Brainwashing: “…any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion…”
The following Topical Guide entry brings together for us the “scriptures most often used in [LDS] gospel classes and study” on the topic of Geneology and Temple Work. Take a gander at this partial entry scanned from a 1986 LDS Standard Work. (A complete list of verses can be found here.):
One thing I hope you noticed is how it reads.
“all Israel were reckoned by genealogy…Let us go to the house of the Lord… to bring out the prisoners from the prison… in mine house… I will give them an everlasting name…”
The LDS believe they need to trace genealogies so they can “go to the house of the Lord” (their temples) to do the proxy work necessary “to bring out the prisoners from [spirit] prison,” and that they get a new “everlasting name” there, and so on and so forth. So what we’re seeing here is that the Topical Guide entry reads just like the LDS belief.
Are you just going to “buy” this without checking it out? DO THESE LDS-CHURCH-SELECTED BIBLE VERSES TRULY SUPPORT THE LDS BELIEF?
To get an idea of the answer to that question, let’s look at the partial verse from the Topical Guide, Isaiah 42:7 (“to bring out the prisoners from the prison“), in its immediate context.
Isaiah 42:5-8: Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
I am the LORD: that is my name….”
For brevity, I quoted starting at verse 5. But if you back-up and read Isaiah 42:1-4, you see that the verses are about Jesus. To be completely certain, you can read Matthew 12:15-21 which quotes this part of Isaiah and applies it to Jesus. Continuing on subject, then, with verses 5-8, we see that Jesus would be coming, as promised, to open the eyes of the blind (Matt 13:15, Mark 8:18) and release the captives from prison (John 8:32-34, 35-36). Look at what Jesus Himself said in Luke 4:18-19, where he quoted from Isaiah 61:1, a verse that goes on to talk about Him preaching good tidings (2 Cor. 5:21) unto the meek, binding up the brokenhearted, and proclaiming liberty to the captives (John 3:15-17).
So Isaiah 42:7 is the good news, the “gospel” of Jesus the Savior! The immediate context shows this, and the New Testament verifies it. What is extremely important to notice is that there is no mention of temples, no temple work, and no genealogy. Did you see any? No?
So we see that, pushing Jesus aside to make room for its own doctrine, the LDS Church has taken this piece of verse from its context, placed it together with some other similarly separated pieces of verses, and carefully assembled the pieces into a readable sequence which presents LDS doctrine but bears no resemblance to what the biblical writers intended.
Folks, THIS IS BRAIN-WASHING.
Either that, or despite the continuity and simplicity of the gospel message throughout the Bible, there are actually small portions of sentences, strewn throughout the Bible in dissimilar text, hidden so that only the elect elite can find and meaningfully assemble the real truth, which contradicts the overall theme of the Bible. Is this what you believe? Is this how you believe God works? I hope not. The Bible is immensely rich and full — but its message is simple and visible to anyone who looks…
Here’s one last question for those of you who are tempted to say that the Spirit showed you that the Mormon representation of these verses is true. Is it that you read the Bible on your own, and somehow came to the conclusions that your church did, before hearing it from your church? Or did your church explain it to you first, after which you decided that’s what it meant?
Brainwash…
I don’t know that its “brainwashing” as the word is usually used – its just plain dishonest scholarship. The Topical Guide should reference verses that actually mention the topic at hand.
Poor scholarship, fed to believers and repeated continuously.
“Pray for an answer” and dismiss Every no as “lack of sincerity.” Fail-proof brainwashing for missionaries and the like.
Falcon could list more examples; they are everywhere.
But as an atheist friend pointed out to me:
“God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you. God is real, and He loves you.”
this could apply to anywhere from fundamentalism to young-earth creationists to Mormonism to atheism to even Christianity.
Just pointing this out.
Setfree and I recently had a discussion about the Mormon belief that Ezekial 37 (two sticks) refers to the Book of Mormon. In researching this, I came across a Mormon Fair Wiki Article that tried to explain why in the BOM Smith said Lehi was a descendent of Manasseh, (Alma 10:3) and in Ezekial it talks about the Stick of EPHRIAM, which Mormons claim is the BOM. If Lehi was not a descendent of EPHRIAM, than how can it be a record of Ephriam’s descendents, when it is actually a record of Manasseh’s descendents? Their answer:
“So what does the Book of Mormon have to do with the reunification of Israel and how does Lehi, descendant of Manasseh, fit into a prophecy of a “stick of Ephraim”?
“For Latter-day Saints this is an example of “likening the scriptures unto ourselves,” as Nephi suggested (1 Nephi 19:23). The Book of Mormon is the restoration scripture for modern-day Ephraim—the people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and a message that they take to the world so that Israel may be gathered a final time in preparation for the second coming of the Lord.
Although Ezekiel was speaking directly of reunification, Latter-day Saints have applied their own modern application of this passage as it relates to the Book of Mormon’s role in the restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel.” http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Stick_of_Ephraim
Is this what they are doing with the Topical Guide? Isn’t this what others have done, like David Koresh? What I find interesting is that the Fair folk try to back up their claim of interpretation using quotes from General Authorities! Funny, when I do this with other points of Mormon Doctrine, I am told ‘it is only their opinion.’ Example:
“Since the Book of Mormon makes clear that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, brother of Ephraim (Alma 10:3), it is less than straight forward to identify it as the “stick of Ephraim”. Nevertheless some LDS general authorities have made such an attempt. Orson Pratt claimed another ancestor of the Book of Mormon peoples, Ishmael, was an Ephraimite in 1850. The late reminiscences of Franklin D. Richards andErastus Snow attributed this teaching to Joseph Smith and the missing 116 pages. Joseph Fielding Smith additionally emphasized that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Ephraim and noted that this fits well with the alternative phrasing found in v. 19 of “the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim.”
It is the misapplication of Scripture, showcased in the Topical Guide that leads to these kinds of problems, and the Mormon answer is the same given by all Cults: applying their own MODERN APPLICATION of passages of the Bible to suit their own purposes.
