I did not expect to meet so many atheists when I moved to Utah seven years ago. But I should have known better: America as a whole is secularizing, and Mormonism itself has a “scorched earth policy.” My Mormon girlfriend in high school once essentially said, “If the LDS Church isn’t true, I don’t know that I could ever believe in God.” Mormonism already is a form of atheism: it denies the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, first, most high God, and instead teaches a kind of naturalism or materialism: everything is matter, even spirits, and everything is subject to eternal laws of ultimate nature, even the gods. It feeds its people conspiracy theories about the corruption of the Bible, and it scares the heck out of Mormons over non-Mormon churches: if you don’t stay with the One True Church, you’ll have to settle for an abominable evangelical church with a corrupt pastor who is a minister of Satan.
That is a colorful way of putting it, but you get the point.
It is depressing that so many people leave Mormonism only to become agnostics or atheists. Fortunately, atheists have a hard time staying atheists. Their children are probably much more open to the Biblical gospel than Mormons are. I suspect God is up to something — he has multi-generational plans we’ve never dreamed of. If giving people the truth about Mormonism’s history and the truth about the Biblical gospel of Jesus Christ statistically increases the odds of a person becoming a self-confessed agnostic or atheist, then so be it. God is sovereign and I am not here to be a social engineer or to play God. My job as an ambassador of Jesus is to preach the word of truth in love, and let the chips fall where they may. Fortunately, there is the fruit of ex-Mormon Christians to celebrate.
I used to be intimidated to talk to atheists. They are, in my experience, generally confident about their atheism and have tough questions. But over time I discovered that the average atheist hasn’t read a substantive book defending atheism or theism, and gets his intellectual prowess from… image memes and YouTube. Today, I like to start off conversations with atheists by asking, “Have you ever read a good book defending atheism or theism?” Usually they haven’t. “Have you ever heard any good arguments for the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus?” Usually they haven’t. “What are the strongest arguments for theism or Christianity, and what about them do you find lacking?” Blank stare. “What do you think are some of the most difficult questions for atheism to answer?” Ughhh…
These are great introductory teaching moments. “Would you mind if I shared a few good arguments for the existence of God and for the resurrection of Jesus?” What an awesome opportunity, especially when it culminates in a presentation of the most beautiful (and true) story in the world: God, yes, God, became a man, suffered with us and for us, and paid our penalty on the humiliating and shameful cross, and showed us the best display of sacrificial love there has ever been, simultaneously vindicating the righteousness of God, raising three days letter, showing us that the Lord Jesus Christ has all authority under heaven and earth and infinite power to keep his promises.
My favorite argument for the existence of God is the “moral argument for God.” I push it really hard:
1. If there is no God, there are no objective moral values or duties.
2. There are objective moral values and duties.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The really interesting thing about this argument is that atheists disagree with each other and don’t know it. Some affirm both premises and simply haven’t followed them through to the conclusion. Some affirm premise #1 and disaffirm premise #2, others disaffirm premise #1 and affirm premise #2. Call me a rascal, but when I’m being dog-piled by atheists, I love to get them arguing with each other. The argument is a great way to simultaneously engage someone’s intellect, spiritual intuitions, and suppressed presuppositions, all at the same time.
You can hear more about the moral argument for God here. But don’t let YouTube suffice: read a good book. Some of you are, like me, at times utterly sick of reading about, thinking about, and discussing Mormonism. Take the opportunity to read some good literature that both engages atheism and supports the basics of Biblical Christianity. The ironic thing is that you can take what you learn and share it with not only your atheist neighbors, but also your Mormon neighbors. I dare say that all of the evidences, arguments, and Biblical declarations that atheists need to hear are things that Mormons equally need to hear. Mormons are atheists in embryo. As Mormons are, ex-Mormon atheists once were; as ex-Mormon atheists are, Mormons may be. To quote The Dark Knight Rises out of context: “There is a storm coming.” Mormon parents need to stop asking themselves, “Will my children remain in the LDS Church?”, and start asking, “When my children leave the LDS Church, will they believe in Jesus?” Not if, but when. It’s happening in Utah, and it’s happening fast. Mormons have a hard time imagining what being a Christian theist would be like outside of Mormonism. I want to help start this process of imagination.
Addendum: Ten Discussion Questions for Atheists and Agnostics
- Is there anything you reasonably believe to be true, yet can’t empirically demonstrate?
- Are there any objective moral values or duties?
- Is torturing babies for fun morally objectively wrong?
- Does atheism have a ‘problem of evil’?
- Does every effect have a sufficient cause?
- Do you trust your cognitive faculties?
- To what extent and why?
- Is an infinite regress possible?
- Is it possible that God exists?
- Is truth important for its own sake?
- Is the question of God’s existence important?
- Do you feel angst or sorrow over the absurdity of life?
- What do you think of the person of Jesus?
- Have you ever heard of the “trilemma”?
Philosophical discussion important, but secondary and supplemental to direct preaching. People are not only emotional and spiritual beings, but also intellectual beings, so I consider it a respectful and loving thing to engage a person intellectually.
We are all fools for something. I choose to be a fool for Jesus. “If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become ‘fools’ so that you may become wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18) Be a “fool” with me and preach the ridiculous gospel of Jesus Christ. Self-confessed atheists are no different than the rest of us inadvertent “practical atheists” who sin as though God does not exist. We need to repent of trusting ourselves and cry out to Jesus in brokenhearted, child-like faith.
God is good, and Jesus has risen,
Aaron
Fglee said
I’m not sure if you know this or not, But that applies to all of us, not just you. And it used to be a 300 word limit, not sure what happened and if or when it will come back, but that also applies to all of us.
Now I want to touch on this, You said
First off, we can make the argument that why bother talking to you mormons as it will most likely end up being, you wont answer questions, Not a matter of I cannot answer everyone so I am select in who I talk to. It has been my experience that many, not all but many LDS on this blog dont answer questions and pretty much leave in about 6 weeks or less.
Now to the issue of hell, have you read the Bible? What about the BoM? Now I know you will say you do, But first off, God said that hell was created for the devil and his angels, Not humans, but yes humans will go their. So God said it first, we just tell people what he said, Also the BoM speaks of eternal damnation.
