The LDS book Gospel Principles includes a chapter titled “Prophets of God.” In discussing what a prophet is, the book also considers the varied backgrounds from which a prophet may come. He might be young, old, educated, unschooled, a professional, or a laborer. Furthermore, the book points out,
“Ancient prophets wore tunics and carried staffs. Modern prophets wear suits and carry briefcases. What, then, identifies a true prophet?” (Gospel Principles [2009], 39)
This is a great question, one Christians are forever trying to get Mormons to think about, because Jesus warned us to beware of false prophets, even if they dress in wool ( Matthew 7:15).
The Bible often portrays Jesus as a Shepherd and His followers as sheep. When Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:15 that false prophets will come in sheep’s clothing, He’s telling us they will look like His followers: they will look like Christians. The apostle Paul also warned that false apostles and deceitful workers “disguise themselves” as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul told Timothy: “But realize this, that in the last days…[there will be men] holding to a form of godliness” who do not belong to God (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
The Greek word translated “beware” in the Scripture actually means more than just “be careful.” It means “to turn one’s mind or attention to a thing by being on guard against it.” Therefore, Jesus is directing us to pay attention to what lies below the surface in order to guard against being deceived.
False apostles, dressing up in fine clothes while presenting sweet demeanors, will pretend to be true apostles, maintaining a façade of godliness and good works. Nevertheless, Jesus said they are dangerous and will usher their followers down the broad way that leads to destruction.
So, whether dressed in suits and carrying briefcases, or wearing tunics and carrying staffs, we need to identify whether someone claiming to speak for God is–or is not–a true prophet.
Gospel Principles asks what identifies a true prophet and answers:
“A true prophet is always chosen by God and called through proper priesthood authority (see Articles of Faith 1:5).”
These points may be requirements for a Mormon prophet, but they are not identifiers that would allow someone to ascertain whether a person is a true prophet; for anyone can claim he’s been chosen by God, and anyone can claim he’s been called through an assumed “proper priesthood authority.”
The Bible provides a pretty good list of identifiers for false prophets. Christian apologists Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes explain,
There are many tests for a false prophet…Put in question form, the tests are:
- Do they ever give false prophecies? Do 100 percent of their predictions of future events come true? (Deut. 18:21-22)
- Do they contact departed spirits? (Deut. 18:11)
- Do they use means of divination? (Deut. 18:11)
- Do they involve mediums or witches? (Deut. 18:1)
- Do they follow false gods or idols? (Exod. 20:3-4; Deut. 13:1-3)
- Do they deny the deity of Jesus Christ? (Col. 2:8-9)
- Do they deny the humanity of Jesus Christ? (1 John 4:1-2)
- Do their prophecies shift the focus off Jesus Christ? (Rev. 19:10)
- Do they advocate abstaining from certain foods and meats for spiritual reasons? (1 Tim. 4:3-4)
- Do they deprecate or deny the need for marriage? (1 Tim. 4:3)
- Do they promote immorality? (Jude 4, 7)
- Do they encourage legalistic self-denial? (Col. 2:16-23)
A positive answer to any of the above questions is an indication that the prophet is not speaking for God. God does not speak or encourage anything that is contrary to his character and commands as recorded in Scripture. And most certainly the God of truth does not give false prophecies (Deut. 18:21-23).
If we look beneath the surface of suits and briefcases while asking the biblical identifying questions, how do LDS prophets fare? (You might start with a look at Joseph Smith here.)
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, mevery healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
What is missing from this verse, no where in it does it proclaim that the day of Prophets is over, that in these days there is no need for Prophets or Apostles. It does claim to “beware of false Prophets”, and seems silent in stating that Christ True Church, orthodoxy Christian religion per say, would not have Prophets to lead the Church. Can anyone show me where it states in this verse God has done away with Prophets?
Janet.
Janet, I would point you to Hebrews 1:1-2 to show the paradigm shift. Also New Testament prophets were not like Old Testament prophets, partly in that they weren’t top spiritual leaders.
To complicate the matter, Mormon prophets don’t really seem to function as actual prophets in many respects. They don’t warn of coming disasters like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti (Mormons often forget to quote Amos 3:1-6 along with Amos 3:7), they aren’t giving new scripture, and just about everything they do can be dismissed on some strict standard of what constitutes officiality.
Also, many Mormons give their prophets and apostles the freedom to teach things like Adam-God from General Conference pulpit as a test of your damnation or salvation, and let him integrate it for a time into the temple ceremony, only to let subsequent leaders denounce it as false doctrine and damnable heresy. Adam-God even plays a significant role in fundamentalist Mormon splinter groups. Gospel Principles reiterates twice that prophets won’t lead people astray, yet neo-orthodox Mormons tend to essentially believe that prophets can lead people astray and that statements like that in manuals are just unofficial and that the manual is just leading people astray on whether prophets can lead people astray.
Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Is God speaking of these last days, or speaking to the time the Apostles lived? What have you proven by this scripture, in it I see nothing that indicates that God has ceased speaking through His Chosen Prophets.
