The July 2009 issue of A Shield & Refuge Ministry Newsletter mentioned an interesting facet of LDS temple ordinances — that of proxy work done on behalf of excommunicated fundamentalist polygamists.
On June 2nd (2009) the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about recent findings discovered by non-Mormon genealogical researcher Helen Radkey. The Salt Lake Tribune reported,
“Prominent fundamentalist Mormons, most of whom were excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for practicing polygamy while they were alive, have been posthumously re-baptized in LDS temples, a Salt Lake City researcher says.
“Helen Radkey said in a new report that she obtained church records on 20 fundamentalists — from murderer Ervil LeBaron to Joseph Musser to Rulon Jeffs — showing that they’ve been baptized and have had their plural marriages ‘sealed’ for time and eternity by proxy LDS members, one as recently as this year.” (The article, “Polygamous fundamentalists baptized by proxy into LDS Church, researcher says,” is in the Salt Lake Tribune archives and can be downloaded for a fee. However, the entire article can also be found at the ICSA website.)
On Mormon Curtain Ms. Radkey has detailed her research findings, including names, dates and historical background information on many of the fundamentalists for whom LDS temple work has been performed. For example,
“Rulon Clark Allred was born into a polygamous family in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Allred’s decision to take plural wives came in his twenties following what he described as a vision. That decision resulted in the estrangement of his first wife, Katherine Lucy Handy, whom he had been sealed to in the Salt Lake (LDS) Temple in 1926. Allred was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1940 for practicing polygamy. In 1941, his plural wives were also cut off from the Church… Allred was murdered in his office in Murray, Utah, on May 10, 1977, on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous group. At the time of his death, Allred was the husband of at least seven wives, the father of forty-eight children, and the spiritual leader of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists. Although the 1926 marriage sealing between Allred and Handy was annulled in 1942–Handy remarried in 1940–online IGI records still display the original 1926 sealing. Several of these records also list Mabel Finlayson, a plural wife of Allred, as an additional spouse. …Allred was posthumously baptized as recently as January 29, 2009 in the Ogden Utah Temple. He was previously baptized in 2001, 2002, and 2008. He was endowed and sealed to his parents in 2002 and 2008. Mormons gave plural marriage for Rulon Allred a recent thumbs up-when he was sealed by proxy to two of his wives, Ruth Rachel Barlow, and Ethel Jessop, on December 16, 2008 in the Ogden Utah Temple…”
A Shield & Refuge Ministry asks, “Why does the LDS Church condemn the practice of polygamy by Mormon fundamentalists, while at the same time, their temple system accepts deceased Mormon fundamentalists and many of their plural marriages?” That’s a good question.
It has long been understood within Mormonism that polygamy will be practiced to some degree in eternity. Three current Mormon apostles have been eternally sealed in the temple to two women each (Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson are all widowers who have been remarried for time and eternity). But the polygamy of Mormon fundamentalists is quite different. Unlike the Mormon apostles who have but one living wife at a time, the fundamentalists have multiple living wives, and that in defiance of the laws of the Church and the land.
The polygamy of Rulon Allred (and so many others) was a sin requiring excommunication from the LDS Church. These men never repented in life. If they do so in death, according to Mormonism, their forfeited Church-membership blessings may be returned to them. Additionally, because of vicarious temple ordinances their (illegal) plural wives will be theirs for all eternity as well. They will (perhaps) become Gods and reign forever with their wives in their polygamous kingdoms.
Joseph Smith reportedly taught that the “dominion and powr” of a man’s eternal glory was directly tied to the number of wives and children he gained in mortality (see Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 99; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 10-11). LDS author Todd Compton summarized,
“Thus in Smith’s Nauvoo ideology, a fullness of salvation depended on the quantity of family members sealed to a person in this life” (In Sacred Loneliness, 11, emphasis in the original).
How does all this fit together for the excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists and their wives? It appears they may gain a greater eternal glory than those faithful Mormons who obeyed the prophet and lived monogamously.
HankSaint, tone down the language of personal attack. That kind of language raises concern at MRM, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that can lead to a ban.
Take care,
Aaron
Randy Andy,
Again with the tirade of viscous personal insults.
Perhaps we should enroll you in a remedial reading class. It is readily apparent that you lack the intellectual ability to read and understand a simple sentence.
You habitually misquote, misinterpret and misconstrue every post I write. I have never stated that Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Chrysotom practiced or approved the ordinance of baptism for the dead – to the contrary, they were against the practice. My point is that the fact that Tertullian and Chrysotom made mention of the ordinance of baptism for the dead is conclusive evidence that Christians were practicing this rite in the third and fourth century and that this practice was widespread and commonplace.
The Roman Catholic Church STILL practices proxy work for the dead in the saying of prayers and mass for the dead.
Really, your abusive rants are growing tiresome.
Kevin,
Your assertion that the LDS temple is a profit center is completely ridiculous and belies your ignorance as to what the financial term “Profit Center” really means as well as your ignorance of how the LDS Church operates.
St. Crispin,
This has already been addressed to some extent by others, but you are just wrong in your assertion that “baptism for the dead was a widely practiced ordinance amongst the early Christians”. You also assert that the proxy baptisms are still practiced by Coptics, the Ethiopian Church, and by Mandaeans. As pointed out earlier, Mandaeans are not Christians; they do not even claim to be.
On the Ethiopian Church’s website they do not even mention proxy baptisms though baptism is discussed at length. I found this from Coptic Christians in the southern United States:
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1110&catid=45
These Coptics deny ever practicing proxy baptisms. They do not do it now, and they never have; this is from Coptic Christians about themselves. If proxy baptisms were done in the ancient world (these references are old but not primitive) then they were done but gnostic-type sects and were not widespread. Also, the heretical baptisms described by the church fathers are different than those of your church. Some groups actually had the corpse in the room and asked it questions (talk about creepy).
I think it is obvious that you have misrepresented Coptics and church history as well. Even if you want to say that the heretics of the ancient world, the ones that possibly baptized for the dead, were the true Christians, they (Gnostics and Marconites) were not even close to modern Mormons in terms of their beliefs. Some similarities exist between your faith and theirs’ but there are many differences as well. The point is they were not proto-Mormons and their later heretical practices represent a deviation from the apostolic faith and not a legitimate exercise of it.
