The Bible talks about church discipline. With a double emphasis on holding firmly to the truth and living a moral life, the New Testament says the church (the body of true believers) is to call sinners to repentance. If someone is accepted as part of the visible church but refuses to repent of sin, whether it is of a moral nature or a heretical nature, the church is to turn them out of the fellowship.
For example, 1 Corinthians 5 tells of a man in the church who is proudly unrepentant of his blatant immorality. Paul instructs, “Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:2). Following this pronouncement Paul includes, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13).
When Paul wrote to Titus, he warned about a person who “stirs up division” within the church with unsound doctrine. Paul says, “…after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).
Jesus spoke about what to do with unrepentant people in the church also. After approaching the person twice with a call to repentance, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” Jesus said (Matthew 18:15-20).
In 2 Corinthians Paul warns the church about people who teach heresy for truth. He calls them “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Paul told the Corinthians, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?…’Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord'” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Why do I bring this up? A friend of mine once said, “Mormons want to be embraced as part of the Christian church, but they wouldn’t be happy with the reality. For if they were part of the visible church, they would be subject to discipline for believing the heretical doctrines the LDS Church teaches.”
What would the result of such church discipline look like on a corporate scale? It would look exactly like what we see today. In obedience to the mandates of Scripture, the greater Christian church would denounce Mormonism and remove it from among us. The Christian church would purge itself of LDS heresy. It would have nothing more to do with Mormonism. We would be obligated to obey the command to be separate from the LDS Church, for what fellowship has light with darkness?
If Joseph Smith and his followers were ever embraced as part of Christianity, if Joseph ever taught his followers the true nature of God as God has revealed Himself in the Bible, when Joseph began to teach that God the Father became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances, that there are multiple true Gods, and that human beings can become the same sort of God as God the Father has become if we but follow the same path of obedience, everything would have changed.
At that point Christians would have been obligated to call Joseph Smith to repentance for his false teachings. Historical evidence suggests that this very thing transpired. But Joseph refused to repent. Therefore, by necessity, compelled by the Word of God, Mormonism would have been (and has been) cut off from the tree of Christian fellowship.
Today Christians continue to call believers in Mormonism to repentance for the sin of idolatry. We plead, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). Put them away, friends, and enter into the joy of the Lord.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Janet,
Tell me if you agree or disagree with this but it seems like the BY quote is saying that polygamy is the ideal. The only part of the quote that might mitigate the thrust of it is this, “you will be polygamists at least in your faith”. It seems that if a person is able to enter into polygamy then one should according to Young. Do you disagree? What is your take on it?
Mobaby,
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:16 They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The first and third are Peter baptising people – he was with Jesus when Jesus gave the Matt 28:19 commission but he is telling people here to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ/Lord ONLY. The second appears to be Philip and the fourth is Paul. They all state (in the KJV) that these people were to be baptised or were baptised ‘IN THE NAME OF Jesus’ (or another of His titles). There is no other person’s name mentioned here for baptism.
Here is a link discussing a little of what I said earlier about it appears that the Matt verse is an inclusion in the text. This site has links to other sites.
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html
As I mentioned above, this is neither here nor there as we LDS baptise as described in Matt. It’s just interesting that we all place a doctrine/practice on one verse when there are others that state differently and the verse in question might not be part of the original manuscript.
Ralph,
Thanks for sharing those verses. I did a search in an online Bible called http://www.Youversion.com and those verses literally do not come up, I wonder why? I read a number of verses in the gospels, and none but Matthew 28:19 seems to ‘describe’ baptism in terms of ‘do this.’
I have often heard baptism pronounced as “I baptize you in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Buried with Christ in His death, raised to walk in newness of life.” – even with infants I have heard something like this. It kind of covers both I think? It is both the triune God and the person is specifically identified with Christ in baptism.
Thank you for sharing – it is interesting.
I would think it would be obvious to Evangelicals that if we believe and trust in our Prophets, then we would come to believe that polygamy as stated in the BOM, preached by JS and BY were from God. Why would that not be obvious. Why would I apply for a Temple recommend and state I believe in JS but that he got plural marriage wrong?
J.
Again we have a difference of opinions about what BY stated or did not state. Obviously the anti’s get it wrong since it is more an agenda to prove all our doctrine wrong, so I will have to agree that when you twist it to mean what you want it to mean, you win every time for your cause.
