On a discussion board devoted to Mormon apologetics a non-Mormon wrote about the progressive nature of the Mormon God. He quoted the ever-so-blunt Hunter and Widtsoe:
“Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity (God) was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of godhood? In the first place, aeons ago God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it.” – Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 114
“Therefore, if the law of progression be accepted, God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be engaged in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today.” – John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology As Taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 7th ed, p. 24
Appealing to the Bible (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) and early Mormon passages in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:19; 3 Nephi 24; Moroni 7:22), the non-Mormon noted that even Mormon scripture seems to refute the notion of a progressive God. God is eternal, never has changed, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The immediate response struck me as frustrating and yet insightful. I have seen a few ways that Mormons speak of the unchangeableness of God, of him being the same yesterday, today, and forever. Was God always fully God? Yes, they say. But I plead with anyone who interacts with Mormons: dig, probe, and examine. Do not take answers at face-value. Surely, you may say, surely if such important language is used in a significantly different way than commonly understood, surely you will be informed of the shift in meaning. Nay, I say, nay. When you dialog with Mormons—particularly with Mormonism’s defenders and representatives (official and unofficial)—you cannot assume that your interlocutor has a passion for honesty and clarification. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. When it comes to religious dialog, you cannot assume a Mormon shares the same ethical approach to language.
Yes, some expound when pressed, since, although he progressed to fullness, God was always fully God in species, therefore God was eternally, “fully God.” Nevermind that, in this line of thinking, you can be fully of the God-species and yet not necessarily know all things and have all power.
Yes, others will say, since God always existed (regardless of whether he had the fullness of what attributes most understand “God” to have), God was eternally “God.”
Yes, others will say, since “always” refers to this particular space-time continuum, God was “always” God.
Yes, others will say, since “always” refers to the range of time that begins at the formation of this particular world, God was “always” God.
Yes, others will say, since “God” refers to a variety of states of being, God was always “God.”
This particular Mormon replied:
“If God is infinite (which I believe means existing outside time) and also progressing then he has for all time been at his most powerful. Put another way if I am in the future exalted I will also be God yesterday, today, and forever in time extending in all directions infinitely.”
We can at one level sympathize with the Mormon plight over language, since they have dug themselves into an awfully deep hole. Having embraced post-BofM works as canon, and having embraced some important extrapolations of extra-canonical theological traditions in Mormonism (fostered by institutional leaders), they have quite the task. They must anachronistically retrofit pre-Nauvoo language with post-Nauvoo theology. Meaning has significantly changed. And by “change” I do not mean merely “expand” or “develop,” but rather negate and controvert the previous meaning. What is now relative must be somehow described in absolutist terms. Unfortunately, very few Mormons seem intent on seriously taking the advice of LDS philosopher Kent E. Robson:
“Mormons who are attracted to terms of absolutism should carefully consider what else they may unintentionally be embracing. They should consistently renounce such attributes or clearly distinguish between Mormon usage and traditional Christian usage.” [1]
Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, in their review of How Wide the Divide, write:
“We do not deny that Latter-day Saints describe God with the various omni terms (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.). But we feel that in Latter-day Saint terminology the meaning is so far removed from standard usage that it serves only to miscommunicate. The simple use of a term does not entitle one to all the privileges of that term, and no one has the right to redefine a word idiosyncratically. For example, what Latter-day Saints such as Robinson refer to as ‘omnipresent’ would probably be more accurately described as ‘omni-influential’ (compare D&C 88:12—13, 41). What he terms omniscient as ‘omni-aware.’ A God having influence everywhere is not the same as one having personal presence everywhere. Similarly, a God who has no false beliefs about the past and present and future is not the same as one who has knowledge of all things past, present, and even future. Further, an omniscient Being does not just possess the most knowledge, he possesses all possible knowledge—if it can possibly be known he knows it and always has. Likewise, a most powerful deity is not equivalent to an all-powerful or omnipotent deity. Having more power than any other being simply is not the same as having all power. We might also add that a deity without flaws and imperfections is not the same as a deity possessing all perfections.” [2]
Will Mormons strive hard to avoid using naked language that “serves only to miscommunicate”? The task is not easy. To do so, a Mormon must kick against the pricks of the strong inclination in Mormonism to use traditional Christian and biblical language in an unqualified manner. “Creedalists” are scorned for using non-biblical language. Doing so is often interpreted as prima facie evidence of being unbiblical.
As for me and my house, we will be proud of our Christian heritage. Christians have, at crucial points in history, risen to the occasion of using culturally sensitive, extra-scriptural language to clarify scriptural teachings. And while we must always be on guard to avoid retrofitting older biblical language with newer biblical revelatory teachings, and biblical language with unbiblical teachings, we have the advantage of a unified canon and a tradition that values the clarifying use of extra-biblical language. That makes our task a lot easier.
The heart of the problem of dishonesty with others is first not being honest with ourselves. Persistent incoherence within one’s own worldview and linguistic framework inevitably spills over into prevarication with other people. Ultimately, my Mormon friends, I believe that the most honest thing you can do is abandon the parts of your theology that do not cohere with older written revelation. Only then will you be able to be most honest with yourselves, and consequently, more honest with others.
—
[1] “Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience in Mormon Theology,” in Line upon Line, 70, 74. Quoted in Mosser and Owen’s review.
[2] http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=11&num=2&id=318
There are things which we do not understand within the situation we are in. We are here and we don’t understand what has happened before. Of course you need to believe in premortal existence but I am sure we can philosophize over this matter without consider it.
Aaron, For this article you are right on. There are some major problems with this idea. Many LDS are not so forthcoming about the idea of eternal progression, and potential godhood, or pre-god humanoids who are now a god.
