This may seem like a silly question, but can anyone tell me what comprises “the Gospel” according to Mormonism?
I ask because I recently came across a video on You Tube titled “Sharing the Gospel with Elder Hartman Rector Jr., A Missionary Tool.” In this video Mr. Rector, emeritus General Authority of the LDS Church, talks about Doctrine & Covenants 33:7-10 wherein readers are told that the field is white and ready to harvest, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mr. Rector explains that Latter-day Saints are “their access in” to the kingdom of heaven for people not yet members of the Church. Mormons must “open their mouths” to reap the harvest. “[I]t doesn’t make any difference [what you say],” Mr. Rector instructs, “as long as you talk about the Church.”
From there Mr. Rector provides some ideas of what Latter-day Saints might say when they open their mouths. He says to ask questions: “By the way, do you like to read? If I would send you a book that contains the actual account of the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ to America, would you read it?” Ostensibly, 97.5 percent of the people who are asked this question say yes.
Mr. Rector suggests another technique that involves the use of a coin imprinted with the images of the prophet Moroni on one side and Joseph Smith on the other. Again, Latter-day Saints are to ask if the person they’re talking with would be willing to receive and read the Book of Mormon (though Mr. Rector does not say to call the book by its title). Using this approach, 90 percent agree to receive the Book of Mormon and willingly provide their names and addresses to a complete stranger.
Latter-day Saints are told to write in the book before they send it, “Something simple like…If you will read this book and apply the promise on page 529 it will change your life, as it has changed mine.”
Okay, well it could be that the person who posted this video attached a poorly chosen title to it, yet at least to that Mormon’s understanding, Mr. Rector is explaining how to share the Gospel. In the entire 6 minutes and 55 seconds that the video runs, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is never mentioned. The Atonement of Christ is never mentioned. Man’s need of a Savior is never mentioned. In fact, Jesus Christ Himself is only mentioned in relation to being a main character in the Book of Mormon. Exactly what “Gospel” are these people sharing? Not the Gospel Paul preached, at least not directly.
The “Gospel” is “The central message of the Christian church to the world, centered on God’s provision of salvation for the world in Jesus Christ” (Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms).
A “Gospel” without Christ at its center is foreign to me. What is this Mormon “Gospel” that Latter-day Saints are told to share without even talking about salvation and what Christ has done for us?
I want to get back to the original question at hand. “What is the Mormon Gospel?” Simply put, the answer is: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The “Mormon Gospel” has nothing to do with the gospel found in the Bible.
I served a mission for the LDS church and did quite well. Not because I really believed in the church, but because I was a damn good salesman. In fact, I became the AP of my mission and made well over 120 “converts”. This video brought back a lot of memories. It teaches classic sales techniques we labeled as “The Commitment Pattern”. It’s a way to manipulate people into believing and doing what you want them to do; but making them think it was their idea. The overall goal of every missionary is to make Mormons. Not to bring people to Christ, as some here have claimed, but to baptize people into the Mormon Church. It’s a numbers game, and always has been. In fact, if someone was unwilling to “commit” to be baptized by the third discussion they were “dropped” and labeled as “trash”. Can you believe that? Clearly the emphasis was not on bringing people to Christ. My mission president told me on a number of occasions that we were there to baptize people. If we baptized people on Saturday and they came to church the next day, but then never returned. Well, who cares? We did our job. We got them baptized. We can continue to claim the Mormon Church is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I developed all kinds of “tricks” and “manipulations” to convince people to get baptized. And I was rewarded for it. I taught these tricks and techniques to the entire mission on several occasions during mission conferences. I know some people here will claim that I was in a bad mission and my mission president was wrong. But we were visited by many General Authorities and other Mission Presidents to learn how we were making so many baptisms month after month. They endorsed everything we did…….
……No one ever cared to question whether these people were truly converted or even whether they fully understood what they were doing by being baptized.
Another point I would like to make is how missionaries are encouraged to stay away from the Bible. In my entire mission, I am ashamed to say, I never read the Bible. Never even attempted it. I was too busy reading the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price and other “approved” literature. In fact, the missionary “discussions” were built in a way to de-emphasize the Bible. The first discussion is the only one that focused on biblical scripture. From the second “discussion” on it was all Mormon “scripture”. This just reinforces the notion that the Mormon Gospel is not about Christ, it’s about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Joheshua
First of all, thanks for sharing that. This is a question I always want to ask ex-mo rm’s: do you ever consider/wish you could find(ing) those people you converted to Mormonism, and tell(ing) them the truth?
That’s a good question. The answer is “yes”, I’ve thought about it. The truth is, I’m convinced that maybe only 20% of them remained in the church. Maybe less. Before I left the mission I think about 50% of my “converts” had gone inactive. But it’s impossible to know.
Do I have an obligation to search for these people and explain to them what I did and how I think I was wrong? It’s a tough question. I’m not sure I want to know the answer.
I hear ya. The good news is that God can undo what has been done, and He’ll make a way to accomplish it if He wants. Personally, I think that if I’d had anyone trust me and accept Mormonism, and I still were in contact with them, I’d definitely tell them the truth. But I’m sure most ex-mo RM’s aren’t in contact with most of the converts. I’ll bet you are quite right on how many of them stay “in” after you left anyway.
It’s kinda sobering, though, to think that someone you tried to convince of Mormonism may still believe it
Also… take heart in the fact that there are Mormon converts who are reached by ex-mo’s all the time. Not too long ago, out here on MC, one came out and talked briefly, and she and her family are all saved now. God may have someone talking to your converts as we speak. Thank God for what He does and is going to do!