The other posting is fine, but it prove very little since its just a matter of finding witnesses that either speak highly of JS or those who find fault.
None of it is relevant since it does not prove the BM true or false. Going down the road of peripheral issues does not dwell with facts and evidence which can or cannot be refuted.
J.
Janet
That’s your defense? It’s not relevant? Maybe not to you, because you choose to believe a lie. Have you ever asked yourself WHY some who post here do? It is not all about ‘finding witnesses’ either. Most of the quotes I use are from your own prophets and those close to them. It was all sure ‘revelant’ to me when I was a Mormon. How do you accept that John Taylor, who became a supposed prophet of god, could publish a tract denying polygamy was practiced AT ALL in his church, when he was doing so himself? What kind of PROPHETS do that? Some of us are here Janet, because we were duped by smith and the Church, and don’t want anyone else falling into the same bottomless pit. It is not all about having some ‘secret’ agenda. The only ones who were keeping ‘secrets’ and lying were smith, young and the others they bullied and coerced. Who goes to a married woman and whines to her about angels who are going to kill me if I don’t spiritually marry you? Who does things like this? How is any of this stuff scriptural? How can you revere smith when he was doing this AS TESTIFIED TO BY ACTIVE BELIEVING MORMONS???? I’m not ‘twisting’ anything, you are refusing to believe the truth, but maybe, just maybe there are some lurkers out there that will & I continue to pray for that.
Grindael,
You said, ” It was all sure relevant to me
when I was a Mormon.”
That’s a good point, and one that most Mormons
are reluctant to admit.
Janet,
You stated that you had to ” apply for ” a
Temple recommend. Is this like applying for
permission to enter your very own Father’s
House( Temple)? Do you have any scriptures
from the Standard Works that teach this vital
procedure?
Again, many of the question are so irrelevant. Does it really matter to Evangelicals if we apply or are interviewed? Twisting was used to denote that someone can quote a single sentence and twist it to mean something other then what was originally being taught. Hence I gave the full account of what some anti’s seem want to criticize by using only that which would seems to merit or qualify a certain focus.
Question, why the misrepresentation using only one sentence, is the truth beyond giving every lurker an opportunity to see in full someone’s thoughts, or complete sermon?
I fear that some are a little hasty in the condemnation dept. to actually allow for open minded and honest discussions. Of course that is my take since I have arrived here.
J.
Janet
Do Mormon Apostles know what they are talking about? Here is one who spoke on Plural Marraige, and this quote is so clear, that even a believing Mormon should be able to figure it out:
“… if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other.” – Apostle Charles Penrose, quoted in “Plural Marriage,” Millennial Star, volume XLV, no. 29, July 16, 1883, p. 454
It is like I said above, the reason why there was so much opposition to Joseph’s revelation (section 132)is because they KNEW it was about polygamy, and that it was REQUIRED as part of the celestial marraige covenant. Here is a Mormon Apostle telling you that in no uncertain terms. Why don’t mormons get this?
Here is the Prophet that repealed Polygamy, writing down in his Journal a revelation from God ten years earlier:
“… wo unto that Nation or house or people who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham [polygamy] which leadeth to a Celestial Glory… for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned Saith the Lord.” – Prophet Wilford Woodruff, in Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 1833-1898,, under January 26, 1880, v. 7, pp. 546
What changed in ten years? Either these men believed God or they caved to men. It is obvious what happened, they did not want to lose their lands, temples, homes & worldly possessions. They caved! How is this like Peter, & Paul & the rest of the Apostles who stood up to the governments of their day and died to do so???? How is smith like Peter or Paul? He died for polygamy. He did not die for Jesus. These are the questions you need to be asking, not saying this is not relevant. If you want to be like those in the early church and keep your comfortable lifestyle & believe in a lie, then go ahead. But don’t say we ‘get it wrong’ for some agenda.
“Their present objection to the Latter-day Saints, they say, is plurality of wives. It is this principle they are trying to raise a persecution against now. But how was it in Missouri, Kirtland, Jackson county, Far West, Caldwell county, in all our drivings and afflictions, before this principle was revealed to the Church? Certainly it was not polygamy then. No, it was prophets, it was revelation, it was the organization of an institution founded by revelation from God. They did not believe in that, and that was the objection in those days. If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.” – Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, pp. 165-166.