It is a little humorous that some critics throw out the accusation of “brainwashing” so quickly at others who interpret the Bible differently than they do. I haven’t exactly figured out why they feel they must make such judgments rather than simply demonstrate how a different interpretation is better.
The quotation from your gospel commentary in the other thread- how is that any different? It is proclaiming a particular interpretation of a scripture. Are you brainwashed?
You need to understand a key concept- Jesus Christ is the center and fundamental focus of the LDS temple. Each of the “rituals” you often make light of actually are intended to bring us closer to Him and encourages LDS to live their lives more like His.
The verse from Isaiah which you quote- it clearly refers to those in prison, or those in the prison house. The tendency for EVs is to minimize actual meanings and simplify everything into the most basic of concepts- Believe in Jesus. Yes, that is the core message of the Gospel, but not every statement simplifies to that basic tenant to the neglect of all other concepts.
Yes, people who don’t have Christ are in a type of spiritual darkness and prison. But there is a more literal meaning in its reference to the spirit world, Sheol, or Hades. And the ancient Hebrew and early Christian literature has this understanding all over the place.
Bereshith Rabba, expository midrash of the first book of the Torah talks of the Messiah’s appearance at the gates of Gehinnom (resting place of the dead):
“But when they that are bound, that are in Gehinnom, saw the light of the Messiah, they rejoiced to receive him, saying, He will lead us forth from this darkness, as it is said, ‘I will redeem them from Hell, from death I will set them free’ (Hosea 13:14); and so says Isaiah (35:10), ‘the ransomed of the Lord will return and come to Zion.’ By Zion is to be understood Paradise.“ (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 4:653.)
Justin and Irenaeus quote a passage which they claim was formerly found in the text of Jeremiah but which they say had been excised by Jewish scribes. This passage is called the Jeremiah Logion: “The Lord remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in their graves, and went down to preach to them His own salvation.” (J. H. Crehan, A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, 1967, 163).
The Gospel of Nicodemus describes Hades:
“We, then, were in hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another. And immediately our father Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled with joy, and they said to one another: This shining comes from a great light. The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said: This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: . . . the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.”
The doctrine of Christ’s Descent was largely lost beyond the first few hundred years after the early church. But it is easy to find in the early literature as well as the Hebrew texts. Our interpretation of the Biblical text you cite is very much in line with those ancient understandings. Christ ministered to the souls who were confined in the spirit world. He liberated them through His gospel and the resurrection.
The Shepherd of Hermas said of the Apostles:
“These apostles and teachers, who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching [baptism]. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive.”
Clement of Alexandria cited this passage and said “”that it was necessary for the apostles to be imitators of their Master on the other side as well as here, that they might convert the gentile dead as he did the Hebrew….. Christ visited, preached to, and baptized the just men of old, both gentiles and Jews, not only those who lived before the coming of the Lord, but also those who were before the coming of the Law, . . . such as Abel, Noah, or any such righteous man.”
The Epistle of the Apostles attributes the following words to Christ during His 40 day visit with them after His resurrection:”
“For to that end went I down unto the place of Lazarus, and preached unto the righteous and the prophets, that they might come out of the rest which is below and come up into that which is above; and I poured out upon them with my right hand the water [baptism, Ethiopic text] of life and forgiveness and salvation from all evil, as I have done unto you and unto them that believe on me.” (Epistle of the Apostles 27)
Countless other citations could be provided.
By insisting on such narrow, dogmatic, and exclusive definitions and interpretations, a person misses a lot of truth in the Gospel. There is a whole world the Lord desires for us to see and understand.
Grindael- side topic, but the people of Zarahemla who originated from Jerusalem descended from Ephraim and were more numerous than the Nephites when they integrated their peoples in the New World.
Jim,
Sources please? If it is the Erastus Snow statement in the JOD, I’m aware of it. Are there any sources for that statement in the BOM? The E. Snow statement is here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Stick_of_Ephraim/Erastus_Snow_statement but that is not ‘scripture’ as defined by LDS.
Jim, first of all, I know you got all your argument from Mormon sources like FAIR, but I gotta wonder why you, or they, are so quick to cite
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Epistle of the Apostles
The Shepherd of Hermas
for example.
Are these “scripture” for Mormons?
Secondly, we’ve told you countless times why “our” interpretation is better. Mormons take the Bible at random, pieces here and there, and try to shove into it the Mormon doctrine, and make it fit. That’s EISEGESIS.
Christians study the Bible in all of its context, including its immediate, its larger, its historical, etc, context, to try to glean the meaning OUT FROM THE BIBLE. That’s EXEGESIS.
That you can’t see how eisegesis is bad, and wrong… well, what more can we say?
Ok, third question
Where, in all of the above, even in your new books of LDS-authorized scripture (haha) that you want to quote from, does it say anything about TEMPLE SEALINGS, DOING GENEALOGY, BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD, ETC ETC ETC? Just curious where you are finding this?
Ok, sorry, one more question. You and the other LDS will sure go to far reaches to validate baptism for the dead. Why not, instead, SEARCH YOUR VERY OWN “INSPIRED” SCRIPTURE (the BofM) where it CLEARLY says that this day is the time, and that once you’re dead, it’s tooooooo late.
Wait wait, i know. It’s cuz of some break-off, apostate group of the Alma-mites decided to start baptizing people for the dead, and we need to reconsider if the Book of Mormon really is inspired to tell us all the truth or not
btw, just wanted to welcome our two new guests to Mormon Coffee!
I also want to encourage any and everyone to talk about the other verses, in addition to Isaiah 42:7 :]
Setfree,
The reason should be pretty clear- EV critics often claim Joseph Smith created all this doctrine out his creative and deviant mind.
These ancient sources simply help to corroborate the claims of modern revelation. They are not the basis for out doctrine, neither are the brief references found in the Bible to such doctrines. Instead, they provide an aid in understanding the context of ancient writings.
As far as taking “random” samples of the Bible- you have absolutely no basis for claiming you do anything different. When certain topics come up, EVs turn to certain verses that they believe support their positions.