HankSaint
“Hebrew word for Create or created is bara, or actually the translations is to “carve out”. Does this not imply that God created the heavens and the earth of preexistent materials? That material, in fact, is carefully described in Genesis 1:2, the second verse of the Bible.”
Here is the problem I have with your “interpretation”. No Jew or Christian came up with what you did until Jospeh Smith. The Jews and Christians of the hundred years before and after Christ held to creation out of nothing. We know because they left sermons and commentaries for us to read. The book The New Mormon Challenge deals with this issue at length. The ancient Hebrews were monotheisits and their God was transcendent above and beyond creation and matter.
Crispin, really is that all you have? Personal attacks and insults? You have not address ANY of my other comments? Why do you hide? Why do you dismiss my other questions? I do understand if this is a hurtful topic, and I have been on my soap box for the last two days. In no way can you discredit me personally, although you have tried. I hope that others can see how you have dodged my questions, facts (Based on highly regarded economic professors and think tanks, and you disregarded any economic theory.
You attacked my knowledge of the LDS org. without knowing much of my involvement with TSCC. As far as you know I am a high ranking officer who is posting incognito so I can expose the church for what it is without dealing with the social pressures that fall on those who disagree.
I do not understand you approach to the conversation, you choose one phrase, “Profit center” you go to an dictionary and post what “you” think it means. Joseph(s) Myth did this also, I believe that is how he came up with the BOM. He stole the idea from the book, “View of the Hebrews” I was really hopeing to have a good conversation about economics and the church, how disappointing.
Shem, my friend! ” You-“We need the approval of Joseph Smith, as well as all the leaders of the church in all ages” So every prophet who has lived on the earth??
You- “Like the court system. Joseph Smith is a lower judge, and if he lets us pass we still must go before the Supreme Court.” we have free agency right? what if Joe has a different interpitation then Christ on what qualifies as passing or not. So I may never get to be judged by Jesus if I did something that Joe didn’t like. It is to easy to say that Joe is in exact line with Jesus. Please come up with something better. And if the interpitation is the EXACT same, then what is the usefulness of Joe judging?
You- “…so why not Joseph Smith?” Because he was a treasure hunting fraud.
I was just last night reading a commentary by J. Vernon McGee. This is a man who was down to earth but very knowledgeable as a theologian, and his comment is that “bara” means to create out of nothing. When we start making comments that God merely organized matter that already existed, it gives the implication that matter predated God. To believe that, one has to believe that God did not always exist and that He was not always God, which is a purely nonbiblical belief. Once again, the main issue is whether the biblical text is authoritative for one or not. Because the Bible is authoritative for me, I cannot agree with the argument that God merely organized creation. This belief comes from the book of Abraham in the PGP, which I do not believe to be from God–too contradictory, and the character of Abraham it presents is very egocentric. The amazing thing about God is that His Word gives life. His very breath generates life out of nothing. When He spoke into nothingness, “Let there be light,” nothingness became matter and automatically obeyed the Word of God: “…and there was light.” It’s a sad thing that Mormon doctrine obliterates the uniqueness of God and puts Him in a category of gods, stripping Him of His status of “omni-EVERYTHING.” Sorry, but the god Mormonism offers is not the God of the Bible, and no matter how Mormon theology tries to rationalize Is. 43:10, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDE HIM, nor is there any other universe, galaxy, whatever, beside that which He created. He is God alone!
Peace and Grace!
Just a thought – the title of this article is very misleading. We are not reinstating any ex-LDS when they are baptised by proxy. Anyone that has their name removed from the church records for any reason (excommunicated, name removal by request, etc) have their baptism annulled and voided. They are told that since we believe that we must be baptised to enter the CK if they want to gain that glory then they need to be re-baptised. So if they are not re-baptised in this life, we are giving them the same opportunity as we give all and baptise them by proxy. But it is not an automatic re-baptism where they are officially members again – and we have covered this on other threads. So they are not being reinstated nor accepted back into the fold, just given the opportunity, which going by track record they most likely wont accept.
Kevin,
I think you got me mixed up with someone else because I never said anything about why and how we place our temples.
As far as answering your comments about the temple and tithing I have done this a couple of times but it seems you either miss my posts, or ignore them to push your point. I have stated that an increase in temple attendance (going on your 200% example) does not imply an increase in tithing payments by members. This would only be a small part. It also indicates that members whoa re already paying tithing are making an extra effort to overcome problems and getting to the temple more often. Go back and read my other posts for the examples I gave from my life experiences. Especially where I stated that I was ward financial clerk at the time the temple in my area was built and no new people started paying tithing except a couple of new members. The only ones who paid tithing were the usuals and they did not increase their amounts paid. Even the ones who were part tithe payers did not increase their tithing just to get to the temple. But that was my experience in one ward – it could be different in other wards.
Kevin,
From the website your friend gave you this is the description given for Third World country – ”The term Third World was originally coined in times of the Cold War to distinguish those nations that are neither aligned with the West (NATO) nor with the East, the Communist bloc. Today the term is often used to describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania.
Many poorer nations adopted the term to describe themselves. (Emphasis mine)
We have temples in – Brazil, Samoa, Tonga, Chile, Tahiti, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Guatemala, South Africa, Korea, Peru, Argentina, China, Columbia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Fiji, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ghana and Nigeria. In fact there are at least 5 temples in Mexico and 2 in Brazil. Do these countries meet the definition of ‘Third World countries’?
It’s interesting that it mentions ‘Oceania’ which Australia is a part of. From many of the financial reports that I have read, Australia has been dubbed the ‘Third World’ country of the developed nations like America, England and Europe. But that means something else, not literally third world/developing world country.
The Mormon view of God differs radically from “traditional Christian theology,” there will be little argument from Latter-day Saints or me.
1). Nothing in the Bible ever says God is an immaterial being. The word immaterial is not even used in the Bible.
2). Christians believe that God is the creator and sustainer of everything else that exists, whereas Mormons believe that God is merely the
organizer of the world and is subject to the laws and principles of a beginningless universe. Latter-day Saints believe God organized
this world, exactly as the Bible says he did, they do not believe that this world is the extent of his works.
3). Mormons believe God created the laws of the universe, not that he is limited by them.
4). Mormons hold that God is omniscient and thus has knowledge of the past, present, and future.
5). God can be described as “omnipresent” despite the fact that his “presence” is localized in space. If that were not true Christ himself
could not be omnipresent.