How am I ‘twisting’ this quote??????
In response to a letter “received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . .
They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet; I am no imposter; I have had no dark revelations; I have no revelations from the devil; I made no revelations; I have got nothing up of myself, The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth.
And they say if I do so, they will kill me, 0, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not byway of instruction, (Joseph Smith, Contributor 5:259)
Joseph Smith was MURDERED. Gods law needs to be lived when commanded no matter what the Government states, and when told to stop, the people would also need to obey. Meaning obey God.
J.
Mobaby and Ralph,
Once again, the CARM website has an excellent answer to the question of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost vs. baptism in Jesus’ name. Please see: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pentecostal/must-baptism-be-jesus-name.
The first bit of it is as follows:
Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula “in Jesus name” and not the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity. To support their method they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus’ name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine. Following are some of the Bible references they quote.
•Acts 2:38,” Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
•Acts 8:16, “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
•Acts 10:48, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
•Acts 19:5, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
•Acts 22:16, “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’
Let’s take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, “in the name of the Lord” is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, “Stop in the name of the Law!”. We understand that the “name of the Law” means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism “in Jesus’ name.” To baptise in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Consider the following:
•”And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in (continued below)
what name, have you done this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health” (Acts 4:7-10).
•Acts 4:17-18, “But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.”
•Acts 5:28, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
•Acts 5:40, “And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them.”
•Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”
“Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.’ He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all…. and he will remain single forever and ever.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873
“The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change his law of celestial marriage.” – Prophet Lorenzo Snow, Historical Record, 1887, v. 6, p. 144.
If polygamy is not a requirement of ‘celestial marriage’ then what is Lorenzo Snow talking about??? How is it NOT obvious what Brigham Young is saying??? How much ‘proof’ do Mormons need??? The Mormon Prophets NEVER intended to stop polygamy, but when faced with the fact that the Lord would not save them, they caved to the U.S. Government. Now your leaders teach you that the principle smith died for, that so many went to jail for and was a requirement for godhood in the celestial kingdom, is nothing. Here is what Hinckley said about it:
“I condemn [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law.” – Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, on Larry King Live, September 8, 1998.
Wow! NOT DOCTRINAL?? I suppose I’m ‘twisting’ this quote too??? There is so much more & all you LURKERS have to do is some research. Why did Joseph F. Smith authorize plural marriages after his second manifesto? Why do mormon prophet after mormon prophet lie??? Ask yourself these questions. You place your faith in a system perpetuated by lairs and frauds. Do you want to believe them, or Jesus & the Bible. Remember who the father of lies is.
Janet,
Funny, Penrose made the second quote in 1912, after the manifesto. I guess he called himself a liar, didn’t he????
Yeah, I want to believe anything this guy said:
“I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White…. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.” – Apostle Charles W. Penrose, in D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 18, no. 1, pp. 11-12; – see the entire essay here http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml
This was a revelation? Now do you see why Penrose changed his tune by 1912???? Lies upon Lies upon Lies…
Thanks gpark – the article on CARM is a helpful clarification.
I understand the argument that these verses are not describing the baptismal formula but rather it is Christ and His authority who acts through baptism. I believe it is correct, the Scripture commanding the Church to go out and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the triune God is very clear, whereas the others are not saying “go and do this!” And indeed we are baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection.
I have not studied the Bible much on the topic of baptism, it is something I would like to do – look at Church history through the ages on baptism together with the Scriptures.
Twisting? I would at least think one would post the whole context before making such a ridiculous criticism.
Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying — they told “The Salt Lake Tribune” — that it’s difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it’s secretive. There’s a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty — they say they do, in gathering evidence.
Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you’re forceful here tonight, but maybe — they’ve been saying that it’s rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. We’ll consider it.
Larry King: I’m giving you an idea.
Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.
Larry King: Would you look better if you were…
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know that we would or not. As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.
Larry King: You condemn it.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
In context Hinkley is obviously stating that the practice is not doctrinal or in affect since the manifesto.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It’s a civil offense. It’s in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that’s a responsibility of civil officers.
Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah — before we get back to morals and morals, is — the big story, if you don’t know it, is polygamy in Utah; there’s been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson — is the governor — of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?
Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.
Larry King: You could have a certain amount of…
Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from — between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us.
Twisting? Pretty much missed the whole sense of the interview by our Evangelical friends.
“The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us.”
If it was not Gods law during JS restoring of the true Church, then why would Hinckley go on in the same interview and acknowledge that revelation was received from the Lord that it was time to stop.
Misrepresenting an interview by only providing a shorten version is typical of those with an agenda to falsify, I see it no other way and I hope all our Lurkers see the same phony dog and pony show going on here.
J.
Janet,
. . . Or shall we say “HankSaint”. You are about as honest as Hinckley. I see it did not take long for you to come back 🙂
D.
“… if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other.” – Apostle Charles Penrose
So, who has repudiated the doctrine? It still stands as once being a commandment given by God. It was also revealed that it needed to end, not that the doctrine was not still Gods law. One only need to read the BOM and see when it is warranted and when it is not.
J.
Hank,
“So, who has repudiated the doctrine?”
In keeping with the title of the thread – “Purging the Church” – it is of interest that 2 Quorum of the 12 members, John W. Taylor & Matthias F. Cowley, left the quorum over polygamy and were later disciplined over their involvement with it.
Wilford Woodruff stated, “We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage.” Given this statement, and the events surrounding Cowley & Taylor, I would say the designation of “repudiated” is legit. Interestingly enough, the Manifesto of 1890 allows for plural marriage, just not were it is illegal. As such, some Mormons married on the high seas after the manifesto.
When I was Mormon, I wept when Spencer Kimball passed away. When I was Mormon, I respected Gordon B. Hinckley as a kind and gentle prophet of God. I met Thomas S. Monson while serving my mission to Sweden. I thought he was a great man, and I loved his writings. When I heard Neal A. Maxwell speak at BYU when I was at the MTC, I was so impressed with how he articulated his message that he became one of my favorite leaders. Mormon leaders are great at leading their people, helping them to stay the Mormon course–and they are very sincere. It’s important to understand this in order to grasp how Mormons can defend their leaders despite biblical evidence against the teachings of these leaders. I used to defend them as well. As a young boy, I was shown the photo of JS and told that he was a prophet of God. Naturally, I believed the teachers who taught me and accepted it. I was shown the BOM and taught that this book was from God through JS. Again, I trusted in and believed my teachers. I say all this to clarify how difficult it is to admit that the leaders you were taught since childhood to respect, honor, and revere were merely false “prophets.” Mormonism is a web of false teachings innocently perpetrated by kind and sincere people. I have no clue why I wrote this, but it was something I had to add to this conversation.
Peace…
Janet said
Yes Janet it really does matter. The reason it matters is because if you READ the OT you will find exactly what took place to enter the temple and who was and was not allowed. The way LDS set up the temples is not even close to how God set them up.
Plus you will not find anywhere in the Bible that teaches if you cannot enter the temple you will get a lower heaven or maybe lose salvation all together. I spent a lot of time on the FairLDS boards, Many an LDS stated they lied to get into the temple. You can say then it was not a LDS member but a person pretending. But Some of these LDS either were Mods on the board and their Avatar stated as much or you can go back and read their hard core defense of Mormonism and see that they were truly LDS.
So it’s sad that to be honest with the leaders you could be denied entrance into the temple, It’s that hard is it? Plus it’s sad that God did not say this must be done so man decided’s who can enter and worship. So yes Janet it matters more than you care to think. Rick b
Janet said
Janet do you really believe JS was murdered because he went from teaching and believing in plural marriage to no longer believing in it?
Do you really believe God is so weak He could not protect a Prophet? Have you not read how God protected Moses, or the Apostle Paul or the many others that Followed God? Did you never read these verses here,
Call me crazy but if God Really did say to JS this is a law, and I God Command it, then God should have protected JS.
Now you say JS was Murdered, I see it differently, JS According to the D and C claims he knew he was going to die, He claims he died like Jesus died, yet He shot 3 people, 2 of which died, then JS tried running like a coward and tried jumping out the window.
