Friends of MRM,
We are down to a mere month and a half before we hold our 2011 Compassionate Boldness Conference (Oct. 14-15, 2011). Unlike MRM’s Compassionate Boldness Symposiums, the conference features the expertise of a number of people who are actively engaged in sharing the gospel message with our Latter-day Saint friends and loved ones. We thank Pastor Terry Long of Calvary Chapel Salt Lake City for graciously hosting this event.
This year Rob Bowman will be our main plenary speaker. He will be addressing the subject of LDS exaltation. What does the Bible say about this and is this really just a another version of theosis? Our wide range of topics will be an asset both to those who are familiar with Mormonism, and those who are just getting acquainted with this fascinating religion.
We hope you will help us make this conference a great success by mentioning it to your friends, congregations, Facebook pages, web sites, etc. I have attached a variety of promotional material. This is includes flyers, post cards, and bulletin inserts. Feel free to print and distribute whatever works for you. In order to encourage early registration we are offering substantial tuition discounts.
I thank you for your past support and hope you will pray that God will use this event to encourage Christians to share their faith with compassion and boldness.
I look forward to seeing you October 14-15, 2011!
Promotional material
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” (Emphasis added) (Ibid. page 670)
But the BOM says,
“Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.”
You must come to Jesus – but only through the Mormon Church. Does the BOM enlighten us to all these ‘conditions’? Nope. It is simply the bait to catch the fish. In a book called ‘True to the Faith’, published by the First Presidency of the Church, we read,
“A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). The spirits in prison are “taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that [are] necessary for them to know” (D&C
138:33–34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.” (True to the Faith, http://lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/trueToThefaith/TrueFaith_000.pdf pages 46-47)
This contrivance that one can ‘repent’ in the ‘Spirit World’ contradicts (no surprise here) what is taught in the BOM. The false doctrine of a second chance is certainly not in the Bible. The sole source of this error is in the doctrinal disclosures of “further revelation” found in the Doctrine and Covenants, and other publications by the Church. Once more, in McConkie’s book he writes about a plan of salvation for the dead! Listen to him:
“The great principles and procedures whereby the saving truths of the gospel are offered to, accepted by, and made
binding upon the departed dead, comprise the doctrine of salvation for the dead. Pursuant to this doctrine the principles of salvation are taught in the spirit world, leaving the ordinances thereof to be performed in this life on a vicarious proxy basis. By accepting the gospel in the spirit world, and because the ordinances of salvation and exaltation are performed vicar¬iously in this world, the worthy dead can become heirs of the fulness of the father’s kingdom. Salvation for the dead is the system where under those who would have accepted the gospel in this life had they been permitted to hear it, will have the chance to accept it in the spirit world, and will then be entitled to all the blessings which passed them by in mortality.” (Page 673, emphasis mine).
Contrast this to the BOM (2 Nephi: 9:38):
“And in fine, woe unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God and behold his face, and remain in their sins.” Or,
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.” (Alma 34:32)
Where does the BOM say one can ‘repent’ after one is dead? NOWHERE. A great example of this conundrum was a post I wrote for Mormon Coffee found here: http://blog.mrm.org/2010/03/can-apostates-achieve-the-highest-degree-of-the-celestial-kingdom-after-death/ The Book of Mormon teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE:
“And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of
darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.” (Alma 34:33-35)
There is no way to reconcile these contradictions, except by deluding oneself that the BOM contains the Mormon “Plan of Salvation”, which it certainly does not.
And if you don’t believe ANYTHING men like Young say, you are ‘out of harmony’
“It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, [in Conferences] what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)_johnny
Johnny, I think you laid out some good information for any Mormon who might be
searching for the truth concerning a relationship with God can take to heart. It’s not
Mormon prophets, it’s THE prophet —Jesus . It’s not “revealments ” by so-called
“modern day” prophets and apostles , it’s God’s Word — the Bible . You’re right about
how most Mormons use the BofM as a way to convince investigators that the modern
day Mormon church is a reliable guide in revealing God’s truth, when in fact it has ran
right past the BofM in significant areas relating to how LDS can receive eternal life.
When I pondered this issue I thought of the movie ” Secretariat”. This is a new movie
and I watched it recently. It brought back the great memories I experienced in watching
him run for the Triple Crown which he won in 1973. In the Belmont Stakes he ran a race
that was incredible . As an analogy on this subject concerning the BofM and the Mormon
church today we can use Secretariat as the Mormon church today and we can use “Twice
the Prince” ( the horse that finished behind Secretariat in the Belmont Stakes. ) as the BofM.
