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.
How did you become a member of the Methodist church back then? Did he just join a class or was he baptized? Inquiring minds want to know.
Grant Palmer does an excellent job of connecting the Second Great Awakening, the Methodist religion, revivalism, the BoM and Joseph Smith’s going to the woods experience. Palmer documents about five accounts of young men who went out into the woods to seek the Lord, forgiveness or some sort of spiritual encounter with the Almighty. In fact he identifies the preachers in the BoM as perfect examples of the Methodist revival preachers. The “burning in the bosom” or having one’s heart “strangely warmed” comes right out of Methodism.
Palmer has a great line about Smith. He says he was a sponge and a mirror. As a sponge he soaked up all kinds of ideas and as a mirror he reflected them into his own religious concoction. This would include ideas about a lost tribe of Israel being the ancestors of the American Indians, his ideas of the various levels of heaven as coming from Swenborganism, temple rituals from the Free Masons and plural marriage from another sect that was floating around at the time.
It’s also important to note that the first fifty to seventy-five members of Smith’s new religion came from family members or those close to him. They were all into folk magic including the use of “second sight vision”. That’s why they were having all sort of visitations by angels and other heavenly personages. Second sight vision is basically the process of seeing something with your “spiritual eyes” i.e. your imagination.
It really takes someone who has bought into Smith’s fantasy to continue to belief this nonsense in light of all of the information available that the guy was an over-sexed phoney with a big imagination.
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpt-an-insiders-view-of-mormon-origins/
“Burning in the bosom” is not in the Book of Mormon.
Nelson,
Well that’s a total bummer; no “burning in the bosom” in the BoM. Where did that notion come from then? Well I guess it’s all just a subjective emotional response being mistaken as a message from God regarding the veracity of the BoM. If a person can’t trust the burning in the bosom as a test of truth what in the world can they trust?
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t Mormons look for evidence that the BoM is an actual history of an actual people and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. It’s not as much fun as a burning in the bosom and takes some work but in the end it would have a better chance of knowing the truth.
Nelson said
So where does the “warmed heart” come from in Mormonism and what evidence is there that it was apart of Methodist tradition.
D&C 9:
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
From the Journal of John Wesley:
“In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death………….I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.vi.ii.xvi.html
Falcon,
Seriously? You believe a guy was living in a fish for three days, and evolution didn’t happen, and you’re telling me to look for evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity? Are you kidding me?
Nelson,
So you’re a mind reader? How do you know what I believe? Besides what does Jonah or evolution have to do with the historicity of the BoM?
Just a typical attempt at mis-direction on your part. BTW, you are fulfilling the role of either the drive-by bomb throwing poster or a troll. We’ll wait for further developments. Doesn’t appear to me that you have game though or else you’d do a decently well thought out post. As it is, you’re not even meeting the minimum requirements of some one who can express a cogent thought.
Emma Smith was so traumatized emotionally by her husband’s clandestine entrance into his new
doctrinal innovation of a polygamous lifestyle that she was never the same after that. Reluctantly
she finally gave in to her husband , and after his death she refused to come out West and submit
to the king of God’s earthly kingdom — Brigham Young.
What a sad life she seems to have encountered after her husband altered the gospel Jesus’
apostles had preached after His Resurrection by mixing into it his own idea of a ” gospel
ordinance ” —polygamy .
As long as you brought Emma Smith up Mike, you might be interested in this reaction to a podcast done with Grant Palmer.
“It’s hard to say I enjoyed this podcast since many of the things discussed are hard to hear. Having said that, I did in fact enjoy it because (pending further research) I learned a few new things, such as the fact that D&C 132:51 was a “revelation” in which God gives Emma a new sexual partner (William Law, happily married to Jane Law) because Joseph was too busy having sex with younger, hotter girls. William Law refused to join the swinger’s club and said NO to Joseph. After soliciting William Law to become the sexual partner of his wife Emma, Joseph then made an advance on William’s wife Jane. Joseph tried unsuccessfully for two months to make Jane Law his wife number 22. Jane flatly refused him.”
There’s a warning that goes with the material.
http://mormonstories.org/324-326-grant-palmer-returns-to-discuss-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-william-and-jane-law-and-his-resignation/
Nobody who believes a guy was living in a fish for three days, or believes that evolution didn’t happen, should be preaching about evidence.
Acts 2: 37
“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Luke 24: 32
“And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”
I wonder where Wesly and Joseph Smith got this idea from? It seems very curious, doesn’t it?
Mike
Emma also tried to kill Joseph Smith, and did throw one of his other wives down the stairs, and in so doing killed her unborn child. Emma was very disturbed there in the end, and let that disturbance destroy her life.
Nelson
I think you make a great point. I have always found it interesting that people don’t seem to need evidence for what they believe, but require such in the belief of others.
However, just so you know, we LDS also believe that a man was in a whale for three days, and most of us reject evolution as well.
Nelson said
Nelson, Falcon never stated what he believes, So how can you state what he believes when he never said so? As to Jonah goes, How about this, After I die and go to heaven, If I see Jonah I will ask him about the Fish, but if I dont see him to ask him, then you ask him.
Also since you you seem to not care about evidence, then that tells me you clearly reject the Bible. The Bible tells us to search the scriptures Acts 17:11. John the Baptist asked if Jesus was the coming one, Jesus told His followers tell John, The dead are raised, the blind see, the lame walk, Etc. So Jesus provided evidence. Then the Gospel of John says these things were written that we might believe.
So it is not wrong to ask for evidence and look at evidence. But you blindly believe since JS claimed 9 first visions that span many years and dont agree, JS told his wife emma that if she did not follow him in his polygamy God would strike her dead, JS claimed he had Golden plates from God with a language that does not exist, and JS claims the angel Moroni gave him the golden plates, but before that he said it was the angel Nephi. JS cant seem to keep his names and stories straight, was in 9 visions or one? was in nephi or mornoi? And your crying about a guy in a fish.
