John Wesley
Christopher Jones writes at the Peculiar People blog about the prevalence of early Mormon converts who came from a Methodist background. It is suggested that this was because they (and others) believed about Mormonism, “It’s like Methodism, only more.” Indeed, Mr. Jones quotes Joseph Smith telling a Methodist minister, “We Latter-day Saints are Methodists, as far as they have gone, only we have advanced further.”
It’s hard to know what Joseph Smith meant when he referred to this so-called advancement. Mormonism is “more” than Methodism in that it has more Gods, more heavens, more books considered scripture, more types of salvation, (etc.) than the Methodist Church accepts, but the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church bear little resemblance to the doctrines of Mormonism. Perhaps the differences weren’t so vast in the early days of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal development. Be that as it may, Mr. Jones writes,
“Among the first generation of converts to Mormonism, roughly one-third of them came from Methodist backgrounds, including Emma Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor. Even Joseph Smith remembered being ‘somewhat partial to the Methodist sect’ and feeling ‘some desire to be united with them’ before his own visionary experience.”
Joseph Smith did write that when he was in his fifteenth year, in the midst of all the religious fervor in upstate New York, he was drawn to Methodism (JS—History 1:8). But instead of joining the Methodist Church, he thought, “Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (JS—History 1:10)
This questioning led him, in due time, to ask God. But by this time he had evidently forgotten his earlier suspicion that all might be wrong, so when the Father and the Son appeared before him, Joseph related,
“I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men…’” (JS—History 1:18-19)
Surprisingly, Joseph’s “visionary experience” did not seem to change the way he felt about Methodism. God Himself (he claims) told him that the Methodist Church was wrong, its creeds an abomination, its professors corrupt, and its doctrines devoid of divine authority. Nevertheless, Joseph’s “desire to be united with them” apparently remained. A few years later, while busily engaged in translating the gold plates and receiving direct revelations from God, “Joseph joined the Methodist Episcopal church or class in Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828” (Inventing Mormonism, Marquardt and Walters, 61, fn 49).
How long Joseph Smith remained united with the Methodist Church is unknown, but for his wife, Emma, the “more” of 1846 Mormonism was not what she really wanted. When Brigham Young led the Latter-day Saints into the western wilderness, Emma stayed behind and re-associated herself with the Methodist Church in Nauvoo (500 Little-Known Facts About Nauvoo, George and Sylvia Givens, 236).
When Joseph Smith III became the prophet of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1860 (now the Community of Christ), Emma left Methodism again, this time for a different kind of Mormonism – one that left (among other things) the doctrines of more wives and more Gods behind.
I think this author says it all very well. I get a kick out of Mormons who say that the Jesus they believe in is the Biblical Jesus. Look at the description of the Mormon Jesus and see if you can find any of it in the NT. So then Mormons will use what is known in psychology as “projection” by saying Jesus, as professed by Christians, is “man-made”. That’s pretty funny because the Mormon Jesus can’t be found in the Bible and the (Mormon Jesus) is truly man-made.
The tragic ending that Mormons will face when they stand before Jesus at the Final Judgement and whimper, cry and protest that they were “sincere” but “deceived” won’t cut it. Those Mormons who come here and read have had the truth revealed to them. As the apostle Paul said in Romans, man is without excuse.
“Simply believing in someone named Jesus will not solve the issue for Mormons because — as the apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11:4 — there are some who preach a different Jesus. For example, while the Bible teaches that Jesus has always existed as God (John 1:1), Mormons see Jesus as someone who worked His way up to godhood. In fact, to Mormons, Jesus is merely one in purpose with God the Father; whereas the Bible declares that the Father and the Son are also one in essence (cf. Phillipians 2:6) — that they are both equally God and members of the Holy Trinity.”
“………..in their attempt to evade charges of polytheism — which, of course, is the belief in or worship of more than one god — Mormons end up prohibiting prayer to Jesus. Mormons confess that they believe in the existence of many gods but pray only to God the Father. Well, in light of the Bible’s explicit command to pray to Jehovah (cf. Deut. 4:7; 2 Chron. 7:14; Pss. 5:2; 32:6; Jer. 27:7, 12), it’s simply incredible that Mormons refuse to pray to Jesus while yet acknowledging Him to be Jehovah! In addition, let me point you to passages like John 14:14 and Romans 10:12 which demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that believers ought to pray to Jesus.”
“Mormons can claim to believe in Jesus all they want, but it’s apparent from their teachings that the Jesus they profess is definitely not the Jesus of the Bible. The truth is they worship another Jesus, proclaim another gospel, and teach the skin of the truth stuffed with a lie. Ultimately, all cults and world religions, in one way or another, compromise the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-the-difference-between-the-mormon-jesus-and-the-jesus-of-the-bible/
One of the things that impressed me as I watched the video testimony of the Wilder family members and then Grant Palmer was how they said that what led them out of Mormonism was reading the NT. The observation that I came away with was that the NT is the biggest enemy of Mormonism.
In fact Lynn Wilder went so far as to say that for the longest while, all she did was trust the words of Jesus in the NT Gospel accounts. The conclusion is, of course, that putting aside Mormonism and not attempting to over-lay (Mormonism) on the NT brings the reader to the truth about Jesus Christ.
For a Mormon to say that they believe in the Biblical Jesus is either total ignorance or total deception. Ignorance being that they just don’t know. Deception, that they do know but are lying in order to convince people that Mormons believe something that they clearly don’t.
