In the early 1500’s, a man named Martin Luther figured out something important — the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was a devout member, was abusing its power. Among other things, the church was selling — for money — forgiveness and passes to heaven.
Luther could see that the Church was in error because Luther had thoroughly studied the Holy Bible.
In Luther’s day, the Catholic lay-people knew little of what was in the Bible. The Catholic clergy used a Bible written in Latin, a language that the common people did not speak or read. The clergy, by keeping the Bible to themselves in this way, were free to misinterpret the holy book to their own benefit — and thus they did.
In an attempt to end the wrongful practices of the Church upon the people, Luther himself translated the Bible into German. Though he did not, at the time, particularly agree that a few of the books belonged in the Bible, he did not presume to add to, nor take away from, the Bible as it was. He translated God’s Word, making it accessible to the masses.
Skip ahead three centuries. In the early 1800’s, a man named Joseph Smith produced a book called the Book of Mormon, which condemned the Catholic Church for its errors, calling it the “great and abominable church”. It should be understood that the “Reformation”, a movement that had started with Martin Luther, would have been widely recognized by Smith’s day.
This is a good time to add just a little more information about the Reformation. According to Theopedia.com,
“The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:
* Sole authority of Scripture,
* Justification by faith alone, and
* Priesthood of the believer. ”
In other words, in the view of the Reformers (who had read and studied the Bible for themselves), where the Catholic Church was most errant was in
1- Going above/around the Bible for spiritual/religious doctrine
2- Teaching that justification had more requirements than faith in Christ
3- Claiming exclusive “priesthood” for the religious elite, rather than for each born-again believer (1 Peter 2:9).
Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon claimed that the Catholic Church had erred by taking many “plain and precious truths” from the Bible, and that he was the one to restore those truths. This post is not going to address his work on the Bible, other than to state that it is easy to prove that what Joseph “restored” came from his creative imagination and desire to prove himself a prophet.
The question for this post is, given that Mormonism in its inception considered the Catholic Church to be the church of the devil (or at least the main face of said church), why has it done the exact same thing?
Specifically:
1- The Mormon Church claims that there is authority over and above the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (all produced by Joseph Smith), and the teachings of the LDS authority figures.
2- The Mormon Church has added to faith many other requirements.
3- The Mormon Church teaches that priesthood is only for worthy LDS male members.
The Catholic Church was able to keep its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
Martin Luther, by exposing people to the biblical gospel and making the Bible more accessible, freed people financially, emotionally, and spiritually from the religious wrong-doings of the Roman Catholic religion.
The Mormon Church keeps its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
The LDS have the Bible in their homes, in their own language. But their religion still keeps the Bible truth out of their minds and hearts in at least five ways:
1- The LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted (cf. the 8th Article of Faith).
2- The LDS religion has created and taught new definitions for terms in the Bible, so that when a Mormon reads the Bible, s/he is confused. Some examples of this are the teachings a) that there are two God the Father’s (one above the other), b )that “salvation” equals universal resurrection by grace, distinguished from exaltation by works/merit, and c) that ‘priesthood’ is an authority or power that gets handed down from one faithful (to the church) Mormon man to another.
3- The LDS religion emphasizes Book of Mormon reading over Bible reading. The Book of Mormon contains plagiarized sections of the KJV Bible, with minor wording removed or inserted. It contains Bible stories with new character names and reworked story details. It also contains separated and recombined Bible passages. Because a Mormon is typically more familiar with the Book of Mormon than the Bible, Bible comprehension is negatively affected by the reader’s Book-of-Mormon ‘lenses’.
4- The LDS religion has an official version of the Bible, the KJV. The King James Version, written in Old English, contains uncommon words and phrasing. More modern Bible translations, such as the NKJV or the NASB, are much more easily understood by the modern reader.
5- The LDS Bible comes with chapter headings. These headings look like they are brief overviews of each chapter. However, they are really used to promote Bible-contrary LDS church doctrine. For instance, the chapter heading for 1 Corinthians 8 teaches that there are many real gods, just as Joseph Smith did from this same piece of scripture.
I was a Mormon. Like Martin Luther, I’m protesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is keeping their members away from a knowledge of the truth of the Bible. My efforts, and those of people like me, will probably not bring the Mormon Church to its knees. But my prayer is that many Mormons will still find the Bible, and because of it, be freed from Mormonism and saved into the Life of Jesus Christ.
I’ve been removed from this blog for quite some time. I do check back often … interested in the new topics posted. What I cannot get over, as a former “Mormon” who had his name removed from church records, is the rhetoric from the same “Mormon” posters. Can we not get back to the historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence at bay? Your comments lend no credence. When you quit thinking with your emotion and (instead) with fact, which, by the way, cannot be substantiated with feeling, then you should post. Then and only then. This is RIDICULOUS! J.Smeezy (Joseph Smith) was a charlatan, a con-man, and … well, I digress. You know? I think I’m going to buy an Egyptian funeral text and let my 5 year old depict scripture for a new religion (by drawing in missing script). I’ll get back to you guys and let you know what he draws … he just got finished. Spongebob will now be in the B of M II. Full-featured length film to follow …
Jacob5,
You are making the claim of direct revelation that you are receiving from the Mormon god and by extention how super duper spiritual you are and how these revelations and the accompanying feelings are superior to facts. Well Joseph Smith said men lived on the moon and Young said men lived on the sun and they also claimed revelation from the Mormon god. I don’t care if your church teaches it as doctrine. That’s just a big Mormon dodge. These guys were idiots and you follow them! Man, when’s the light going to go on in your head?
You’re not getting any revelation except from the same source as the false prophets of the OT for whom it was said that they were prophesying out of their own imaginations. The minute you signed on to give yourself over to the spirit of Mormonism, any “revelation” you think you’re receiving is not from the God of the Bible.
I’ve got to remind myself of what jackg keeps telling me about the Mormon mindset and how he was once there. There is hope for you, but you need to get a grip, soon!
Setfree,
Is that the best you can come up with? It is “provable”. So the justification of Thomas was it. That was all; nothing more. Then please reconcile the rest “blessed are they that have not scene, and yet have believed.” Is that provable too? It certainly doesn’t fit in to all this talk of evidence that is necessary to give you a firm belief in the Bible. Yet we ascribe our faith to the Bible beyond any of your geographical evidence. Am I blessed or cursed? If you say cursed, does that not contradict the scripture? If you say blessed then does that not contradict your statements? Or do I simply need my provabality just as Thomas?
