Readers: For context, you can start by reading the Baptist Times article here, and then Hellen’s letter here.
Dear Hellen,
While I realize that there are a good number of Mormons who reject what their own leaders have taught, or at least mentally disassociate themselves from what their leaders have taught about fundamental things like the nature of God and forgiveness, it is still true that Mormonism continues to teach and perpetuate 1) Lorenzo Snow couplet theology and 2) that “after all we can do” means to fulfill a meritorious set of prerequisites for receiving forgiveness and eternal life.
On #1, you wrote:
“The arguments he uses against The Church of the Latter Day Saints are outdated and ill-researched. President Snow served from 1898 to 1901, well over 100 years ago, I do not feel it is fair to try to influence people’s opinions on any organisation or denomination by quoting such historical leaders…” (emphasis added)
Consider that the official LDS priesthood and Relief Society manual to be used for 2013 (you read that correctly: 2013), Teachings of the President of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, blatantly and explicitly teaches the couplet on page 83 as a true, “sacred communication” revealed from God:
Another official LDS Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith, copyrighted in 2010 and used as curriculum in 2012 (you read that correctly: 2012) teaches this as well:
“We believe that we are here because we kept our first estate and earned the privilege of coming to this earth. We believe that our very existence is a reward for our faithfulness before we came here, and that we are enjoying on earth the fruits of our efforts in the spirit world. We also believe that we are sowing the seed today of a harvest that we will reap when we go from here. Eternal life is to us the sum of pre-existence, present existence, and the continuation of life in immortality, holding out to us the power of endless progression and increase. With that feeling and that assurance, we believe that “As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” [See Lorenzo Snow, “The Grand Destiny of Man,” Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22.] Being created in the image of God, we believe that it is not improper, that it is not unrighteous, for us to hope that we may be permitted to partake of the attributes of deity and, if we are faithful, to become like unto God;…” (“Teaching of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith”, 70-71)
Those who say this teaching has “no functioning place” in Mormonism are either lying, uninformed, or are in denial. To quote Ron Huggins‘ academic paper on the couplet:
“Lorenzo Snow’s couplet summarizes a truth that still lives at the heart and logical center of the whole Mormon religious system. Evangelicals are not therefore ‘bearing false witness’ when they regard it as representative of Mormon belief and critically discuss it as such.”
There are indeed some Mormons who reject the idea that God was once a mere mortal (not yet a God), and/or that we can become Gods (the kind worshiped by future spirit children), but this is the minority position, not the traditional, institutional, or mainstream Mormon position. So Bobby is absolutely right to generalize Mormonism as teaching it and Mormons as believing it. I ask thousands of Mormons whether they believe God was once perhaps a sinner, and about two-thirds of them answer in the affirmative. “Neo-orthodox” Mormons, and evangelicals who dialog with “neo-orthodox” Mormons, understandably desire to portray Mormonism in the best possible light, but it is best to give an accurate account of the state of affairs, recognizing both the perpetuated traditional position and the minority neo-orthodox position among Mormons.
On #2, consider that the currently published and disseminated True to the Faith manual, sold at official LDS Distribution centers around the world and included in the Missionary Reference Library for Mormon missionaries, perpetuates the traditional reading of “saved by grace, after all we can do” from 2 Nephi 25:23. On page 77 it reads, “the phrase ‘after all we can do’ teaches that effort is required on our part to receive the fullness of the Lord’s grace and be made worthy to dwell with him.” Notice also how the LDS Bible Dictionary (published in the standard LDS “quad”) construes the passage:
“However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, ‘It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do’ (2 Ne. 25:23)” (p. 697).
This has been the standard, institutional, mainstream Mormon interpretation of the passage since the late 1950’s. You can read for yourself a plethora of quotes by LDS leaders on this passage. The modern neo-orthodox Mormon reading of the passage, that “after all we can do” means “in spite of what we can or can not do, or what we have done”, is taught primarily by BYU professors like Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet, who are essentially trying to refute what the LDS prophets and apostles have been teaching for decades, albeit without explicitly calling attention to the errors of specific leaders.
Should we stop openly and actively evangelizing Mormons, who generally hold to traditional Mormon positions, simply because minority positions exist among Mormons that are less heretical? Should we stop warning people about the errors of Mormonism, simply because a portion of them are less erroneous than the teachings of the traditional, institutional, and mainstream elements of the religion? Absolutely not.
Portraying Mormonism in the best possible light — using almost exclusively the lens of LDS neo-orthodoxy — will win one more LDS fans, but it doesn’t help provide clarity and appropriate urgency that is fitting for those advancing the kingdom of God.
Grace and peace in Jesus,
Aaron
Frem the Baptist Times article:
“This is a massive contrast to the biblical teaching in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves: it is a gift of God.”; “For most of my time as a Christian I have clearly known God’s call on my life to reach these people.”; “This is the greatest chance in many a year for Christians in the UK to witness to these great people.”
Add to that, you say:
“Should we stop openly and actively evangelizing Mormons…”
First, you teach that I can do nothing to be saved because even the desire to be saved is a gift from God.
Then you go about teaching me that I am not saved because I do not follow the teachings you believe in.
