“Aaron actually made my day by posting that chapter on Exaltation. I was really hoping for some significant changes. I recently participated in a conversation with a member online comparing our differing understandings of exaltation. I noticed that the Gospel Principles manual made an assertion(s) that was never made by Joseph Smith or by the scriptures, and I pointed out the part that I didn’t agree with. I’m glad to see that part was changed in the revised addition. I think this definitely a good thing!” (>>)
I will just say that for one who understands ALL the doctrine of the church, and who has read and studied, and learned concerning the words of the Prophets, nothing has changed from what was written to what is now written.
All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and thus these topics or more a stumbling block then they are a blessing. This does not make them false, nor does it mean the church is denying them as doctrine. All it means is that they are looking after the spiritual welfare of the members. (>>)
At the end of the day, the Mormon Church is a fog machine, not a lighthouse beacon. The changes to Gospel Principles please all sorts of people in the Mormon Church with contradicting reasons to be pleased. I take a cautious and pessimistic approach to analyzing seeming changes from the Salt Lake institution. I am attempting to be optimistic about God at work, pessimistic about the depravity of unregenerate humanity, and realistic about changes (or lack thereof) that are taking place. Until we see the miracle of repentance, confession, tears, and godly sorrow, I implore anyone with an unchecked optimism to practice discernment and avoid naivety. Expect God to do great salvific things, but don’t be to quick to recognize a change as of repentance when it is done without integrity, clarity, and repentance.
Here are six reasons to be cautious:
1. Historically, when a Mormon teaching has died, it has died silently. Leaders lack the integrity to denounce it, and lack the pastoral love of their people to make clear contrasts between what is being taught and what was taught. The most important blog post I’ve read on this issue was at TimesAndSeasons.org, called, “How Does Mormon Doctrine Die?”. The best example is that of the lifting of the priesthood ban. The Church lifted the ban, but never from the highest institutional channels explicitly denounced the theology that leaders once used to justify the ban. So the theology largely still continued among the Mormon people, and only started to die off with the effects of deemphasis, silence, and time. Had the Mormon Church denounced the theology once used to justify the ban, and named names, it would have called into question the reliability of the historic succession of its prophets and apostles.
2. Mormonism attempts to keep old doctrines by using new, euphemistic, cryptic language. For example, the Mormon Church replaced the statement in chapter 47, “These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” with “These spirit children will have eternal increase”. This will function in different ways for different people. For a few, it will draw back from the explicit nature of the potential worship-relationship between our future spirit children. For many others, it will simply continue this notion, yet with a short phrase that isn’t so clear.
4. Mormonism employs a deceptive “milk before meat” philosophy. As quoted above, shematwater interpreted the changes as a milk before meat stategy:
“All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and thus these topics or more a stumbling block then they are a blessing.”
In another context a Mormon writes,
“I would be careful bringing [up] this matter with any nonmembers… [H]ow to address this [Lorenzo Snow Couplet theology] with nonmembers[?]. My advice: don’t. This is difficult doctrine. Remember, milk before meat.” (>>)
The popular internet Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay even writes that such topics can be beyond meat, being a kind of “dessert”:
“I personally feel that the whole of issue of ‘gods’ is an advanced topic that we don’t know a lot about, so I consider it as meat (actually, dessert) that doesn’t need to be served as the first course.” (>>)
Mormon Ian M. Cook writes:
“Fundamentally you are right, we need to stand up and distinguish ourselves from the pack.
“I have an experience though that makes me think twice about it that way. I was about 16 and I had recently learned some of the deeper doctrines of the church etc. Not sure where I heard it, but I happen to be sitting on the school bus talking to a bunch of people about LDS doctrine. I was teaching the plan of salvation. The other kids were really interested. I went so far as to teach the three degrees of glory and then I told them we could become Gods.
“I didn’t think anything of it at the time, but later, I was helping this guy build a house and I didn’t realize it but he was a recent convert to the church and the step father of one of the kids that were listening to the conversation. He told me that his step son really liked what I had to say, up until I got to the Gods part. It turned him away from the church.
“I have felt bad about it since then. This kid was the only member of the family that did not join the church. This was based on what I taught.
“Perhaps he would have found this out later and left the church anyway. I can’t help but think that he could have been converted more spiritually and then he could have accepted those teachings.
“Milk before meat as they say.” (>>)
Mormon apologist Daniel Peterson once wrote,
“I myself prefer not to discuss certain things in certain venues. And the fundamental nature of God is one of those things…” (>>)
5. Mormonism prides itself in using non-”creedal”, ambiguous, amorphous theological language that functions at different layers in different contradicting ways for different people. This is related to #2 and #4. Mormonism seems to appreciate the usage of language that does’t yield enough the kind of clarity that causes unwanted problems. One example here is the change in Gospel Principles in the 90’s from becoming Gods to becoming “like” God. For outsiders, this usually brings to mind the notion of becoming morally pure and sinless like God. For insiders, it more often than not denotes the act of becoming equal with God in knowledge and power (if you take the Prattian view) or achieving the level of knowledge and power that God has now (if you have the Brighamite view; cf. the relevant MRM article). It denotes becoming a God worshiped and prayed to by our own spirit-children. Some Mormons are uncomfortable with this and choose not to think about it and even opt for a re-invented Mormon theology that denies the traditional understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet. But more often than not the euphemisms like becoming “like God” serve a purpose of obfuscation, not clarification.
