You can watch the whole talk here. A downloadable .mp4 file of video is available here.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
The verses of 1 Corinthians 15 (where JS added the “telestial kingdom) break out into a comparison of two things:
21 by man came death // by man came also the resurrection of the dead
22 in Adam all die // in Christ shall all be made alive
39, 41 All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds // There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory
42 It is sown in corruption // it is raised in incorruption;
43 It is sown in dishonor // it is raised in glory
it is sown in weakness // it is raised in power
44 It is sown a natural body // it is raised a spiritual body
There is a natural body // and there is a spiritual body.
45 The first man Adam was made a living soul // the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 that which is natural first, and not that which is spiritual // but afterwards, that which is spiritual;
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy // the second man is the Lord from heaven
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy // as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy // we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50-52 flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. // Behold, I show you a mystery… the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on // incorruption
this mortal must put on // immortality
54 Death // is swallowed up in victory.
Terrestrial (of the earth) // Celestial (of the heavens).
But Telestial (of the distance?)? There’s not really a place for it, is there?
There is a place for it. After all, in the resurrection there are different glories. As Paul says, there are three which are compared to the Sun, the Moon and the stars. Thus the Celestial is as the sun, the Terrestial as the moon, but what is as the stars?
The rest of the chapter is not speaking of the state we are in after the resurrection, as these verses are. It is speaking of the transition between mortal life and resurrected life. Celestial and Terrestial are both referenced as states of resurrection, or heavenly states. Neither one is referenced as a mortal state.
Of course this is just one interpretation. Believe what you will, just understand that both are possible.
Shem: You’re lucky the comments closed on the previous post. You, my man, are a blaspheme and nothing short of an adulterer of words. Here is what you said to me, in your first rebuttal: “Thus it seems more likely that he is calling Adam the Holy Ghost, and not the Father.” … “He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.” But what does this actually mean? Christ is the savior of every world created by the Father, and thus he is king over them all, and will be visiting all of them. Therefore, the leader of this world, the one next in Authority to Christ, will be the God that we have direct dealings with, thus Adam is our God, or the God of this Earth, and he is the only one we will have dealings with directly. This does not mean he is the Father.”
Oh, may you rebuke that statement and stand witness to the True CHRIST. You, are blinded in your ways, your indoctrination, and the lies given to you…
I cannot believe you would think such a thing and profess truth. Did you not follow up on your own, Anti-Christian prophet, Brigham Young’s doctrine? For he says in 1857 (regarding the Adam-God doctrine) “Brigham Young referred once again to Adam as “God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim”. Nevertheless, he continued to say: “Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species.
He indicated, however, that this “great Eloheim” (Adam) had lived a life, became a god, created the spirits of mankind, created the earth, and then on earth began bearing the physical bodies of children.”
He was able to give birth to physical bodies “by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it.” Then later, he physically came down and became the physical father of Jesus”.
Does not mean he is not the Father? You are either a liar, trying to spread injustice, or are just ignorant to your heretical teachings of the anti-christ’s church. NEVER, NEVER, call an ex-mormon out without validation. You make yourself look foolish.
I ask you, if B. Young prophesied of only the holy spirit, why would he teach that ADAM BEGOT JESUS! You have much studying to do. Do not make such ignorant posts, for there are virgin eyes watching (those who are trying to rid themselves of mormon indoctrination). I ask all believers in Christ on this forum to rebute Shem’s false teachings and beliefs. This is a travesty against Christ and this wonderful forum.
Blessings to all.
Oh, and I don’t know if it matters to you or not, but I think it is a great finding that there is only one GOD of the BIBLE that existed from eternity to all eternity. Not, one of many or as Bring-them-Young quotes, “I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species.”
Maybe it’s time you stop convincing yourself of such heresy. To think, I’m actually losing much sleep over your rebuttal and this response. My friend, you have someone profound in your corner working as the cut-man. F.Y.I. – It’s not Joseph Smith and Mormonism…
I think one of the funniest and ironic Mormon slogans I’ve heard is, “If you want to know about Mormonism, ask a Mormon.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen a people, as a group, that are so totally ignorant of their own doctrine, teachings and certainly the history of the Mormon church; most specifically the early history.
So what’s the story on Adam-God? I thought that was dismissed as the aimless mental meanderings of Brigham Young and none of it counted. Our Mormon poster needs to get up to speed on this and at least give us the Mormon party line. We’re counting on him to come through for us since he’s a Mormon and is therefore qualified to explain Mormonism.