Grindael,
I recommend what many believe is the definitive work on the Urim and Thummim to date by Cornelius Van Dam entitled “The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel.”
He reviews all available data on the topic and argues that the U&T were one or two gems used in connection with the breastplate by the priest in ancient times for receiving revelation. He argues that the U&T was used for more than just receiving yes/no answers as many have believed over the years. Rather, he concludes that they were for more general revelations from God to the children of Israel.
A couple of highlights:
He quotes Targum Pseudo Jonathan:
“And you shall put into the breastplate the Urim, which illuminate their words and make manifest the hidden things of the House of Israeal, and the Tumim [sic] which perfect their deeds, for te High Priest who seeks instruction from the Lord through them. Because in them is engraved and exposed the great and holy Name by which the three hundred and ten worlds were created….”
and ben Nahman “[W]hen the priest fixed his thoughts on the divine names in the Urim, some letters engraved upon the stones of the breastpiece would light up before the eyes of the priest who inquired of their judgment. Not yet knowing he correct arrangement of the letters to form the response, the priest would fix his thought on the divine names in the Thummim, and his heart was made perfect so that he could understand the meaning of the letters that had lit up.”
In short, he says the U&T were gems upon which letters and words would shine for viewing by the Priest. The priest had to prepare his mind and heart to receive revelation. The letters and words would change as the priest read.
That is exactly what Joseph Smith and the BOM describe.
haha, i just touched upon something I love so much. Jesus’ “church” is not man-made, man-organized, or man-run. There is no need for Him to get someone else to lead someone where He wants them to go. He just leads them.
The LDS church needles its members into giving up a whole 2 years of their lives to missionary work. But Jesus, He just works on whomever He wants, and convinces them to speak about Him wherever and whenever He wants them too, and He has full-time missionaries of the people who love Him, for all their lives, going out on missions that make a real difference because He has already prepared the recipient to receive the message as well. Hallelujah, Praise Jesus name!
RickB,
Please pick one or two topics and show how the Bible contradicts the BOM. It is not reasonable to expect me to respond effectively to the shotgun approach- it is superficial and really doesn’t prove anything.
So- take your pick.
Johoshua,
Don’t know when or upon which planet you served a mission, but what you describe is nothing like anything I have heard anybody else say about their mission. It is hard to take you seriously when you claim that we really don’t try to bring people to Christ or that we label people “trash.”
And maybe you forgot that every person approaching baptism has an interview in which they are asked if they have received answers to prayers and believe in Christ, etc. etc.
Don’t know when you left, but you should also know the extent to which efforts are made to “retain” those who are baptized. We receive training on this very regularly from the Quorum of the twelve.
Sad to see you took the people on your mission so lightly.
Interesting that you claim the BOM isn’t about Christ. Are you really saying that?
It is amazing to me the lengths to which people will go to justify themselves as they leave the church.
I think many EVs and others who are loud in their criticism of the Church of Christ are fueled by people who leave the church and who make such crazy claims. Something happens, and they seem to stretch their stories and the truth beyond anything that is reliable.
Not all who leave go down that path, but those who are really critical seem to say the most outlandish things.
Joheshua,
Great post! I love these inside baseball information presentations the exMos provide us, especially those who were missionaries. Rick and grindael great effort also. We see where all the Mormon posters can do is give us those “oh yea!” responses. It doesn’t take much to keep these folks in the Mormon program. Any explanation will do. Ralph, as we can see, could probably even find evidence in the Bible that Big Foot is a descendent of Cain or that UFOs were contacting the Hebrews by means of scrying.
I think we’ve pretty well established that Mormonism does not focus on Jesus. It’s all about Joseph Smith and the Mormon church. They are looking for members to join their organization not to come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact such a thing would be discouraged. The focal point of Christianity is Jesus. He is God incarnate. It is through His sacrifice on the cross that we have the gift of eternal life.
But alas, Mormons are more intrigued by a man who used a magic rock to look inside the earth to find buried treasure and was convicted in court for it. There is nothing that these folks won’t believe except the real Gospel, the one that will actually lead them to eternal life.
Olsen Jim,
I served in the California, Arcadia mission. And I’m very familiar with the “interview”. In fact, at one point I was teaching a gang banger who had been shot 6 times while sitting in the back of a vehicle. He was at home recuperating when we made contact with him. We taught him the discussions, and he said he would get baptized. I knew his past and so I asked him if he had ever killed anyone. He claimed that he didn’t know. I asked him how he could not know something like that and he said that he had shot a couple of guys, at point blank range, but never stuck around to find out if they had died. I explained to him that if he had killed someone he could not be baptized without the consent of the First Presidency. He then said he was pretty sure that one of them had died. So we continued to visit him but when I explained the situation to my Zone Leader, he explained to the mission president the situation and it was decided he would not be baptized.
While serving as the AP I saw his name come across my desk with a list of recent baptisms in that area. I was furious. I knew the missionary who baptized him and I knew he was a “numbers” guy. He had clearly gone through our area book and seen that the guy had comitted to get baptized but hadn’t. So he went and baptized him. When I asked him about the murders his answer was, “It never came up.”