For a while the two horses were close , but then Secretariat began to leave Twice the Prince
behind —way behind ! This is what has happened with the BofM . Mormon leaders have
revealed many additional requirements for attaining eternal life that are simply not taught
in the BofM. they have left it behind, as it were in THIS respect , and this is what counts most.
” ….when the Spirit whispered to me .” Helen testifying that the Holy Spirit told
her that the BofM was God’s Word. This is something that I feel needs to handled
with some degree of respect to the person who really feels this is varification of
their personal beliefs. This is not a new behavior as people are people whether we’re
speaking of today or in Jesus’ time. How then did Jesus and His apostles approach this
issue especially when it came to prophets and those who follow them ? The Bible is replete
with information on this . We can’t test a Mormon’s inner witness , their conviction as it
usually is accompanied by a feeling , and feelings are very personal . What we can do and are
counseled by Jesus and His apostles to do is test any prophet by evaluating their teachings
with what true prophets and apostles taught , thus we have counsel such as Gal.1:8-9 and
1Jn.4:1 etc. Another factor with this subject concerns the testimony of the many Mormons
who have heard the Spirit whisper to them and yet something very interesting happened,
consider a few examples : Bill Hoffman (Mormon document forger and murderer Mark
Hoffman’s father ) testified of an spiritual witness that his son was innocent of murder , but
then later his son confessed to he deed . Many Mormons have a spiritual witness that the hill
Cumorah is in upstate New York, others claim the same inner conviction that it lies in Central
America. Recently, Ida Smith (related to Hyrum Smith) and others testified that Christopher
Nemelka is the reincarnated Hyrum !
” whisperings of the Spirit ” , cont.
Mr. Nemelka also has claimed to translate a sealed portion of the BofM that Joseph
Smith did not attempt. Mr. Nemelka’s mission from God all started with a visitation
by Joseph Smith while in the Temple in 1987 . Mr. Nemelka’s attorney , Rodney Vessels
also heard the whisperings of the Spirit and thus came to the conclusion that Nemelka
is the ” bearer of the message of Christ to the world”. Consider also that Brigham Young
also heard the Spirit whispering to him , ” The Spirit whispers to me to call upon the LDS
to observe the Word of Wisdom ……that is what the Spirit signifies through me . If the Spirit
of God whispers that this to His people through their leader, and they will not listen nor obey,
what will be the consequences of their disobedience ?Darkness and blindness of mind with
regard to the things of God will be their lot….” [JofD v12p118, as quoted in Principles of the
Gospel, p154 ]. Yet despite this whispering by the Spirit we see Pres. Wilford Woodruff
30 yrs after this warning still drinking his coffee , apparently he heard a different whispering ?
What do we learn from all of this ? It is prudent to trust what God has provided for our spiritual
safety rather than trusting what seems right to us —- His word, Prov.14:12 . Even the BofM
relays the warning to beware of those who would ” wrest the scriptures ” —Alma 13:20.
Putting Moroni 10:3-5 before Matt 7:15; 2Pt2:1; is not wise . Just consider the above
“whisperings “.
Helen said,
That is not a plan of salvation, that is not a plan period, that is simply something you do. You know as well as I do if Mormons came to my house and the first thing I said was, can you tell me the mormon plan of salvation, the mormons will not simply quote that verse and thats it. As a matter of fact I have a mormon track called the plan of salvation, It clearly lays out the mormon plan of salvation in great detail and it is 17 pages long. Huge differance from one verse. You are simply clueless and again trying to dodge a question.
Sorry Rick B. but Christians are always ready with some kind of answer about the Creeds. If I accuse them of being Creedal Christians they get upset like you and say no, we only follow Jesus of the Bible.
Yet when Christians need a explanation of the Nature of God, they out come the Christian Creeds and a full explanation of who God is by way of some creed. So why does man need to clarify the Scriptures if they are self explanatory?
Athanasian Creed (900s), which says in part,
“And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. . . .”
Kate, what is the difference between Gods Doctrine, which is the Plan of Salvation and that which is written for inspiration and direction?
Little wonder that some things in the Journal of Discourses seem out-of-place in what we currently know of Gospel principles. It was not an official Church publication nor has it ever been a source for official Church doctrine.
“We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … the Journal of Discourses, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.” (Apostle Albert Carrington, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 15.)
Helen,
(D&C 68:2-4.)
“And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE SCRIPTURE, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”
Many of the sermons and revelations in the Journal of Discourses were given during General Conference. Brigham Young said: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that THEY MAY NOT CALL SCRIPTURE.” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).
