Aaron interviews Steve, a Mormon Apologist (formerly known as Rommelator on YouTube) outside of Temple Square. In this 11 minute video Aaron and Steve discuss the question of how far a Mormon prophet can go and yet still be a true prophet.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
I think his young man that Aaron interviewed should consider running for political office
as he is well on his way to mastering the art of saying a lot but saying nothing . Talk about
slippery ! May God help him to see the truth of how to identify false prophets.
To me it’s like saying a black banana isn’t bad unless it has a Dole sticker on it.
Thinking about this issue this morning, I wonder about a situation where Monson would say from the Conference pulpit, “This is official doctrine.” Even that, given the standards of minimalist Mormon apologists, would not yet constitute official doctrine. So Monson could hypothetically announce from the Conference pulpit that it is official doctrine that Jesus was a sinner, integrate it into all the correlation material and manuals, integrate it into required curriculum at BYU and institute and seminary courses, integrate it into the hymnals, integrate it into the endowment ceremony, 99% of membership believing it, all of the Golden 15 believing it except one (one shy of unanimous consent), and it still wouldn’t be enough (according to the principles of modern Mormon minimalists) to constitute “official doctrine” or the fruit of a false prophet.
To account for history and other problems, Mormon academia has set up a hedge of protective plausible deniability around its leadership.
But Jesus didn’t say, “You will know false prophets and false teachers when their bad fruits are official.” He simply said to watch out for their fruits.
That has already been done and mormons are ok with it. Joseph Fielding Smith in his Doctrines of Salvation books, talking about the doctrine of blood atonement stated that there are certains sins which the blood of Jesus can do nothing about. Isn´t that as bad as saying that Jesus sinned, to say His sacrifice isn´t effective and only shedding your own blood will do it?
Yet mormons just ignore that as they ignore everything and makes them feel bad, because, you know, the Book of mormon is true, it talks about Jesus, right, how could it not be true?
Someone in Conference yesterday said such an absurd… BTW, watch conference if you´re curious, but it was the same thing as always, you wouldn´t notice the difference if you were watching a conference from last year.
Also, can someone please explain to Ballard that the reason people are so confused about mormons not being Christian is so simple, Hinckley himself explained why
Aaron, don’t you think that this rationalizing by Mormons stems from their 180 year track
record of teachings being so inconsistent that they have to find some means to excuse their
leaders from being seen as false prophets ? Also, do you feel that perhaps some Mormons just
might be saying one thing to you , a non-Mormon, an “opposer” , quite different from what’s
in their own heart on this issue ?
Unfortunately, the average Mormon will never think about this issue. Its like there is a seperate set of rules, one for those who will become future Gods into eternity and one for God the Father and Jesus Christ. They never think about how if they who are now sinners are able to become a god than for God to be God and Jesus Christ to be a god (because they doctrinally do not believe Jesus Christ is God, although I don’t really know what difference it makes if all have an opportunity to become gods.) Personally I think it all just becomes too overwhelming to think about , because it really exposes the double think that Mormons have.
It’s an amazing system that can take ordinary men, apply universal principles in the context of religious observations and clean living and turn them into gods. Now this is suppose to be “restored” Christianity. This system is said by Mormons to be original, first century Christianity. I guess it was practiced by the ancient Jews also.
Funny thing though, there’s no record of it any where. There’s no record within Scripture and there’s no record of it in any historical writings. It was all super secret until a man with a magic rock translated some gold plates, he said, in which a record of some ancient Jews coming to America appeared.
Now this “system” doesn’t even appear in this BoM tome. It just kind of got hatched by the man with the magic rock. This man even found a way to weave Free Masonry into his religion and call it ancient knowledge and wisdom.
So all of these gods roaming about the universe used to be men. Were they sinless men? Doesn’t really seem fair that there was another planet(s) some where, where men were sinless creatures. Then we get the earthlings just full of sin having to work their fingers to the bone in order to become gods. The other gods either did or didn’t have this challenge.
Mormons don’t want to be bothered with trying to think through this whole convoluted system because even a little serious inquiry will “reveal” that it’s all the invention of a guy who was pretty clever, had a dynamic personality, but was basically playing church.
Very neat, clean, bright and articulate young man but I’m wondering what his depth of knowledge is specifically about the history of the early Christian church and the process (the Church) went through in articulating the doctrine of God. There is a specific Mormon myth the circulates among (Mormons) regarding where the doctrine of the Trinity came from. The myth is there to promote a certain point of view that says there was a great apostasy.
