When the Mormon concept of eternal progression unto Godhood is exposed (i.e. brought out of relative obscurity to explicit consideration), one common response from Mormons is that it shouldn’t be made such a big deal because common Mormons don’t think about it very often. There are some big problems with this:
1. The issue matters for its own sake. If it is true that we can become Gods, worshiped and prayed to as the Most High Holy of Holies by billions of our own spirit children someday, that in and of itself is a big deal. The issue warrants focus even if it receives none. Let me offer a lame but useful analogy: What if congress had put forth an Affordable Health Care bill that emphasized better cost control measures, better use of technology, efficiency, and regulations on health insurance providers, yet in one footnote in only one of thousands of pages, required that every citizen–while living–donate one of their kidneys? Do you think the excuse, “But that wasn’t the focus of our bill!”, would be a reasonable response to those concerned?
2. It betrays a cringe of conscience, an internal conflict between endorsement and embarrassment. It’s almost like saying, “Look, I believe that this idea is true, beautiful, glorious, and central to the larger plan of salvation and very purpose of life, but I want to assure you that I try NOT to think about it very often.” Consider an analogy on a topic far less important, polygamy: “I believe that polygamy is acceptable, beautiful, righteous, eternal, something that is to be celebrated, something to be anticipated, and something that even the Gods participate in, but *shudder* I can assure you, we do NOT currently practice it!”
3. That it isn’t repudiated speaks to the condition of the heart. I have elsewhere written that in Mormonism there is power seen in ambiguity, strength in ambivalence, solidarity in equivocation, encouragement in non-officiality. But some things are so horrific and evil, that to not willingly and readily repudiate them speaks to a satanic sickness of the heart. We would be rightly aghast if a confessing Christian wasn’t willing to deny the idea that Jesus sinned, or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. The same goes for the issues of whether God the Father sinned, or whether sinners can ever be rightly worshiped as Most High Gods. These negative repudiations should be effortless if one positively affirms what every Christian believes: God alone is the true Most High God for all, God the Father never sinned, Jesus never sinned, and Jesus resurrected from the dead. An unwillingness to hate a horrific falsehood can be evidence of a lack of love for a central and beautiful truth.
4. Despite the human tendency to lose sight of the big picture, our view of the big picture still shapes what we believe and do. It is reasonable and right for any religion to consider the small in light of the large, the temporary in light of the eternal. Mormonism gives its people a meta-narrative, a grand, basically coherent, unified worldview with answers to where we came from, who we are, and where we are going. Mormonism frequently encourages to live out the mundane in light of the eternal—in principle, it should. Mormons who are inwardly embarrassed over Mormonism’s big-picture view of where humans are going cannot ultimately take solace in shortsightedness. It isn’t a virtue to mentally disassociate from one’s eternal future. Indeed, I don’t really believe humans are entirely able to.
5. God ultimately matters more than anything. The issue of whether we can become worshiped Gods ultimately relates to our view of who God himself is. Jesus said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) God gave his witness and bore his personal testimony, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) Do you trust him? Do you love this God? Can you sing with the angels in Revelation 4:8, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Grace and peace in the Most High God,
Aaron
PS. If your spirit-kids try to worship you in the after-life, spank them.
Aaron,
On the lds.org site we read under the heading “Sin” –
So sin is purposefully going against God and/or the truth that one has learned. We also learn that those who have the truth cannot gain forgivness for denying the Holy Ghost and it is very difficult for them to gain forgivness for murder or adultery. We are taught that those who do commit murder or adultery will not gain the highest level in the CK, ergo they will not become Gods of their own worlds. So those who do gain the highest level would only have committed little things like lying cheating or stealing at the most, but even then, that is something we have not fully been taught. All we know is that those who achieve exaltation (ie the highest level in the CK) are those whose sins have been fully removed and forgiven by Jesus’ atonement. So as far as an example you gave a while ago about someone becoming a god even though they trawled the net for porn while their wife and children were in bed is not valid as that type of person would not gain that level. So yes, I stick by what I wrote before – the person has no sin as they were removed by the atonement.
As far as those who join the church, their sins (if any) are washed away with baptisma nd they start with a clean slate. The reason I said ‘if any’ is because of the people who grew up not knowing anything about Jesus and God and live their life doing things that are against the commandments of God. They cannot sin as they are not purposefully going against God’s commandments.
As far as ‘boasting’, I do not fully understand how the atonement works, and neither does anyone else that I know of, so I can’t say anything about it. All I know is that if truly repented and fully forgiven, there is no sin upon ones’ head and they can stand before Heavenly Father spotless, just as the scriptures tell us.
http://mrm.org/book-of-mormon sorry I’m not buying into your easy out.
You have the upper hand here. If I come back with any thing other then only authorized Mormon sites it gets deleted.
Now if you want to debate, stick to one issue at a time otherwise its your opinion based on contracting to a third-party. Lets either forget this exercise or get real.
Helen and Louis,
You said “We can throw out the King James when we realized that yes, JS when he saw that the plates were using the word of God spoken by some of the Prophets, actually looked up the verses and copied the King James Language, which to me is a no brainer. ”
This is something I’m not familiar with. How have you come to this conclusion, that JS used the KJV in this way, while translating the Book of Mormon? Do you have some statement of Joseph Smith’s, or his scribes, in which any of them say that this is what he did?
Helen,
You can say what you want, but you dodge questions more than frogger dodges cars. Then you reply with vague smoke and mirror type relies.
This is what it boils down to, You refuse to answer questions because 1. you know you have no real answers. and 2. you know if you honestly try and answer you will find your prophet is a fraud.
Now first off as some have said, no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you and you will find reasons to dismiss it. You said that the BoM is the key stone to you religion.
Well it’s like this, If you believe the Bible, then the Bible tells us to contend for the faith. Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
So if you really believe the bible as you claim, then why dont you defend your faith and prove that the BoM is correct instead of claiming us to prove it wrong. Now this is why it is important that you stop dodging questions. You claim that we/I need to show that the BoM is false, and the way that you dodge questions ties into all of it this way. Before J.S cam along and claimed the BoM was real, BY was not a mormon and did not believe in Mormonism because it did not exist.
So it stands to reason that if J.S. Lied about seeing God and having the golden plates then that means BY believed lies and taught lies and so did all the prophets down through time. So if J.S. Claims to have had 9 different first vision accounts , then this throws the BoM into serious doubt. So add to that, If J.S claimed No man can see God and live with out the priesthood D and C 84 :19-22, yet He did, then that again makes the BoM suspect.
Now lets move on, If the BoM had 4,000 changes to it, yet even if only 2 words were changed doctrinally, Then again thats throws the BoM into serious doubt. Add to that, if everything that is taken word for word from the Bible is removed from the BoM, since it is already in the Bible and we really dont need it twice, then that really throws the BoM into serious doubt, because all that remains in the BoM, really does not tell us anything that pertains to our salvation.
Joseph Smith declared that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, . . . and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book” (History of the Church, 4:461). Ho w can it be the most correct Book after the Bible verses that are word for word removed?
Now if the Language of the Golden plates was Reformed Egyptian, But that language does not exist, and no LDS person has ever proved that language exists, then it really throws serious doubt on the BoM.
Then all the failed prophecy’s J.S gave mean he cannot be truthful in the area of the BoM.
Then I really find it funny because you (LDS) Claim to have the Truth, yet refuse to share it with us, that goes back to the issue of, where’s the love? So you can stop dodging the issues/questions and start answering them.
grindael,
I wish I had more time to respond to the specifics of your post, but I do not. I respect that you have used primary source historical quotes that get to the heart of some of the spiritual conflicts & dynamics that molded the current Mormon view of such things as “revelation,” “scripture,” “prophet,” and “priesthood.” If you read my posts, I think you will see that I often do not agree with how those dynamics played out in Mormon history. I think they often misrepresent God’s will concerning his Church and misrepresent the plain truth of His revelations—scriptural or liturgical. While I remember reading only about half the quotes you’ve provided, grindeal, & don’t have the sources on hand to confirm your quotes as I’d typically prefer, I do not doubt the validity of any of them because they capture the general views, personalities, & concerns of those men as I’ve come to know them through my own readings. And I wish these issues were more often dealt with in forums like this in the honest air of history, rather than the rubbish of caricature, as in the original blog here. Which is why I wish I had the time to respond to your post in full.
You obviously are not in a place to reevaluate the spiritual value of these historical snippets you relate, & I wouldn’t think for a moment that I have a shot of making you reevaluate them, but I do wish I had the opportunity to explain my reasons for trusting these quoted men. Trust their integrity as the rightful caretakers of the Lord’s word despite their differences in view from one another, & despite their divergence in matter of the Gospel & biblical exegesis typically held by current Mormons & officially endorsed by the current Church. For I believe that these men, with all their faults & weakness, did a better job in preserving & upholding that word than I think plainly occurred in the first couple centuries of the Christian era.