6). Mormons hold the same view of God’s immutability as that taught in the Bible. They make no claims as to whether God the Father
has “always existed as God.” However, they definitely teach that he has always existed and that he has been God from “everlasting to
everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). Furthermore, they teach that “God,” Theos, or the “Godhead” referred to by Paul has always existed as the
one and only ultimate power over the universe just as the Bible teaches. Reference, Counterfeiting the Mormon Concept of God
Richard R. Hopkins
Regards Richard.
7). “Christians claim that God is a necessary Being and the only true and living God in existence, while Mormons believe that God is a contingent being and one of many gods” . Christians, at least those who believe in the Bible, do not properly make any claims about God being either a “necessary” or a “contingent” being. That is not in the Bible. Classical theists have adopted this doctrine from the Greek philosophy of the second century A.D. Neither the Bible nor Mormonism draws the same distinction as Greek philosophers and classical theists do on this issue. As to Mormons believing in “many gods,” one must ask, How many is three? If the answer can be one for classical theists, it can be one for Mormon theists . . . and it is!
8). “Christians maintain that God is a trinity (three Persons, one Being), whereas Mormons are tritheists who believe that each member of the Christian trinity is a separate, finite, and personal God” . The earliest Christians did not proclaim the Trinity nor can this concept be found in the Bible. It was the second-century apologists who came up with the notion. Latter-day Saints reject the claim that there can be three persons in one being, but they nevertheless maintain that the three persons described as divine in the New Testament are one God. Beckwith and other classical theists are simply wrong if they say otherwise. Latter-day Saints are not tritheists in the sense in which that word is used by classical theists. Mormon theism teaches of only one God, though many separate individuals clearly can and do share that designation. These individuals include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whom Mormons believe to be separate and personal, but not “finite” in the sense Beckwith and other classical theists claim. They are separate eternal beings who share all the infinite powers and attributes of God in perfect unity one with another, thereby constituting one God or “object of worship.” Reference, Richard R. Hopkins
Ralph, not to belabor the point, but in Kevin’s defense, following the introductory statement that you quote above, the Nations Online website breaks down Third World Countries by category. Since the discussion here on Mormon Coffee has to do with cost of temples vs. tithing, the “Third World Countries in Terms of Poverty” category would seem to be the relevant one. There are 50 countries listed. I don’t think any of them have LDS temples, though I may have missed something… At any rate, perhaps a working definition of “Third World Countries” would have been helpful to the discussion.
Richard/Hank,
I assume you were addressing me in your post above. I think your descriptions and perceptions of me could be probably classified as the LDS “spirit of contention” (3 Nephi 11:29). Joseph Smith told Mormons that is of the devil. I guess Mormons are bound by that. You see, in Christianity we are not because real contending for the faith is encouraged (Jude 3). Paul went into the Jewish synagogues and argued with them about the Gospel and the identity of Jesus (Acts 17-19).
Why, Hank, if that is the way you really feel about me, why would you want to engage in “debate” with this “pseudo intellectual”…sniff sniff…boo hoo? Richard, I’ve had Mormons say much worse about me than this. It’s okay…I love the Mormons enough to tell them the truth even if it means them hating me for it now, but hopefully one day not doing so if you come out of darkness.
Moving on, I thought you had questions? In your two posts I only saw this symbol (?) twice so I will answer those. You made a lot of statements and I am fully educated on the LDS talking points on their view of God and their vitriol of Christianity with the Bible.
Mormon apostle Russell Ballard said it was wrong for non-Mormons to define what Mormons believe. Likewise, please don’t tell me what I believe unless you have received education in Christianity by attending our churches & learning the Bible or in attending a Christian seminary. I learned Mormonism from Mormons. If you want to learn Christianity, learn it from Christians – not the LDS wards who are clueless on what historical Christianity believes. It’s easy to regurgitate at the ward down-the-line generation after generation to the uninformed and uneducated what Christianity believes and the history thereof. If you are interested in attending a class let me know. I teach a new believers class at my church on the doctrines & fundamentals of the Christian faith from the Bible. Questions are strongly encouraged unlike the LDS ward.
(cont’d)
Correct, I’m not a creedal Christian. We (the SBC) cherish and love them and in who wrote them, but we are not bound by them for authority in the rule of our faith. The Bible is the Word of God. Don’t tell me what I believe on the nature of God. I will tell you very clearly in specific terms with detail from Scripture each point. Please read my article that I wrote here on MC on May 21, 2009 entitled “Discovering the God of Christianity”. You can find it here:
http://blog.mrm.org/2009/05/discovering-the-god-of-christianity/
Richard, you need to learn the difference between a creed and nature/essence trait. You listed “omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient” as creeds. Those aren’t creeds. Creeds have titles to them like “Apostles Creed”, “Athanasian Creed”, etc.
Here is question #1 you asked: ” Please enlighten me if none of the above are correct?”
Answer: Items 1-7 are correct.
Question #2: “Does this not imply that God created the heavens and the earth of preexistent materials?” No. God created the heavens and the earth “ex nihilo” (out of nothing). You listed Gen 1:2 as your proof. You forgot to look at Gen 1:1 where God “created the heavens and the earth”. The earth was here first before verse 2 in which the Spirit of God moved over it (3rd person of the Trinity – don’t you hate it?)
That’s the short version on this. You mentioned “debate”. A debate? Is that what you want to do here? First, I’m not going to hijack Sharon Lindbloom’s article which focuses on proxy work for the dead in Mormonism to discuss the nature of God. If you’d like to have a debate instead of asking questions as you previously proposed we can do it several ways.
First, we can take this to the appropriate thread topic and have it there. I’ve already given you the link and it’s still open. Second, we can have this discussion offline via email like I have had with other Mormons on here. This will take time so be prepared for the long haul in your efforts.
(cont’d)
I recently had the pleasure of engaging in a written discussion/debate on the nature of God with one of the sons of a Mormon apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. He didn’t bring much to the table in his efforts and offered very few insights from the Mormon angle other than telling me that many of the issues we were discussing on the nature of God in relation to Mormonism was “problematic” in his opinion. After two months of written discussion he finally concluded that the “fruits of Joseph Smith” in his life made him happy and wanted to go on with his life. Somehow, I couldn’t reconcile that with the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:22-23. Richard, it went for two months, so be prepared for the long haul if you choose this option. I could send you the documents of our discussion on the nature of God, but I will remove his name and anything identifying him as I promised him I would never reveal it to another Mormon. I’d have to think about it so no promises on that possibility for now.