6. When Mormonism makes corrections to its own teachings, it confusingly refers to them as “clarifications”, implying that the same teachings have persisted to now only with elucidated language. In my experience, Mormons have a penchant for describing fundamental, contradictory changes as natural progressions. Moving from Adam-God to post-Talmage theology, for example, has been described to me as God’s plan for moving the church line upon line, precept upon precept. The 1978 revelation to lift the priesthood ban is spoken of as a clarification overriding a mere past “policy” of church. The 1916 formalization of the Elohim/Jehovah naming conventions are spoken of as a clarification of what was Mormon doctrine all along, despite the fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had radically different usages of the terms. As Mormon historian Thomas Alexander writes,
“Perhaps the main barrier to understanding the development of Mormon theology is an underlying assumption by most Church members that there is a cumulative unity of doctrine. Mormons seem to believe that particular doctrines develop consistently, that ideas build on each other in hierarchical fashion. As a result, older revelations are interpreted by referring to current doctrinal positions. Thus, most members would suppose that a scripture or statement at any point in time has resulted from such orderly change. While this type of exegesis or interpretation may produce systematic theology, and while it may satisfy those trying to understand and internalize current doctrine, it is bad history, since it leaves an unwarranted impression of continuity and consistency.” (>>)
All these things considered, I am driven to take a cautious approach when discerning the movement of Mormonism. The Mormon Church is an evil, corrupt, dysfunctional organization that lacks integrity, institutional repentance, and a real pastoral love that yields clarity, crisp contrasts, and more practical bottom-up measures of correction and methods to afford checks and balances. For 179 years the Mormon Church has moved its people in a direction with theological momentum. This has affected real people that I love. When people flippantly give the Mormon Church a free pass for all this momentum it has created, I have to wonder if they have the same dwelling Holy Spirit that I do. I am not content to suppose that certain unsavory teachings and beliefs in the Church will simply die out in four or five generations to come. Playing the endless game of quasi-ecumenism over shallow common ground won’t do. Today is the day of salvation, and in accordance with the gospel-call to get on board with the kingdom of God, we are to call persons and institutions to repentance and the fullness of joy in the truth of Jesus Christ.
I must say right here, right now, that I am a proud Creedal Christian. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Not only that, I am a proud Confessional Christian – holding to Westminster Confession of Faith – both the Creeds and Confessions are thorough Biblical summaries of the Christian faith. Those who say these are doctrines or inventions of men, I challenge you to read through them with all the scripture they site. The Creeds are included in our Confession, so I can be best identified as an unabashedly Confessional Christian.
Having scriptural doctrine sure beats having a lot of wishy washy ever changing whatever.
In my readings of former Mormons who now follow the EC Jesus, the most common theme they cite as to how to break through to current Mormons is to “love them.” Oh I wish I could focus on loving and not reacting to the stuff oftentimes expressed here. There are times for the passionate part of love, and sometimes that gets too passionate when I feel that we are going in circles, evidence is being ignored because feelings don’t support it. I am glad that there are only 24 hours in a day — a time for praying, rejoicing, worshipping, contending, and resting! Lord – give each of us here, seen and unseen, speaking and silent, a new measure of grace and love for each other, so we can face each other in the new day with a fresh perspective. I realize we may throw out many of the same arguments. But may each day bring increase in our dedication to you. Amen, and good night, at least from one creedal Christian on the West Coast of the USA.
I have one more thought before logging off – can you imagine if the Worldwide Church of God (the Church in the posts above who turned from aberrant beliefs to the True Living Risen Lord Jesus) came out and said “we turning from heresy to the truth, and that truth is Mormonism.” Get that image in your head – doesn’t that seem and sound absurd? Maybe you think that scenario sounds completely possible, but I think most here can see the utter implausibility of an organized religion turning from Herbert W. Armstrong to Joseph Smith and secret temple rituals. Anyone who found Joseph Smith’s claims of prophetic revelation convincing, could just as easily continue on following Armstrong and accept his claims to prophetic knowledge.
It took me quite a while to get to any sort of working theory on what Mormonism actually is, based on my conversations with my Mormon colleagues, some protracted correspondence and reading about it from Mormon and non-Mormon sources.
Like many Evs, I guess, I started with the approach that what binds Mormons together is a common core of beliefs. That thesis quickly evaporated under the light of the radical changes in Mormon doctrine today, and in the past, as demonstrated by Aaron’s recent articles on Gospel Principles.
I put it to my Bishop colleague that, as the doctrines had changed so much, the only continuity that present LDS have with the movement’s founders is the priesthood lineage. He agreed, broadly.
The trouble is, that this puts LDS in a terrible bind. On the one hand, they want to revise doctrine according to “continuing revelation”, but on the other they can’t suggest their previous prophets were wrong, or the line of prophets gets broken.
Its laughable that now they deflect issues on such core doctrines as Eternal Progression with an “I don’t know” strategy.
LDS, wake up! These guys are whitewashed tombs (Matt 23:27-28). Joesph Smith was a serial adulterer and a liar, and the LDS prophets have carried his torch right up to the present day. They are truly sons of their father (John 8:44).
Jason,
I will “Amen” what Aaron stated. The idea of “theosis” is not one that existed in the primitive church but rather developed later; I am not so sure it was a 1st century “doctrine” either, more like flowery language. Just like we have union with Christ and are made in God’s image. Irenaeus is the first church father attributed with making any kind of theosis type remark. It was very short and it was not in the 1st century but rather well into the 2nd.
This issue has been addressed several times already. If I am not mistaken Bob Millet is the Mormon who first started suggesting that theosis was a type of deification in the ancient world (and comparable to Mormonism’s eternal progression). The elders and bishops of the early church affirmed the creator-creature distinction. Are you saying that they did not? Where is the evidence for polytheism in the primitive church or in 1st century Judaism? When and how did the early church apostatize towards monotheism?