Question; Why does your God have you teach me that I must do things that, by your own definitions, I cannot do?
parkman, trust in the God of the Bible (the one who never sinned) for the free and immediate gift of forgiveness. Stop working for it and start trusting God who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). Otherwise, God refuses to give you the gift.
Parkman,
You’re one confused puppy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is clearly presented in the NT. It’s really not complicated. We are separated from God because of our sin. God has reconciled us to Himself through the sacrifice that only He could make. Salvation is secured by accepting the gift that God is offering us by His extended grace through faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10, Ephesians 2:13, Romans 3:23-24, Romans 5:1-2
Jesus is God incarnate. He’s the only qualified Savior.
Someone pointed out to me that
Ephesians 6:13
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
sounds a lot like
It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do’
“parkman, trust in the God of the Bible”; “Salvation is secured by accepting the gift that God is offering us by His extended grace through faith.”
Already did that, now it is time to work on the things we will be judged on at the Day of Judgment.
I had a long conversation recently with a neo-orthodox Mormon. He is the director of my local LDS Institute. He disagreed with almost all of the key doctrines of the Church other than continuing revelation. Here’s a list of some things he believes:
– All of the standard works might contain errors.
– Anything that a Prophet says at any time (even if he is acting as the Prophet) might contain errors.
– All of our sins are forgiven by faith alone.
– There is nothing magical about ordinances such as baptism and temple marriage.
It was a really weird experience. On the other hand, I was encouraged to know that there are people within the Church who have probably accepted the true gospel (forgiveness of sins by faith alone). It makes me sad that they continue to perpetuate a tradition that contains so much distortion.
Also, he dismissed the Snow couplet as non-canonical speculation. I’m looking forward to asking him about the passages you cited here, Aaron. Thanks for this research.
“- Anything that a Prophet says at any time (even if he is acting as the Prophet) might contain errors.”
I remember where one Apostle had to correct another Apostle in the New Testament. Have you ever been taught about that?
Parkman quoted and then said:
“- Anything that a Prophet says at any time (even if he is acting as the Prophet) might contain errors.”
I remember where one Apostle had to correct another Apostle in the New Testament. Have you ever been taught about that?
Problem:
If you mean Paul’s correction of Peter, then it is not relevant, or at least not completely. Parkman, you quoted a statement about statements, the statements of Prophets, but the issue Paul confronted Peter with was not a proclamation given by Peter – Peter taught fine – but with Peter’s ACTIONS. Peter was going along with those of the circumcision, in opposition to the liberty he knew and taught in Christ. This was the correction Paul gave – nothing about “anything that a Prophet says at anytime”.
And we should expect this. Apostles are supposed to know and teach true Gospel and true witness of Christ. But they are human and will fail in action.
Answer:
No, I was never “taught” about this incident between Peter and Paul – where “one Apostle had to correct another Apostle” – but, despite that, I know of it. Why? Because it is actually in Scripture. It is there for me to read and learn from. Out in the open. For all to see.
Note:
Have you actually read that passage Parkman? It’s a really good one. If you understood the conflict better (in order to have noticed that it was not relevant to the quote you addressed), then you might understand something important about the relationship between works and salvation. The whole issue that Paul was correcting Peter about had to do with this – works and salvation. Maybe you should check it out again until you understand.
Parkman: You might want to check out the following talk. Ezra Taft Benson (before he was Prophet) said that “the prophet will never lead the Church astray”. Most Mormons I have met believe that teaching. That’s why I was so surprised when the neo-orthodox Institute director I mentioned said that he did not agree with the idea that Prophets are infallible when acting on God’s behalf. I was not commenting on the value of the teaching itself.
https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
parkman, you said, “Why does your God have you teach me that I must do things that, by your own definitions, I cannot do?”
You’ve missed the whole point!! God put the law (commandments, rules, precepts, etc.) there, not to teach you to follow it, but to show you that you CAN’T keep it! Paul said the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. In other words, knowing as sinners we can’t keep the commandmenst, we run to Christ and His mercy and his atoning death to save us. That’s why Paul thanked God for Jesus who had paid the penalty he (Paul) deserved as the chief of sinners. On Judgment Day, parkman, your weak attempts to keep the commandments will fall short and you will be judged on whether or not the righteousness of Christ (not your own) applies to your life.
“No, I was never “taught” about this incident between Peter and Paul – where “one Apostle had to correct another Apostle” – but, despite that, I know of it. Why? Because it is actually in Scripture. It is there for me to read and learn from. Out in the open. For all to see.”
Ask other traditional Christians if they also know this is in the Bible.
Why, if it is important enough to be in the Bible, have your teachers not found it important enough to teach about?
“If you mean Paul’s correction of Peter, then it is not relevant, or at least not completely.”; “The whole issue that Paul was correcting Peter about had to do with this – works and salvation.”
Are you saying it is not relevant to have bad teachings from one of God anointed and recognized teachers to be corrected?
daveinsouthflorida, I did not miss the point, but thank you for your answer.