As far as your take on the 1st Corinthians 8 issue. Come on you have to better than that. You are using a chapter heading as trying to establish that we believe in multiple gods. A chapter heading. Oh no, we used the wrong verse to deliniate the entire meaning of a chapter that is only 13 verses long. This utterly horrible verse that says that there are many idols (“gods”) and there is only one true God and the only Lord is Jesus Christ. I am sure in your mind we got that wrong (of course that is just my OPINION of what you may think, but I guess opinion is the coin of this realm of debate). Maybe you can submit a letter to the ones responsible for this misrepresentation of scripture and have them change the heading to the next verse, because people might be confused about the “there is one Gode (The Father)” part. Could you tone down the rheteric and start coming up with substance. I have never heard that chapter or verse being used in the way you imply. If there is, please present the evidence.
June 16, 1844 (volume 6, History of the Church): Joseph Smith says: “‘I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods….Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all, but if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, “Away with him! Crucify him! crucify him!”‘
and on June 11, 1843 (volume 5): “There is much said about God and the Godhead. The scriptures say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us there is but one living and true God, and the heaven of heavens could not contain him; for he took the liberty to go into other heavens. The teachers of the day say that thy Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are all in one body and one God. Jesus prayed that those that the Father had given him out of the world might be made one in them, as they were one; [one in spirit, in mind, in purpose]. If I were to testify that the Christian world were wrong on this point, my testimony would be true.”
Jacob5, this is Joseph Smith using 1 Cor 8 to show that there is a plurality of gods
(i’ll get to your thomas thing tomorrow – gnight)
DID JOSEPH SMITH WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON?
Considering how Mormons who post here think the BOM is an inspired document, [without any historical proof at all] and it keeps coming up in post after post, I feel it necessary to shed some light on why Joseph Smith was the architect of the BOM, and that he may have had ‘help’ in writing it (and not from God).
To the Constant readers this is a question that Mormons will say is ‘no’ because of Smith’s background. This exercise will be a long and detailed refutation of that, and will be informative to Mormons and Non Mormons alike.
I start with B. H. Roberts, (who I will address in detail later):
“… [T]here is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency…
“Is this all sober history … or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, B.H. Roberts)
Mark Twain thought the BOM boring, childish & called it ‘chloroform in print’.
“The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity.
The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet. “ Mark Twain, Roughing It.
So much for literary criticisms. This shows that it was not such a great book that no man could not have written it, even Smith who was in his twenty’s when he did so. (more on this later also).
In fact, when the BOM was first published, he tried to sell the copyright to the BOM to a publishing company just like a regular book. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto for this purpose, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. (Comprehensive History of the Church Vol. 1 pp. 162-66).
The first edition of the BOM lists the author as Joseph Smith. Subsequent editions changed the term ‘author and proprietor’ to ‘translator’.
SMITH’S EARLY YEARS & EDUCATION
To show the fallacy that Smith could not have written the BOM himself, a little history of Smith is in order. When Smith was 7, he had a leg operation, here is part of the account by his mother:
“The principal surgeon, after a moment’s conversation, ordered cords to be brought to bind Joseph fast to a bedstead; but to this Joseph objected. The doctor, however, insisted that he must be confined, upon which Joseph said very decidedly, “No, doctor, I will not be bound, for I can bear the operation much better if I have my liberty.” “Then,” said Dr. Stone, “will you have some brandy?”…
“No,” exclaimed Joseph, “I will not touch one particle of liquor, neither will I be tied down; but I will tell you what I will do-
I will have my father sit on the bed and hold me in his arms, and then I will do whatever is necessary in order to have the bone taken out.” Looking at me, he said, “Mother I want you to leave the room, for I know you cannot bear to suffer so; father can stand it, but you have carried me so much, and watched over me so long, you are almost worn out.” Then looking up into my face, his eyes swimming in tears, he continued, “Now, mother, promise me that you will not stay, will you? The Lord will help me, and I shall get through with it.” (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches)
That manner of speech and control isn’t typical for a seven-year-old child. Even at such a young age, it shows Smith’s language & influence over those much older than he was.
Smith did have a limited education, but both his father and Hyrum worked as school teachers in the ‘off seasons’ of the farm. The Smith’s were not illiterate. Smith even went to high school when he was 20 years old in Harmony PA with the Stowell children. Smith was able to read and ponder scriptures. His parents were literate. He had access to books and newspapers. He even held a position as “exhorter” at a local church. Joseph’s mother wrote that they did not neglect the education of their children.
Smith, as quoted by his mother stated:
“I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meetings in two years, if you should go all the time.” (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches)
OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Is age a limitation to some people? Look at these examples:
*Song Yoo-geun: Physics prodigy who entered a university at age 8.
*Daniel Tammet: a British autistic who recounted pi to its 22,514th digit from memory.
*Tathagat Avatar Tulsi: Undergraduate degree at age 10
*Ruth Lawrence: Accepted to Oxford at age 11.
*Sho Yano: Started college at age 9 and graduated summa cum laude at age 12 from Loyola University.
*Frédéric Chopin: Concerts and polonaises at 7, well-known composer by 15.
*Ruth Gipps: Debut at 4 and first composition at age 8
*Morton Gould: Published composer at age 6.
*Lorin Maazel: Orchestra conductor at age 7.
*Camille Saint-Saëns: His first composition was before he turned 4.
*Michael Kearney: Several degrees with the first being earned at age 10.
*Bernini did the “Goat Amalthea” at the age of 10.
*Ernest Hemingway was in his early 20’s when he wrote The Sun Also Rises.
*The popular Eragon book series was written by Christopher Paolini. He started writing the first book in the series when he was 15.
*John Updike had stories published in the New Yorker before he was out of his teens.
*Leonardo da Vinci could write with the one hand and draw with the other simultaneously.
*The barely literate Wilson Rawls had been home schooled for only a few years. Later in his life he wrote the book Where the Red Fern Grows – a 35,000 word book in a three week period of feverish unpunctuated writing. His educated wife took the manuscript to straighten out his awful spelling and grammar. It has since gone on to become one the most widely read books in this country.
SMITH’S IMAGINATION
Mormons who limit Smith because of his age are disingenuous. The Book of Mormon took imagination and little literary ‘skill’ to write. Smith was well prepared from his study of the Bible and other sources along with his active imagination to write it. B. H. Roberts:
“One other subject remains to be considered in this division of the “study” here conducted, viz.-was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters-from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question.”
Then Roberts quotes Smith’s mother:
“From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every night evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study. During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.” (History of the Prophet Joseph, 1901 edition)
Roberts then makes this comment:
“It must be remembered that the above took place before the young prophet had received the plates of the Book of Mormon:
these were the evenings immediately following the first interviews with Moroni. Whence came his knowledge for these recitals of “the dress,” “the mode of the ancient inhabitants of America of traveling,” “the animals on which they rode,” “their cities,” “their buildings,” “their mode of warfare,” “their religious worship”? And all this given “with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them”? Whence indeed, since all this happened before even the second interview with Moroni had taken place, and between three and four years before the translation of the Book of Mormon began.”