I understand that this must be important to Christians, who must deny Prophets living amongst us today.
To believe otherwise would seemingly contradict the Bible as orthodox Christian proclaim it.
Janet
Gordon B. Hinckley, August 4, 1997 issue of Time.
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah
Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
Gospel Principles reiterates twice that prophets won’t lead people astray.
Janet, Many LDS prophets have said that Adam God is False, many claim BY was speaking his mere opinion and not for God, You have said we need further revelation to understand what he really meant.
How do you respond to BY when he said this?
I have had many revelations: I have seen and heard for myself, and know that these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them… What I know concerning God… I have received from heavens. Discourses of Brigham young p.433
By said these ARE REVELATIONS from God and they are doctrine and they are true, and no man can disprove them.
So we have a serious problem when LDS prophets say this is not from God but BY’s mere opinion and that they are false, Someone is lying. So yes is is a salvation issue, If some one is lying then that means your building your faith upon lies and someone is being lead astray.
Now if that not good enough let me add this quote from BY.
Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. JoD vol 5, p. 331
What really interesting is, This is from volume 5, the Adam God is in Volume 1. So some time has passed and people were complaining about the Adam God Doctrine. BY was clear that it was Doctrine and we need no further revelation, People were complaining because they knew exactly what he was talking about. How is it they knew back then what he meant, but today since many dont like it they excuse it by saying we need further revelation? Rick b
Lets be honest here, LDS prophets will not lead anyone astray if it is something they believe. If they believe it and teach it then it must be true.
Thats like me saying, the law says do not murder, But I believe if you break into my house and I kill you then it must be ok, because I believe I can murder you. Rick b
Janet, can you show us outside of LDS literature where God says that prophets and apostles are to lead his church? The NT pattern is for a plurality of elders to lead and organize the various churches, and there is no indication that any one “prophet”, apostle, elder or church was the head of all of the various early churches. Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and we are the body. Jesus Christ is God, not merely some example or prophet.
Perhaps you will try to justify LDS doctrine by referring to Israel’s priests and prophets, but that administration (dispensation) has passed. Besides, the High Priest (who had to be a physical descendant of Aaron) only served for a year, and a prophet was never the head of Israel, but was a messenger of God who usually rebuked the priests and kept them in line. Also, Ephesians 2:14-18 tells us that the division between the Jews and gentiles has been broken down and God has created something new. In verse 15 Paul says that God created a new man out of the two groups. The greek phrase is “kainon anthropon”. The word kainon means the creation of something that is completely new, something that was not before, but has been newly brought into existence. This new creation is the Christian that has salvation by grace through faith through the propitiation of Jesus Christ. Salvation is for both Jew and gentile, and through Christ both have peace with God. Salvation is the state of an individual and is not brought about by being a member of an organized group. Christian individuals organize themselves into fellowship groups ideally led by several men who are knowledgeable about the bible, theology, etc. These men are accountable to God first, then to each other, then to the body. The body does not follow them in faith, but should keep them accountable through the use of moral standards and proper scriptural interpretation. This cannot be said of your prophets and apostles, who are not accountable to the membership.
Ken, nice to meet you.
“A true prophet is always chosen by God and called through proper priesthood authority (see Articles of Faith 1:5).”
I have a problem with the above. In the Bible, we see that many, dare I say most, prophets were not called through proper priesthood authority. This seems to be the Mormon church’s way of putting some institutional control on something that is often chaotic and hard to discern.
In the Bible, many prophets were just raised up. Consider the judges of Israel; I could see how many could regard them as strongmen who merely added spirituality to their violence. The sanitary halls of Mormonism, filled with businessmen in suits, seems to be a very far cry from the fire at Mt. Carmel or the cross of Calvary.
lol, and some of the prophets had to walk around naked and stuff. they never had the role of paid employee, or respected head of church. they were more on the “aahh, no, here comes that freak who thinks he talks to God”, outcast level. 🙂
just sayin
“The NT pattern is for a plurality of elders to lead and organize the various churches, and there is no indication that any one “prophet”, apostle, elder or church was the head of all of the various early churches”.
Could someone show me that in the Bible?
Janet.
Can anybody point to anything false in Pres. Hinckley’s response quoted above?
Truth is that none of the cynics here would have accepted the ancient prophets or apostles had you lived among them.
Christ says that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. There is something inherent in His words that the honest in heart hear and heed. It really is that simple. Like Nephi said, “if ye believe in Christ, ye will believe these words, for they are the words of Christ.”
A person can spend every waking minute drudging through the basement of minutia to find the deep, dark secrets you think you need to justify rejecting Christ and His servants.
I recall the words of Isaiah: “it shall be unto them, even as unto a hungry man which dreameth, and behold he eateth but he awaketh and his soul is empty; or like unto a thirsty man which dreameth, and behold he drinketh but he awaketh and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite.”
You can exert as much energy as you like in criticizing the methods the Lord employs to bring about His word. But ultimately, a person must judge those actual words. You cannot get around the text of the Book of Mormon.