Since you believe the law is only to teach us that we cannot do anything for our salvation, then I must conclude by your teachings that the Day of Judgment is only meant to remind us of our weakness that He built into us, and it has nothing to do with rewards in heaven.
Parkman quotes me and asked:
“If you mean Paul’s correction of Peter, then it is not relevant, or at least not completely.”; “The whole issue that Paul was correcting Peter about had to do with this – works and salvation.”
Are you saying it is not relevant to have bad teachings from one of God anointed and recognized teachers to be corrected?
Problem:
Those are two quotes with a lot separating them. That missing part separating those two quotes answers your question.
I said:
If you mean Paul’s correction of Peter, then it is not relevant, or at least not completely. Parkman, you quoted a statement about statements, the statements of Prophets, but the issue Paul confronted Peter with was not a proclamation given by Peter – Peter taught fine – but with Peter’s ACTIONS. Peter was going along with those of the circumcision, in opposition to the liberty he knew and taught in Christ. This was the correction Paul gave – nothing about “anything that a Prophet says at anytime”.
Problem:
Parkman, I even put the difference between your implication and the text in bold. The incident you were referencing between Peter and Paul didn’t have to do with teaching or “to have bad teachings from one of God anointed and recognized teachers to be corrected?” Read the passage again parkman. Paul was correcting Peter’s ACTIONS around the Judaizers (those of the circumcision) NOT ANY OF PETER’S TEACHINGS. So your use of this incident in regards the quote about what Prophets say is mistaken.
Get it?
If not, it’s like I said before, read it the passage, all the way through. And you will see easily that it had to do with Peter’s actions, instead of his teachings. AND you might learn about works and salvation while you are at it.
“Paul was correcting Peter’s ACTIONS around the Judaizers (those of the circumcision) NOT ANY OF PETER’S TEACHINGS.”
Funny how when a latter day prophet DOES something your side says that it means something, it teaches something. Now you do not want to apply the same standard to an early leader of God’s Church because it does not fit in with the manmade definitions you have come to accept as part of God’s teachings.
Another do as I say and not as I do moment.
Let’s see “man made definitions”. What exactly does that imply? Isn’t that what Mormonism is? A series of man made definitions. We’ve yet to be told which version of Mormonism can lay claim to the “restored” gospel. All of these Mormon sects, seventy to one hundred at last count, can’t all be the keepers of the Mormon restored gospel. In fact most of the other groups would call the Salt Lake City bunch, apostates. Look here for a list of all of the splinter groups within Mormonism.
http://4mormon.org/mormon-splinter-groups.php
So when our Mormon friend talks about man-made definitions he has to look no further than the group he is affiliated with and all of the other groups that testify that they have the real truth. I guess what we could say is that with the Mormon claim of millions and billions of gods, perhaps all of these different Mormon groups have their own god that they relate to.
Mormonism is a man-made religion. It’s comes from the imagination of Joseph Smith and continually evolved as he picked-up ideas from other sources. He borrowed heavily from other man-made sources including the Free Masons and Swedenborg.
There is no “lost gospel” that needed restoring. We have an unbroken record of the Christian church. We know what the disciples of Jesus believed and taught.
Jesus is the pathway to the Father. As sinners we are desperately in need of a Savior. Jesus, being the incarnation of God, was the only one qualified to make the sacrifice for sin. Coming to Jesus in faith is the means by which we obtain eternal life.
No false christs or man made created religions like Mormonism, can provide the means of salvation.
Mormons develop all sorts of fantasies and false premises to fool themselves into thinking that (Mormonism) is the real deal.
One of our recent Mormon posters loves the phrase “man-made” in regards to the tenets of Biblical Christianity. This charge is closely tied to a second premise the Mormon myth of the disappeared original Gospel of Jesus Christ. It takes a lot of spinning, conjecture and just plain hubris to concoct such a notion and then to embrace it.
The idea of “man-made” definitions is supposed to stand in contrast to Mormonism which claims it has a prophet who receives secret messages from the Mormon god and then relays them to a group of expectant believers. Even a cursory review of Mormon prophets will leave the investigator with the conclusion that these Mormon prophets are not quite ready for prime time.
It’s apparent, when examining any of the pronouncements of the Mormon prophets past and present, that they were individuals who lived in a world of pure illusion. Take a look at the Journal of Discourses for a review of the most peculiar and far-fetched ideas to come down the religious pike. There’s a whole list of false and dangerous utterances by these false prophets including polygamy for the achievement of the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and deification, Adam is God doctrine, personal blood atonement for sins, and the refusal of Blacks from the Mormon priesthood to name just a few.
All of this is man-made nonsense and falls in and out of favor depending on the particular sect of Mormonism.
There’s something in Mormonism that appeals to a certain segment of people. I often say if these folks like this stuff I can point them to even more interesting and emotion stirring spiritual phenomenon.
Jesus, and He alone, is the answer.
Parkman ORIGINALLY said:
“- Anything that a Prophet says at any time (even if he is acting as the Prophet) might contain errors.”
I remember where one Apostle had to correct another Apostle in the New Testament. Have you ever been taught about that?
I, spartacus, took parkman as trying to say that “apostles made errors (like Peter)” so obviously ours can too.So I pointed out that the Peter/Paul incident didn’t have to do with anything spoken teaching, but an action or behavior.