The use of the term “theosis” is a clear example of Mormons changing their language to fit other belief systems, but retaining the same theology. This is but one reason why Christians like Aaron and myself are cautious of any “changes” in Mormonism.
I will remind my Biblical Christian bretheran that in Mormonism, we are dealing with a spirit not just an organization or individuals for that matter. Pick-up the books of Mormon writers Quinn, Palmer and Bushman and what we see is that the false prophet Smith was up to his eyeballs in the occult. That’s the spirit that drives Mormonism. Mormons practice “spiritism” and think that they are being “spiritual”. When it comes to temple rituals specifically, the occult nature and the hoped for goal, for many, is to have contact with the spirit of a person for whom they are being dead dunked.
I’ve chronicled at length, on previous posts, the information from the book “Temple Manifestations” by Joseph Heinerman-a Mormon. Let me give you a sample from p.199:
“On April 4, 1940, Brother Charlie Angel came to the Temple and stated that he had just lost his wife. He said: ‘Brother Nash, my wife did a lot of work for her people before she died, and I got the sealing record work ready and Brother Jones, a lady friend, and I went up into the sealing room and while we were sealing and I was acting as proxy, I looked in the corner of the room and there stood my wife, with the most beautiful expression on her face that I ever saw on a human being. I can scarcedly hold back the tears when I think of it, and I told Brother Jones my experience and he said: ‘Your wife is perfectly satisfied with the work that you have done.’
Now Mormons think this is really groovy stuff. Getting to see a dead person during a dunking for the dead ceremony. Mormons have neither the good sense or spiritual discernment to understand that they’re messing around with demons. But, my point, this is a spiritual battle and the spirit of Mormonism doesn’t let those so hooked, get out so easy. The spirit of Mormonism drives this organization and has it’s leadership by the throat. Unless we can perform a mass excorsisim on the leadership, these folks will happily maintain their false doctrine.
Aaron,
No 1 – The lifting of the ban of the priesthood being ordained on the coloured people was just that, a lifting of the ban. As often said it was similar to when Peter was given the dream to take the true gospel to the Gentiles. Yes the commission to take the gospel to the world came before then, but it took a while for it to sink in and that dream was part of the process. Before Jesus’ death, the gospel as for the Israelites only. The reasons why the priesthood was kept from them were valid before the ban was lifted and as far as I know have not been rescinded, but the ban has been lifted because God has seen fit for it to. So no the ‘doctrine has not died quietly’ as you have put it, it is still there just irrelevant because God has given new and further truth and revelation in His wisdom and mercy. NOTE This is my opinion from what I understand, not official church stance nor others’ thoughts.
No 2 – I agree, the changing of different phrases can lighten the stance and become ambiguous and allow members to think what they want from them. But if one wants to understand properly then they can do the reading and studying of the subject and if they are in tune with the Spirit then they can understand what it means better and properly.
No 3 – Don’t really know what to say as I don’t really understand.
N0 4 – Milk before meat is a Biblical doctrine as well. But I think people should be taught at their level of knowledge and understanding. If someone I know has read this site and knew about our Eternal Progression doctrine I would discuss it with them. if they had never heard of it then I wouldn’t say anything until their knowledge level was up to that point. All lecturers and teachers do the same thing.
I’ll need a little more time to think about Nos 5 and 6.
HankSaint wrote:
If continuing revelation is so important to the LDS church then why hasn’t there been true canonical revelation like Joseph Smith’s since Joseph Smith? 165 years and three new canonical revelations… have LDS “prophets” been on sabbatical? If you force us to limit our responses to the standard works wouldn’t you become like those nasty Christians who shut up the heavens and don’t let God speak anymore, accept through a book, but certainly not through the authoritative words of the 16 LDS prophets? Certainly they do not have to be accountable for their words since their words never make it into the canon of scripture. The new LDS model seems more along the lines of continuing revelation…what’s that?
Lautensack
I think as Christians we understand fully that this is a spiritual battle we are fighting. I’m trying to remember the facts and I think the account may have been on the video regarding the Worldwide Church of God, but Jack Hayford talks about how he and a group used to walk around the outside of that organizations property praying. Eventually the spiritual walls fell and the spirit that had a strangle hold on Armstrong’s empire was driven out. That’s spiritual warfare and it’s waged in the heavenlies. Paul talks about it in Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Prayer pulls down these strong holds. This battle is fought on several fronts, but the core strategy is prayer.
With an entity like Mormonism, with it’s foundation and practices in the darkness of the spiritual realm, it is indeed a battle. It is a case of the spirit of darkness masquarading as the spirit of light. The victory was won at the Cross of Christ when He defeated the forces of darkness. We need to now actualize that victory through prayer.
The whole point of Mormon doctrine, I think, is to create confusion. Walter Martin author of “The Kingdom of the Cults” termed it “the maze of Mormonism”. In fact Jim Spencer’s ministry is called “Through the Maze”. I worked for a guy once who didn’t like to have employment policies because they tied him down. Joseph Smith, in addition to being an occultist in full bloom, was by nature a very creative guy, but not above “borrowing” ideas from here and there.
If people can be convinced that free floating revelation and doctrinal spasms are a good thing, you’ve got a free ticket to being as totally flakey as you want……..and you’re never held accountable for anything you’ve said or done. “That’s so yesterday” could indeed be the motto of Mormonism. What a deal, never being held responsible because you’re a leader in the church. These leaders are Mormon rock-stars and worshipped by the faithful as oracles of god. They talk, but never say anything like all good politicians.