So we may take this to mean that he felt he was “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”
So when he gave his Adam/God revelation, it was scripture and those sitting in the pew took it to mean as much. I would love for you to tell them that it was “just his opinion” and that they were deceived. Once again all you have done is show how inconsistent Mormon leaders were/are and you are dodging the real issue. I showed you where YOU were incorrect, not me. You told me to “correct myself” which I did. Now I’m asking you to correct yourself. You did say it. I called you on it, now please “correct yourself.”
Helen said
Helen, You either understand what I am saying and dont care, or you dont understand what I am saying, and dont want to either. I think it is a little of both.
Many people seem to think the Bible contains the word of God. The bible does not contain the word of God, The Bible IS!!! The word of GOD!!! Huge differance. The Gospel of John tells us Jesus is the word made Flesh. I dont really care if men make and follow creeds, The creeds are not found in the Bible, some creeds are simply men saying what they as a church as a whole believe. So I can go to some denomonation and they put in a simple statement or “creed” what thye believe. So I can know in advance. But Still unless you can support what you believe from the Bible, I dont care what creeds you follow. You said people use creeds to tell you the nature of God. I can tell you the nature of God from scripture, I dont need or follow a creed.
Creeds in an of themselves are not bad, but, are the supported in scripture? No they are not. The people you mention are not found in scripture, so I will quote from Jesus and the apostles not some guy from a few hundred years ago.
Kate said
It’s a good thing I was not drinking anything when I read this, I laughfed out loud. Kate you should do stand up comedy. You know that will never happen. Helen has been busted over and over for things she said and how far off wrong they were, I could easly use all 6 replys showing quotes of her getting it wrong, dodging questions, being called to account by various people and other things. It really boggles my mind that she is still allowed here and not kept more accountable to things. But I guess we need someone here to use as a poster child showing LDS cannot answer questions, dodging questions like the plauge, and embarrsing the church.
Helen is wrong once again. The JOD was an “official publication” Anyone who bothers to do the least amount of research will come to this conclusion.
John A. Widtsoe in the preface to Discourses of Brigham Young says, “This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses… All that he said was recorded…. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so FAITHFULLY AND FULLY PRESERVED… The corrections for the printer, as shown by existing manuscripts, were few and of MINOR consequence.”
And who was the chief stenographer? George Watts. In his Book, The Mormon Passage of George Watts (researched, by his descendent Ronald G. Watt for 30 years & published in 2009), who writes:
“When Watt suggested to Brigham Young that he publish a journal of sermons from which Watt could receive his salary, Young and Richards agreed. The Journal of Discourses ensured that all Mormons and even non-Mormons would know what the Lord wanted through the speeches of his representative, Brigham Young. From then on, Watt had a permanent desk in the president’s office and the Tabernacle, taking down the speeches in his SWIFT, curious symbols.”
“On the first day of the new year, [1852] Watt also began teaching a class in Pitman shorthand. His students included Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock, Thomas W. Ellerbeck, William C. Staines, Nathaniel H. Felt, Albert Carrington, and Daniel Wells, some of the most influential men in Salt Lake City. He probably received a dollar from each student. To prepare for this course, Watt wrote and published his own exercise book, a shortened version of the Pitman manual. He included within it instructions in phonography and some lessons. Young began to practice shortly after his first
lesson, and on January 5, he spent all day with his shorthand studies. (pages 126-7)
So Young, and others were very familiar with Watts and his process, and had full confidence in his abilities, not only that, he taught it to others, who used it to transcribe those sermons, that Widtsoe and others KNEW were accurate, and approved. As R. Watt elaborates,
“Watt’s potential employment must have been on the mind of Brigham Young. Finally, Watt wrote a letter to Young early in May 1853. He suggested that he be allowed to prepare “a few of your sermons which have not yet been in print with Elder P. P. Pratt’s two discourses at the conference on the spirit world and birthright to send to England for publication in the form of a magazine of about 150 or 200 pages to sell.” He suggested that part of the profit go to satisfy his economic necessities and the rest be used for Young’s purposes. Almost immediately his suggestion brought assent from the members of the First Presidency. It would enable Brigham Young and the First Presidency to have the written word to send to the members of the church and the missionaries.
The next day Young notified Watt of the First Presidency’s agreement, and Watt began transcribing and editing sermons. On May 25 and 26, YOUNG SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME EXAMINING THE WRITTEN DISCOURSES. On June 1, 1853, the First Presidency officially granted Watt the privilege of preparing and publishing Young’s discourses in magazine-LIKE form, recognizing that “Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to ACQUIRE THE ART of reporting in Phonography which he has FAITHFULLY and fully accomplished.”
Since publication would be less expensive in England, the sermons were to be sent to Liverpool as Watt had suggested. All the profits from the venture would go to Watt, who would also take care of all the costs. The First Presidency encouraged all church members to purchase the journal for Elder Watt’s benefit. Watt now had a permanent income and a place of employment.