Then parkman said:
Funny how when a latter day prophet DOES something your side says that it means something, it teaches something. Now you do not want to apply the same standard to an early leader of God’s Church because it does not fit in with the manmade definitions you have come to accept as part of God’s teachings.
Another do as I say and not as I do moment.
Problem:
Parkman, there is no “your side”.I don’t have a side, accept that of Christ and the Bible and “not mormon (of any kind)”-not so much a “side” as a very broad demographic.You have come here with “a spirit of contention” from the start with the “you guys” and “your side” labels and enemy styling.
I also have never implied that an LDS leader “taught” something by their actions – trust me, their teachings are enough to work with. I also don’t recall anyone else doing this, so maybe you can remind me with a specific example.
This conversation didn’t start with any of “us” accusing a prophet, but with an LDS’s statements. No one said “not as I do”.Then there’s this “man-made definitions” and “do as I say not as I do”, let’s just call it what it is- bonk. You’re just blustering at this point.
What do you think you’re accomplishing, here?
Honestly, this conversation seem to be pointless. Nothing is really being said, but is just being repeated over and over. And yes, I think Parkman has also taken part in that.
Here is a point to make: Actions speak louder than words, and it is by example that we are the best teachers. Common ideas that almost anyone will agree with. So, when Paul corrected Peter he did not do it merely because the action was wrong. If that was true he would have done it in private, as Christ had counseled. Rather, he publicly challenged his actions because he saw it as setting a bad example, and thus teaching the wrong idea. In this way Paul was seeking to correct a false idea that could have been learned from the actions of Peter.
So yes, Paul was correcting the teachings of Peter, or, more precisely, the ideas that would have been generated from his actions.
Now, I don’t think this have a great deal of baring on the topic at hand, but I thought it could use some clarification.
Shematwater, I was cognizant of these facts before you posted them. So I fully agree. I was simply not letting parkman get away with his folly and games.
As to the Original Post:
Hopefully people are still looking at this thread, because this Helen gives a reasoning that I have recently begun to flesh-out some thoughts on.
Aaron gave her quote in his piece:
“The arguments he uses against The Church of the Latter Day Saints are outdated and ill-researched. President Snow served from 1898 to 1901, well over 100 years ago, I do not feel it is fair to try to influence people’s opinions on any organisation or denomination by quoting such historical leaders…” (emphasis added)
This type of thinking is one of the principle differences and fundamental “talking over each other’s heads” that I perceive in the LDS/Christian dialogue. Obviously, LDS don’t like Christians using teachings of old prophets. Their complaints in this area come in several forms: a) “That’s not doctrine”, b) “I love it when people tell me what I believe”, and c) “progressive revelation”. Christians believe that it is not only ok, but ESSENTIAL, to attend to the historical doctrine and teachings of the LDS Church, while LDS seem to not see this as relevant, let alone necessary. “Progressive revelation” and “continuing revelation” are used to represent the LDS mindset that the present is what is necessary, essential, and the only thing ultimately relevant as far as what makes up their religion. Even history and past teachings are only relevant in the form that they are currently presented by their church.
So these are the two views, and while I’m still unsure of the LDS standpoint, I can say, as a Christian in relations with LDS, that Christians believe it is not only allowed, but necessary and essential to consider all doctrine and authoritative teachings past and present because of the great unilateral claim of the LDS Church…
Or maybe its better said as “univertical”. The LDS Church is the ONLY church that claims to have the ONE TRUE PROPHET of LED BY GOD, the ONE TRUE SCRIPTURE collection REVEALED BY GOD, and the ONE TRUE PRIESTHOOD GIVEN BY GOD. But they don’t just claim that. They claim these things IN CONTRAST TO the “confusion”, “truths lost”, and “corruption” of the gospel in other Christian groups.
In the Christian mind, this means that if it is in contrast to “confusion”, “truths lost” or changing, and “corruption” (whatever the accuracy of these claims against Christianity), then there should be no confusion, truth losing or changing, or corruption of the gospel in the ONE TRUE CHURCH so intimately and directly controlled and empowered by GOD.
But how does one test this? By the fruits of the LDS Church – ALL OF THEM. Not just actions – even most actions are irrelevant in this regard since Christians understand human limitation – but the fruits of LDS Doctrine, Prophet/Apostle leadership/teaching, and Priesthood mechanics. And not just these categories, but their instantiations THROUGHOUT LDS Church history.
IF the LDS Church is led by God through a unilateral source (one man/Prophet) and with true teaching (Doctrine) and power (Priesthood), then at all times in the history of these things should the proof of God’s power be evident and not shown otherwise. THUS, Christians, Bobby included, are justified in speaking about “such historical leaders” however “outdated”.
She did claim “ill-researched”. But that is where she should have stopped. Christians may be treating the LDS history more or less accurately, but treating LDS history as thoroughly and significantly as LDS claim it to be thoroughly significant is the only appropriate response.
Spartacus
I actually agree with most everything you say. I have no real argument with what is presented in this blog, as it is very accurate to the doctrine of the church. The person that made the comments which prompted this blog was in error.