While most involved with this board & forum seem to think Christianity is some simple salvation philosophy that can be whittled down to an anti-liturgical pamphlet upheld by an iconic canon (the Bible), & an utterly emblematic ecclesia (the pluralistic, rhetoric-driven congregation of modern Protestantism), what we know of early Christianity does NOT at all support this view. The Early Christian body was elaborate, specific, yet monolithic enough in its makeup and aspirations that we find a great commotion of diversity and in-fighting very early in its history. But with the sole exception of Marcion “the Heretic” in the 2nd century, we see nothing resembling the anti-liturgical pamphlet model inspired by Martin Luther & his inheritance.
While we don’t know many of the details of Marcion’s vision of faith, & traditional Christians would certainly abhor his demiurgical notions of Israel’s God, what we do know is that his simple Christ-centered salvation philosophy, like Luther’s, is based on a NT canon composed largely of Paul’s letters. Like Luther, & entirely contrary to his Orthodox opponents like Tertullian & Origen, Marcion reads Paul’s letters entirely free of their proper liturgical context. Like Luther, he also cites them as proof that the Christian liturgy & ecclesia is completely marginal and separate from the mystical salvation experience established between the believer and Christ. Again, entirely UNLIKE Orthodox Christianity. In other words, a pre-Protestant notion of a mystical “priesthood” of all true believers.
If you want to see a far more incredible degree of divergence than anything Mormon history suggests to gravitate to—divergence in both doctrine, worship, liturgy, and organization—then you need look no further than what little we know of 2nd and 3rd century Christianity. While we get a consolidation in the 4th & 5th centuries through a heavy-handed favoritism of one form of Christianity by Roman edict, even after that consolidation, there remains enough ammo for spiritual politics that the single-most important 2nd century architect of the “Orthodox” form of Christianity—Origen—finds himself excommunicated post-humously by the western branch of that faith in the 6th century. Over cosmological/philosophical matters that the average Protestant (or Catholic) of the current age simply shakes their head at in disbelief when they learn of it.
In the issue of the Adam-God dilemma in the early Mormon Church, we have a strong-minded man like Brigham Young who by his own admission (as you cite) does not respect a written scriptural canon so much as to consult it in checking a doctrine that he believes he received straight from the lips of a living prophet. Yet one of Young’s fellow apostles (Pratt) sees plenty of revelation that plainly contradicts Young’s asserted revelations from Joseph Smith’s mouth. Revelation in both the written scripture canon, and in the liturgical canon of the temple endowment. While the polemical purpose in pointing out this conflict (as you have done grindeal) usually seeks to draw attention to the bizarreness of Young’s assertion that God our eternal Father could actually fall from his heavenly majesty (in order to create humanity), for Pratt, just as much a concern was that the notion of Adam being God the Father contradicted the temple catechism’s presentation of Adam and his relationship to the Lord. In other words, it compromised the holy Christian liturgy revealed & reestablished in its fullness to Joseph Smith.
While Pres. Young won this doctrinal, liturgical dispute in the short term, the strength of God’s word in the entirety of His revelations would side with Pratt a generation later (as you know).
But to Young’s great credit, when several apostles advised him that he should consider removing Orson from the apostleship, & perhaps even from the Church, Young’s response was that he couldn’t, for if he were to take a bowie knife and cut Orson into 10,000 pieces, every piece would witness to the truth of Mormonism. (That’s paraphrasing a quote from Young I read in Arrington’s biography on him.) It’s that type of respect of personal faith that I see entirely lacking in the decisions of Nicaea.
While I believe the Mormon Church then & now often fails to correctly uphold, understand, & perform the word of the Lord as it was delivered to them, I do not doubt the validity of that word as coming directly from God. Nor do I think their failings are all that different from the failings of the men called in previous ages as the custodians of the Lord’s word.
The Lord, in every age, calls men—not angels. And he expects them to act like men, not angels. What is given in purity is His word. While I may not entirely agree with the heavy hand Brigham Young had in how the Lord’s word was handled in the early Mormon Church, I certainly don’t see another man more capable in leading the Church to safety and stability than him. Not a single man in the church, & maybe not in the entire nation.
Sincerely, mutu.
Ralph,
I hope you can see the heart of this point: The only sins which Mormonism says permanently disqualify a mortal from achieving Godhood are murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (and some Mormons such as yourself add adultery to this list[1]). One could conceivably repent of any other sin as a mortal and then eventually become a God. I have never asked whether an unrepentant sinner could become a God, etc.
I understand the idea that through the atonement a person becomes ridden of all their sin-guilt and sinful inclination, but what I’m pointing out here is the reality of history. It sounds like you’re using the atonement as an excuse to lie about history. If your future spirit children say, “Daddy, were you ever a sinful mortal who had to receive the atonement of uncle Jesus?”, you would have to say, “Yes, and now that I am covered by the blood of that savior you can treat me as though I never sinned, even though I in fact did sin in the past and did deserved punishment”, would you not? This seems very clear.
If they ask, “Heavenly Father Ralph, why are you singing Amazing Grace to uncle Jesus and Heavenly Grandfather? What did you ever need grace for?” … will you lie?
Or will you simply get to a point where you stop publicly thanking Jesus and the Father for the grace you were given?
As for me and my house, we will sing Amazing Grace to the Godhead forever. The content will never get outdated.
When we’ve been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the Sun…
Take care,
Aaron
—
[1] Usually this is qualified as post-temple-covenant adultery or something like that.
I have to smile, even thought I made it really, really, plain, that I can’t prove the Book of Mormon to be true; that is ignored and replaced with, “Hey Hellen quit dogging” LOL. I have to0 this date never claimed or have seen any LDS claim that there is any proof out there to back up our personal Faith that the Book of Mormon is True. Testimonies are disregarded as evidence and this should be so. So what is the narrative we continue to hear? Quote, “So if you really believe the bible as you claim, then why dont you defend your faith and prove that the BoM is correct instead of claiming us to prove it wrong.”
I wonder after such a claim if the presenter ever takes notice of what this particular FORUM is all about. “Mormon Coffee” nice title, dedicated to showing others why Mormonism is false. The Forum is focused on articles that make accusation, claims, quotes, assumptions, articles from other sites and just about every lame talking point one can imagine.
Facts: we can’t provide the Golden Plates, prove JS had a First Vision, or a Restoration of Priesthood and Authority ever took place.
But what did I state, we believe the Book of Mormon is the Keystone of our Religion, bingo for those who see this as a false religion, then remove the Keystone and watch the Mormons find out that there is nothing else that supports our religion. All the other criticisms are immaterial to this one great key, prove the BoM false and you will have done what nobody to this date has ever achieved.
Here is their reply —- “serious doubts”. Great, so you have serious doubts and then the narrative adds the following, 4000 mistakes, 9 versions of the first vision, nothing in the Book of Mormon talks about Salvation, most perfect book ever written, etc, etc. ahem, serious doubts. 🙂
Well we might as well fold up the debating table and all go home with our beliefs (mormons) and our doubts (Christians) because nothing was brought to the debate of any real substance. One poster actually posted a 3rd party parody of research that relieved him of any further reason to be part of the discussion, “here read this, I’m too busy telling Mormons how whacked their beliefs are”.
Mormon Coffee is a joke, circle the wagons here come the Christians and this time they are bringing their guns, except the Mormons soon realize the Indians are shooting blanks. So as hard as you try, the only answer I see from Rick’s post is, “there are serious doubts” . I’m sure that is going to destroy the keystone and tear up the Church as 14 million members run to and fro and cry, “the Church is in trouble, there are serious doubts”. Yep, as I continue to state, all we ever see is the same old, same old, “there are serious doubts.
Sincerely, Helen and Louis. 🙂
No, not really. Nobody really talks about it. But the whole thing is geared to become a god. Temple marriage, then spirit children, our own world. Everybody on earth is a god in embryo…if you get baptized as a LDS. I never thought about the worship part before actually. But this is only “after all you can do”…and then where do you draw that line..who is giving actually 100% effort to living the gospel 24/7. There might not be that many people that get to the Celestial…if there even is one.
And then if you are sealed as a family together forever then how does each person (man) get their own world and wife/wives. If the man becomes god doctrine gets out in the public eye it will be interesting. Thats the whole purpose of life, thats the highest that every devout LDS is shooting for.
But no matter what happens after we die, we will get a fair shake especially if you believe that Jesus died and paid for your sins. I am not sure about all the ordinances, grips, names and all that. I had a rock solid testimony for 30 years until I actually stepped back and looked at what I believed. Wow!
The 15 in Salt Lake City have to know…and that even makes it worse…how can they still do what they are doing if they know. I wish them the best and good luck with how to deal with people who are waking up all over the place. Integrity is a valuable asset. I am glad that I do not have that on my plate. There are so many precious devout Mormons who have no idea that things are not really what they seem. In a way they are like innocent children or sheep (which is a good thing). I hope that the authorities in SLC watch over them and look out for their best interest. Thanks for the post and question. I hope it finds its way to the forefront because it is pretty important in my humble opinion.
It’s not a conclusion, it is only a assumption. Same as we find here with most accusations, they are only opinion or assumptions. Like I stated, where is the evidence that will bring down the Keystone of our religion? Opinions, assumption and serious doubts are not going to budge a keystone set in concrete and mortar. What is needed is to prove with evidence the Mason used a faulty head stone when he inserted the keystone that supports the arch of the Book that began the restoration of Priesthood and Authority following the dark ages of apostasy.