We have excellent records of what the early Church thought, believed and taught regarding the nature of God and the battle to beat back heresy. It a person doesn’t have a clear understanding of the process, all sort of erroneous and self-serving conclusions will be drawn.
The first eighteen verses of the Gospel of John tells us who Jesus is. The Church Fathers continually stressed the view expressed by John. The heretics wanted to make Jesus into something else and not recognize Him for being God incarnate. Neither do the Mormons. Mormons don’t even want to give God His due for being God but instead want to demote Him to a lesser form. Is there anything more serious than this?
Very nice young man but he is a perfect example of what Marriedamormon called “this newer generation of Mormons.” I have to say that his answers are so foreign to someone like me who was raised in the LDS church and is over 25. Aaron have you ever interviewed an “older generation of Mormons?” I’ll bet the answers would be completely different. For me, finding out that past prophets taught things such as Adam/God or blood atonement and that we are to reject those teachings because they are not correct, yet those prophets are still prophets, not one bit false is part of the reason I left the church. Did that make sense? LOL! Why follow man’s “opinion?” Growing up, these doctrines were never taught at church. I didn’t know they existed. I was taught that the prophet could NEVER lead me astray. God would not allow him to teach something that is false. The whole “official” thing is ridiculous. To be honest this guy was giving me a headache trying to follow his reasoning. The truth is simple. Trying to justify a lie gets a little complicated.
Kate, you said, ” The whole ‘ official ‘ thing is ridiculous . To be honest this guy was giving
me a headache trying to follow his reasoning. The truth is simple. Trying to justify a lie gets
a little complicated .”
I completely agree. I was just looking at Arza Even’s book, The Keystone of Mormonism,
he is a former Missionary who at 40 years old began to look into the history of his prophets.
What he found greatly disturbed him . He states , ” I saw glaring contradictions and
inconsistencies in Church doctrine . ” Long story short, he could’nt support a false prophet
led religion . This was a difficult decision as he was reminded of how much good the Church
does in promoting a moral lifestyle etc. His own bother even accused him of having a lying
spirit. The reason I cite Mr. Evans is that in his book [ p.46] he quotes a article from the
early Mormon publication, The Evening and Morning Star of July 1833 , the article, by
Joseph Smith, was titled , ” Beware of False Prophets ” . This article was almost identical
to the Bible’s test for prophets , it said, ” When therefore any man , no matter who or how
high his standing may be , utters or publishes anything which proves to be untrue , he is a
false prophet. ”
I think that this is a good place to start in evaluating the “fruits’ [ teachings] of those who would
claim to be prophets in these latter-days/end times — Matt 24:11
Kate,
Here’s the deal on this young man. He’s very articulate (notice his choice of words) but he’s lacking knowledge. He reminds me of when I was that age and I’d be sitting around in a dorm room with a bunch of other guys trying out our intellect. We were in that “forming” stage.
I teach college aged students as a part-time retirement gig, and I’m always amazed at how sure of things they can be. Unbelievable confidence. I’m 65 years old, have three college degrees plus, and a ton of real life experience and I’m not even as confident as some of these young people. The problem is, they don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t even know what they do know because they’re still sorting it all out and putting it in useable, accessible piles, or cubbies in their brains.
The number one thing that this young man could learn at this point is how to access and evaluate information. He needs to learn how to identify reliable sources and extract the salient points. Here’s my little model that I stole from Benjamin Bloom.
Knowledge-First we “know” something.
Comprehension-We understand what we know.
Application-We can apply what we know and understand.
Analysis-We can take apart what we know, comprehend and are able to apply. We can see the parts.
Synthesis-We can take all of the parts and put them together in new and creative ways. We see the connections between all of the parts and are able to make something new out of them.
Evaluation-We are experts and can judge.
Think of Pedro in Napoleon Dynamite judging the cow’s utter at the FFA competition.
For Mormons it really comes down to “sources” and the ability to judge what they learn giving up their lenses of Mormonism to find the truth.
With these Mormon prophets, Mormons must hold two contradictory thoughts in their minds at the same time. First of all Mormons must confess that the LDS church has a living prophet and the implication that when acting in the office of the prophet, he’s perfect and hearing from and speaking for the Mormon god. At the same time it’s said that the prophet isn’t perfect because a lot of times he’s just speaking his own mind and subject to the limitations of his humanity.