There are only two alterations I would make to your comments. As far as I have experienced, the LDS love using the teachings of past prophets, when those teachings are properly understood, and put in their proper perspective. So I think you need to add a fourth complaint to your list, which is that of misunderstanding, or misrepresenting these past teachings. I think that is the biggest complaint I have at least.
The second alteration is in the idea that we believe only what is presented now is really important. While we do believe that the present prophet is going to be more relevant to our day, as he lives in it, we do not believe he is more essential when declaring doctrine. Doctrine is doctrine; it does not change, nor should. We accept all doctrine from all leaders (all the way back to Adam). However, we listen to the counsel and direction of the modern prophet over that of past prophets, because he is speaking directly to our situations.
With these two small alterations I think you have the issue well in hand.
shematwater,
I appreciate the positive response with reasonable critique.When I said,”Christians may be treating LDS history more or less accurately,” I was including the understanding and perspective on historical teachings as well.As for your second adjustment, I knew that it would be controversial,but I also think there’s something good to explore here.
You say that “we do not believe [the current prophet] is more essential [(than previous prophets)] when declaring doctrine.”I could take this as saying that you don’t think that the current prophet’s doctrine revelations are any more essential than previous prophet’s revelations-and that would be ok except for the relevance to “our day and times”.But you seem to be saying that the current prophet’s talks on doctrine are not any more essential than the original or intervening prophet’s elucidation of doctrine.Again, ignoring the particular relevance of “our day and times,” I would have to say that the evidence seems otherwise.
The changes in the revelations between the Book of Commandments and the DnC, though done by the same prophet, would indicate that revelations and their doctrinal implications or express content can be changed.Again, though it was Joseph who both originated these revelations and changed/”clarified” them, there is nothing in the LDS religion and doctrine of line upon line and continuous revelation that denies the possibility that the current prophet could “clarify”/change a revelation/doctrine.
More generally, but also more distinctly, the whole idea of “line upon line” indicates that previous revelation and even doctrine can be “changed” at least in particular understanding of it.If revelation reveals doctrine Line 1 and then later another prophet reveals doctrine Line 2 that is directly related to Line 1, then Line 1’s meaning is adjusted. If that meaning wasn’t already evident by the original wording of doctrine Line 1 then Line 1 is effectively “changed”.
The Book of Commandment/DnC example can be claimed to be irrelevant to doctrine,but that can be argued. I get into this more general “Theory of Line-Upon-Line” to try to get away from arguments over specifics that would distract from this main point-that LDS have particular focus on their present leadership and EVEN their present leadership’s portrayal of the churches history and EVEN the church’s doctrine, quite APART from the literal/”ambient” content of that history or doctrine.
Another way to see this,in fact or at least in theory, is how certain doctrines are emphasized more or less over the years and between different prophets.
Another way to approach this question raised by shematwater is to accept his claim-that “doctrine is doctrine”. But then it may be asked why, if this is so clearly the case-if LDS doctrine past and present is doctrine no matter what a current prophet states, that there is no official statement of doctrine, no systematic theology of LDS doctrine?
This is no rhetorical device. The question, and EACH LDS MEMBER’S RESPONSE IS CRITICAL. If “doctrine is doctrine”, why is there no official aggregate of doctrine? I’m not looking for a creed, but, rather, a discernable and even easily discernable (by its consistent teaching over the centuries) body of doctrine. Instead, we seem to have simply “the scriptures” and whatever is emphasized or distilled by the present prophet.
If you contend that this view is inaccurate, then why is it that the closest things that the LDS Church produces to such an aggregate of doctrine-Gospel Principles and Gospel Doctrine books-are so often dismissed by believers as “not official doctrine”???
Again,the relevance of this distinction is to substantiate the difference in views of the relevance of ALL LDS history between Christians and LDS and their dialogue, including this woman’s critique in the OP.
Spartacus, you’re a blessing . I have to read over your posts more than once because there’s
much to digest , but it is time well spent .
Mike R,
I’m honored and give thanks to God that He uses me so. I appreciate the direct feedback,it’s encouraging.
I would have waited to respond to you until after shematwater’s(or parkman’s) next post. But my wife’s and my financial situation is getting such that soon I may be relegated to library internet only-in which case, it would (or, at least, should) only be used for job searching. Because of my wife’s many severe health issues we have struggled to get by for our entire 8 year marriage, and things seem to be coming to a head very soon.
There’s a point at which difficulties get so large and complicated that one’s “old man” habits of trying to understand, foresee, and control the situation are simply and undeniably out of their league.And so it becomes easier somehow, and the only sane option, to even more completely rely on God, as it is particularly obvious in those times that He is the only one that can do anything.So my faith grows, and I’ve even learned how to not allow the negatives of life-though they should be noticed and dealt with-to take anything away from the positives, the blessings of God. So it’s been good in an ironically horrible way.
At this point it seems the only options are 1) finding a single better job in another town and foreclose or 2) finding a second full-time job asap (like this week) in our current city, and eventually finding a good enough single job in that other town and doing something (hopefully) better to do with our house than foreclosing.