You say: “Christians study the Bible in all of its context, including its immediate, its larger, its historical, etc, context, to try to glean the meaning OUT FROM THE BIBLE.” That is what I am doing in looking at contemporary interpretations from ancient times.
Yours are arguments of rhetoric here (much like Jackg). Do you have an explanation for the statements from the Jewish and early Christian sources? How am I misreading them?
References to baptism for the dead are found in the statements I already provided. I can post more if you like.
The BOM passages you refer to are true and were directed toward people who had been taught the gospel- for them, there was no “second chance.” The gospel is taught in the spirit world, and those who never had a chance to accept before that point will have a chance there.
The other passages do of course refer to Christ. But Christ’s ministry was to the dead as well as to those who were alive on the earth. His atonement extends to every living soul, and the preaching of the gospel in the spirit world and vicarious ordinances for the dead is the means of extending those blessings to those who didn’t have the chance in life.
Grindael- yes, I am partially relying upon the Erastus Snow statement. But Brigham Young also taught it very clearly- see JOD 16:75.
Jim,
So there is no scriptural basis for your firm claim:
“the people of Zarahemla who originated from Jerusalem descended from Ephraim and were more numerous than the Nephites when they integrated their peoples in the New World.”
So, is the scripture true, that they descended from Manasseh, or is the GA opinion true which is not supported in scripture? How does this sit with the many opinions regarding the LGT? If the same GA’s were wrong about that, how can the claims about Ephraim be correct? Fair discounts Pratt’s claims on HGT, but use his ‘opinions’ as a basis for the claims about Ephraim. Brigham Young also taught Adam-god very clearly also. Seems a double-standard to me.
Or is it only because Mormons want a basis to interpret Ezekiel 37 as a BOM scripture?
Another interesting conundrum:
Ephriam and Manasseh were both descended from the line of Pharaohs that could not hold the Priesthood.
“ASENATH [AS ih nath] the Egyptian wife of Joseph and the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 41:45, 50:52; 46:20). Asenath was the daughter of Poti-Pherah, priest of On. Pharaoh himself may have arranged the marriage between Joseph and Asenath to help Joseph adjust to life in Egypt” (Nelsons Bible Dictionary – Asenath)
How could the Nephites then hold the Priesthood when the BOA says anyone from that lineage is disqualified by commandment from God?
For that matter, how could Smith himself not be disqualified under the same terms since he was a descendant of Ephraim?
Just some questions that came up in my research of the above topic on the BOM and Ezekiel.
“Brainwashing: “…any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion…”
1 times 2 equals 2; 2 times 2 equals 4; 3 times 2 equals 6; Damn I can’t get these times tables out of my mind we went over them again and again for a couple of years when I first started school. Then there is that little poem that keeps bugging me which we learnt by rote and repetition. It starts with ‘a, b, c, d, e…’. Oh hell, I’ve been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the system! now I can read and write and do mathematics. There’s no help for me now.
To go on with the remarks by ‘google.com…’ and Olsen Jim, many of my athiest and sceptic friends believe that anyone who believes in a God in these science enlightened days are brainwashed. That is the stance of anyone who is discussing another person whose view is different to theirs. This includes politics, religion and science. Just remember, there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ brainwashing.
So are we LDS brainwashed? According to the above definition yes we are. But so is everyone else on this planet.
Isaiah 42:1-5 does discuss Jesus; however vv 6 & 7 are discussing what He will make us into. What will He make us into? Isaiah 42:6-7 (NIV) “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” He will make us a light for those captives to help free them.
It is not saying that this is Jesus, it is saying that this is what Jesus will make us into. This does fit in with the LDS theology quite easily.
Set Free,
You’ve done another great job.
Jim said about anothers who post here:
” By insisting on such narrow, dogmatic, and
exclusive definitions and interpretations,
a person misses a lot of truth in the gospel.”
1. “narrow” = ” With reguard to true theology, a
more ignorant people never lived than the
present so-called Christian world.”
[ Brigham Young ]
” This is not just another Church.This is not
just one of a family of Christian churches.
This is the Church and kingdom of God, the
only true Church upon the face of the earth.”
[ Pres. Ezra T. Benson ]
2. “dogmatic” = “….the President of the Church,
he being the mouthpiece of God
on earth.”[Apostle Bruce McConkie
” Both Catholics and Protestants
are nothing more than the whore
of Babylon….” [Apostle Orson
Pratt ]
3. ” exclusive…interpretation” =
” ‘Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not
believe that he had a Father also?’…In this
way both the Father and the Son, as all
exalted beings, are now or in due course
will become Gods of Gods….”
[ Apostle McConkie with quote from Joseph
Smith ]
I apologize for the “nickname” openID gave me. Normal registration isn’t working for me for some reason.
Ralph,
“but so is everyone else on this planet” to varying degrees.
Some people take the word of scholars who’ve studied the history, the context, the evidence, etc; some trust a feeling that very much transcends whatever history, context, and evidence disproves.
Anyways, Isaiah 42:6-7? Is this a hurrah statement? It’s hardly unique to any belief/non-belief system to be a figurative “light” that frees “captives.”
-Jay
cont.
Jim, I guess being “narrow” and “,dogmatic”,
and holding to a certain “interpretation”, is
not just a problem with all those non-LDS
“heathen” out there.Right?
Wow, Ralph. Are you really getting that desperate??
Praying for you…
Oh man, I read these posts and I can sense that we will be heading to the point where the Mormon posters have to bear their testimony. Let’s face it, these folks are dead in the water when it comes to any sort of logical progression of thought regarding a defense of Mormonism.
What the Mormons don’t seem to understand or catch on to is that the explanations and fairy tale spinning that works down at the wards doesn’t make it when Mormons have to step out into the real world where feelings don’t count when it comes to making a defense of Smith’s religion.