More importantly for the church, the Journal of Discourses was a watershed, essentially the beginnings of a worldwide publication. Even though the Journal of Discourses was a private venture, it was an OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and the most important source of President Young’s and other church authorities’ sermons. Watt also joined OTHER CLERKS in the First Presidency’s office. Albert Carrington was Brigham Young’s clerk and attended to his correspondence. Thomas Bullock, an early convert from England, was also there.” (p.133-34)
The JOD was an OFFICIAL publication, and was reviewed beforehand by those that gave the talks:
“In November the Deseret News announced that Watt’s service as a reporter was available not only to the News but anybody who wanted CORRECT reports, and “if the brethren will employ him, and sustain him in his employment, time will prove it a BLESSING to all concerned.” (p.135)
“With permission to publish speeches of the church authorities, Watt needed to concentrate on the Journal of Discourses. The process of publishing each volume was laborious. He needed to be at all the meetings, recording the speeches in shorthand. Then, WITH THE HELP OF PRESIDENT YOUNG, he chose the talks that would be transcribed. In the first volume, twenty-six of the fifty-three sermons were by Young. Heber C. Kimball and Parley P. Pratt had the next most sermons
published with six each. In the second volume, Brigham Young had composed seventeen of the fifty-six sermons. Young’s sermons were spoken without notes and from memory. The phonographer had to work very hard to keep up with each speaker. Watt grew accustomed to the delivery style and speed of each speaker. If Young was not the first speaker, Watt sometimes did not arrive at the Tabernacle on time, and when he arrived late for the meeting, he slipped into his desk very quietly.
On July 2, 1854, he noted in his shorthand notes, “Phineas Young spoke but I was too late to report it.” At the same meeting, Young called upon Watt to speak. After he recorded the speeches, Watt transcribed them word for word, spending many hours at his desk. NEXT HE READ THE SERMONS TO THOSE WHO GAVE THEM, AND THEY CORRECTED THEM. Sometimes Thomas Bullock read Watt’s transcribed sermons, and Watt corrected them again. Albert Carrington copy-edited them, and then Watt sent the final collection of sermons by post to Liverpool for publication. The president of the British Mission also wrote a short preface. The sermons FIRST came out in pamphlet, serial form and were sold to church members both in Britain and Utah by subscription. The publication of the Journal of Discourses meant that the sermons of the Mormon leaders were some of the first religious works to be available for potential world consumption. It helped both the missionary effort and membership.” (p.135-136)
Here, we see that the sermons were read back to those that gave them, and they were corrected BEFORE they even went into print! Another Mormon Myth that is debunked, that these were ‘off the cuff, sloppy
transcriptions, that had many errors’. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Hence we have this statement by Brigham Young, WITH THE FULL MEANING VERY CLEAR:
“I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
In the preface to Vol. 11, we read from Brigham Young Jr.:
”The Journal of Discourses is A VEHICLE OF DOCTRINE, counsel, and instruction to ALL people, but especially to the Saints. It follows then, then, [sic] that each successive volume is MORE AND MORE VALUABLE as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. iii (1867)
Brigham Young was very conscious of having correct sermons sent out, and an official rebuke of Orson Pratt for a few items in the Seer, and Lucy Smith’s book declared:
“We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable … Errors in history and doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them.” Millennial Star, vol. 27, p. 659 (1865)
The current Church position on the JOD is a lie, perpetuated by them because they cannot reconcile DOCTRINES that were taught by early Church “authorities” that contradict what they choose to believe today. As Robert Millet stated:
“If the general authorities do not teach something today, it is not part of our DOCTRINE today. That does not, however, mean that a particular teaching IS UNTRUE.
A teaching may be true and yet not a part of what is taught and emphasized by the Church TODAY. In fact, if the Brethren do not teach it today, if it is not taught directly in the standard works, or if it is not found in our correlated curriculum, whether it is true or not may actually be irrelevant.” – Robert Millet, Getting at the Truth, p. 66
They sure would like some of those teachings to be “irrelevant”, but fortunately we have a historical record that shows the JOD were accurate, approved, and an official publication of the Church.
I have many, many statements by Church “authorities” going back to the beginning, that they were “worthy” and qualified to have the “gift of the Holy Ghost” when they were speaking. Time after time these men declare that their words at Conferences are “the word of the Lord” to the Church. Many claimed their words were ‘revelation’ as they gave them, as Brigham Young did when he taught that Adam was God in June of 1873.