I can’t remember if it was Jim Spencer (“Beyond Mormonism) or Dr. Walter Martin (“Kingdom of the Cults”) who said, “Never try to teach a duck to sing. It’s a waste of time and it annoys the duck”.
Quote this next time 🙂 ” http://mrm.org/book-of-mormon” posted by a DUCK.
Helen continually posts that nobody has proven the BofM to be false. This is, without a doubt, one of the silliest statements ever. It would be like someone stating the Easter Bunny is real….now prove he doesn’t exist or like saying Santa Claus is real….now prove he isn’t.
Mormons claim the BofM to be historical; the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
Helen said Mormon Coffee is a joke,
So why are you even here? You refuse to answer questions, You claim you cannot prove the BoM, and you complain about every question asked. If you go back and read what Mantis said, and over the years even what Ralph has said, it seems they believe they can prove the BoM is true and they somewhat differ in belief from you.
So say their is no evidence to prove the Bible, yet you seem to believe their is evidence for the BoM, otherwise you have blind faith. The Bible has 1,800 prophecies, 300 alone just on where Jesus would be born, how He would die, how the soldiers would gamble for His cloths, etc.
No prophecy are in the BoM that ever came to pass. The Bible talks about the Jews, and How they would return to their home land, and guess what? They Did. The Jews are evidence of the Bible being true, and we have the dead sea scrolls are more evidence. Where is the evidence of the BoM? Their is none. Now before you come back on here and start rambling about how their is no evidence and start with your nonsense again answer me this.
I’m not a Mod on this board, I cannot ask you to leave or Kick you off, But I am going to here and now ask the Mods to give serious thought about asking you to leave if you dont choose to, in light of this.
You said this Mormon Coffee board is a joke, so tell me in your own words, why are you here? Since you dont answer questions and you then complain about the questions, or say their is no evidence and so their fore it “Excuses you” so to speak from answering questions, Why are you here? What exactly do you think you will accomplish here by telling us this sight is a joke and all we do is attack you guys? Gee, that sounded like an LDS played the persecution card.
IMO if you cannot tell us why you what to be here and how you actually contribute and all you can do is insult the board, then I think the Mods should ask you to leave, or you should go on your own. I made my case, now make yours.
Helen and Louis,
You said, “It’s not a conclusion, it is only a assumption.”
If I may restate that, you are disregarding the evidence so that you can shrug-off the fact that the KJV appears in the Book of Mormon.
David Whitmer’s testimony, put together with that of Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and other of Joseph’s closest associates, paints the picture that we have somewhat above. Since David’s says the whole thing, I’ll quote him:
“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”
If this is the case, as it seems to be, considering the testimonies taken as a whole, then is there any possible excuse for one: any error in the Book of Mormon, or two: your adding your own, contrived “evidence” to the scene, to make it more viable?
Helen said I wonder after such a claim if the presenter ever takes notice of what this particular FORUM is all about. “Mormon Coffee” nice title, dedicated to showing others why Mormonism is false. The Forum is focused on articles that make accusation, claims, quotes, assumptions, articles from other sites and just about every lame talking point one can imagine.
Helen, I cannot begin to tell you how many LDS accuse us of attacking their faith. So let me ask you and all other LDS a few questions?
1. Why is it JS said about my belief that we are wrong and what we believe is lies, That a paraphrase of what JS claims God told him when he went and prayed to know the truth.
2. The BoM says their are only two Churchs, LDS believe if we are not part of their Church Supposedly the one and only true church, then we are of the church of the devil.
Now if these things are true, then LDS attacked our belief first, so why are we in the wrong for defending our faith?
3. It has been quoted to you before about the verse in Jude saying, contend for the faith, If we really believe the Bible, then we are contending for our faith, so who are you to sit here and Judge us for doing what we are told by God to do?
4. Your Favorite prophet said, “Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test.”, -Brigham Young, 1873
If your favorite prophet said that and I am doing that, then why am I in the wrong? O-Yea, according to you we cannot know if BY really meant what he said, or even know if he really wrote that, so I guess we should ignore that statement by your Favorite prophet.
5. I quoted your prophets before saying what we believe was/is from the pit of hell. So they can say that about what we believe and about us, but were not allowed according to you to respond to these statements.
6. You LDS are always claiming we never listen to you guys and we really should listen to the LDS and the prophets, so guess what, in this one case we are. but now that we are, you judge us and tell us we are wrong for doing it, talk about being a hypocrite.
Your prophet/president said, and I listened:
Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.
Joseph F Smith. “CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. MORMONISM, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. Their is no middle ground.If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed: his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false”.
I’m doing what your prophets said and then you judge me, why is that?
I can tell when we’re being effective because the Mormon posters will revert to a form of name calling, in this case referring to MC as a joke.
Here we have our buddy Helen who offers little of substance but does a version of “I bear my testimony”; a substance lacking primal scream of emotion the louder it is the more conviction is supposed.
Taking liberties with Peter Pan, we see folks, when faced with real evidence that their beliefs are being disrupted by fact and evidence, close their eyes tightly and repeat loudly, “I DO believe in fairies.”
Joseph Smith, armed with his magic rock, romped through the countryside at night searching for buried treasure and claimed that he found golden plates.
Once Joe was up and running with his fantastic tale, there was no stopping him. He had men becoming gods and ruling their own planets and even helped himself to as many of the Mormon sisters he could convince that his sexual cavorting was a sacred spiritual act.
There’s no explaining why folks buy into this farce but P.T. Barnum had the best explanation of the gullibility of people.
I want to apologize for my uncalled depiction of MC being lame and a joke. I was probably frustrated and let out with meaningless garbage that really has no room or place on a Forum where I am a invited guest, so without any further personal judgements on my part of either this Forum or any individual here I ask that we continue our discussion and hopefully I will be forgiven for my unsolicited and judgmental remarks. TBM at you humble service and eager to defend my faith. 🙂
Helen and Louis.
Mutu,
I do so enjoy speaking to Mormons who understand historical context, though I don’t think you quite see my point. You ask some great questions, which I will endeavor to answer.
So strange that you would bring up Marcion, but somehow it is apt for the discussion. However, your conclusions about him, make me scratch my head and say huh? You say:
“what we do know is that his simple Christ-centered salvation philosophy, like Luther’s, is based on a NT canon composed largely of Paul’s letters.”
Let’s just stop right there, and investigate this claim. Marcion completely rejected the Old Testament. If one does this, than one rejects Christ, for He is the God of the Old Testament. Like Young, he taught that God was a different God than the one in the Bible. I can’t by any stretch see how you can liken him with Luther in any way shape or form. Marcion’s mission, he said was to “divide your Church and cause within her a division, which will last forever” but he never divided the Church, he broke off from it, and started his own sect. Before he did so, he was an influential apostate, and Polycarp, meeting Marcion in Rome was asked by him: Dost thou recognize us? and was given the answer: “I recognize thee as the first born of Satan.” (Against Heresies III:3)
Luther was not an apostate in the same sense that Marcion was, because Luther’s views were supported by Biblical exegesis. Marcion, on the other hand, taught that the Old Testament was a stumbling-block that had to be discarded. Unable to reconcile those that credited the Old Testament, he went to Paul’s writings, that focused on the New Covenant, rejecting all that would countenance Jehovah, the God of Israel. Marcion was a heretic in the extreme, doing what Brigham Young would do later, inventing another god to replace the one from the Old Testament (for different reasons to be sure) but that is really where the similarities end. He was not in any way that I can see, advocating “a pre-Protestant notion of a mystical “priesthood” of all true believers.” This notion does not quite hit the mark, for belief on the Name of Jesus is what gives one ‘authority’, Peter’s use of the word ‘priesthood’ is a metaphor, for Jesus was the only High Priest, and his bride/church being called a royal ‘priesthood’ falls under that premise.
Unfortunately this forum is way too limited for me to go into how far off your premise is that there is only a ‘little’ known about the few centuries after Jesus. There is actually a wealth of material available, that is quite detailed, for those centuries gave birth to Christian apology as we know it. And I strongly disagree with you about the early Church Fathers, and Origen. That is one discussion, I would love to have some time.
But back to Marcion, his Christ was God Manifest, not God Incarnate. His invented God, The Invisible, Indescribable, Good God (aoratos akatanomastos agathos theos), that he claimed was unknown to the creator as well as to his creatures, who had revealed Himself in Christ. Marcion’s Savior is a “Deus ex machina” of which Tertullian mockingly says: “Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, suddenly Christ!”(Five Books Against Marcion, III:2)
Marcion admitted no prophecy of the Coming of Christ whatever; the Jewish prophets foretold a Jewish Messias only, and this Messias had not yet appeared. He denied the resurrection of the body, “for flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”, and denied the second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, for the good God, being all goodness, does not punish those who reject Him; He simply leaves them to the Demiurge, who will cast them into everlasting fire. He also baptized only virgins, widows, and celibates.
Nibley tries to proof text Baptism for the dead with these heretics, which still makes me shake my head is disbelief.