“The NT pattern is for a plurality of elders to lead and organize the various churches, and there is no indication that any one “prophet”, apostle, elder or church was the head of all of the various early churches”.
Could someone show me that in the Bible?
Sure Janet, just read the Acts of the Apostles. We see priests and elders still in Judaism. In Ch. 11-16 we have the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem church. They did have an apostolic/elder council in Jerusalem concerning Paul’s mission to the gentiles, and the availability of salvation to the gentiles was acknowledged, which was attested to by Peter. This cluster of apostles was remedied by later persecution, which spread the church. Paul says farewell to the elders in the Ephesian church in Acts 20. There are no apostles there, nor are those elders beholden to the Jerusalem apostles or elders. In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 Paul lays out the qualification for elders (which certainly isn’t teenage boys on bikes) and tells them to appoint elders in every city. The idea of a special “priesthood” class is nowhere to found, and elders are not “called by God” or “appointed by God”, there are object standards that need to be met and those standards are judged by men.
Can you show me the LDS church structure in the bible?
Can an LDS answer the question about BY? Or will it simply be dodged because you cannot answer it. Rick b
They won’t. I’m still waiting for a reply on the last thread, (about the witnesses to the BOM)but when presented with evidence they will bolt, or tell you it’s ‘snippets’, you mis-quoted, or deliberately misrepresented, like Jim did with the Hinckley quote.
The Ruling Body Of Christ’s Church
The Lord was very clear in His Word about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed. First, Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18). Second, the local church is to be autonomous, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). Third, the church is to be governed by spiritual leadership consisting of two main offices—elders and deacons.
“Elders” were a leading body among the Israelites since the time of Moses. We find them making political decisions (2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:4, 15), advising the king in later history (1 Kings 20:7), and representing the people concerning spiritual matters (Exodus 7:17; 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24-25). The early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, used the Greek word presbuteros for “elder.” This is the same Greek word used in the New Testament that is also translated “elder.”
The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and apparently each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4).
It seems that the position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes its authority and duties (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops.
Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.
The position of “deacon,” from diakonos, meaning “through the dirt,” was one of servant leadership to the church. Deacons are separate from elders, while having qualifications that are in many ways similar to those of elders (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Deacons assist the church in whatever is needed, as recorded in Acts chapter 6.
Concerning the word poimen, translated “pastor” in reference to a human leader of a church, it is found only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” Most associate the two terms “pastors” and “teachers” as referring to a single position, a pastor-teacher. It is likely that a pastor-teacher was the spiritual shepherd of a particular local church.
It would seem from the above passages that there was always a plurality of elders, but this does not negate God’s gifting particular elders with the teaching gifts while gifting others with the gift of administration, prayer, etc. (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11). Nor does it negate God’s calling them into a ministry in which they will use those gifts (Acts 13:1). Thus, one elder may emerge as the “pastor,” another may do the majority of visiting members because he has the gift of compassion, while another may “rule” in the sense of handling the organizational details. Many churches that are organized with a pastor and deacon board perform the functions of a plurality of elders in that they share the ministry load and work together in some decision making. In Scripture there was also much congregational input into decisions. Thus, a “dictator” leader who makes the decisions (whether called elder, or bishop, or pastor) is unscriptural (Acts 1:23, 26; 6:3, 5; 15:22, 30; 2 Corinthians 8:19).
So, too, is a congregation-ruled church that does not give weight to the elders’ or church leaders’ input.
In summary, the Bible teaches a leadership consisting of a plurality of elders (bishops/overseers) along with a group of deacons who serve the church. But it is not contrary to this plurality of elders to have one of the elders serving in the major “pastoral” role. God calls some as “pastor/teachers” (even as He called some to be missionaries in Acts 13) and gives them as gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Thus, a church may have many elders, but not all elders are called to serve in the pastoral role. But, as one of the elders, the pastor or “teaching elder” has no more authority in decision making than does any other elder.
see: http://www.gotquestions.org/church-government.html
Rick,
I do not understand why BY said what he said about Adam.
I either don’t understand what he was saying, OR BY was saying things that were false (or I falsely believe God was NOT Adam).
If you want to use that to dismiss the Book of Mormon and everything else, you are free to do so.
But understand that you are holding God and His church as a whole to a standard that is unrealistic. You think that in order for a restoration to be legitimate, everything had to come in a black and white blueprint with detailed descriptions of every doctrine and perfect answers to every possible question- all delivered at once.
Ironic that you believe “God can use imperfect humanity to preserve His perfect word in the Bible”- yet you expect absolute perfection from the prophets of the restoration and Christ’s church. You can somehow imagine unknown individuals employing unknown methods to produce and maintain an innerent Word of God through the long dark ages, yet dismiss God’s latter-day work because His people are imperfect.
Grindael- your explanation of the structure of the church is very typical of evangelicals. It is obvious you haven’t a clue about any church structure. The verses you cite are vague and are no way clear in their description of church structure. That is likely because they were not necessarily intended to do so. You and others interpret that to mean there was little if any organization to the church, hence justifying the vague, non-organization of today’s Evangelical churches.