For those who wish to delude themselves into believing the lie perpetuated by the Church today, one needs only to go to the historical record, and see that this premise is nothing more than a deception, to throw doubt on the JOD’s content. But that won’t work, because those early ‘authorities’ were proud of their doctrines, and made sure they made it into publication. _johnny
grindael,
Once again, a fine post. If the Journal of Discourses is not to be looked at or trusted as doctrine, I wonder why it is often quoted in today’s church manuals. You can find faith promoting quotes from it in the teaching manuals for relief society, young womens, priesthood, etc. I wonder why the church gets to pick and choose which parts are correct and which aren’t. Which are doctrine and which aren’t. All of the discrepancies and contradictions should be enough to convince anyone that the LDS church is not what it claims to be. At least the FLDS embrace all of this and are not ashamed of it. Mormons need to embrace their religion, stand up and shout the WHOLE truth to the world. The fact that the LDS prophet doesn’t shout out anything, or even stand up in GC and tell what is to be believed, speaks volumes. Why isn’t Thomas Monson putting all of this to rest? Why isn’t he being a prophet, leading the way Joseph, Brigham and others before him did? When did Mormon prophets decide that it should all be hush hush and secret? This alone should be a red flag. I’m curious, did you belong to the LDS church at one time?
Grindael,
While Helen has not responded I will give it a go.
You compared what Helen wrote in a verse from the BoM with what Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith said about how the Plan of Salvation encompasses the oaths, covenants, etc and how we have to live them. Let’s look at the BoM verse –
“Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.”
‘Come unto Him’ – OK, faith comes in here doesn’t it? So what’s first on the list in this verse?
‘Offer your whole souls as an offering unto him’ – What exactly does this mean? Is this an obligation or covenant type of thing? What was first?
‘Continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end” – Fasting, praying and enduring to the end, doesn’t this mean to keep any covenants, obligations, laws, commandments, etc for the rest of our life until we die? What came first?
So yes, the Plan of Salvation as described by Joseph Fielding Smith is contained in this verse, but it all hinges on our doing the last part, ie making and keeping covenants, commandments, obligations, etc, through faith in Jesus. It may not be spelled out the way you want it to be, but it is there in that verse. But going through the BoM we find most of the covenants and commandments we need for full salvation, not just resurrection as you state. We find baptism; consecration of time, talents and property; all of the commandments; etc. The only thing I don’t think is mentioned in the BoM is temple work.
(cont’d)
Next you make the statement that the BoM does not give anyone a second chance in the afterlife and that this is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the leaders of the church and the D&C.
Why don’t we look at the BoM section you use to see what exactly is meant.
2 Nephi: 9:38 Discusses those who “die in their sins”. We have discussed this in a recent post. Sin is the wilful rebelling against God and His commandments. Those who do not know of His commandments are innocent of breaking them, in other words it is not a sin. So if someone lived in rural China in 600 BC and did not know anything about God or His commandments, when they die they are counted as innocents and given a first chance to hear the gospel. If they accept it then whatever they did in their life will be washed away when their baptism is performed vicariously for them. If they do not accept it, they then have knowledge that what they did was wrong in their life and then they will be guilty.
(tbc)
(cont’d)
Alma 34:32-35 Yes, this is all true. Put this section in context, that it is talking to people that have already had the knowledge of God and His commandments – ie Amulek and Alma are preaching to an apostate group of Nephites here. The main points in this section to bring out are “do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end… Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God… For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his” NOTE it states PROCRASTINATION. Again, this is not talking about those who did not get a chance in this life to hear about God and His plan, it is talking directly to those who have heard it but decide to put it on hold until they die.
So I disagree, our scriptures and doctrine do not teach a ‘second chance’ at all. It teaches that we will all receive at least one chance, and for those who did not receive it in this life will get one in the next.
Ralph,
Then why do Mormons say that there is the need to repent first? What would they need to repent of, if it is not about a ‘second chance’? Read this official publication once again Ralph:
“A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). The spirits in prison are “taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that [are] necessary for them to know” (D&C 138:33–34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.” (True to the Faith, http://lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/trueToThefaith/TrueFaith_000.pdf pages 46-47)
Just how does this work Ralph, when the BOM explicitly teaches that one cannot ‘repent’ after this life?
“…for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God…”
Kate,
I was a Mormon for many years, and served a Mission. Mormon Prophets today would rather hide behind organizations like F.A.I.R., who have disclaimers that they don’t officially speak for the Church. Their “official” statement on the JOD is an outright lie:
“The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.”
This could not be farther from the truth, as I have shown. But statements like this are needed so they can delude Church Members into believing their prophets got up in Conferences and simply ‘speculated’. This way, anything that threatens their whitewashed versions of history and doctrine, can be thrown out, while they can keep and quote from the portions that suit them. For example, that quote from Young where he says his words are scripture was used by two prophets that I know of, but if you bring it up to Mormons today, they say that it was only his opinion, or that his sermons were not ‘corrected’ by him, another lie.