Shem,
How in the world could I have been so blind? All I would have needed was those two Bible verses, interpreted correctly, and I would have had the technique by which God communicates with mankind. What a dunce I am!
In reflecting back on it, I’ve had multiple times of heart piercings and bosom warmings. And to think, these weren’t just an emotional reaction to a thought or experience. They were actual a communication device to confirm the truth. These two verses are “prescriptive” of an actual technique used to determine truth not descriptive of a reaction to a thought or experience.
On at least three occasions I have either been reciting or reflecting on the truths in the Apostles’ Creed and I have had the feeling described; a warming. Now I know that the feeling confirmed the truths being articulated in the Creed.
Well I must say that this is now going to open up a whole new aspect of my spiritual life.
Rick,
Excellent points! I like the end of the Gospel of Luke where it says that Jesus, specifically in Luke 24:25-27, takes the two disciples to Moses and the prophets to explain about Himself. It’s repeated in Luke 24:44-47. Of course our Mormon friends like to jump on Luke 24:32 and use the expression “Were not our hearts burning…….” as the test for truth rather than the Scriptures.
Getting back to our topic of the link of Mormonism with Methodist revivalism, these were common expressions of the time when Smith was inventing his religion. Stating something like this is suppose to give a person legitimacy or as we say it today, “street cred”. It’s a wonderful way to manipulate people along with stories of appearances by heavenly beings. I’ve posted all sorts of things like this in the past. Here’s one as an example related directly to Mormonism.
http://www.parishretreat.org/index.php?id=story#conversion
For all the Mormons that try and say, we need a buring in our bosom to prove the Bible true need to eat a Ghost pepper. Note, it is not called the holy ghost pepper. It is just, the ghost pepper, That will give you a burning in the face, bosom and rear end area, Does that mean if you eat that ghost pepper then everything you think, say, teach or believe is true? You had a burning, and it was the ghost that burned you, so I guess that equates truth.
There were all kinds of physical manifestations associated with the Great Awakenings that took place in our country. I’ve made a study of them and many of the physical manifestations are reported today; specifically in Pentecostal type meetings. The MM presentation is focused in a way to produce feelings in the prospect that then will be attributed to the Holy Spirit and the claims of truth (by the MM). Mike R. has reported on this at length in the past.
Barton Stone, pastor of Cane Ridge, Kentucky church described certain “exercises” in his 1847 autobiography. These manifestations were labeled “religious ecstasy”.
Among those mentioned are “falling” were by the person would with a piercing scream fall like a log on the floor, earth, or mud and appear as dead. Two sisters did this and then began to exhibit symptoms of life, by crying fervently for mercy and then fell into the death like state again. After awhile one of them got a heavenly smile on her face, cried out “Precious Jesus!”, got up and spoke of God’s love.
There was something called “the jerks”. Several parts of the body could be effected but if it were the head, it would “jerk” backward and forward or from side to side so quickly that the features were distorted.
Some people “danced”. The smile of heaven shone on their face and when done they’d fall on the ground.
There was “barking”. This would come because of the suddenness of the “jerk”. Some “laughed”. It was loud and hearty and the person appeared rapturously solemn. Others “ran” as if to escape their feelings of bodily agitations. Finally, there was singing. It wasn’t normal singing but came entirely from the “breast. This silenced everything, and attracted the attention of all. It was heavenly and none grew tired of it.
So what we see in the Great Awakening revivals, of which the Methodist church was a driving force, some very interesting physical phenomenon. So what does it all mean?
Now in terms of the “burning in the bosom” experience is it a confirmation of the truth? I’m not fully familiar with all of the seventy or so sects of Mormonism, but my guess is that they all use this technique as a way of “knowing” the truth. We see that in Mormon practice, the praying for confirmation of the truth of the BoM becomes a generalized “truth” where by the LDS church is then said to be true, along with Joseph Smith and the current prophet. So then I guess if the sect of the FLDS headed by Warren Jeffs gets these confirming feelings then Jeffs would be “true”. Actually all of these prophets would be true along with whatever that sect believes.
The interesting cases are where people get the burn and then find out later that the BoM isn’t true. The advice from the SLC Mormon sect is to believe the feeling and not the evidence. The Mormon church is hemorrhaging members who have come to the conclusion that the physical/emotional reaction they once had wasn’t all that reliable in determining the truth.
Shem- most Mormons don’t believe in evolution because they don’t care, not because they’re stupid or ignorant.
I’m big on following where the evidence leads. I can tell all the born-agains here are silent on the issue, because they know they are ignoring the evidence.
I’m big on following the evidence where it leads.
Nelson, who’s ignoring what evidence? Who’s being silent on what issue? For my part, as an Evangelical Christian, I believe in evolution and I’m open to the possibility (held by some within Evangelical circles) that the Book of Jonah (along with a few other Old Testament books, like the Book of Job) was originally meant as a piece of fictional literature meant to drive home certain key points about the breadth of God’s love and mercy. (We are committed, after all, to the view that each portion of scripture should be read as the sort of literature it was meant to be – with history as history, poetry as poetry, proverb-collection as proverb-collection, and so forth.) But even if we were to take the story of Jonah as historical, what then? I know of no one who specifically demands extra-BoM historical documentation of, say, the personal existence of Lemuel. There is a vast difference between that and historical documentation or archaeological support for the general backdrop – such as the existence of the Nephite, Lamanite, Mulekite, or Jaredite civilizations as a whole. By way of contrast, we certainly know that Nineveh was a historical city; we know that Israel, the civilization from which Jonah would have hailed, existed; we know that there was certainly animosity between Israel and Assyria; we even have a sense of the location of the hometown attributed to Jonah; we can compare the characterization of the Assyrians in the early parts of Jonah to what is known from Assyrian self-portrayals, and there is a high degree of match; and studies have been done on the characterization of sailors in Jonah as it compares to what was known about Phoenician seafaring and religiosity, and again there is harmony. There is no room for castigating “born-agains” for being hypocritical in being fond of examining historical evidence, broadly construed, and insisting that there be some to undergird the Book of Mormon narrative regarding New World civilizations, just as there is for the biblical narrative regarding Old World civilizations.