Now you exMos, since you left Mormonism, you must realize that you don’t know anything about it any more. That’s just the way it works, I guess. And here’s the other thing that we need to keep in mind about Mormonism, it’s a work in progress. The old prophets can be jettisoned and although what they said counted when they said it, this is a whole new modern group and they’re bound only to the stuff that’s not stupid. In fact, in light of scientific data, some of our Mormon friends now see the BoM as a “spiritual” witness. Do you get that? They can’t swallow the line that it’s an actual history, so they spiritualize it.
Ah, it’s great to be able to think Mormon. Anything can be dropped including the “sacred, super secret temple rituals” that had people slitting their throats and disemboweling themselves. Word got out on it and oh oh time for a “do over” and it all got changed. Same thing with polygamy.
All this can work, but first of all you have to adopt the proper Mormon frame of mind which is basically, “I have an inner witness and no amount of factual evidence is going to change what I believe.” Ignorance is bliss!
Shem,
Responding directly to your question “As Paul says, there are three which are compared to the Sun, the Moon and the stars. Thus the Celestial is as the sun, the Terrestial as the moon, but what is as the stars?”
This is not a comparison of THREE, is it. I know that’s how they taught us in Seminary, but read it FOR YOURSELF. It says that all the stars differ in glory. (Now that is true, isn’t it?) Thus, going by your interpretation, there are billions of heavenly kingdoms.
Mormonism is king at reading into the Bible what isn’t there, and not reading the Bible for what IS there.
1 Corinthians is not a chapter about becoming gods, or being separated into different kinds of heavens. It’s about Jesus making resurrection possible!
SETFREE
No, there are only three kingdoms, but within each kingdom are verying degrees of Glory. We know there are three in the Celestial Kingdom, but we do not know how many levels are in the other two kingdoms. However, Paul’s words would indicate that there are multiple levels or degrees within each. It all fits rather nicely.
FIGJAM
I never said I have read every word spoken by the prophets. I said I read the sermon you were originally quoting from, and I have, and I stand by my interpretation of it.
You have now given more quotes that are not part of this sermoin, ones i have not yet read. If you really want me to answer you please give references. Simply claiming this what he said is not proof.
Show me the reference so that I may look it up and read it, along with everything else he said at that time. I will wait patiently for the references.
Shem,
It’s not always easy for me to believe that you’re not just messing around with people out here.
Going by your new “logic”, how many glories does the Sun have? Three? Can you personally see three different glories of the sun? How about the moon, does it have many degrees of glory as well?
I’ll say again what I said before. To believe Mormon doctrine, you have to add and add and keep on adding and coming up with new support out of nowhere. Why don’t you just read the verses IN CONTEXT and stop putting in what isn’t there?
“Natural father of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father.”
(Journal of Joseph Lee Robinson, October 6, 1854. See also Diary of Thomas D. Brown, October 6, 1854, pp. 87-88. Also: John Pulsipher Papers, Mss 1041, p. 35-37, BYU Special Collections.)
“To become acquainted with our Father and our God” was “one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation”, and that “no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge”.[18] He referred once again to Adam as “God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim”.
(‘Journal of Discourses’ JD 4:216)
“Great Eloheim” (Adam) had lived a life, became a god, created the spirits of mankind, created the earth, and then on earth began bearing the physical bodies of children. He was able to give birth to physical bodies “by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it. Then later, he physically came down and became the physical father of Jesus”.
(JD 4:217–18 & JD 4:218.)
Also, Falcon & Setfree – Good word! Thank you for your passion. You two are inspiring and I love reading your opinions and thoughts!
And shem, since your interpretation was not what your prophet ultimately interpreted as fact (this, as evidenced by his follow up statements in later years), doesn’t that mean that you’re interpretation is wrong? Who’s right in their interpretation? The prophet that actually gave this sermon/teaching at general conference during his time, or you? Does this not frighten you that you and other LDS members don’t even know what your “prophets” taught? Again, post Young prophets spoke out about such questionable doctrine. Doesn’t this mean your prophets can teach false doctrine? Isn’t a prophet supposed to be teaching what God intends on earth? So, by your prophets being wrong, this means that God if fallible? That is blasphemous. You mormons always cop out on this one though. I’ve sat down with many elders and all say the same thing, “He was just a man, and men can get it wrong.” Or (my personal favorite), “I understand your concern, this is one of those church ‘anomalies'”. HA!!!