I was so shocked when a certain LDS president said on national tv something like “…I am not sure we teach that idea…” When I was an active member I was actually criticized for mentioning this teaching, telling me that it was a false teaching. I was really taken a back by that, as I had heard that for so many years in so many sunday school lessons, talks, conferences etc…
But is it really any different from some christian teachings? There are esoteric schools of thought we examine the OT and NT and they come up with some very bizarre teachings for which its not immediately apparent with a casual reading of christian scripture. Some of which adherents would not be immediately forth coming about the teachings.
Brigham Young put it the best,
I attended prayer meeting in the evening Circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what He thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all Eternity. O. Pratt said that He believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of evry thing that ever did exhist to the endless ages of all Eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the church for it was not taught in the Church for it was not [p.402] true. It was fals doctrin For the Gods & all intelligent Beings would never scease to learn except it was the Sons of perdition they would continue to decrease untill they became dissolved back into their native Element & lost their Identity. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.402, February 17, 1856).
Well Enki, at least you’re on topic but it’s obvious you still have a lot of Mormon in you. Mormons typically have as a defense, after “your persecuting us”, is the finger-pointing claim that Christians/Christianity does the same thing.
The point here is that I don’t know of any doctrine of fundamental teaching that Christians try to hide, obfuscate, or down right lie about. There isn’t really anything to hide. That’s the point. Mormons do all of the hiding, obfuscating and lying they are accused of. Some, I would agree, is simple ignorance on the part of individual Mormons. But lying is an honored tradition within Mormonism. We don’t have to go any further than polygamy. The leaders lied about its practice and even today there are Mormons who lie out of ignorance because even they don’t know the extent to witch it was practiced.
There is lying by ommission. That’s the type of lying where by a person with holds information on purpose. It was, BTW, Gordon B. Hinkley who said on Larry King live that line about not knowing if it was ever taught or you don’t hear much about it any more. Becoming a god is the fundamental principal of the Mormon religious system.
So these Mormon men are actually gods right now? That’s all that I can figure out if the Mormon god was always god then the same must be true of Mormon men. They just need a little polish, a little improvement. So for goodness sake, lay off of the coffee.
Man, my spelling and word usage has fallen on hard times today. I better go out snowshoeing with the dogs to clear my head……….or have a strong, hot, caffeinated drink! I’m not that concerned about becoming a god as you can see.
BTW, on a personal note; I’ll be taking my newly purchased Glock 22 4generation .40 caliber handgun with me. Someone spotted a wolf track over the ridge a couple months past and there was a cougar lurking about also. And I live in the midwest not out in the mountains some where. Black bears I can usually just yell at and they move and besides they’re hibernating now.
Falcon,
I came accross some weird analysis of many passages in the Bible which revealed YHWH as the same as BAAL. Not an immediately obvious conclusion, and in passive reading one would come to the opposite conclusion. I dont recall the source. But that would be a hidden teaching.
Another might be the hidden actions of saturn and jupiter embedded in the hebrew creation story in genesis, again not an open teaching. That was in the Book secret history of the world.
I came across a bible literalist that made the accusation that modern Judaism was satanic. There is enough in the NT to come to that conclusion, but its not a friendly conversation to have with the parent religion of the christian faith. I would imagine that most christians would not start a discussion with a jew in this manner, as they would like to gain converts. Making such statements is probably not the way to to it. But I do recall a young jewish woman being angry that christians were mocking her star of david because they said it was occultic and satanic.
Christians have denied ever having involvement with the US government in an organized effort to ‘relieve’ alaska natives of their religion, language and culture. The closest I have heard was that christians were doing AK natives a favor by presenting them with the salvation of Jesus so they won’t go to hell. So in effect they were doing them a favor.
This one is more difficult to see. Christian charity, it seems like just entirely good. But some have criticized some efforts as taking advantage of the desperate to make conversions. Providing minimal care for exchange for acceptance of the christian faith. The article I read said that some went as far as baptizing barely conscious people on their death beds, people who didn’t know what was going on.
Enki, I feel I should say something about your posts here . It’s been a while since you were here
last but I can see from what you post that you are still using the same arguments and statements
as before . You have been “burnt” by Mormonism , and you seem to lump in the Christian faith
along with that . But looking to New Age spirituality, Joseph Campbell’s philosophy of religion ,
or a syncretistic religion worldview is not the answer . You’re on a difficult trail and I hope that
God will help you personally navigate it so that you may come to find that a simple faith and
trust in Jesus will satisfy your spiritual longings. I am here on this blog because this ministry
is about reaching the Mormon people for Jesus , and it is also here to equip Christians in
educating them about Mormon doctrines so as aid them in being aware of this false prophet
led organization [ Matt 24:11] . What this ministry is not here for is to simply make ex-Mormons.
Nor is it here to provide Christians with material to use in a overbearing/rude manner towards
Mormons . The Mormon people need to know that their Jesus is an imitation Jesus , that their
gospel is also such , and that this is not a new dilemma people have faced —Gal. 1:8 .
Now I certainly can’t speak for those who run this ministry , as I’m only a guest here , but I also
will say that Falcon mentioned something earlier that I have to agree with , namely that since
you appear to have a different idea about why this ministry/blog is here then perhaps you
might consider looking to those christian ministries that will directly address your religious
worldview . I hope that you can understand this . I felt it needed to be said .
Enki,
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and I’m not going to chase you down one of your “Enki empty rabbit trails”. It would prove useless, a waste of time and a detriment in your search for salvation. One point however. Do Christians “hide” the things you’re talking about? Do we deliberately with hold this information? Most Christians don’t even know what you’re talking about which, I suppose, will feed your ego needs.
If I wanted to, I could spend the time and trouble doing the chasing, but in reality I think you can explore these things on your own.