But all of this, of course, is quite far afield from the subject of the post, to which we really ought to adhere more closely (and hence why many are rightly “silent” on that tangent). For the benefit of Shem: no, Luke 24:32 and Acts 2:37 do not offer a sound basis for a totalizing religious epistemology. That requires reading far too much into the text, and these two verses are at best part of a scriptural religious epistemology, not the whole of it. For what it’s worth, I’ve received some burning-in-the-bosom-like experiences (as described in later LDS tradition). Many of them were while reciting in awe the Nicene Creed or while meditating on the nature of salvation unto eternal life by grace alone.
I do not, for my part, denigrate the role of private spiritual experience in religious epistemology. It has its place. But that place is not, as it is in much of pop LDS epistemology, as an immediate given to be regarded as incorrigible and primary. Rather, its place is in a broader complex that includes checks and balances that render private spiritual experience subsidiary (in many contexts) to other factors, most of which are primarily public in nature.
Incidentally, last year I sat down with a leading scholar of John Wesley studies so that I could bounce some questions off of him with regard to the Methodist origins of certain elements of LDS thought, and one of the points I asked him about was the comparative role and status of this ‘burning in the bosom’ phenomenon in Mormon theology and Methodist theology. He raised the very valid point that there are distinctions between a Mormon ‘testimony’ and Methodist ‘assurance’ in their structure, in that, within classical Methodism of Wesley’s strain, the ‘heart being strangely warmed’ is associated with the inner witness of assurance, which does not directly have to do with the truth-claims of Christianity but rather with a personal status as an adopted child of God. Moreover, Wesley did have a concept of faith as a “spiritual sense”, but this was directed toward the “invisible things of God”, as with the assurance of Christian hope, rather than with things like, say, the scriptural standing of a text. The scholar with whom I discussed these things recommended Rex Matthews’ dissertation on John Wesley’s epistemology (which, sadly, I have not gotten around to reading since that conversation), and he argued that the Mormon approach to ‘testimony’ is closer to (though still divergent from) John Calvin’s conception of the internum testimonium spiritus.
He and I discussed several other questions as well, of course. I had asked about the comparative study of Mormon ecclesiastical historiography (in terms of Apostasy followed by Restoration) and John Wesley’s ecclesiastical historiography (which has sometimes wrongly been cited as warrant for Mormon claims of Apostasy). I asked about some things I had found while reading Wilford Woodruff’s journal, as with stories of early Mormon missionaries preaching in Methodist or Baptist meetinghouses (and, occasionally, Methodist or Baptist preachers preaching in Mormon meetinghouses). He and I discussed early Mormon professions to have no fear of death in light of the importance of this concept in connection to Methodist notions of assurance. We touched upon Wesley’s advocacy for a “catholic and generous spirit” and how Wesley would have approached various sorts of heterodox and heretical groups. We talked about an 1844 sermon that Joseph Smith had given contrasting his notion of perseverance and sealing with the views of perseverance held in Methodist and Presbyterian circles. We talked about visionary experiences in Methodist revivalism. We discussed an 1840 vision that a Mormon woman had of John Wesley receiving baptism in the spirit-world from David W. Patten. He and I also discussed Mormonism and contemporary American politics, particularly with regard to Evangelical voting habits.
All in all, a fruitful discussion. There is much to be pursued in studying early trends in Mormonism against a Methodist background. I enjoyed what portions I was able to catch of the February 2012 conference dealing in large part with Mormonism and Methodism (“At the Crossroads, Again: Mormon and Protestant Encounters in the Nineteenth and Twenty-first Centuries”), held at Wesleyan Theological Seminary. I have on my laptop a copy of a master’s thesis from BYU authored by Christopher C. Jones (who was a participant in the aforementioned conference, and whose Peculiar People post sparked the present Mormon Coffee post) titled “‘We Latter-day Saints are Methodists’: The Influence of Methodism on Early Mormon Religiosity”; I regret not yet having made the time to read it.
Oh, and since the present post mentions how Joseph Smith talked to a Methodist minister (the famed itinerant Rev. Peter Cartwright, actually) about the closeness of Methodism to Mormonism, I really should recommend that portion of Cartwright’s autobiography (the first half of Chapter 22) to everyone’s reading here, as it contains some very interesting items. Incidentally, as to the context of Joseph Smith’s statement that Methodism was the closest thing to Mormonism, only Mormonism had gained more, Cartwright makes clear exactly what Joseph Smith meant: that Methodists “had stopped short by not claiming the gift of tongues, of prophecy, and of miracles” (342). From that, I suppose we should gather that the charismatic branches of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement have gone precisely as far as Joseph Smith wanted! Of worth in that chapter are also Cartwright’s story of how some Mormons attempted to disrupt one of his camp-meetings in a very disrespectful way, and how Cartwright predicted Joseph Smith’s death to his face several years before it occurred.
Nelson,
You dont care about evidence, this topic has nothing to do eith evolution. Then we never said where we stand on the issue. Your assuming we dont believe. In it. Either way, if we believe it or deny it. We have never said do you assuming proves you dont care. Your just a troll
Rick
Why not contradict Nelson’s statement then? The only reason for you to be so defensive over this is because he has accurately described your belief’s on the subject, and thus pointed out your double standard.
So, let us put the matter to rest. Do you believe that Jonah was in the whale for three day? Do you believe evolution is real? Answer the points directly and discredit what Nelson is saying, rather than just complain that he is saying it.
Oh, and by the way (and this is for Falcon as well), I am all for studying the scriptures. However, I think you ignore the communication of the spirit too much in this regard.
Let us look at the story of the disciples on the Emmaus road. What were their thoughts concerning the recent events? They were confused, for they had supposed that Jesus was going to liberate Israel. They were also confused at the tale of finding the tomb empty. (see Luke 24: 19-24)
Christ then taught them from the scriptures the truth of the matter, showing them how this was meant to be and was his mission. This is all proper and good. This is how we are taught, and without this instruction we will never learn the truth.