Finally, how can you stand by something if it has already been proven wrong (e.g., your interpretation of B. Young’s doctrine, J. Smith’s interpretation of “The Book of Abraham”, etc).
FIGJAM SAID
Not only do Mormons and Shem not know what the prophets taught, they cannot even keep what their church said straight or who to trust.
Shem told me that the LDS church Claims the J.S.T. was NEVER FINISHED, And He stands by what the church said. I showed Shem that the Church claims the J.S.T WAS FINISHED, So who got it right, and who can you trust?
Your church is saying two different things, and yet you dont care. Rick b
FIGJAM
Again, you are the one who knows not what the Prophets have taught. The quotes you gave in your last post were not from the sermon you reference (at least not direct quotes). Thus, by giving your own interpretation to his words, instead of his actual words, you have tried to trick me into agreeing with you. Fortunately I have been blessed with a little more sense than that, and I took the time to actually read exactly what was said.
There is not space to list all the errors you make, so I will point out only a few.
First, you say he called Adam the great Eloheim. This is not true. In this discourse he uses the name Eloheim only once, and the exact quote is thus “I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim.” This does not say that Adam is Eloheim. It says that Eloheim is our Heavenly Father, nothing else.
Your claim that this is referencing Adam can only be true if your interpretation of the other discourse is correct. As I have shown that it is not correct, that Adam, though our Father, is not our Heavenly Father, than this quote cannot be said with any confidence to be a reference to Adam.
(continued)
Second, you say that God “created the spirits of mankind, created the earth, and then on earth began bearing the physical bodies of children.”
Again, you misquote and thus give a false understanding.
Brigham Young never once said that he bore the physical bodies, nor that he created the spirits. You have it backwards. He says “…the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles…”
The only earthly body that he bore was Christ’s. He says “The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.” With this it would seem that calling Adam our Heaven would be a contradiction within the discourse. However, it is also proof that he never intended the above reference to mean Adam.
You also say “He was able to give birth to physical bodies “by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it. Then later, he physically came down and became the physical father of Jesus”.
In this you misunderstand. Yes, this is the way that the Father received his physical body, but it is not a reference to Adam. It is a reference to his Generation. He created our bodies in the same way his body was created, by the consuming of coarse material (the fruit of the forbidden tree). Brigham Young is showing the parallel between our Heavenly Father and us.
Now, you do reference other sources, and it will take me a little longer to check into them. However, they are not Brigham Young, and thus are giving the information second hand, and through their own interpretation. However, I will endevor to find and read them so that I may comment on them.
shem, quit beating around the proverbial “bush”. here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-God_theory
now, if you say that wikipedia isn’t credible and this isn’t accurate, then i ask you to submit and edit of the contained sources and writings. let’s be realistic here shem, no one is dealing “propaganda”. it is what it is. you are misinformed and i’m sad that you cannot accept truth. but i digress. this argument is obviously over your head. i’m done arguing with you. this is only one of many “questionable” doctrines. it is not worth my time to continue with an unbeliever and proponent of the anti-christ’s church. again, i am a former mormon and not an “anti-mormon”. the history and truths are abundant if you are willing to learn with unbiased eye. i continually pray for my family and all mormons, like you … regardless. i just find it funny that through all the questions in the previous post, this is the one you hold firm upon.
you are nothing short of a mormon apologetic.
i ask all christians on this forum to look at the outlined sources and give their opines.
in the previous blog post, you said that b. young was inferring that Adam was the “holy spirit”. then, you rebutted and said that he was the god of our earth, but not heavenly father.
finally, you say that my quotes were not from the original sermon, i openly pointed that out. from my posting earlier (above): Did you not follow up on your own, Anti-Christian prophet, Brigham Young’s doctrine? For he says in 1857 (regarding the Adam-God doctrine) “Brigham Young referred once again to Adam as “God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim”
again, not the original 1852 sermon, but 1857. if you would’ve read what i posted, you would’ve saved yourself the craziness that ensued. nonetheless, he was referencing his original sermon. look at the link and ponder. i am done proving this point as it is pointless dealing with someone so indoctrinated. i hope you soon see the errs of your ways.
Figjam,
I read the wikipedia article and went through the references from the JoD it gives and they have totally mutilated the text and meaning.
Firstly they quote He referred once again to Adam as “God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim” and say that it is from JD 4:216. There is NO MENTION of Adam in JD 4:215 or 216. If you do not believe me then go to this website (http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-04/) and scroll to page 288. It does have the quote but not in reference with Adam.