I don’t get your point regarding my simple question about Pres. Hinckley. His statement is often quoted by critics, yet looking at it- there really is nothing misleading or dishonest.
Jim, BY taught things that were false, but you guys view him as a true prophet. So either he is false through and through and his false teachings are still leading people astray, or he was a true prophet of God. Like it or not you simply cannot have it both ways. Rick b
Jim,
What? Vague is the wrong word. SIMPLE is what the organization of the Church IS and IS MEANT TO BE. Jesus is the Head of His Church. The Gospel is meant to be an individual experience. Don’t you think God foresaw and understood the implications of this? Fellowship is a part of the Gospel, to help keep us strong in it. There is no need for dictators to run Jesus Church, He does that Himself, through his Word and the Holy Spirit. The simplicity of the Church keeps us focused on Jesus. Tell me just how I am ‘clueless’? Show me in the Bible, like liv4jc asked, where the LDS Church organization is, not just the name titles that can be applied, but the actual Organization as laid out by Smith. It says he gave some apostles, prophets, etc. It does not say ANYWHERE, that these are OFFICES. They are gifts. The evidence I presented shows just the opposite. Saying I don’t have a clue & showing no evidence just doesn’t cut it.
Is the doctrine of men becoming gods a CENTRAL part of Mormon doctrine? Did not Smith ELABORATE ON IT EXTENSIVELY, & MANY OTHER PROPHETS, APOSTLES & HISTORIANS IN THE MORMON CHURCH? Isn’t it a lie for Hinckley, who had many responsibilities that dealt with Church History & Doctrine for many years to say:
Wasn’t this a PR PLOY, given to Hickley by his hired PR firm? To try and ‘mainstream’ Mormonism?Of course He knew it was taught in the Church. How do you explain the comment? What is NOT misleading about the statement? If I pulled up all the Confrences that Hinckley had been to over the years, how many do you think wuold have some mention of God being a man once & the concept of man’s progression to Godhood? Or are you saying Hinckley is just that stupid? It is BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL MORMON DOCTRINE & HINCKLEY KNEW IT AND LIED BY OMISSION.
Jim Olsen said:
“You cannot get around the text of the Book of Mormon.”
It’s an interesting thing to say, since Mormons get around the text of the Book of Mormon more than EV’s do.
for example, you “get around” the fact that the text of the Book of Mormon:
1- does not contain the “fulness” of the Mormon gospel, even though it is supposed to
2- quotes the KJV
3- Claims that there is only ONE GOD
4- borrows stories from the Bible and Joseph Smith’s own life
5- has exceedingly many “it came to pass” – roughly the same overuse of the phrase by each Book of Mormon “writer” except one (amazing!)
6- has had to be corrected to say different things (like Son of God, instead of God) and for grammar errors, despite the translation method of the letters not disappearing off the magic rock until they were written correctly.
How and why exactly do Mormons justify letting themselves get around the text of the Book of Mormon?
And
“Can anybody point to anything false in Pres. Hinckley’s response quoted above?”
How about President Hinckley himself! I think most courts would call that perjury (oh, i know, only if he were “under oath”… wait! he’s been through the temple! he’s certainly under oath to not bear false witness!)
Jim said:
“Ironic that you believe “God can use imperfect humanity to preserve His perfect word in the Bible”- yet you expect absolute perfection from the prophets of the restoration and Christ’s church. You can somehow imagine unknown individuals employing unknown methods to produce and maintain an innerent Word of God through the long dark ages, yet dismiss God’s latter-day work because His people are imperfect.”
This is a very old argument, and barely worth going over again. “Nevertheless”…
EV’s don’t expect prophets to be perfect, except in their prophesying, and in their truly representing God.
You can’t have a bunch of prophets, over thousand of years, saying that God talked to them, and all saying THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD (for example), and then have a new prophet show up saying THERE ARE MANY GODS and believe that the new “prophet” is a true prophet just because he says he is.
You can’t have a bunch of prophets, over thousand of years, saying that God talked to them, and all giving prophecies that actually “came to pass”, and then have a new prophet show up and make prophecies that fail, and believe that the new “prophet” is a true prophet just because he says he is.
The problem isn’t that Joseph Smith isn’t perfect.
It’s that he’s not a prophet.
Hebrews 1:1-2 is NOT easily dismissed. This Scripture teaches a truth that must be grasped. The Church, our lives, the gospel is centered on Jesus Christ fulfilling ALL of the law and purchasing our redemption on the cross through his death and resurrection. Jesus DOES speak to us today. His Word is alive and restoring souls to right relationship with God. Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh, has fulfilled and done what we cannot and become sin for us – taking our sins upon Himself as our redemption. Hebrews 1:1-2 shows the shift from prophets looking forward to the coming of Christ through divinely inspired revelation – NOW Jesus has come and fulfilled the prophets and He speaks to us directly through His Word and says come unto me, believe and be forgiven, I have taken your sins to the cross and carry your burden. The true prophets today do not foretell or look forward – their function is different, they point us to Jesus crucified for our sins, bearing away our guilt and shame, and giving us a new life in Christ. False prophets come in puffed up in their own pride, elevating themselves and they bind sinners to law, to deeds, to self-justification, to rules, to false religion, to dead deeds leading nowhere. They negate the cross and it’s effectiveness for redemption and lift up themselves and dependence upon works to gain Gods favor. Galatians deals with those who would come in and take away the freedom in Christ that comes through His death on the cross; Galatians crushes those wishing to bind people up in law. Here’s the result – Galatians 2:16 – not one is justified by the works of the law. They take away your freedom and bind you up in rules you can never live up to – Galatians 2:4 and negate the saving work Christ completed. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and He will save you.