Why can you or do you read these verses and ignore them? Why do you not believe God when He said it is real, who goes their and that it will last forever? Did you know Jesus spoke more about Hell and Money than he did heaven? Have you read Revelation? It talks about who will not be let into heaven, or the gospels and the rich man in hell? Or what about this verse,
I dont know about you, but Everlasting Destruction and Flaming vengeance does not sound fun to me. And maybe it is just me, but why is it People like Mormons or people who want to reject hell seem to think Eternal really does not mean eternal? Or that God really did not mean what he said when He spoke of hell and said it is forever, with out end. Also go and read Jude and what he said about hell.
Fightinglee
I respect your desire for amicable discussion & I sincerely hope we can have that, but amicable cannot mean attempting to reach a consensus. I’m an easy going friendly old guy but there are some things I will never compromise on & without wishing to be offensive the modern desire of the LDS to appear to be a Christian organization is one of those things. It wasn’t too many years ago that they were proud of the difference & it’s my opinion that the reason for this change of heart is due to falling membership which leads to falling revenues.
The Lds Corporation was founded in deception & has continued to practice deception right through to the present day. One fact is clear & beyond debate, The God worshipped by Christians is very different to the god of Mormonism, try as the corporation may, there is no denying it, all the evidence a person could need is right there in scripture. The God of the Bible is unchanging, something the LDS denies by its constantly changing doctrines, & please don’t tell me that earlier prophets were speaking as men unless you can show me genuine precedents from Scripture. To illustrate what I’m saying let me show you a couple of things I came across on my Internet travels.
An extract from a speech by Heber Kimball, first counsellor to the presidency, made in 1857 Mormon men may find comforting, I’m not sure if the ladies will though.
“Supposing that I have a wife, or a dozen of them, and she should say, ‘You cannot be exalted without me,’ and suppose they all should say so, what then? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life,
and loved my religion and had favor with God, do you think I will be destitute then?
No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here… In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females; there are millions of them; and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with Brother Brigham, we will go to Brother Joseph and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph; we are here ourselves, are we not? With none of the property we possessed in our probationary state; not even the rings on our fingers.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys; we will give you a good suit of clothes; where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands; have all you want.'”
Here’s something I found on the late but not lamented Jasonrae site
From A tribute to women by Boyd K Packer, an LDS apostle
“While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.”………
Now a couple of things for you to consider
“The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together”
When were women ever equal to men in the LDS Corporation? & Surely he meant to say man and in the plural, women?
Unless of course the Mormon god has changed his mind yet again
Finally a short response to what you said to Kate. It’s all very well discussing Smiths character, whether he was a fit man to be a prophet, whether he was appointed by God etc, all of that is dissembling, & avoids the real problem that Mormons have. I’ve had this discussion with Shem on a previous topic & I’m still waiting for an answer that makes sense, this is the problem that you all attempt to avoid. Why would God appoint a latter day prophet if Christ was who he claimed to be? It makes no sense & if you can say that it does then you simply don’t know the Christ of the Bible.
Ps. I’m glad you say “New religion” because that’s exactly what it is, it’s new, it’s not a restoration of the original & it fits in very well with what can be read on the frontispiece of the BofM “another gospel of Jesus Christ”
Rick,
I dont think you like the answers that mormons give. Everlasting destruction? I dont know what that is, but I agree it sounds unpleasant. However, you dont really know what He means by that either. I dont know God’s mind on the matter. Does he mean to actually destroy the spirit? To torture it for everlasting years? I dont know, neither do you. I have one interpretation, you have another.
Rick, I have devoted a lot of time to the bible, and I love the bible, but you and I, we are not going to see it the same. Pure and simple. My view is never going to be your view, and vice versa, so I find these discussions without much merit. Do you take the idea of flaming fire literal? I dont really know your stance, though you know mine. I am at a disadvantage because I dont know your interpretation.
Do you belong to a church? There are many christain churches that believe in the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed that state Christ descended into hell.
I would ask, why do you ignore this passage? 1st peter 3:18-20 But of course I know you will have a different interpretation.
See how this is muddy? Because you and I wont agree on the interpretation. You act as if your interpretation, is the only one. I dont know if you attend a church that believes in the Nicene Creed, but if so, I would ask why you believe in the Trinity then if you are such an astute reader of the bible?
Thomas Jefferson gave a great quote on this when he said, “The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” — Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822
Most people with any common sense or intellectual and historical background can at once see through the farce. It was brought to you by the same people that ordered the bible not to be translated to common language and given to the people. The same people that killed John Wycliffe for doing so. But how many people are going to stand up to it? Do you want your feet roasted off, testicles crushed, hanged, stretched, burned, hung by toes, etc.? You want to be thrown into house arrest like Galilleo because you said that the earth is not the center of the universe? Imagine if he had said that the Trinitiy is false???!!?! later Galilieo, have fun without your feet.
If the Trinity is a farce, then explain to me how the First Mormon god got to be god? Especially when all Mormon gods have to be born spiritually, go to an earth, have the priesthood, and then get exalted. How did this first Mormon god perform all of this?
Joseph Smith said that there was no beginning of the gods, but they are all exalted men. How can that be? This is incomprehensible. The Trinity Doctrine is mild compared to the confusion of Smith’s concept of God.
Fightinglee
I’m an easy going friendly old guy & I hope that any discussions we have will remain amicable but I’m afraid that wont be easy due to the huge gulf that separates us.
The Lds Corporation was founded in deception & has continued to practice deception right through to the present day. One fact is clear & beyond debate, The God worshipped by Christians is very different to the god of Mormonism, try as the corporation may, there can be no denying it, all the evidence a person could need is right there in scripture. The God of the Bible is unchanging, something the LDS denies by its constantly changing doctrines, & please don’t tell me that earlier prophets were speaking as men unless you can give genuine precedents from Scripture. Let me show you what I mean.
An extract from a speech by Heber Kimball, first counsellor to the presidency, made in 1857 Mormon men may find comforting, I’m not sure if the ladies will though.