Falcon said
“For a Mormon to say that they believe in the Biblical Jesus is either total ignorance or total deception. Ignorance being that they just don’t know. Deception, that they do know but are lying in order to convince people that Mormons believe something that they clearly don’t.”
I think that deception is the order of things when educated Mormons claim to believe in the Biblical Jesus, the rest are simply showing that they don’t even know what their own church teaches. I have talked about Christ to Mormons & it becomes very confusing when they deny the teachings of their own prophets. For example, the late President Hinckley, upon being asked did he or the Mormon Church follow the Christian Jesus, replied:
“No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.’ ”
So there you have it, a statement from a so-called prophet of the Mormon Church declaring that Mormons do not follow the Christ of the Bible.
Hey Old Man,
I like the way you misrepresented Pres Hinkley’s words when you gave your interpretation of them. The quote you gave from Pres Hinkley states “THE TRADITIONAL CHRIST of whom they (meaning other Christian churches) speak”. He did not say the we “do not follow the Christ of the Bible” does he?
What Pres HInkley said was we do not follow the Christ of the Trinitarian tradition.
No one has proven to me in all of the discussion on this board that the Trinity is the correct interpretation of the Bible, and that is what it is – an INTERPRETATION. I have found the evidence in the Bible for myself to consolidate my beliefs with the Bible. It follows the interpretation given to the Bible by the LDS church, of course, but no one has proven to me that it is wrong.
Nelson,
I am a biological/medical researcher by career and although most scientists that believe in evolution try and state that it is fact, it too is a religion in itself as there is no concrete evidence only stipulations following what has been observed so one can only believe in it by faith that it is correct. It is still called in texts and journals “THEORY” of evolution, and that is all that it is, a theory There are still many holes in the evidence and theory itself.
From what I have learned about life and its workings I have difficulties believing that this all came about by chance. Too many things run too perfectly to be a mistake or chance. But that is what I have come to believe from my observations and learning in my career. You can draw your own conclusions but please, evolution is only a theory, not fact.
Ralph, if you are waiting for us to prove to you that the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible
I can save you a lot of time by simply saying we can’t “prove” it because that’s not in our
ability to do so , but the Holy Spirit can . You have been given the information and what you
do with it is up to you . Next time this issue comes up we will go over it again I’m sure , but why?
We both have our interpretations about this , only one is correct . I pray that one day you will
come to see the truth about what the Bible reveals about our Creator . A lot is at stake .
Ralph.
I’m sorry you feel I deliberately misrepresented what your prophet said; I can assure you that if I did it was not deliberate; in fact I would go so far as to say that the misrepresentation was on Hinckleys part not mine. That man was as well known for his dissembling, as he was for his role as a prophet. Using expressions such as “we do not follow the Christ of the Trinitarian tradition” is a red herring & cannot disguise the fact that President Hinckley nor your Church did not & does not, follow the Christ of the Bible. Falcon has pointed this out many times to no avail. The trinity will never be accepted by the LDS simply because they don’t know who Christ is. What Mormons hope for is to make their heretical doctrine more acceptable, by describing Christian doctrine as “traditional”. The implication being that traditional means man made. Mormons love to twist the meaning of words, of verses, of entire chapters to suit their agenda, & under the LDS banner the “traditional” Gospel has become distorted to the point of being almost unrecognisable, However you choose to describe Christian beliefs, be it traditional, Catholic, Protestant or just plain stupid they are, unlike Mormon doctrines, clear & Bible based. Ignore or answer what I’ve said, it really doesn’t matter because unless you come to know WHO Christ is you can never come to knowledge of the truth. I apologise if my words sound harsh or offensive to you, they are not meant to be, I am speaking of what I know to be true.
Mike.
Just a note concerning what you said.
I concur with everything you say the concerning the doctrine of the Trinity & the impossibility of proving it in human terms. I’m not absolutely sure if what I’m about to say is correct so would you agree that the Spirit gives proof only where there is acceptance of the Biblical Christ?
Falcon
“there is no Biblical support for the Mormon Jesus so he isn’t Biblical.”
There is more Biblical support for the true Christ than there is for the contrivance that you believe in. I know people like to claim that I haven’t read the bible, but I have read it many times and every time I read it the truth of Christ is once again beautifully laid before my eyes, and that truth is only taught in the LDS church.
“Now I know Mormons will lie and tell those ignorant of what Mormonism teaches, all sorts of things saying it’s the same as Christianity. I know you wouldn’t do that.”
Of course I won’t claim the true Christ to be anything like what the rest of Christianity teaches. They are all in apostasy and teach a false understanding of Christ. Why would I want to claim to be in such a state of darkness myself?
Now, I believe in the Christ that is taught in the Bible. What I do not believe in is your interpretation of the Bible that you use to support your false doctrines of Christ. The New Testament is no enemy to the LDS, but one of its greatest witnesses and supports for anyone who is honestly seeking the truth, for the truth doctrine that has once again be revealed in these days is so clearly taught in it that one cannot help know the truth of this work.
Old Man
Once again you make statements without evidence. That is common for the rest of Christianity when it comes to Biblical interpretation. You constantly make the claim “We have the correct interpretation” but have really nothing to prove it.
Now, I don’t think you are purposely misrepresenting the words of President Hinckley, but I do think your own biases and prejudices have caused you to lay false accusations on him and to misunderstand what he says.
Falcon does the same thing with his insistence that for us to say we believe in the Christ taught in the Bible shows either ignorance or deception, and your agreeing with him only shows it in you.