Grant Palmer, in his interview for Mormon Stories with John Dehlin, was ever hopeful that the Mormon church would reform itself, but I got the sense that Mr. Palmer wasn’t holding his breath. Neither should we.
David W. I see your larger point but I wanted to make an even larger one that basically said the Evs should just “give up”. We know your end game goal. Even if you could effectively have 100,000 LDS leave annually, which would be quite effective you still would not slow the tide of the conversion power of the Book of Mormon. It’s not going to happen. So my larger point is just focus on your own religion.
Go out into the world and proclaim with a loud voice that God is a non-human species and has NO gender. If your doctrine on the nature of God is so profound and true why not tell the world?
If your doctrine on salvation is true, just accept God and you’re saved then that should be your ONLY message to ALL people including LDS. Why get bogged down in the minutia of manual changes, polygamy etc at all? If you really have the way to salvation it seems that all you would teach and you would have no time for the rest of this stuff.
Also my growth precedent has to do with what is essentially a brand new book of scripture that is not the bible. For Joseph Smith to walk into frontier protestant America with a new book equal in authority to the bible was no small thing. Clearly compared to world religions we barely register in terms of numbers but our influence and impact is certainly felt in many parts of the world even with our small size.
~
Aaron, I don’t use theosis to back up exaltation per se but rather to nuke the concept of the non-human species God. We may not have clear evidence of 1st century thought on theosis but it is certainly very early Christian thought and that is sufficient for my point to help take out the creature from the black lagoon. Which creature you ask?
” I don’t know what God looks like, and won’t pretend to guess. If he’s a hideuous 8 headed creature with 70 eyes and spider like legs, does that make him less of a God? I don’t think so, and nor should you. – Michael P. ”
That one.
Hank has argued that we Evs focus on “snippets” out of context and mainstream Mormon thinking. Jason’s non-human species God, created by the now famous, (in Jason’s own mind), Michael P quote, certainly fits in a similar category. It is a creative endeavor, friend, but last I checked, Michael P was/is not one of our prophets. However, this may be more fun for you rather than trying to proof text this with references from our non-JST Holy Bible. But it is a rabbit trail, nonetheless.
Ward, do you want to take a stab at describing the physical look of the non-human species, genderless God? I’ll be glad to listen.
Kitty, Saying Joseph Smith is a prophet may not make it so but Nephi’s eastward turn at Nahom with a direct bee-line to Bountiful does. The existence of Bountiful with all descriptions in tact, the fact that Nahom has now been archaeologically verified to 600 BC, an Arabian river that empties into the Red Sea, descriptions of the interior desert and many more items that were completely unknown by anyone alive in early frontier America certainly show that whoever wrote First Nephi had to be on the ground in ancient Saudi Arabia – actually had to be present to get the kind of details we have.
Can you explain how 23 year old Joseph Smith had access to information that no one else even knew about without him being a prophet?
Ward,
If they are not snippets or out of context quotes, then you must have information you can pass on that shows where we teach it as mainframe doctrine. I challenged Falcon, but since he is more into deflection and personal attacks how about you showing all us TBM’s the teaching Manuals, the LDS Scriptures that can be used to nail down the details and full concepts involved in these small aberrations of our Doctrine. Interesting that when ever push come to shove, we find Creedal Christians taking the cowardly road of manipulation, little evidence, and a lot of jello which they find very hard to pin to anything. It must be frustrating, that bending and twisting of snippets and little known doctrine can not produce the nails to seal the coffin of Mormonism. Several Hundred Thousand coverts a year, a reactivation program that works in some instances, (always be concerned with the lost sheep), personal conversions based mostly on the Witness of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation that the BOM is true.
What I see is a puny effort by some here to downgrade our validity, by attacking small changes ,clarity, in our Gospel Doctrine. This must be considered a disadvantage to some degree to walk away from proving the Book of Mormon is a fraud, piece of fiction and now settle for Gospel Doctrine changes, laughable. It would seem that proving the BOM false, would do more to damage our religion then the small ineffectual snipping at “small aberrations in doctrinal teaching”.
r.
Wow. I scored a response this time. Thanks! However, in terms of responses, it still is rant-like and does not stick to the requests here to provide references. Jason – nice geography lesson, but why couldn’t you at least reference those locations with some quotes? Or a book title that has figured all this out. I am not as up on this stuff as you.
“Cowardly, puny, laughable.” Thanks for these gems. Talk to you later. Off to church.
29 years in the Morman church, 31 years as a Christian (I’m 60 right now). The changes are infuriating to me, but when you don’t believe the Bible, I guess you have a right to change anything you want. I was born and raised in the LDS Church during the glory years – we were proud to be Mormans, did not cozy up to the Christians, raised with standard persecution complex (didn’t make the starting 5 in basketball because I was a Mormon), ten other brothers and sisters, told that the Catholic Church, corrupted the Bible – Popes would scratch out verses and write in what they wanted. I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture.
– what the Mormons need to understand is the attack on the word came earlier in the book of mormon (many great and precious truths have been taken out) and very early in the Bible. They quite literally take the word of satan over the word of God in Gen 3:5 and think it’s a “good thing.” When you get to that point you can change anything you want with impunity.
I can testify that the Bible is the true word of God and believe Isaiah 40:8 “the word of God stands forever,” also Jesus Mark 13:31. I know this through prayer, archeological and historical accuracy, and the fact the bible is grammatically correct. (the people and prophets who wrote the bible didn’t exactly go to college). I can look at a map and find cities mentioned in the Bible – they are there. When I was young people were joining the Mormon church because they were being told archeological discoveries proved the Book of Mormon – nothing could be further from the truth.
Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament.