Jim said, “Grindael- your explanation of the structure of the church is very typical of evangelicals. It is obvious you haven’t a clue about any church structure”
Based upon what criteria, Jim? Your criteria based upon you importing ideas into Christianity that are found nowhere in scripture or in recorded history (including the BoM)? Or are you saying that Grindael doesn’t know how Evangelical churches are structured? Have you suddenly become a GA with the authority to speak for the LDS church on matters of history? Apparently GH couldn’t even do that. You know you can’t just go around interpreting scripture for yourself.
Must I keep repeating this? If the church had to be “restored” that means that the original church was Mormonism (which incidentally needs to be restored itself since it has drifted so far from JS and BY’s church, but that’s beside the point). In order for the current LDS church and its doctrines, temple ordinances (and temples), sealings, endowments, dietary restrictions, view of God and salvation, etc. to be purged from the bible, secular and religious literature, history and archaeology, it would have taken a conspiracy of monumental proportions to accomplish. There is no trace of it outside what is imagined by LDS apologists. Or maybe the original Mormons were so ashamed of their prophets that they purged their history and became apostates.
I would rather be a part of a so-called vague unorganized church in which I am free to worship God based upon His truth revealed in the bible than give undue reverence to men in suits and an organization. That reverence should be reserved for God alone. That kind of reverence for men is found nowhere in the bible. I follow Jesus Christ, not a prophet. And to answer your reply: I don’t care what the sign on your building says. We don’t sing songs about Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Peter, Paul, James or any other man in my church. There is no “Praise to the Man” in Christianity!
Olsen Jim wrote
Here is the nub of the issue. Olsen Jim believes that the Mormon Church and its prophets are Christ’s servants.
If they were his servants, then we might expect to see some meaningful relationship between them and Christ. However, they represent and promote what Christ stood against, starting with the endemic lying.
The Mormon Church promotes itself as a "restoration" of Christianity. In other words, it is doing now what the first Christians did before the (alledged) Great Apostasy. However the documented evidence (of which there is an abundance) demonstrates amply that the first Christians were NOT Mormons, nor did they practice anything that even vaguely resembled modern Mormonism.
The irony is that, as far as I can tell, prototypes of Mormonism can actually be found in the New Testament in;
* The Temple cult of the Pharisees and Chief Priests (see Matt 12:6 and the seriousness of the charge against Jesus in Matt 26:61)
* The "deep secrets" of the Prophetess of Thyatyra (Rev 2:20-25) (relating to secret ceremonies and oaths)
The issue is not what you or I might think of these prototypes of Mormonism, but how Jesus judges them.
The Mormon Church and its "prophets" are NOT servants of Christ. On the contrary, they expect Christ to serve them.
And, BTW, its not so much a case of "drudging through a basement of minutia"; but rather getting overwhelmed by a tsunami of the garbage that these Mormon "prophets" push out.
Janet,
Indeed where is the monarchial episcopate in the NT, or the first few hundred years of Christianity? There is ample evidence, both in the bible and in history, that local church bodies were governed by a body of elders. If you want some references:
Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, and I Peter 5:1-5
There is also evidence from church history that the primitive church was governed by elders but I refrain from providing such evidence as I am not sure you will accept it.
Grindael and others,
Regarding Pres. Hinckley’s response: To what was he responding? THE QUESTION WAS:
“About that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CONCEPT THAT GOD WAS ONCE A MORTAL, NOT THE CONCEPT THAT MAN CAN BECOME AS GOD.
His response to the actual question was absolutely truthful and honest. And you are misrepresenting that response.
Anybody- please point to where the idea that God was once a man has been emphasized, taught, or expanded upon in the church. Yes, sure there are allusions to that in the JOD, etc. But really, IN THE CHURCH- where is that taught?
My point about church structure was that the NT does not clearly outline the structure of Christ’s church. I agree that offices/gifts are mentioned, but the nitty-gritty about the organization is simply not there. So LDS critics say we are reading stuff into the bible about offices, structure, etc.
My point is that you cannot conclude anything substantive about the issue either. So when Grindael says: “The Lord was very clear in His Word about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed,” he is reading a great deal into scriptures that are not clear on the subject. The verses you cite are vague and can be interpreted many different ways.
Setfree- yours is a good example of using gimmick-like arguments from others to avoid really having to come to grips with the BOM. Anything to avoid actually reading it objectively. Every one of your points is superficial and easily dealt with. The quality of your objections to the book reveal either your lack of understanding of the issues or your desperation to dismiss the book.