We are not ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Nor are we being deceptive when we state we believe it. As I have stated many times, the true issue is not the “Biblical Christ.” The issue is Biblical interpretation. I do not agree with, nor accept, your interpretation of the Bible. I do, however, agree with and accept the interpretation that is found in the LDS church. Thus there is no ignorance or deception on my part in claiming that I believe in the Christ that I see being taught in the Bible.
I would like to make an offer. Give me one aspect of our doctrine regarding Christ, and I will show it through the Bible. Do not give more than one, as that only bogs things down. Also, after I have given the evidence, don’t reply simply with “You don’t understand.”
Let us see how this works.
Shem
If I had no evidence I wouldn’t make the statements, the evidence is plain to see but I’m wasting my time pointing it out, you see only what you want to see. There is so much more I could say about your church & Christianity but that will possibly be for another time, for now I’ll respectfully decline your offer & instead make you a counter offer.
Your Church claims to have the truth, it claims that Christianity, which has weathered the claims of false prophets & heretics since it’s foundation more than 2000 years ago, fell by the wayside & was restored 1800 years later by Joseph Smith. As its your church making these claims then the burden of proof rests with you & it, the Christian Church doesn’t have to prove anything. Anyway, this is what I propose, rather than staying within this endless circle of claim & counter claim, simply prove that your Church is true by proving that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that’s simple enough isn’t it? Who knows if you can do that I may even join your organization. I believe that’s the best way of doing things by far.
Should you wish to see what I have to say about the Christian Church, your church, Joseph Smith & your leaders in detail along with the proof to back up what I say then I’ll be happy to oblige, if or when, I can find the time. Be warned, it will be quite long & you will find the truth upsetting.
Old Man
I am never upset by the truth, only the way some people try to twist it.
Now, what would be the point in trying to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet. As you so nicely put it, “you see only what you want to see.” I am not offering proof of anything when I offer to discuss the Bible and our doctrine. I offer only a different perspective. When it comes to faith there is no way to present proof to others. Just as many do not accept your proofs of the Biblical prophets, or even your proof of Christ. The evidence is there, but without faith one cannot see it.
Shem
“Now, what would be the point in trying to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet.”
Surely the point would be to make all my arguments invalid, as I would obviously belong to an apostate church if he were a prophet. Christ gave plenty of evidence on a personal level as to who He was, John the Baptist showed who Christ was in front of many witnesses & his apostles did the same. All I’m asking is for you produce some tangible evidence for Joseph Smiths claims, unless of course you expect me to simply take your word for it.
“Give me one aspect of our doctrine regarding Christ, and I will show it through the Bible.”
Ok Shem, change of mind, I’ll accept your offer in the hope that perhaps you will accept mine at some future date although I very much doubt if you will:
Show me, using scripture alone, why you believe that Christ was the brother of Lucifer who is mentioned only once in Isaiah? Strange that a Latin word should appear in a Hebrew document don’t you think?
Old Man , you asked me a question about what I said to Ralph concerning the Trinity. What I
said was based on the amount of evidence for this doctrine in the Bible that he has been given
and since he has been hanging around here a long time . Therefore since he still refuses to
accept this doctrine then only Holy Spirit can help him at this point in time to overcome any
hesitation . That was my point .
I enjoy your contributions here .
Mike
Please dont think I was being critical of anything you said, on the contrary I agree with all of it. The reason for asking my question was because I’m not certain if what I said was accurate. You are probably more knowledgable than me concerning these things, therefore I value your input & asked for your thoughts on it.
Ralph,
Prevailing opinion is that Evolution is fact and theory:
“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” (Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). “Evolution as Fact and Theory”. Discover 2 (5): 34–37.)
Gordon B. Hinckley was a liar. If he lied about one thing, he will lie about others. Here is Hinckley in 1997:
President Gordon B. Hinckley with Don Lattin, the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer. The article was dated Sunday, April 13, 1997):
13 March 1997 (same paper)
What Hinckley did was lie that he didn’t know that the church teaches that God was once a man. Of course he knew, he taught it himself three years earlier in a General Conference:
Hinckley was asked if God was once a man and he replied, “I wouldn’t say that”. In a later interview he said “I don’t know that we teach it”. Of course he was trying to say that Men will become like God without admitting that God was once a man like we are. But he taught that exact principle and gave the exact reference to the King Follett sermon in a General Conference only 3 years before the interview.
This proves Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that the idea of three gods is simply wrong:
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. ~Isaiah 43:10 NIV
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. KJV
Grindael
Just a short follow up to your previous post
I’m not sure if it’s the Larry King interview you’re referring to when Hinckley was asked about men becoming gods, his reply to the question being, “I don’t know that we teach that” but if it was I would like to add that shortly after that interview, & in general conference, Hinckley addressed the assembled members telling them not to be concerned about what they may have heard him say in a recent interview because he knew church doctrine very well. This was met with laughter & applause from the audience. The man wasn’t just a liar he was, like Smith, a showman.
Old Man
“Christ gave plenty of evidence on a personal level as to who He was, John the Baptist showed who Christ was in front of many witnesses & his apostles did the same.”
And look at how many people rejected them and would not accept the evidence. Yes, there is great evidence of Christ, but it is only evidence to those who believe. Those who have not faith will not accept it, as is evidenced in the way many of the Jews reacted, and how the Romans and all the others who fought against the work reacted. This evidence cannot create faith. Faith must be there first, and then the evidence will be clearer and strengthen that faith.
The same in true of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. There is great evidence of the fact of his appointment and priesthood, but since you lack the faith you will never accept it, and so what is the point is presenting it?