Then the next quote from JD 4:217 about Adam or his father or his grandfather is also out of context. I have copy/pasted here to show you the proper context (I have bolded the quote they give).
JoD 4:217
contd
It discusses the fact that we can trace our human line on this earth back to Adam, but from there we cannot get back to Heavenly Father. But if we could we would see that He is the same as us. He then says that for some people, it is a mystery if Adam is the person we should consider as Heavenly Father. He then states that this does not matter if some consider Adam or his father or grandfather as their god, because Heavenly Father is of the same species as us. There is nothing in there that indicates that BY is referring to Adam as being our God, he uses the words “…to a good many…” he did not say ‘to us’ or ‘to me’.
contd
Finally the reference to JD 4:218 the full quote is
”Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth.”
Again no mention of this being the same person as Adam in any of the adjoining paragraphs. This is discussing Heavenly Father only, not Adam. It states that the spirits are His offspring, which we teach, and that He created this physical world and our physical bodies, which both LDS and Traditional Christians teach.
So that wiki article you present is not showing the proper quotes and is pulling them totally out of context to even place Adam’s name in there when it was never anywhere near the quote. This begs the question – did you actually research these references from the wiki article or did you just believe it when you read it because it fitted in with what you wanted it to?
Oops. Sorry about the bold in the last post, I slipped up with the ‘blockquote’ command and instead I had ‘b;ockquote’ which subsequently gave a fully bolded statement which I did not mean.
I own the J.O.D. And what I find funny is, BY Said OUR SALVATION HANGS upon knowing this information, and that Jew and gentile alike MUST hear this. So thats a pretty bold statement for something that is not true. Rick b
wow. the craziness of the faithful LDS still astounds me. second paragraph, right column: http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp194jofd.gif
are you saying that this document is fabricated and that i didn’t read it? Quote: “He is our FATHER AND OUR GOD, and THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO.”
Yes, speaking directly of Adam. What are you missing here? I don’t get it? What logic are you dealing with?
misquoted? seriously. the above link underlines my point and previous links I’ve posted. Here’s another one for you: http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp197deseretnews.gif
read b. young’s statement prior to his death. the message or “revelation”. read the middle column in detail. so, adam stands at the gates of heaven and holds the keys to everlasting life?
when will you guys get it? FALSE DOCTRINE – FALSE PROPHETS – FALSE CHURCH
you can interpret it individually all day. read what it really says and quit making stuff up and twisting the logic and intended meaning.
again, this is my last comment on the issue. i’m not hanging my hat on one questionable doctrine. there are hundreds more to contend with if you want to get that “burning in the bosom”, lds members. i apologize to all the Biblical Christians on this site for wasting space on behalf of such heretical teachings.
Figjam,
As you know, the LDS have many questions they simply cannot answer and so refuse to, I posted one already. They attack the stupidest things and hold fast to the Lies. Rick b
FIGJAM
I have told no lie, nor has Brigham Young. You again give the quote “He is our FATHER AND OUR GOD, and THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO.” I have already shown how this fits with the doctrine of the church, and that it is not a reference to Adam as the Father of our Spirits. Yet you ignore what I said. I have to ask why?
The explanation I have given, what I have explained and outlined in this thread, and the previous one, you have ignored. The reasoning I gave is perfectly simple and logical. The doctrine I have explained is there for anyone with sense enough to see it. I am not asking that you believe the doctrine, but that you open your very closed and biased minds to the fact that Brigham Young did not teach this doctrine.
RICK B
I will answer most any question you ask, if it is asked without insult to me or my faith.
RALPH
Nice to have you join me.
To my Christian poster buddies.
If you want to go stark raving mad, take what our Mormon friends say seriously. Ralph knows better. Trust me, he does. He’s just too far into the system to make the break. Shem, on-the-other-hand, is speaking out of ignorance; running about trying to find anything that might support Mormonism and his “inner witness”. But I can tell he’s new at this. If he stays with it long enough, he’ll have to either go deeper into the delusion or just do the Mormon, “Well the church does a lot of good so even if it’s not true blah blah blah.”
Sandra Tanner, in her excellent video presentation, talks about the Mormon historians that she rubs elbows with who know the whole deal is a farce. But there’s enough years to put distance between them and the goof ball prophets of the past so they just stay with the program and have kind of a church-club relationship with the Morg.
So just think of this as debating with someone the merits of whether or not Peter Pan was a real person and Never Never Land was a real place. My favorite lines from the movie Stand By Me come when one of the kids asks another “If Mighty Mouse and Superman got into a fight, who do you think would win?” The other kid replies, “You idiot, Mickey Mouse is a cartoon character. Superman is a real guy!”