However, these men still acknowledged that “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” This is to say, “We should have know it was God that communicated with us, and that what he said was true, for our hearts felt his spirit while he spoke to us. It was not until they recognized the power of God as it touched their hearts that they fully understood what Christ was teaching them.
No, you do not need a burning in your bosom to know the Bible is true, if all you are seeking is a knowledge based in reason and study. However, if you want a sure knowledge of its truth; a knowledge that cannot be shaken or contradicted, than you need the knowledge that only comes through the spirit of God, and is literally felt in our being as that Spirit communicates with ours. That is what these men experienced, and what those who heard the Apostles experienced. That is the only sure way to know anything.
You don’t believe in evolution. ****** fundamentalist Christians usually don’t. Stop playing games.
By the way, Grant Palmer is right, Joseph Smith was a sponge. But to put things in perspective, let’s go to an authority 100 times more intelligent than Grant Palmer: Terryl Givens.
Smith believed original Christianity “lay . . . in broken fragments scattered, rent, and disjointed; with nothing to point out its original, but the shattered remnants of its ancient glory.” As with the “ancient palace” now reduced to ruins, the work of restoration would entail bringing together the new and the old, the excavation and assemblage of what was sound and the replacement and incorporation of what had been irredeemably lost or corrupted from Eden.
Now we know why.
http://terrylgivens.com/current-projects/
This blog article is hillarious. Sharon Lindbloom’s attempt was to distance Methodism from Mormonism (which she is most qualified to do, being neither a Methodist or a theologian), and all the commentators here try to draw connections between Joseph Smith and John Wesley, refuting her thesis.
Nelson,
Sharon wrote,
Perhaps the differences weren’t so vast in the early days of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal development.
Please take note of what she actually writes instead of putting words in her mouth. -grindael
Apologies for not keeping to the topic under discussion, I’ll just say this to Nelson & Co. then I’ll be done.
Nelson
As Rick says you know nothing about the beliefs of people in here concerning evolution so unless you wish to prove him correct in saying you’re a troll, contribute something meaningful to the discussion. As far as I’m concerned you show your real reason for being here by the mocking tone you use e.g. “I can tell all the born-agains here”. Can you indeed? Do you even know what born again means? Do you always mock things you know nothing about? Perhaps you don’t even realise that mocking springs from fear, are you afraid that the people in here could be right?
“I’m big on following where the evidence leads”
That’s a very easy thing to say, most non-Christians who come in here say something similar about evidence but when push comes to shove they show that they don’t. Following evidence is one thing following it impartially is a whole new ball game. If I were a gambling man I would be happy to make a bet with you & say that you have decided what you want to be true & after making that choice you may have looked at the available evidence, picked whatever data suited you & have then discarded everything else. Finally, your attack on Sharon is unmerited; you resort in typical Mormon fashion to ad hominen attacks when you have no case.
Shem
“Answer the points directly and discredit what Nelson is saying, rather than just complain that he is saying it.”
Such hypocrisy, how many times have we seen you doing exactly the same thing? More times than I can number that’s for sure. In a prior discussion on another topic you refused to answer any points I put to you & yet having accused me of having double standards you now point your finger at Rick. Your doctrine is impossible to defend using Gods word so you turn to other more esoteric methods as seen below:
“No, you do not need a burning in your bosom to know the Bible is true, if all you are seeking is a knowledge based in reason and study. However, if you want a sure knowledge of its truth; a knowledge that cannot be shaken or contradicted, than you need the knowledge that only comes through the spirit of God”
Putting it simply, that statement makes no sense. I’ve noticed how fond you are of quoting from the Bible; you do so far more than I do & that would be commendable if only you understood what was being said. How do you know that the knowledge you seek is coming from God, are you sure it’s not coming from your own mind & emotions simply because you want those things to be so? Scripture is very clear on this point, the truth is to be found in Gods word, read 1 John 4:1 & make sure you understand what John is saying. “Test the spirits,” means to know, by reading Gods word, whether something is true or false. This then is the only test of truth, “is what I believe confirmed by Scripture”?
By the way, I noticed your reply on the other topic we discussed & frankly I am amazed at your distortions & lack of understanding. You readily tell others that you understand all via the Holy Spirit but it is clear that you understand nothing. What I said concerning Christ & Gods plan is self evident see 1 Corinthians 1:18
Of course I can’t show you a place in Scripture where it says Mormon prophets are no longer needed, as Mormon prophets are not mentioned at all in Scripture. How many more times must you be told before you understand? Christ was & is the culmination of Gods plan of Salvation for mankind, nothing can be added, nothing taken away, it is all there in Christs life & death. Gods plan is complete & has no need of restoration by self-appointed men. Please don’t mention it again for as I said previously, you are claiming that Christ failed & God had to turn to men to put things right.
May you know Gods truth in your heart Shem for by following the heretical dictates of false prophets you are truly lost.
I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to go on for so long or to offend anyone but I felt I had to say what was in my heart.
Old Man,
Nelson thinks that if someone has some kind of degree that they are smarter and more qualified to speak on any topic. He despises Christians, but of course when speaking of Mormons he will say that they aren’t “ignorant” because they believe in the Bible’s miracles, they really choose not to believe them or evolution.