Roberts then says that Smith must have gotten his ideas from books like Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews or “Josiah Priest’s book, The Wonders of Nature and Providence, published only twenty miles away, and it will have much to say about the Hebrew origin of the American Indian, and his advanced culture and civilization.” So, [rightly] continues Roberts:
“Whence comes the young prophet’s ability to give these descriptions “with as much ease as if he had spent his whole life” with these ancient inhabitants of America? Not from the Book of Mormon, which is, as yet, a sealed book to him; and surely not from Moroni, since he had had but one day and night of interviews with him, during which there had be several interviews, it is true, but these had been occupied with other subject matter than the things enumerated by Lucy Smith. These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare’s and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard’s.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, B.H. Roberts, pp 243-244.)
One of my reasons for these posts is that Mormons do not really know what B. H. Roberts wrote about the BOM and the impact it had on him. This quote by Thomas Ferguson is telling, and probably was the way Roberts really felt, regardless of what he said in public:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson felt that it was generally best for those who doubted the faith to keep their “mouth shut.” In a letter written Feb. 9, 1976, he gave this advice:
Roberts conclusions were quoted at the beginning of this part of my presentation. It has been adequately shown that Smith had the imagination and sources necessary to write the BOM and that others, (some much younger) have produced works of far more skill than Smith needed to write the BOM. Later, when it came time to write the BOM, Smith would use other ideas and incorporate them into his imaginative fantasies. There is much more evidence than I have presented here. I implore all Mormons to research for themselves if these things are true. Weigh Smith in the balance, as he said to do. You will find him wanting.
End of Part One
setfree,
Good article!
When I get time, I’ll go through more of the posts above.
I have studied reformation church history, and one thing I have noticed about the Protestant perspective is that it is heavily oriented toward doctrine. That’s not a bad thing of itself, but what often gets missed is how the Roman and Reformed churches used doctrine.
For example, as an intellectual excercise I could construct a theology that included indulgences (I’m not suggesting I could, nor that it would be sound). We could then discuss whether it had any ideological merit.
However, a more presssing issue would be “How do we raise funds to build St Peter’s Basilica in Rome?”, or how the outcome of the doctrine results in compulsory attendance at church, or the appropriation of a person’s resources in the name of religion.
What’s worse; bad doctrine, or doctrine that exploits and enslaves its followers? I’m inclined to believe that the two are inseperable.
That’s one reason why I firmly believe that the doctrine of unmerited grace in Jesus Christ, if understood and applied properly, is peerless in its liberation of its followers.
Col 2:8-14
The topic of this article is about Martin Luther and the Reformation. We know from Joseph Smith History 1:20 that Joseph didn’t think too highly of the Reformation and the theology that came forth more fully from it (reformed theology). Joseph tells mama Lucy that one thing for sure he did get from his trip to the woods is that:
“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
Joseph Smith would be a funny guy if what he said from his youthful nature trip to the woods ended there. However, we know that it didn’t. I have never read any accounts from the “first vision” where the Mormon god tells Joseph Smith anything specific regarding the Presbyterian Church. I think it’s safe to bet that Joseph Smith didn’t like the message of reformed theology: total depravity of the nature of man, doctrine of election, predestination, etc. That didn’t fit very well with his religion that he was hatching in his mind where man would be in control of his own program through “agency”. Man gets to choose first, then God can pick up the leftovers and scurry along behind mankind limping and floundering as man makes his decisions first with God not having providence first.
God chooses the elect first. Mankind only wished he played a part in the process of having his name put in the Lamb’s Book of Life. It’s hard for man to do that when the names were put in there before the creation of the world and mankind (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8; 17:8). Joseph Smith didn’t like the God as described in the Bible.
The Presbyterian Church would have been teaching reformed theology and that message was probably too convicting for the boy Joseph in his visions of false prophetic grandeur. If Lucy Smith would have had books by Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, John Calvin and other Puritan writers and reformers instead of magic books maybe little boy Joseph wouldn’t have gone off track spiritually. He had the Bible. He plagiarized it and wrote his own. No excuse – Rom 1:20.
Andy,
I think that may be one of the reasons why Smith wanted to join the Methodist Church…
When Joseph Lewis, who was twenty-one at the time (about a year and a half younger than Smith), learned of this act, he felt that Joseph’s manner of life rendered him unfit to be a member and told him either to “publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation.” Mr. Lewis gave further details about the incident a month after the first article appeared in the Amboy paper, and he wrote:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithmethodist.htm
Joseph Smith, “bleeding ghosts” lol lol, Wow, talk about a multi-dimensional renaissance man. grindael, thanks for sharing. I’ve never seen that one before.
What did the Reformers teach? The same doctrine the early church Fathers taught PRIOR to the Council of Nicea in 325.
THE DEITY OF CHRIST:
“Therefore, the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son” (Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching 2:1:47)
“There is one Physician who is possessed both flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, – even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 7)
“Christ [is] Lord, and God the Son of God…appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush…they call him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men; but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 128)
“The Word is God…the Word became flesh…the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man” (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 27)
“For the Son, being the power of God the Father, endued the temple of His own body again with life. Thus is He said to have been saved by the Father, as He stood in peril as a man, though by nature He is God, and Himself maintains the whole creation, visible and invisible, in a state of wellbeing.” (Hippolytus, On Genesis, Genesis 49:16-20)
“…our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Section 6)
Ex-Nihilo & Creation:
“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresis, Chapter 28)
“…the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying out these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made].” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 38, paragraph 3)
“First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being” (Origen, Origen De Principiis, Preface)
The Father is Spirit (not flesh and bones as Joseph Smith taught):
“For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding.” (Origen, De Principiis 4:28)
“Let no one, however, suppose that by this we affirm that some portion of the divinity of the Son of God was in Christ, and that the remaining portion was elsewhere or everywhere, which may be the opinion of those who are ignorant of the nature of an incorporeal and invisible essence. For it is impossible to speak of the parts of an incorporeal being, or to make any division of them” (Origen, De Principiis 4:31)
“For God, too, is a Spirit…Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled…that which has come forth out of God is at once and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence – in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth.” (Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 21)
“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, He is composed of no members and parts.” (Didymus, The Holy Spirit, Chapter 35)
The Trinity:
“I understand nothing else than the Trinity to be meant; for the third person is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14)
“…the Father and the Son are demonstrated to be distinct; I say distinct, but not separate…all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith” (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 11)
“…the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. ‘And she hath furnished her table;’ that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity” (Hippolytus, On Proverbs 9:1)
“Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught in many passages of Scripture…From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.” (Origen, De Principiis 1:3:2)
“For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.” (Origen, De Principiis 1:6:2)
“For as we acknowledge a God, and a Son, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, – the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 24)
So could the Mormon church use some reformation as the Catholic church went through at the “urging” of Martin Luther? Reformation won’t help Mormonism, only total repudiation of its doctrine, teaching, and practices by its members will do. The leadership will never reform the religion from which it draws its power.