Someone needs to tip the prophet off about his limitations. Someone also needs to determine, especially with guys like Brigham Young, what was his opinion and what was prophetic. Brigham Young didn’t think he was just giving his opinion about things like Adam-god. In fact it’s said that the words of the prophet are as good as scripture.
Mormons don’t really seem to have a clear idea of what are prophetic utterances and what are not. Mormons treat their prophet like a rock star. They have an ideal in mind regarding the prophet and they really don’t want reality messing with their fantasy.
Mike R.
‘might be saying one thing to you , a non-Mormon, an “opposer” , quite different from what’s in their own heart on this issue ?‘ Very good point but this was a hypothetical question so don’t try to make the situation to real.
Falcon
Mormons don’t even want to give God His due for being God but instead want to demote Him to a lesser form. Is there anything more serious than this? I think it is better than cramming three beings into one and that these three are one in purpose not being.
Aaron
In a lot of the books I have read by mormon authors I have noticed that the phrase like ‘these are my opinion and not official doctrine is used in the book or something like it.
Clyde, thanks for agreeing that I raised a good point, now would you mind sharing what you
would do if your prophet did indeed teach that Jesus was a sinner or that he agreed with our
position of the Trinity ? How do we identify a false prophet today ? Does it really matter
as long as you strive to live a moral lifestyle ? If I claimed to be the prophet God is using today
to lead His people, and my personal opinion was that Jesus was not God incarnate , only a
perfect man , would that mean anything ? Should people ignore this and continue to sustain me ?
Care to comment ? Thanks
Wow. Seems like a really sweet guy, but holy cow, was that a roundabout way of saying, “no matter what the guy says, he’s still a prophet”.
Aaron raises a good point, though. I recently heard a Mormon call the Trinity a “false doctrine”. But what would happen if the current prophet did a little research and decided that the Trinity actually is a true doctrine? Would the members still consider him a true prophet? According to this guy, yes. Because if the members didn’t like what he had to say, they’d brush it off as “his own opinion”, even if the majority of the Church believed it. But according to Mike’s source, Smith would’ve said he was a false prophet. So which is it? Like someone else said, truth isn’t this complicated! The whole thing makes my head hurt.
Again, the majority of members are more worried about how much food storage they’ve got or the next Scout meeting to be concerned with testing their own prophets.
Falcon, like I said before, its all doublethnink when it comes to mormonism.
Clyde said “this is a hypothetical point, don’t try to make it a real situation>” I beg to differ with you Clyde, this is a real and serious stiuation. Either you beleive God was God from everlasting to everlasting and you believe that Jesus was God from everlasting to everlasting (as is orthodox Christian teaching.) or you believe that God and Jesus were once sinful men who earned their rank by doing good works, ergo they had to once be sinful men. In my book the Mormon chruch is presently teaching doctrine that blapehemes the true and living God and Jesus Chirst who is God.
Mike R
There is lot of speculation here. I wonder about those people who set high standards for themselves and are able to keep them and those who turn their lives around in one day-through one simple prayer. Why did Jesus say he goes to see his father and my father and his God and my God. Who did He pray to?
Clyde, would you mind responding to the questions I posed ? You seemed to have
ignored them . This is very serious issue , an issue that affects your salvation.
Thanks .
clyde,
I can see that you have zero understanding of the doctrine of the trinity and expose your ignorance in your comments. First of all you don’t disagree with what I say about Mormons demoting God to just one of many gods and the promotion of men to god status.
If you’d take a little time to actually read the Bible and study Church history, you’d have a clearer picture of who God is. The fact of the matter is that in Mormonism Jesus is just one of many gods in Mormon mythology. Jesus told the disciples after He arose from the dead that they should study the Scriptures and see what (the Scriptures) say about Him (Luke 24:27, Luke 24:44-45). The words of the apostle John says it all in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. The Church Fathers were taught by the apostles who walked with Jesus. The Scriptures and Church tradition tell us that Jesus is God; not “a” god.
Men with limited spiritual understanding embrace a limited god; someone little better than themselves.
Instead of doing this, Mormons accept as truth, the mental meanderings of men they call prophets who are consistently wrong as is seen by their ever evolving and changing pronouncements. The fact that the original script of the BoM has Joseph Smith “revealing” an orthodox view of the nature of God and then later has him changing to something totally different tells it all.
BTW clyde, your habit of giving little one sentence snippets for answers is insulting to those of us here who actually spend time crafting complete presentations and often use sources to substantiate our points.