“why you believe that Christ was the brother of Lucifer”
It is really quite simple. We are the offspring of God (Acts 17: 28-29) for he is the Father of our spirits (Hebrews 12: 9). We take these statements very literally. We were born as spirits to our Heavenly Father. Thus when God declares to Job that “all the bsons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38: 7) when the world was created we believe that we were all a part of that group. As we are told several times that Christ is the Son of God, and he even expresses this when he says “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20: 17)
Now, in Isaiah 14: 2 Lucifer is described as a “son of the morning” and is declared to have been in heaven. So, the scriptures tells us that Lucifer was a son, that Christ was a son, and that all of us are the children of God. If we are all his children, than Christ is our brother just as Lucifer is. Lucifer was cast out for his rebellion, but that does not negate the basic relationship that he has by virtue of his being a son.
Now, I would also point out that this is not technically a doctrine of the church. It is rather a logical inference that one reaches in considering the actually doctrine. What I have shown here is how, if you look at the Bible from our perspective, this inference can be made.
Shem
You made me an offer, “Give me one aspect of our doctrine regarding Christ, and I will show it through the Bible. I accepted your offer on good faith & asked you one question, “Show me, using scripture alone, why you believe that Christ was the brother of Lucifer”? You have not answered my question using scripture at all; furthermore, you cannot answer it using scripture. Instead of doing what you said you would do you have used your own beliefs to support your own doctrine. Sorry Shem, that’s a circular argument & perhaps you could try again. The verses you have quoted in the hope of answering are taken, in typical cult fashion, completely out of context. Who was Paul speaking to in Acts 17:28? He was speaking to Pagan Athenians. What was he talking about? He was saying that the Athenians knew there was an unknown God but they had rejected Him. Paul was not telling the Athenians they were Gods offspring, how could he when they didn’t know God? He was pointing out that Athenian poets had said this. Who is Paul addressing in Hebrews 12:9? He is talking to Christians, who, as is made clear in John 1:12 have become sons of God through faith in Christ. Adoption was the word commonly used by Paul to describe how Christians became part of Gods family. There is absolutely no justification for saying or even implying that these verses talk about God producing countless millions of Spirit children.
Incidentally, you say that Lucifer means Son of the morning, it does not, Lucifer means bringer of light, the full sentence should read, “how are you fallen bringer of light, son of the morning” Lucifer is Latin, completely out of place in a Hebrew manuscript. It first appears in the Vulgate written in Latin by Jerome in the 4th Century & was mistakenly used by the translators of the King James Bible. The writer of Isaiah was talking about the fall of the King of Babylon, not Satan & the word does not appear in any modern translation. That belief cannot be supported by Scripture or by historical evidence & therefore I still wait for you to answer my question, if you can’t then at least have the integrity to admit it & we can move on.
Ps. I don’t wish to argue about your last point so let’s consider what a couple of your prophets taught.
“Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?” The Eldest Son said: “Here am I”; and then he added, “Send me.” But the second one, which was “Lucifer, Son of the Morning,” said, “Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth.”
President Brigham Young. Journal of Discourses. P.53
And;
“There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple’s pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim.”
President Spencer W. Kimball. Conference report 1964
Your prophets say it is so, is that not doctrine ?
Old Man
You did not understand my offer.
I would like to make an offer. Give me one aspect of our doctrine regarding Christ, and I will show it through the Bible. Do not give more than one, as that only bogs things down. Also, after I have given the evidence, don’t reply simply with “You don’t understand.”
Notice that I state very clearly that the claim that I don’t understand is not part of this offer. My offer had nothing to do with proving anything, but with discussing how it is that we can see these things in the text of the Bible. If all you can say in reply is that our understanding of the Bible is different than yours than I agree and discussion is over.
I have shown, using the Bible, how it is that we can read that scripture and believe in this. That is the offer I was making, and I have fulfilled it. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not.
However, I will say a few things.
“He was pointing out that Athenian poets had said this.”
This is true. He does point this out, and then he agrees with it. “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,” he declares. He is telling the Athenians that this truth should not be difficult for them to understand and accept because their own poets have already declared it.
“He is talking to Christians, who, as is made clear in John 1:12 have become sons of God through faith in Christ.”
This is very true, but that is not what he is saying here. Notice the comparison. Just as we subject ourselves to mortal parents, we should also subject ourselves to the parent of spirits. This comparison does not work if it is referencing the adoption of the faithful, as they have already subjected themselves through faith.
Of course there are other scriptures that declare us to be the literal spirit children of the Father. I quoted only one, but here are a few more: Num. 16:22 “God of the spirits of all flesh” Deut. 14:1
“Ye are the children of the Lord your God” Job 32:8 “there is a spirit in man” Ps. 82:6 “Ye are gods … children of the most High” Eccl. 12:7 “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” Hosea 1:10 “Ye are the sons of the living God” Mal. 2:10 “Have we not all one father” Matt. 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father” Matt. 6:9 “Our Father which art in heaven” Rom. 8:16 “Spirit itself beareth witness … we are the children of God” Eph. 4:6 “One God and Father of all”
Now, take particular note of this last reference. Notice that he is the Father of All. It does not specify that he is the Father of the Faithful, nor does it make any reference to adoption. There is one God and Father of all men, who is the Father and God of our Spirits, that he has placed in our bodies, and which spirit will return to its Father at death. We are the sons of the Living God, for have we not all one father.
“you say that Lucifer means Son of the morning”
I never once said that Lucifer means son of the morning. You have misunderstood my words if you thought that is what I was saying. I said he is described as a Son of the Morning, and that is very accurate. This is how he is described.