Is that how a maryter goes? Did Jesus Fight back? Did Jesus try running away? Nope He did not. JS was no maryter and did not willing go to his death. Rick b
Janet,
Well, if one really wants to take all of this back to Sharon’s original article, all of this discussion is supposed to relate to what the body of Christ should do “about people who teach heresy for truth.”
As others before me have stated on the various threads on this website, that which constitutes “the truth” cannot be everchanging, in a constant state of “flux.”
2 Tim. 3:6-7 (NKJV) references “gullible women…always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Over the years, plenty of gullible men have joined them!
1 Tim. 2:3-4 (NKJV) indicates that “…God our Savior… desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Many will not see the truth but not because the truth is not made available in the Bible (Old and New Testaments).
In reading Lee Strobel’s THE CASE FOR CHRIST and other sources, one becomes aware that chronological order was not the method used for determining the order of the books of the Bible and that most of Paul’s epistles pre-date the Gospels. According to Dr. Craig Blomberg, quoted extensively in the above-referenced book, Paul’s “writing ministry probably began in the late 40’s [with] most of his major letters appear[ing] during the 50’s. [And] we find that Paul incorporated some creeds, confessions of faith, or hymns…[that] go way back to the dawning of the church soon after the Resurrection.” Examples given are: 1) Phil. 2:6-11 – “6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, [continued below]
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” 2) Col. 1:15-20 – “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” 3) 1 Cor. 15:3-7 – “3 For I [Paul] delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.”
The first, earliest creeds leave no question as to who Jesus is, why He came, and what our response to Him should be. Then the heresies began to creep in – the lies of Satan, the “vain imaginings” of men – Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, etc. These same lies resurface throughout the years as Satan encourages men to question the Deity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the trustworthiness of Scripture, the true content of the Gospel message, and more.
Please don’t just run through the above verses. [continued below]
They say so much about who God is, who Jesus is. (Notice that at the name of Jesus EVERY knee should bow, yet Mormon posters on this site and your own ‘prophets,’ have indicated that they do not worship Jesus.) Notice that Jesus “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,” because He is God. See how far trying to make Himself equal to God got Satan. He and his fellow rebels were thrown from Heaven. See Luke 10:18 – 18 And He [Jesus] said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. See, also, Ezekiel 28:12-19. See 2 Peter 2:4 – “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;” and Jude vs. 6 – “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day…”)
Notice that Jesus is “before all things,” just as Jesus identifies Himself in Revelation. (See Rev. 22:12, 13, 20 – ’12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!’ Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, not just IN the beginning, but He IS the beginning. See 2 Tim. 2:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began…” As Paul S. Taylor wrote, based upon the writings of Ray Comfort: “God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created…He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being…Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. [continued below]
Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God’s eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum. (Found at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html.)
Continuing “revelation,” as espoused by LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cults is nothing but the same old lies of the Deceiver used to keep people “always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim. 3:7
*…most Bible quotes from NKJV, occasionally KJV.
David,
I agree with you, this is HankSaint & so I’m outta here. I’ve made my point & could counter the Hinckley quotes, but I will not banter with HIM. See Ya’ll on another THREAD. Hank do you know what an IP address is? Im sure Bill & Sharon & Aaron do…
Gpark said
Well David seems to think Janet is really Hank saint, If this is the case then this is a great example of some LDS being so very open to the lies and deception of Mormonism and pushing lies. As I said in a prior post, Hank accused me of lying yet it was he who lied about me. Now he comes back knowing full well he in fact lied.
All this is great evidence to the LDS like ralph and other who feel LDS never lie or use deceit. Thanks for being the example. Rick b
Janet, in order to put the speculation to rest, are you, or are you posting comments written by, another Mormon who goes by HankSaint?
jackg
One more comment before I leave this thread:
Thanks for your comments, they mimic my experience very closely. I went on a Mission to New Mexico, & then went to BYU & left the Church shortly after that because of what I learned from the REAL Mormon History. Back then (30 years ago) there was no flood of info like there is now. It was a painful process of talking to Church History Professors, and riding around and hitting used bookstores all over Utah & tedious library searches… Even then I steered away from the ‘anti’ literature… and still take all that with a grain of salt…although there is value in reading it and evaluating it & sometimes posting it.. I met Hugh B. Brown, Nibley & many others…but their sincerity could not repudiate History. I did slideshows & lectures on the dead sea scrolls & Nag Hammadi, to try to bolster church doctrine. But the evidence was overwhelming against smith, young & their teachings & lifestyles. What has happened to many like Eugene England and D. Michael Quinn & others shows you they DO have something to hide. Just wanted you to know I totally relate to your remarks, thanks.