The real claim to fame for the Mormon church and their members is that they have a living prophet and also apostles leading their church today. This is suppose to be the WOW!! factor that blows people’s hair back. “Man, think of it; a REAL prophet just like in Bible times. Where do I sign up?”
We’ve seen where these prophets and apostles are continually exposed as not being all that special (see article on Mark Hofmann case on this blog for example) and are in fact pretty ordinary. They don’t draw their power from God but rather from the adulation of the Mormon crowd that sees them as special and project super status to them. The Mormon prophet is in many ways a blank slate upon which the faithful Mormon can write. These prophets are cagey enough not to step too far out on a limb with anything substantive including LDS doctrine. They pretty much give motivational talks on living a clean life while the faithful hang on every word which to an outsider have a huge “DUH” factor.
Then we see the rather pathetic attempt of the Mormon prophet (Smith in particular) to foretell the future. The modern day Mormon prophets have given up this practice. They just don’t have the zing, the mojo that Smith had and it’s too easy to track their predictions as to there accuracy.
There are a lot of things these Mormon prophets could clear up but they choose not to because ambiguity is the stock and trade of these very ordinary men. They just keep moving the pea around under the shells letting the rank and file guess what (shell) the pea is under but never turning any of them over. There isn’t a pea under the shells anyway. It’s all an illusion.
Falcon, Like you I’m thinking we probably are never going to see the current Mormon
prophet issue any predictive prophecy , or even announce a major doctrinal change . I
think they are well aware of how many errors they’ve made since 1830 to venture out into
that water again . Concerning what Steve , the LDS Aaron interviewed , said about his prophet
being able to testify that if it was his personal belief , his opinion, that Jesus was a sinner or
that he believed in the Trinity , as we proclaim it , that this would not mean he was a false
prophet, it would’nt be apostacy on his part etc. I find that incredible reasoning . MAM
said it well , no matter what Pres. Monson would say that he believes , he still would’nt be
a false prophet in the eyes of Steve and many Mormons . That is a clear picture of being
spiritually blind . Stop and think about it, we have a Mormon apostle teaching his flock
that the Churches of “Christendom” who worship the Trinity , as is delineated in the Creeds ,
as being false and strange Gods . We have another Mormon apostle teaching that the devil
wants people to believe in the Godhead ( Trinity) that the Creeds mention so that people
will be damned . Yet Steve admits that if his prophet personally believes in this Trinity
then that does’nt mean he is a false prophet or in apostacy ! No wonder Jesus issued a
warning about false prophets , if they cause their followers to rationalize like this no one
would see that they’re false.
I have a question for the LDS that post here, but I honestly dont expect and answer. Do you guys ever stop and say to yourself, why are people always saying, LDS never answer questions? And do you guys ever wonder why we/I say that? Do you ever say, I will prove them wrong and answer questions?
I say this or ask this because, Like the mormon in the Video, he really just gave a lot of words and no real answers as Aaron said, I called out a few LDS for dodging questions, One mormon that I was talking with Via private email started posting here, did not really answer any questions then dropped off the earth. Now Mike R asks one poster a question, the guy never asnwers it, but goes onto ask more questions.
Now I understand we cannnot make people answer questions, and I understand that they are asked lots of questions and cannot reply to to them all. Yet if the LDS were honest with themselves and really looked at what I’m saying, they would notice a pattern of LDS not answering questions and never having any real answers.
So this makes me ask another question, What is it about Mormonism that you believe and send out MM’s to knock on doors, that is so true and honest that I would want to convert if you cannot answer any questions?
I think that is a good question to ask since I know many athiests who were christians at one time and left because they claim no one could answer their questions, so in their mind the Bible must be false. And the Mormon I was talking with said he walked away from being a christian to being a mormon because he said they answered his questions where (cont)
(cont)
where as Christians offered no real answers. I wonder what answers from LDS he got, since it seems he had his questions answered to the point it made him decide they had the true church, but they cannot answer are questions, and he also seems unable to offer the same courtisy to us. Makes one wonder what questions are being answered and by who, when I hear from mormons they had many questions answered yet they seem to fall short of giving answers.
Mike,
How does someone get to be a prophet? In the OT God would call, elect someone and then anoint that person with the Holy Spirit. That person would then be God’s oracle to speak to the people and quite often to the king. The prophet in the OT was often used to call people/king to account for their behavior but the prophet also spoke forth what would happen in the future.