Third, and this is most preferable, if you want to debate let’s do it live and in person. How about you set it up at your ward or institute in your town? If you live in Salt Lake and you have clout, bring a GA who has Church authority to speak who would want to participate. If not, you and I can debate with your bishop being the moderator.
I’ll be happy to drive to your city or pay for my own air fare and expenses to get there. We can schedule it. I’m booked up for now on weekend teaching commitments and other ministry assignments until Nov. 1st. If you want to do something during the week I will take vacation from my job and we could have our debate in a two-day period. I’d like to take part of day 1 and debate the authority of the Bible and textual criticism since I will be using the Bible. After that – the nature of God. If you are interested in any of these options please let me know. Thank you!
[email protected]
Wow, three pages to explain or answer what? You have managed to tell Sharon that you don’t want to change the topic or hijack it but ramble on about very little that addresses either my points or Sharon’s points. I will skip most of what you stated, for lack of interest, but will mention and correct you on Teaching and taking questions. I have taught the Gospel Essentials Class a few times over the last 50 years of my membership, dealt with all sorts of questions and if I wasn’t sure of giving a Authoritative answer at the moment; I would state I needed more time and would get back. Once while teaching a new class of converts mixed with some older member who occasionally visited my class, a new convert explained her own beliefs about the nature of God. I listened and politely acknowledged her points and went on with the lesson. After class a regular member came up to me and chastised me for allowing her to believe such and such. I took the time to explain that it really did not matter what she believed, I also told the member that it was probable that our new converts old beliefs would remain with her until she learned, prayed and accepted more additional light and knowledge as she progressed. Who can make the claim we are all on the same plateau of knowledge, even if it’s incorrect, how does that affect where he or she is at that very movement. You claim we don’t encourage questions, false good buddy, as for me stating what you believe I didn’t, I only offered up some of the tenants and Creeds you abide by. You deflected quiet nicely by taking up three pages of excusing yourself from simply stating or making a correction. EX Nihilo, we can debate that some more, yes?
Regards, Richard.
Wow, Hank. I find it not very honorable (Doc Sarvis’ quote) that you call someone out for not answering questions.
You are quite adept at not answering questions. Perhaps a skill learned through your 50 years teaching at your church?
Quite frankly, it is one thing to dodge questions. It becomes hypocritical to dodge them and complain when others do.
Michael, what was the question? I thought it was my questions that were being dised. Fifty years of teaching? Hmmm, I said I have taught several classes over the last 50 years. I quiet understand how and why you get all things Mormon wrong, you don’t read or comprehend the what, how and why of what we do state. You want to take a shot at my post of what Mormons believe about the nature of God, and what Creedal Christians have been brainwashed to believe, as they accept the doctrine of men over that which is plainly Biblical.
Interesting.
Richard.
Hank, your history here has been anything but answering questions. 50 years of teaching– doesn’t have to be consistent if you have taught throught the 50 years.
Dod you read the posts by Andy? He is offering a very real arena to fully discuss the issues. He also addressed your comments. Reread what he wrote.
Your comments: 1) Yes, but nothing states he is material, either. 2) Sounds about right. 3) I say that’s what you say, but yet to LDS God can’t be certain things because it doesn’t make sense, so that is debatable the extent of how that comment works. 4) I have no reason to disagree. 5) To Christians, God is all around us and in everything, to Mormons, I guess that sounds right from what I understand. 6) Yes, but to Mormons, both you and I have also existed from the beginning and are both thus immutable. 7) God as necessary, I honestly have never considered this, and admittedly do not completely understand your entire post on this point. Your reference to philosophical addition raises a red flag, but will not comment on what I do not know nor understand what the point is. 8) I think this shows a lack of understanding of Biblical doctrine. The trinity was understood by the earliest Christians. The topic has been discussed at length before, but in short that the belief was not “formalized” until later does not necessitate the belief did not exist before “formalization”.
Finally, be careful with the brainwashed comments. Such rhetoric can easilly be reversed and is not productive (kinda like an “I’m rubber and you’re glue” sort of thing…)
LOL, my what a bunch of nothingness you just posted. Please do yourself a favor and the rest of us Mormons, just lurk, you might just learn something. Brainwashed? how does it sound to you, we get this all the time and just let it run off our shoulders. Not a big deal, sounds like I might have touched a nerve. It must be frustrating, describing your beliefs when all those Creeds keep smacking you in the face. Remember those Creeds where never in the Bible, they were voted on by a group of men, who never made any claim to have authority from God. They are more problematic for you since the Bible is basic in it’s teachings and the Creeds just compound and confuse many of your Christian members, who when asked to explain them, just kind of deflect and say they are proven by the Word of God as found in the Bible. Interesting since I can’t find them. Not being condescending, but I find your post lacking in any substance or accuracy.
Regards, Richard.
OK, Richard. Do you feel better now?
You can say that you find them without substance all you want, but as long as you fail to say more than what you did, it’ll be the pot calling the kettle back.
Shematwater recently told me to not pay attention to words and look at meaning, and when I do that, the Bible’s message will be clear. Trouble with that is that it turns interpretation on its head. Instead of taking meaning from a text, you put it in there using that method. Sorry, but I prefer to take meaning from the document rather than putting it in.
For a comparison, think of how best to interpret the Constitution. Is it a living document, or shold we strive to figure out what the words in it mean and what was meant?
Let me ask you a question, yes the Constitution is a Living Document as is the Bible, do you think then that Christians should dictate to God what he can and cannot add? You see good friend, you claim God speaks no more, the Heavens are shut to any more revelations and Gods Words are complete and there cannot be any more. I see that as being self centered, ignorant to Gods Powers and Love for His children.
A Bible, yes you have a Bible.
“many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible…Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10)
The Question should be, did God have the power and love to cause more of His words, or should we believe man, who claims God is not allowed for more to be written, Hmmm, interesting and problematic for Evangelicals, but not LDS Christians.
r.
“whereas Mormons believe that God is merely the
organizer of the world and is subject to the laws and principles of a beginningless universe.”
And, yet, the red flags are not seen and the bells and whistles must be falling on deaf ears. God subject to laws…now that’s heresy. It’s hard to grasp the reality that something as blatantly heretical as this statement is proclaimed with such assurance. Does the word Sovereign mean anything?