The Mormon church hierarchy does make incremental changes, but it’s usually as a result of pressure being brought to bear by outside sources; polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, “sacred” rituals and even elements of the BoM including the introduction which was changed to reflect the reality of recent DNA evidence. It still does cost a member 10% of their income to buy their way into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and godhood. It’s a take off on selling indulgences.
So the Mormon leadership nibbles around the edges and occasionally when the pressure becomes too great they take a major bite out of their practices but the fact remains that Mormonism is at its heart a pagan religion that has more in common with folk magic cults than it does Christianity.
What Andy Watson has provided above from the writings of the Church Fathers is not something for surface level thinkers who want to merely skim over the information. These writings are something that we need to “soak” in because their meaning is profound. I find often when reading the writings of these early defenders of the faith, that I have to reread (the writings) several times, ponder the meaning and at times make sure I have the terms they use clearly defined in my mind.
Joseph Smith and his cronies couldn’t even rise to the level of amatuers when it comes to the deeper things of Scripture. They were so impressed with the idea that they were receiving “revelation” that any thought that came through their minds was to them some profundity right from the mouth of God. The fact of the matter is these dolts didn’t know if they were on foot or horse back when it came to theological matters. The success of these hacks in selling their speculative nonsense was due largely to the ignorance of their followers. For “prophets” like Smith and Co. its all about being able to speak with confidence and authority and seeming knowledge. Actually flim flam men like this don’t really need to know much because ignorance is part of their appeal. It’s like entertainment to those who only need spiritual candy.
Reformation in the Mormon church will only take place when the rank and file get enough confidence to actually study some original source work and quit taking the word of the Mormon leaders whose purpose is to perpetuate this scam in order to maintain their power, prestige and position. It’s all about preserving the institution. The retention rate and the actual resignation rate have risen significantly so in essence there are Mormons who are having their own private reformation everyday.
Retention is a major problem within Mormonism. As has been pointed out several times on this blog, two thirds of those on the rolls of the Mormon church are inactive. Now why is that? Why do people who supposedly have the “truth” and the pathway to Celestial godhood not care to be involved in the program?
I can only report what those who have been inside the Morg say because I don’t have first hand knowledge, but the legalistic system, the instilling of guilt and shame, and the impossible yoke of performance would be enough to discourage anyone from active participation. It’s part and parcel of cult operation to keep people so busy with church business that they have little or no time to themselves. It’s all about “doing” for the organization.
The statistics that reflect the social problems within the Mormon faithful give us a different picture than the sanitized version projected by the Mormon church. A reformation within Mormonism would not only have to address the doctrinal issues within the religion but the social problems that are created by the organization.
One of the things we hear exMos talk about is how they got their lives back after leaving the Mormon church. They are now free to grow and mature and expand both their intellectual as well as personal life without the pressure that comes with everyone being in everyone else’s business. The theme of Mormons not respecting the boundries of others within the sect is often discussed by those who left. I read an essay from an exMormon woman who had gone back to Salt Lake to visit relatives. She talked about being in Pioneer Park (I think that’s the name) and realizing all of the women there were dressed alike, wore their hair alike and pretty much were “alike”. I don’t know if it’s accurate but I even been told that their is a distinctive Mormon woman “voice” quality. Who knows but the point is that Mormonism is not only a religion but it is a distinctive culture and that reforming it would be a major task.
Andy,
Excellent posts. I have also found it interesting that Joseph Smith singled out Presbyterians for specific rebuke. I also have thought that the local Presbyterian Church near Smith must have been clearly articulating the gospel of salvation by grace through faith – completely apart from our works – and Smith found this particularly offensive. People want to make religion about them – their spiritual experiences, their striving for God, and from the religion of works that Smith came up with this was clearly his thinking. Both Calvin and Luther understood that salvation is about Jesus crucified for us, He draws us, He gives us faith, Jesus takes those spiritually DEAD and gives them LIFE. Reading through Scripture it is easy to understand this truth as it is there from beginning to end. When God’s people won the battle – who actually won? Repeatedly God shows that it is HE who wins the battle. Christ has won the battle over sin, death, and the devil for us. There is no other salvation or plan of progression – it’s all about Jesus.
Hey guys, our plugin for limiting daily comments is not working, so please self-police yourselves. Also, if you see that someone has gone over the 6 / day limit, please e-mail me at [email protected] and I will do my best to delete the overage.
Jacob5, Ralph, Jim, do any of you have any thoughts on the 1 Cor 8 thing? Why it’s not valid, or doesn’t matter or whatever? Can we talk about this?
Setfree,
I do not see it as promoting LDS doctrine. In the ‘Good News Bible’ (I have a copy at home) the chapter heading states “The Question About Food Offered to Idols”. Does that mean the Editors of this Bible are endorsing giving food to idols and saying that this chapter tells us how to do it?
All the chapter heading in the LDS Bible says is “There are gods many and lords many – To us there is one god (the Father) and one Lord, who is Christ”. Quoting straight from the chapter itself. This can mean that there are many things called gods and lords (note the lowercase initial letter) which are really not god and lord, but there is one God who is Heavenly Father, and one Lord who is Jesus Christ (note the uppercase initial letter).
So looking at both chapter headings, I see nothing pushing LDS doctrine in the chapter heading in the LDS Bible for that chapter.
Now I have addressed this point, are you now going to address points 1 and 3 which have been answered by a few of us now? Especially point 3 since we spend half the time in seminary, institute, Primary and Sunday school studying from the Bible, and a quarter of the time on the BoM, while you state that the BoM reading is pushed over reading the Bible.
Ralph, I think what set free has issue with is that other times that line has been used to proof text the doctrine of a steady and infinite stream of multiple celestial gods of other worlds and the status quo lds reponse to the question of polytheism that ‘we’ only answer to and worship one god and one lord (which to keep them as two seperate personages would in fact qualify still for polytheism but I digress)
Setfree, am I off base on this or do I understand the issue at hand (I’ve only been half following this entire thread to keep my blood pressure from skyrocketting everytime an LDS dodges a direct question and loudly proclaims whatever illogical rhetoric they have in the hopes that if they say it loud enough and with enough confidence someone will accept that they must know what they’re talking about and stop questioning them.)