Comparing Luther in any way to Marcion is naïve in my opinion, for their motivations were different, as were their teachings and beliefs. But on to Adam-god You say “In other words, it compromised the holy Christian liturgy revealed & reestablished in its fullness to Joseph Smith.”
This was disputed by Young, who actually on three occasions said that Smith taught it. And since the Temple Endowment is not important enough to be set in stone (as changes since 1990 bear out adequately) that is a weak argument. What Pratt had problems with was the Bible, and rightly so. But Young neatly sidesteps this by proclaiming:
“With regard to the Bible we freq[u]ently say, We believe the Bible, but circumstances [circumstances] alter cases, for what is now required of the may not be required of a people that may live a hundered [hundred] years hence. But I wish you to understand, with regard to the ordinances of God[‘]s house, to save the people in the Celestial kingdom of God, there is no change from the days of Adam to the present time, neither will there be until the last of his posterity is gathered into the the Kingdom of God.” (October 8, 1854 discourse)
Young then describes why he believes this, with this famous quote:
“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe…I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6).
As for Smith and Michael and Adam, one can look to the vision of the Celestial Kingdom from 1836 as written in his diary:
‘The heavens were opened upon us and I beheld the celestial kingd om of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell,— I saw the transcendant beauty of the gate that enters, through which the heirs of that king dom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire, also the blasing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son,— I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold— I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin [Smith] that has long since slept,’ (Smith diary, January 21, 1836)
Of course this was changed when it was printed in the D&C later. This only goes to show that the Temple Endowment was a work in progress, with new theology being developed by Smith, as he was prone to do for his entire life. Young was only emulating Smith, and this throws out your claims of a restoration to some “holy Christian liturgy”, for there was no sudden ‘restoration’ of theology in Mormonism, it went through Monotheism, Modalism, and then on to polytheism, and was very inconsistent prior to the turn of the twentieth century and the Administration of Joseph F. Smith. (But that is a whole other discussion).
As for Pratt, Young would say this about him:
“It may be thought strange by the brethren that I will still fellowship Elder O. Pratt after what he has said, but I shall do it. I am determined to whip Brother Pratt into it and make him work in the harness.” (WWJ, January 27, 1860)
In fact, later Pratt would actually teach Adam-god from the stand. On October 7, 1869 Pratt taught that “[s]ome angels are Gods, and still possess the lower office called angels. Adam is called Archangel, yet he is a God.” (reported in JD 13:187)
Looks like Young was successful in converting Pratt to his way of thinking after all. You say, “While Pres. Young won this doctrinal, liturgical dispute in the short term, the strength of God’s word in the entirety of His revelations would side with Pratt a generation later (as you know).”
But that, has never been the crux of it for me, it was Young teaching it as a ‘revelation’ he said he got from God. In all the ‘disputes’ in the early Church, did Peter teach heresy? Did Paul? What was it that they did NOT agree on, and how did those issue turn out? This idea of disputes when it comes to the basic theological makeup of God are NEVER an issue in the early church, but Mormonism is full of them, for over 100 years. If Mormonism is a ‘restoration’ as you claim, it would have been revealed as it is TODAY, but what is taught today in Mormonism is a far cry from what was taught by Smith and Young. Does God allow prophets to ‘hit and miss’? Not the ones I am familiar with from the Bible. Not about who God IS. We are not talking about regulations here, we are talking about the basic nature of God Himself, the God these men were supposed to be speaking to and for.
Your comment, ”I do not doubt the validity of that word as coming directly from God. Nor do I think their failings are all that different from the failings of the men called in previous ages as the custodians of the Lord’s word.”
Holds no water, for you cannot make this claim when it comes to Biblical teachings about God. Your ‘failings’ speak to the very nature of God. They must be correct, or heresy. If they are heresy, these men are not prophets. Mormons could did not get their concept of God solidified until the turn of the twentieth century.
Again, I leave you with Smith’s words. “I never told you I was perfect, but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations I have received.” _johnny
Sorry I don’t have time for a more thorough response, grindael, but here are a few of my observation concerning your critical assessments in one key paragraph of yours:
You say: But that (whether or not Brigham’s judgment eventual gave way to Orson’s judgment), has never been the crux of it for me, it was Young teaching it as a ‘revelation’ he said he got from God.
Actually, Young was quite clear & adamant that he got the doctrine from Joseph Smith. He may have claimed God assured him of it, but he always claimed he received it first by way of Joseph Smith’s mouth. I certainly don’t think Young was lying–I think he may have misunderstood JS, or perhaps he even heard him right–but ultimately it must be admitted that his Adam-God doctrine is a very awkward fit for the theology & Eden narrative as it’s presented in the temple catechism. More awkward than the the doctrine of Trinity is for the New Testament, I’d say.
You then say: In all the ‘disputes’ in the early Church, did Peter teach heresy? Did Paul? What was it that they did NOT agree on, and how did those issue turn out?
“Heresy” is a pretty loaded word. Obviously you think Young’s teachings of Adam-God amount to “heresy” (& can I assume they are therefore “damnable except through an utterly blatant, penitent, & thorough act of recantation”?) I would be tempted to say the same of Trinitarism, only I’m not in the business of using penal words from the classical Christian “crackdown” tradition. And why Protestants of all people seem to favor them so, is beyond me! That the lessons of history don’t matter much to Protestants is the only conclusion I can arrive at. Unless it’s Mormon history, anyways.
In all my readings of the New Testament the only scripture that hints of Theism is the Gospel of John’s prologue, & a good many scholars think that was tacked onto the text in the 2nd century precisely because the later portions of John are such a thoroughly difficult fit for Theism & other such Platonic notions. In any case, John’s prologue is so ambiguous & brief, all committed theistical exegetes of the NT should really just leave it alone. Let the Philonic scholars continue to tease the real meaning out of it. Their verdict seems to change every decade, it seems.
For a far easier, plainer explanation of the New Testament’s treatment of God and the divine Christ I suggest a thoroughly non-Mormon book written by two men that take their Christian faith very seriously (neither are the “agnostic scholar” type):
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound.
by Anthony F. Buzzard & Charles F. Hunting; International Scholars Publications: 1998.
As for the disagreements between Paul, Peter, & the other Apostles, we know very, very, very little of the history of their interactions. Yet we understand that there were indeed disputations among them. Whether or not over the nature of God & Christ, we can’t say one way or the other given the vagueness of the New Testament’s history following Christ’s crucifixion.
You then say: This idea of disputes when it comes to the basic theological makeup of God are NEVER an issue in the early church, but Mormonism is full of them, for over 100 years.
I certainly hope you don’t mean the 2nd century A.D. when you say “early church,” because you couldn’t be more wrong. While I’m not quite comfortable saying Mormonism has been “full of” such disputations “for over a 100 years,” there’s not a competent scholar who’d say that 2nd century Christianity weren’t absolutely “full of” disputations concerning the nature of God and Christ. Have you not read from Tertullian or Origen???
And you then say: If Mormonism is a ‘restoration’ as you claim, it would have been revealed as it is TODAY, but what is taught today in Mormonism is a far cry from what was taught by Smith and Young. Does God allow prophets to ‘hit and miss’? Not the ones I am familiar with from the Bible.
This is spoken like a man who lives & dies by the comforting light of a thoroughly polished narrative history. If you read just the New Testament by the same critical standards you read early Mormon history, grandael, you’d find that no such polished narrative history truly exists.
And if you got to that point, you’d be able to appreciate why I am far less devastated by Mormon history than you are. A spiritual witness from God carries all human frailty.
Sincerely, mutu.
Hello Helen,
Well it’s great that you can say your sorry, but to me thats not the point. I have 3 kids, when they get in trouble they say, I’m sorry, well sorry means nothing if your actions dont change.
I recall Bill the “Head” of this forum if you want to call him that, going back and forth with an LDS member who refused to answer one or some of his questions. Bill finally warned the guy to give an answer or get kicked off. He was finally kicked off. So while I have no say as to if you stay or go, I will say that I want to see you get removed if you do not start debating and adding to the forum as you say you want to.
I also was talking with someone about the issue of you dodging questions, they said that sometimes mormons get hit with questions from more than just one person and cannot reply tyo everyone. While I agree with that, that is not the case with you. I almost started with you since you arrived, and a few others have asked you questions. A few you did reply to, IMO, They were questions you could answer and would not seriously challenge you. But few questions by other posters you did avoid, But I will leave it up to them to talk to you about that.
Again, you said TBM at you humble service and eager to defend my faith.
If that is true, then lets start talking, I asked you many times a handful of questions, take your pick and answer them, if you need to be remind, please ask I will remind you. otherwise please pick a question and give a reply. I will remind the Mods to think about removing you if you continue to dodge question and give lame vague replies that amount to nothing more than a smoke screen. I know to many I am the stench of death, But thats ok, it’s in the bible.
2CR 2:16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?