Trying to point out changes to their doctrine is like hitting a moving target, mostly because a lot of the members really don’t know what the doctrine is and they change it so often, they can catch up on it later, I guess. However, the attack on the word is consistent and I doubt they even realize how dangerous to their soul that is.
Again for Ward, If they are not snippets or out of context quotes, then you must have information you can pass on that shows where we teach it as mainframe doctrine. Cowardly, puny, and laughable are my nice thoughts, I won’t divulge my real inner feelings, since I would then be accused of being like Falcon who is known to have uncontrollable rage. 🙂
Lovely is the following quote, Falcon states, “The whole point of Mormon doctrine, I think, is to create confusion”. Wow, and I thought all this time we were spreading light and knowledge in purity and simplicity versus the teaching of Creedal Christians sorry and lame doctrine of Triune Trinity, Six Day of Creation, Ex Nihilo and God Speaks no more, or at least not allowed too.
Ward states, ” Oh I wish I could focus on loving and not reacting to the stuff oftentimes expressed here. There are times for the passionate part of love, and sometimes that gets too passionate when I feel that we are going in circles, evidence is being ignored because feelings don’t support it”.
Wise words good buddy, rage, anger, contention are of the devil, I almost wish your above was the norm here at Coffee.
LOL, “but Nephi’s eastward turn at Nahom with a direct bee-line to Bountiful does” No it does not! That statement is akin to back dating revelation.
First, It is suggested that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all.
Second, The fact that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention contact with outsiders during Lehi’s journey.
Joseph Smith simply created the name Nahom as a variant of the Biblical names Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1).
Next, it’s reaching for straws with this supposed “find” of Nahom, the evidence is not without question by reputable scholars, so to state that Nahom is the support of calling Joe a Profit (Yes that is spelled right), is erroneous indeed. I would think that finding the remains of the American settlements would be a lot easier, to date, NOTHING has been found that can verify any Hebrews in America.
Finally, if JS only got one description out of the hundreds in the BOM right that is a pretty low success rate, kinda like throwing fiery darts at a wall in the dark, gonna hit it sometime. Nahom, will go the way of every other bit of evidence that Mormons like to use to support their cult. Just think of the Book of Abraham, the LDS Organization is the laughing stock of the Egyptian party, Heck I even think Ra the sun God is rolling laughing at Joe’s translation.
“Can you explain how 23 year old Joseph Smith had access to information that no one else even knew about without him being a prophet?”
He didn’t, he did read from the bible, no doubt about that, so he injected his own details. There is nothing concert here, to suggest otherwise would expose ignorance. I have yet to hear of one NON-LDS archeologist suggest that in fact, this is a site documented in the BOM.
So I can explain this pretty easily, Joe took names from the Bible, changed them a little, took context and descriptions from the Bible, added his own twist, and wrote the book. That is not a stretch, many, many authors do this today. The book Wicked is one example, so is the Sunday night drama Merlin. Just because someone found something with the letters NHM means nothing, oh wait I feel a LDS prophecy (Profit) moment coming…
NHM, is really NoHoMo(Jo)
“As Mormons are, I once was. As I am now, Mormons may become.”
“If he act’s like a fraud, talks like a fraud, and steals like a fraud, then he (JS) is a fraud”
I think I really know who killed JS, it was the one who he was Blasphemous against.
We are also told (Joshua 5:6) that this one million plus wandered for forty years in the wilderness in Sinai Now surely more than more than a million people wandering around for forty years would have left some traces for archeaologist to find. Yet not a single archeological evidence have been found. This is not for want of trying. Between 1967, when Israel captured the Sinai peninsula from Egypt, and 1982, when it was returned in the peace treaty, Israeli archaeologists made dozen of expeditions throughtout the peninsula. Yet, not a single shred of evidence for an ancient Isrealite presence was found.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/moses.html
Nice try, Richard.
NHM = Nothing here, man.
Methinks Jason is trying to hijack the thread with things blatantly off-topic.
Hank, I’ll buy that, theres no evidence on either side, then the issue is put to rest. Lets focus on Topic.
Jason, take the NHM discussion here.
Aaron, did you nuke my post on NHM?
Kevin, In 1829 the entire coastline of Arabia was described as rocky and barren – no one alive at the time knew there was place with wild honey, fruit, fresh water, access from the interior desert, iron ore, cliffs over 200 ft high that drop directly into the depths of the ocean etc etc. All points clearly indentified in the BoM.
Nahom is exactly how a Hebrew would have rendered NHM. The accuracy is not in question.
Also, Nahom is different in that it is a precise place name as a stopping point on the journey of Lehi’s group as well as being indentified as an ancient burial ground AND the point for the eastward turn of their journey, a turn that if followed would take one directly to Bountiful.
We now have the alters found by an outside German group that date NHM to 600 BC, Nahom has now also been identified as an ancient burial ground just as the Book of Mormon indicates, we also now know that the ancient frankincense trail went due east from Nahom which is the exact direction Nephi states, a direction in the trail that Joseph Smith could not have known. And that eastward direction must take one to a very fruitful bountiful location along the coast of Oman – and it does.
So the task of the detractor is to find another location in Arabia that matches all points. For Joseph Smith to guess at any one of these points and hit it would be amazing but to get them all exactly right-on via mere guess work would have been simply impossible.
Regardless of your thoughts on the BoM, in light of new information, you have to let go of the idea that 23 year old farm boy Joseph was making it up and at least come up with something more plausible.
Oh! Wow Jason. Thank you for your amazing evidence of the “truthfullness” of the BOM.
…and soon we will find evidence of people living on the moon for thousands of years….also a teaching of joe smith.