On personal note; I went through at least some of what you’re going through about 40 years ago. My questions evaporated and seemed foolish once I came to the conclusion that Jesus is God incarnate and that He died for my sins. All the other objections seemed foolish after that.
Mike R, well you have your work cut out. In my experience nonlds saying that their religion is totally different isnt immediately apparent. A minister once told me that and encouraged me to attend one of his services. I went and heard a sermon that I could have heard in an LDS chapel. In fact I think he did the same exact topic as I heard once. So sometimes its not helpful when someone says its totally different, thats often difficult to see. Compare that to something that is more apparent, like hinduism for example, thats obviously different.
Enki,
I’m going to state the obvious. Mormonism flowed out of Evangelical Christian revivalism of the early 19th century. It was to the extent that the area in New York was labeled the “burnt over” area. Out of this era came a “spirit” of religious experimentation. In some ways it was the Utopian Society Movement.
The thing that is so insidious about many/most of these movements is that they include features of Christianity. I think you are maybe purposely missing the point that Mike and I have both made because I don’t think understanding (this point) serves your agenda. The point is that there is significant differences in basic orthodox Christian doctrine and Mormonism. I could add the Jehovah Witness religion as well as others. However, these aberrant and heretical cults have enough Christian elements/features in them, to pass as mainstream Christianity.
You don’t want to seem to want to acknowledge this. If you get yourself to the point of acknowledging this, then you will bump-over into a different way of thinking and I don’t believe you’re ready to do that. My observation is that you are in a certain “stage” right now and you’re not ready to move on yet.
But for when you are ready to move on, I would invite you to examine the following doctrinal points and compare them with Mormonism or any of the other aberrant/heretical cults and tell me if it’s all the same. I’m not really interested in whether or not you can hear a sermon with some of the same general points in a Christian denomination or one of these aberrant sects. Of course you can. Get down to the real nitty gritty as we use to say.
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Trinity, One God, three persons.
3.The deity of Christ-He is God.
4. The Virgin birth of Jesus.
5. Jesus died for us. The blood atonement.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
7. Saved by grace apart from works.
8. Jesus’ second coming.
9. The final judgement.
What I have listed above is essential Christianity. What I’m challenging you to do is focus on the basics, the essentials of orthodox Christian belief as it compares and contrasts with Mormonism, for example. As part of this, go to the Community of Christ website and maybe also the Church of Christ which are sects of Mormonism and examine their statement of faith. Is it all the same?
Like I said, I don’t know if you’re ready to go there yet. In my view you’re still floundering around like a guy with a new screw driver looking for something to tighten. I must admit, it takes patience dealing with someone at your particular point of your journey but then I’ve learned to ignore 99% of it realizing that the person needs to dash about some.
I’ve never coached soccer but those who do tell me that what you do with a bunch of kids just learning the game is throw the ball out and let them run around in a big pile wearing themselves out chasing the ball. When they see the futility of their “game” and they’re worn out, they are ready to learn how to actually play the game.
You’re not getting the ball in the net but you do seem excited and fulfilled chasing and kicking it.
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
LDS believe in the Bible and teach it as the word of God.
2. The Trinity, One God, three persons.
We do not believe in this, but we do believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is one God.
3.The deity of Christ-He is God.
This is completely true; Jesus Christ is God, second member of the Godhead.
4. The Virgin birth of Jesus.
We have never denied it.
5. Jesus died for us. The blood atonement.
We affirm that it is by the blood of Christ that all mankind is saved.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
We accept and honor this event, believing whole heartedly in it and its effects on us.
7. Saved by grace apart from works.
Saved by Grace, yes, through our works.
8. Jesus’ second coming.
Can anyone deny that we believe he is comming again?
9. The final judgement.
Again, a definite doctrine of the LDS church.
So, on seven out of nine we are in agreement, with being partly in agreement on the other two.
Now, I admit there are differences, but I think most people here don’t really understand the similarities.
As to the topic of the article, I will say that most members simply do not care that much. From the earliest time that we know we existed as spirits, God has been our God. He will be our God throughout all eternity. Is it true that at some point before we existed as spirits he was not God? Most will say that it doesn’t really matter.
Consider this: When describing your earthly father, would it be honest to say that he has always been your father? It would, and the language would bear you out, for the simple fact that for as long as you can remember he has been your father.
The same holds true for our Heavenly Father. He is our God, and has always been our God at all times that matter to us, and so we can rightly, without any dishonesty in our language, claim that he has always been our God.
It is only those who seek to restrict the definitions of terms that will cry dishonesty in this. Because you believe a certain phrase always carries a certain meaning, then for anyone to use it with a different understanding, no matter how correct they are in doing so, it sounds to you that they are purposely being misleading. This is not the case.
Speaking of the verses given that say God is unchanging, or refer to him as being so from all eternity to all eternity, I will give the real answer to this apparent dilemna, which can be found in the scriptures.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever, being from all eternity to all eternity. What does this mean? Obviously Yesterday and today are not speaking of actual days. Yesterday is here used to refer to our pre-earth existence as spirits. Today is our mortal life. Forever is all time after this life. Thus, while spirits in Heaven our Father was our Father. As mortals in this life he is unchanged, and he will remain unchanged forever after this life. This makes no illusion to a time before our existence as spirits.
Now, to be from all eternity to all eternity, or from everlasting to everlasting, does not mean that there was not a time at which the person was not progressing and at a lower stage then they are now. It is stated in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132: 20 “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them.”
As we will be from everlasting to everlasting, and yet were not always so, it is clear that in describing God as such does not mean that he was always so.
I may say more later.
OK Shem.
Time to come clean. This is why Mormons are said to be dishonest. Tell us now how the Utah based LDS church differs from Christianity on:
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Trinity. Andy Watson did a series of fine articles which you baled out on.