So how good does a Christian have to be to get into heaven? We know that Mormons have to rise to and maintain a level of righteousness and do various “works related rituals” in order to become gods. So right off the bat we see a religion, Mormonism, that is polytheistic in nature and has as its primary goal, to become a god just like all of the other gods that went before them.
In Christianity, which unlike Mormonism, is a monotheistic religion, the goal of the believer is to “be with God” not to “be a god” (as is the case with polytheistic Mormonism).
Being raised Catholic, my impression was that Jesus’ death on the cross now made it possible for me to get into heaven if I was good enough and as a result died in a state of grace. The Catholic church developed a whole system designed specifically for a believer to self-monitor but even at that, whether someone was actually going to get into heaven was up for grabs. You just didn’t know. The system included different levels of sins, a venial sin was a lesser offense against God but a mortal sin was serious business. A mortal sin could be anything from deliberately missing mass on Sunday, eating meat on Friday or committing murder. If you made a sincere act of contrition and if you died before making it to confession, you wouldn’t go to hell but you couldn’t take communion until you went to confession, received absolution and did your penance. Anyway you’d have to go to purgatory and burn off the residual effects of your sins. That’s where indulgences and works came in that could be done on behalf of the deceased and get them out of purgatory sooner.
Mormonism is in that sense like the Catholic religion with an intricate system of “works” that are done to achieve a certain end. In Mormonism, of course, it’s to become a god. With Catholics, it’s to be with God. That’s where the trails part significantly.
So what does a Christian have to do to merit or maintain eternal life?
Rvales,
In the article above under number 5 setfree wrote “For instance, the chapter heading for 1 Corinthians 8 teaches that there are many real gods,”, So what she is saying is the the chapter heading is teaching the LDS doctrine. NOT that LDS members use it (ie the chapter) as ‘evidence’ for the existence of other gods and lords. I am refuting what she has said and I am saying that the heading is just quoting from the chapter. Otherwise, does the chapter heading for the same chapter in the Good News Bible indicate that the editor of that Bible believes in giving food to idols?
As far as your comment “the status quo lds reponse to the question of polytheism that ‘we’ only answer to and worship one god and one lord (which to keep them as two seperate personages would in fact qualify still for polytheism but I digress)” This is an exact quote from 1 Cor 8:6 – are you going to tell me that verse is also teaching polytheism?
That members use this chapter to try and prove from the Bible that it means there are more than one god in existence I am not refuting. I have seen it done, buｔ Ｉ ｈａｖｅ ｎｏｔ ｕｓｅｄ ｉｔ ｍｙｓｅｌｆ ａｓ Ｉ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ ｔｈａｔ ｉｔ ｃｌｅａｒｌｙ ｓｈｏｗｓ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｏｉｎｔ．
I pulled out my copies of the Baltimore Catechism that someone bought at a thrift sale and gave to me. I did have a phobic reaction but I’ve held on to them because there is a lot of interesting information and despite the flashbacks, it’s interesting to get an adult perspective. Anyway, in the front there is a listing of things that the Catholic could do to earn indulgences. For example three years’ indulgence could be earned for making the sign of the cross, seven years if it was done with holy water. Three years each could be earned for saying the act of faith, act of hope, act of love and an act of contrition. Ten years could be earned for saying the “Angelus” at dawn, noon and at eventide (or as soon after as possible). Five years could be earned for reciting the “Hail, Holy Queen”.
No telling what a top earner could do in a year’s time following this system. I don’t know if much emphasis is given to this system within the Catholic church any more. I do know that when I retired one of the devote Catholics on staff wrote me a card saying that she had my name mentioned in the daily mass. I’m not sure what that was all about but I’ll take all of the prayers I can get.
It seems that Mormonism created a type of a system much like that which Catholics, at least of my era, followed in terms of “earning” merit. I would imagine for a go-getter Mormon, the goal oriented achiever, having a system to follow with the reward of becoming a god must really be awesome. Too bad for the Mormon gal who is married to a slacker! But then again, I imagine that there are a lot of Mormons who handle the Mormon religion just like it was a rank and file church denomination. That is, they don’t get involved in the temple program and could care less about what goes on there. After all you can’t force someone to be a god if they don’t want to be. They do have a choice, right? A guy could choose to be great and get on the Mormon fast track to (Mormon) deification or not.
Where would you even start in reforming this mess of Mormonism? I think the whole deal should be scraped and the temples made into museums “honoring” the stupidity of man thinking he could become a god! Or like the high-places of the OT, torn down.
Ralph,
“That members use this chapter to try and prove from the Bible that it means there are more than one god in existence I am not refuting. I have seen it done, buｔ Ｉ hａｖｅ ｎｏｔ ｕｓｅｄ ｉｔ ｍｙｓｅｌｆ ａｓ Ｉ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ ｔｈａｔ ｉｔ ｃｌｅａｒｌｙ ｓｈｏｗｓ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｏｉｎｔ．”
Thank you Ralph, for affirming that some LDS use this chapter to try to prove other gods exist. Also, I’m glad to hear that you do not believe that the verse says that (am I right in my interpretation of what you said?)
My point is, that the LDS chapter heading reflects what Joseph Smith thought of those verses – and well it should, since he was the founding prophet of your religion.
Therefore, instead of “summing up” the chapter, for instance, the way the other church did by saying it’s a chapter about eating the food given to idols, your Bible has put in Joseph Smith’s erroneous thinking that the passage SUPPORTS THE PLURALITY OF GODS
In my mind, there are two problems here. One is that Joseph Smith took a passage out of its context to teach that he was right about there being many gods.
The other problem is that, because they believe the same way, and because they are following him as a prophet, your church has used the chapter heading as a place to push this LDS, contra-Bible, teaching.
I had a hard time reading the Bible as an LDS kid, and I’m sure many other people do. In many cases, I looked at their chapter heading to see what the chapter was about, before reading the chapter. Can you see that they use this to brain-wash?
What else are chapter headings for? Other than to briefly overview the chapter?
Can any one help me here? Is there anything else a chapter heading might be for, other than to 1- summarize the chapter briefly or 2 – pull out the chapter’s main points or 3- put into focus something the chapter-heading writer might want the reader to notice?
So the first “buy in” in Mormonism is for the missionary to lead the prospect to “feel” something emotionally and than to convince the (prospect) that the feeling is a confirmation from God that Mormonism is the real deal. Now once someone has bought into the concept that the emotional feeling is really a spiritual feeling and proof of a direct connection with God, then phase two of the conditioning process can begin.