The Book of Mormon may say the name Christ a lot, that does not mean it’s about the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
Jim & others,
Go here for a very FULL, INFORMATIVE, ROUNDED VIEW OF WHAT THE URIM & THUMMIM WAS. (including the LDS perspective)
http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Thummim#cite_note-Biblica-2
What are you getting at with Van Dam’s book? It is still ALL SPECULATION. His is one opinion among many. My original concern was the statement the U&T were two stones. They simply DO NOT KNOW. It is also opined that they were sticks, bones, tablets like the tablets of destiny. It (again) is disingenuous to state, as Ralph did:
These were stones that the viewer looked into/through to gain revelation from God.”
I will settle for they MAY have been stones. There is a very divided opinion about the U&T, so saying these WERE STONES is again disingenuous.
As for MY Mission, we used the Bible constantly and I read the Bible more than the BOM and was not in any way told to use Mormon Scripture over it. But my mission was in 1980 and a lot could have changed since then, plus I was in a heavily Catholic Mission Area.
Christ is the central character of the Book of Mormon and I’ve never denied it. (not that you said I did) – just making some points.
Van Dam is also referenced in the wiki link I posted. I did not read the book, but read every Mormon Review I could find. Very interesting but still at the end of the day – speculation.
It doesn’t change the FACT that Smith’s ‘interpreters’ were never called the U&T until Phelps speculated that they might be the U&T. And the D&C revelation of 1828 was changed from the original. What does that tell you?
Joheshua (is that Hebrew for John?)
If one reads and understands the evolution of Mormon Theology, the Jesus in the BOM is definitely a lot closer to the Jesus of the Bible than the current version of Jesus in the Mormon Church.
I have written this on another forum for those who may be interested on the evolution of the Mormon gods:
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1549
The Lectures on Faith published as part of the original D&C show that Smith’s views changed, as did his concepts of deity. The Father was called Jehovah until about 1915 when Talmage wrote Jesus the Christ.
I do believe that the BOM is a very useful tool to lure unsuspecting people into a cult. It was written by Smith using concepts learned in View of the Hebrews and plagiarisms from the Bible. Widstoe had a crisis of faith when he heavily investigated it before he died.
His handwritten 1832 account of the First Vision verifies these early views Smith had of the Godhead. It also proves it was a fabrication, for he could not have seen two personages in 1820-24, and still endorse those Lectures in the Original D&C which they touted as DOCTRINE.
This quote sums up this thread in my opinion:
For a testimony of the restored gospel to be complete, it MUST include a testimony of Joseph Smith’s divine mission. The truthfulness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the truthfulness of the First Vision and the other revelations the Lord gave to the Prophet Joseph. President John Taylor, the third President of the Church, wrote, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it” (D&C 135:3)
I found this interesting site of a picture of Smith with the Urim & Thummim. It is fascinating (but most likely not him)
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/daguerreotype-of-joseph-smith-wearing-the-urim-and-thummim-caution-this-will-disturb-you/
grindael,
You’re absolutely right about the BofM. I chose my words poorly.
Jim, going way back to answer your charge that we seem to have a problem with relying on faith and thus put too much emphasis on outward evidence, I have to say that you really miss our point. We do rely on faith. As others have indicated, faith is a huge factor, but our faith rests on that which speaks for itself. By that, the evidence supports what it is we believe. While the evidence does not prove our belief, hence the faith, the evidence clearly suggests our faith is true. That is lacking in LDS doctrine, and you must put your faith in a man who at best has a questionable history, and a history we can look at. Further, your faith is in something that has no strong evidence to suggest the faith is true. You then almost have to take the position you have– that you are to abandon reason when god speaks to you, because god is the ultimate source of authority.
And here’s another point on that topic– we believe that there are spirits out there who actively seek to deceive, and our job as believers then is to test that which is spoken of through spirits. If it meets the test that God spoke it, then it is good. That test is what the scriptures say about whatever is being revealed. LDS fails that test.
As to the LDS program being about the LDS church, not about Christ, I understand how you see it that way, and I will not convince you otherwise until you allow yourself to see it. Just the same, I won’t ever be able to see it in your view unless I convert to Mormonism or allow myself to see it. But, from what I see as an objective point of view, the LDS are more concerned about its own church than it is about Christ.
I’d like to comment on the wonderful thoughts we get from so many of the other posters. I personally feel like an amatuer in this debate sometimes. What draws me here is that I see the LDS machine as deceptive and an evil in the world. As a Christian, it is my duty to fight this. The LDS machine differentiates itself and is more dangerous than other such organizations because it is so vocal and because it makes such a concerted effort to grow.
I think it is very seductive to many people, and is seductive to them because they hide the truth as to what the church is really about. The church is not really about Christ, and though it may talk a lot about a Jesus, this Jesus is not the same Jesus that I worship and love and follow. But because the machine does so much to present itself as just another Christian denomination, it needs to be exposed before it pulls more people in.
I see two ways to combat the machine– the first is to educate those who may be enticed, and the second is to encourage the LDS to consider their faith from a different point of view. The second is the more difficult, but is possible.
I am always very interested in what drew people away from the church. I realize not everyone will find much in their stories, and LDS themselves tend to discount the stories as them not having enough faith or never getting it in the first place. I think that attitude is a shame, because they could and should learn something about their own faith by learning why people leave. I, for one, tend to be interested in why folks walk away from Christ for the same reasons…
Alas, keep up the good work guys!
messianic,
You might find it of interest, the BOM claims that the nephites observed the law of moses, yet it states that swine is good for food.
It would be interesting if there was such a thing as 7th day mormons, who also avoided pork, wore a turban, and avoided shantnez.