Stench of death 🙂 I think what I will do is just look at the different topics and make general comments in defending what I believe. If I notice mistakes, quotes out of context and general misunderstandings of our doctrine, my service and defense will be utilized in letting any visitor or guest realize that there are two versions, two sides and only one correct answer. Thanks so much for your time and hopefully I will see a question from you once in a while that will peak my interest. You seem to want a controlled environment and since you have been here way longer then me, I will concede to your seniority but not your criticisms concerning my faith. CARM seems a nice enough FORUM, just misplaced theories and concepts about the truth. BY is a dead topic to me, since my answers are not exactly the programmed responses that would lead to my conversion into Orthodox Christianity. As a Mormon Christian who proclaims that Jesus is Lord and Savior, I will regard my
salvation as safe and anyone else’s. I also proclaim the reality of the Book of Mormon of not having any evidence that can prove it true, yet proclaim in the same breath it is the Keystone of our Faith.
I will be looking forward to the day that evidence will come forth and then the deniers will have to deal with those issues as they do with other problematic issues that are both distressing and frustrating causing some to stretch the truth and quote out of context or assume something that is expressed only has a serious doubt.
FORUM ediquet is and should be desired by all in any civil conversation and I commit to my part in achieving this in representing the good and honorable I strive to change my self into by my continued Faith in God and His Literal Son, Jesus Christ. I need only correct myself and not others, for the beam in my own eyes needs more attention than the small splinters of my faithful friends here at CARM.
Yes I can say I’m sorry and apologize; for Christ showed the way that the true love of Christ (charity) to others was truly expressed in His words and deeds. My words and actions here were not up to speed, and I foolishly allowed what I see as truth and knowledge to divert my judgement into harsh criticism. Unkind and civil rudeness only leads to making others frustrated and upset, so gratefully this has been brought to my attention and hopefully I can grasp better my own incompleteness and inadequacy in debating on a higher level of kindness yet keeping my firm convictions that the light and knowledge I have received can be shared with others in helping them see the mistakes of their thinking and promote a myriad of possibilities, even possibly converting some poor soul here to the fulness of the Gospel and Plan of Salvation.
Helen and/or Louis,
Pardon the observation, but it seems that like in the grand tradition of all things LDS and politician, your posts are more filled up with wording than meaning.
I would ask you to please answer some of the questions I’ve posted, instead of sidestepping them?
A refresher:
1-If each word of the Book of Mormon was translated as carefully (perfectly) as the evidence (the scribes and such) tells us, where is the room for error (or the KJV) within it?
2-How can you add evidence of your own, and act as though this leads to a conclusion that can be relied upon for your eternal soul?
3-Do you or do you not believe that HF’s god/spirit name is Elohim, and Jesus’ is Jehovah?
Those are the questions I’ve asked you, that you have ignored.
I would like to redress the many identical = one issue as well. I’ve been thinking about it, and thinking how very alike red skittles are. I wonder, if by your reasoning, I can say, after I’ve eaten about 25 red skittles, if I’ve just eaten one. Why not? What makes these two issues different?
Wouldn’t it be great for dieters if, for example, one calorie was no different than 5000?
Looking forward to your thoughtful replies
I understand your issue, but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part and could put myself in a spot where I would embarrass myself. I don’t pretend to be professionally astute in all areas of Doctrinal points that would historically need more documentation or evidence. Some here at CARM like grindael seem well researched and leaned, so what I try and do is keep my eyes open for some fudging, and twisting of facts and evidence that just don’t jive with what I have learned or researched for myself.
Some of the skittles even though red may taste different when mixed in with other foods eaten at the same time.
Helen, Thanks for your participation here at Mormon Coffee. To clarify what seems to be confusion on your part, Mormon Coffee is the blog site of Mormonism Research Ministry, not CARM. You can access the CARM forums here: forums.carm.org/vbb/forum.php
My bad, MC of course.
Helen said I understand your issue, but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part and could put myself in a spot where I would embarrass myself. I don’t pretend to be professionally astute in all areas of Doctrinal points that would historically need more documentation or evidence
Yet again your side stepping the issues and dodging questions. You can say what you want, but how can you say you have the truth and Mormonism is true if you know so little you cannot defend your faith? Also, IMO you avoid questions because you know you have no answers, But thats OK, You do just as the Bible says, Loves the darkness rather than light, lest you come to the truth and be saved. John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Add to that, JS said, A man Cannot be saved in ignorance. It seems to me according to the dictionary Definition of Ignorance, you are ignorant of the LDS teachings and theirfore According to your prophet, Not Saved. ig·no·rance [ig-ner-uhns]
–noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
Now add to this, The Bible in Acts 17:11 says, Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
The Bible tells us to Search the Scriptures so we can know. It seems to me if you dont know, then your not searching the scriptures. Also this again goes back to the issue of, how can you tell me what I am doing is wrong and judging you when you admit as to not having enough training or facts to even defend what you believe?
Since sometimes you say, The Bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted, yet you quote from it anyway, lets use the BoM. It also says, Search the scriptures.
Alma 33:2
2 And Alma said unto them: Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them.
Alma 17:2
2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.
Thats only two verses of the verses that state this. Yet you show by your lack of ability to defend your position that you dont search the scriptures.
Then the Bible tells us in John that these things were written that we might know the scriptures are true, John 20 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
You are only fooling yourself, You might even have pulled the wool over a few others, But not me, I can see right through your smoke screen and mirrors.
Last Point, I told you before that this is not a CARM board, yet you still say it is and Sharon needed to correct you. That tells me you either dont read what is said, Or you do, but you dont care what is said you still choose to believe what you want. If you going to ignore what is said or read what is said, How can wetalk you at your word that you going to do what you say and be Honest, or for that matter, that your the Morally upright honest person you claim to be? I know I dont believe you, but then you have given me no reason to believe you, and you LDS wonder why people cannot trust you guys. You do stuff like this and then expect us to simple believe you. Rick
Rick good grief, I can’t make anyone believe me, I just want to correct you mistakes.
Helen said If I notice mistakes, quotes out of context and general misunderstandings of our doctrine, my service and defense will be utilized in letting any visitor or guest realize that there are two versions, two sides and only one correct answer.
How can you say this, but in the same breath say, I understand your issue, but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part and could put myself in a spot where I would embarrass myself. I don’t pretend to be professionally astute in all areas of Doctrinal points that would historically need more documentation or evidence
In one breath you pretty much state you dont know enough to defend your position, but then in another breath you seem to be confident enough to claim that if you feel me are “twisting” the facts, then your able to come along and “correct” us and set us straight. I just honestly see how you can do that. Also you feel you dont know enough to “Properly” debate us, so let me ask you this. Why is it you dont take the time to better study what you believe. I find it a sad rebuke to you that Non-LDS know more about what your church teaches and believe than you do. Because we take the time to read your scriptures and what your prophets and presidents taught and said, yet you do not. Rick b
This back and forth is getting circular, again I apologize. Probably I am at fault here. So lets try again, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer. If I can’t you can chalk it up to the fact that I haven’t properly studied it out. Last thing I want with you is this continuous contention back and forth, which I am sure is my bad. 🙂
Helen,
Wow. I see you in every Mormon around me. I used to be just like you. I can tell by your comments that you don’ t know anything about Mormonism. Neither did I. You, like me, just trust what you have been taught at church. Thinking it is the “truth”. You need to take some time to really research out these things. You don’t need to go farther than the LDS church’s own teaching manuals or scriptures. Tell me, have you researched the Journal of Discourses? The 9 different versions of the first vision? Did you know that Joseph Smith had a pistol when he was killed? Did you know that he shot at least 3 men, killing 2 of them? I think a good place for you to start would be with the Book of Abraham. After all, this is the book where the whole plan is revealed. Where Jesus is demoted to nothing more than our spirit brother and also the spirit brother of Satan. Jesus warned us that there would be many false Christs and false prophets. Do you know that there are 200 different sects of Mormonism? All with their own prophets and apostles? All claiming to be the original church started my Joseph Smith? Please, do some research before you rail at everyone saying they are wrong. I can tell you after 4 years of researching, it is you who is wrong.
Helen,
Since it seems you now claim you are willing to answer questions, Then why not just start with the newest topic. The Author of the topic has addressed some of the issues I brought up to you, and I mentioned them again.
Also in case you are not aware of this, you cannot simply reply with some others persons response. Meaning you cannot go to some LDS sight and cut and paste something an LDS person said and say, here is my reply. You need to reply in your own words and add quotes here and their as necessary.
Kate, respectfully I think you have me pegged wrongly. I have studied most of the materials presented by the other point of few, when I was much younger some forty year ago I was shocked and disturbed with what I read. So for some time afterwards I would check the references, the quotes all the snippets, read the references that were quoted from the JOD and much more. I studied, I pondered and prayed humbly and sincerely and found much to my joy, there is a answer to almost everything I personally researched. The good news is that my testimony increased and my efforts to share brought others to the knowledge I had received, I’m happy to say my sharing helped with the conversion of many others.
I love coming here to check on the latest and have found there is not much new at all, but correcting mistakes is good for the soul and lifts up my spirit to know I am a missionary for God.
“Some of the skittles even though red may taste different when mixed in with other foods eaten at the same time.”
Helen, thank you for beginning to consider one of the questions I posed to you.
I wonder, what does this thing that you wrote mean, as an analogy with the “many gods = ONE GOD” thing. For instance, does the analogy of tasting different when mixed with other foods suggest that you will be able to tell one god apart from another one, when they are with other things… say, maybe, their separate universes or world or whatever? Is that what you’re thinking?