3. The divinity of Jesus. Explain how Utah LDS and Christians disagree on this.
4. The Virgin Birth of Jesus. Talk to us about Brigham Young’s doctrine. In this doctrine Mary couldn’t be a vigrin.
5. The blood atonement. Where in LDS teaching did this take place.
6. Did Jesus visit America?
7. Not the same and you know it.
8. Yea, He is coming to Independence, Missouri, right?
9. Final judgement? You are universal in your ideas regarding the judgement.
So come-on Shem. You’re proving our point. You are being blatantly dishonest in what you wrote or you are totally ignorant……which is your favorite word.
As to the rest of what you wrote, where do you get that? It’s pure Mormon nonsense made up out of whole cloth. The leaders of your pack could tell you anything and say it’s based on “revelation” and you lap it up like a thirsty dog.
Why don’t you take a drink from the Living Water of Jesus Christ and stop drinking from the polluted well of Mormonism.
Ladies and gentleman,
What we have witnessed in Shem’s post is a perfect example of what Aaron was getting at in his article. How can any so called knowledgeable Mormon make a statement that we agree on seven of the nine doctrines I posted?
If Shem where a member of the CoC Mormon sect, he might have a point. But as we know he isn’t. Even the Mormon prophet GBH stated that the Jesus of Mormonism was not the same Jesus as that of orthodox Christianity.
I was reminded of a Judge Judy saying: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”
I picked this off of a reliable website which I will post to at the bottom.
“As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).”
“I can’t remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I’ll never forget.”
Here’s the site for the ten lies.
http://www.mrm.org/ten-lies
I see nothing in Shem’s eisegetical frolics that is worth expending time and energy on; suffice it to note that he is engaging in numerous familiar patterns of equivocation, sleight-of-hand, and patent illogic, and would do well to investigate what the scriptures actually say on their own terms rather than simply imposing Mormon teachings back onto it.
Enki,
If I’m reconstructing your line of thought – it really is a bit more opaque than I’m used to – your first major point has to deal with the existence of esoteric schools of thought within the broader Christian world. Of course, there undoubtedly are other quasi-Christian sects that exhibit some of these same qualities – but that is assuredly no legitimation of those qualities. Now, with regard to the examples you cite, I’m afraid that I have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to the Alaska thing. As for the “Bible literalist” (have you ever defined for us here precisely what you mean by that term?) who called contemporary rabbinic Judaism ‘satanic’, that does not sound at all representative of Christian thought; and, as you haven’t listed the reasons why those Christians came to that view, it’s difficult to provide you with an answer, if an answer is what you’re looking for. (Again, that’s something that isn’t really clear.) With regard to Saturn and Jupiter in the book “Secret History of the World”, I can only assume that you mean to refer to the Sefer Yetzirah. If that isn’t correct, perhaps you’ll do us the favor of providing further background information. But if you do mean the Sefer Yetzirah, then of course you should know that it derives from post-Christian Jewish circles that apparently had considerable contact with Gnostic movements. Quite clearly, it is not in the least representative of Christian thought, and thus it would be ridiculous to use it as an example to the effect that Christians are being less than forthright about something in their theological/religious system. As for the alleged identification of YHWH as Ba’al, that is a very implausible reading that fails to distinguish between Ba’al the Ugaritic/Canaanite deity and the title “ba’al”.
In all of these cases, it could perhaps be established that there exists some group that is not fully forthright about their teachings. But those groups are not mainstream Christianity, and hence are rather beside the point here. That point is that, in certain respects, mainstream Mormonism is a religious system that includes genuinely esoteric aspects and that, even beyond this, engages in a quest to limit access to important background elements of its theology and practice; but, in contrast to this, mainstream Christianity is a non-esoteric religious system that encourages adherents to freely own up to the full scope and depth of Christian theology and practice.
Now, unlike some other posters here (e.g., Mike R.), I don’t know much about the story of your life journey so far as your religious pilgrimage is concerned. If you visited a mainstream Christian church that didn’t immediately distinguish itself from your Mormon background, well, you could always try again. Not every sermon will exhibit a radical differentness, though really I would suspect that the structure of the sermon was quite different than the average sacrament meeting talk, at the very least. But I can tell you that Christianity is true. There is one God, this God is triune, he did create the world out of nothing, he did offer us a special relationship with him, we did break it, Jesus did come as a fully divine and fully human person at a specific point in history, he did die to repair our relationship with God, he did rise bodily from the dead to reign, he did gather a people to be his living temple on earth, and he will return again to make all things new. I would sincerely invite you to enter into this life that God offers and find fulfillment there.
Shem,
Wow man you really are deluded and really want to believe a lie. Yesterday does not mean yesterday it really means our pre-existence. now I have heard it all. So when you say, Rick Yesterday I answered you, what I should take that to mean is, when we were in our pre-existence that was when you answered me.
I love how Mormons teach we passed through the veil of forgetfulness, But their positive we at least did that. Funny how thats all that you remember.
Remember, it’s all a matter of interpretation!
I interpret that to mean that all interpretation is valid in that how you interpret it is true for you and therefore “true”.
Slavery wasn’t really evil if you look at it from the point-of-view of the states practicing it. It’s all a matter of interpretation. It’s call situational morality or ethics. In other words, it depends!
So if I want to start a religion with an interpretation of the Bible that is based on what I want to believe, then it’s true…….what I believe, especially if it makes me feel good.
Falcon,
Thats a concise list, I thank you for that. There are some points to which I never understood, not as a mormon, or as an exmormon. Point#7. To some degree the idea of salvation being ‘free’ seems to me as being dishonest. It could be that I dont understand it. But here goes. I have read works by several advocates of evangelical christianity that said salvation is a free gift of god.