You have to keep that in mind when interacting with our Mormon apologetic friends.
Falcon,
Thanks for that little refreshment. I appreciate your being able to benefit from your experience.
Just this weekend, I’ve realized something quite important that happens with Mormons… and that is that their personal righteousness is tied up with how well they defend “the church” as well as with whether or not they can even consider anything outside it. To listen to Christians, for some of them, is evil.
The other thing I wanted to comment on was this: why do Mormons come on this blog? To argue? To defend themselves? To defend the church? How about to try to convince us to join their church?
I don’t think that the last one is true. But what I’d like to point out is this: Christians (especially ones who understand Mormonism) who take the time to talk to Mormons are doing it to help them be free of the impossibility, the guilt, the pain, the bondage of Mormonism.
Jesus said in Mat 11:28-30:
Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.
Those of us who are ex-Mormon know the difference. To carry Mormonism around with you is to carry around all your sins, and everyone else’s for that matter, and never be able to put them down and rest in Jesus because you never know whether or not you are forgiven. You carry grudges to because you need to make sure you’re better than others, because that may mean you’ll make it to heaven.
Jesus’ yoke IS easy, His burden SO LIGHT. We’re here talking because we want you to know it. Want you to be happy. We want you to be forgiven, to be light, to be free. Want you to experience Jesus.
In Him,
sorry Falcon, I meant, in my first sentence, that I appreciate being able to benefit from your experience. lol. oops.
Shem,
Maybe it was just me, or maybe you missed it, But on the other thread you “Missed” answering a questions I asked about the J.S.T.
Like why your Church claims it was Completed, and yet your Church claims it was not completed, It cannot be both.
Then why did JS “Correct” Portions of the OT? If they were Wrong then Jesus could have “Corrected” them instead of quoting from them. Rick b
setfree,
You have something that I never will have, and I don’t, in any way mean this as an insult, you’ve had the “opportunity” to know what it’s like to “think” like a cult member. I know our Mormon friends get all upset when I so flippantly use the “cult” word, but I’ve seen it in Christians also who are in religious groups that are into the mind and behavior control program.
These Christian groups have their theology right as far as the basics of the faith goes, but they keep the membership on a pretty short leash. I have an excellent book here titled “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse”. It describes just what spiritual abuse is. Here are seven characteristics:
1. Out-loud shaming: any message communicated out loud that says, “Something is wrong with you.”
2. Focus on performance.
3. Manipulation; the “can’t talk” rule; “coding” verbal manipulation.
4. Idolatry; impossible to please judge, obsessing on people’s behaviors from a distance; other false gods are: appearance, or how things look or what people think.
5. Preoccupation with fault and blame; a shame based system wants a confession in order to know whom to shame, whom to make feel so defective and humiliated that they won’t act that way anymore.
6. Obscured reality; members have to deny any thought, opinion or feeling that is different than those of people in authority.
7. Unbalanced interrelatedness; no clear boundaries between people.
One of the things I noticed about exMos, Christians and atheists alike, is the tremendous freedom they feel to be their own person once they exit the Morg. To be sure, some people get a sense of security (strange as it may seems) from being controled. To think for one’s self can be too much of a burden for some.
Falcon,
It’s been quite a long time for me and Mormonism (11 years, actually), but I have family-in-law who are all Mormon, and when I get over their way to visit, I always remember the above stuff.
I want to share something that is a common (and funny, if it weren’t tied to such a real problem) thing in Mormonism. Conference. Mormons are supposed to listen, cuz the big guys are at bat. But they don’t. They turn on conference, and they let it drone on in the background while they do other things.
The last time my family-in-laws had a get-together, it was a conference weekend. I remember walking into the the house with a big grin on my face, and quickly wiping the smile off because something was obviously wrong in the family. Everyone else (all LDS) was already there, and they all looked as though they were at a funeral. The TV was on, and each face was studying something else in the room. No one was smiling, no one was watching.
So I looked at the TV, and there was one of the General Authorities giving his message.
Everyone had the same funeral look on until conference was over (they’d had dinner in the meantime), and a sitcom came on. All of the sudden, EVERYONE was watching the TV and smiling.
It occurred to me that there is more life in a sitcom on TV than there is in a LDS General Conference.