“Supposing that I have a wife, or a dozen of them, and she should say, ‘You cannot be exalted without me,’ and suppose they all should say so, what then? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life,
and loved my religion and had favor with God, do you think I will be destitute then?
No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here… In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females; there are millions of them; and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with Brother Brigham, we will go to Brother Joseph and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph; we are here ourselves, are we not? With none of the property we possessed in our probationary state; not even the rings on our fingers.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys; we will give you a good suit of clothes; where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands; have all you want.'”
Here’s something I found on the late but not lamented Jasonrae site
From A tribute to women by Boyd K Packer, an LDS apostle
“While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.”………
Now a couple of things for you to consider
“The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together”
When were women ever equal to men in the LDS Corporation? & Surely he meant to say man and in the plural, women?
Unless of course the Mormon god has changed his mind yet again
Finally a short response to what you said to Kate. It’s all very well discussing Smiths character, whether he was a fit man to be a prophet, whether he was appointed by God etc, all of that is dissembling, & avoids the very real problem that all Mormons have. I’ve had this discussion with Shem on a previous topic & I’m still waiting for an answer that makes sense.
Why would God appoint a latter day prophet if Christ was who he claimed to be? It makes no sense & if you can say that it does then you simply don’t know the Christ of the Bible.
Fglee,
When you said How do I interpret the meaning of eternal damnation.
This response is both Typical of LDS and why I said to Jason, Their is honestly no reasoning with you guys and no real answers from you guys.
If you dont like what the Bible says, Then you dismiss it as, Well thats not how I interpret it.
Why is it so hard to say, God said it I believe it? Why is it if I read a book or wrote a book or just had a talk with someone and said, Eternal, we would know what I meant, eternal means forever, thats how the Dictionary defines it. Yet when it comes to the Bible and Mormons, the rules and logic go out the window.
Also Are you aware BY said this?
So If BY feels this way, why dont more mormons? Also it is this issue of lets define what is really said, or what do they really mean, just show, this is why we have all the changing doctrine in Mormonism. Adam God, Blood Atonement, and many other issues that were doctrine at one time and are no longer doctrine. Then the Issue of, If I take your logic, how can I trust LDS prophets? Honestly I would always listen to them and then say, Well I dont agree because how do I know what they mean, can they be trusted to interpret things correctly?
Now you claim you love the Bible, how is that possible? JS Said the BoM is the Most correct book on earth and a man will get closer to God by abiding by it’s teachings. So why read the Bible?
Then Mormons teach it is corrupt and translated incorrectly, so Why love a book that is translated incorrectly and corrupt? Then JS said the German translation is the Most correct of any, so why are you not using that instead? How about, God Commanded JS to (correct) the Bible, so he made the J.S.T. So why are you not using that? All of this is confusion and why I dont believe mormonism.
Fightinglee
I’m hoping that any discussions we have will remain amicable but I’m afraid that wont be easy due to the huge gulf that separates us. Like most in here I say what I feel needs to be said but always in the hope that no personal offence will be taken.
The Lds Corporation was founded in deception & has continued to practice deception right through to the present day. One fact is clear & beyond debate, The God worshipped by Christians is very different to the god of Mormonism, try as the corporation may, there can be no denying it, all the evidence a person could need is right there in scripture. The God of the Bible is unchanging, something the LDS denies by its constantly changing doctrines, & please don’t tell me that earlier prophets were speaking as men unless you can give genuine precedents from Scripture. Let me show you what I mean.
An extract from a speech by Heber Kimball, first counsellor to the presidency, made in 1857 Mormon men may find comforting, I’m not sure if the ladies will though.
“Supposing that I have a wife, or a dozen of them, and she should say, ‘You cannot be exalted without me,’ and suppose they all should say so, what then? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life,
and loved my religion and had favor with God, do you think I will be destitute then?
No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here… In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females; there are millions of them; and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with Brother Brigham, we will go to Brother Joseph and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph; we are here ourselves, are we not? With none of the property we possessed in our probationary state; not even the rings on our fingers.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys; we will give you a good suit of clothes; where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands; have all you want.'”
Here’s something I found on the late but not lamented Jasonrae site
From A tribute to women by Boyd K Packer, an LDS apostle
“While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.”………
Now a couple of things for you to consider
“The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together”
When were women ever equal to men in the LDS Corporation? & Surely Packer must have meant to say man and in the plural, women?
Unless of course the Mormon god has changed his mind yet again
Grindael, I need your help, I’ve tried posting the same comment four times today & every time it has disappeared into cyberspace, I had no trouble posting on the latest topic, just this one. Any suggestions? Asuuming this doesn’t disappear as well.
I don’t see any unapproved posts you you Old Man… Not sure what the problem is…
“If the Trinity is a farce, then explain to me how the First Mormon god got to be god? Especially when all Mormon gods have to be born spiritually, go to an earth, have the priesthood, and then get exalted. How did this first Mormon god perform all of this?”
You have made a lot of assumptions here. I will not pretend to know much about the eternal nature of God. That was Thomas Jefferson’s quote, but it is funny, and true. To be honest, I think most people are okay with not understanding everything about God’s eternal nature, given our experience in a begin and end fashion, but the Trinity is just complete nonsense. The bible doesnt support it and Jesus never teaches it. Its funny that anyone could support that.
Have you really never studied about the Nicene Creed? I mean, do you have no idea that the bible does not teach the Trinity, or support it, and that it was accepted as a power grab? Do you really not know that the majority of christian belief is that Christ was created by God, and the doctrine of subjugationism was the common acceptance of Christ’s nature? If not for the political feud with the Arianism , you would be believing whats actually supported in the bible and wouldnt have to stretch your belief system in ridiulous way to accept something that is clearly never taught. Why do the writers in the bible never refer to the Trinity? Because such a ridiculous idea never crossed their minds and it refuted over and over by the bible.
If you have ever read the bible and never wondered about the Trinity and where it came from, then you are afraid to look at the clear truth. Read the bible without wanting the Trinity to be true and see if it makes any sense.
About deification, you may not know that the catholic church believes in it, as do many other christian churches?
Pope John Paul II taught:
In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity (Joannes Paulus II. Orientale Lumen: Apostolic Letter on the Eastern Churches His Holiness Pope John Paul II, Section 15. Promulgated on May 2, 1995. Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight).