However, at the end of the work it gives a list of things to do after being saved. Those sound like obligations. In Matt. 11:30 jesus is attributed as saying “my yolk is easy, by burdens light”. So it sounds like he expects something, that there is some level of obligation. Mark 16:15 required missionary service of the disciples, maybe it applied only to them. However, many have taken that as an required activity on behalf of christians. The LDS people take that one perhaps a little too seriously. Maybe there is a difference between obligations for following christ, and that of salvation? I have always found that confusing. And the grace/works thing is not just an LDS, evangelical christian difference. I think that catholics require works as a point of salvation, and perhaps a few others. Something else that is different is that the torah never suggested ‘grace’ as a way of salvation. It seems like that should have been a consistent point. The BOM mentions that the jews looked forward to the salvation in christ. So in theory they should have known about grace. Instead, there are 613 commandments of the torah.
Point #2. The trinity is never used anywhere in the Bible. That doctrine seems to be pieced together from a number of areas of the bible. I have never understood that. The LDS version seems easier to understand and accept, but that might be from my upbringing. Easy to understand does not necessarily mean ‘true’. As I found out today sometimes the correct answer is not immediatly apparent. (from something completely outside of any religious context)
Point #3. I have my skepticisms about that, but for this blog that doesnt apply, as evangelicals and mormons accept jesus as either god or a god that created or helped create the earth. The LDS position however is that ‘Eloheim’ is god, not his son jesus christ.
#6 the resurrection. I believe the LDS position is that christ physically came alive again after 3 days. Some christians have expressed the idea that it was a spirit, or in spirit, not an actual physical resurrection. #8 LDS have chosen the name to emphasis the second comming. But when, if ever is it going to happen? #4 Virgin Birth. I just read an article by a jew which stated that verses in the old testement refering to ‘the virgin’ is actually a maiden and does not mean virgin.(isaish 7:14) However, the objection was that of a half god/half human being. Explanation does not satisfy mormonism either, in fact the lds idea is closer to pagan half god/human hybrids.
Point#1. The tricky point of ‘as far as translated correctly’. I never know about this one, as there are mistranslations in bibles. But the addiction the the LDS people have to the KJV is suspect. The idea of LDS scripture as being a more correct version of scripture…well, thats a matter of faith. I would definately immediately cross out the Book of Abraham as having anything to do with the christian faith. Unless its some attempt to claim credit for the great pyramids and other egyptian works.
But that is a great list by which to measure what generally comes to mind for basic christian beliefs.
John E,
I would have to get a copy of the book again to find out what exactly it had mentioned. In any case it explained how the gods were hidden, almost in code in Genesis. I remember reading that and thinking…hum, missed that one! And I looked it up and read directly from the bible text, I remember that sometimes I could see it, but sometimes…eh…?
On the Ak natives and perhaps on other groups. Probably a case of missionizing that has gone too aggressive and in the wrong spirit. I would have to dig a lot to find documentation of who exactly was involved and what was actually said. But basically they thought that conversion would be more effective if the native languages didn’t exist. I suppose it would be unfair to characterize every missionary effort in this light, but it appears to have happened in this case.
On Satanic judaism, that was one pastors idea taken from Revelations 2:9 and 3:9, also his general idea that although the OT is true, its not the most current collection of scripture and action taken by god. That would be the NT, and that of christ. So, to reject current activity is to fall into error. He also noted the extensive use of additional works outside of the torah.
The only way you can support your premise is to quote your own scripture (that only TBM’s even believe is scripture) and interpret the Bible through the lens of Joseph Smith? LOL. ☺
Falcon
I was not dishonest, as I addressed the list you gave. I also stated very plainly that there were differences, but that the similarities are too often ignored.
Now, if we take the statements as you presented them, my answers are perfectly correct and honest. Concerning the doctrine, we believe in seven of those you list, and partly agree with the other two. If you want the details that is fine, but that is not what I was addressing.
For the fun of it, here is a brief rundown of each in more detail.
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, written by his servants and dictated by his spirit. However, over several centuries when his spirit was not had among men errors in translation and transposition have occurred. We recognize this fact, and seek once again to be guided by the Spirit of God so as to know the original intent of the inspired writers.
2. The Trinity, One God, three persons.
I think I answered this rather well. We do not believe in the Trinity that is taught by much of Christianity. We do not believe in only one God that exists in three parts. We believe in three very separate and individual personages who together constitute the governing body of heaven, the Godhead. This unit is what we refer to as the One God.
3.The deity of Christ-He is God.
Christ is God. He is the second member of the Godhead, and thus is one of the three that constitute the One God of heaven, and thus is God and shares that title with the Father and the Holy Ghost. He held that title as a spirit before this world was created, and will hold it for all eternity. What we do not believe is that he is just another part of the same being that is the Father, and that he is equal to the Father. He is subject to the Father, who is the Head of the Gods, or the leader of the Godhead.
4. The Virgin birth of Jesus.
Mary was a virgin when the angel appeared to her. She was a virgin when she was overshadowed by the Spirit. Thus a virgin conceived. How she conceived doesn’t really matter, though Brigham Young did believe and teach that it was a natural conception between her and Heavenly Father. All that is important, however, is that she had not known man before she conceived Christ.
5. Jesus died for us. The blood atonement. Did Jesus visit America?
According to the Bible Jesus suffered such great pain in the Garden that he sweet blood. He then was arrested and was beaten scourged and final crucified; all of which also caused him to loose blood. Jesus suffered and died for us, starting with his suffering in Gethsemane and ending with his death on the cross. All of it constitutes his blood atonement for our sins to make salvation possible.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
Jesus rose from the dead. He died on a Friday, and on that Sunday his spirit re-entered his body, ascended to heaven, and was glorified at the throne of his Father. By doing this he made it possible for all men to be resurrected in perfect bodies and thus defeated physical death.