As to the meaning of the passage, Isaiah generally speak in a dualistic way. He uses the political events around him to illustrate eternal truths. So, yes, he is speaking of the Fall of Babylon, but he is using it to illustrate the Fall of Satan from Heaven in the preexistence. This event is also described by Christ in Luke 10: 18 “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Isaiah is calling Satan Lucifer (and I don’t care what language it is from) and is declaring him to be a son of the morning that fell from heaven.
As to this being doctrine, I have never read these passages, but it doesn’t really change anything in what I said. All it proves is that this inference was made by President Kimball. I never said I do not believe it is true, nor did I ever say that no one has ever made such statements. What I said is that it is not the doctrine of the church. One must understand this: The doctrine of the church consists of those things that are required for our salvation. Everything else, whether it is true or not, is not part of what we would call the doctrine of the church. Whether or not Christ and Lucifer are brothers has no direct baring on our salvation, and thus is not a part of the doctrine of the church.
Shem
You say that I did not understand your offer; do you take me for a simpleton? I understood exactly what your offer was. & my question to you was based on that understanding. All you have offered in return is to tell me what your church believes. It’s you who doesn’t understand; I know full well what your church believes. Your offer was to show me, using scripture, why it’s believed. This you have failed to do, all you offer is a mish mash of verses cherry picked & taken out of context.
In spite of all your claims to have understanding you really have very little & your ability to dissemble never fails to astound me; you truly are an expert in the misuse of words & their correct meaning. Take this for example: “I never once said that Lucifer means son of the morning” while it’s true you didn’t say it that is what you believe him to be, in your very next sentence you say it is a very accurate description. You knew I was making the point that Lucifer was a mistranslation & I explained to you exactly why that is, but in order to make my response invalid & to protect the teachings of your church you twist my words. This is something you have constantly done since my first post here. You are harder to pin down than an eel, so stop wriggling & accept the truth when it’s being pointed out to you.
“Isaiah is calling Satan Lucifer (and I don’t care what language it is from) and is declaring him to be a son of the morning that fell from heaven.”
Once again Shem, & this time read & understand what I am saying; Isaiah is not calling Satan Lucifer. Lucifer is a Latin word meaning “bringer of light” it does not & could not appear in a Hebrew manuscript. The word is Latin, it comes from a mistranslation of “bringer of light” made by Jerome in the 4th century Ad. & was wrongly placed in Isaiah by the translators of the King James Bible. Is Satan a bringer of light? Once & for all, Satan is not known as, & has never been known as Lucifer. The entire chapter is a mocking reference to the King of Babylon who in his pride referred to himself in those terms & elevated himself to the position of a god. God brought him down from his position in his “Heaven”. Read the verse in context & hopefully you will see the truth of this, stop defending the indefensible. If you can’t take my word for it then consult a Rabbi who can easily put you right on this point. No Jewish scholar would understand what you are talking about because the text simply doesn’t support your beliefs.
Your attempt to justify your interpretation by quoting from Luke 10:18, is another example of isolating a verse & taking it out of context. What is Christ really saying here? Read the chapter & understand the context. Christ is saying that He saw Satan (not Lucifer) fall like lighting from Heaven. He is speaking metaphorically of what happens when the Gospel is preached. Christ sees Satans kingdom falling but you seem unable to understand this?
The more you refuse to accept the rules of interpretation & the more you use the typical Hinckley excuse of “I don’t know that we teach it” then the more people will disregard what you have to say. You told me when I first came in here that you are defending your church from attack but you can’t do that if you use the same method of interpretation your church is accused of. It’s just one circular argument after another. Why engage in complicated apologetics when the simplest & best way to defend your church is to provide some kind of evidence for the claims of Joseph Smith? I can understand why you refuse to do this, it’s because there is no evidence, if there was you would have used it. Very few of your beliefs come from any real understanding of scripture, most in fact come from the mind of a self-proclaimed prophet, whose pronouncements became ever wilder as his arrogance grew ever greater, yet, you are prepared to take his word for it, what a pity you cannot accept Gods word as easily as you accept his.
By the way, have you ever considered working for the Maxwell institute, formerly known as FARMS? They’re very good at that sort of thing
Old Man
I am tired of your constant accusations and ridicule. I am tired of your constant misunderstandings of my words and the doctrines of my church. If you can’t grasp the very simple meaning of plainly spoken English then there is little point in discussing it. Let me try one more time.
“All you have offered in return is to tell me what your church believes.”
No. I have offered you a very plainly spoken and fairly comprehensive list of scriptural passages that we understand to say a certain thing, and through that can conclude that this idea is true. That was the offer I made. I am not simple stating what we believing, but showing why we believe it, and doing so through the Bible. For you to say that I have not done this shows only your own arrogance and your continual refusal to actually listen to anyone.
Now, I get that you interpret things differently, and that is fine. But please try to get it through your head that not everyone agrees with your interpretation. There are other ideas and beliefs out there besides yours. I am not asking you to believe what I am saying, but to understand why I believe it. Is that really so hard to do?
“Once again Shem, & this time read & understand what I am saying”
I understand what you are saying, and what you doesn’t matter. You said “the full sentence should read, “how are you fallen bringer of light, son of the morning” Great. Since the word Lucifer means Bringer of Light than it is an accurate translation according to you. It is like saying that using the Spanish “Negro” instead of the English “Black” is a mistranslation. It doesn’t matter what the language is if it has the same meaning. So whether you want to call Satan Lucifer or Bringer of Light makes no difference, because they mean the same things and are still talking about the same person.