In 1988, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) taught:
Man can become God, not by making himself God, but by allowing himself to be made ‘Son’. (Ratzinger J. Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. 1988. Cited in Kurz W. What Does the Bible Say About End Times? A Catholic View. Nihil Obstat: H. Kistner. Imprimi Potest: F. Link. Imprimatur + C. Moeddel, July 19, 2004. St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2004, p. 89)
Near the end of the 20th century, Orthodox bishop Timothy Ware wrote:
Such, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, is the final goal at which every Christian must attain: to become god, to obtain theosis, ‘deification’ or ‘divinization’. For Orthodoxy our salvation and redemption mean our deification…deification is not something reserved for a select few initiates, but is something intended for all alike. The Orthodox Church believes this is the normal goal of every Christian without exception. Certainly we shall only be deified on the Last Day; but for each of us the process of divinization must begin here and now in this present life” (Ware, T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, p.231,236).
This is taught all over the place by popes.
Rick, you have to just be joking if you dont think the bible goes through the filter of every person that reads it. There is no such thing as not interpreting anything. So if you are not open to interpreting anything, then Christ says he visited the spirits in prison. Why didnt you answer my question if you are just ignoring that? Or do you only take exactly what is written when it says exactly what you want to hear?
Or what about the creeds I asked about? Everyone here wants to say mormons never answer any questions, but I cant get a straight answer for anyone here. You just jump around like ADHD children on cocaine. I ask questions back and you guys just move on to the next thing. No wonder no one sticks around here. You cant have a conversation with people who dont want to look at their own religion under the same microscope they use on every one else.
Rick, you seem to afraid to even answer my question about what religion you are a part of. Whats wrong? You cant figure out what you believe? Its easy to defend your beliefs if you create a moving target I guess. Lets see you nail down your beliefs so that we can have a real conversation. Or are you ashamed of it?
Lee,
I’ve never said that Mormons (in general) won’t answer questions. So now you know that someone didn’t say it. As for the rest of what you wrote, wow. You said,
Then how do you know the Trinity is not true?
It’s ok for you, but not ok for Christians, right? And saying that every god always had a father is not? Then who was the first father god? How did he get to be so without a father? You see the ridiculous of this. Christians teach that God has always been God forever. This is far more believable than saying that there always was a god that gave birth to another god, but that there always was a god.
And the Trinity is not complete nonsense. The Bible teaches it. This is why your claiming that the Catholics taught a Mormon version of deification is absurd.
“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. Isa. 43:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
“Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” Isaiah 44:8
“there is no God but one” 1 Corinthians 8:4
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” 1 Timothy 1:17
Now the Trinity,
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. Colossians 2:9-10
“Fullness” is pleroma πλήρωμα in the Greek, and it means the totality of the divine powers. God is one God. Jesus in his bodily form was the fullness of the Godhead. That is why he is the head over EVERY power and authority. And he gave this authority to his disciples on earth along with his Holy Spirit. He never left his bride. Ever.
In what way is man deified? St. Augustine taught:
“He has called men gods that are deified OF HIS GRACE, NOT BORN OF HIS SUBSTANCE.” (Read the whole thing, it will show you the absurdity of thinking that the Pope is teaching that men become GODS like the Mormon God. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801050.htm
How is this accomplished? This was taught by the ECF’s and that is why there was a Council at Nicaea, because of the heresy that there were TWO GODS the Father and the Son, when the scriptures teach over and over THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND THERE CAN BE NO OTHER GODS EVER.
In Christian theology, particularly in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θέωσις, meaning divinization, deification, or making divine) is the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practice (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and his gospel. In particular, theosis refers to the attainment of likeness to or union with God, that is the final stage of this process of transformation and is as such the goal of the spiritual life…Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis).(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis)
Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature…The human person does not merge with some sort of impersonal divine force, losing individual identity or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence. (http://www.antiochian.org/node/16916)
The idea of theosis is that God and humanity progressively achieve a union in Christ which in the end both blurs and preserves the distinction between Creator and creation, as in a mirror perfectly reflecting the source of its image…The fundamental Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis – it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically God or even another god. (Theosis in the Orthodox Tradition)
Here is what Irenaeus (circa 180 A.D.) says on other gods:
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD:
IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD, HE WOULD HAVE A BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END.
OTHER GODS MAKE ONE DEPART FROM THE TRUE GOD
IF THERE ARE TWO, THERE WOULD BE MORE AND ADD CONFUSION
THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN OTHER GODS WILL ‘FALL TO IMPIETY’
Some seem to miss the focus, that we are gods by GRACE, not by nature, as Mormonism teaches. Nowhere do the early Church Father’s teach that man and God are ontologically similar. Deification, in the early Church was simply taking on the ‘nature’ of God, which nature, Adam had before the fall. That is why he is called a ‘god’, and only in that sense.
Here is Tertullian in about 215 A.D.:
This is what Paul was talking about when he said the Fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead dwells BODILY in Jesus.
Theophilus of Antioch
Hippolytus
And Justin Martyr (AD 100–ca.165) taught:
The Catholic Church and the ECF’s never taught Mormon type divinization. They always taught there was only one God. They also taught that Jesus came and did away with the prophets and the law which Jo Smith resurrected in error.
Then how come they were teaching it 150 years before the Council of Nicaea? (see quotes above)
And I have way more quotes.
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Justin Martyr? [103 -165 A.D.] Justin writes that “God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself… which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.” [1] This squares precisely with the Nicene Creed, which declares God the Son to be “begotten, not made.” Justin explains further that “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,” [2] and that the Son was “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,” [3] which means that the Son is begotten from the very same essence which the Father himself possesses – not dividing the Godhead into parts, but rather allowing each divine person a full sharing in the Godhead – which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity maintains.(Did he come back from the dead 160 years later to “grab power” with Constantine?)