This is totally false, because at lds.com they tell us that these miracles did indeed happen, including the Jonah story. So according to his logic, since Jo Smith didn’t have any kind of degree in theology, he can’t be trusted either, and so Mormonism would be disqualified from being a legitimate religion for that reason alone. Also, all of the current Hierarchy in the Mormon Church who do have degrees and are responsible for lds.com are all “ignorant” too, because they ascribe to the miracles of the Bible.
lds.org:
Both Jonah and Jesus were from the Galilee area. That Jonah’s story is a true one, and not an allegory as some scholars maintain, is evidenced by 2 Kings 14:25 and three New Testament references. ‘The story of Jonah was referred to by our Lord on two occasions when he was asked for a sign from heaven. In each case he gave ‘the sign of the prophet Jonah,’ the event in that prophet’s life being a foreshadowing of Jesus’ own death and resurrection ( Matt. 12:39–41 ; 16:4 ; Luke 11:29–30 ).” ( Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Jonah.” )
And here is a Mormon who believes in evolution. He says,
Revealed truth can only be understood by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When evolutionists make dogmatic statements about conditions that may have existed thousands or millions or billions of years ago, they have absolutely no way of making any type of accurate time assessments. As a matter of fact, the earth will have existed in time for only seven thousand years!
Of course he doesn’t speak for the church, but this is what “most” Mormons really do believe. Nelson is a member of a church who teaches that the story of Jonah is real, but you probably won’t hear him calling his church authorities “ignorant”. I guess they aren’t part of his “most” Mormons. They are only the one’s “authorized” to make doctrine.
Nelson said
Nelson, Does this apply to Mormons also? Or are you going to be a hypocrite?
Nelson said
So if they dont believe in evolution then they either believe in creation or Aliens planting us here. But Since you said if they dont believe in evolution then they are not stupid, so this proves your a troll who should be banned from here since it’s ok to say about Mormons if they dont believe it’s because they dont care, but if I dont believe in evolution I bet you would say something totally opposite about me, Right?
Shem said
Shem, How do I have a double stranded? The Topic at hand is not about Jonah or evolution. Like I said before, When I get to heaven, if I see Jonah I will ask him if he really was in a fish for 3 days, But if I dont see him in Heaven, then you and nelson can ask Jonah.
Now besides the fact that this topic is not about Evolution or Jonah I refuse to answer him because he (Nelson) has the double standard. You admitted to believing in Jonah and deny evolution, yet Nelson said nothing to you or about you, but I would bet serious money, if I say, I believe in Creation or Jonah being swallowed by a fish, he will have much to say about me. So he shows he is a troll.
Then Nelson says
Again, when did I say I dont believe in evolution? Also where did I say I was fundamentalist Christian? I never said that. Since you feel only fundamentalist Christians deny evolution then let me share some quotes for you from Atheists who are highly regarded scientists who deny evolution. Cont,
Cont,
Henry Gee said
The Conventional Picture of human evolution is a completely Human Invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a linage IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE TESTED, But an assertion that carries the SAME VALIDITY AS A BEDTIME STORY- amusing, perhaps even instructive, BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC. Henry Gee, “In search of deep time, beyond the fossil Record to a new History of life”, Nature Magazine 1999
Another quote by Mr Henry,
“The Intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent. Each fossil is an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in overwhelming sea of gaps. All the fossil evidence for human evolution between ten and five million years ago- several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small Box” Henry Gee, “In search of deep time, beyond the fossil Record to a new History of life”, Nature Magazine 1999
This Scientist, George Wald who is/was a Harvard Professor Emeritus of Biology, and a 1971 Nobel prize winner in Biology.
Said this:
There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous Generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God…
There is no other possibility.
Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, But that leaves us with only one other possibility…
that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
George Wald “Origin, life and evolution,” Scientific American (1978).
Charles Darwin, in a letter to his friend J.D. Hooker in 1871, speculated about life beginning in a “warm little pond”. Many scientists, however, now believe that life may have begun in extreme environments such as undersea hydrothermal vents and volcanoes, with their abundance of chemicals and engery. While many scientists have attempted to test this hypothesis in the laboratory, deamer was the first to do so in the field.
The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.
Later, Deamer repeated the same experiment at Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern Californa, with the same Negative result.
What went wrong?
The explantion is simple, Said Deamer, who presented his findings in February at a meeting of the royal society of London. Conditions in geothermal springs and similar extreme environments just do not favor membrane formation.
We have to face up to the biophysical facts of life, Deamer said. Hot, acidic hydrothermal systems are not conducive to self-assembly processes.
Deamer has been in this field for 20 years.
USCS Currents online, vol.10, no. 35;May 1-7 2006
December 30, 2011 10:16 PM
More, Cont.
Cont,
Ardi Discovery:
But Despite the excitement from the paleontology community, another group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science, are unimpressed by Ardi, who they believe is just another ape– an ape of indeterminate age, they add, and an ape who cannot be an ancestor of modern man for a range of reasons, including one of singular importance: God created man in one day, and evolution is a fallacy.
Russell Goldman, ABC news.com oct 7th,2009
The point of this is, it is from ABC news. Since when do they defend or push creation views?
In May, Hwang and his team published a landmark report in the journal of science announcing that they had created 11 lines, or colonies, of cloned human embryonic stem cells. This achievement made South Korea a leader in this field of research. Elizabeth Weise,
BUT A co-author of the report, Roh Sung ll, Told Koren television and newspapers that Hwang told him Thursday that most of the supposedly cloned lines were fakes and the fate of the others is unclear.
USA Today, December 15, 2005.
This tells me Charles ha an agenda when he came up with the idea of God not being real.
Charles Darwin said “The Old Testament, from it manifestly false history of the earth, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the Beliefs of any barbarian. The New Testament is a damnable doctrine. [I can] hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianty to be true”. Origan of species
I found this funny because it is so true.
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with Darwin theory of evloution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin’s theory predicts…
When this conclusion upsets American Scientists, he wryly comments: “In China we can critcize Darwin but not the goverment. In America you can critcize the governmaent but not Darwin.
The Wall Street Journal, August 16,1999
Michael Ruse considers himself both an atheist and agnostic, but believes that “new atheism” is a disservice to science and loathes the term “Humanist”.