(deep … sad … sigh)
HankSaint,
Considering the emotional state you’re in right
now, you might not receive this.These doctrines
you call ‘aberrations’ are classic Mormon the-ology.I’ve selected just a few examples of what
has been publicly taught concerning God being once
was a man :
“….it is in perfect harmony with the teachings
of Jesus Christ…” [ Lorenzo Snow, “Unchangeable
Love of God”,Sept. 1898]
“….this GRAND and incomparable concept…”
[Gordon B. Hinckley, Gen. Conf. Oct.1994]
“….it is the FIRST PRINCIPLE of the gospel to
know for a certainty the character of God…that
He was once a man like us….” [Apostle Dallin
Oaks, citing Joseph Smith, Ensign Jan.2006 p.51]
Spencer W. Kimball in Gen. Conf. in 1977 said
that there were, “numerous scriptures” that
provided the basis for this LDS belief.
Many more examples can be cited, but this is
evidence that this is/was normal LDS teaching.
You personally don’t have to believe this I
guess,but it was publicly taught as being con-
sistant with the scriptures and also as testimony
from latter-day LDS Apostles.
Hello all. I am new to this sight and wanted to comment on the “mainframe doctrine” argument. Are the Mormon’s here really denying that man’s progression to godhood is not doctrine of the Mormon church just because it doesn’t appear in a manual or one of the three “recently canonized” prophetic revelations? I was raised in the church, served a mission, was married in the Temple and so on and so forth. I have sat through many a Mormon class where this doctrine is taught and/or alluded to. I have heard it taught from the pulpit and General Conference and the bi-annual Priesthood Conference. I think guys like Hank, Ralph and Jason are grasping at straws with this weak argument of theirs. They know this is in fact Mormon doctrine. They know it is taught. They know it is not some snippet or nugget. They just don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
When issues like this were raised while I was serving my mission our “escape” was to claim that “we don’t cast our pearls before swine”. Meaning, that kind of doctrine is only for the “true believers” and is not understood by people outside of the restored gospel, therefore it is o.k. to deny it.
Granted, I have been away from the Church for a long time but to deny that this doctrine is both taught and believed in the Mormon church is a lie.
Regarding “clarifications” (#6) I have a copy of the BOM my grandmother gave me that dates to 1950. I am astounded at the changes I have come across when comparing to the latest and greatest edition. Now how was this done without the benefit of any original language manuscripts I wonder?
Also to Jason (our archeological expert)…if the BOM was given to Joseph in idioms and language of his day please identify for me the species of cureloms and cumoms as I cannot find reference to these in 19th century English anywhere…
Blessings to all!! (heading to the RLDS temple for an organ recital…too bad they have all the good ones)
He said…I am a prophet…and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD…But he lied… 1 Kings 13:18
Kevin and Jason, I moved your two comments to here.
Free, why not show me where exactly Joseph Smith taught that men lived on the moon? Surely you must have something outside of an obscure journal entry dated to 1881. Right? You have much more than that right?
A sermon, a long discourse, a personal entry in Joseph Smith’s own journal, or maybe some meeting notes? Free, show us your brilliance and post something outside of OBH you owe it to this audience to tell us about it.
Jason,
Most Ev’s no dittly about Mormonism. Most Ev’s that evangelize no dittly about Mormonism. However, there are a few here (some are former Mormons) who do know about Mormonism. I am sure your experience has been that many Ev’s are just out to get Mormons (because you are Mormon) but worldwide many Ev’s do the very thing you write about and with good results. Why praise my words if you understood their greater context and their meaning did not support the point you were trying to make? Nowhere did I hint that non-Mormons should not destroy Mormon arguments before giving a positive presentation of their faith. Do you handle scripture and patristic sources in the same way?
Are you really suggesting to Aaron and the rest of us that frequent this blog that 1st century Jews and Christians were really proto-Mormons? Do you really believe that somewhere in the first few centuries after Pentecost that the true religion of Yaweh apostatized from polytheistic monism to monotheistic dualism? Do you really believe that those church fathers who subscribed to some sort of theosis really had a view of man and god similar to yours? Do you believe that, before the advent of the Messiah, the Hebrews believed their God to be finite? What is forming your opinions on these matters? Why are you ignoring my questions? When will you admit that the “alien” god that you have a problem with (transcendent and non-human) is the same God revered by billions of theists worldwide, and not just Ev’s?
Ralph,
Here is the key difference between the ban on blacks and evangelizing gentiles in the 1st century A.D. I can point to chapter an verse where dietary prohibitions came from and where prohibitions concerning non-Hebrews came from. This can not be done with your priesthood ban.
There is no definitive reason why non-whites (not just blacks) were banned from many LDS activities, positions, etc. I know because I actually called the public relations department of your church and the guy told me no single reason (like the curse of Cain or lack of valiance in the pre-existence) has ever been “the reason” for the ban. According to him “we don’t know” why it existed. Over 2/3 of the earth’s population was prohibited from what you consider necessary activities, positions, etc. No reason was ever given, or at least one that is acknowledged today. Do you see the problem? Do you see why many non-Mormons are skeptical of “changes” in church publications?
Jason,
“Free, why not show me where exactly Joseph Smith taught that men lived on the moon? Surely you must have something outside of an obscure journal entry dated to 1881. Right? You have much more than that right?
A sermon, a long discourse, a personal entry in Joseph Smith’s own journal, or maybe some meeting notes?”
I am assuming you have the equivalent for 1st century (both B.C. and A.D.) citations regarding the nature of God and man?