Most Mormons are notoriously ignorant of their own history and doctrinal teachings of the past, and many believe without question what current ‘authorities’ tell them. They also label many things “***i-Mormon” so they will not do their own research. _johnny
Remember Ralph, that it says in that official quote, “without a knowledge of the truth”. What would those who have lived “without knowledge” have to repent of? F. Smith specifically says:
“But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.”
He goes on to say,
“These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”
Again, what do they have to ‘repent’ of? How can they ‘repent’ of things done ‘in the flesh’? The BOM says they can’t. This is flat out contradicted by the Book of Mormon. Care to rethink your premise? _johnny
Ralph said
I just love how you guys try and defend the BoM with every fiber of your being, really wanting to believe lies, yet when the Bible teaches something you find ways to reject it with every fiber of your being, Why is that?
Ralph, you sit here and go out of your way to try and break this verse Down, show that all these things are required to be saved, Yet Jesus says in the Bible,
As I said before many times, The religious leaders flat out asked Jesus what WORKS MUST WE DO TO BE SAVED. The LDS prophets and leaders say the same thing, we MUST DO WORKS to be saved. Jesus told them the only WORK is to BELIEVE UPON HIM. So that is salvation summed up, yet you reject that in favor of a works based salvation, Why?
Grindael,
Reread what I said –
They, like children under 8, are innocents if they did not have access to the truth. Unlike children under 8 where what they do wrong is automatically covered by the Atonement, being adults they have need to repent of their wrongs, even if performed in innocence. Once they receive the knowledge when it is taught to them in the next life, they will know what they did was wrong. Then if they choose to accept the truth, they can repent and accept baptism. If they decide to reject the truth then they cannot repent and what they did in this life will then become a sin – ie they will now stand guilty.
And again, the passage you are trying to discuss from the BoM, when taken in context, is discussing those who already know the truth in this life but choose to PROCRASTINATE (a word used in those verses you quote) the day of their repentance. It is not talking about those who do not have the truth in this life.
RickB,
I believe, thus I am saved! 🙂
Ralph,
You totally ignored what was said. How can one REPENT in the Spirit World? All their deeds were done. They have no way TO repent. That is what the BOM explicitly states. What does Alma 34:32 say?
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of cthis life is the day for men to perform their labors.”
He is not speaking of just those of his faith, though he is addressing them. Read in context Ralph. Then the Official Church booklet reads:
“A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth…If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins…
And F. Smith makes it crystal clear that this is all the spirits of men.
It is obvious that it is NOT about those who already know the truth, it is about ALL MEN. If they were already part of Alma’s Church, then why did Amulek say to them:
“Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye begin to call upon his holy name, that he would have mercy upon you;”
Why would they need to repent, if they were already baptized? That makes no sense. If you just go back to Chapter 33 you see,
“Now after Alma had spoken these words, they sent forth unto him desiring to know whether they should believe in one God…”
These were non believers Ralph, and it was addressed to ALL MEN. You are dead wrong. _johnny
Ralph said
Sorry Ralph, It does not work like you think, You cannot pick up a Rock, Or find a tree, or use a car or pick what ever item you want, Call it Jesus and say, see I called upon Jesus according to that verse and am saved. When the Jesus you are calling upon is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Look at Moses, He mis-represented who God was by hitting the Rock Twice, Moses was not allowed in the promise land. Look at Job, God harsly rebuked His friends and him for getting it wrong. God says He takes His word More serious than His name and we know how serious He takes His name. The Gospel of John tells us Jesus is the WORD, Come in the flesh.
Gal 1:8-9 tells us that if anyone PREACHES ANOTHER GOSPEL than the one PAUL preached, they can be damned, LDS preach and teach another gospel. Paul Also said, If you dont love the Lord you will be damned, The jesus you preach is not the Jesus found in the Bible. You cannot as I said name what ever creature or piece of creation you want, call it Jesus and think your saved.
Jesus even said, Many people in the last days will say, Lord, Lord to me, and announce all the good things they did, I will say, I never knew you. Plus you say you follow that verse, Yet what you dont say, Is you believe everything your church says you must do to be saved, all those things your church claims cannot be founf in the Bible and were never taught by Jesus. So no Ralph, I dont believe for one minute your saved and will be cast into the lake fire
grindael “It is obvious that it is NOT about those who already know the truth, it is about ALL MEN. If they were already part of Alma’s Church, then why did Amulek say to them — “Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye begin to call upon his holy name, that he would have mercy upon you;”
Alma 34:2 My brethren, I think that it is impossible that ye should be ignorant of the things which have been spoken concerning the coming of Christ, who is taught by us to be the Son of God; yea, I know that these things were taught unto you bountifully before your dissension from among us.