Perhaps the most annoying thing is that the BOM claims that native americans and pacific islanders had jewish ancestry. Its attracted a number of followers in central and south america because of this. I have inupiaq ancestry, and I have had a few missionaries tell me that my people were mentioned in the BOM. Not so!
Ralph, I wish to define the only true church as Jesus Christ himself. Only when you put your faith in Christ as you a Christian. By putting your faith in Christ you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, died for your sins on the Cross, went to hell and saw ultimate victory over death. By placing your faith in Christ, you accept his full power over sin and death, and that you can do absolutely nothing to make that job more complete.
I think people who believe that are in the one true church, even if they call themselves Methodists or Presbyterian or Baptist or Catholic or Lutheran or Evangelical or whatever. The earthly organization is of no consequence.
Conversely, the LDS places its faith in its own authority. It says it gets its power from Christ, but assumes that that power has been transferred to the church. Thus, the LDS church shares the authority of Christ. Further, the LDS have a very different view of the person of Christ, and feel that they can add to the saving power. You do not believe ultimate salvation (exaltation) is possible outside of your own faith, even though you think that people will be spared hell if they believe certain things. You just don’t believe they can reach the max without it.
I am sure you will disagree or find some fault in my presentation. That’s fine, but therein lies a big problem. Until you praise Jesus name above all other names and place your entire faith in his full saving grace, you are outside of the one true church. And when you excuse your beliefs for whatever reason, you stay outside of Christ.
MJP,
You said that one must put faith in Jesus, then you go on to put boundaries on that faith, especially “By putting your faith in Christ you believe that Jesus was God incarnate”. This is not true, this is only the Trinitarian view of Jesus which is an interpretation of the Bible, not doctrine straight from the Bible. So this is just the view of man.
I have my faith in Him and that He is as the Bible declares – The Son of God. I could go on to describe, using scriptures from the Bible, how I believe in Him and why I believe that way, but you will turn around and say that is my interpretation of the Bible. So here we are at a stand-off with 2 views that can be supported from the Bible.
So yes, I do disagree with one part of your presentation. And there-in lies the problem, is 1600 years of history and traditon correct? Or is JS and inspired prophet and is he correct in his description of Jesus and Heavenly Father?
As far as your comment goes “You do not believe ultimate salvation (exaltation) is possible outside of your own faith”, don’t you believe the same? That anyone outside of your faith will not gain salvation? You are saying that right here, that because I am LDS and believe differently to you, even though I profess a belief in Jesus Christ, I am not saved. So where is the ‘problem’ with the LDS church believing the in the same manner?
Ralph, we do disagree on the nature of God and have been through it countless times. My position is not a limit on it when it only states that you must believe who Christ was in reality. There are no strinds attached to it. You say you can give verses, so can we. So that won’t get us anywhere. I believe the Trinitarian view to be an accurate representation of the Biblical presentation of Jesus, and am happy to share verses, but I know you have seen these arguments before.
Is JS an inspired prohpet? I think we can look at his character, which is in question if you are honest to start getting some answers on that. But again, I know you’ve seen these arguments. We can also look to see what he restored and where he restored it from to start getting answers, but again, you’ve seen them.
No, I do not believe as you say. My faith is a general faith in Christ that is not bound by any faith in any earthly organization, like the LDS church. As far as salvation goes, all one must do is believe in Christ as all of us here say. Its that easy. And as to you, if you believe in a false Christ, you believe in an idol, and then you reject him. As you are aware, Christ stated that though many will claim him, not all will be with him in the end. So, even though you profess a belief in ‘Jesus Christ’ you will not be with him in the end as long as you reject the real deal.
The problem with the LDS is that it is not the same manner. You worship a different Jesus, require a belief that Smith was a prophet, that Jesus actually came back to North America (and possibly other places), you must get baptized by a member of your church (but only ones with authority), you must follow a step by step plan, and you must be a member of your church. For us, there is only one requirement, and you know what that is. Further, you differentiate between different levels of salvation, and have a possibility of becoming a god yourself. Cont’d.
Contrast those levels with our faith where there are only two options– eternal damnation or eternal bliss with Christ. The only differentiating factor is acceptance of who he is and what he did for us. Once you are there, you are there into eternity.
In the event someone has never heard the name of Christ, I believe that God has written his name on all of our hearts, and that everyone does have a choice to accept the one true God or to reject him. No one is without excuse. But this is why it is important that we share our faith with others who have not heard the name or do not understand what he is about. It is much easier to make an informed decision when you know what he’s about.
But you’ve been told what he is about, and you continue to reject him, so, unfortunately, you will be in eternal damnation unles you open your eyes and accept what you see when they are open.
I wish that were different, but the rules are not mine. And I cannot become a god to set them.
There is only one true God, and he is calling out to you, Ralph. Do you want to listen to him? Or do you want to reject him to follow a faith that will lead to a dead end?
Unfortunately, there are really only these two options, and I cannot tell you anything different. It is a hard truth, but a truth nonetheless. Because it is a truth, I would be lying to say there is another way. There is not, so Ralph, which are you going to choose?
OJ, First off your doing as I said you would, your not showing me mormon doctrine from the BoM. Good Job.
Now you tell me to show you one or two things that contradict because the shot gun approach does not work. It’s like this, If I only showed one or two things, then you would simply blow it off as not enough or find away to say I am wrong.