Quite honestly I don’t know why Mormons even try. Why not just stay within the Mormon box and entertain each other with these fanciful interpretations of the Bible. Christians have actual rules for interpreting Scripture. There’s no such structure in Mormonism. It’s all winging it for fun and entertainment.
Jay,
My comment was not just about religion, it was about everyday life. Yes there are some out there that can overcome their ‘brainwashing’.
Jackg,
What part of sarcasm do you not understand? The first paragraph I wrote was just for fun. But if the definition of brainwashing is indoctrination through repetition (as given in the article above), then where does one draw the line between teaching and brainwashing?
But that does not diminish my comment about my athiest and sceptic friends saying that all religious people are brainwashed, and that the definition/use of brainwash is usually from the perspective of one outside that cultural group that disagrees with the mindset of the cultural group (eg Trintarian Christianity calling LDS brainwashed A staunch Liberal Party supporter calling a staunch Labor Party supporter brainwashed, The Maroons calling the Blues brainwashed etc). That does not make the person/people referred to brainwashed, its just what an outsider (that generally disagrees with their ideology) thinks about them.
Ralph,
With all due respect, you left “confusion” out of your brainwashing definition.
Let me be very specific about one LDS brainwashing technique.
In Seminary, we’re taught “Scripture Mastery Verses”. We 1)find the specific verse 2)highlight it with a highlighting pen 3) Write the LDS “title” for the verse out in the margin and highlight it
4)Play games in which we attempt to memorize the title with the verse and quickly find it in our Bible.
Why is it brainwashing?
This is exactly why. Because instead of letting the youth read the verse in context, instead of TEACHING IT TO YOUTH IN CONTEXT, the verse is only taught with the Mormon meaning, so that it is forever stamped on the brain.
And so… like my post reads… the thing a thinking/questioning Mormon will finally do is go read those verses in context, and see if that’s what they’re really about. And ding-ding-ding, nope they’re not.
See, Ralph, I used to scratch my head in bewilderment, doing all my memorizing like a good little Mormon, but never understanding how those verses meant what I was told they did.
And it was always MY FAULT. It was my fault that I couldn’t understand the Ezekiel’s Two Sticks were about the Book of Mormon and The Bible, because I just wasn’t “in tune with the spirit” enough to have that special revelation. I couldn’t understand how most of the verses that the “study helps” linked together went together. They seemed totally unalike. And it was my fault, cuz I needed to be more “worthy”.
HAHa haha ahhhaah hahahahaha
That was how I felt when I actually just read the Bible, not trying any more to cram Mormon ideology into it. Why? Because reading the Bible became SO MUCH EASIER when I left Mormon thought out of it. It became a clear and easily understood message, all by itself, no weirdness, no superduper secret verses, nothing.
I WAS SO GLAD that I could finally understand the Bible!
It was MORMONISM that PREVENTED ME FROM KNOWING My Bible, and consequently, the Bible’s Jesus.
Ah yes Setfree,
Maybe I should read things better. It does say “…based on repetition OR confusion…” (emphasis mine) So it states either repetition or confusion; NOT repetition AND confusion. So I guess I am correct in what I presented earlier.
As far as the Bible and its interpretation, it is quite ambiguous in areas, and some prophecies have more than one meaning/fulfilment. So what the LDS church teaches is its interpretation of the Bible which we believe is correct as it comes from the Prophet and God’s true leaders on this earth today. This cuts the ambiguity out of it and keeps us in the strait and narrow path to God and His kingdom. So context does play a part in the interpretation, but what God wants it to mean also plays a part in its interpretation.
The same is with your religion. It teaches its interpretation of the Bible. That is why there are many denominations in the Christian community. They all have their own interpretation of the Bible and have decided to set up their own services to preach it. Although they may agree with some things, they do not agree with all. So its all down to interpretation, but its interpretation through the Spirit that is the only way to be 100 percent sure that it is correct.
Thank you Ralph, this would explain why FAIR’s guess at why Psalm 90:2’s lack of interpretation is explained by “we don’t know.” For once, at least, it is admitting that it doesn’t know how to interpret a scripture.
“From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” doesn’t seem very ambiguous, but in light of his apparent mortal life, I can see how things could get muddled up in the contradictions.
http://en.fairmormon.org/50_Answers (at #35)
Well we know that Ralph has an LDS super secret decoder ring to find the Mormonism in the Bible. It’s not quite as good as a magic rock, but it keeps the TBMs happy and content.
I was struck by the testimony of the Mormon missionary (we’ve seen the video) talking about how he just started reading the Bible while on his mission (after being witnessed to by a Baptist minister) and bingo, he got it. The troubling fact for him (as I remember it) was he couldn’t find Mormonism in the Bible. He got sent home of course, right before the end of his mission, but he got sent home saved. Eventually his brother, girl friend and other family members came to Christ.
Once a Mormon drops the goof ball antics used by the LDS cult to manipulate the Scriptures, the truth of the Word pours forth. Yes LDS members are brainwashed and Ralph, while being a nice enough guy, is one perfect example. Must I mention again that Ralph has told us he would kill and steal if ordered by the prophet. He also thinks he’s going to become a god. Ralph will also come-up with the most looney tunes explanations in an attempt to rescue his faith in Mormonism. And it’s all perfectly logical in his LDS mindset.
Tell me this isn’t a brainwashed person.
The Gospel of Nicodemus? Seriously? This from the guy that said on the Multiple Godhead thread that we can’t trust the bible because we don’t know what the original manuscripts said for the first 150 years, yet now wants to ascribe authority to a text that has been recognized as a third century forgery by overzealous Christians. I beg you all to read the first portion of it and ask whether it sounds like the bible, or more like the BoM and BoA. Ahhhh, miracles abound. Even the inanimate, dead standards the Pilates guard’s held bowed to Jesus as Lord when he passed through. It must be from God. It sounds so much more religious than the stuffy old bible.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob10.htm
Jim, Setfree’s point was that if you read the bible the way you would read any other book you will find that the verses are taken out of context to support LDS belief. Running to Jewish Midrash and false gospels does nothing to bolster your argument. I honestly believe that if you read the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus for yourself you will see that it is out of character for biblical writings.