There should be no speculation, I’m not posting as another Mormon called Hanksaint.
Janet
gpark wrote about the formulation of the New Testament, including comments on Phil 2:6-11, eg
gpark,
Thanks for the refresher. We’ve been through this a couple of times on this board, but it’s an important point to make.
As I understand it, it looks like Paul borrowed a very early Christian Hymn or confession of Faith. Given that Paul probably wrote to the Philippians in AD62, and Phil 2:6-11 predates this, it may be the first “Christian” scripture to have been written.
As you note, it has a very high Christology. It also borrows phrases from the OT, (e.g. Isaiah 45:23b). Now, here’s something to ponder; why would the original author (who pre-dates Paul) take OT scriptures that reference (the One) God, and apply them to Jesus?
Kind of blows the whole argument that the divinity of Jesus was “invented” at the Council of Nicea, about 300 years after the event, out of the water.
Did God protect Peter? as I remember it, he chose to be crucified upside down. One might consider Peter only an apostle, but to the LDS we consider him the President or Chief Prophet, Seer and Prophet, seer, and Revelator. I find the fact that God did not save JS from death irrelevant to the assumption that God must always protect His Prophets.
J.
Something that I’ve always found interesting about JS death was that it happened no long after he said he had more to brag about than even Jesus when it came to keeping a church together. God will only take so much.
Janet, I never said God must or would protect His people in every case. But In JS case, JS made some bold claims about going to the slaughter as a sheep, and being put to death like Jesus died, None of that is even close to the truth or even what happened. Rick b
Bold claims, and no quotes or source?
If one lies to get into the temple that is between them and God, same with revealing the ordinances that go on therein. Gods judgments will be fair and very final. Man is free to choose, it is a Gift from God that he gives freely to all, choice is a very powerful and wonderful gift, it is also a huge responsibility. Those who once were members in good standing and now have apostatized will be dealt with with love from a understanding God who will judge the hearts of each soul accordingly.
J.
Janet,
When God judges your heart how do you think you’ll fair?
Janet said
Are you speaking to me about JS in Jail? If so I will provide many exact quotes with sources but then the question remains, what will you do with that information? Will you simply blow it off as fake or will you do something with it. Rick b
“JS made some bold claims about going to the slaughter as a sheep, and being put to death like Jesus died.”
Bold claims? no quotes or source?
Janet, here is some info.
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
SECTION 135
Martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his brother, Hyrum Smith the Patriarch, at Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844. HC 6: 629—631. This document was written by Elder John Taylor of the Council of the Twelve, who was a witness to the events.
1—2, Joseph and Hyrum martyred in Carthage Jail; 3, Preeminent position of the Prophet acclaimed; 4—7, Their innocent blood testifies of the truth and divinity of the work.
1 To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls.
2 John Taylor and Willard Richards, two of the Twelve, were the only persons in the room at the time; the former was wounded in a savage manner with four balls, but has since recovered; the latter, through the providence of God, escaped, without even a hole in his robe.
4 When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:
CONT
7 They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations;and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.
Notice in the verses I highlighted, Their was an LDS witness who wrote this stuff down.
It states that had innocent blood, Yet shooting back and killing 2 people is not what maryters did or do, show me one case from the Bible where Jesus or and OT or NT maryter fought back and killed anyone.
We read in the account, JS leaped from the Window, Again show me where Jesus or any OT or NT maryter tried to run and escape, If JS really felt he was going to die as stated then why would he try to run away?
JS said I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”—
Do people who think this really fight back, run away and kill people?
You know Janet, your not helping the case of Mormons, You seem to ignore question asked of you. Me and other Believers are always stating LDS seem to dodge questions and you did just that. You never answered me on what you will do with this info, you
cont you claim I made bold statements, yet this is all from the D and C your standard work, Sad that you seem to not know or forget about what your Standard work teaches and taught. Then when you claimed I made bold statements it really would have helped out if you were more specif as to who you were addressing instead of simply putting it out as to implying it could be any one of us you were speaking to. Rick b