In his book “The Evolution-creation struggle” Michael Ruse interprets the last 200 years of conflict between biology and religion as a struggle between evolutionism and Creationism. Evolutionism is not merely an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. It consists of “the whole metaphysical or ideological picture built around or on evolution.” As such, it constitutes a “Secular Religion.” Thus for Ruse (a philosopher of science at Florida State University), the debate over Creationism and Evolutionism is more a conflict between Two Religions than one between Religion and Science. The Journal of Science July 22, 2005
So we have a atheist and agnostic who teaches in school that evolution is a religion. He claims to hate God and denys God, yet claims evolution and creation are two religions competing.
Shem,
There’s something that you need to be clear about. The resurrected Jesus that you referenced in the passage from Luke is the Jesus of the Bible. The Mormon Jesus is not this Jesus. Let me tell you why.
The Mormon Jesus is the spirit off-spring of one of the millions perhaps billions of gods in the Mormon pantheon of gods. The Mormon Jesus was spirit procreated by this god and one of his many wives that he lives in a polygamous relationship with on or near the planet Kolob.
The Mormon Jesus and the devil are brothers. I would consider that blasphemy but we’re not talking about the Jesus revealed in the Bible. Lastly the Mormon Holy Spirit is said to be a force like electricity. So when you contend that there is revelation and confirmation and feeling things in the spirit, I can only surmise what form of being is providing these things for you given who Mormons believe God is.
I reject the BoM, Joseph Smith as a prophet, the LDS church, the current prophet and the being Mormons refer to as Jesus but whom they do not know.
I would suggest that starting with the Gospel of John you read the other Gospel accounts and then the rest of the NT. Do this through fresh eyes and not the eyes of Mormonism. I just pray that God forgives you your rejection of Him and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as He has once and for all been revealed.
There is conclusive proof that Joseph Smith taught a version of the Trinity doctrine, or Modalism in late April 1832 and did so in a “revelation”:
A Sample of pure Language given by Joseph the Seer as copied by Br Johnson
Question What is the name of God in pure Language
Answer Awmen.
Q The meaning of the pure word A[w]men
A It is the being which made all things in all its parts.
Q What is the name of the Son of God.
A The Son Awmen.
Q What is the Son Awmen.
A It is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born.
Q What is is man.
A This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen
Q What are Angels called in pure language.
A Awmen Angls-men
Q What are the meaning of these words.
A Awmen’s Serts Ministerring servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen the greatest part of Awmen Son. Sons Awmen Son Awmen Awmen
Smith would later amend Awman to Ahman. D&C 116 reads:
Spring Hill is named by the Lord aAdam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.
Smith explains that Ahman = God/Godhead. The BEING Ahman made all things in all it’s parts. He then explains that Son Ahman is the Son of God and It (the Son of God) is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen/God/Godhead which is the Godhead the first born.
Here, Smith is saying that the Son of God is the greatest part of God. This is because as Smith taught in the Lectures on Faith, the Son is God the Father in the flesh.
Nelson said
Nelson, I will be honest and say, I dont believe you, But if you say so, then here goes.
Do you know and believe the Scientific method?
Do you use it?
The “Scientific method” Goes like this.
1. State the problem
2. Formulate the problem
3. Make observations
4. Design the experiment
5. interpret data
6. Draw conclusions
7. report results
Now this method was not created by me. But many atheists have stated this method to me when I say I dont agree with certain points in science and for the record I never said I dont agree with science period, I do, I am a professional Chef and baker with 26 plus years experience, and baking is really science.
Now apply these points to the Big Bang which people claim was part of Evolution.
1. State the problem (How did we get here?) Or where Did human life come from?
2. Formulate the problem It was either God who created us, Or we simply dont know how we got here and can only ASSUME we came via the Big Bang, or maybe aliens, or as one guy stated, on the backs of crystals. Watch the Movie from Ben stein, it explains the Backs of Crystals issue.
3. Make observations (We cannot do this)
4. Design the experiment (We cannot do this)
5. interpret data (We cannot do this)
6. Draw conclusions (We can only do this by faith with out evidence)
7. report results (We have no results to report)
So I’m not opposed to science, I’m simply saying Evolution like belief in God is a FAITH, You cannot prove evolution in a lab by the “Scientific method”.
Since you cannot, you must simply believe it took place, that is called faith. I have faith with evidence and I get called names and attacked.
Old man, you are a blessing . Thanks for your seasoned insight .
Discussions with Mormons should always come back to “Who is Jesus?” That’s really the bottom line. For those of you who were reading here when Andy Watson did a series of illuminating articles on the nature of God, you will remember that Shem went missing. Now why would that be?
Andy pointed out very clearly the historical and theological and Scriptural basis for who Jesus is and what the early Church revealed as led by the Holy Spirit. The first thing that cults and false prophets do is go after the nature of God, specifically Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There is all kinds of noise out in the spiritual world and without a firm grounding in the Word of God, would be “prophets” take nefarious journeys into all sorts of bizarre, heretical and in the case of Mormonism, blasphemous ideas.
The whole basis for Mormonism comes right out of the occult. The spirit world found an eager and willing participant in Joseph Smith. Here’s a guy who attempted to seduce a woman into marrying him by telling her that an angel with a sword threatened to kill him if he didn’t practice plural marriage. That’s a great pick-up line that only a guy like Joseph Smith could come up with and have the guts to try.
Smith was totally corrupt morally and spiritually.
The spirits that whispered in his ear and led him are the same ones that provide Mormons with their warm fuzzy feelings and pseudo-spiritual experiences. Ah and it all feels so good so naturally it must be true.
Shem went missing from that topic and when I pointed that out, he said something to the effect of, he had no interest in that topic. So in other words, he does not care who Jesus is.
Perhaps the differences weren’t so vast in the early days of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal development.
This was merely a limit she put on her thesis. All the comments in this thread undermine what her central claim. How is this an ad-hominem atack? It’s not.
Most Methodists who become Mormons andMormons who become Methodists say the transition is easy. She’s never been a Methodist so she doesn’t know.
And Rick B, here are your blunders:
1. You are using a junior high school definition of science. Observational studies (not necessarily experimental) count as science. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming from the genome. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosome 2a and 2b.