But how about you take your pick from what I showed you and listed and instead show me how it squares with the Bible. I gave chapter and verse and If I show you only one or two things, I will simply only re-print one or two things I already showed you and that will get us no where. Rick b
Rick,
I know you are well versed in Mormon tactics and it’s good that you keep calling them out on their bobbing, weaving and refusal to engage in a substantive discussion. They’ve got a bad hand to play so they just bluff….actually we could say “huff and puff” and in the end it’s all an illusion anyway. But it’s an illusion that satisfies them emotionally so in their twisted form of thinking, their psychological equilibrium remains in tact.
They can get away with their hokey explanations down at the wards where anything goes because the faithful Mormons don’t need much depth. Any answer or explanation will satisfy. There’s a real desperation in Mormon circles to hold on to a belief system that is not only false but ridiculous. Unfortunately the more convoluted and off the wall something is, the more Mormons groove on it. The ridiculous and bizarre are actually a solid proof in Mormonism that something is true and that only super duper spiritual folks can understand and accept it. We can never underestimate what the desire of someone to believe something can do to the normal thought process.
In the world of Mormon faith, feelings are everything. If something makes you feel good, that means the Mormon god is confirming the truth of the matter. If something makes you feel bad, that means…….well you get it. It’s pretty tough to talk the faithful Mormon out of the idea that feelings are the voice of God. They’ve got themselves convinced that these are special spiritual feelings, not just standard emotions.
I have a good friend, a Christian, who is getting constant messages and revelations from God. I don’t even try and disabuse him of his notions. There’s a tradition of that sort of thing within certain Christian circles. That’s, BTW, where Joseph Smith got the idea, from ev. Christian revivalism. This notion is the fuel of Mormonism. It makes Mormons feel special and connected. I encounter this mentality with certain Christians all of the time and it’s mostly harmless. With Mormons it’s not harmless because the messages they think they are receiving are not from the God of the Bible. Their messages are coming from one of a pantheon of gods out there in the cosmos, one of which they hope to become. Mormons have made a bad bargain, but it’s spiritual candy. It tastes good but it rots their teeth and provides no real spiritual nourishment.
RickB,
Your “list” is not exactly organized. In looking at it, I am not sure what you are comparing. The question is “does the BOM contradict the Bible.” Your list is not addressing directly that question. Are you comparing LDS theology to the BOM? Or LDS theology to the Bible? It is not clear at all.
That is why I asked you to pick one way you think the BOM contradicts the Bible.
Grindael,
You ask me “What are you getting at with Van Dam’s book?”
I am pointing out that the foremost non-LDS authority on the Urim and Thummim just happens to conclude that the U&T functioned just about exactly as Joseph Smith described.
Despite this, people like falcon will continue to make statements about Joseph and the “peep stone.” The statements from such critics are uneducated, not informed by modern scholarship (or any scholarship for that matter).
It may be just Van Dam’s opinion, but his is likely the most informed opinion on the planet- and he is not LDS.
That is my point.
The sad part is, OJ said he teaches from the BoM every Sunday and he told us MORMON DOCTRINE is in the BoM. He accused someone of claiming it was not in their when it was. I called him on it and now he did as I said, left the building.
Unless he provides it that makes him a liar. OJ, are you a liar? Rick b
RickB,
You ask if I am a liar.
I ask you if you are a two-year old?
I will start over.
You said the following: “the BoM does Contradict the Bible…… I would be more than happy to provide problems.”
I simply asked you to be happy and show me the problems.
If you decline the offer, fine I will move on to your other “challenge.”
But my conclusion will be that you cannot show that the BOM contradicts the Bible.
Your choice.
OJ, to any rational thinking observer Rick did provide you with contradictions and problems. You did just as he said you would do. You refused to reconcile the opposing doctrines, made a “Janet”-like excuse about him using the shotgun approach, blah blah blah. Pick one and go with it Jim. Rick isn’t asking you for a BYU dissertation on every concept he presented, to which he provided scriptural references. Your answer, “It’s not that I can’t answer your question, Rick, it’s that I can’t figure out what you are asking. Are you asking if LDS doctrine contradicts the BoM or the bible?? Here’s the answer Jimmy: LDS doctrine contradicts both. Now refute the assertion. It shouldn’t be that hard for someone filled with the Holy Spirit and temple-endowed knowledge. The problem is that there is not systematic theology in Mormonism because it can’t exist amongst the confusion. Was Joseph Smith right about the nature of God in the BoM, or in the KFD and his doctrinal teachings? Is God One existing in the form of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit like the witnesses attested to, or are there three gods? Or maybe it’s like Alma 11:28 says and Jesus is the Father? How about 3 Nephi 1:14. That passage doesn’t even make any sense! Who is speaking there? Jedi mind trick time, huh? “There is no contradiction here. There is contradiction between the bible, the book of Mormon, and the teachings of the modern LDS church. Look away little sheep. Here come the Christian wolves.”
Ya’ll are really being tough on Mr. Jim. Asking for a specific answer to a specific question…
Seriously, I would LOVE to see him, or any Mormon address these things head on. But they don’t. They may think they do, as Jim seems to be trying for an angle to be able to do so.
Alas. I look forward to watching what happens next.
Jim,
What is ‘informed’ opinion? It is all actually ‘informed’ speculation because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN THE BIBLE. So again, and I don’t see any Mormons admitting it, there is no basis for tying Smith’s stones to the Urim & Thummim, it is a just a Mormon fantasy. And my ‘proof’ is that Smith had to go back and CHANGE a revelation and INSERT the words urim and thimmim in it to try and deceive people into thinking so. Any comments on that?
Olsen-
I am still waiting for you to tell me why the supposed restored church has not restored anything from the early church? Seems you have moved on and ignored my questions like every Mormon I have ever proposed the question to. I will take that to mean that you have no answer.