I always thought, when I was a Mormon, “I’ll be more spiritual when I grow up”. It was always, when I get older, I’ll understand that those scriptures mean that (stuff like the Ezekiel two sticks being the Bible and Book of Mormon). When I grow up, I won’t fall asleep listening to conference. When I get older… sometime in the future…
I think many members have the idea that when they die THEY’LL KNOW FOR SURE and be able to “get perfect” out of that sure knowledge. It’s all going to come together for them later, sometime in the future….
If only they knew they could have complete peace and joy and love life and know NOW.
Ahhhhh… Jesus…
RICK B
You asked that question yes, but I did not respond on that thread due to the number of insults I was receiving. While most were not from you, if I had responded they would have continued.
Here is the Answer: In the Times and Seasons Joseph Smith is refering to the fact that they had gone through the entire Bible, so they had finished. However, as he himself was unsatisfied with it, and continued to make changes, it was not the final copy that was finished, but more of a rough draft.
The only other place that you showed where it said it was finished was the church Almanac. This is not a source from the church. Who wrote teh article that states this? What are their credentials?
Lastly, Joseph did not publish the translation. While he may have finished translating (though I do not believe he did), he had not finished preparing it for publication, so the work was not finished.
It is obvious, when you look at the translation, that it is not finished. So, regardless of what some may claim, I will still hold to the truth that it is incomplete.
Shem,
Are there any specific areas of the Bible that you can tell must not have not had a complete retranslation by Joseph Smith? If so, what are they? i.e. what specific books or verses?
FALCON
Where is your proof of my ignorance. As far as I can see the only truly ignorant ones on these posts (when it comes to LDS doctrine) are those who are not members. Even the ex-mormons seem very ignorant as to the doctrine of the church.
Your Spiritual Abuse post only proves your ignorance. While some may feel this way, it is not the way the church works. Also, many of these things were done by the ancient prophets.
1. Out-loud shaming: any message communicated out loud that says, “Something is wrong with you.”
Didn’t John the Baptist call the Pharisees a “Generation of Vipers?” Malachi accused the Jews of “Robbing God.” Paul called the Corinthians carnal, full of “envying and strife and division.” Are these men guilty of spiritual abuse? No. They repremanded the people, chastised them, in the hope that in so doing they would bring them around to repentance.
2. Focus on performance.
I guess the entire Law of Moses (as revealed by God himself) is spiritual abuse. What about Christ saying he will judge us “according to our works?” What of the Sheep and Goat? The sheep were excepted for they did, while the Goats were rejected for not performing as they should.
(continued)
3. Manipulation; the “can’t talk” rule; “coding” verbal manipulation.
This one is funny. What is meant by this in regards to the LDS. I have never heard anything about, can’t talk. Unless you mean the Temple ceremony. But even that is not completely accurate, as we can descuss it, we just can’t describe it. So, what is the “can’t talk” and “coding” you speak of. I have not seen it in the church.
4. Idolatry; impossible to please judge, obsessing on people’s behaviors from a distance; other false gods are: appearance, or how things look or what people think.
This one seems a little confusing. Who is the judge that it is impossible to please? If it is God then don’t we agree on this point? As to the obsessing, again I have not seen it, unless you speak of the chastisement, which I spoke to on point one.
Now, the false gods you speak of I really don’t understand. Appearence is spoken of by Paul. There are prophecies in Isaiah warning about the pride that comes through certain appearances (the tinkling with their feet is especially fun). God has set his standard of appearance (even in the Bible) so how is it a false god to obey the God.
5. Preoccupation with fault and blame; a shame based system wants a confession in order to know whom to shame, whom to make feel so defective and humiliated that they won’t act that way anymore.
Again, I do not see it. I have been before the Bishop to confess my sins. Never was there an attempt to force for to feel shame. Never did they try to make me feel defective or humiliated. I have only felt a great love, and a desire to help me heal and be whole. Shame is not something anyone wants anyone else to feel. Sorrow, yes, but not shame.
As to confessing our sins, read 1 John 1: 9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Seems confession is good for the soul.
(continued)
6. Obscured reality; members have to deny any thought, opinion or feeling that is different than those of people in authority.
This is also not true. We are free to believe many things. We are also free to question the General Authorities. We are counseled not to take what they say just because they say it, but to go home and ask God ourselves. Many have simply excepted that God will always confirm what his servants say, but that does not mean we are discouraged from questioning.
Also, there are many things that the leaders do not say. What of these things. The leaders of the church have very carefully avoided speaking on politics (not social issues, but politics).