In the NT we see prophets and prophetesses (Acts 13:1-2; Acts 21:8-9; Acts 21:10-11). How did they get that office? God anointed them with the gift of prophesy as defined as one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (First Corinthians 12:10-11).
So how does an LDS prophet get to be an LDS prophet? My guess is that the man who sits at the top of the LDS pyramid gets assigned the title of prophet. I’m also guessing that he got there because he was particularly good at managing the LDS political structure to his advantage. LDS prophets are basically managers of LDS Inc.
Steve Benson, apostate Mormon grandson of LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson, has some interesting observations about the LDS hierarchy. His grandfather was incapacitated and for all intents and purposes unable to fullfill the office of the LDS prophet. The boys at the top covered for him and I do believe Steve says they used a signature signing machine to affix his name to documents. Now why didn’t they just say that the prophet was incapacitated and unable to fulfill the office he was holding. Because it’s the LDS and their whole program is based on obfuscation, cover-ups and outright lies.
This is an organization that at it’s heart is in the religion business.
clyde,
“I think it is better than cramming three beings into one and that these three are one in purpose not being.”
I understand your thinking here. I had this “crammed” into my head from 3 years old on. But here’s the thing clyde, how do you reconcile the fact that the original book of Mormon says that Mary is the mother of God? Or that it said the lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world?
1 Nephi 11:18
“behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”
1 Nephi 11:21
“Behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father.”
1 Nephi 14:40
” that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.”
So you see clyde, Joseph Smith DID believe in and preach the Trinity. It’s just been changed and hidden from you. Apologists do their best to twist this, but the text is very SIMPLE. Could it be simple because it’s true? The LDS need to read the 1830 book of Mormon and compare it to the current version. There are so many doctrinal changes that one has to wonder if they are even the same book.
Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren, [the twelve Apostles] that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” JSHC 7 Vol., 4:461
Which book of Mormon was he talking about? Which doctrine should we trust and believe? The original that claims the Holy Trinity? Or the one being used now that has nearly 4,000 changes in it? For more evidence of the Trinity, read Alma.
Mike,
“The Evening and Morning Star of July 1833 , the article, by
Joseph Smith, was titled , ” Beware of False Prophets ” . This article was almost identical
to the Bible’s test for prophets , it said, ” When therefore any man , no matter who or how
high his standing may be , utters or publishes anything which proves to be untrue , he is a
false prophet. ”
Maybe the young man in this video should have been told this, but then again, he could easily say that it was just Joseph Smith’s “opinion” and not “official.” I get so tired of hearing and reading that. There’s a primary song LDS children sing and it says to “follow the prophet he knows the way!” Children are being taught to just follow the prophet, but when does it go from this to ” well yes, follow the prophet, but most things (especially off the wall stuff) is just his “opinion” and not “official” and you can reject it!??? How is one supposed to know which is official and which is opinion? Thomas Monson needs to stand up and shout to the world which is which. He had the perfect opportunity last weekend. The fact that he remains silent on this stuff speaks volumes to me.
Kate, you ask some very important and normal questions about whether Mormon
prophets are trustworthy spiritual guides or not. You’re able, now that you’ve been
freed by Jesus, to more easily evaluate these men . I say more easily because now you
don’t have to fear that you’re going to offend God by questioning these prophets . Given
the claims of these men to provide consistent reliable spiritual truth from God they have
only left the Mormon people the victims of a broken trust ,and there have been many people
such as yourself that have come to experience this and did the right thing by dismissing these
men from their lives. Jesus was there for you to place your trust in Him . Mormons like Steve
only hurt the Mormon church because his rationalizing was so blatant that everyone could see
he offers no answers at all .
Kate,
I don’t mean to quibble with you but was Mary the mother of God or the mother of Jesus? And what difference, if any, does it make? Because Jesus is God right? So does God have a mother?
I’m just having some fun here because God, technically, doesn’t have a mother. I just couldn’t pass that up. I remember my daughter, when she was about 13 years old says to me one day around Easter time, “Well Dad, technically Jesus IS dead!” She thought she’d have fun poking her Dad because she knows what a stickler I am to the point of straining at gnats sometimes regarding Christian doctrine. It did provide a good discussion however as we got into the whole topic of Jesus’ resurrected body. I’ve taught her to question everything in regards to religious/spiritual matters.