2. Evolution is about the evolution of life, not its spontaneous generation.
3. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Simon Conway Morris all say creationists are lying about what they said to promote their agenda. You seem to be doing with same by quoting your articles.
lds.org:
Both Jonah and Jesus were from the Galilee area. That Jonah’s story is a true one, and not an allegory as some scholars maintain, is evidenced by 2 Kings 14:25 and three New Testament references. ‘The story of Jonah was referred to by our Lord on two occasions when he was asked for a sign from heaven. In each case he gave ‘the sign of the prophet Jonah,’ the event in that prophet’s life being a foreshadowing of Jesus’ own death and resurrection ( Matt. 12:39–41 ; 16:4 ; Luke 11:29–30 ).” ( Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Jonah.” )
Oh Dear. Everyone knows CES manuals are junk.
Rick
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
“So in other words, he does not care who Jesus is.”
I never said this. I said I have no real interest in discussing the historical records, and I don’t. I read all of Andy’s articles, and there was really nothing to say on most of them, as they gave very accurate information from historical records, and I have no desire to debate that issue.
However, if you care to be honest about things, the very first article in that series was a comparison of your doctrine of the trinity and the truth of the Godhead; and I was very active on that thread, because it is something I am interesting in, and something that can be enjoyable discussing.
Oh, and speaking of double standards, what Nelson was talking about was an unspoken standard. He was stating that your demand for evidence from the LDS is not the same demand you place on yourself, as is evidence by your acceptance of certain things without the supporting evidence. That is a double standard. Now, you have provided some evidence, and thus have, in many ways discredited what he said, and thus given sufficient evidence for others to dismiss his claim. This is what you should have done from the beginning.
Falcon
I agree that the Christ I know, love, and worship is not the same one that is so unknowable to the rest of Christianity. I have never denied this. I believe the Bible, and what you teach as Christ is so foreign to that work of scripture that I am glad to worship the true Christ rather than your man-made contrivance.
Nelson
While I enjoyed the first few comments on this line of thought, I think it is time to drop it.
Old Man
“As far as I’m concerned you show your real reason for being here by the mocking tone you use…Perhaps you don’t even realise that mocking springs from fear”
Good point. I wonder if you realize just how frequently others on this site mock the LDS. Falcon and Rick do it frequently. What do you suppose they are afraid of?
“Such hypocrisy, how many times have we seen you doing exactly the same thing?”
I answer most everything, and especially things that question my integrity.
“In a prior discussion on another topic you refused to answer any points I put to you”
I answered every point you made on that thread. If you didn’t see it I can’t help that. Go back and read my words again, and you will see an answer to everything. It may not be the answer you want, but there is an answer.
“Your doctrine is impossible to defend using Gods”
Our doctrine is in perfect harmony with all the words of God. That is not the problem. The problem is that you have embraced a particular interpretation of those words, and have decreed that no other interpretation is valid. Thus the statement should say that our doctrine is impossible to defend using your doctrine, which is perfectly true.
“Putting it simply, that statement makes no sense.”
It makes perfect sense to one who knows and understands the scriptures as they are revealed by the power of God. True knowledge, the kind that is unshakable, comes through the spirit of God. Paul tells us “For to one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom; to another the WORD OF KNOWLEDGE by the same Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12: 8). It is this knowledge that the disciples on the Emmaus road gained, and was communicated to them by the Spirit, which they felt in their hearts. They knew the scriptures through study and learning, but did not understand them until that knowledge was communicated by the spirit.
I will reply to the rest of your comments on the thread to which they rightly belong.
Wow nelson, you name guys that feel creationists are lying, thats such typical evidence of trolls. Then the quotes I gave, you said they are no good. Wow, again more, I said so evidence. Then if you ever saw the movie from Ben stein, it shows the guys you mentioned attacking creationists and firing them and other stuff for not blindly believing what they do. That makes them the liars and untrustworthy.
Nelson said
“You are using a junior high school definition of science. Observational studies (not necessarily experimental) count as science. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming from the genome. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosome 2a and 2b”
Your evidence is not overwhelming, have you checked for any evidence that may disagree with your thesis? If not may I suggest that you do? The evidence concerning chromosome 2 fits just as well with creationism as it does with evolution. Please don’t accuse Rick of using junior high school definitions of science when you are using flawed evidence based on prior assumptions. That is not science; it is a belief looking for evidence. If you want to use true scientific methodology then look for evidence that will disprove your belief, that is what real science attempts to do. If the belief cannot be disproved then it can possibly be accepted as true. It is very often the case, not just with evolution, but also with any subject where absolute proof cannot be found, that only one kind of evidence is permitted, your kind of evidence, the kind that confirms the belief. All evidence to the contrary is thrown aside. As you’re probably aware, this is known as confirmation bias. If you want a little proof of this then look no further than the situation within cults where verses are taken randomly from scripture with no regard for context, in the hope of building a foundation for false doctrine Are you sure you’re not doing the same thing?
Aaaaaaaand it looks like if Nelson was trying to sidetrack the conversation, the general consensus has been to grant him success. Fantastic. There is one thing that does deserve addressing in all this, though, and that is from Nelson (perhaps surprisingly enough):
Nelson said, Sharon Lindbloom’s attempt was to distance Methodism from Mormonism (which she is most qualified to do, being neither a Methodist or a theologian), and all the commentators here try to draw connections between Joseph Smith and John Wesley, refuting her thesis. […] This was merely a limit she put on her thesis. All the comments in this thread undermine what her central claim. How is this an ad-hominem atack? It’s not. Most Methodists who become Mormons and Mormons who become Methodists say the transition is easy. She’s never been a Methodist so she doesn’t know.
Allow me to chime in on this. I have not seen Sharon deny that there are certain connections and limited similarities. It seems untenable to charge, as you do, that she is seeking only to “distance Methodism from Mormonism”… when a significant portion of her original post was detailing the affinity that Joseph Smith and his family unit had for the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is not to say that there is no room for critiques of Sharon’s post, of course. I have already gently done so in pointing out that, contrary to her claim that “it’s hard to know what Joseph Smith meant when he referred to this so-called advancement”, this is not at all so when one goes back to the original source of the statement. But your charge is clearly an unfair one that vastly oversimplifies what Sharon is doing.