In general, the leaders teach the basics of the Gospel, guiding us to the point where we should be able to take over for ourselves. They expect us to learn everything we can, to understand all the verying views and opinions. They expect us to learn all the doctine of truth, even that which they do not actively teach.
If in learning, as they have suggested, a person decides they no longer want to be a part of the church, they are free to leave at any time. Yes we do our best to keep them, because we are worried for their souls, but the choice is theirs.
7. Unbalanced interrelatedness; no clear boundaries between people.
This is another one that I really don’t get. There have always been very clear boundaries to me. But then, what do you mean by this? Please elaborate.
Three of these seven points are practiced in the Bible (or at least taught). The other four are not practiced by the LDS church, at least not in what I have seen. So, there is no spiritual abuse.
I do not speak about individual members, but the teachings or the church. Individuals may engage in spiritual abuse, but the church does not.
SETFREE
First of all, I have considered other things, and nothing is as logical, as simple, or as beautiful as the LDS church.
Now, my reason for being on these threads is not to defend my faith or my church. They have no need of defense. I am here for two reasons. I do enjoy a good discussion. Also, with all the false information you and others are throwing around someone needs to set the record strait. When the truth is known the church has no need of a defense, but when lies, slanders, misrepresentation, and other false information is spread, those who are hearing it need to be defended against those who would mislead them.
As to your last question: “Are there any specific areas of the Bible that you can tell must not have not had a complete retranslation by Joseph Smith? If so, what are they? i.e. what specific books or verses?”
I would not know specifics. I really don’t need to know them. I am not a scholar in this particular area, and so I rely on those who are scholars to give me the information I need. All I need to know is that it was not completed, that some parts were not finished. That is sufficient.
I understand that I will be accused of blindly following the leaders of my church, and in this case I have no problem with that. Just know that unless you are a Greek and Hebrew scholar you are blindly following those who translated the Bible.
We all follow blinding to some degree, and that is how it should be. We do not know all truth, and thus we rely on those who know more then us to lead us until we gain that knowledge.
Shem,
“First of all, I have considered other things, and nothing is as logical, as simple, or as beautiful as the LDS church.” I could give no better example of what the Christians are getting at than this quote from you.
Secondly, I am disappointed with your “i would not know specifics. I really don’t need to know…” reply. I would hope that you would at least say that you expect that JS would have retranslated all the verses that say that there is only one, only ever has been one, only ever will be one God.
But it brings up another good question: If JS didn’t finish, then why haven’t the other prophet/seer/revelators since him done the job? Certainly they are able, right? After all, they have corrected the Book of Mormon several times…
SETFREE
You don’t understand the workings of God, or the calling of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith is not just another prophet. He is the head of this dispensation. He is one of the greatest of all prophets, being one of the seven Heads (which I like to call Archangels). As such he was given greater power then those who followed him. He was called to restore all things, among which was the true translation of the Bible. No other prophet since his time has this calling. They are not called to restore the gospel. They are called to lead the saints, guide them. So, while they have the power to do this work, it is not theirs to do.
(Of course, there is also the Copyright problem.)
As to the specifics, I do not know that the verses you speak of need to be retranslated. In all truth, I doubt they do.
In one example that is a popular choice among Christians (Isaiah 43: 10) it is said “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
I would continue the quote and give verse 11: “I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.”
Thus the passage is not necessarily speaking to actual gods, but to saviors, to the one who can redeem mankind. We have never believed in more than one savior.
I put this here not to start an argument, but to show that many verses people claim as proof against LDS doctrine are not as strong or clear as they think.
I wrote this earlier and it bears repeating:
Aaron,
I appreciate this “…sidelines Jesus, no matter how much one is able to integrate the phrase “Jesus Christ” into a prayer or service.”
I would like to back that up with this. My LDS-poster-woman mother, when she first started questioning the church, decided to pay very close attention to the talks given in Sacrament meeting. She says that in the 6 months time frame she gave for her little experiment, Jesus was never mentioned one time except in “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen.”
In practice (I know from much experience), the LDS Church would more appropriately be titled “The Church of Self-Considered Saints” because that (themselves) is what they talk about most.
SETFREE
There is more to talk about than Christ. Just because he is the center of worship does not mean he is the only topic that needs to be discussed. Thus, we may be instructed in our conduct, in our entertainment, or on other subjects that pertain to our salvation.
We know about Christ, we know of his atonement and his sacrifice. What is the point of learning what you already know.