May I repeat: people buy things emotionally and then they seek to find a rational explanation for their purchase.
Mormonism is purchased emotionally because folks either like the story of the young boy going out into the woods and God (who is a spirit) and Jesus appear to him, or else they respond to the evangelical fervor expressed in the BoM which incidentally was borrowed from 19th century evangelical protestant revivalism.
The whole point of the Mormon missionary presentation is to get people to “feel” something. That “feeling” is then explained as being a message, a confirmation from God that the five points of Mormonism are true. That’s the beginning of the brainwashing. Now once a person has experienced the feeling, they are no longer to question anything but instead blindly follow the LDS leadership who, it is assumed, are getting continuous revelations from the Mormon god. That last part takes the brainwashing to another level. Fear, subtle and not so subtle intimidation, and group pressure is applied to anyone venturing outside of approved indoctrination points.
For those for whom Mormonism doesn’t get any traction, they leave the Morg behind quite easily. But for those who have endlessly repeated the five points of the Mormon testimony from childhood, the brainwashing can be a challenge to overcome. Although, what is interesting, just the opposite can be true. Even many of those who grow-up in the faith just get fed-up with the culture and slip quietly out the back door. That’s why the inactive rate within Mormonism is so high.
So there is hope for the Mormon who starts figuring things out and has the courage to overcome the systematic brainwashing that takes place in the cult. Never underestimate, however, what fear and guilt can do to keep someone in line.
liv4jc,
I could have chosen from many other documents as well to establish the fact that at the time of Christ and before, there was a clear understanding and belief that Sheol was a prison for spirits after death. The tradition is everywhere in ancient Jewish and Christian literature.
Do a little research on “Christ’s descent” to start out. That will highlight the early Christian literature.
My point is that setfree’s interpretation of his centerpiece scripture for this article is wrong. Or at least he is neglecting the primary meaning of the verse. He demonstrates exactly what he is criticizing LDS for.
He has been told so many times without doing any deeper digging that he thinks the references of Christ freeing the prisoners and captives has only a spiritual meaning- saving living people from the “darkness” of sin.
In reality, the primary meaning is that Christ would liberate those in the spirit world. This was the interpretation of the Isaiah passage and others like it among the ancient Jews and early Christians.
Please at least attempt a rebuttal of my argument. Can you or anybody else here counter my point?
Grindael,
Good questions. The Ephraim/Mannasseh issue doesn’t concern me too much as I can see the Ezekial passage working. But your other points are good ones- will look at it more.
Jim,
So far, everythig I’ve read supports your position on Jesus bringing the dead back to life/liberating the spirits from prison. I’ll have to look at what my Oxford commentary says on that verse, I havent looked into Christ’s descension beyond the Apostle’s Creed.
Setfree,
I looked at more of the verses in that section of the Topical Guide. John 5:25 stood out: “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God.”
Put in the context of Temple/proxy work, this would very much undermine the typical argument against a verse in the very same book: John 10:16 (the “other sheep” verse).
Considering how close John 5:25 is mentioned with 1 Cor 15:29 (context: baptism for the dead), it seems as though this section of the Topical Guide is either misleading or a shot in the foot for Mormon apologists claiming John 10:16 is literal and is about Jesus visiting the Nephites.
Rather, this section shows how “hear[ing] the voice of the Son of God” can be through proxy, even according to Mormon standards; and even further, standards according to a Standard Work.
Jim, there is no doubt that their was obviously a Jewish tradition or teaching about the souls of the dead going to Sheol to await judgement. Even if it was taught that Jesus went to the spirits in Hell to declare salvation/victory, that does not mean that the work continues at the hands of the living saints, nor does it mean that those who were not saved by grace will not continue to languish in Hell or be consigned to an eternal hell at the judgement. Jesus died once to pay for the sins of those he died for, to redeem those same men from the fall, and to defeat death. If there were saints saved by the grace of God prior to Jesus’ atonement that were awaiting release from prison that doesn’t mean that people who die in Christ now go to Hell to await the judgement, nor does it mean that those who die without the grace of Christ today can be preached to in Hell by dead Mormons. Where do you find the doctrine that anyone but Jesus had, or has, the ability to do that that in scripture or any apocryphal works?
It really doesn’t matter if Mormons want to baptize dead people. Such practice was not and is not part of Christianity anyway. If Scripture isn’t enough then look to the tradition of the Church. We have an extensive paper trail when it comes to the beliefs and practices of the early Church and know that this Mormon practice is just one more of the odd ball things that make Mormonism unique and definitely not aligned with Christianity.
The Bible, as used by Mormons, is a supplemental text useful only as far as it can be quoted out of context and applied in any haphazard manner.
I look at the above butchering of the Scriptures and ask myself, “do these people have any clue at all about proper Biblical exegesis”? Obviously not, but the cultists main tool is the out-of-context lifting of Scripture to convince the gullible that what the cult teaches is true.
The early Church Fathers went through the same frustration in dealing with the heretics. Now Mormons go further and rely on mental impressions that they call revelation and feelings which they term confirmation (of their random thoughts) to determine truth. Can’t really get someone to think in a systematic logical way if they think they are hearing directly from God on matters of settled doctrine (as far as Christianity goes). Mormonism doesn’t have settled doctrine just a wild ride on the roller coaster of revelation. Thrills a minute!
This really gets painful, frustrating and exhausting dealing with cultists but I just keep thinking that there are lurkers who pass by here and perhaps this one little piece of information will prove to be the tipping point for them to escape the cult.