I would greatly appreciate your prayers.
Mike R and everyone here, I hope you and yours are well. If not, I hope God makes it for the better. And for His Glory. In the name of Jesus the Christ.
Spartacus, my wife and I will be earnestly praying for and your wife . You have been a
valuable addition to the Christians here who seek to bring the liberating truth about Jesus
to the Mormon people. We will enlist those of the Bible study class we attend to pray for
you as well . Take care my friend .
Spartacus
First, there is a set body of doctrine that has always been taught and emphasized by all leaders of the church. This is the doctrine that is essential to salvation. All prophets have taught it, and all will continue to teach it. You can find the basics in the Articles of Faith, as well as the several manuals published for the teaching of new members. These doctrines constitute what is referred to as the Plan of Salvation.
However, in addition to these doctrines there is another body of doctrine that is not essential to our salvation. These things have been emphasized at different times by different prophets as ways to help strengthen the membership, but are not required to know.
I think people frequently have difficulty in separating the two types of doctrine that have been taught, but want to lump them together and thus become confused as what the doctrine really is.
Speaking of “Line upon line;” whether you like the idea or not, it is how God reveals his will, as he told Isaiah. I do not agree with your argument that a new revelation changes the first simply by adding a new understanding to it. The first is not changed in the least, but is increased or clarified.
I have always been partial to comparing this to math. You start off simple, learning basic addition, like 1+1=2. After a while you advance to learning algebra, and come to know that if x+1=2 than x=1. Later you learn calculus. Now, does the learning that a number can be represented by a letter alter the fact that 1+1=2? Of course not; but it does give you a deeper understanding of how using that simple addition can leader to greater things.
(continued)
The same is true of doctrine. We learn the basics first. Later we gain more advanced knowledge that enhances our understanding and use of the basics, but it does not alter what the basics are.
The biggest problem I think people have is in confusing doctrine with commandments and practices. In other words practices may change, and some are emphasized more at times than others, but the underlying doctrine remains the same.
To illustrate my point I will give an example from the Bible.
In the Bible we read of the doctrine of the Atonement, which teaches of Christ’s ministry and sacrifice made to redeem the world from death and sin. This is the underlying doctrine on which God based his command to perform animal sacrifice. In the days of the patriarchs they seemed to build alters in several places as they traveled for this purpose, but the practiced changed in the days of Moses to having a set location for the sacrifice.
However, after Christ had performed the Atonement the command to offer these sacrifices was withdrawn and replaced with the command to break bread (the sacrament).
Both the commands as well the various practices associated with them are based on the same underlying doctrine. However, until one recognizes this it becomes easy to see this as a change in the doctrine, even though that is not what it is.
In Mormonism this is simply disingenuous and for many who espouse it – an outright lie. Explaining the Changes in the Book of Commandments as adding “line upon line” is simply ridiculous. Smith (and Cowdery) changed meanings, added things that had nothing to do with original “revelations”, and in other cases invented history that never happened. Take this example from the Book of Mormon that was changed:
The reason for this change is readily apparent. And this isn’t adding a line, this is deleting a line. How do Mormons explain that? Here, we see one of the fundamental “decrees” of early Mormonism changed. How ironic that Smith would erase an unalterable decree, to justify erasing unalterable decrees! In dialoging with many Mormons over the last few years, I have learned that they place a lot of emphasis on men’s weakness, and how the ‘decrees’ of God are given to men. In one very long and interesting exchange on Mormonism’s racist issues of the past, one Mormon Apologist who has written for FAIR said to me that God worked through prophets, but that events of the world, and how prophets perceived the world influenced how they revealed doctrine. This plays into what McConkie stated about the 1978 revelation:
Early statements in regard to this doctrine are ‘interpreted’, but they were obviously wrong. To rectify this he says: repent and get in line behind a ‘living, modern prophet’. To do so, one must ‘forget everything’ anyone previous had taught about that doctrine. Why? Because (and here is the kicker) they “spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
McConkie did get one thing right. This was a doctrine, as explained in a First Presidency Statement from 1949:
Later “prophets” quoting former “prophets” that they say received a “commandment from the Lord” which now current “prophets” say is simply folklore! But according to McConkie,they spoke with a ‘limited understanding AND WITHOUT THE LIGHT AND KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS NOW COME INTO THE WORLD.” Really? And where did this ‘knowledge’ come from? The world? Not according to Brigham Young and George Albert Smith. But that is what a Mormon Apologist told me:
He then added:
I found this line of thought hard to swallow. I explained to this Mormon that many who were not ‘inspired’ by God, led the way in civil rights, even from before the time of the civil war. I documented that God had laid out his doctrine in the Bible, that all were equal. He claimed that the racist teachings of Mormonsim had nothing to do with a ‘direct line to God’, but
that God taught his prophets lessons, and that they had to ‘grasp’ his concepts only as they were enlightened by the world around them. He speaks of the impossibility of any revelation on equality in the Church being unsuccessful because of the Mormon leaders world views.