It’s really a process of seduction into the Mormon cult. Mormons placate their conscience about this by using one of their mottos “milk before meat”.
Slowly then, through love bombing and by any other of the other well honed techniques that cults use, the novice is brought into the belief that they can become gods. Any doubts of this are explained away as bad feelings indicating that the “spirit” is not there and “Satan” is trying to deceive the person. It’s a total mind flip and a way to get someone comfortable with cognitive dissonance. There is a process of inoculation that goes on here to keep a person in the cult and away from any real serious inquiry and study.
People who leave Mormonism experience their own personal reformation, but phase one is to take back personal control from the corporate control (of the mind-controlling cult).
There’s nothing so exhilarating as the freedom someone experiences when they can walk in a newness of life, free from the burdens that legalistic religious systems place on them.
Martin Luther got that release in his study of the Book of Galatians. I believe it was Galatians 2:16 that gave him his release: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
The major difference for Luther of course was that he knew who God was and he (Luther) could see the Scriptures as a Christian.
falcon,
I appreciate your work out here, showing the important distinction that my post did not make. Which is that Mormonism believes that there are many gods – and this separates them from ever being Christian.
I was really hoping to focus more on the fact that it is the Bible, God’s Word in itself, that contains what is needed to set people free. Therefore, if there is someone who wants power over someone else, religiously, we can see from at least these two examples that an idea that works is to keep the Bible away from them in some way.
I know ex-Mormons who found Jesus simply by beginning to study the Bible in earnest (not out of an LDS manual). They studied the Bible, they heard what it was saying, and they left Mormonism for Jesus. The Bible opposes Mormonism, and vice versa. By keeping the Bible hidden, the way I described in my 5 points, the LDS church is able to oppose the Bible and the members don’t realize it.
Ralph.
In response to the idea that the church gives half of its study time to the Bible and only 1/4 to the Book of Mormon, there are two things. One, time-spent is one way, but clearly not the only way to determine if Mormonism favors the BofM over the Bible.
Two… the Book of Mormon is much shorter.
The Bible is broken into 1189 chapters.
The Book of Mormon has 239.
This means, if chapters are any where close in length, that the Bible is 5 times as long as the Book of Mormon.
Right there you can see, that if you were to really afford equal time, you would be spending 5 years on the Bible for every one year spent in the Book of Mormon.
Good morning everyone. Just wanted to share this with you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74CNUExD4I8
I don’t know if Martin Luther felt a “burning in the bosom” when he read Galatians 2:16 but my guess is that he had one of those “ah-ha” moments that comes with reading and understanding God’s Holy Word. At once, Luther saw that he couldn’t obtain righteousness and salvation by adherence to a religious system of justification by works. He saw that the only pathway before God to righteousness and hence eternal life, was through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul asks the Galatians what in the world they are thinking. Having begun in faith, they were now attempting to justify themselves through works and adherence to a religious systems of law.
I remember when I had my “ah-ha” experience of not only realizing there was a God but that He had made provision for me to know Him and spend eternity with him, but that what He was offering me was a free gift as a result of faith. God wants us to clearly know that there is nothing we can do to merit what it is He is offering. In doing what He is doing, God is demonstrating His love, mercy and compassion.
When Luther nailed his paper to the door of the church, he was striking a blow for freedom. He was declaring what God’s Word had taught him and that was if the Son shall make you free you are free indeed! Free! Think of it! Free from the tyranny of the Law, which while sacred, sought to condemn us and teach us that we could never get ourselves worthy enough to obtain God’s favor.
I, like Luther, came to a place in my spiritual life where I knew that God had made provision for me through the cross of Jesus Christ. That God gave His life for me that I might spend eternity with Him; not as a result of anything I could do, but because of what He did for me. The life I now lead is in gratitude to God and I want to conform my life to His standards. I know, that despite my best efforts, I will always fall short of the mark. But praise be to God who continually cleanses me from all of my unrighteousness through the Blood of His Son.
Setting setfree straight: a critical commentary on the polemical creed attributed to the Mormon faith:
He states: The question for this post is, given that Mormonism in its inception considered the Catholic Church to be the church of the devil (or at least the main face of said church), why has it done the exact same thing?
Specifically:
1- The Mormon Church claims that there is authority over and above the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (all produced by Joseph Smith), and the teachings of the LDS authority figures.
Answer: because the Bible itself (and these other scriptures) never establish for themselves that kind of authority. Paul several times clearly emphasized that continued authority in Christ’s church was not to be found in the Law (Torah/Tanahk), but in Christ’s chosen Apostles. The New Testament was far from being “canonized” at the time, so all who claim the Bible (as defined by Nicaea or by Luther?) as final authority are in a bit of a logical dilemma.
As Christ clearly established to the Nephites, his followers are to be built upon the baptismal covenant of water baptism in his name. Does the New Testament not say the same?
2- The Mormon Church has added to faith many other requirements.
Answer: I can only begin to speculate on all what you mean here. Mormon faith teaches that baptized Christians must be faithful to Christ’s truth to be found worthy of the Father’s glory at Final Judgment (by Jesus’ eternal and gracious standard, of course). If that is what you’re getting at, then, Yes, I agree.
3- The Mormon Church teaches that priesthood is only for worthy LDS male members.
The Catholic Church was able to keep its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
Martin Luther, by exposing people to the biblical gospel and making the Bible more accessible, freed people financially, emotionally, and spiritually from the religious wrong-doings of the Roman Catholic religion.
The male-ordained priesthood of the Catholic church presented to Luther one of his greatest challenges. To rebel against it was to forfeit one’s authority and salvation in one sweep—and the authority and salvation of all your followers. His solutions, however essential, were quite limited: (1) he could claim God had called him as were Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter; or, (2) he could propose a doctrine that nullified the male priesthood—a theological staple claimed by all pre-medieval Jewish and Christian groups with the exception of Marcion the Heretic (as far as we know, anyway). And so we get Luther’s doctrine of the ‘Priesthood of all believers,’ which, of all Luther’s foundational tenets, is generally conceded to be the one with the weakest biblical literary justification (imaginative, or otherwise). Yet it’s the bread-n-butter of Protestantism. Calvin would’ve gotten nowhere without it.
The Mormon Church keeps its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
The LDS have the Bible in their homes, in their own language. But their religion still keeps the Bible truth out of their minds and hearts in at least five ways:
1- The LDS religion insists that the Bible cannot be trusted (cf. the 8th Article of Faith). Cannot be trusted to do what? To be the final word of God to man?
Answer: Yes, the Bible cannot be trusted to do that, because, as I said, it never claims to be trusted in that way. (Please, please don’t throw at me the Bk of Revelation argument. Hopefully we all know that is unwise.) But that being so, the issue of the Bible’s place as ultimate authority is not settled in the least by the 8th AofF, which establishes “the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Really, there should be no Protestant quibble in that statement whatsoever.