Hope that clears it up somewhat for you!.
You stated — “These were non believers Ralph, and it was addressed to ALL MEN. You are dead wrong. ”
Alma 31:8 Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore they had had the word of God preached unto them.
Alma 31:9 But they had fallen into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God, and his statutes, according to the law of Moses.
Alma 31:10 Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation.
Thus the false and heretical doctrine that people who fail to live the law in this life (having had an opportunity so to do) will have a further chance of salvation in the life to come is a soul-destroying doctrine, a doctrine that lulls its adherents into carnal security and thereby denies them a hope of eternal salvation. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 181-196.)
Key words, HAVING HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
Rick B. put you evidence up! Laughing at your problematic claim, but then again you and I are never on the same page, in fact I really don’t quiet understand many of your claims, sound like your a frustrated poster who gets no resect, ya think?
Helen has been busted over and over for things she said and how far off wrong they were, I could easly use all 6 replys showing quotes of her getting it wrong,
Here’s your chance to shine Rick B. show me where I’m wrong, of course in your own mind. LOL.
Alma prayed, “Behold, O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren” (Alma 31:35). “MANY is not ALL.” That is my point, he was talking to ALL of them, whether they had heard the ‘gospel’ or not.
“In what sense is the term brethren used here? Alma’s statement could indicate that the Zoramites were not a uniformly ethnic group—that is, they could have been of mixed heritage, with some being Nephites (“brethren”) and some being Mulekites. The statement could also indicate that most were ethnic Zoramites but that some Nephite sympathizers (“brethren”) had dissented along with them. Another possible meaning is that they were all Zoramites by lineage but that some had previously been members of the church and were therefore considered “brethren” while others were not. Sherrie Mills Johnson, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume – 14, Issue – 1, Pages: 74-85_johnny
“For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also they that are without the law. For the power of the redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no conde:mnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.” ~Moroni 8:22
Here is a clear cut rejection of baptism for those that have died without the law. This is exactly what is taught in Alma. “Baptism”, according to Moroni, “availeth nothing”, because “they are alive in Christ.” “The power of redemption comes on ALL THEM THAT HAVE NO LAW”. _johnny
Further clarification on “the law”:
“And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it. Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!” (2 Nephi 9)
Again, those who do not have the law, are under NO CONDEMNATION, therefore they have no need to repent and be baptized, therefore Baptism for the dead is “is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust
dead works.” (Moroni 8:23) Why?
“For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, WHO HAVE DIED NOT KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD CONCERNING THEM, or who have IGNORANTLY SINNED.” (Mosiah 3:11)
Therefore, once again, this is a flat out contradiction:
“But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.”_johnny
“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel,” the Lord said to the Prophet, “who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.” (Teachings, p. 107.)
grindael, your straining at a nat, ask any LDS and they will tell you that Celestial Salvation can be reached by some, even those who were denied the opportunity to hear. But those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God. Salvation for the dead is the system by means of which those who “die without a knowledge of the gospel” (D. & C. 128:5)
Seems I understood you were once a member and if so it seems you are trying to justify your absence by twisting LDS Doctrine to make it justifiable in your decision making to leave the truth you once believed in. 🙂
Helen,
“Salvation for the dead is the system by means of which those who “die without a knowledge of the gospel” (D. & C. 128:5)
Really? Then why is it that members of my Mormon family just had to do “temple work” for my non believing Grandfather, Uncle, and Cousin just as soon as that one year anniversary of their death came around? My Grandpa didn’t believe a word of Mormonism his whole life. We all knew it, even the ones who did his “work.” From what you have posted, he didn’t qualify to have work done. He had heard the Mormon gospel and rejected it. Oh yes, the ole “they can choose to accept or reject it over there.” But according to you and this scripture, they have to have died without knowledge of the Mormon gospel. What about the Popes who Mormons have done work for? The Popes over the past 180 years have heard of Mormonism and rejected it. How disrespectful to go and baptize these Holy Fathers into Mormonism. You can spin that the way the apologists do if you want, but it’s disrespectful. I know, let’s have the Pope baptize all the dead LDS prophets Catholic. How would that be? I bet there would be a huge outcry from the LDS! The majority of the world knows or has heard about Mormonism today, they reject it, those of us who don’t want anything to do with it have a right to be left alone. We reject it HERE for the true and living Christ of the Bible.