Would we then be able to say, if we had each god on their own world, that they were each one god, but on the whole, if we brought them back into a group without their personal universes or anything, that they would just be ONE GOD? Is this making any sense in your mind?
What happens when we add more info than “just one.” Like for example, when we add “there will never be another one formed, and none has ever been formed before.” Looking at our skittles, if we said this, wouldn’t we assume that this was the only one red skittle in existence, EVER?
How about when God says “I am the first and the last.” If we had a skittle which was the “first” and the “last” red skittle, wouldn’t we think that that meant that it was the only red skittle in existence, for all time? It sounds more like a good lottery idea… the Skittle company could have one “mahogany” skittle, or something, and then give a million dollars for whoever ended up with it. That’s more the idea, seems to me, of “first and last” and “only one ever made.”
This is your eternal soul at stake, and in comparison with our small lives here (which are finite), infinity is a loooooooooooong time. I’d like to think that you care enough about whether or not you end up in hell to consider what “first and last,” “only one,” etc really means…
“I studied, I pondered and prayed humbly and sincerely and found much to my joy, there is a answer to almost everything I personally researched.”
I ask you to truthfully admit to YOURSELF if those answers that you found are like the one you gave to me above, the one about Joseph Smith just copying from the KJV whenever he saw a Bible quote comin’ on. You made this answer up out of your own head, disregarding the actual evidence. As a former Mormon, I admit that I used to do the same things with the LDS religion. I had an answer for everything… I just made it up!
But that’s ridiculous… it’s really childish business to make up whatever seems right to you, isn’t it? Consider what it would be like if you were on a jury, trying to ascertain the guilt or innocence of a woman who was being accused of killing her own child, for example. Let’s say that the accused lady has always been really nice to you, and she has an “honest face.” But now the he evidence has been brought out, and it has been shown that the woman has motive, was seen at the scene of the crime, has no alibi, etc. But because you WANT for her not to be guilty, would you ever just make up some evidence of your own to acquit her? “Um,” you think to yourself, “I suppose the REAL murderer was a person who looked just like her, and who hated her baby for some reason. Yeah! That’s it! That’ s perfect! It is the unknown look-alike who did it!”
Would you ever do such a thing?
And yet, you are doing exactly this…
Mutu,
Thanks for the comments. I am always amazed at comments like this one by you:
“I’m not in the business of using penal words from the classical Christian “crackdown” tradition. And why Protestants of all people seem to favor them so, is beyond me! That the lessons of history don’t matter much to Protestants is the only conclusion I can arrive at.”
When one looks at context, (for example the great lesson of Marcion) the word heresy is not a penal word, it is a necessary one. One only needs to look as far as the New Testament to see the seriousness of it. I’ll get back to that, but as Luther once said:
“When the devil wants to cause offense against the true doctrine and faith, he does not do so through insignificant people, who do not rate highly with the world, but through those who are the very best, the wisest, the holiest, and the most learned.” (What Luther says, Ewald Martin Plass, ed., 1959, Concordia Pub. House, Volume 2, p. 693.)
This applies very well to Brigham Young. As for comparing Young and Luther, (and others) there is one obvious difference that applies in my mind, and that is that Young claimed to be a prophet, the only one authorized to speak for God on earth, and then to speak ‘as God’. I know of no such claim by Luther (but yes many so-called Christians have made the same claim – and so their teachings should be judged by that criteria). This is a claim filled with gravity, for these men proclaim to be the ONLY way, that everyone else is wrong, has no authority to speak, teach, and perform ordinances, and that any profession of such is vain, and that ANY who say they are saved in Jesus are not really, for even God himself does not recognize our vain and foolish faith without the trappings of Mormonism.
If one teaches for instance, like the Gnostics did, that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or other things that take away from the revealed nature of God, and his deity, then what would you call it? the New Testament Greek term αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, “choose”),which in its verb form means “to make a choice.” It is the term rendered, “sect,” in Acts and, “factions,” in Paul’s epistles. One who produces a sect or a faction is a “heretic.”
And yes, I was speaking of the times of the Apostles when I said the ‘early church’. I can also elaborate on the EC Fathers, for I disagree there also, as I’ve mentioned – but that would be an undertaking that is beyond the scope of this forum. That there were problems from the churches very inception with heresy, is not an issue to any who understand the New Testament. So really, it is Jesus’ Apostles that went into ‘crackdown’ mode, and rightfully so. Jude, in the very opening sentence of his letter writes,
“3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”
What are the implications of ‘once for all’? God, who ‘in the past’ spoke through prophets, has NOW spoken to us by His Son… (Hebrews 1:1) Yes, this is a common claim of Christians to Mormons, but that is what Jesus apostles taught. ONCE FOR ALL! You make the comment, Mutu, that,
“As for the disagreements between Paul, Peter, & the other Apostles, we know very, very, very little of the history of their interactions. Yet we understand that there were indeed disputations among them. Whether or not over the nature of God & Christ, we can’t say one way or the other given the vagueness of the New Testament’s history following Christ’s crucifixion.”
I strongly disagree. John wrote of the Gnostic Heresy I mentioned above. Paul mentions specifically ‘the circumcision group’ that caused the disagreement between himself and Peter. Paul mentions those ‘super apostles’ and how some were placing those that taught the gospel on some pedestal that they (rightly) did not belong on, favoring one above another. But Paul’s letter to the Colossians, was an exercise in refuting heresy about the nature of God:
“My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” (2:2-4)
Paul explicitly states that he writes so that they may know about the mystery of God so that no one can deceive them. And what is this ‘mystery’, and how can one know a mystery? Paul explains:
“15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.” (1:15-23)
This encompasses all of the problems with the early church. The problems with the definition of God, the resurrection, and grace & the law, which some were perverting: the ‘circumcision group’, the Gnostics, and those named by Paul:
“Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:18)
Again, what is that ‘mystery’? Paul speaks of a heresy that attacked the total adequacy and the unique supremacy of Christ. No Pauline letter (in my mind) has such a lofty view of Jesus Christ or such insistence on his completeness and finality. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God; that Christ Himself proclaims that no one has ever seen. (John 1:18) and in HIM all fullness dwells. (1:15, 19) In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge. (2:2) In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. (2:9) Paul goes out of his way to stress the part that Christ played in creation. By him all things were created (1:16); in him all things cohere. (1:17) The Son was the Father’s instrument in the creation of the universe.
At the same time he goes out of his way to stress the real humanity of Christ. It was in the body of his flesh that he did his redeeming work. (1:22) The fullness of the Godhead dwells in him somatikos, in bodily form. (2:9) For all his deity Jesus Christ was truly human flesh and blood. Couple that with the opening verses from the Book of John, and you have the doctrine of the Trinity. Though some (whose faith I am in no position to question) interpret this in any number of ways, Christian orthodoxy has always proclaimed ONE GOD. Even Mormons published an affirmation of the Trinity, and couched it in terms of incomprehension (as I’ve provided below).
Back to the ‘mystery’. Here is what the New Testament gives us:
“Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,” (Romans 16:25)
“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
“…Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,” (Ephesians 3:3-5, 8-10)
Peter said that “…the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven; [are] things the angels desire to look into.”(1 Peter 1:12)
If Peter makes such a statement then, how can the Book of Mormon be true, which proclaimed these things long before this time? We have the name of Jesus Christ being bandied about in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before his birth, and these men, who taught by the power of the Holy Spirit, knowing nothing about it. Indeed, we find the mystery of Christ, being just that, a mystery, revealed only at God’s leisure when he deigned the time was right to come in the flesh. Although there were prophecies of the coming Messiah, nowhere is Christ named. This speaks to the error of the Book of Mormon more than anything else in my mind.
It may not surprise you, but I consider Joseph Smith to be a heretic from himself, for his later teachings are so divorced from his earlier ones, that he in essence started a new ‘sect’ after 1836 or so. This of course played out from 1836-38, when many of his followers left him, and called him a ‘fallen prophet’, most notable, the three witnesses to the BOM.
As I’ve detailed in the current blog entry here at MC (posted today) Mormons once believed in the Trinity, and that is why you find this amazing statement in the 1832 ‘Star’:
“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12, emphasis mine)
How one goes from that, to current Mormon theology, can only be described as ‘progressive’, and though many Mormon Apologists today claim that Smith’s ‘revelation’ worked that way, Smith himself denied that, by claiming in 1844 that he had ALWAYS taught that “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages…” (see, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370)
The Lectures on Faith refute this, as does much of the early teachings of Smith & the Book of Mormon itself. This plays into your last remark,
“This is spoken like a man who lives & dies by the comforting light of a thoroughly polished narrative history. If you read just the New Testament by the same critical standards you read early Mormon history, grandael, you’d find that no such polished narrative history truly exists.”
Sorry, but the words of Paul refute this very idea. The problems with heretics in the early church (up to the fourth century) brought about the Christian ‘creeds’, which are only a definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is simply an explanation of the ONE GOD of the Bible. They are not ‘added doctrine’ but rather doctrinal exegesis, though Mormons would like others to disbelieve this. Again you state:
“And if you got to that point, you’d be able to appreciate why I am far less devastated by Mormon history than you are. A spiritual witness from God carries all human frailty.”