Blessings to those who seek the Truth…
“The Question should be, did God have the power and love to cause more of His words, or should we believe man, who claims God is not allowed for more to be written, Hmmm, interesting and problematic for Evangelicals, but not LDS Christians.”
Again, we see that Mormons struggle to understand that the biblical text reveals everything man needs to know to be saved in the Kingdom of God.
When one hears the additional words God supposedly spoke, it’s very easy to see that they are not God’s words. 1 Nephi 13, from which our LDS poster quotes, is nothing short of a conspiracy to denigrade the biblical text to a piece of literature that God was unable to preserve for whatever reason. When one reads the words of the book of Abraham, it is easy to see that the character of Abraham is not the same as the Abraham in the biblical text. So, it’s not an issue of God not being able to speak to us, today, because He does and we as Christians hear His voice; rather, it’s an issue of God not speaking the words the BOM, D&C, and PGP claim to be His. So, when these other writings present a God that is unrecognizable from the biblical text, which was Spirit-breathed, then it’s easy to dismiss them as false. That’s the issue, and LDS rhetoric tries to steer us away from such basic issues and into the tangled web of synchretism and downright false teachings.
Peace…
Hank, we’ve been through this before, and I thought you got it. I guess not. Christians believe God talks to us every day. The scriptures are currently closed, but revelation is not. Understand the difference? God still reveals himself in myriads of ways. I talk to him daily, and he talks to me.
You think you have the revelation thing cornered, but you don’t. Actually, how many revelations have come from your prophets? Why so few?
See, Christians very much have conversations with a revealed God, though you don’t see it. Fair enough, but if you don;t wish to take my word for it, or Jacks, or Andy’s, or Falcon’s, or any other Christian here or elsewhere, never complain again about how we distort your faith. I say this because Mormons love to complain about how others distort their faith even though they regularly distort ours, even when directly told. But it it is not just that you are told, you are told why in a way that is supported from the Bible.
So, the Constitution is a living document? Many do believe this, but I am surprised you say so as most LDS do not. Most are very conservative in their politics and seek to uphold the Constitution the founders created. To determine what they created, you don’t put your own meaning to the words written on it, you do all you can to determine what they meant when they were wrote and go from there. Deciding what you want them to mean and making them fit your view is akin to what Mormons do with the Bible.
Richard,
It appears that you have selective attention disorder (SAD). That is regretable because one the trademarks of a good teacher is the ability to focus on every detail that a person is saying or in something that you are reading even if you are bored when it pertains to you directly or indirectly. Have I lost you yet? I’ll give it to you fast.
I answered your 2 questions. I addressed your points. I wasn’t talking to Sharon or commenting on anything she said. You can’t give an authoritative answer because you don’t speak for the LDS Church. You’re not a GA. I told you I don’t abide by creeds. I abide by the Word of God – the Bible. True, some Gospel Essentials classes are better than others on encouraging questions. The last ward I went to for classes the teacher didn’t want any questions. I asked one question in the hour class and he was ticked. I’d tell you the rest of the story, but I’m afraid I would lose your attention. It wasn’t a happy ending.
I gave you 3 pages because I believe in giving thorough answers and reasons for what I am saying. That is another trait of a good teacher I am told: lots of details, background and facts. There was no deflect. You asked 2 questions. I gave you 2 answers. I told you if you wanted to discuss/debate the nature of God you had 3 choices because this thread is about proxy work for dead people. They are:
1. An appropriate thread relating to the topic. I gave you a link.
2. An offline discussion via email
3. A live debate between you and I at your ward/institute with your bishop moderating.
The only deflection I see is in your not wanting to choose either venue. In regards to discussing “ex nihilo”, yes, I’d love to on one of three choices above. You’re off topic on this thread.
Why are you on this blog? Ticked off? Got a grudge with Christianity? Bored at the ward? Annoyed at inactive Mormons or those resigning their church membership? Wanna sharpen your testimony of Joseph Smith? Just curious.
(Back on topic)
This afternoon as I was driving through southern Utah I started thinking about my dog that died a little over a year ago. As I got closer to the desert area where I had to “put him down” and then bury him I started remembering what Joseph
Smith said about the souls/spirits of animals. I got home and looked it all up and it says:
D&C 77:2 – “the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.”
Moses 3:5 – “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.”
Moses 3:19 – “I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…and they were also living souls; for I, God breathed into them the breath of life”
“Man and all forms of life existed as spirit beings and entities before the foundation of this earth were laid. There were spirit men and spirit beasts, spirit fowls and spirit fishes, spirit plants and spirit trees. Every creeping thing, every herb and shrub, every amoeba and tadpole, every elephant and dinosaur – all things – existed as spirits, as spirit beings, before they were placed naturally upon the earth.” (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, p.16)
Wow! Kolob must be quite the place – and very crowded too! Here’s more:
“Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits, in the form of their bodies. Like humans and plants, animals were created first as spirits in heaven and then physically on the earth. Mortal and subject to death, animals will be saved through the ATONEMENT OF CHRIST (TPJS, pp.291-292).” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, p.42)
What! My dog has a soul and will be saved through the atonement of Christ? Is this Mormonism-Hinduism-Pantheism with a touch of Christianity by putting Christ in it? This is serious heresy and I’d love to be shown this teaching from the Bible when it comes to atonement.
“God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them. Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.291)
Salvation? Salvation for my dog? My dog will be saved through the atonement of Christ? This is just another reason why Joseph Smith is a false prophet. This stuff is so “off the wall” it’s hard to take it seriously – just make it up as you go along. Okay, I’ll play along.
1. What kind of salvation? General or individual?
2. Conditional or unconditional redemption?
3. How many degrees of glory for animals? (Intro to D&C 77 says, “Beasts have spirits and shall dwell in eternal felicity on an immortal earth”)
4. Where will this earth be?
5. Will only animals be there and no humans?
6. Will they have resurrected animal bodies?
7. How will they survive? Will they not eat each other?
What does this have to do with this topic? Everything! I want to know when proxy work is going to be done for these dead animals that have spirits. Where are they now? In the same spirit world with everyone else? Who, how and when is temple work going to be done for these animals?
I want proxy work done for my dog. His name was Milo. He was an American pit bull terrier. He died July 2008. I would like temple work done for him at the Salt Lake Temple because I want to make sure that Milo makes it into the doggie celestial kingdom. Crispin, would you do the honors and be dunked for Milo? He was a good dog.