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Irenaeus? [Died 202 A.D.] Irenaeus’ teaching that “the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son,” [4] couldn’t be more Trinitarian. Moreover, Irenaeus distinguishes the Son and the Holy Spirit from created beings when he says, “The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation.” [5] So, according to Irenaeus, the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, just like the doctrine of the Trinity says. (Another long dead Trinitarian before Nicaea)
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Clement of Alexandria? [150-215 A.D.] Clement calls Jesus “the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe” [6] as well as “God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.” [7] And Clement is decidedly adamant that “the Son of God, being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.” [8] Jesus, according to Clement, wasn’t created, but “existed always, without beginning.” Rather than holding Jesus to be an inferior, created being, Clement clearly teaches that Jesus is “co-eternal” and “co-existent with the Father.” Isn’t this exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches? (Died way before he could grab power at Nicaea)
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Tertullian? [160-220 A.D.] (He coined the word, by the way) On the contrary, Tertullian loudly proclaims, “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other… [9] and that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.” He continues, “All are of One, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation distributes the Unity into a TRINITY, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.” [10] He finishes, “All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, the Persons of the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith,” [11] and, “I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable Persons.” [12] To reproduce here all that Tertullian says in support of the Trinity would probably take up another page or two. Suffice it to say that in his declaration, “The Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,” we have a nice, simply-rendered summary of the Trinity doctrine. (He died over a hundred years before Nicaea, was he part of the power grab?)
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Hippolytus? [170-235] Hippolytus says, “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God.”[13] So Hippolytus, too, sets the Logos of God, a.k.a. Jesus, apart from all creation and all created beings. He further declares of Jesus that “by nature He is God,” [14] and that Jesus, “who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead.” [15] According to Hippolytus, Jesus “was in essential being with His Father” [16] and “is co-eternal with His Father,” just as the doctrine of the Trinity says. And, with regard to the Trinity as a whole, Hippolytus says, “We cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” [17]and, “Whosoever omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.” [18] Clearly, Hippolytus is a Trinitarian a hundred years before the “power grab”.
Was the Trinity “unknown” to Origen? [185-253 A.D.] Origen teaches, “God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.” [19] Likewise, Origen says, “We have been able to find no statement in Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created.” [20] He therefore concludes that “all things which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing which was not made, save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” [21] and that “the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them.” [22] Accordingly, “the Holy Spirit is reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity along with the unchangeable Father and His Son.” [23] In all of Origen’s teachings we have, once again, the doctrine of the Trinity proclaimed loud and clear seventy five years before the “power grab”
All these men lived long before the Council of Nicaea, and have direct ties to apostolic teachings. Why in the world would I need to worry about the Nicene Creed? These guys teach it.
[1] Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 61, 62
[2] ibid Ch. 128
[3] ibid Ch. 128
[4] On Apostolic Preaching 2:1:47
[5] Against Heresies 4:20:3
[6] Exhortation to the Heathen Ch. 10
[7] The Instructor Bk. 1, Ch. 1
[8] Comments on the First Epistle of John
[9] Against Praxeus Ch. 8, 9
[10] ibid Ch. 2
[11] ibid Ch. 11
[12] ibid Ch. 12
[13] Refutation of all Heresies Bk. 10, Ch. 29
[14] On Genesis, Gen 49:16-20
[15] ibid, Gen 49:26
[16] On Luke Ch. 23
[17] Against the Heresy of One Noetus Section 14
[18] ibid section 14
[19] First Principles 1:2:2
[20] ibid 1:3:3
[21] ibid 4:3:5
[22] ibid 2:2:1
[23] ibid 1:3:4
Grindael, another night owl like me ? When I read Fightinglee’s diatribe against the Trinity
I was shaking my head , he’s accepted those old worn out straw man arguments which
have been used for a long time to try and disprove the Trinity.
Fightinglee, after your attack on the Trinity and you accuse Grindael of making a lot of
assumptions ? Incredible . The Trinity accepted as a result of a ” power grab ” , and it’s a farce
that has been brought to us by ” the same people that ordered John Wycliffe killed for
translating the Bible ? Wow. What was really silly was you enlisted Thomas Jefferson as an
authoritive source on refuting this doctrine . Were you agreeing with him that the Trinity
is false because it is ” incomprehensible to the human mind ” ? But then you turned right around
and said that most people are ok with not understanding everything about God’s nature, so I
guess this means that we can throw out Jeffersen’s ” authoritive ” opinion , right?
Adding to this , you then said that , ” you can’t have a conversation with people who don’t want
to look at their own religion under the same microscope they use on everyone else.”
Should we use Thomas Jeffersen as our “microscope ” in looking at Mormon doctrine?
I think that the Bible is the best microscope .
Lastly, you said that we should, ” read the Bible without wanting the Trinity to be true and see
if it makes sense. ” I think there are some things in the Bible that are not easy to comprehend
with my pea brain , and God’s nature ( the Trinity in particular) is one example. But I have
the Holy Spirit who is an aid to help me.
Now let me encourage you to peruse the articles on this subject that MRM has to offer. A few
months ago Andy Watson shared his study of the Trinity here on this blog , it will help you
understand that so many of the accusations about it are simply not true.
hey grindael, i never said that no one believed in a trinitarian view, though it is wholly pagan and adopted from the Egyptptians, but the majority view was separate personages. And no, its not taught in the bible. How come no one here can focus long enough to answer me why its not taught in the bible? Oh, cause its not in there. Can none of you admit this?
grindael, do i really need to lay out all the scriptures that refute the trinity? You already know them right? Mormons believe there is but one God, for us to worship. We do not worship Jesus. So all your scriptures about there is but one God, well I agree. That doesnt change the fact that there are three personages in the GodHEAD. You know my belief.
The Trinity is silly, and not supported in the bible. If you do not know the passages then i will share them, but we both know the passages. That is why you guys jumped all over this. Feeling defensive much?
fightinglee,
“Let me say thins, I think at some point, whoever was organizing the church lessons, the stuff we are taught in actual sunday school, made a choice to not include the seer stone and instead just “primaryize” (best made up word to describe it).”
Those teaching manuals have to be approved by the first presidency. Please don’t blame this on the person/persons who organized the lessons.