My question that well, if God had just told them to give the Priesthood to the Blacks in 1848 instead of 1978 – they would have just rejected it, and not tried to fulfill God’s command to them? fell on deaf ears. He concluded with:
First off, McConkie is quoting a scripture that Isaiah uses in sarcasm to describe the perversion of God’s word into a set of rules. Obviously McConkie didn’t understand context, or he never would have used this phrase. Here is what Isaiah said:
This exactly describes Young’s racist doctrine and the result of it. To cut to the chase, McConkie is saying that all those ‘prophets’ were just wrong, but doesn’t dare admit it. How can one claim to be a prophet of God, speak with Him, get his word and law, and then have another ‘prophet’ totally contradict it 130 years later? That is what Mormonism does, consistently. Here is what Wilford Woodruff said as “prophet” of the church in 1891:
So, did that happen by 1978? No, not even close. The reversal of the ban was not a “line” added to a “line”, it was the total contradiction of what one “prophet” said God revealed to him by another “prophet” years later.
In Mormonism’s early days, you had decrees which were “unalterable” and now you have men like McConkie, and a plethora of apologists saying that these men only spoke with ‘limited knowledge’, and people like the person I had that conversation with saying:
My point here is to express how Mormons now are dealing with the changes in doctrine that Smith and others made since the inception of the Church. Their concept of a prophet has conveniently changed, and now they claim that their “prophets” are only men, limited in their knowledge and that God will only reveal things to them based on that. That God himself could know all, and is able to, through revelation transcend the limitations of men is a concept that seems lost on many Mormons today as they allow themselves to fall for the redefinition of former “prophets” and “revelation” by modern “prophets” who cannot reconcile the statements of past “prophets” and “apostles” that were false, wrong, and contradictory.
Grindael
First, Alma 29: 4 as it appears in the Book of Mormon today.
” I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, YEA, DECREETH UNTO THEM DECREES WHICH ARE UNALTERABLE, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.”
I see no change. Now, I have not read every single addition of the Book of Mormon ever printed. I just don’t have time. But if this is the best you can do you might as well give up now, as it is not very good.
Speaking of the ban on the Black race, I am not going to say much. I will say however that I really don’t care what an apologist says or where he says it. I have heard them say many things that I don’t agree with, and some that are outright contradictions of revealed doctrine. If you want to base your understanding of doctrine on these people than you have made a serious error in judgment.
(continued)
Now, I will say this about the doctrine, as it was doctrine and the law of God, and nothing can alter that: I gave read many statements by the early leaders that can be taken to mean that the blacks would never have the priesthood in this life. However, none of them mandate that understanding. So, for Brother McConkie to say that he misunderstood them is fine with me, because I can see the possibility of this.
Lastly, it doesn’t really matter. Things were clarified and straightened out, and no doctrine was ever contradicted. You actually use one of my favorite quotes from Wilford Woodruff: All the seed of Cain would have to wait for redemption until all the seed that Abel would have had, that may come through other men, can be redeemed.
Now, you claim this is not what happened, but are in error, as this is exactly what happened. In 1978 all those who would have been born to Abel if he had not been killed had received their chance at redemption. As such redemption (meaning the priesthood ordinances) were made available to the decedents of Cain. (I actually don’t know of any statement to this effect, but it does seem obvious doesn’t it).
I will not say any more on this subject, as it doesn’t matter.
In conclusion I would just like to point out that Spartacus had elected not to use specific examples in this discussion, and I obliged as much as possible, giving only a sample from the Bible, as we both believe in that text.
I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
It was editions from at least 1840 to 1980 that deleted without explanation those eight words. LDS leaders re-inserted the omitted words into all editions since 1981. Again, the reason was obvious, and it was done by Joseph Smith. Much like Joseph Smith changing the words “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” then when the racist “prophet” Brigham Young became President, changed it back to “white and delightsome” only to have that reversed again in 1981. And I’m not Spartacus.
Grindael
I never said you were Spartacus, did I? I made a very polite request that you post to the conversation in the same manner that me and Spartacus have engaged in. I see no reason why you can’t do this.
As to the changes, as I said, I don’t have the time to go through every edition and make comparisons. I think you would likely find very similar differences throughout all the various translations of the Bible.
To be honest, I don’t really care that much. I don’t know why Joseph Smith may have made these changes, and it really doesn’t matter. He was a prophet called by God to translate the plates. The work he did in translating, and later is editing, he did under the inspiration of God Almighty, and that is sufficient for me.
You can speculate all you want on his motives and reasoning, but that amounts to nothing more than the unlearned ramblings of the ignorant.
JS was a false prophet called by the god of this world and his father the devil.
If as LDS teach, that he stuck his head in a hat and translated the plates that way, then their should be zero changes and none ever made, it’s really that simple.
Then it is very dectiful to make changes and never note them that they were done. I have said before, I have a 1920 edtion triple combo and I have had LDS tell me no changes were ever made. So if they insist no changes were ever made, then who did they hear this from? Where did they learn this? From your church, but then when I show them the changes and ask them to show me the foot notes letting me know about these changes they cannot find them, and neither can I. So that is dectiful to have these changes and this simply follows the pattern of JS and all he did as a false prophet.
Rick
Let’s cut the crap.