As early Church Father Chrysostom said, “Ridiculous”. This is where one ends up in Mormon thinking and rationalization of all things living and dead. Can any active Mormon honestly admit this kind of “theology” is nutty? This really has overtones to Hinduism. Proxy work for animals – full speed ahead!
HankSaint asked “..did God have the power and love to cause more of His words, or should we believe man, who claims God is not allowed for more to be written, Hmmm, interesting and problematic for Evangelicals, but not LDS Christians.”
You’ve got two responses, and I’ll give you a third.
Rubbish!
I’ve said it here before, and I’m not alone in saying it, that I don’t have a problem in ‘continuing revelation’.
If a prophet comes along and says “I’ve got a word from God”, I’m actually one of those people who will say “I’d like to hear what he’s got to say”.
The problem is in what is being revealed. Especially, why should God say He is the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Rev 1:8, Rev 22:12) and then say at some other time that he has a father, a wife, and his father has a father etc? Doesn’t He even know His own mind on the matter? If He can’t give a consistent account of Himself, how can we trust Him to give us a reliable account of anything at all?
Indeed, when I see the contortions Mormons go through to modify or ignore the less marketable teachings of their prophets, I have to conclude that Mormons are the ones who have a problem with continuing revelation.
When are the Mormons going to start believing in their prophets? I guess it will be when they start accumulating wives in this life as JS and BY commanded.
As jackg rightly points out, the sole purpose of this ‘continuing revelation’ rhetoric is about establishing the BoM, POGP and D&C as scripture in the place of the Bible.
And its not even about these documents, its about handing the franchise of God’s word to the clique of JS and his ‘official’ successors.
HankSaint said: “After class a regular member came up to me and chastised me for allowing her to believe such and such. I took the time to explain that it really did not matter what she believed, I also told the member that it was probable that our new converts old beliefs would remain with her until she learned, prayed and accepted more additional light and knowledge as she progressed.”
Additional light and knowledge? Funny, but sad, but I hear the same thing from the Jehovah’s Witnesses with their false prophecies of 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. I have the books written by the Watchtower and their “prophets” stating it so and they just look at it and claim Proverbs 4:18 as the reason for the blunder back then. They have “additional light” now. They admitted to me that their organization, “God’s prophet on the earth” and its leaders, made mistakes and are fallible men, but they want me and the world to accept them as authoritative. What the JW’s forgot to look at was the verse following their “additional light” disclaimer.
Proverbs 4:19 – “The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.”
I guess this explains why new converts at the last Gospel Essentials class at the LDS ward I attended told me they believed in the Trinity and that the LDS Church believed it to along with the doctrine of one God (monotheism) despite Joseph Smith’s teaching of many gods (polytheism: every verse of Abraham 4). I find it cunning, sinister & dishonest for the LDS Church to baptize people into the Mormon Church knowing that these people don’t hold to standard LDS beliefs, but let them get grounded & settled and then later give them the ole “switcheroo” on what the LDS Church really believes later on.
Whatever it takes to get the membership numbers up even at the cost of misrepresentation, eh? What about LDS Articles of Faith #13: “We believe in being honest, true”. I guess that doesn’t matter in the numbers game. Matthew 12:37
“Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible…Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10)
Interesting that the above is read by my Evangelical friends and then is interpreted as me stating that all personal revelation has been denied. I wish someone would point out to me where I stated such, and if one is to read in context the above verse how it in anyway claims that personal revelation was the point. Hmmm, interesting how the manipulation just continues as we see the poor reading and comprehension habits of those who spin what is stated into something never said.
So, lets see if I can slowly explain my point. The difference between Biblical and personal revelation is quiet different. When God speaks through His Prophets, He is giving direction, principles, teachings, and doctrine to all of His Sons and Daughters who are believers, versus personal revelation that one can receive for testimonies, help, and direction in ones personal and family life.
Evangelicals have been taught that the Scriptures, that is the Bible has been closed. The Cannon of Scripture can not be changed or added to. The Evangelicals have stated what God can and cannot do, that is pretty obvious, all you have to do is ask them.
Do I believe personal revelation is not available to all? of course not, that is why we get so many new converts, personal revelation tells them that the Book of Mormon is true, hence my opinion that revelation does not cease, nor have I ever claimed that Evangelicals believe that.
Richard.
Guys,
I got to thinking about the recent posts by HankSaint/Richard. Two things seem true about what’s going on here:
1) HankSaint has been LDS for a long time. Those of us who have been in there understand the mind-warping that takes place to get your head around the LDS religion. It’s no wonder that his conversations seem to go forward and backward and all over without ever saying anything. I don’t think this is his fault. It’s the fault of being too long in a system that trains the brain this way.
2) I could hope, if number 1 isn’t too true to quit being true, that Richard will be finding himself confronted and in the wrong. Here is another place that some of us have been, and those of us who have know that it is hard to take the next step… the big leap… where you say “OK, now what then?” and trust God to catch you.
I think we ought to be praying for this man that something will push the next step, and get him to fall on the Rock (Jesus), so he doesn’t get crushed by it later. (I wish I could find the verse to quote for that).
No offense Richard. I see you maybe differently than you see yourself, but it’s just my opinion. I care about you, whether you think so or not.
In Him
Interesting that the deflection of actually addressing my points is now directed at me. I find this a embarrassing weakness for you Evangelicals since actually addressing the doctrine of Christianity and it’s profound weaknesses is not as critical as finding weakness in the provider of what we all know to be Creedal concepts and precepts written by the hands of men and not found in the Holy Scriptures. Please point out to me that the Cannon of Scriptures cannot be added to. That God does not communicate with his appointed Apostles and Prophets anymore. When you come up blank, don’t blame me as your scape-goat, go back to the Many Creeds that have torn the true Gospel of Christ from the hands of what was once true, and now has apostatized into the words and deeds of common man.
God did not close the Heavens to communication, you did.
r.
HankSaint,
Will you please go read Hebrews!
Hank, you said this: “You see good friend, you claim God speaks no more, the Heavens are shut to any more revelations and Gods Words are complete and there cannot be any more. I see that as being self centered, ignorant to Gods Powers and Love for His children.” If you meant this as a closed canon, you should have been more specific, but you weren’t.