Jim,
You’re kidding, right? These are definately NOT allusions:
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know…that he was once a man like us…. (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307
Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing (Milton R. Hunter – The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).
He [God] is our Father – the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. (Brigham Young – Journal of Discourses 7:333)
…God…is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man… (McConkie – Mormon Doctrine, 1966 edition p. 250)
Official Church Magazine that goes out to all Mormons:
“Knowing what we know concerning God our Father — that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth – and knowing that this knowledge was had by many of the ancients, should we be surprised to find legends and myths throughout the cultures of the earth concerning gods who have divine power but human attributes and passions? (BYU Professor Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel,” Ensign, July 1996, pg.51).
The Prophet Joseph Smith once taught: “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, … that he was once a man like us …” (Dallin Oaks – Ensign, January 2006, p. 51).
“I don’t know that we teach it” – Hinckley
Jim,
Are you seriously asserting that your church has not at any period ever taught that God was once a man? What would you accept as evidence? If the words or GA’s does not count as “IN THE CHURCH” then what does?
The primitive church is what your church claims to be a restoration of. The primitive church was never headed by single prophet and that we know from history. It’s not a restoration if it adds stuff that was never there before and changes things around. Rule by elders was the norm in the 1st century and we see that in the Bible (it was already in practice) and we see instructions to elders. In the Book of Acts we see elders operating as described elsewhere in the NT. Plus, we have ample extra-biblical evidence that the earliest church(es) functioned in this way. A monarchial episcopate, like the kind your church has, was a later development.
Jim, my friends have beaten me and posted before I could, so I will not reiterate the above doctrinal teachings. But that just serves to show that it is very easy to find statements that your church taught explicit doctrine that God was once a man. Gordon Hinckley was flat out lying. He knew just as well as we do that this teaching is church doctrine, and it is well known to you as well. Why are you so ashamed of this if it was taught by JS? Embrace it. It’s the restored gospel. Run with it. Tell us all that you are going evolve from man to god just like your Heavenly Father did. He is no different from you, he’s just older and more experienced.
Page 9 of the 1997 Gospel Principles manual tells us this, “All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).”
By omission this implies that he was once like us. Stop the charade, Jim. You’re embarrassing yourself in front of the lurkers who should see by now the deceptive nature of LDS apologists.
I’m patiently waiting for your typical response, “It’s obvious you know nothing…it’s clear to anyone that those teachings are not official doctrine…that is so vague it can be interpreted in so many ways…you should spend more time learning true church doctrine…”
Mormonism and credibility: two concepts that cannot coexist. Defense of Mormonism requires endless fraud, deception and lies.LURKERS, Ask any kid who has taken 9th grade seminary: What is the goal of Mormonism? The FIRST words out of their mouths is “to become a god”. I’ve asked this of kids, as recently as a couple of weeks ago. I’ve never gotten any other answer. It’s coming from somewhere Jim. I wonder where?
Friends,
Please read carefully what I have asked: “please point to where the idea that God was once a man has been emphasized, taught, or expanded upon in the church.”
Let’s look at Pres. Hinckley’s statement again:
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”
Like I said- I know it was mentioned in the JOD. And there has been occasional reference to God once being mortal, or a man- Grindael found 6 such basic statements in our literature in over 180 years.
But in all honesty, what is false about Hinckley’s statement? We don’t empasize it. It is not in our manuals. I have not heard it in a conference talk. I haven’t heard it discussed over the pulpit. A brief mention of it every decade or so does not equal “emphasis” or “expanded upon.”
Hinckley said He didn’t know much about the doctrine and nobody else does either. He “understands the philosophical background of it.” HE DID NOT DENY THE VERY BASIC IDEA. HE SAID HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND MUCH ABOUT IT AND THAT WE DO NOT EMPHASIZE IT OR SPEAK ABOUT IT MUCH AT ALL.
This is not becaus we don’t have a very basic belief that God had a mortal experience, but we know next to nothing about it, just like Hinckley said.
I have never denied the doctrine either. Please learn to read for content. I am arguing that Hinckley was perfectly honest in his response. You have managed to find a lie where none exists.
I ask again- where exactly did Hinckley lie? What did he say that is false? You cannot point to a single thing he said that is false.
(P.S. to liv4jc: We are talking about the concept of God once being a man, not the idea of man becoming like God- again, read for content).
LDS Church manuals have certainly included the teaching that God the Father was once a man:
Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual: “God was once a mortal man” etc. -page 129
Search These Commandments (Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide,1884)”Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman” etc. -pages 152-153
[By the way, Gospel Through the Ages (quoted above by grindael) was written for (and used as) the 1946 Melchizedek Priesthood study manual.]
Or how about the March 2002 issue of The Friend (not a manual, but a relatively recent official LDS publication) which included a crossword puzzle for LDS kids: “[Lorenzo Snow] wrote as a couplet (two lines of verse) a revelation that he had and that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was true: As man ____ is, God once was:…” -page 23
Gordon B. Hinckley might not have known (i.e., he might have forgotten?) that the LDS Church teaches this doctrine; but indeed, the LDS Church does teach this doctrine.