Actually, the point is not lost on me, but I reject the notion that one can have a ‘spiritual witness’ of those that promote heresy, by affirming that those who taught it were inspired men and still are looked at that way. _johnny
Helen,
If you have studied and really know your Mormon religion then why are you not answering questions and defending it? You don’t seem to know much at all about it. You said that correcting mistakes is good for your soul, tell me where have you corrected a mistake here on this thread? How can I not get the idea that you are clueless when it comes to Mormon doctrine, leaders and history? You’ve admitted that you don’t know enough to defend it, which tells me that you haven’t really researched it. Please take the challenge of Brigham Young and take up the Bible, compare the religion of the LDS against it and see if it don’t line up. It doesn’t line up. As far as your testimony and receiving answers, are you talking about the “burning in the bosom” feeling? You do know that the Bible says the heart is deceitful, who can trust it? It also says that a man who trusts in his own heart is a fool. We are to test everything against God’s Word and if it “doesn’t line up” it is to be rejected. Sorry, but I don’t base my faith on my own heart anymore. I’m wonder about you converting others. Are you completely honest and up front with them? Do you tell them that Mormons think they will become gods and have their own world? Do you tell them that each man will have millions of eternally pregnant wives to populate their world? Do you tell them right from the get go that Jesus is nothing but their spirit brother? Do you tell them Joseph Smith was a polygamist with more than 33 wives and that 1/3 of them were already married to other men? Or that 1/3 of them were teenagers? How honest are you when you convert someone?
Orson Pratt said:
“One world has a personal God or Father, and the inhabitants thereof worship the attributes of that God, another world has another, and they worship His attributes, and besides Him there is no other; and when they worship Him they are at the same time worshipping the same attributes that dwell in all the personal Gods who fill immensity. And hence the Lord says, in one of the revelations of these last days: “Ye are tabernacles in which God dwells, man is the tabernacle of God.” Suppose that there should be a thousand, or one hundred and forty-four thousand, which number John saw, and they should have the inscription “God” on their foreheads, not placed there to make fun of them, but to describe their persons and the authority they possess. Suppose they should all receive the same knowledge, would not God dwell in them? If man is the tabernacle of God, then God dwells in them all, being only one God; but when we speak of them in their personal capacity, we say that John saw a hundred and forty-four thousand Gods; if we speak of the light or truth in each that governs them all (346 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES)then there is but one God, and He is in all worlds, and throughout all space, wherever the same identical light or truth is found; and all beings, from all eternity to all eternity, have to worship and adore the same one God, and always will have to worship Him; though they worship Him in so many different tabernacles, yet it is the one God, or in other words, the same light or truth that is worshipped by all. When we look at the subject in this light, there is no mystery about it. Only look at it in the light that it is revealed to man in these last days, and there is none of that darkness and sectarian foolishness which characterize apostate Christendom; and we cannot understand nor explain one single principle correctly, and are in the dark and cannot see the way before us; but when we talk and act under the immediate influence of the spirit of revelation, then we can see that which the world are ignorant of. When we undertake to talk of the great and glorious principles revealed in our day, and speak of the great and glorious light now revealed, and of which the world have been ignorant for so many generations, and assert that the Lord has seen fit to reveal the fulness of the everlasting Gospel to Joseph Smith, an illiterate man, the religious world spurn at it and drive it from their dwellings…
This explains the mystery. If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds. But the attributes of Deity are one; and they constitute the one God that the Prophets speak of, and that the children of men in all worlds worship.” (Volume 2)_johnny
Not answering questions and defending it? Gosh Kate how many of my posts did you miss?
What mistakes have I corrected? how about when in the scriptures God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. I pointed out that the Christians won’t admit to a Bible that was mistranslated and that has hundred of errors. It made me feel good that JST has spoken out against the errors and was doing a re-translation of the many verses that now shed so much more light and meaning.
You stated I said the following,
“You’ve admitted that you don’t know enough to defend it, which tells me that you haven’t really researched it.”
Now Kate that is not even close to what I stated, let me correct you, here is my statement —-
“but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part “.
Kate said, “As far as your testimony and receiving answers, are you talking about the “burning in the bosom” feeling?
Not only the burning in the bosom, which is by way scriptural, but the small still voice of the spirit that whisper to our spirit and also dreams and visions. We call this revelation. I personally have experienced the burning, dreams and the whispering of the Spirit.
Kate stated, ” I’m wonder about you converting others. Are you completely honest and up front with them? Do you tell them that Mormons think they will become gods and have their own world? Do you tell them that each man will have millions of eternally pregnant wives to populate their world? Do you tell them right from the get go that Jesus is nothing but their spirit brother? Do you tell them Joseph Smith was a polygamist with more than 33 wives and that 1/3 of them were already married to other men? Or that 1/3 of them were teenagers? How honest are you when you convert someone?
You assume I convert when I only stated I share what I have learned. Conversion is personal and is between the proselyte and God. My sharing is to tell them about the Book of Mormon and that they would be rewarded by reading and praying about it. I can’t imagine starting a conversation with things that are peripheral to the real issue and that is more important and that being Keystone of Our Religion, the Book of Mormon. If a person can accept the Book of Mormon and experience the promise therein that God will answer their sincere desire to know of its trustfulness, then I think they will be at a point when we know that friends and family will soon bombard them with all that is wrong with our religion, but that is where you and others make a huge mistake, it’s hard to kick against the p r i c k s when some one has felt and witnessed the HG and knows for a surety of His light and knowledge He shares spiritually with our new convert.
Helen,
[Sentence removed by mods.]
You said Not answering questions and defending it? Gosh Kate how many of my posts did you miss?
What mistakes have I corrected? how about when in the scriptures God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. I pointed out that the Christians won’t admit to a Bible that was mistranslated and that has hundred of errors.
First off You tell Kate that you answered a question and did not dodge it, But what your not telling her is the question that you answered was a question you asked and brought up to Andy.
You said Andy Watson says: Joseph Smith (worker of Satan)
Let me ask a pointed question, who hardens the heart of man, God or Satan? Think carefully before you carelessly answer.
So nice try their but to ask a question then try and answer it is different, than answering questions we asked. And I cannot speak for Kate, But no I did not mis a single post by you. Now here is a question you ignored, you said you pointed out that the Bible has hundreds of errors, Yet I asked you, if your church says that the Bible is missing many plain and precious parts, How can you prove it? Then why has the prophets never received revelation as to correct it? Then you say you love the J.S.T. But as I pointed out to you before, but you just ignore what I said as usual, The LDS church does not use it, only select spinets of it as foot notes, and they believe it has been corrupted after JS died and the RLDS some how obtained the rights to it. So Again you either lied or are ignorant, and if you claim neither, then please do tell me what the 3rd option is that I am missing?
Helen, You go onto quote Kate, “You’ve admitted that you don’t know enough to defend it, which tells me that you haven’t really researched it.”
Now Kate that is not even close to what I stated, let me correct you, here is my statement —-
“but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part “.
Not that you care Helen, But IMO I agree with Kate, you do not make any serious attempt to defend what you believe, you claim what you believe is true, But say stuff like,
If I notice mistakes, quotes out of context and general misunderstandings of our doctrine, my service and defense will be utilized in letting any visitor or guest realize that there are two versions, two sides and only one correct answer.
Yet the only mistake you corrected was one that you asked as I said. But then you go on to say
I understand your issue, but in fairness I would be not willing to set right areas or questions that need more research on my part and could put myself in a spot where I would embarrass myself. I don’t pretend to be professionally astute in all areas of Doctrinal points that would historically need more documentation or evidence
It sure sounds to me like you admit you cannot defend your position.
Now you go to say, Kate said, “As far as your testimony and receiving answers, are you talking about the “burning in the bosom” feeling?
Not only the burning in the bosom, which is by way scriptural, but the small still voice of the spirit that whisper to our spirit and also dreams and visions. We call this revelation. I personally have experienced the burning, dreams and the whispering of the Spirit.
You said it, so back it up, where in the Bible does it mention having a burning in the bosom? Remember, the Bible says that Satan can come in the form of an angel of light to deceive. Also If you claim you heard from God, You had a revelation or dream or what ever, why is it, the RLDS and the FLDS also had the same evidence, yet LDS claim they are neither Christian or Mormon, and what about JW’s or Muslims, Or Buddhists, Etc. They all claim the same exact thing, why are they wrong and not you?
Helen said, If a person can accept the Book of Mormon and experience the promise therein that God will answer their sincere desire to know of its trustfulness, then I think they will be at a point when we know that friends and family will soon bombard them with all that is wrong with our religion, but that is where you and others make a huge mistake, it’s hard to kick against the p r i c k s when some one has felt and witnessed the HG and knows for a surety of His light and knowledge He shares spiritually with our new convert.
Your quick to point out how you feel there are problems with the Bible, But I suspect you never mentioned that their were doctrinal changes to the BoM, or that it has been revised, and edited at least 4 times maybe more, and how verses are added or removed with no foot notes ever mentioning that. That means you are not being very honest and truthful with people you speak with. Again, How is that loving?