I was going to keep out of this discussion but decided to put my 2 bobs worth in.
In all fairness to Olsen Jim, the ‘contradictions’ that RickB wrote are from LDS doctrine OUTSIDE of the BoM. All the scriptures he gives from the BoM are under the title he provided as being in agreement with the Bible. Olsen Jim is asking specifically about where the BoM contradicts the Bible, not where LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible.
For example RickB wrote –
Let’s start with God or gods.
Mormon Doctrine Teaches: There is more than one God.
Mormon Doctrine pg 576-577
Teachings pg 370.
Mormon scripture says there is only one God.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:19,28
Alma 11:21-41
2 Nephi 31:21
3 Nephi 31:21
Final line of the testmony of three witness in Book of Mormon.
A of F.1
Bible teaches there is only one God.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39 6:4
Exodus 34:14
Isaiah 42:8 43:10-11 44:6,8 45:14,18,21,22,23 46:5,9 48:11,12
John 10:30
1 John 5:7,
James 2:19
All of the BoM references (in bold) are in agreement with the Bible here. It is the ‘other’ LDS doctrine that differs. The same is with the rest of the examples RickB gives. So RickB, Olsen Jim is just asking you to clarify where the BoM contradicts the Bible NOT LDS DOCTRINE.
The other question asked is where can LDS doctrine be found in the BoM.
3 Nephi 11:31-39
messianic,
Sorry.
If you haven’t noticed, for every one question I ask, I am asked 10-20 questions. It makes it a little tight in fitting much in. Then I am accused of not answering every question. Sometimes I really question the value of this forum.
What has the restored church restored?
1. Correct concept of Godhead
2. Priesthood Authority
3. Church organization with 12 apostles, seventy, bishops, etc.
4. Correct concept of pre-earth life and post-mortal life, including the spirit world.
5. Understanding of the depth and breadth of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
6. Restored scriptures including Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as well as Book of Abraham. Joseph’s text from Abraham, Enoch, and Joseph interestingly agree with ancient extra-biblical traditions and writings on all of these characters in key, fundamental elements.
7. Restored the complete blessings of the temple including endowment and sealing ordinances as well as baptism for the dead, making them available for those who are dead.
8. Restored the knowledge of the covenants between God and the House of Israel.
9. Restored the understanding of the role of the House of Israel in the work of the Lord.
10. Restored the understanding of the role of the mellenium- the 1000 year period of peace.
Could go on and on, but these are the big ones in my opinion.
OJ, I am out of town till Sat night, so I dont have much time on the computer, so I will get you something later. But for now you said to messianic that he cannot say Mormon Doctrine is not taught in the BoM when It clearly is. I asked you to give us Mormon doctrine from the BoM since you claimed it was taught in the BoM and you teach it every Sunday. So give it to us and we will start from their. Rick b
I couldn’t help notice OJ’s list of “restored” things and thinking if they were “restorations” in the normal sense of the word…
…so, Jesus and his followers were polytheists? No.
…like the temple-cult of the Pharisees, maybe? No.
…so having the “right” organizational structure guarantees the Kingdom of God? That’s Pharisee-thinking (again). The NT was written as an objection to this mind-set
…and the Bible is FULL of this pre-mortal existance stuff? No. No
…except that Mormonism reduces it to the smallest dimensions conceivable. Let’s see how broad this understanding is by asking if Mormons know the difference between expiation and propitiation, and why it matters.
…if I read something that agreed with the paganism of Egypt, I wouldn’t treat it as the Word of God (even if it was authentic, and those “scriptures” are plainly not).
…”He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Matt 22:32, but I guess the dead don’t protest as much as the living at being subjected to religious rites by proxy. No.
…ctd…
…ctd…
…but every time you talk about initiating a covenant with God, you get it wrong. Obscuring the knowledge of the covenants, yes. Restoring knowledge, no.
…sounds religious. So, if I am a physical descendant of Abraham and I am circumcised, that makes me an heir of the promise, does it? No (except substitute in “paid up member of SLC LDS for the breeding and circumcision bits).
…funny, those ideas were being circulated all around North America in the decades before Joseph came onto the scene. So, did he “restore” them? No.
The biggest problem with the “restoration” thing is that in order to restore something, it had to be there in the first place.
There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that the First Christians believed anything that remotely resembles these “restored” ideas of Mormonism, and MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE that they did everything they could to oppose them.
What? Afraid to look, in case you might not like what you find? What scares you more, finding that you might be wrong, or facing a God who is Light, in whom there is no darkness at all (John 1:5), before whom ALL the books will be opened (Rev 20:12), from whom there is nowhere to hide (Rev 6:18-19)
Sharon asked
Silly Sharon, the “gospel” according to Mormonism is Joseph Smith.
Where would we be if it were not for his “restorations”, “revelations” and the Church that he “organized”? Wait, are we talking, FLDS, LDS, Community of Christ, Strangites etc etc etc?. Ah, the divergent paths of the restoration. Well at least now I have a bewildering range of organizations to choose from, and they are all the ONE TRUE CHURCH of the restoration. I can’t miss!
No thanks. God has blessed me with every blessing IN CHRIST (Eph 1:3). I think I’ll stick with him, and I won’t swap him out for a 19th Century Quack Prophet.
OJ, You said that the BoM teaches mormon doctrine and you teach this doctrine every Sunday, are you going to tell us what it is, or did you lie?