On a final note: I couldn’t care less about your rules of interpretation. These rules were not handed down by God, but were developed by men as a means of preventing anyone of disagreeing with them. There is only one rule of interpretation that I follow, and that is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as it enlightens my mind and communicates the true meaning of scripture. Nothing else matters. Once God has revealed the truth through His spirit I need nothing else.
Shem
So you’re tired of, as you choose to put it, “your constant accusations and ridicule” yes there has been accusations but they are founded on truth & have you not levelled accusations at me? As for ridicule, that exists only in your mind. You are the only one who sees it that way. I also am tired, tired of your constant evasion. So, you will be happy to know that this is to be my last comment on this particular subject. I’m not going to address your points one by one, as you have shown, that is a total & utter waste of time. What I will do is to show you & anyone else reading this, that you simply refuse to understand what is being said, I don’t say misunderstand I say refuse to understand.
You said
“I understand what you are saying, and what you (say) doesn’t matter. You said “the full sentence should read, “how are you fallen bringer of light, son of the morning” Great. Since the word Lucifer means Bringer of Light than it is an accurate translation according to you. ……….It doesn’t matter what the language is if it has the same meaning. So whether you want to call Satan Lucifer or Bringer of Light makes no difference, because they mean the same things and are still talking about the same person.
First: you are in effect saying that you will not accept any evidence that does not concur with your own beliefs.
Second: you say that it doesn’t matter what the language is if it has the same meaning. Of course it matters, was the O/T written in Latin? I told you to consult a Jewish scholar about this if you couldn’t take my word for it but of course you will never do that because you fear being proved wrong. That one Latin word is there because of a mistake. How can Latin appear in a book that was written before the language was even known? That simple statement leads us to this, the only possible explanation for Lucifer appearing in the BofM is because Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Bible; he copied the mistakes found in that book. His claim of it being the most correct book on Earth means nothing if, contained within its pages, is a mistake made by men in the 16th Century! The only reason you remain so adamant about the Lucifer problem is because if you admit to being wrong then the entire Mormon house of cards comes crashing down. Joseph Smith would be a proven fraud.
Third: it’s not a question of what I want to call Satan; the question is, what does scripture call Satan? The one sure thing is that in scripture Satan is NEVER called Lucifer. The words Satan & Lucifer do not refer to the same person, Satan is not Lucifer, & Lucifer is a reference to the King of Babylon.
Don’t claim to understand scripture if you cant understand something as simple as that. You know I am right but you refuse to accept what is so obviously true.
You are, as far as I’m concerned working for the church as an apologist, no ordinary member of the LDS would have such a blatant disregard for the truth presented on this site, and no ordinary member could have such a well-rehearsed & negative response to the evidence.
Old man,
Since you are fairly new here and I dont know what Posts and replys you have read, I will let you know this, It has been mentioned to Shem before By Me, That some passages in the BoM are word for word passages taken from the Bible and therefore are written in KJ English. Like the Latin Issue you mention, How did KJ English passages get put into the Most “correct” book? So these problems have been brought to Him before, and if I remember correctly they were never addressed.
Old Man
I realize you can’t stand the idea of anyone not bowing down to what you think is your superior knowledge and understanding, and so you have to try and discredit them with unfounded accusation. I also realize that doing so must be tiring, and I am perfectly fine in letting you step out of the conversation.
To other who may read this I will point out one thing. According to Old Man the term Lucifer first appears in the Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Old Testament. This was made by St. Jerome in 382 as a revision of earlier Latin translations. Thus, Jerome made no mistake in his translation. Speaking the King James Scholars, some believe they just didn’t know what to make of the word and so left it as it was given in the Vulgate. Of course, they also followed the rule of leaving names alone; rendering them in the same spelling as tradition had them, and they may have thought this to be a name and so followed this rule. I honestly don’t know.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter. Old Man’s insistence that “The one sure thing is that in scripture Satan is NEVER called Lucifer” is based on nothing more than his interpretation of the Bible, and is not directly supported by fact. As I said before, whether we call Satan Lucifer or Light Bringer, this does not alter the meaning of the passage. Old Man interprets it to be speaking only of the King of Babylon, but has no proof that that is the only interpretation of it. I agree that it is speaking of this King, but I also believe that in so doing Isaiah is illustrating the fall of Satan from Heaven. Now, Old Man wants to claim that this is wrong, but has no actual evidence that it is wrong, beyond his insistence that he has the correct interpretation.
Now, Rick makes the accusation that I never addressed the fact that many passages in the Book of Mormon are exactly as they appear in the KJV of the Bible. Now, I don’t know if I addressed this or not, but I will do so here just to clarify a few things.
First, there was no plagiarism. One cannot plagiarize a translation. The original author of the various works are given full credit in the Book of Mormon, both in the text and the headings of each chapter. Take for example 2 Nephi 24. We read in the heading “Israel will be gathered and will enjoy millennial rest—Lucifer was cast out of heaven for rebellion—Israel will triumph over Babylon (the world)—Compare Isaiah 14.” This directs us back to Isaiah 14 as is rendered in the KJV of the Bible, which is the version that is referenced through the footnotes and topical guide that are published with our scriptures. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon the chapter headings were not present, but still the text tells us who is being quoted. So, there is no plagiarism, only quotations.
As to why this is the case, that is very simple. Joseph Smith was familiar with and loved the KJ Bible. It was the common Bible of his day. As such, while translating the passages of the Book of Mormon that quote the Bible, it was chosen to quote directly from the KJV as long as such a quote was accurate to what the Book of Mormon was saying. Why alter the wordings of Isaiah as they were already had by people if there was no need to do so? It is very simple.