2- The LDS religion has created and taught new definitions for terms in the Bible, so that when a Mormon reads the Bible, s/he is confused. Some examples of this are the teachings a) that there are two God the Father’s (one above the other), b )that “salvation” equals universal resurrection by grace, distinguished from exaltation by works/merit, and c) that ‘priesthood’ is an authority or power that gets handed down from one faithful (to the church) Mormon man to another.
Answer:
(a) As a former Mormon you should be ashamed of your shallow simplicity here, setfree. How Mormon were you? “Two God the Father’s (one above the other)”? If you’re talking about the Son of God’s role as advocate and agent of the Father, then I hope we’re not claiming that Christ has no such role, are we? Are we claiming that the New Testament does not claim that the Son was, and yet will be, subject to his Father in heaven? If you mean something else, then you really should qualify your shady statement better.
(b) Mormons do not believe that the word “salvation” as it appears in the New Testament always or even typically refers to the universal resurrection of humanity. And we do NOT believe in “exaltation by works/merit.” As surely as all men and women are resurrected through the merits and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, so also, no man or woman will pass to the glory of the Father except through the same Lord of heaven and earth. We will be judged of our sins by Jesus Christ at the last day, and only by his word will we proceed to the Father. Righteousness (as deemed by Christ) is the key; not merit. Your creedal definition is the classical Evangelical criticism of Mormon theology, not the actual theology.
(c) As I said, male-ordained priesthood before the Middle Ages is the Christian (and Jewish) standard. Marcion the Heretic is the only exception we know of, from the 2nd century. (Even the Gnostics believed in male priesthood.) Truth is, by this criteria, Mormons would have been more welcome guests at the Nicene council than Protestants.
3- The LDS religion emphasizes Book of Mormon reading over Bible reading. The Book of Mormon contains plagiarized sections of the KJV Bible, with minor wording removed or inserted. […] Because a Mormon is typically more familiar with the Book of Mormon than the Bible, Bible comprehension is negatively affected by the reader’s Book-of-Mormon ‘lenses’.
Answer: Traditionally, Mormons read their Bible significantly more often than the Bk of Mormon. In fact, that trend didn’t change till the 1980s. But even still, the Bible is better read by lay Mormons than by the laity of any significant Evangelical group that I know. In my experience, it’s not even close.
The KJV Bible is the obvious biblical base text of the Bk of Mormon. No rational Mormon’s ever argued otherwise. The question is: If God had revealed his word in the 19th century, should He have used something other than the KJV when referencing the Biblical word? Many competent Christians have obviously accepted that God would have done just that. Sorry you disagree.
4- The LDS religion has an official version of the Bible, the KJV. The King James Version, written in Old English, contains uncommon words and phrasing. More modern Bible translations, such as the NKJV or the NASB, are much more easily understood by the modern reader.
Personally, that’s why I use a RSV Bible for my personal reading. (I find it interesting, setfree, that you have a quibble with the archaic usage of the KJV, but sight two modernized versions of outdated English Bible’s as being clearly better. Many Protestants would argue that you haven’t gone far enough. While the NKJV and NASB use more updated English than the KJV, neither is considered a highly critical linguistic rendition of the Hebrew and Greek text. In other words, the same type of argument could be thrown at the two cleaned-up “traditional” English Bible versions that you cite.)
5- The LDS Bible comes with chapter headings. These headings look like they are brief overviews of each chapter. However, they are really used to promote Bible-contrary LDS church doctrine. For instance, the chapter heading for 1 Corinthians 8 teaches that there are many real gods, just as Joseph Smith did from this same piece of scripture.
Since early in the Protestant Reformation, chapter headings have served this purpose to the various religious groups that promote their own publicized editions of the Bible. The same can be said of nearly all modern Bible-producing efforts. The LDS-produced KJV might be rather Mormon in its commentary, but the Good News Bible, for one, is blatantly Evangelical in both its commentary and its translation. Is that not the right of the Evangelicals that produce such a publication? Sorry, but your quibble here is against a long-standing Protestant and Christian tradition.
Set Free,
Interesting thread. Concerning your point about
chapter headings, what you said seems reasonable
to me.
I was loosely following the comments by our LDS
guests, and a few comments.
Concerning Bruce McConkie and his book, “Mormon
Doctrine”. Bruce shared with everyone who bought
his book what he thought about the Catholic Church
( and other churches). He was fond of passing on
the beliefs that he was taught from Mormon leaders
who came before him. He was asked to edit his book, not because he was wrong, but because
Pres.David O.Mckay received complaints from the
Catholic Bishop in Salt Lake City. It seems that
it was not a matter of doctrine, but of the tone
in which it was said etc. His son, Joseph McConkie
stated this. I’m sure that today’s Mormon leaders
hold beliefs similar to what McConkie penned in
his first edtion of Mormon Doctrine, but they keep
them quiet.
From the Journal of George Laub (1814-1880), who joined the Church in 1842:
The Plurality of Gods and the Different Worlds by Hyrum Smith
p.16 “Now I say unto you that there are lords many and gods many but to us there is but one God; the Father and Jesus Christ the First Begotten who is made equal with God so that He Himself is a God and now the work that the Father done did he do also and so there is a whole train or lineage of Gods and this world was created by faith and works the same as if a man would build an house. He knew where the materials were and he believed he could build or do the work of that building for he understood the science of building, and by faith He joined the work with His own hands and completed that building; the same way was this world by faith and works and by understanding the principle and it was made by the hands of God or gods.
p.16 – p.17 It was made of element, or in other words of chaos, it was in chaotic form from all eternity and will be to all eternity and again they held council together that they might roll this world into form as all other worlds are made showing you by the building of a house as a sample or a figure. And in my Fathers house are many mansions or in my Fathers world are many worlds; I will go and prepare a place for you. And then if there are many worlds then there must be many gods, for every star that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this world is peopled. The sun and the moon is inhabited and the stars (Jesus Christ is the light of the sun), the same as this earth but anyone of them are larger than this earth. And many that we cannot see without a telescope which are larger then this earth and they are under the same order as this earth is undergoing and undergone the same change.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/GLaub-A.html
Mantis,
“Answer:
(a) As a former Mormon you should be ashamed of your shallow simplicity here, setfree. How Mormon were you? “Two God the Father’s (one above the other)”? If you’re talking about the Son of God’s role as advocate and agent of the Father, then I hope we’re not claiming that Christ has no such role, are we? Are we claiming that the New Testament does not claim that the Son was, and yet will be, subject to his Father in heaven? If you mean something else, then you really should qualify your shady statement better.”