Whether he visited the America’s has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of the Resurrection.
7. Saved by grace apart from works. Not the same and you know it.
I never said it was the same, did I. It seem that you are the one lying and thus being dishonest.
It is by the grace of God that we are saved. His grace provided the atonement which makes salvation possible. His grace gives us strength and power to obey his commandments. His Grace forgives us when we fall short of that obedience and seek repentance.
The difference is this: We do not believe his grace saves us unless we do what we can to obey his commandments. We cannot sit idly by doing nothing and expect his grace to fall on us to salvation. However, we also cannot expect to do all the work ourselves, as that is not possible. We must seek out his grace, by Faith and Obedience, and then his grace is sufficient to bring us to salvation. But all the faith and obedience would profit nothing if we do not also receive his grace.
8. Yea, He is coming to Independence, Missouri, right?
No. He’s coming to Jerusalem, as is prophesied many times in the Bible. After this he will come to Independence. Thus he will set up the Old Jerusalem as his headquarters in the Old World, and a New Jerusalem as his headquarters in the New World.
Of course, before either are set up he will come in the clouds with the angels, and his glory will fill the world, as the sun rising from the east; at which point all the wicked will be destroyed and peace will be established in the world.
I don’t think you really understand our doctrine on this point.
9. Final judgement? You are universal in your ideas regarding the judgement.
I am not sure what you mean by being universal. We do not believe that all people will receive the same reward, and the Bible agrees with us. The Bible declares in many places that we will be judged according to our own works, and if this be so then there must be different degrees of reward to go with the different degrees of obedience.
However, the Final Judgment is just that; Final. Once it is proclaimed there is no renegotiating. Sentence is passed, and carried out, and there is nothing more to be said.
Of course, I think the biggest difference is in when we believe this judgment will take place. Most Christians seem to believe it is at death, and that is not the case. There is a judgment at death, but not the final judgment. The Final Judgment comes after the Millennium, after Satan is loosed for a time and them destroyed. Then all the children of men will be called before God and receive the final sentencing of his judgment upon them.
8. Jesus’ second coming.
9. The final judgement.
Grindael
What is so horrible about using our scriptures to teach our doctrine? The article was trying to claim that our doctrine contradicts our scripture, and I have proven that false. If you are going to turn the discussion onto whether or not that doctrine is correct than can we assume you admit that the supposed contradiction is not there?
Rick
I love how you ignore what I say so that you can mock our doctrine. Yesterday, in this context, refers to our spirit existence. It is a symbolic use of the term. I am sure you are familiar with symbols; or do they only apply when you want them to?
(PS I don’t remember passing through any veil, and no one in the church claims this. Please get it right.)
John
It is disappointing. Your usually a little more polite in things. Please, explain to me how I am wrong. What about my comment is illogical?
I have studied the Scriptures, on the terms of God, for he is the author of them. I have found nothing in them to contradict anything that I have said, so maybe you should point it out rather than trying to dismiss and ignore it.
Wow, my perception of everything has changed.
Shem,
When you started posting here I thought you had some promise. As it turns out you are a low information TBM who basically regurgitates what you have been programed to repeat.
I would suggest that you make some attempt to go to the next level and actually read and study from some sources that would build your information base. I could go over your points but it’s that old saying, “If I tell you you can doubt me. If you say it it’s true.” In-other-words you need to get the satisfaction of learning for yourself.
You’re trapped in a Mormon box and my hope for you is that you’ll have enough curiosity to actually spend the time and effort it takes to become a fully knowledgeable, competent individual.
For example, I don’t think you know grindael’s story. He was a hardcore TBM, returning missionary and BYU student. He was able to gain access to the archives at BYU and delve into the documents sequestered there. He ended up leaving Mormonism because what he had been taught didn’t square with reality.
If you want to play like you’re a Mormon all-star, then just keep repeating what you’ve been taught with greater conviction with every repetition. However if you have any interest at all in the truth, then I’d say get cracking and dare to step beyond where you are today.
Shem said
O Shem, How Silly of me, I keep forgetting, if you say something is true then it is. Darn, how can I keep forgetting that? I keep forgetting also that if we provide quotes that you dont agree with, then were simply ignorant rubes and if we say something and do not provide evidence then were lying.
But if you dont understand a quote by your teachers, then it means you simply need more study and you can say things and provide zero evidence and thats ok.
So please show me from the Bible where we came from some pre-existence state and the word yesterday really is symbolic of this pre mortal existence? I really want to see this.
Rick, What is man to God? How good would we be if we knew that we did pre-exist? Of course you would not think about these thing because your thought processes are so limited. Ecclesiastes 12:7 reads- Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. What does that mean to you? Think and ponder this.
Take care of your kids and try to learn patience from them. They are children of God.
Clyde,
How did I ever get by in life before you came along?
You talk about Dust of the earth and my kids being children of God and somehow that proves we pre-existed. Man that really clears things up. Whew I never would have put those together to figure out we pre-existed.
O and in case you missed this since you seem to not read or trust the Bible, Jesus tells us that not everyone is a child of God, but that some of us our really children of the Devil. I figured you would know that since he is JS and BY father, and since you guys love and adore and follow those false prophets and teachings, then that means he is your father also.
Falcon
I have great interest in the truth, and I seek it from the source of all truth, which is God.
You are right that I do not know Grindael’s story, but then I never claimed to, did I. I don’t need to know his story to know that the Gospel is true, that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of the world, and that Joseph Smith is his chosen prophet to issue in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. What he experienced has no effect on the truth of these things. What he believes and why he believes it has no effect on the truth of these things.