I know that the magic rock in the hat was printed in LDS publications, once I started searching online about LDS history I ran across several quotes. It’s hard to look for the hat in the rock when you don’t even know that it exists. Why would I ever think to search for it? Most of those quotes you posted are in church magazines. Why? Not all LDS subscribe to those. This isn’t really the issue for me, what bothers me is that we are taught something totally different in lessons at church. Please read testimonies of ex LDS, most didn’t know this is how he translated. I could also go to my active LDS Mother and tell her this is how he translated and she would call me a liar. She doesn’t know either. I guess the rock in the hat trick isn’t very faith promoting. To me that is dishonest and the church lies.
As a Mormon I just put my faith in the leaders and took what was spoon fed to me. Not all Mormons do research and not all Mormons own a computer, the truth should be taught at church, regardless if it is faith promoting or not.
“However, I still think it is weird that you dont see the double standard with the lds church and the catholic church that has been set up by people who leave the church over “hidden” stuff.”
Why are you throwing the Catholic church under the bus? Usually Mormons throw the Bible under the bus so this is new to me. We aren’t talking about the Catholic church here, we are talking about Mormonism. It would seem to me that a Mormon could defend their religion without having to bring other religions into it. I am not at all familiar with Catholicism and if you want to compare your religion to them you need to talk to a Catholic.
“And that is the crux of Mormon history. All serious historians will note the complexity of trying to figure out just what we do or do not know. We have might have three or four contradicting testimonies, sometimes from the same person!”
Well this is a big red flag for me. If a “prophet” has contradicting testimony or teachings then this is a problem. How do you feel about Brigham Young teaching from the pulpit that Adam is God? People died believing this, including Brigham himself and now your current prophets are calling it false doctrine? The FLDS still believe this because it was revealed by a prophet. They are the fruit of Mormonism too. How do you deal with stuff like this? There are so many prophets contradicting one another it’s hard to keep LDS doctrine straight!
“In any case, I thought you would find these things interesting from fold magic practiced in the OT.”
I have read the Bible, I am aware of this. It’s not hidden at all.
“Seer stones were crazy popular in Joseph’s time, and honestly, I dont think a seer stone in a hat is any weirder than a breastplate with glasses, or a divining cup, or rod, etc. From a logical standpoint, i care more about the result than the method.”
It’s not so much that he used a seer stone, it’s that the stone he used was also used in money digging and ripping off his neighbors, which by the way NO church publication prints that part of it! He was a con man and he used the same rock he conned people with. Now, the LDS church may say that he used it for treasure digging, but that’s not the whole truth is it? Lying by omission is still lying.
I think you could benefit from watching the John Dehlin video that falcon posted a few days ago. John also put out a video a few years ago on why people leave the LDS church. You will see that Mormons who leave didn’t know a lot of things that should have been taught truthfully at church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gVUuWd2gP0
I posted this in another article, but is more a part of my discussion here, so i will put it here too.
sorry guys, all I can say is that the bible and the mormon church are congruent for many many people. Not you apparently, but for many of us. You have a different opinion, and that is fine. What I see a lot of, like in the particulars of the Trinity for example, is that nicene creed based religions refuse to aknowledge their issue. They say that they dont interpret the bible, it is clear on all these subjects, and yet we have Jesus praying to God (and somehow its clear he’s praying to himself) and we have steven seeing God and Jesus seprately (but its clear they are the same person). No, its not clear, and it takes a lot of stretching the imagination to make it work for you.
The same people that brought you the Trinity also brought you many other bible contradictions
Bishops dont marry (1 Timothy 3:2-5, 1 Timothy 4:1-3)
Calling Preists Father (Matthew 23:9)
Peter wasnt married (somehow he had a mother in law though! Mark 1:30)
Only the priests can read and interpret the bible (wow. just wow.)
there are of course many of these contradictions, but the Trinity is and always was foremost for me because it is the basis of your belief in God and who he is.
Someone explain these versus then, so that I might be more enlightened with your views.
John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Mark 13:32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; NEITHER THE SON; but the Father.
I Timothy 2:5. There is one God and, one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
I Corinthians 8:6. But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.
Ephesians 4:5-6. ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (why does he separate God and Lord?)
consider the savior’s words
“I came not to do mine own will.”
“I can of myself do nothing.”
“The Son can do nothing of himself.”
“The Father that is in me, he doeth the works.”
He calls himself, “he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent.”
He says, “I am come in my Father’s name.”
And after his resurrection he says, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”
Consider the apostles words:
“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him.”
“Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour.”
“at the right hand of God exalted.”
“made both Lord and Christ.” (this sounds pretty against the Trinity)
Because of his obedience unto death, “God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name.”
In the end he shall “deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all.”
How come the catholic church adds to the scriptures 1 John 5:7? This is pretty damming. We all know the christian view that none should take away or add to the bible, so why do we find its addition after the old manuscripts of the Greek New Testament that do not contain it. It is found only in the Latin. It was removed in the 1500’s and then quickly added back.
Now, can you really ask why I feel that the bible led me away from any Nicene Creed doctrine based view?
Kate,
I do agree with you about not teaching it in the manuals. i really do, full heartidly. I wasnt saying the leaders were not a part of that, so I am sorry it came across like that. I agree, its not faith promoting. i said that the church made that choice, and they are trying to correct, so I am sorry you are seeing me as saying that the leadership did not take part. I do not deny that. They made a choice and it was a wrong one.
Again Kate, the use of the seer stone is factual, the ripping people off is NOT. Again, who are the sources claiming he ripped people off? Was Joseph of the OT ripping people off with his divining cup? What if we could ask he neighbors what they thought, or some other people that didnt like him? We dont get that in the OT. In our time, everything has been recorded, and everyone gets a say in it. If i write that so and so is a rapist, then a hundred years from now, its part of that persons history, regardless if its true, or if i had any evidence other than my word. Some peopel will believe it, and if that person is a controversial church leader that other people want to discredit, they will point to what i wrote. That doesnt make it true. So I dont buy into this story that he is ripping people off. I dont teach it, just as I dont spread gossip about anyone. Its a charge against Joseph without anything that I can verify. I am sure you would hope that people wouldnt take the word of your enemies to be true either just because they say it Kate. So i will NOT base my testimony on such things.