Jason Rae,
I found a website just by searching Google with “men on the moon joseph smith” that explains the history of Joseph Smith and his teaching regarding Quaker-like people living on the moon. It was reported in Mormon publications back in the day. Brigham Young even elaborated and proclaimed in a SERMON that people also live on the SUN. He even says there is “no question” that the SUN is inhabited. I think this may be another one of those Adam-God type things where nobody really understands what they are talking about – they might as well be babbling goobledy-gook. Oh, wait a minute, they are!
I also find it interesting Jason Rae that when you want to prove something or know that it is true that you demand evidence, source material, that shows Joseph Smith believed/taught the men on the moon idea. Interesting. One might wonder where the evidence/source material is for other Mormon teachings – such as Jesus coming to America right after His resurrection and teaching native Americans – where is that source material that supports the Book of Mormon??? Surely there are other manuscript discoveries in North America that support the BOM, just like the many ancient manuscripts found that attest to the Bible??
There are no ancient manuscripts, showing the BOM to be the fabrication that it is. An invention of a story-teller. I think the LDS Church really knows it is an invention, that’s why they are so comfortable with constantly changing it and adjusting it – just like the changing and adjusting of the temple rituals and the Gospel Principles. There is nothing really all that sacred in Mormonism, only the Prophet – the Mormon Creed is really just one sentence: Hold high, exalt, and believe the Prophet. I pray one day God will bring down this idolatry of the Prophet and expose Mormonism in a way that let’s the sun shine so strong on this corrupt institution, that common-sense folk will have nothing to say but just head for the doors. I truly believe this day is coming. May God have mercy and bring it soon.
Jason Rae – Sorry, just one more thing
You wrote: “If your doctrine on salvation is true, just accept God and you’re saved then that should be your ONLY message to ALL people including LDS. Why get bogged down in the minutia of manual changes, polygamy etc at all? If you really have the way to salvation it seems that all you would teach and you would have no time for the rest of this stuff.”
I want to agree with you partially here. Always, the end of our discussion with ALL people whether they are atheists and as Christians we are showing the shortfalls of atheism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses and we are showing the problems with denying Jesus deity, or whoever – the GOSPEL must always be our ultimate goal as Christians. HOWEVER, the gospel is NOT “just accept God and you’re saved.” The gospel is Jesus Christ hung on a cross – He was crucified for our sins, took the punishment for our sins and fulfilled the sacrificial system established by God for the remission of sins. Jesus purchased our forgiveness with his blood. Our redemption is not “just accept” but rather came at a high cost – the death of our Lord. An excruciating death on the cross by the perfect sinless Lord Jesus. Salvation is not just some easy believism, or wishful thinking. Now as redeemed people we are to live by the moral commandments of God – not to earn our redemption – but as thanks to God. No doubt, we still need forgiveness, for every day in every way we still sin, but God in His mercy has provided the way for our salvation. Praise be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Whitsell, the key aspects of the apostasy that I care about are exactly the ones I’ve been raising: the nature of God, the nature of salvation and the purpose of man’s existence. Interestingly enough if you get the first one right the others fall right into place and you won’t be left stumbling in the dark with a 70 eyed creature from the black lagoon as your god as Micheal P. so shamelessly pointed out.
So before we disucss the minutiae of the items you pointed out I’d like to know where you stand on the nature of God in general. Do you accept and embrace the following:
“I don’t know what God looks like, and won’t pretend to guess. If he’s a hideuous 8 headed creature with 70 eyes and spider like legs, does that make him less of a God? I don’t think so, and nor should you. – Michael P.”
Or do you reject and denounce Michael P. for blasphemous rumors?
~
mobabyblues, if you’re praying to the alien we really don’t have anything to worry about now do we? You said: “Salvation is not just some easy believism, or wishful thinking.” Then how were saved? What exactly did you do? Please be specific so that others may do the same.
Joheshua,
I have never said that it isn’t doctrine. In fact I said that I do discuss it with people if they have the knowledge or understanding to understand it. I did this on my mission many times.
David,
Can you show me in the Bible why the non-Israelites were not allowed the gospel before Jesus’ resurrection because I do not know of any references. This is serious question, I do not know of any references saying why they were not allowed just that they were not allowed. Also, why were those males who had damaged genitals (note not Gentiles) were not allowed into the congregation of the Israelites according to the Law of Moses (Deut 23:1), but after Jesus’ resurrection they were? Why were those with blemish (including broken hand/foot, dwarfism) not allowed to officiate as priests even though they were from the tribe of Levi (Lev 21:17-20)? These are people not allowed to neither enter the congregation nor serve God without any explanation as to why from what I can find. Can you give me any from the Bible and not from your opinion?
My main point in the post was about Aaron’s comment that the ‘doctrine’ why the ban was in place had died a silent death, not what the doctrine was nor whether it was from God. I am disagreeing with Aaron, I still believe that it is there, just God has moved things forward in His plan which was to ultimately have all worthy receive the priesthood in His time. He does not have to have a reason why if He doesn’t want to, so yes, there may be no other reason except that He wants to do it that way. Remember what we LDS teach – our faith is being tried on this earth, and maybe this is one way He is trying people’s faith – through a controversial topic like this (ie racism). But we still teach that the mark of the curse placed on Cain was black skin and this was perpetuated through Ham’s wife after the flood. That is doctrine. And if that was the reason for the ban then it still is being taught so it has not died.
Ralph, just to be clear, are you affirming here that it is doctrinal and/or true that the blacks were indeed neutral or at least less valiant in pre-mortality? A lot of Mormon intellectuals and apologists seem to have taken the view that this was a mere policy and was implicitly repudiated in 1978. Yet Mormons seem divided on this issue, hence the residual racist beliefs.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear this up? 😉
One of the best things that came from leaving Mormonism was being able to finally just take things at face value.