I know the truth concerning the gospel and the doctrine that Christ has revealed to us in these last days. I still seek out other knowledge and truth, and I seek it from every good source. I will not seek truth from a faulty or bad source, however, and I trust that God will direct me in discerning the difference.
Rick
I really don’t care to provide any of the sources for that doctrine. You will simply ignore it, and then in some later tread claim that I didn’t provide such anyway.
For the purpose of this thread it doesn’t matter if I can prove it from the Bible. All that matters is that it is a doctrine of our church, and when rightly understood it shows that the apparent contradiction does not actually exist. That was my intent. If you can’t actually address the point being made then I think we can assume that you have accepted that it is correct.
Shem said
Shem, Just be honest, I know that is hard for you to do, But just admit, their is no evidence, It is not a matter of you dont want to provide something, it is you cannot.
You claim Yesterday is symbolism for the pre-existence, Did you just make that up? It is your Unofficial position or did some official leader ever teach or say that? Why should we simply believe you simply because you said so?
Shem said
First off, you might not know about this Veil, but I have had MM Sit in my house and tell me that this is doctrine and they believe it, Since I know you wont believe me that MM did tell me this, here is some reading that alludes to it.
Parley P. Pratt introduces the idea that while there is a veil between us and the past, the past eternity can be a source of intelligence. Pratt conflates revelation with recollection. Again, while Joseph wanted to pierce the veil, or take it away, to look into the heavens presently, Pratt suggests that memories can be an archive of heavenly knowledge.
“In passing the veil which separates the first and second estates, man becomes unconscious, and on awakening in his second estate, a veil is wisely thrown over all the past. In his mortal tabernacle he remembers not the scenes, the endearing associations, of his first primeval childhood in the heavenly mansions. He therefore commences anew in the lessons of experience, in order to start on a level with the new born tabernacle, and to redevelop his intellectual faculties in a progressive series, which keep pace with the development of the organs and faculties of the outward tabernacle. During his progress in the flesh, the Holy Spirit may gradually awaken his faculties; and in a dream or vision, or by the spirit of prophecy, reveal, or rather awaken the memory to a partial vision, or to a dim and half defined recollection of the intelligence of past. He sees in part, and he knows in part; but never while tabernacled in mortal flesh will he fully awaken to the intelligence of his former estate. It surpasses his comprehension, is unspeakable and even unlawful to be uttered. Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (London: L.D.Saints’ Book Depot, 1855), p.51-52.
“In regard to eternal things, they are all out of sight to them, and will so remain, unless the Lord lifts the curtain. . . . We are short sighted, and deprived of the knowledge which we might have. I might say this is right, without offering any explanation.
“But there are many reasons, and much good sound logic that could be produced, showing why we are thus in the dark touching eternal things. . . .I say, the greatest good that could be produced by the all wise Conductor of the universe to His creature, man, was to do just as He has done-bring him forth on the face of the earth, drawing a vail before his eyes. He has caused us to forget every thing we once knew before our spirits entered within this vail of flesh. For instance, it is like this: when we lie down to sleep, our minds are often as bright and active as the mind of an angel, at least they are as active as when our bodies are awake. They will range over the earth, visit distant friends, and, for aught we know, the planets, and accomplish great feats; do that which will enhance our happiness, increase to us every enjoyment of life, and prepare us for celestial glory; but when we wake in the morning, it is all gone from us; we have forgotten it. This illustration will explain in part the nature of the vail which is over the inhabitants of the earth; they have forgotten that they once knew. This is right; were it different, where would be the trial of our faith? In a word, be it so; it is as it should be. Brigham Young, July 10, 1853, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.352
“A veil of forgetfulness has fallen between us and the past, effectively hiding from view and shutting out from recollection the scenes of our primeval childhood, even as another veil hangs between us and the hereafter. Sometimes, perhaps as the hour of death approaches, a glimpse of the glorious future is permitted, even before the spirit has left its mortal tenement; so, too, at times, in blessed moments of sacred communion and holy thought, half memories of the past steal into our souls. As a European writer has declared, one seems to hear and feel the melody of songs which once he sang, but for which now he can find neither words nor music fit. James E. Talmage, Improvement Era, 1905
In such simplicity is the normal, natural development of the Boy Jesus made clear. He came among men to experience all the natural conditions of mortality; He was born as truly a dependent, helpless babe as is any other child; His infancy was in all common features as the infancy of others; His boyhood was actual boyhood, His development was as necessary and as real as that of all children. Over His mind had fallen the veil of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the remembrance of primeval existence is shut off. The Child grew, and with growth there came to Him expansion of mind, development of faculties, and progression in power and understanding. His advancement was from one grace to another, not from gracelessness to grace; from good to greater good, not from evil to good, from favor with God to greater favor, not from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance and propitiation. .
James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to the Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern (The Deseret News, 1915), pp. 111-112.
“The veil of forgetfulness of the first estate apparently will not be suddenly, automatically, and totally removed at the time of our temporal death. This veil, a condition of our entire second estate, is associated with and is part of our time of mortal trial, testing, proving, and overcoming by faith- and thus will continue in some key respects into the spirit world.” Maxwell, Neal A. The Promise of Discipleship. (Deseret Book Company, 2001), p. 111.
So yes Shem, It seems it is or was taught, But I know you wont care about these quotes.
Rick
You did a good job of cutting and pasting. I commend you on your work and research. Excellent job!!! Now, Do you understand what you blogged and what it means to me?
How good would we be if we knew that we did pre-exist?
I probably should restate the question. What would we be doing if we knew what we did in the pre-existence. See, I see this world as a loyalty test. All of us wanted to come here-that is you, me, falcon and everybody who is living on this planet. Revelations mentions a war in heaven. We all took part in that. We are the valiant ones who stayed on God’s side.