That is what the point was that I was trying to make. As far as the factual stuff, I was taught about the seer stone and its use in church. You were not. I understand that, so it depends on the instructor too, because different instructors will go into different things and feel more comfortable doing so.
I think for you, and many people, the finding out about the seer stone is more important than its use. By that I mean, you were lied to (by omission, as you said) and that makes someone feel betrayed. As far as the catholics, I wasnt trying to throw catholics under the bus, you said that they dont hide their history and i was continuing with that discussion. Be it catholic or mormon, we are all humans who do not like to discuss those things that do not support our cause.
So I agree Kate, and I have listened to John Dehlin. Do I come across as someone that has not studied the church fully and many other churches fully? I may not come to the same conclusions as you, but I am not one to avoid the truth. I love truth. I have not found it anywhere else as much as I have in the LDS church. I can go all day in scriptural arguments and then others will come back with their view and its never ending, but I found truth in the LDS church, and no third party testimony of someone claiming this or that is going to take that from me. It doesnt affect me. Neither will the mistakes of my leaders, because I have been in leadership callings, and unfortunately, God didnt zap me and suddenly make me perfect. I still had to make decisions, and I am pretty sure i made wrong ones a few times. I had to apologize to a person or two.
There is an adage that goes something like this, The catholic church says that the pope is infallable, and no one believes it. The mormons say their prophets are fallable, and no one believes it. The statement is very true. For some reason, we hold our leaders to unreal expectations and it hurts some people badly. I am sorry, Kate. I am glad you are happy with whatever you found though and I appreciate the discussion. Well, i just hit my 6 posts, so until sometime later this week I guess.
Fglee, im replying on my phone while at work so I will post more later. First off, a massive four part topic on the trinity was done. Maybe someone can post s link, I cannot due that from my phone.
Second, almost every mormon avoided thst topic like the plague. Then the few who replied under part one avoided parts 2, 3, 4.
Maybe they were scared. When I said something, the response was, we have no interest in that topic. Funny how that works when in reality you. Guys talk a lot about it.
Then you claim were avoiding subjects. You were asked many questions first that you have avoided, so stop with that issue. One big one you avoided is, where is mormonism in the bible. How did reading the bible alone prove to you mormonism is true.
fightinglee,
“Neither will the mistakes of my leaders, because I have been in leadership callings, and unfortunately, God didnt zap me and suddenly make me perfect.”
You aren’t claiming to be a prophet of God though are you? If a man claims to be a prophet and claims revelation from God that is very different. He is leading people away from God when he teaches things such as Adam/God.
Joseph Smith was arrested after a neighbor turned him in, you can research his arrest record and what was said by Dr. Nibley BEFORE the records were found. It’s truth, not gossip.
Fightinglee
I think we need to sort out something that is fundamental to Mormonism. As others here know I have asked this question several times & I’m still waiting to be given a coherent answer. So, at the risk of becoming boring I’ll ask the same question of you.
Your organization claims that Joseph Smith was a prophet; your leaders say that it was necessary to have a latter day prophet to restore the Gospel, the reasons why they claim this is irrelevant at the moment. So if, as the LDS claim, they follow the Christ of the Bible (understand what this means) why did God need a latter day prophet?
I’m basically saying that if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could NOT be who he claimed to be. If you need further clarification, any Christian reading this will be happy to provide it.
Fightinglee, your statements are getting stranger the further you proceed in your mis- guided
attack on the Trinity . I can’t speak for everyone here but to answer every one of your
questions on this issue would take way more space than I care to spend on this blog. You
really don’t offer anything new in the way of refuting this doctrine. I will comment on two
things you said : 1. concerning 1John 5:7 . If you’re arguing that adding to God’s word is
not appropriate then that is one thing , however if you are saying that it’s wrong for non
Mormons to choose to use this “verse” in a presentation to teach about the Trinity/Godhead ,
then you’re are wrong . In the BofM at 3 Nephi 11:32 there is a footnote : 1 John 5:7 .
Furthermore, it has been ADDED into church curriculum as a means to explaining truths about
God. ( personally I don’t think I have ever used this verse in explaining truths about God to
someone ). Now let’s look at your statement to Grindael where you said , ” We do not worship
Jesus .” Am I understanding you right ? Golly, I hope you’re not serious ! I expect ridiculous
statements from you like ” the Trinity is pagan ” , but claiming you don’t worship Jesus ? Wow.
Do I have to share what the Bible teaches about this ? What about the BofM ?
Honestly , Fightinglee, you have been misled by false prophets/apostles , that’s the bad news ,
the good news is that you can exchange them for the real ones , the ones that Jesus actually
wanted to teach His saving truths . You can find these men in the Bible.
I’m not feeling defensive, I was answering your total lack of understanding about the ECF’s and the Trinity. You can TRY and disprove it, but that is all you can do. And yes, please list all of your scriptures that show that there are multiple gods in the Bible, that God was once a man, that he lives near a planet called Kolob, and that he is the ithyphalic fertility god MIN as Joseph described him in the Book of Abraham. I’m dying to see where you get all of this out of the Bible.
You have to prove that it was adopted from the Egyptians, and you can’t. And you stated that the Nicene Creed (which defines God) was some kind of a “power grab” in 325 AD. I showed that you were wrong. That the Trinity was taught by those that were taught by the Apostles. You must have missed where I proved it was in the Bible. Read my posts again. (Hint: if there is only ONE GOD and no other, that means there is only ONE GOD.)
grindael, i did read your post, i choose to find it completely lacking as far as it being a good point.
John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Christ himself says, the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD and that THE ONLY TRUE GOD sent Jesus. Now, I think it was Rick who said that there is no room for interpretation in the bible (was that you Rick?). So, again, you can believe easily there is only God, and yet there is a Godhead. It was by Christ that the earth was created, as Paul said. Christ would send the spirit after he departed. Mormon theology has no problem with any of this, because it is a Godhead. God the Father is our God, but the Godhead acts together in perfect Unity to accomplish his plan. I find no contradiction whatsoever. The trinity? I find many contradictions, and those contradictions depend on what kind of Trinitarian you claim to be.