I wanted to pass this link along to everyone. It takes about 13:20 to watch but I think it relates to our broad topic here. See if you can find the Mormonism in what is being discussed even though the topic isn’t Mormonism but the Health-Wealth gospel.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-tube/video.php?videoid=4460
Good point falcon, I guess I should have added what those passages were changed to.
1 Nephi 11:18
“behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”
“behold, the virgin which thous seest, is the mother of the SON OF GOD.
1 Nephi 11:21
“Behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father.”
“Behold the Lamb of God even the SON OF the Eternal Father.”
1 Nephi 14:40
” that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.”
“that the Lamb of God is the SON OF the Eternal Father and Savior of the world.”
I for one think that the original shows that Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus IS God as you say, so this to me shows the Trinity. The change in the new version of the Book of Mormon completely changes the nature of God. I know you are having fun with me and that’s great! Just clarifying what I was actually meaning. Many doctrinal changes in the new version of the Book of Mormon. Once again, inconsistencies between what has been taught and what is being taught today. I wonder what Joseph Smith would think about this “newer generation of LDS Mormons?” I would think he would line himself up with the FLDS, they are closer to his teachings. What would Brigham Young say about all of his wonderful revelations being touted as just his own opinion?
Mike R
This is a hypothetical subject. It does open up good ideas about how people deal with people who are prophets to others. Your question of moral lifestyle is interesting because of those people who have had no idea of Jesus yet have lived a highly moral life but seem to be condemned to hell because they did not know of him. I had a different blog answer for you but have been to busy to put them on my computer. I will try to do it later.
clyde,
If someone could be saved on the basis of living a good moral life, there would have been no reason for Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. The reason for this is that even good moral people sin. It’s not how many or what type of sins that someone commits, it’s the fact that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Read the first three chapters of Romans where Paul lays out the case for a guilty verdict, for everyone.
This is why Mormonism is a different religion and not Christianity. The number one difference is that Mormonism has a different god. The Mormon god was, at one time, a sinner. The gods of Mormonism claim a moral life for the achievement of their status. Mormons may as well throw the Bible out for all the good it does them in coming to an understanding of the truth that is revealed there. Joseph Smith and the Mormon prophets who followed him never let the Bible get in the way of their desire to create a religion separate from orthodox Christianity. That’s the point really. Smith was determined to be a mover and shaker in experimental religion. Mormon prophets reveal what’s in their minds and call it revelation from God. Each prophet puts his own creative spin on the topic.
It doesn’t take too many questions to quickly get to the bottom line of Mormonism. It’s a cut-and-paste creation of a man who claimed prophet status but who demonstrated no such calling but was instead a sinful man; a status the Bible assigns to all men.
Subsequent Mormon prophets compound the error of the original (prophet) and demonstrate they are little more than amateurs playing church.
Clyde, thanks for the reply. I realize this issue of whether or not Pres. Monson would be
a false prophet if he personally embraced certain doctrines , doctrines that your Church
says are false, was framed hypothetically but it is a good question to think about given
Jesus’ warning of the proliferation of false prophets in the latter-days . My reference to
living a moral lifestyle stems from my perception of the Mormon people who it seems to
me are somewhat not all that concerned if Pres. Monson believed Jesus or Heavenly Father
sinned just so long as he keeps stressing living morally. Again this is only my perception .
So, care to address this issue ? How important is it to you if you heard Pres. Monson
say he believed that Jesus and or HF sinned, or if he said that Jesus was married , or not God?
Would that make him a false prophet/teacher ? If it does then what do you do about it ?
I would appreciate it if you would confine your reply directly to the questions I posed , and
not to any side issues.
Falcon, I have a letter from a Mormon apostle that I had written to years ago concerning
a very important doctrine that former Mormon leaders had embraced but which had been
changed by the prophet this particular apostle was serving with ( 1970’s) . His reply
to me was that he really did’nt give a hoot ( my words ) ! He stated that he was following the
“living prophet” and in so doing he was being obedient and in the truth . It was practically
a “who cares” type of response . This type of attitude , and arrangement within Mormonism ,
is a false prophet’s dream . May the Mormon people come to see how dangerous this is .
” Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people err… ” [ Micah 3:5 ]
Mike,
Mormonism is indeed a Maze. That apostle you referenced was basically telling you that what came before makes no difference. He was following the “living” prophet. The dead ones are buried along with anything they said or did. Mormons will appeal to these dead men when it’s in their interest to do so and ignore them if there’s no advantage. What matters is the LDS church, the institution, the system and not the prophets. Jesus even isn’t all that important. He’s sublimated to the system that created Him and the Mormon Heavenly Father.