I love your last statement to Johnny. This is the typical Mormon line. You just can’t bear for Mormonism to be false, so try and belittle the one who has left.
Helen,
Now you show no proof to back up your argument (which I have decimated by the quotes I provided), I’m simply “straining at a nat [sic]”, and the old Mormon stand-by “twisting”. LOL, is that all you have? You didn’t address how the BOM states that ALL who have died without the LAW, do not need baptism, as the BOM clearly States, and why it contradicts Joe’s later “revelations”, instead you quote from the D&C and Joe Smith’s later contradictions, which came many years later, and tell me I’m ‘twisting’.
Now that should be a lesson to all that Mormons can’t back up what they say, they will just dig themselves a deeper hole, double down on their errors, and then in the face of irrefutable evidence say that those that have documented evidence of fraud are trying to “justify their absence” [don’t you mean “leaving”?] by simply straining at gnats.
Actually, I didn’t need to “twist’ anything, the above contradictions speak for themselves, and simply did what Mormon Prophets told me to do which is investigate their claims, and I found them false. The Bible doesn’t teach repentance after you die, and neither does the Book of Mormon, and all the quotes trying justify that they do, don’t change the FACTS.
That is why Paul states that “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” _johnny
Alma 31:10 Neither would THEY observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that THEY might not enter into temptation.
Classic twisting and denying the written word.
1). Zormamites were Dissenters
2). They had the word of God preached to them
3). Next two verses repeat the word THEY.
Yes John you twisted and now are trying to defend and obvious faux pas.
“For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, WHO HAVE DIED NOT KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD CONCERNING THEM, or who have IGNORANTLY SINNED.” (Mosiah 3:11)
12 But wo, wo unto him who KNOWETH that he REBELLETH against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Again John, Key words, HAVING HAD AN OPPORTUNITY.
For behold, if ye have PROCRASTINATED the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his”
John how does one procrastinate something they know nothing about?
Stop calling me John, Helen. My name is Johnny. Can’t you read? You have not clarified anything. They are two different instances of “history” (if you want to call that novelization a history) in the BOM. They both support each other. You obviously missed the comments where it says that there Amulek says “many were brethern”. Many is not all. Regardless of that, I’m not ‘twisting’ Mosiah, which states flat out that “his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, WHO HAVE DIED NOT KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD CONCERNING THEM, or who have IGNORANTLY SINNED.”
That means that those who were born into sin by the transgression of Adam, and who die NOT KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD CONCERNING THEM, have IGNORANTLY SINNED, and do not need baptism, for that is ‘mockery’ before God BECAUSE THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST ATONES FOR THOSE SINS. So Baptism for the dead, and saying that men can ‘repent’ in the Spirit world, is a MOCKERY. You have not refuted this, in any way shape or form. _JOHNNY
“Stop calling me John, Helen. My name is Johnny. Can’t you read?”
Seems we are seeing a little anger here, now if it was me trying to be civil and polite I would have said,
“hey my Christian friend, most people call me Helen, not Hatty, I would consider it more acceptable if you would continue to use Helen, regards and blessings. 🙂
See, a great way too eliminate contention, just a suggestion Johnny. 🙂
“Regardless of that, I’m not ‘twisting’ Mosiah, which states flat out that “his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, WHO HAVE DIED NOT KNOWING THE WILL OF GOD CONCERNING THEM, or who have IGNORANTLY SINNED.”
Never said you where, I said you were twisting LDS Doctrine, and I also said if you asked any other LDS they would set you straight, so I see it as a way for you too justify something in your life, not sure what but it seems obvious you are —- bent on a agenda of justification.
Helen,
Given the way you ignore or can’t comprehend most of what people post here to you, (which you’ve done on this issue), I put it in a way that would get your attention.
How can one ‘twist’ Mormon Doctrine, when Mormons keep changing it so much? That is the whole point of that exercise, to show that Mormon Doctrine in the BOM is different than Mormon Doctrine from a later period. Duh.
And please leave the petty psycho-analyzing at the door, its another straw man, red herring that Mormons love to divert conversations with, when they have no real answers to the contradictions of their ‘authorized’ leaders. The verse in Mosiah is self-explanatory, but not to those, I guess, that can’t comprehend what it is actually saying.
And why in the world would I ask a Mormon to ‘set me straight’, when most Mormons can’t even agree on what their doctrines are, and believe what they pick and choose to believe? (As you yourself have said in this forum).
Also, they are not authorized to answer questions on Doctrine, only Church “Authorities” are. You are not a Church “authority”, are you Helen? The Mormon “official” publication contradicts Mormon “scripture”. No amount of opinion by those not in authority matters now, does it?_johnny