Kate I’m really happy to have you around, I was telling my wife I love your approach and you remind me of someone I know. LOL
Helen, one last thing. You said This back and forth is getting circular, again I apologize. Probably I am at fault here. So lets try again, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer. If I can’t you can chalk it up to the fact that I haven’t properly studied it out. Last thing I want with you is this continuous contention back and forth, which I am sure is my bad.
First off, your many words may confuse some others or make them think you are trying to give honest answers, but again, your not fooling me. Yes this is your fault because you keep saying you will answer questions, yet you simply dodge and side step them again and again. Then you said, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer.
I replied with, start with the newest topic, it addresses many questions I asked, and I even brought some up, and as of yet you have made no attempt to even reply. Really gives me hope that you are being honest, Just kidding, I said that with great sarcasm.
Then you said If I can’t you can chalk it up to the fact that I haven’t properly studied it out.
A truer statement has never been uttered by you before. I really believe this is the case.
I find it incredible what Mormons will latch on to, even in the face of evidence, and then dupe themselves into believing it is true. Here is something from the good ole boys at B.Y.U. from the 1960’s, yet most Mormons seem truly ignorant of:
”In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts…Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies…With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change…
It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament…This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament…There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament ‘in substantial integrity’ and to underline that ‘the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.’ It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess.” (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59)
I doubt many Mormons today are even aware of such findings. Interesting that those ‘in charge’ are so silent about it. Anything to prop up their need for more un-necessary revelation._johnny
Since I’m new here I have made several mistakes and am trying to be the good Christian I am, I have apologized several times for my bad behavior. Not once have I called someone a [name]; pretty strong language and am wondering if this is allowable hear at MC? I unwisely used the term “joke” and got called out for it which I completely understand. I know that being a guest at MC is a privilege and I have tried hard to toe the line in getting along with my fellow Christian friends.
When telling people that I come here to correct mistakes, I was not specific and I can understand where some would think that the mistakes I’m talking about are what someone else posted. Again I apologize for the hasty written claim and will happily clarify — what corrections I make from now on are all inclusive, just as Evangelicals here wish to correct our doctrine, I have great satisfaction in being able to point to corrections JS and others have pointed out that change the doctrine or meanings of orthodox Christianity. Good examples is our belief and the belief of many biblical scholars that the Bible is not inerrant. I would say that more scholars agree with the LDS on this then Evangelicals will admit.
The question is now asked, how can I prove it. I can’t since the original manuscripts are missing, then I’m told how can you say that when the DS scrolls back up the Bible. My reply is they don’t always. The DSS have even shown that verses have been left out of certain chapters. Common sense would tell most people that God does not harden the heart of His Children, that would go against the gift of agency.
Why has not the corrections been made? they have to a certain extent, JST.
Why not by our Modern day Prophets. I don’t know, God directs the Church not the other way around as we find with Orthodoxy Christianity. Some have stated we do not use the JST, not true. I just finished a class attended by some 100 members that just finished studying The Book of Revelation. We used the JST extensively in cross referencing scriptures.
Here is the latest assumption by Rick, “It sure sounds to me like you admit you cannot defend your position.”
Not exactly the position I put forth, but close enough Rick. I said I wish not to embarrass my self where more research is needed. I can see where Rick might think I have limited knowledge about my own Doctrine, but in reality the reason I stated this was because I don’t have a ready answer to many question asked that are not doctrinal but more about the personalities, traits, characteristics, of individuals who are more or less slandered. Calling JS adulterous, a liar, false prophet, convicted of fraud, glass looker, abuser, and pedophile are just some of the false judgements I can only disagree with but since actual historical events are sketchy at best, we can only assume the slander is only giving a opinion since the facts don’t bear out the evidence they feel to claim.
Lets look at the claim that Rick made, “You said it, so back it up, where in the Bible does it mention having a burning in the bosom?”
Luke 24:32
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
As explained above, LDS are depending on a witness of the Holy Spirit, not just feelings or what is in their heart and to do so is biblical (John 14:26).
Rick stated: “ Remember, the Bible says that Satan can come in the form of an angel of light to deceive. Also If you claim you heard from God, You had a revelation or dream or what ever, why is it, the RLDS and the FLDS also had the same evidence, yet LDS claim they are neither Christian or Mormon, and what about JW’s or Muslims, Or Buddhists, Etc. They all claim the same exact thing, why are they wrong and not you?”
Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ.
No where in the Bible does it say we can’t trust our heart.
Rick state, “Your quick to point out how you feel there are problems with the Bible, But I suspect you never mentioned that their were doctrinal changes to the BoM, or that it has been revised, and edited at least 4 times maybe more, and how verses are added or removed with no foot notes ever mentioning that. That means you are not being very honest and truthful with people you speak with. Again, How is that loving?”
Rich I know it has been edited many times, corrections made. I did not know that whole verses were added or removed. This is interesting and I’m sure you won’t mind sharing those complete verses that were added or taken out?
Helen, would you please reply to my last questions to you?
setfree stated, “This is something I’m not familiar with. How have you come to this conclusion, that JS used the KJV in this way, while translating the Book of Mormon? Do you have some statement of Joseph Smith’s, or his scribes, in which any of them say that this is what he did?”
What else, otherwise you and many other are right, he copied them from the King James Bible and made it seem that the Book of Mormon had exactly the same translation. I doubt that is the case, sorry no proof since little is written by JS as to the how he translated. This just my opinion.
Helen and Louis
Helen,
First let me give an answer to your statement about “nowhere in the Bible does it tell us we can’t trust our own heart”
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Proverbs 28:26He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
It’s hard for you to understand the true teachings in the Bible because you are following a false god and false religion. You need to go to a bookstore, buy a King James Bible not affiliated with the LDS church (they have chapter headings that tell you what they want that chapter to say, not what it actually says) and ask the Lord to reveal himself to you. We can argue with you until the end of time but it won’t do any good because you have put your faith in men. You can’t possibly understand the Bible because you don’t trust it. It isn’t reliable. You throw it under the bus every chance you get on here. You’ve been brainwashed into thinking this. I know this sounds harsh, but it’s the truth. I’ve been where you are. There is nothing like the True God of the Bible. He does reveal himself if you ask.
Jesus said:
Matthew 11:28-30
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
The LDS church and it’s teachings are anything but rest in the Lord. The yoke they put on it’s members is anything but easy and the burden they place (financially, mentally, and physically) on it’s members is anything but light. They proclaim that families are everything and then give out callings that keep mom and dad so busy that they have no time for their kids. You can trust the historical writings of your prophets and leaders, after all they are recorded in LDS books such as the JOD and the Lectures on faith (and many others) all approved by the first presidency of the time. To say they are lies is to call your past prophets liars. All your talk about the BOM is maddening to me. Honestly, the BOM doesn’t even begin to describe Mormonism. It’s just the “hook” to throw out to potential Christian converts. It teaches the Holy Trinity so it sounds familiar to a Christian. Throw in the families are forever bit and get them baptized ASAP! We have a sister missionary here right now from another country and she was baptized after only 11 days! Are you kidding me? This girl is 21 and she was sent out on her mission after being LDS for 6 months! Feelings can get us into trouble. I don’t understand why the BOM is so important to the LDS anymore. It contains NOTHING about mormonism. How can it be the “keystone” to your religion? It doesn’t mention becoming gods yourselves being rulers of your own world, no temple rituals stolen from Free Masonry, no mention of polygamy or the FACT (in LDS cannon) that no man can enter into the CK unless they practice polygamy in this life! etc. etc. etc. There is absolutely nothing Mormonism in the BOM. Why aren’t these things taught to potential converts during missionary lessons? I’ll tell you why, because people would see the LDS as the Christian frauds that they are. Lying by omission is still lying Helen.
Helen,
You misinterpret this scripture:
Luke 24:32
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
The reason their hearts burned was because he “opened the scriptures” to them, the scriptures are contained in God’s Holy Word the Bible, not the BOM or the pearl of great price or the D&C or anything else conjured up by men.
Kate stated:
“First let me give an answer to your statement about “nowhere in the Bible does it tell us we can’t trust our own heart”
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Proverbs 28:26He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
I respectfully disagree. In context we find that a person who is repentant, sincere, humble and contrite
before God can trust their heart and knowingly discern between light and knowledge versus darkness.
James 1:5 is creditable to trusting ones heart, God would not give us wisdom and answer our prayers and
leave us doubting that we actually Communicated with our Father in Heaven, if so that petty much leave
God out of the equation.
I admit you can translate Luke 24:32 anyway you want as for me I believe that it states exactly how it
is written and either Christ reading the scriptures or the Scriptures themselves can cause a burning in the
bosom that confirms to the believer a witness that they are true.
Then you state the following: “you are following a false god and false religion”. why? do you have evidence
proving us a false religion? or do you only have some serious doubts. Again I ask, if the Book of Mormon
is the Keystone of our Religion and it’s a false stone make of mortar and sand, how hard could it be to easily
pick out that headstone and watch the arch coming tumbling down. As of yet that Keystone is as sold as we
proclaimed it to be and the roof and foundation are still stable, meaning the growth seems to be a frustration
to those who proclaim we are only a cult.