Perhaps this will give you pause, it shows something of the dilemma the Mormon Church faced trying to see who ‘might’ have the blood of Cain/Ham mixed in with the blood of Ehpriam:
Apostle John Henry Smith reported on the confusion about the Negro Doctrine after corresponding with President Smith:
“President [Joseph F.] Smith … referred to the doctrine taught by President Brigham Young which he (the speaker) said he believed in himself, to the effect that the children of Gentile parents, in whose veins may exist a single drop of the blood of Ephraim, might extract all the blood of Ephraim from his parents’ veins, and be actually a full-blooded Ephraimite… assuming, therefore, this doctrine to be sound, while the children of a man in whose veins may exist a single drop of negro blood, might be entirely white, yet one of his descendants might turn out to be a pronounced negro. And the question in President Smith’s mind was, when shall we get light enough to determine each case on its merits? He gave it as his opinion that in all cases where the blood of Cain showed itself, however slight, the line should be drawn there; but where children of tainted people were found to be pure Ephraimites, they might be admitted to the temple. This was only an opinion, however; the subject would no doubt be considered later” (Council minutes, 2 Jan. 1902, in Bennion [or GAS] papers).
They had no way to tell if someone had one drop of Negro blood, so it was really all guesswork. Interesting premisis to base a doctrine on.
Granted, this was only opinion, but it goes a long way to show these men really had no answer to these questions. . Instead of going to the Lord, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided the issue in council, not through revelation:
“…No one known to have in his veins negro blood, (it matters not how remote a degree) can either have the priesthood in any degree or the blessings of the temple of God; no matter how otherwise worthy he may be” (“Extract from George F. Richards’ Record of Decisions by the Council of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles ,” in the GAS papers).
Ezekiel’s sticks is not referring to ‘scrolls’:
“When your countrymen ask you, ‘Won’t you tell us what you mean by this?’ 19 say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim’s hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah’s stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.’ 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
Here is Ezekial 3:
Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll..
Ezekiel knew the difference between ‘stick’ and ‘scroll’. If he meant scrolls he would have said scrolls. Mormons attribute stick to scroll in these verses and apply an interpretation NOT MEANT BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Along with Lehi being a descendant of Manasseh, the whole thing MAKES NO SENSE and cannot be a prophecy of the BOM.
Liv4jc,
Here again is quotation from the Pastor of Hermas:
” These Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in [the] power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02013.htm Similitudes 9,16
The ministry of John the Baptist among the dead is also mentioned in the account.
It is clear from this statement, if it is to be believed, that the apostles (and teachers) performed some ordinance while they were alive involving water for the benefit of those who had died, or “fallen asleep before” that they might “learn the name of the Son of God.”
St. Ambrose in the 4th century also mentioned the practice:
“Fearing that a dead person who had never been baptized would be resurrected badly [male] or not at all, a living person would be baptized in the name of the dead one. Hence he [Paul] adds: “Else why are they baptized for them?”
Here is Tertullian:
“Now if some of them are “baptized for the dead,” can we not assume that they have a reason for it? Certainly he [Paul] is maintaining that they practised this in the belief that the ordinance would be a vicarious baptism and as such be advantageous to the flesh of others, which they assumed would be resurrected, for unless this referred to a physical resurrection there would be no point in carrying out a physical baptism.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm
With the apostasy came misunderstanding of this principle and corruption of its practice. The Marcionites performed a strange version of it- when one of their adherents died, a living person would lay under the bed of the deceased and somebody would ask if the deceased wished to be baptized, to which the person lying under the bed would say “yes.” Then that person would be baptized for the dead.
Eventually it was corrupted completely, and some groups ended up even baptizing dead bodies. For this reason, the matter was brought up at a “church counsel” (I forget which one) and the practice was deemed heretical. And indeed is had been corrupted, even if it was originally based on true practices that had been misunderstood.
Epiphanius says:
From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, “If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” Epihphanius, Against Heresies I, 28,6 (quoted in Mormonism and the Ancient Church, Hugh Nibley)
You mention hell- remember that our usage of the term hell is different from the usage of Sheol or Hades in ancient times. We of course think of the place where the evil go. But in the ancient day, Sheol or the Greek Hades was the place that everybody went after death, the righteous and wicked, to await the resurrection.
Are you saying that you believe a “saved” person is resurrected immediately upon dying today? If not, what happens in the interim?
Grindael- promise to get to your points.
gridael,
This is the same bunch that thinks Jerusalem and Bethlehem are the same place…….sort of…….close enough in proximity….so that the BoM claim that Jesus was born in Jerusalem will work for the troubled Mormon.
I think what happens with many Mormons is that they just don’t question much. If they do come across things that don’t add up, they do the Mormon mind-snap. It’s a typical pattern as identified by former Mormons as 1) ignore 2) deny and finally 3) develop some explanation that no matter how convoluted and hair brained, will be accepted and make things all better.
Our Buddy Ralph is an absolute expert at #3. He keeps me entertained with his wild and wholly explanations about everything from Smith’s magic rock to (Smith’s) adultery. If you really want to be entertained have Ralph give his explanation for how the lost Jews made it to America. It’s mind boggling but provides a perfect example of how far a brain washed Mormon will go to try and keep the sinking LDS ship afloat.
Olsen Jim,
If you are going to quote Epiphanius quote the entire passage. http://books.google.com/books?id=rJw3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR23&dq=Epiphanius panarion 1&ei=SujtS8OREpHAkwSSp9ynCg&cd=1#v=onepage&q=asia baptism&f=false
Jim, those passages sound lime they bolster your claim, but I’d have to read them in context. I have read almost all of the Gospel of Nicodemus, which is fanciful in nature, which is most likely why it was never canonized. I’m sure the Pastor of Hermes is of the same genre, but I will have to read it to be sure. The same goes for the rest of the quotes that you have posted. If the writings that surround them bear the same qualities as the Gospel of Nicodemus then they are nothing but myth and tradition. Remember, false teachings had already crept into the church by the time the Apostles began to write. There is no doubt that many of those false teachings continued as tradition. Time will tell, huh? All of us must die some day.
The Mormon interpretations of the “two sticks” in Ezekiel 37:15-28 are INSANE.
First, we’ve got Joseph Smith and his successors saying that the “two sticks” is a prophecy about the Bible and the Book of Mormon (it’s not, BTW).