Here is Hinckley himself teaching the doctrine at a conference in 1994:
“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. <b?It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! – Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
Question: “Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”
Hinckley: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.” – Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1
Q. Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A. I WOULDN’T SAY THAT.
Hinckley was not misquoted or misinterpreted. He is simply (by omission trying to be evasive to try and ‘mainstream’ the church to a large audience). Why else would he say, I wouldn’t say that? As to your question Jim, yeah it has been TAUGHT IN THE CHURCH SINCE THE TIME OF JOSEPH SMITH. Another quote, in case the others weren’t enough:
“It is A MORMON TRUISM that is current among us and WE ALL ACCEPT IT, that as man is God once was and as God is man may become. That does not signify that man will become God. I am sorry to say, and yet it is a truth, that not many men will become what God is, simply because they will not pay the price, because they are not willing to live up to the requirements; and still all men may, if they will, become what God is, but only those who are heirs of the celestial glory shall ever be possible candidates, to become what God is.” – Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, April 1921
It’s also in Acheiving a Celestial Marraige, official publication of the Church and in the Gospel Principles Manual.
Gospel Principles (1992), Chapter 47, p. 302, 305
What is Exaltation? Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life that God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation. (GP, 302)
This is the way our Heavenly Father became a God. Joseph Smith taught, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God … he was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-46).
These are only a few examples, I posted quotes every decade or so to show continuity. There are many, many, many more quotes.
Jim, the idea that man can become god stems from the teaching that God was once a man just as we are. They are two sides of the same coin. That was my point. What was the point of the “God was once a man” portion of the KFD? To let listeners know that God was no different from them and that they could themselves become God.
Joseph’s own words from the KFD,
The implications are undeniable and Hinckly knew this just as well as I do. His response to the question was indefensible and his motives are clear, just as Grindael pointed out. He wanted to make the LDS church more appealing to mainstream America, and he knew that Christians, and most people, would be turned off if they knew what LDS doctrine really is.
How can a prophet who speaks for the Lord, not understand much about what Smith called “the first principle of the gospel” – “to know what kind of being God is and that he was once a man like us?”
Jim,
But we do know much about “it” . . . and so did Hinckley before he died. It is not like we are making this stuff up to make you guys look bad. Many Mormons had problems with what Hinckley said, at least at the time.
This is not some trite stuff Jim. Joseph Smith said that “for there can be eternal life on no other principle [to know God].” He went on to tell us that:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man”.
Is Joseph Smith wrong about this?
So… what you’re arguing Jim… is that Hinckley made his comment very PC.
He said exactly the right words so that non-Mormons would not be led to think that the Mormon church teaches it, and yet Mormons would not think that the Mormon church doesn’t teach it.
Just like a politician.
This is not prophet-like, this sneaky-wording stuff.
If it was true “from God” type stuff, and Hinckley was a real prophet of God, he’d be saying something more like:
“Get in line buddy! This is what God has said to his modern day prophets! This is stuff you need to know!”
Real prophets of God would know they had infinite-power backing, of the ONE ALMIGHTY GOD, and not worry about offending someone.
So not only do we learn that God was once a man just as we are. We learn that there are other Gods, and they also were once men. What then do we do the the Holy Ghost? What’s his history, and how did he become a God without obtaining a body? We know that Joseph taught that Jesus received his exaltation in this manner (one is forced to wonder how he could create the universe as a god before coming to earth to become a god) when he came to earth, just as his father did before him. We also learn from the KFD that God is not yet supreme, but is progressing from one small degree to another. Where does this come from? Certainly not from the bible or Judaism. The Jews were strict monotheists, and strict monolatrists. What part of Isaiah 43:10 is so confusing? We could go off on several tangents from there alone. Is this the LDS Jehova speaking, or is it Elohim since Jesus has not yet come to earth to obtain his exaltation, etc. If Jesus is the Jehova of the OT, then who is sending the Messiah? And you all accuse us of having a schizophrenic God when we speak of the Trinity.
All, here is a terrific write-up about whether or not Hinckley was lying:
http://mormonchapbook.blogspot.com/2010/01/hinckley-timeline.html
Setfree,
What I think is that Hinckley did feel uncomfortable with the question because he knew very well that people like those here would scrutinize and misrepresent anything he said. There are plenty who will misrepresent the church to the greatest degree possible.
If he said simply “yes we believe that God was a mortal,” you and others would scream from the housetops that we teach that doctrine as our meat and potatoes and that it is as important to us as any other doctrine. (Actually, you do that anyway).
The misrepesentation is on the part of critics who portray such a doctrine as being very clear cut, yet something we “cover up” because we are embarrassed.
We know next to nothing about this doctrine. And I do not deny it for one second. But how can we teach it when we have almost no understanding of it. It is not a matter of us hiding anything. It is not emphasized or taught with any regularity or depth because of this lack of knowledge and the fact that it is not something we feel we need at this point.
That is what I believe Hinckley was saying.