Thank you for pointing out that I needed to explain that better.
Go to this link: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=SCRIPTURES%2FSTUDYHELPS&query=Eternal+Father&bucket=Scriptures&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=
Scroll down to #6 and #7 (you can also see this by just flipping to the “Topical Guide” in your standard works.
Notice that there are two separate entries for “God the Father”. There’s “God the Father – Elohim” and “God the Father – Jehovah” The Topical Guide then proceeds to try to distinguish one God the Father from the other in scripture. Specifically, they point out that Elohim (as opposed to Jehovah) is the “father of all spirits” and also the “Most High God”. It’s a terrific starting place to see how Mormonism is false in this teaching.
if that link doesn’t work, you can just go to your topical guide, and look up “God the Father” to see there are two separate entries, or you can go to the search tool that comes up when you click the link above, then type in “God the Father”, and tell it to filter by “study helps” (which comes under the “Scriptures” filter choice on the right-hand side of the screen)
So what did Luther learn in the Book of Galatians that put him at odds with the Catholic church? Well first and foremost he learned that adhering to a religious system wasn’t going to get him or keep him saved. He asks the Galatians, for example: “….did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?’ The answer is obvious in that they received the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus. Paul goes on to tell them that no one is justified by the Law before God.
Paul tells them further that “no one is justified by the Law before God….Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us….in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Galatians is a marvelous book of the Bible and although Paul is speaking specifically of the Jewish Law/the Mosaic Law, I don’t think it would be a stretch to apply what he is saying in this context to legalistic type religious systems that promote (self)-righteousness through the adherence to a set of rules rather than a personal relationship with Christ.
A Mormon’s orientation is to becoming a god via adherence to a list of behavioral rules and a bunch of religious rituals. Within the context of a multiplicity of gods and the progressive nature of men into gods, the Bible isn’t of any use to a Mormon. In fact it would be a distraction. That’s why Joseph Smith had to pronounce the Bible corrupt and unreliable. The Bible is unreliable and useless to Mormons because it doesn’t support Joseph Smith’s ideas regarding the nature of God and the nature of man, as well as the eternal destiny of man with or without Christ.
As a made-up fable, Mormonism can go in any direction it sees fit. It’s pretty much an open forum with a doctrine that can change with a wave of the hand of the current prophet. The false hope of Mormonism keeps the individual Mormon in a deluded state.
Setting Mantis straight: a very brief polemic and apologetic response. Thank you for the BYU/FARMS insight on Setfree’s article. However, I find your analysis lacking historically and scripturally. Space doesn’t allow me here to respond line by line and neither does time. I am preparing for my class tomorrow morning where “hungry” ex-Mormons sit in front of me. We will be discussing 1 Cor 15:28 (one of the verses you referenced). Wish you could be there.
The Word of God (the Bible) is the final authority because it is the words of God – all of it in its entirety. See 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:16. The key word in Greek is “theopneustos” (θεόπνευστος) which means “God-breathed”. More references could be cited, but after the above stated, why the need? Only Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other non-Christian cults look at the Bible with a “nose-flick” view.
Nephites? You see, this is where credibility and attention span starts to drift dramatically by Christians who’ve done their homework. What Nephites? Where? How? When? Historical or archaeological proof that such a people existed? How is anyone outside of Mormonism supposed to take the so-called Nephite issue seriously when your own LDS museum has no artifacts of such a people? Ridiculous.
Mormon worthiness? You have none because your faith is in a false god supposedly living near/on Kolob. You have no freewill/agency. You are dead in your sins (Eph 2:1) and spiritually out of business – DOA – dead on arrival. No Christian will be able to put forth his/her own worthiness before God. It is disgusting in His sight – Isa 64:6.
You said: “And we do NOT believe in ‘exaltation by works/merit'”.
I guess there is a problem in “happy valley”. The Mormon leaders you are SUBJECTED to (General authorities) have a different view of things then the boys over at BYU/FARMS/FAIR who have no LDS authority in anything except in stating their own opinions which are meaningless in regards to doctrinal authority.
“WE MUST WORK FOR OUR OWN EXALTATION. I cannot imagine anything that is so vastly important as to WORK for and OBTAIN one’s own individual exaltation and glory. That undoubtedly is one great purpose for which we came into the world. When we lived in the other life we had no doubt some understanding with reference to our DUTIES in this life when we were permitted to come to this our second estate. And very likely we put ourselves under certain obligations that we would discharge certain duties devolving upon us when we came here into our second estate. And we had rendered ourselves worthy to come upon this earth for the purpose of securing those blessings that could only be obtained by observing the laws pertaining to our present estate.” (The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, page 95)
“It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings MUST BE EARNED.” (Thomas Monson, Ensign, May 1988, page 56)
“Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be FULLY EARNED.” (James Faust, Ensign, May 2003, page 62)
“Our Church is founded upon the premise that spiritual growth and exaltation must be EARNED by the efforts of the individual” (Henry Moyle, Improvement Era, December 1937, page 787)
“Each of us has been sent to earth by our Heavenly Father to MERIT eternal life.” (Elder Robert D. Hales, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ensign, p. 87, November 2007)
Lastly, you stated: “Truth is, by this criteria, Mormons would have been more welcome guests at the Nicene council than Protestants.”
You’re a funny guy/girl, but seriously misinformed. Is this what they are telling you at BYU these days? Scary and unbelievable. You’re showing gross ignorance of what took place at Nicea. No, the Mormons wouldn’t have been welcomed at Nicea any more than the other heretics were when they started putting forth their views on the deity of Jesus Christ. That is what Nicea was all about – the deity of Christ – not the Trinity, not the formulation of books in the Bible, etc.
If you (Mantis) were at Nicea and got up in front of the bishops and said then what Smith said at the King Follet in addition to the LDS views on Jesus Christ NOT being equal to the Father in nature, essence and deity, then you would have met the same fate as Eusebius of Nicomedia. He had to talk for Arius the heretic and put forth his views which he supported. When Eusebius started to denigrate Jesus’ deity the bishops shouted, “Liar…heretic…blasphemy!” They stormed the platform, took his speech out of his hand, tore it up and stomped on it with their feet. The bishops then voted that Christ was “homoousios” (same substance) as the Father. Arius and Eusebius left with their “tails” dragging behind them.
You see, Mormons and JW’s are modern-day Arians. Because of the hardness of your heart and spiritual stubbornness, Mormons have left Christianity no-choice but to give you the same farewell we gave Arius and his buddy Eusebius of Nicomedia.
In the words of Joseph Smith I think it goes something like this: “adieu.” (farewell)