I read no more revelations to be pretty clear, because a revelation is something that is made clear that what not before. A revelation is not necessarily a doctrine or a book. It can be as simple as what to have for dinner.
Your context, also, was not clear. Nothing you said indicated that it was to only be applied to books.
And as to the canon, it is not necessarilly closed, but nothing has been offered that adds anything to God’s plan. You can say the BoM, and any of the other LDS scripture. But what about the Koran? The Watchtower?
All of these try to add something that does not line up with the Bible, and that is the problem with them. Do you understand that?
“Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible…Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10)
What do you mean my context was not clear, what don’t you understand with the above. It plainly is talking about the Bible and it’s cannon of scripture. You Evangelicals claim nothing can be changed or added to the Cannon of Scripture. Please show me in the Bible where that is explained, including in Hebrews?
R. 🙂
Give me a break, Richard.
Throwing a BoM verse in there does not mean that it is all cleared up.
But have you read any of our posts? What do you want us to say? It seems you are not paying attention to what we are saying.
Here’s a list:
1) God still talks to us.
2) God’s canon is not necessarily closed.
3) But nothing offered so far in terms of revelation fits with what is in the Bible.
So, taking number 3 there, what is a requirement? That any new addition to scripture must line up with what is in the Bible.
Your Nephi quote only says that people are saying people will claim the Bible has been finished, but it doesn’t say anything else.
I could say theat, too, that I have an addition to the Bible that God told me, and because the Bible doesn’t say anything about adding anything I can claim it to be true. I could be convincing enough to get others to believe it, and in this new book, I can say that people will tell us that because they already have a Bible they won’t believe.
But would that make my new book true? Nope, not necessarily. My new book, to be true, would have to line up with the existing one to be a continuation of God’s word. If its not, then I am lying or setting up God to be a liar.
I see why you rely on that quote like you do, but it is not complete, and quite frankly, the very existence of those words in 2 Nep 29 make me doubt the BoM that much more. I doubt it more because why in the world would God have to say that? If its God’s word, it should be apparent by its relation to everything else he’s said.
Sorry, fella.
Interesting, I have been a member for some 50 plus years, been down that avenue so many times before with Evangelicals, who claim that the Scriptures are closed, and then they quote the chapter and verse that proves it for them. So now you’re telling me, Evangelicals have changed there MO to accept that God can and will speak again? So if that is true, who in the Evangelical hierarchy will claim to have the authority to speak for God? Malfunction, alert, we have a problem here, you kind of put yourself between a rock and a hard spot with your last post.
r. 🙂
Not really.
I don’t know who, nor does that matter. It doesn’t matter because the messenger is not important. It is also not important because the message will be apparent because it will match up with the current canon. If it does not match up it is not additional scripture.
But I did not say scripture is not closed, only that it is not necessarily closed. See the difference?
It is my belief that we do have all we need, and that we are in the last days waiting until Christ returns. So, therefore nothing else is necessary because his plan has been laid out, and found in the current canon. Could something come up? Yup, absolultely it could. Will it? Not likely.
Most of the evangelicals I have talked to have said what I just said, so it appears there is a problem with who has talked to who. I encourage you to check it out more.
BTW, there is no ev. heirarchy, short of all of us to Christ. Christ is our head, not a man.
Setfree wrote “I think we ought to be praying for this man that something will push the next step, and get him to fall on the Rock (Jesus), so he doesn’t get crushed by it later. (I wish I could find the verse to quote for that).”
Matt 21:42-45
Amen to your prayer.
PS Did you notice the irony in Jesus’ statement about reading the scriptures? Of course he Chief Priests and Pharisees had read them; in fact it was probably the Chief Priests and Pharisees that had brought the Scriptures to Galilee (see Matt 23:15 – did Jesus learn his scriptures from the Pharisees? I think he did). Their problem was that they didn’t realize that the Scriptures were talking about God, and that God was present among them in the person of Jesus.
Hmmm, the messenger does not matter? Lets see, when that time arrives, and you receive new Scripture, or additional scripture, you are going to hold it up to the light of the existing scriptures in the Bible and determine if its true or not. Interesting, and of course you did that with the Creeds also, the Triune Trinity, God is invisible, and matter out of nothing. I wonder how the early Christians came around to believing that the earth actually circled the sun, and that the Universe was ever expanding. Interesting concept that actually took Christians centuries to accommodate these new conceptions of the universe. So we had the old Christian concept of a Ptolemaic system of the Universe, versus the changing of set doctrine which now incorporated a new Copernican view of the stars and planets. Emerson wrote, “the irresistible effect of Copernican astronomy has been to make the great scheme of salvation of man absolutely incredible.” This new finding also changed the way Christians had to view God, who now was a God of a expanding Universe, with countless star systems and planets. No longer was man the center of the Universe with a limited heavenly expanse. Seems EX Nihilo was even harder to explain. Now think about this, If the universe is endless in time and space, what need for God? So what Joseph taught, was that all matter was as eternal as God. Most Christian theologians could not give up the idea of a time prior to Creation when there was nothing, not even time, but just God. God did not have to create and control existence in order to be God, He could dwell within eternal time and space, making worlds and peopling them with spirits, He was the master of the universe rather than its originator.
Regards, Richard 🙂
So what you’re saying then, Richard, is that we NOW have it all figured out, scientifically speaking.
Terrific! Yay! I’ll just run back to mormonism tomorrow and start again with the impossible gospel.
Blech!
You don’t believe the Bible, that’s obvious. Nor do you believe the Book of Mormon or the JST. Don’t they both (BofM and JST) say that the Book of Mormon will work hand in hand with the Bible to bring souls to Christ?
You don’t believe the D&C or BofM because both of them say that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit IS ONE GOD, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon contain the “fullness of the gospel”.
Where are you then, religiously speaking? I’ll answer: A true Mormon. You can believe whatever you want, be led by whatever wind comes along, and still be a bonafide member of the Church of a New Jesus Christ. Just so long as you have good “feelings” you are on the right path.
Seriously, have you ever once considered that you might be wrong? Shouldn’t you be willing put aside your idol/god Joseph Smith and really submit yourself and your beliefs to God’s heart-scrutiny?
Praying for you Richard.
No, I did not say that good buddy, I just pointed out that Christianity is always changing as more and more scientific evidence comes to light.