Let’s face it, Mormons worship their church therefore the prophets can be excused. The prophets are not “the church”. Forgive me but Mormonism is just plain weird. What I mean is that they make a big deal out of having living prophets that hear from God and yet these prophets can be inconsistent and just plain wrong and it makes no difference regarding their status. Anyone could be a Mormon prophet. Put some guy in a suit, call him prophet and prop him up behind the podium at GC and the faithful just swoon.
They could put a cardboard cut-out up there and it wouldn’t make any difference to the Mormon faithful. They’ve bought the program. They believe it. Nothing the prophet can say or do can dissuade them from the religious culture they love.
My life is defined by my relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s it. It’s not defined by devotion to a church organization or those who lead it. I don’t have anyone dictating to me what I should give, or do, or attend or what I can eat or drink. God revealed Himself in His Holy Word the Bible. He baptizes and fills those who believing in Him with His Holy Spirit. That’s enough!
I know it seems counter-intuitive but a person doesn’t really have to have a testimony to be a Mormon. The important thing is that the person keeps coming to the LDS church sanctioned activities. I guess the idea is that all of a sudden a person will get (Mormon) religion and have a testimony. The important thing is keep coming. Keep going through the motions. Fake it until you make it!
So the idea that the Mormon prophet could be wrong or even endorsing what would be heresy in Mormonism is incidental. He’s the prophet. Maybe he just needs more practice. Maybe he’ll change his mind.
Remember Mormons, up to the recent past, believed that their apostles had had a personal visitation from Jesus. They saw the Lord. Now it is said that they have to have a “witness” of Jesus. They no longer have to actually see him. Sounds like a down-grade to me.
Andy Watson was dealing with some MM one time and the MM had kind of come-up to a dead end with Andy. So they brought some heavy artillery in; an old man who claimed to have seen Jesus. Well Andy wasn’t buying the old man’s story nor his attempts to make an end run around the Mormon doctrine of men becoming gods. The old guy got so mad that he stormed out of Andy’s house leaving the MM in his wake. Andy looked at one of them and says, “You know your church teaches this!” The MM shook his head in the affirmative and left looking pretty sheepish.
I imagine this old man has gotten a lot of mileage out of his “I’ve seen the Lord” claim, down at the wards.
Mike R.
A simple answer since it is a hypothetical question would be it never would happen that an apostle would say something like that. It would kill the argument, nothing else to say about it, next question
Mike R.
To create some more talking points to ponder later on I would have to ask myself lots of question about what was said and why. ( this is referring to blogs question.) As to agreeing to what the prophet said I would have to give quite a bit of thought on the subject, see what was being noted between conference and what will be said at the next conference.
While thinking of this some things came to mind. One is that a person is to close or not far enough away to realize who can be a false prophet. Another is to question your religion can also at times strengthen it. Another is how was it said.
I see a leadership issue when people within a church are entrusted with a persons spiritual well being. One friend of mine told me of a person he met who he thought was a prophet. I remember his one good point was that he was good with names-He would be able to tell you your name before you told it to him. He even stayed at my friends house. Later my friend would not talk about him. I say this to remember that we are either to close to give good answers to some questions.
At times I have questioned my religion and realized that ,for want of a better word, it is the best thing on the market. I believe other people believe that their religion is also the best thing to them. It is a perspection issue. They may also questioned thing and not find any thing wrong.
These are ideas I thought of but do not answer your question you brought up.
Mike R.
I think without taking any side issues that An answer to your question is more complicated than it looks. The question of that jesus sinned If i thought it was his own opinion then it would not bother me unless he said it was doctrine and I better believe it. To some people it would not bother them, but to me personally I would be on the sidelines.
Clyde, my heart hurts for you my friend . You took 3 posts to say what you could have
said in just one, appartently you just can’t admit something that is so obvious : IF your
prophet testified to you that he believed that Jesus sinned or that Jesus was not God
incarnate then Clyde that would make him a FALSE PROPHET !!!!! That’s all I asked
you . When you can ask Jesus to open your heart to receive the truth about a saving
relationship with Him you’ll see how this simple question really was . You’re not ready for
that yet , but Jesus is patient . He cares for you and stands ready to help you . No prophet,
no Temple, just Jesus—-because He is able . Heb.7:25