Shem
I can see you’ve been reading up on things, that’s good but might I suggest that you read an unbiased article rather than something conjured up in your apologetics lab. Distortion seems to be all you know, don’t you have a better way of answering than that? Again I say, Lucifer does not appear in any modern translation of the Bible. You “believe that Isaiah is illustrating Satans fall from Heaven” Hebews have never had a belief in a fallen Angel called Satan & furthermore they do not accept in any way your interpretation of Isaiahs words! To that end I’ll show you a response from a practising Jew, if anyone should know it is he.
“Judaism rejects the concept of a “Devil”, an ‘fallen’ angel with free will who is in ‘rebellion’ against G-d and is ruler of Hell. The term “Lucifer’ is a corrupt and purposely mis-leading translation from the Book of Isaiah in theTanach. The original and correct Hebrew term means ‘Morning Star” and is the title of the King of Babylon, not some super natural demon. ” Before you claim that I’m wrong in the meaning I gave to the word Lucifer let me tell you that it can also mean bringer of light, the terms are interchangeable.
I trust that you will now have the integrity to admit that you are wrong & hopefully we can put an end to this & move on.
For all of you lurkers out there, this was written by Joseph Smith as it is in the ORIGINAL 1830 version of the Book of Mormon:
God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God: and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth; and thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father… the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. ~Mosiah 15:1-7
Joseph Smith taught that God the Father and the Son were ONE GOD and ONE PERSON.
Old Man
Not to be rude to the Jews, but they haven’t got much right in the way of eternal truth for over two-thousand years. They rejected Christ outright, and at the time of Christ had large divisions, or sects, that taught vastly different doctrines.
Speaking of Satan, as they see him; to the Jew Satan is an angel in the service of God, acting under his direct orders and only with his permission. According to Jews there is no being acting in direct opposition to God and fighting for the souls of men. This idea, to the Jew, constitutes polytheism, as it places a being independent of God, and thus makes them a God in their own right.
Now, I have great respect for the Jewish people. They are of the house of Israel, and are thus part of the chosen seed of God, and his covenants concerning them and their salvation will all be fulfilled. However, that does not make them an authority on the truth of Christ and the eternal worlds.
No, I will not admit error, as I never once denied your claim that the Jews agree with your interpretation. But it doesn’t really matter who agrees with your interpretation, as that is all it is; an interpretation. As such quoting a practicing Jews proves nothing, accept that you agree with their interpretation.
Maybe you should get some integrity and stop claiming opinion as proven fact.
Shem, Tell me so I know, when we read verses in the BoM, word for word copies from the KJV of the Bible, were those added to the BoM after JS wrote it, or were they “translated” from the golden plates.
I want to point something out to you, but first I need an answer to this question.
Shem
Stop dissembling, stop twisting what was said, and stop looking for a way out. You would rather introduce confusion than provide a valid answer! You say this is about interpretation when IT IS NOT & the only reason I quoted from a practising Jew was to demonstrate this fact.
I’m well aware of the Jewish view of Satan & I fully understand what you’re saying in that context but why throw any of that into the mix? It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
After subtly inserting your own theology into the discussion, you go on to tell me this:
“No, I will not admit error, as I never once denied your claim that the Jews agree with your interpretation. But it doesn’t really matter who agrees with your interpretation, as that is all it is; an interpretation. As such quoting a practicing Jews proves nothing, accept that you agree with their interpretation.”
How many more times does this have to be said? This has nothing whatsoever to do with Interpretation. No matter how much you dissemble you cannot change what is so. Was Isaiah prophesying against the King of Babylon? Yes he was. Read the preceding verses starting with Isaiah 14:4. Was he prophesying about anyone else? No he wasn’t, as you correctly stated in your post, & thereby contradicted yourself, Jewish theology does not admit to such a concept. Read the entire chapter as many times as you like but you will not find your theology there. Adding another dimension to Isaiahs words in order to defend the BofM shows it is you doing the interpreting, not me. That is not opinion it is fact!
Old Man
I don’t think you are quite understanding what I am saying.
First, the fact that Jews don’t believe in the Devil as he is clearly revealed in the New Testament has a direct bearing on the topic. The Jews are not going to see the concept of the devil anywhere in the Old Testament because they have rejected the concept altogether. Thus it is not Surprising that they would claim that this passage does not contain references to the devil.
Now, I don’t care what a Jew believes. Truth is truth, and God has never revealed more than one truth. If Christ taught a devil, a being in direct opposition to God, than that concept would have been revealed in times past, just as it was in the time of Christ and the apostles. Thus Isaiah would have known the concept, and thus this interpretation of the passage is perfectly logical.
Simply put, if the New Testament teaches a doctrine the Old Testament must also teach that doctrine, and it doesn’t matter if the Jews say it doesn’t.
Rick
Just point it out. I am in no mood for games.
Shem said
Sorry Shem, I did not mean to make you cry.
Now Shem says,
Shem said
Here is the problem,
If the verse from Isaiah was translated from the golden plates, then to me that shows plagiarism because you claimed once before, the people in the BoM did not know and interact with the Bible people. Add to that, how can you take reformed Egyptian, a language that does not exist, and get KJ English written verses from that? So If the verse quoted from the Bible were on the Golden plates, then we have a problem and you need to explain it.