AARON
The scriptures you quote do not prove anything. In Ephesians Paul tells us that Christ set everything up in his day so that when the Fullness of Times came he could finish the work. He is not saying that it was the fullness of times. Even in Colossians he calls his time the Dispensation of God, not The Fullness of Times.
The term “Fulness of Time” is only used on one other occasion, and not in reference to a dispensation. Yet, Paul calls his time the “Dispensation of the Grace of God” in Ephesians 3: 2.
It seem clear that Paul spoke of two distinct dispensation: One that was commited to him (dispensation of God), and one that would be in the furture (dispensation of the fulness of times).
Shem,
The following is proof of your ignorance: “There is more to talk about than Christ. Just because he is the center of worship does not mean he is the only topic that needs to be discussed.”
I think your quote speaks for itself.
Peace and Grace!
Shem,
One thing I love about going to the Bible to hear from God is that He always redirects my thinking. I especially appreciate having Him do that for me before I just start saying what comes to mind, :).
Shem, Please consider the following:
In Luke 24, after Jesus has resurrected, He appears to two of His disciples.
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
…”And their eyes were opened, and they knew him”
Jesus could have done a lot of things when He came back. But what was important to Him was that His disciples see HIM in the Old Testament.
Jesus would have had perfect knowledge of the subject. Notice that after he taught them about HIMSELF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, their eyes were opened and they knew Him.
There is much, much, much to learn about Jesus. One trick is to stop looking for yourself (i.e. what commandments you should be keeping) in the Old Testament, and look for Jesus instead.
There are beautiful pictures of Him to find; may I suggest that the first one is the Tree of Life. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to help you find some more.
In Him…
Shem,
Yes, Isaiah 43:10 is one of them. Your interpretation is interesting, since now you’re saying that there are no more saviors. I thought that was part of the program too. You know, be your own god, perhaps be a savior of your worlds.
I can’t help but notice that you changed the verse to suit yourself, meaning that you put the word “savior” into the part where it says “there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
But thanks for replying to that specific issue.
Now, what will you do to change all these verses?
Deut 4:35 “…the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”
Deut 4:39 “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.”
Deut 32:39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me…”
Isaiah 44:6 “…’I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.'”
Isaiah 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God…”
Isaiah 45:18-22 “…”I am the LORD, and there is none else…there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. ..I am God, and there is no other. ”
Pretty strong, solid testimonies if you ask me.
JACK
Temperance in all things. If all you speak about is Christ you will miss the great lessons to be learned through the Scriptures. To much of a good thing will prove the damnation of many.
SETFREE
Your Luke reference does not truly apply. These men did not yet have a full understanding of the mission of Christ. For hundreds of years it had been the common belief that the Massiah would be a military leader to free the people from foreign rule. The twelve even thought in this general way, which is reflected in many of the questions they asked of him. It was all shown in their confusion concerning the statement Christ himself made about his death. Some believe that Judas, in betraying Christ, was trying to force his hand, force him to go to war.
So, when Christ was killed many were troubled by this, and began to question. They had to be taught the truth, the real mission of Christ. This is why Christ focused on himself in the Scriptures. It was to ease there anxiety at his death.
However, I understand his mission. I understand what he was supposed to do. I also understand the prophecies concerning him in the Old Testiment. Thus there is not the need to have these things explained to me.
As to finding Christ in the Old Testiment, I can named dozens of places, such as Abraham offering Isaac, of the story of Joseph and his bothers. I can also show many prophecies speaking of his first and second coming.
However, I also know that there are places, events, and doctrine in the Old Testiment that are not about Christ, at least not intensionally so.
Just out of curiosity, where do you find Christ is the geneologies of Numbers and Chronicles?
SETFREE
You show a lack of knowledge concerning the LDS doctrine. However, I understand this one, as many people do not actually understand this.
First, I will never be the savior for any world. I may be a god, but I will never be a savior. As our Father in Heaven is the leader of a Counsel of gods, so shall Christ be the leader of the councel from our generation. Thus his oldest son will be the savior of the next generation, as his Father was the savior of the previous generation.
I will say no more on this subject. I say this only to show that what I stated before in no way contradicts the doctrine of the Church.
As to changing the verse, I did no such thing. I simply interpreted what was said in verse 10 in light of what was said in verse 11. Putting the words of both verses together the interpretation I have outlined is a reasonable conclusion.
As to the other referenced, I have no desire to change them, or any other. As I said, I did not bring this into the discussion to start a new argument, but to prove a point.
Shem,
Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all. It’s one thing to believe such nonsense, and quite another to espouse it as authority.
Grace to you and yours, Shem.