Then, we’ve got Joseph Smith and his successors saying that the “two sticks” is all about the lineage of Lehi and Ishmael and heaven knows who else (it’s not, BTW).
OK, I can just about stomach Mormonism promulgating the one interpretation, but to put forward two interpretations, and then to claim that Mormonism is the only thing that makes sense of them, that make me sick. After all, these self-qualified prophets are the ones who want us to believe that they are the only ones who can interpret this stuff.
And it doesn’t even make sense within their own mythology.
It’s like taking the American declaration of independence and saying that, actually, it’s a secret recipe for Coca-Cola. Then, it’s not a secret recipe for Coca-Cola, it’s a secret road map to a pyramid buried under New York city. What’s next? It’s a secret pledge to pay back taxes to King George the Fifth, maybe 300 years into the future (I’m sure the new British Government would be interested)?
Isn’t it OBVIOUS that these “prophets” just make it up as they go along, and spout out ANYTHING that they think supports their position.
Don’t they have any integrity?
Don’t they have any commitment to the doctrine of a “restored” Gospel?
What disqualifies them from being the biggest apostates to walk the earth?
When will Mormons grow a pair and hold these clueless “prophets” to the calling they claim to have?
Martin,
It’s because they’re all cut from the same cloth. Any explanation will do! It’s the wonderment of continuous revelation. Anything can work using the Mormon approach. Just go with whatever.
Paul’s message to Timothy was to “….instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.” (First Timothy 1:4)
If anyone wants to start a religion, they can pull enough Bible verses from here and there, string them together and “bam” a whole new revelation.
Sad bunch these Mormons.
I just read Ezekiel 37:15-28 again.
It’s really, really plain. The peoples of Israel had been bickering and fighting for years. God judges them by exiling them all over the place. God promises to bring them back together and to dwell among them. The agena is plainly spelled out in Ez 37:23
and Ez 37:27-28
It seems blatantly obvious to me that this is a work that God does, and that when He does it, it will be fact that’s observable, even to the unbelieving, gentile nations.
Further, given that the “lost” tribes of the Northern Kingdom were never “gathered” back into the Land (geographic Israel, BTW, not geographic North America), the only sense in which this passage can be fulfilled is in the sense of the Christian Revelation. God has made His sanctuary (tabernacle) among us in the person of Jesus, the Immanuel (see John 1:14). He is the one who redeems them from the nations, as in Rev 5:9-10
I guess that’s too plain for the Mormon agenda, and you can’t tag the end with “…therefore the Mormon Church is true” without adding some spurious, exotic and speculative associations to it.
…”myths and endless genealogies”…(1 Tim 1:4)
Amen, falcon.
Finally,
I sense that part of setfree’s concern here is that the trajectory of the Mormon interpretation of scripture is that it substitutes the work of God in Christ with the Mormon Church.
In other words, where the Bible teaches that God does something (like redeem His people), the Mormon agenda replaces Him with the Mormon “church” or its activities.
That’s a very serious blasphemy indeed.
So the question is, are there people within the hierarchy of Mormonism that knows the whole deal is a folly and they simply perpetuate it for their own sordid profit or are the movers and shakers within (Mormonism) as ignorant as the rank and file? There have to be people within the hierarchy that know the whole thing is a fraud, but others, I would guess, are just repeating what they have been taught.
What intrigued me about Mormonism as I learned more about the religious culture, was how it borrowed so heavily from evangelical Christian revivalism in it’s use of the language, piety and (how can I say this?) ideas of being connected to God in terms of receiving messages and having prayers answered etc. Maybe someone can do a better job of explaining what I’m trying to get at here.
Martin brought up an important point about the Mormon organization/church usurping God. It’s the same with the JWs. Andy Watson tells me that it’s useless to trade scriptures with a JW because of how they twist it. He says what has to be done is to destroy their faith in the Watch Tower organization.
Thanks Jim,
No hurry, I see you are busy. LOL
Falcon,
You ask a good question. I have pondered the notion that the LDS leaders know they aren’t inspired. Then, again, I consider that they are merely following false spirits and truly believe they’re inspired. I have followed a false spirit, Falcon, and know the sensation one receives that truly leads them to believe they are following God when in actuality they aren’t. I pray that the Mormon leaders will confess to their members that they aren’t inspired by God, and that they have misled them. However, even if that were to be the concensus, they wouldn’t because of the impact it would have on the members. Imagine the LDS faithful being told at General Conference that they have been lied to, and now the GAs were all born-again and wanted everyone to leave Mormonism and find a true Bible-believing and teaching church. We’re talking about broken trust at the highest level. A lot of them would walk away not trusting God at all. There would be a lot of atheists, as what happens a lot with Mormons who realize they have been lied to. Here’s a question for us to ponder as Christians: are we ready to minister to Mormons if this scenario were to play out?
Something to think about…
Blessings…
jackg,
Remember the Wide World Church of God led by W. Herbert Armstrong? The group had aberrant beliefs much like the Mormons. They were into something called British Israelism. It was the whole deal with the lost tribe of Israel or some such thing. Anyway, after he died, the leadership started questioning the basic doctrine which led them to the conclusion that the old man was out to lunch. The church basically fell a part although I think there are some true believers still holding on.
I believe it was Jack Hayford’s group that use to walk around the HQ of the group and pray that it would crumble, which it did. The interesting thing of course is that there are folks out there that still cling to the false teachings of Armstrong. I hear what you are saying about deluding spirits.
Falcon,
Though their teachings differ on most issues,the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society(Jehovah’s
witnesses)and the Mormon Church share the same
authoratative claims: God has a prophet on earth
today who alone dispenses His truth to mankind.
Salvation is in joining this prophet-led church/
organization.To leave the organization is to leave God, or be denied His ultimate blessings.
Jw’s hold the belief that Jehovah God feeds His
people thru the prophet.The W.T. “governing body”
(the prophet) publishes the W.T. magazine, which
is considered the spiritual food for sincere
Jw”s.They call this their “meat in due season”.
