardless, works don’t save us. You could never do enough work to be saved. You are saved by grace, justified by your faith, and your works are your response. God doesn’t respond to your works by giving you salvation. You respond to God’s salvation by good works. We’re not saying works are not a part of the believers’ life. That would be crazy talk. We can read in Ephesians 2: 8-10: “God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.” This illustrates my point. We are saved, then we can perform the works God already ordained for us to do. It’s not works to earn salvation, that is a gift from God for the believer; rather, it’s works simply because we want to do them. That’s the servant’s heart God desires. He does not want us to perform works out of compulsion, but out of love, which is His love that fills as we become sanctified believers.
I need to point out that when you try to use the James passage to support your view, that you are doing what is called proof-texting. Proof-texting does not take into account the context nor the totality of the biblical message. This isn’t your fault, Shem, because the Mormon Church does not encourage a scholarly approach to biblical study. This is not a condemnation against you, but against JS and the LDS Church as an organization. I know that you will not agree with me, and that’s okay, but I had to say this, nonetheless. The passage from Ephesians is pretty plain. If you still want to argue against the biblical position of grace and works, it is your prerogative; however, you will have to side with Mormon theology, which is a theology that is definitely not based in biblical truth and principles.
Grace to you, Shem!
JackG wrote ” it’s works simply because we want to do them.”
You’re right on the money, Jack. What else does it mean when it says
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”
Jeremiah 31:33, also Hebrews 8:10 and Hebrews 10:16