Now we live on this world with people who say there is no God and those who say God is this way and those who say He is another way. God has left it up to us to know Him and Jesus who He has sent.
Clyde,
Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back. Does it matter if I cutted and pasted? Facts are facts, these quotes are from your teachers and so the bigger issue was, Shem said he was not aware of this, Now he is.
I dont deny the war in Heaven, the Bible teaches that, what the Bible does not teach is that we were their fighting and the ones who sat on the side lines drinking beer and refusing to choose sides were cursed with black skin. And that some of us choose to fight with Jesus and others choose to side with the devil. Show me from the BIBLE where it teaches that? O-wait, you cannot since it is not in the Bible, so this means that you must listen to some false teacher that said it is true.
Rick
Do you ever seek to understand someone else position on things? Do you just want to make some sarcastic remark that in your view reflects God in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.
You really did a good job of research. I knew that stuff was there but I saw no mention of shematwaters’ blog mentioning anything of him not knowing it. .
Clyde said
No Matter how much I read and study Mormonism, I get accused of not really doing it, so Yes Clyde I do try and understand the other side, It is you guys that reject that because you dont like the answers I give.
Then Clyde You said
This tells me that YOU dont read what I write or you just glance over the posts and miss things. This came about because I said this,
Then Shem said
Shem said the church does not teach this.
Prior to this, I have had MM sit in my house and tell me this idea is taught in the Church. They did not learn it from me, I just asked them if it was true. That was why I posted what I did.
So it seems to me you guys dont know as mush as you think, if Shem deny’s this was ever taught, you admit it was and you guys cannot agree.
Rick
Funny how you accuse Clyde of not reading what you write when it is obvious you don’t really pay attention to what others, particularly me, write.
You said “Funny how thats all that you remember.”
I said: “I don’t remember passing through any veil, and no one in the church claims this. Please get it right.”
Now, where in this did I say I did not know the veil existed, and that it is taught by the leaders of the church? I never claimed to not know the doctrine. What I said is that I do not actually remember passing through said veil, which is what you claimed we believe. We have no memory of passing through the veil, and no leader ever claimed we did. They have taught that such happened, and I fully agree with them. But knowing the event happened and remembering it are very different things.
After all, I know I was born, but I have no memory of the event.
Thus it is that I told you to get things right, as the implication of your comment was not accurate to what is actually taught.
Shem,
You said
It really is not a matter of Me not paying attention to what you wrote, It is clear I read what you wrote, how else could I quote you if I did not read it?
It is more a matter of You could have worded what you said better. I asked someone who does not reply on this blog and really could care less about anything here, this person understood this saying
I like being an observer. It does get very perplexing at times when you think you see some type of understanding in some blogs then see it explode. In this case a total misunderstanding due to emphasis placed on an idea that one person did not mean to or even emphasize.
Last I heard, the Bible is part of Mormon Scripture. Try again. And only a fool would ignore the blatant contradictions of the Book of Mormon and later Mormon Doctrine.
LOL.
Grindael
The Bible is the first and foremost scripture of the church. However, just because we use it does not mean we accept your interpretations of it. What I posted was a clear explanation of the verses sited and how they are not a contradiction of the doctrine when the full doctrine of the church is understood.
Can you prove this false? I do not ask if you can give alternate interpretations of Bible verses, but if you can take the verses as understood by the LDS and prove that there is still a contradiction?
Rick
Then maybe you should freshen up on your understanding of the English language.
I chose the wording I did because of the wording you used. I have to wonder if the person you showed this too also read your comments. Of course it wouldn’t really matter as I cannot talk to them directly, so that for all I know you could just be making the claim without actually showing it to anyone. I am not accusing you of this, but simply pointing out that you doing this may bring you some satisfaction, but does no good as far as the discussion goes.
It seems that Clyde, whom we know read my comment, understood what I meant without any difficulty. If he didn’t he can correct me on this.
Shem said
Shem, First off, Clyde would not admit to being wrong, Mormons dont do that, other wise they would admit they follow a false Gospel. Second Clyde had no clue what you said, How do I know? He said so, Clyde said
Why would Clyde say
If he read what you wrote?
That is the whole point of my comments. Of course YOUR scripture may support YOUR interpretation of SOME of your doctrines at SOME point in time. (Depending on what ever changing doctrine Smith believed in at that time).
Since the Bible is the FOREMOST scripture of your church. Just use the Bible. The Bible says what it says. Mormon scripture has added explanations that change the entire meaning of what the Bible says. Why would anyone want to try and disprove your own made up interpretations using made up “revelations”? That would be an exercise in futility. Hence the LOL.
Bravo! You are right, my belief’s or why I left Mormonism has no relevance to the truth of what Mormonism actually is. But your fantastical interpretations of Mormon History and Doctrine, spewed here without a shred of hard evidence only reinforce that I made the right decision to leave the church because of how it creates people like you.
But you calling me ignorant of Mormonism is what Falcon was getting at, which went right over your head it seems. (It does help to comprehend what you read, which is another of your problems – but works well for you in continuing to accept the churches lies).
That Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith IS relevant, and is found in the documents of the Church that contain the truth of this fact. Your penchant to judge and criticize without the facts, coupled with your own massive ignorance of Mormon history and doctrine, shows you for what you are Shem, which is played out in these discussions for all the lurkers and participants to see.
Rick
He said it because he understood my comment, unlike you.
You here make the assumption that if you thought I said something than everyone has to have thought that I said it as well. The ridiculousness of this is astounding.
I never said I didn’t know the doctrine. I said I do not remember passing through the veil. Clyde understood the difference, but you can’t fathom the idea that you are wrong.
Oh, and please note that I have admitted error on my part, when it exists. I do not admit error just because you make an opposing claim.