If you claim the verses from the Bible that are word for word taken from Isaiah and are written, in KJ english were added later then we still have a problem. The problem is, I happen to own a 1977 copy of a triple combo, and guess what? No mention anyplace where it says, the verses from Isaiah are quotes that were added later, no foot notes saying this. So one would be lead to believe they were taken right from the Golden plates. All my copy says is CHAPTER 24 Scriptures from the brass plates continued-Compare Isaiah 14, then verse 1 and beyond starts.
No plates does it state that this verse was added later or that anyone added it. Now Shem even if you make up some excuse about this and give me some explanation as to why the verses were added or how, Here is the biggest problem and I would like to see how you get around this.
Why would JS teach and say the Bible cannot be trusted, and then later have JS claim God COMMANDED him and S. Rigdon to “correct” the Bible and therefore give us the J.S.T. Yet I compared the verses in the BoM that are taken from the Bible, I own the J.S.T of the Bible, the same verses that are in the BoM taken from the Bible are in the J.S.T supposdly “Corrected”.
So if they were added later after the BoM was translated by JS, Why did he insert “Corrupted” Verses and not the “Correct” Verses that he “corrected” from the J.S.T of the Bible? I really want to hear this issue handled from you. It is stuff like this that tells me the BoM is a fraud and you and Jason reject this evidence in favor of what you want to believe.
Shem, As of right now it has been three days, and since it is close to midnight this will be 4 days and no reply from you, are you going to answer me? You claimed that JS never plagurized the Bible, I made the case that he did. If your reading this and think you will let it move down to another page and I will forget about it, I can assure you I wont. I will remind you about this even if you leave and come back 6 months from now. And I will be using this at later times when Mormons come visit me at my house, or I run into them on the streets. I will mention this and use it to tell them JS is FRAUD. I want LDS to come to Jesus and be saved, not simply try and prove them wrong and hope they stop going to church.
Rick
First, it has been four days because, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions, I have limited time and internet access. I generally make no comments over the weekends (and almost never on Sunday), and this past weekend I had a few difficulties in life, like my wife getting sick. So, please stop trying to discredit me because I don’t answer as soon as you would like me to.
As to the points you raise, most of your comments deal with the possibility of them being added later. These can be dismissed as the quotes from Isaiah were part of the Book of Mormon record and were translated from the plates, just as the rest of the record was. So, let us move to the first part of your complaints.
“If the verse from Isaiah was translated from the golden plates, then to me that shows plagiarism because you claimed once before, the people in the BoM did not know and interact with the Bible people.”
This statement is not accurate. I said that they did not interact with the people of the Bible after the Babylonian captivity. My statement was in direct reference to the people of the New Testament, whom they did not interact with, and thus Christ would not have quoted the Nephite prophets to the people at Jerusalem.
However, I did point out that many Old Testament prophets were known by the Nephites, as their words were recorded on the Brass Plates. Also, Lehi and his family lived at the time of Jeremiah and likely knew him. So, if you actually understand my words, rather than taking them out of context, it would be perfect natural for Nephi and others to quote Isaiah, and even include some of his writings in their works, as he was known to them. This is what Nephi did, and what Joseph Smith translated, and thus it is not plagiarism, as Nephi gave the original author credit, and Joseph Smith kept the references.
“Add to that, how can you take reformed Egyptian and get KJ English written verses from that?”
How do you get these verses written from Hebrew or Aramaic? It is called a translation, and this case a translation into a certain style of English, not just into the language.
Now, translation is an interesting process. It is possible to have a number of translations that use slightly different wording, and yet are accurate to the meaning of the original. As such, Joseph Smith likely could have rendered a different wording than he did, but such was not necessary, as the wording currently had in the Bible was frequently accurate to the original meaning, and thus it was left as it is.
This is actually common practice among translators; if a given passage is translated well enough in a previous translation, leave it alone. Fix only what needs to be fixed. Doing this does not constitute plagiarism.
“So If the verse quoted from the Bible were on the Golden plates, then we have a problem and you need to explain it.”
So, there is not problem.
So Shem, You really believe that Reformed Egyptian language exists, even though it cannot be proven?
Then add to that KJ English did not come around till around early 1800,s and nearly a few years later JS comes along, so this fabled Egyptian Language supposdly existed thousands of years before, but some how we can take this and translate word for word KJ English? You really believe this, Wow, Just like Romans tells us, You are willing believing lies.
Rick
You have eyes but cannot see.
First, you make a mistake in that the KJ English was established in the early 1600’s, not the 1800’s. The edition that was common in the 1800’s was an edited edition from the 1760’s.
Second, you are ignoring the practices of translation, as I pointed out. Translating is not done word for word, but thought for thought, and a single thought can be rendered in more than one way. In translating the passages from Isaiah it was natural to use that which already existed when it was an accurate translation.
One can translate into any language, or style of language that they want. This choice really means nothing.
Third, shall we list everything that you believe in that cannot be proven, or shall we simple accept that just because you have not seen the evidence of something is not proof that it doesn’t exist.
When you can come back with actual proof for, say, the Garden of Eden or Sodom and Gomorrah, then we can talk about this.
Shem, we will talk when you can prove that your false prophet is really a true prophet. Reformed Egyptian language does not exist and you have no proof that it doed, so until you can prove that, your reading a fairy tale written by a child of the devil who are father and son.
Rick
You have no proof that the Garden of Eden ever existed either, but you have no problem believing in it. That is my point. I do not need proof to believe. If I had proof I would not need to have faith, as I would have the proof.
I can’t prove the language exists now, or ever did. But I don’t need to prove this to have faith in it; just as you don’t need to prove the Garden of Eden actually existed to believe it did.