Now, these are not contradictions between the Bible and BoM, but these are major doctrinal changes that I thought others might need to be aware of if they never saw them.
Rick b
messianic
Acts
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
How do you explain this passage with your beliefs?
Olsen-
Unfortunately you did not answer my question. I asked why the LDS claim to have restored the practices and beliefs of the early church when they still practice much of the corruption that was introduced by the Catholic church? You gave me a list of what the LDS consider restored points. Unfortunately these things are not in the Bible and furthermore the things that are clearly in the Bible, which I have mentioned already, have not been restored by the LDS church. I just comented on a few of the points you sent. I think Martin did a great job at responding on most of them.
What has the restored church restored?
1. Correct concept of Godhead
If this were the case I would think that the LDs restored idea would include the ‘oneness’ of God that the Jews held to throughout the history of Judaism all the way back to the Torah! This is one of the reasons Jews today even have a hard time with the Ev. Chrisitanity. I think this is from a misunderstanding of the concept of the Trinity. Mormons have no excuse, they blatently say that there is more than one god, which is not supported by the Torah!
2. Priesthood Authority
To who? The authority the LDS church gives is not theirs to give. They are not the decendents of Levi and if they were truly entering God’s Temple when they enter LDS pagan temples they would be struck dead for claiming such a priesthood authority which the Torah strictly limits to the direct decendents of Aaron! And furthermore a reading of Hebrews clears this whole idea up. The Levitical priesthood is rendered obsolete and replaced with the higher priesthood, the Melkizedek priesthood, which is held by Jesus alone! He is our High Priest. As for this Higher Priesthood being an order, the question is an order from whom? I believe that the Melkizedek we see in Genesis was Jesus pre-incarnate, I know there are other views on this, but this is how I read the text.
cont…
At any rate the Aaronic priesthood should not even be in existence according to Hebrews. The whole subject of Hebrews is the priesthood. Note that the word covenant that most Christians use to claim that the New covenant makes the old obsolete is not even in the original manuscripts. (for those that don’t believe me check it out, in most KJV and NASB bibles it is italicized, this means it was added by the translators) The subject is the priesthood, not the covenants!
3. Church organization with 12 apostles, seventy, bishops, etc.
Except there were more than 12 called apostles in the NT and you have the order wrong, it should be apostles and then prophets if you want to get technical.
7. Restored the complete blessings of the temple including endowment and sealing ordinances as well as baptism for the dead, making them available for those who are dead.
You do realize the ordinances in the temple come directly from the Masons who stole it from the pagans right?
8. Restored the knowledge of the covenants between God and the House of Israel.
If the covenants were restored they should have contained the elements of the original covenants, again the LDs church is missing these elements. Where is the 7th day Sabbath, where are the festivals that are commanded forever?
9. Restored the understanding of the role of the House of Israel in the work of the Lord.
But nothng the LDS do resemble that which was done before!
So again I will ask. Why don’t the LDS practice the Sabbath on the 7th day like the early church? Why don’t the celebrate the Feasts that were commanded by God forever and were celebrated throughout the NT by the early church? Why do the LDS eat pork without guilt when it is rendered unclean by God? And why do the participate in all of the paganism that has been intermingled into the church by the early Catholic church and adopted by the Ev. as well? Looks to me like nothing was restored, instead it was all reinvented or borrowed from paganism!
Okie-
Great question and one of the first I had myself when studying Messianic thinking.
The key is in verse 21 and an understanding of the culture of the time.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
First, the issue at the Jerusalem Council was that some were insisting that new Gentile believers had to go through a conversion process that was in place within Judaism in order to be saved. the process included a Mikvah(baptism), circumcision and and adherence to all of the commandments. All of this had to be done before they could be considered saved. This was false teaching and that is why it was addressed.
While all of those things are commanded in Torah, they never have been required for salvation. It has always been(even in the OT) that one was saved by faith in the God of Abraham which leads to obedience out of gratitude and love. You can search the scriptures and you will not find anywhere a stipulation on salvation stating that you must adhere to a conversion process.
So that was the issue at hand. Now they had a lot of previously pagan gentiles coming to the God of Abraham through Christ and they had to figure out how to deal with this. The fours specific stipulations put on them were precisely the same things that were being done in the pagan temples that they just had come out of. So they are being told to flee from paganism and then we get verse 21. What are they to flee to? The synagogue to learn Moses(or the Torah. They were given grace to live out their faith. This is a great lesson today still. We should not expect a new believer to adhere to all of the standards God puts forth immediately. They are saved by their faith and as they live out their faith and learn God’s ways they will begin to follow them slowly step by step. But, they should follow them as they learn.
cont…
The Christian church today has taken this passage and misinterpreted in greatly to mean Gentiles don’t have to do anything. Do you really think that the four things put forth here are the only things a Gentile should do? How about murder, stealing, lying etc…
I hope this helps you understand my position, and I would be happy to discuss it further with you through email, [email protected]. But, I am not on here to cause contention within Christians so I don’t want to turn this into a debate on the Messianic movement. Search it out, there really are answers to all the questions.
Greetings all…haven’t posted on here in ages. Been spending time battling the Watchtower and it’s very obnoxious defenders. Anywho the EVs and the LDS seems to always disagree on the grace/works issue and I ran across a rather nice quote from Dallas Willard. Thought I would share it…
“Grace is not opposed to effort. It is opposed to earning. Effort is action. Earning is attitude.”