What I think can fairly be said is this: There are, first, certain elements within Mormonism that are best understood in light of the background provided by the Methodist tradition. Many seem to be aspects of Methodist theology and practice that have been distorted – a more neutral observer might prefer to simply say ‘altered’ or ‘adapted’ – from their origins. (In my earlier comment, I neglected to mention, sadly, the interesting ties between the language of Alma 42 and the earlier writings of Methodist author Asa Shinn [1813], as well as the later writings of Methodist authors Elias Bowen [1859] and D. D. Whedon [1870].) There are, second, a great many aspects of traditional Mormon theology that are flatly alien to anything that would be remotely acceptable within the Methodist tradition. These include many of the items identified by Sharon in her post. I think Sharon is correct in her assessment of the chronology of developing Mormonism, in that many of the former elements enter at earlier stages than the latter.
And while Sharon may not be a Methodist (but I should say that I have often wondered about where various MRM staff members fall within the Christian tradition as to their denominational and theological ties), allow me to say that I am a member of a small Methodist-derived denomination, attend a Methodist-dominated divinity school, and am acquainted with a great many actively serving Methodist clergy as my friends. I have enjoyed my fair share of conversations with Methodist bishops and Methodist theologians, just as I have with Mormon stake presidents, Mormon missionaries and mission presidents, and Mormon seventies. If a Methodist finds it easy to adapt to converting to Mormonism, this must probably be understood in the sense of religious subculture more than in the sense of theology – or else they have been very poorly educated in the realm of Methodist theology and/0r Mormon theology. This may have been an easier transition in the early 1830s, but it certainly should not be in the post-Kirtland era.
I never said that it was an ad-hominem attack. I just said you are putting words in Sharon’s mouth. And you don’t need to be a Methodist to speak about Methodism. You can use the accounts of others, who have said so. Your point is trivial Nelson, and again – Sharon didn’t say “Most Methodists who become Mormons and Mormons who become Methodists say the transition is easy.” And if you wan’t to call your church’s official material junk, fine by me, it only bolsters my point.
Yes, because even Nelson knows that the church’s manuals are junk.
Johnsepistle,
You said,
This was exactly her point, as I have showed a “revelation” (and there are many more proofs) that early Mormonism taught Modalism and the trinity doctrine (a perverted version of it anyway). This all changed after Smith started “translating” the Book of Abraham, after he took Hebrew and found out that elohim can be translated as “gods”. Of course, he didn’t understand Hebrew Grammar, and didn’t know anything about the Egyptian language, and got his “reformed Egyptian” by copying middle ages shorthand probably from the Detroit Manuscript found in 1823 that one of his uncles (Stephen Mack) had access to through one of his business partners. See more on this here.
Nelson said
Nelson, I know you said you like to follow the evidence, But I REALLY DONT BELIEVE YOU. You try and dismiss everything I said because you cant handle the truth.
You try and say the Scientific method is simply Junior High Level.
Well regardless of what you say or think, you cannot use it to prove Evolution. If it is taught in Schools then and no body like Dawkins is saying this is bogus or entry level, then I will use it.
On your point 2, I’m sorry but in order for evolution to have happened either God created everything and then let evolution cause it to move along, or it started by the Big bang. I have heard many people who deny Creation and teach evolution and everyone believes in the Big bang. The problem is, not one of them can explain how we got poisonous gas to bring forth life, Non-life brings forth life by way of some explosion. Even people like Dawkins cannot explain this and avoid the subject and just go from the point of, we already were here on earth as some single cell creature and we moved on from their.
Problems with evolution and the rising from a single cell creature are these. Why is it a single cell creature some how gets a mutation and after serious of mutations we have gone from a single cell creature to maybe a fish, or bird or human or name your creature. But now we no longer see good mutations, they now are all bad and will kill us, We never see some animal or human getting a mutation and it results in us getting stronger and bigger and better, we instead see cancer, or MS or sexual disease like aids, and spend millions trying to figure them out and are not doing so well.
Then we see animals like whales, or sharks beaching themselves and humans running to save them by pushing them back into the water. Why not stand around and watch evolution in action? If they arose from the ocean one before and went from sea creature to land animal why not let it happen again? O-thats because it did not happen.
Lastly you say, Dawkins and these other guys claim Creations lie to further their agenda. Really? Dawkins and the others guys would never do that? Was it Creationists who created the evolutionary hoaxs like pilt down man?
can you provide evidence of some of the Creationists getting busted for lying? Or will you just believe them because they said so? Because they said so is not evidence. Again, watch the movie, No intelligence required, it shows Dawkins and others being unable to answer basic questions and shows they have an agenda. Believe as they do, or get fired and persecuted severely. Nelson, your evidence is lacking.
One more point Nelson, It seems that the evidence for evolution is so lacking, more and more people are starting to reject in in favor of believing “Ancient aliens” Planted us here on earth. This is being pushed big time by the History Channel and I know Atheists who believe this.
Also lets just say Evolution is real, Whats that prove? I never once meet an atheist that says If evolution is real then God is false. So even if you could prove 100 percent Evolution is real, who cares, it does not mean God is not real.
Shem,
I’m sort of guardedly rejoicing here at your confession that you believe in the Biblical Jesus. Have you left the Mormon church or are you at the stage of being stealth in the ward? Because, as you now know, there is no Biblical support for the Mormon Jesus so he isn’t Biblical. When we look at the description of the Mormon Jesus, he’s not (described) in the Bible. He was developed by a false prophet, a man, and then embellished by other false Mormon prophets. So if you say you believe in the Biblical Jesus, then we believe in the same Jesus.
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.
So, congratulations. I can’t wait until you feel comfortable enough in your new found faith to formally resign from the LDS church.