Is every book that is edited for later additions marking every single alteration made? No, and you know this is perfectly true. Editing is rarely marked, unless it is a large and substantial change. To accuse deceit for the use of a common and excepted practice is petty and clearly shows the double standards you want to hold the church to.
I have no doubt that if such changes were marked you would find a way to make that deceitful as well. Outlandish and unfounded accusations seem to be what you do best.
Nobody told anyone that the Book of Mormon has no changes. The doctrine it teaches has never changed, and the history it relates has never changed. These things are true. However, simply errors or the updating of language is not uncommon in books as they reprinted over the years.
Those who claim there are no changes are doing so from personal assumption, and nothing else.
Shem,
How about you cut the crap, J.S.F said
Mormon Historian B. H. Roberts has already stated that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was “singularly free from typographical errors” and that the printer could not be blamed for the many mistakes that are found in the Book of Mormon.
Cont
Cont
In a footnote on page 295 of the same book Mr. Roberts stated
John H. Gilbert, the man who helped to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the Mormons did not want him to correct the grammatical errors which were in the manuscript:
Cont
Cont,
According to Joseph Smith’s testimony there should not have been any reason to make changes in the Book of Mormon. He stated that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning it, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was correct
On another occasion Joseph Smith stated:
The errors in the Book of Mormon were blamed on the fact that it was originally written in “reformed Egyptian.” On page 538 of the first edition we read as follows:
cont
Cont,
made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than that which we have been.
On page 564 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:
So Shem, How much more evidence do you need? I guess it wont matter, you will reject it anyways.
Shem said
First off Shem, Books of Fiction, for example Stephen King, or comic books, Lets say Batman, books like this really do not matter if changes are made in later editions and never noted, Why you might ask? They are fiction and not real. The Book of mormon is claimed and believed to be the word of God. So if changes are made they they should be noted. Also to say none of the the changes are not large or substantial are simply not true.
Here are some changes that have been made and never noted.
Their is a huge difference in saying he is the author and it was translated by him. In reality he did write the book and is the author of it, it is pure made up fiction.
Here are more changes.
Saying mother of God and mother of the son of God, is clearly a doctrinal change, it is saying Jesus is God, verses Jesus is the son of God.
How can God be eternal if he was once a man? also again it is saying Jesus is God, verses the Son of God. (cont)
(Cont)
Again, I can see blacks turning White, and many waited years believing they would turn white proving there curse was lifted, yet when that did not happen they changed it to pure. How can you honestly believe this is a minor change not worthy of noting?
MAJOR ERRORS IN LOGIC, CONSISTENCY OR GRAMMAR:
(Cont)
Sadly Shem, I know non of this will bother you and you will have your canned response for all of it.
Rick
You really need to look at things a little more clearly.
First, President Joseph F. Smith said exactly what I said. Thus I have the authority of the President of the church behind what I say.
Second, B. H. Roberts said a lot of things, but nowhere does he say that there are doctrinal changes, and thus he is in complete agreement with me.
Third, having said this you have still failed to prove doctrinal changes. I like your long list that shows all these horrendous changes. I mean how dare they change “whom” to “who,” or “arriven” to “arrived.” Come on. Is that really the best you got? I think I mentioned that language was updated.
I am not going to address everything you cite, because none of it disproves what I have said.
Fourth, I am not talking about books of fiction. I notice you make no comment on books of a Non-fictional nature; but then that is to be expected, as that would not serve your purposes.
Texts books for schools are reprinted on a fairly regular basis, and few, if any, note the editing and alterations from the previous additions. Such notes generally consist of alterations in chapter structure and organization that anything else.
More to the point, does your English Bible note every verse that it has different from other English Bibles? Were the scholars hired be King James deceitful for not noting how they had altered the older English translations? Of course not, because editing is not, nor has it ever been, marked in any kind of work to any real extent.
Of course I have no doubt that you know this, but to actually admit it would help your false accusations, would it.
Shem,
First let me say this, I think a great topic that could be done is let everyone state why they believe and are Mormon, or why they deny and dont believe.
I say that because to answer your questions I will state why I dont believe In Mormonism.
You keep crying about me posting many quotes and say, Rick keeps throwing out everything hoping something will stick. I know from your replys your totally sold on the false prophet JS and are sadly leading people to eternal destruction with out care or remorse.
You claim the changes in the BoM are no big deal and I am making a big deal out of them.
Sadly they are a big deal, JS claims his book is the most correct book upon the earth. If thats true, then their should be no changes.
Then the history of the BoM is only 200 plus years, in that short amount of time there have been roughly 4000 changes, thats a lot. The Bible has been compared to all the dead sea scrolls and many other manuscripts found, it shows their is less than 100 changes and even more minor than the most minor changes in the BoM.
The Bibles time line is 4000 plus years. Then when I first started talking with Mormons back in the late 90’s, they would get really mad when I mentioned there were changes. Computers did not exist like they do today when I was talking with Mormons in the 90’s
Now we can see all the problems and you want to claim they are no big deal? Again, Blacks were told they would turn white, then it was changed to they would turn pure, thats a huge change. I can see black turning white, not pure (cont)