Going alone with the topic of this thread, there
was an article back a few years that was entitled
“Avoid Independeant Thinking”. You don’t question
the Governing Body, to do so is to invite God’s
wrath etc.
It’s important to note the control these prophet-
led groups exert on the faithful that follow them. This can be subtle. The unwritten rules
can be a real controling factor. For Jw’s the
growing of beards is frowned upon.This was
inforced by the Elders of the congragation.There
was no direct statement in the W.T. magazine that
said no beards allowed, the prophet interpreted
what “proper grooming” meant in this case. For
women it meant that when sitting your dress should
fall a least 2 inches below the knee,to be proper.
( my wife is a former JW ).
A false prophet is more than someone who fails
to accurrately predict an event.They teach that
to submit to their teachings is to submit to God.
The “truth” they dispense touch practically every
area of a followers life. Jesus warned us to
BEWARE of false prophets in the last days (latter
days). Matt.7:15 ; 24:11,24-25
Set Free,
You asked, ” Are you just going to ‘buy’ this
without checking it out?”
Why would’nt the average Mormon just buy this
scriptural guidence? Considering how busy they
are with Church activities, and especially how
their leaders have made the promise that they
will NEVER lead the faithful astray, it’s no
wonder why most Mormons would not take the time
to check out the scripture interpretations of
their leaders. Dangerous. Isa.9:16
Mike R,
You want to hear a funny story, you should have Andy Watson relate to you the “memorial” service he was invited to at the JW church on Good Friday. They have communion, right? Well the main dude gets up and says to the congregation that he is the only one worthy enough to take communion. He’s part of the 144,000 or some such nonsense. So they pass around the elements and the unworthy JW robots just keep passing them without taking any. So it comes to Andy and guess what he does? You got it, he takes communion. He even got into a tug-of-war with the usher over the bread or the “wine” which ever was passed second. The usher is, under his breath shouting at Andy, “Just pass them.” Andy wouldn’t.
Well I won’t say a riot broke out, but it was quite a scene.
Andy spent months in deep discussions with the JWs and attended several of their events. He said he’s never experienced such dark oppression as when he was in one of their meetings. It is definitely a spirit.
I had a few scary ones show up at my door one day and they wanted to do their presentation. I said I wasn’t interested but I’d pray for them, right there. I thought the scariest of the bunch, a woman, was going to go into cardiac arrest!
This is spiritual warfare we are involved in, make no mistake. The depth of the brainwashing and spiritual delusion these Mormons and JWs are under is massive.
Falcon,
I too have attended a “Lord’s Evening Meal”
( JW communion), although I passed on partaking.
The term, “brainwashing”, is kind of a loaded term.People can get very defensive when accused
of it.The danger that groups like the Watchtower
and Mormon Church pose is that once you’ve accept-
ed the prophet’s authority over your life then
desiring to please God means submiting to the
prophet’s counsel, and the more of his teachings
you submit to ,the more of your life is controll-
ed. Thus we see even minor issues become all to
important.To Jw’s things like voting, saluting the flag and blood transfusions were/are against
God’s law.While LDS don’t have as long a list of
don’ts, as Jw’s, still LDS submit to their prophet’s authority in similar ways.One such
example of this far reaching submission for both
of these groups was that at one time(1980’s) both
prophets interpreted scripture to teach that
a certain intimate act between husband and wife
in the marriage bed was deemed contrary to God’s
law, “impure”. For LDS this meant no Temple access, for JW’s it meant excommunication. This
sin was later to be revised by these two prophets,
yet no doubt many of their sincere followers
blindly accepted this counsel.
Mike R.,
The Catholic religion, when I was growing-up, was very much into the authoritarian mind-set yet I doubt anyone would have thought of themselves as in a cult or being brainwashed. The operative words were often “Father says” or “Sister says” meaning the parish priests or nuns. I was probably about 12 years old when my mother had to have a hysterectomy. She went and discussed it with the priest. I’m serious!
At twenty, I lost faith in the organization and bugged-out. The Catholic faith, as I understand it, is given to a cafeteria approach these days. I think the baby boomers and those who came after us, just started ignoring a lot of the legalism. It’s kind of funny but if fate brings me into a Catholic mass, I can’t bring myself to take communion. I don’t think God really cares but I don’t hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation so out of respect for the religion, I decline.
I think brainwashing and cultism come into play when people surrender too much of their intellect and will to an organization. I could see where people would get into all sorts of things that could be right up to the line of being considered a cult. Some of these multi-level marketing programs can get pretty manipulative.
For good or bad, I stay clear of organized religion. I’m not proud of it, but it just works better for me.
Anybody who claims that the meaning of Ezekial 37 is “obvious” likely knows little about the history of the passage. At least they know next to nothing about what “experts” and textual critics say.
The passage is one of the most controversial chapters of the Old Testament. And that is nothing new- people have been attempting to figure out its meaning for centuries. I have read one researcher who argues that the verses should be expunged from the OT.
A survey of the online commentaries reveals many different opinions. It also reveals that some commentaries offer nothing of the sort- they skip this chapter, especially the verses that speak of the sticks of Judah and Joseph.
It makes little sense in this context for anybody to say the meaning is obvious or that the LDS interpretation is obviously false. Such claims tend to undermine the position of those making them.
The first question is what were the “sticks” spoken of?
A stick or staff had many meanings anciently. At times, it represented the very presence of God among men. At others it represented the authority of God, which some would call the priesthood.
A stick, rod, or staff could also represent a group of people. The Israelite tribes were identified and often numbered at their big annual gatherings by rods, or staves. Binding the staves together represented the unity of Israel.
But the rod or stick could also represent a book. Aaron’s rod was considered a book. The rod in some literature was thought of as the “word of God.” The tablets from Mt. Sinai were equated with the rod of Moses. Some of the first writings were on wood. And when the writing was too long to fit on the stick, it could be written on leather and wrapped around the stick like a scroll.
Even the word “book” originates from box or beechwood stick engraven with symbols by the ancient Norse peoples.
The original word “ ‘etz” literally means wood.