Blessings to all!!
messianic,
1. Concept of Godhead: In discussing this, I recognize that people have been wrestling with these concepts for millennia. Therefore, I will not make light of your position or speak to you as if you are an idiot, which you clearly are not. And I will say up front that I understand why you believe what you do based on selected passages. I simply disagree and think the cumulative evidence is on my side.
I can offer plenty of argument and rationale for an interpretation of the Biblical texts that recognizes more than one god (and I don’t mean idols and earthly relics). And I am not alone. John Hamblin pointed out that nearly all mainstream academic books published since the early 1970s addressing the topic of Psalms 82 (central to this debate) agree with the concept of multiple deities. These include:
Broadman (1971)
New Century (1972)
Anchor (1970s?)
Cambridge (1977)
Kraus (1978)
New Jerome (1990)
Word (1990)
Expositors (Zondervan, 1991)
Interpretation (1994)
New Interpreters (1996)
Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996)
As additional evidences emerge from Ebla, the Canaanite sites, and elsewhere in the Near East, the trend is absolutely toward the theology of more than one god, yet one God for Israel.
Consider Gen 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The Hebrew word for “image” is more like similarity, not an abstract relationship- the same words are used to describe the similarity between Adam and Seth.
The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5 (70-135 A.D.) says of this passage: “He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,” understand how it was that He endured to suffer at the hand of men. “
Or Gen 3:22 “the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”
Or Psalms 82:1 “GOD standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.”
Then there is the baptism of Christ. There is John 17 wherein Christ asks the Father that His disciples may “be one as we are one.” There is Christ on the cross asking “why hast thou forsaken me.”
How about when Christ said to Mary “touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father in heaven?”
Or Christ praying to the Father. Or Christ referring to God as my “Father” and “my God.”
Christ is the “mediator”- there must be two other parties of which Christ is not.
Stephen saw Christ on the “right hand of the Father.”
You of course will cite verses that say there is only one God. But you must understand my position:
I recognize those in the Godhead as God and Gods. Beside them, there are no other. That has real meaning. But the insistence upon very narrow defintions that do not consider other possible meanings seems too simplistic, especially when you consider the esoteric and abstract definitions that come into play when describing the trinity. I recognize that there are in reality other gods- others who have partaken of the divine nature and become as God, inheriting all that He has just as the Bible states. But Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the “God” that I follow, recognize, and worship and upon whom I trust for salvation. There is no other beside them.
Consider Origens words:
“Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.” Commentary on the Gospel of John.
More later- I gotta run.
Jim answered Sharon’s question:
“Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it. For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, either of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice….And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.” Alma 34
He same plain explanation could be quoted from a hundred different places in the BOM.”
So, Jim, the LDS gospel is Jesus “plus” baptism?
What, then, was restored? And since when is that the LDS gospel?
Ralph,
I quote
“In all fairness to Olsen Jim, the ‘contradictions’ that RickB wrote are from LDS doctrine OUTSIDE of the BoM. All the scriptures he gives from the BoM are under the title he provided as being in agreement with the Bible. Olsen Jim is asking specifically about where the BoM contradicts the Bible, not where LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible.
For example RickB wrote –
Let’s start with God or gods.
Mormon Doctrine Teaches: There is more than one God.
Mormon Doctrine pg 576-577
Teachings pg 370.
Mormon scripture says there is only one God.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:19,28
Alma 11:21-41
2 Nephi 31:21
3 Nephi 31:21
Final line of the testmony of three witness in Book of Mormon.
A of F.1
Bible teaches there is only one God.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39 6:4
Exodus 34:14
Isaiah 42:8 43:10-11 44:6,8 45:14,18,21,22,23 46:5,9 48:11,12
John 10:30
1 John 5:7,
James 2:19
All of the BoM references (in bold) are in agreement with the Bible here. It is the ‘other’ LDS doctrine that differs.”
.
Ralph, did you notice what you said here? What are you going to do with the fact that the BoM is in agreement with the Bible that there is only ONE GOD?
olsen jim quotes Origen, presumably to demonstrate that Origen promulgated a Mormon view of Christianity.
I just refreshed myself by reading up on Origen on wikipedia. It seems that Origen held to view of Christianity that would be generally affirmed by modern “orthodox” Evengelicalism. However, some of his views would be considered contentious today, as they were in his day, namely “… the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity” (Wikipedia). I understand that the first of these hetero-orthodox views do, in fact align with Mormon orthodoxy, though I can see Mormons objecting to the third.
We could debate whether Origen’s hetero-orthodox views had some merit (and we should not ignore his orthodox views in the process, e.g. “…The Logos (and the Holy Spirit also) however, does share in the divinity of God.” Wikipedia).
However, there’s the problem of the Great Apostasy, as setfree and messianic have both noticed.
If olsen jim wants to align Mormonism with Origenism, fair enough. BUT if the central tenets of Mormonism were promulgated by a third century theologian (and let’s not forget that Origen is well into the period in which the “…Gospel had been driven from the earth” Talmadge) what, exactly, did Joseph Smith restore?
OJ, I’m still waiting for you to share with us where the Doctrine in the BoM is, when I asked you if you lied, you got upset, I asked if you lied because you said it was in the Book and you teach it every Sunday, now your not answering, so again I ask, Are you lying?
Also when I said the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, you claim it does not, so let me ask this, If I said the D and C and the Pearl both contradict the Bible would you say, no they do not, or would you say they do? I will get you the info I was telling you about, it might be a few days But I will get it. I just got home from being out of state for the weekend and have a huge project due for school Monday. Rick b