Just look at Aaron who takes every opportunity to claim we believe God was a sinner. In that sense, we absolutely do not believe God was like man. Rather, as Joseph Smith said (and as quoted by Grindael) “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (By the way and a note to Aaron- that is a relatively clear description of the type of mortal experience God had- it was “the same as Jesus Christ” who was not a sinner).
Jim,
Then God was not a man like us. And for those humans that become a god, they will be somehow different from the god we now worship? I think Aaron addressed this by stating that some Mormons hold to a sinless line of savior-gods.
“we absolutely do not believe God was like man”
You need to check yourself Jim. Look at the videos that Aaron presented and you will find Mormons who do believe that god could have been, or even probably was, a sinner.
I was very busy yesterday so sorry this is late. Someone asked about the structure of the church in the Bible –
In the OT with the Israelites the church was both a governmental body/kingship and a religious body, similar to how it will be when Jesus comes again to rule on the earth. How was it organised?
Numbers 1:4-5 God chose through Moses 12 princes to help with the governing of Israel.
Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25 God through Moses chose 70 elders to assist him with the religious affairs of Israel.
So in the OT we have Moses as head of Israel UNDER God’s command, then he has 12 princes to help with the government issues and 70 elders to help with the ecclesiastical issues.
In the NT Jesus is on the earth
Mark 3:14 (Luke 6:13) He chooses 12 to help Him with teaching the people. These 12 become the Apostles who then govern the church after Jesus leaves UNDER God’s and Jesus’ command.
Luke 10:1 (depending on which version) Jesus chose 70 (or 72) men to assist the 12 in their teaching and governing of the church. No where does it tell us that these 70 were ever disbanded.
So again, under God’s command we have 12 men leading/governing the church with 70 assisting them.
So this exemplifies Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Then we have a number of verses telling us that God’s house is a house of order, and that a house divided against its self will fall, but more especially we have Matt 6:24 where no man can serve 2 masters. This is what causes division – 2 masters. That is why there are many Christian denominations that have different beliefs – there are more than 2 masters saying that they know God’s mind and interpret the Bible differently. That is why we have one prophet to guide and govern the church UNDER the influence and power of God. Just like Moses did with the Israelites. Just like we believe Peter did in his day.
Isn’t Hinckley the same guy who purchased the phony Josiah Stoal letter from Mark Hoffman, for about 20,000 dollars or so with Church Funds (in his (Hinckley’s) name – to give the Church ‘deniability’), then sat on it for over two years to suppress it?
This interesting story can be read here: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingch6b.htm
Deceit just seems to be second nature with these guys…
Are there modern prophets? According to the NT, yes. There are even prophetesses identified in the Book of Acts chapter 21:8-9. “And on the next day we departed and came to Caesarea; and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.” In Ephesians 4:11 we read, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers…” In First Corinthians 12:28 it states, “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers….” Some NT Church Biblical guidelines for prophecy can be found in First Thessalonians 5:20, First Corinthians 14:39 and Colossians 2:18.
False prophesy and false prophets inhabit Christian churches, aberrant Christian cults and outright fraudulent deceiving religions like Mormonism. That’s why it’s imperative that Christians practice discernment, which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (discerning of spirits). False prophets operate in various ways, some by cleverly manipulating people by their use charm, powers of observation, insight and verbal gifts. They learn the tricks of the false prophet trade. Others operate by the use of familiar spirits. We see this in Acts 16:16-18. In Acts 19 we see the people of Corinth get scared straight when an evil spirit gives some false exorcists a working over (Acts 19:19).
Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Not only was he very clever but he gave himself over to the occult and drew his power from the dark side. Mormons deny this of course because they too have joined in Smith’s folly and will go to any lengths to excuse and explain away his deviant behavior and spiritual deception.
Mormons would do well to crush Joseph Smith’s seer stone to sand, confess their sins and turn to the One, true and only living God.
Falcon! Nice to see you back!!! How’s everything?
Well thank you setfree, that’s a very nice welcome that you extended to me. Everything’s fine on this end. Sometimes I wonder if I’m really retired given that my retirement gig(s) can keep me quite busy. But it’s a blessing from the Lord for which I am very thankful.
My absence was due in part for the need to get some air. I get so disgusted some times with the Mormon view of the nature of God, that I have to put some space between myself and Mormonism.
It says in Proverbs 1:7 that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Further in Proverbs 1:24-33 the Lord says,”Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out my hand, and no one paid attention; And you neglected all my counsel, And did not want my reproof; I will even laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, When your dread comes like a storm, And your calamity comes on like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come on you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me, Because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof. So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way. And be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them. But he who listens to me shall live securely, And shall be at ease from the dread of evil.”
Mormons have chosen to follow false prophets who are led by false spirits who reject the living God and have sought to make themselves gods. This is serious spiritual warfare we are involved in when we confront the spirit of the antichrist as represented by the Mormons who post here. Paul tells us that we “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers against the powers against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12)
Make no mistake, the Mormon posts have human names attached to them, but we are dealing with a spirit whose desire is to malign God, His Christ and His Church.