Many of your beliefs are the acts of good men, but they are still not chosen of God as spokesmen. Many errors, theories, precepts and outright deception have been committed in the name of God, innocent and evil men have combined over the years to change the original meaning of the Scriptures to the point that only a few feel comfortable with explaining the what, why and how of a Triune God, how something can be created out of nothing, and six day of creation all of which is beyond the facts and evidence of our Modern Day Scientist, Geologist, Archaeologist, and Theologist. If Christianity is so true, why has the Church and doctrine changed so much over the years to accommodate new findings? If you find your comfort with man made ideas and hanging on to false doctrine, especially the nature of God, that is your business, but to attack me and mock my feelings, (warm fuzzies), as Evangelicals love to denote, then I suggest you read up on Christian love for others and quit with the sarcasm or don’t gripe if I respond in kind.
Your friend, Richard. 🙂
Andy,
First of all you have answered one of your own questions – all of creation (except humsn) are already saved through Jesus’ atonment so no temple work needs to be done for them. It is the same with children who die under 8 years old. They (the animals) were all created for a purpose and all of them have lived up to that purpose. So lets go through your questions –
1. General and Individual.
2. Unconditional redemption because they lived up to their purpose of creation.
3. They will be through all degrees of glory (ie not in outer darkness) but this brings in another piece of doctrine about where the kingdoms will be – which you logically ask next.
4. This earth will be the eternal residence for all who lived on it, including animals. That is how they will be throughout all kingdoms.
5. No, it will be animals and humans.
6. Yes.
7. Will we need to eat once we are resurrected? I don’t have an answer to this question except that we will be immortal – so I guess that if we tried to starve ourselves we will still live but be very hungry – if we do have to eat. We do know it is possible to eat as Jesus ate in fromt of His apostles after He was resurrected, but as to a necessity to eat – who knows? The Bible says that during the Millennium that there will be no carnivorous activities anyway (Isaiah 11:6-9).
I hope this answers your questions, but please remember, this is my opinion from what I have read and learned, I do not have anything available in front of me to answer these questions in an official capacity.
HankSaint wrote “If Christianity is so true, why has the Church and doctrine changed so much over the years to accommodate new findings?”
Hank,
I really don’t get it. You slam Christianity (with some spurious arguments IMO), yet your movement claims to be the ‘true’ Christianity.
Do you want to be associated with Christians or not?
So Hank, I just looked in my Bible, and guess what? The 6 days of creation is still there.
That’s what I like about my Bible. It just keeps saying the same thing, even if I have a hard time with it.
Compare that to the Book of Mormon, which changes to say that the Lamanites will become “pure” where it used to say “white”, just because the Native American converts to Mormonism weren’t turning color like they were supposed to.
My reason in pointing out that we (teensy weensy) human beings have always thought we know it all, and that goes for today as well. And yet! There are scientists TODAY who still argue creation etc as described in the Bible, and can find proof for it… Other scientists TODAY who argue against those who say that it took “billions of years” etc, and are not Christian. See, our best science can’t come close to what God knows.
Next you’ll be saying that science has proved God doesn’t exist! Well, it has right? I mean, according to some scientists, He doesn’t.
Uh, oh, and where did the big bang come from? Is this a theory you subscribe to? Is it an infinitely dense DOT from which everything came into being? Where then, did the DOT come from?
No sir, I’ll put my trust in God, not man-made ideas, like Joseph Smith’s, Darwin, etc.
So now, will you be answering my question about Mosiah 15:1-5 and or the testimony of the three witnesses, both of which say that God the Father and God the Son are the same God? Will you ever be showing where your LDS “fullness of the gospel” can be found in the Book of Mormon?
Slamming no, pointing out the obvious, yes. Do LDS claim to have the truth? yes. Do Evangelicals get it? no.
God, Christ, Prophet, Apostles, General Authorities, Stake Presidents, Bishops and general members. Government of the true Church. Priesthood Authority to perform ordinances, both the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood.
Evangelicals, no authority, no Prophet, and little organized Church Government. Performs ordinances that do not save. A Triune God they cannot explain, a belief in six days of Creation that is scientifically shown as invalid, and the magic act of creating something out of nothing which is not scriptural.
Very interesting, no I do not want to personally belong to that kind of Christian Sect. Apostate and incorrect Doctrine that is far changed from Christ Church in the NT.
Regards, Richard.
It sounds to me like you are about to have a break down Richard. Are you okay?
Any chance of this: will you be answering my question about Mosiah 15:1-5 and or the testimony of the three witnesses, both of which say that God the Father and God the Son are the same God? Will you ever be showing where your LDS “fullness of the gospel” can be found in the Book of Mormon?
Oh, God of the Gaps, Richard. This is what you are talking about, how God is used to describe much of what we don’t know about scientifically. Yes, God has been used to explain much of the unknown, and Christianity has had to adjust some presumptions based on subsequent findings.
But, your argument is really not that strong. See, many of the items that have changed, like the sun circling the earth, were not isolated to Christianity. Do we need a refresher on Greek Mythology? Also, having a scientific mistake does not mean the core doctrine of our faith is wrong.
You rely on this idea to hlp disprove our faith when it neither does so nor when your faith is full of many questions.
Starting with the Bible, it is clear that God created the universe. There shouldn’t be any discussion on what the Bible says. It also says taht God knows everything about it.
Then, scientifically, can we fault God/the Bible for human assumption regarding the details on how it works? I don’t think so. I personally believe that scientific study is actually a study of God’s work. God’s work is amazing, and complicated. We study him and it for good reason, and it is not surprising we don’t get it all.
You then rely on authority and organization to prove your church, but you never explain why it is necessary, especially given the backdrop of God of the Gaps. Christ was clear that he is the head of the church, and that we have direct access to him.
See, your organization, nor science, disproves our faith. You have to prove why it does, and you haven’t. See, Christianity can exist with science, and with direct access to Christ, we don’t need organization.
On the topic of Bible and Science, I’d like to recommend reading:
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/The_Bible_Foreshadows_Scientific_Discoveries
The writer has a lot of interesting topics on his site, and does a great job (in my opinion) with his work. He’s a detective by occupation. Anyone who is willing to read something other than written by Salt Lake HQ about the Bible might really find some good answers in there.
Hank, Did you ever get around to reading Hebrews?
Setfree, thanks for posting that article. It confirms my understanding that the Bible is scientifically accurate, even though it does not address all scientific questions.