Ah, what a fun day. Just yesterday one of our Mormon posters demanded references and I said, “Why, it’s never enough anyway.” And so one of our Christian posters, several in fact, provide documentation and guess what? You got it, it’s not sufficient.
My brothers in Christ, this is a Mormon game. They know they are playing a bad hand and so they bluff. They’ve bought Mormonism emotionally and now they are stuck trying to find some rational evidence that it is based on some factual evidence. In order to be a Mormon you have to suspend credulity and surrender your integrity.
I’ve talked about the Quaker like men living on the moon previously. I have an account from one of Jim Spencer’s books where a Mormon is confronted with this information. He walks away troubled. The next day he approaches his nonMormon friend and says “Well maybe they are living “in” the moon.” Walter Matin’s conclusion was that Mormons were able to think rationally in all other areas of their lives but not when it came to Mormonism.
The Mormon brain goes into a suspended state because they so badly want to believe that it’s all true. They prayed about it and got a feeling. That feeling was God speaking to them confirming Joseph Smith’s tale. To deny that the feeling was actually God speaking to them, would collapse their whole world. No more super spiritual merit badge. It’s easier to just shut their eyes tight and repeat the “I knows” over and over again and maybe Tinker Bell will come back to life.
Joheshua, hello and welcome.
I see your interested in my Mainframe Doctrine statement. I’m not denying the teaching at all of, “man’s progression”, what Hinkley was stating is that, “small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods”. Maybe this is one of the reason you’re are a ex-mormon, I’m only guessing that there is a probability you got caught up in the peripheral and ignored the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure in it’s simplicity as it has been revealed to us.
You are adamant that we teach this, both in our classes and in the pulpit. If so Joheshua I would be interested in knowing so much more about these gems which you speak of as normal teachings in our Meetinghouse and in our General Conferences. Please tell me about the Plurality of Gods? are we speaking of a few or endless and numberless? Can you please discourse on the Home Planet of our Father in Heaven? tell us His life’s story and was He just a measly human like us or did He come as a Christ to Save His creations? What part of the Universe was He Born in, and how long ago was that? Did God ever Sin, or was He perfect like His literal Son, Jesus Christ.
Joheshua, there is a huge difference in teaching pure and simple doctrine that is well documented versus the small snippets of suggested true doctrine that God has not felt at this time to reveal in it’s fulness. Do I believe personally in these gems? only as far as what is correct and revealed to us by the Holy Ghost, otherwise it is pure speculation and not doctrine.
If you have more information, which you seem to believe you have heard at Meetinghouses and General Conference, then produce it and stand up for what you believe is false teachings, but just making a declaration that it was taught is irrelevant since I don’t believe you can discuss any of this other then in simple aberrations, snippets, and out of context quotes.
Jason Rae wrote:
First could you please define alien because I am not praying to a Latino named Hey-sus?
As for the second question couplet. Repent and believe, of course this includes repenting of even your good works which are filthy rags tainted by your own pride. We must depend fully and solely upon the Lord Jesus for salvation, with full assurance that God by faith in Jesus Christ will conform you into the image of His Son. Phil 1:6
Lautensack
Laughable and lame, “Well maybe they are living “in” the moon.” Walter Matin’s conclusion was that Mormons were able to think rationally in all other areas of their lives but not when it came to Mormonism.
Well now, that Joseph taught this was from the writings of a Mr. Huntington around 1881 some years after the MURDER of Joseph Smith. Seems the facts and evidence don’t support Huntington’s claims that Joseph Smith’s father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants. What we see is that the blessing was given by his own father when he was only ten. Anti-Mormon claims that Joseph described the inhabitants of the moon, which has been only sourced so far to a rumor, not facts or evidence that was ever witnessed by others or written and discussed in any sermon by Joseph. Hmmm, very interesting that amount of stretching Creedal Christian go to when there agenda is quiet likely to leave out facts and evidence. I would suggest updating you anti-books for more recent and accurate editions.
r.
This thread isn’t about knights who say Nihm or Nahom, it’s not about flesh wounds, and it’s not about moon men. It’s about why changes in Mormon teachings are approached with caution.
{throws hands up in the air} 🙂
Here, I even set up an experimental comment box on the bottom of the moon men article. Please take it there.
Aaron,
I do not know the reason why the blacks were not allowed the priesthood. I have been taught that it was because of the curse given by Noah to his son Ham. I have been taught that it was due to the curse of Cain. And I have heard the reason you put forward. I don’t think I have heard any others, but there may be some different ones floating around out there. But I do believe that the doctrine behind the reason is still there and has not been removed. Its just served its time and purpose and thus no longer is ‘valid’. Like the Law of Moses and other doctrines that had a point of fulfilment.
My question now – do we count to 3 or 5 before we throw the holy hand grenade?
Ralph, I’m confused. You say, “the doctrine behind the reason is still there”, yet you list a few possibilities of what this doctrine may be without any conclusions. How can you know the doctrine behind the reason is still there if you don’t know what the doctrine is? This really seems to tie in with the six complaints I have listed in the original post.
I can actually feel the pieces of my brain twisting and stretching to try to incorporate the ‘truth’ as seen and believed by Mormons. I remember when this was the norm.
I can also remember the day when I let it all go, and just picked up my Bible and read it. It was like “hey, when did the Bible start saying this? I never knew this was here! Hey, this book is easy to read, and it makes sense!”
It was like a light went on, and the Light has been there ever since.
Aaahh… the freedom.