As far as not being able to prove the Egyptian Trinity:
In the Egyptian myth, Horus and his father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable, as in “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30. Egypt, where the myth of Osiris was originated, shares borders with Palestine, where Jesus lived. Ancient Egyptians, just as the Christians, recognized in words the unity of the Godhead, while worshipping many deities that possessed certain influence on human affairs. Ancient Egyptians acknowledged One infinite God, Almighty, and Creator but added the confusing concept of trinity to the Unity of God.
Isis was part of a sacred triad. The Egyptians deified so-called ’emanations’ of the supreme, unknowable godhead, typically grouping them into trinities (in fact, a whole hierarchy of trinities). Thus Isis-Osiris-Horus, Amun-Re-Mut-Khons, Atum-Shu-Tefnut-Mahet, etc., reigned for forty centuries, as eternal, evolving godhead.
The relationships between deities could also be expressed in the process of syncretism, in which two or more different gods were linked to form a composite deity. This process was a recognition of the presence of one god “in” another when the second god took on a role belonging to the first. These links between deities were fluid, and did not represent the permanent merging of two gods into one; therefore, some gods could develop multiple syncretic connections. ^ Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2005, pp. 27–28
These are obviously just a few. Many scholars actually believe the idea of a Christ in hebrew literature came from the Egyptian culture, primarily centered around Osiris. Triads were a common belief system in Egyptian religion and Osiris has many many similarities.
Kate,
The historical event that he was arrested was fact Kate, the charges against him, which did not pan out, are not. You can say you agree with the charges against him, but factual they are not.
Who cares if Nibley was wrong about the trial being held? That has nothing to do with my argument, Kate. I am not saying the trial did not happen. I am saying that just because someone is brought trial, that in and of itself does not mean they were wrong. Are we to conclude that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy just because they took him to trial over it? And then he was condemned, so he must have been guilty? Come on Kate, its a straw man argument.
Remember also that the whole seer stones and all that practice did not come from mormonism, it didnt exist yet. It was mostly methodists in Joseph’s area that were teaching this and doing it. Joseph learned the practice from superstitious christians. We have already talked about the same thing in the bible. The methodist preacher in Joseph’s area fully believed Joseph had some power to find the hidden using the seer stone. These are christian practices of the time. And are they weird? Yes. Certainly. Just like i think Joseph of the OT using a divining cup is weird too. Just like I think Christ putting his fingers in the ears of a man to give him hearing is unneccessary for Christ, who can do all things, and who i believe can give hearing to the deaf without sticking his fingers in someone’s ears. So what?
It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 trial until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971.
Here is the full comment from Nibley by the way since people like to take it out of context.
Tuttle was making the claim that is was a huge deal. Nibley never really considered the 1926 trial to be very significant and definitely not a blow to the credibility of Joseph Smith. But he is telling Tuttle that if he really did think it was significant, why didn’t he use it.
“You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall’s word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn’t you immediately send her back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of it? Why didn’t you “unearth” it, as they later said you did? … The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: “a woman helper in our mission,” who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? …in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever…yet in the final summary of his life’s experiences he never mentions the story of the court record – his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!”
Nibley did not buy off on the trial, sure, because the record had not been found yet. Still, his point is valid and most anti-mormons only want to take one line from this, piece it together and take it out of context of the argument he was having.
Most of these same people want to ignore the trial itself.
1. They didn’t bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830.
2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833. Even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find.
3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.
Why? What changed from the 1830s to the end of the 19th century when suddenly there started to be a significant interest?
Let me suggest that the reason some critics think that these claims are important now and they didn’t in 1830s is because society had changed. In the 1820s what Joseph did was a consistent part of the culture. Actions that were accepted and understandable by people in the first part of the 19th century are no longer considered normal.
Society had changed, Seer Stones were no longer acceptable, treasure digging is considered abnormal, etc
fightinglee
Am I invisible? I don’t know how times my questions to you & others have been ignored but it’s becoming a little tiresome. I see convoluted answers in abundance from you concerning the Trinity, but no reply at all to the very simple question I asked you yesterday. Incidentally, my question is indirectly connected to the Trinity, as the explanation below should show.
Many people over many years have used the same arguments you gave to Grindael; every one has been comprehensively answered & dealt with. The answers you give together with all the quotes display a lack of understanding as to what Christians mean by “the Trinity” Do Christians simply believe a doctrine because they’re told it is so? Well, perhaps there are some but in the main Christians believe the doctrine because they know & understand who Christ is. Non-Christians do not understand who He is, Mormons don’t even understand who God is & that being so how can you or any non-Christians understand or accept the Trinity? There’s far more to it than what you can see with human logic.
Ps.
“In the 1820s what Joseph did was a consistent part of the culture. Actions that were accepted and understandable by people in the first part of the 19th century are no longer considered normal.”
“Society had changed, Seer Stones were no longer acceptable, treasure digging is considered abnormal, etc
With respect, what does that have to do with anything? I’m sorry to say that you’re reverting to typical Mormon form with your obfuscation. You deliberately divert attention away what Kate was saying. As I understand it her reference to Joseph Smith & his trial was all to do with him being a con man & nothing to do with the social climate of the time. Interpret things in that way if you wish but facts are facts Joseph Smiths “actions” were not acceptable by people in the first part of the 19th century, that’s why he was arrested, tried & found guilty of fraud.
Hardly a good recommendation for a “prophet”
Old Man,
Sorry if you take offense to me not answering you. Please understand there is only one of me and several of you. For you its one post, for me, it takes several posts to get to everyone.
I was having a conversation with Kate, so I find it rather rude for you to demand responses from me while I am trying to use what time and posts i have to continue with that conversation.
To your questions regarding the need for prophets today. i dont follow your logic. Why do we need prophets if we have Christ? Is Christ living on the earth today? He called prophets to preach repentance before he came, and he still does. Why did he keep calling prophets after moses? After all, Moses already wrote down all the laws. Why not just refer to what moses wrote. By your assumption, they just needed one prophet at the beginning of creation to record all of God’s revelations and then they had a book they could go by. So they didnt need more prophets right? Heck, we didnt even need one. Better yet, Christ could have just sent us a book from heaven, and then given it to those trustworthy leaders of the jews and thats all we ever needed.
Again, being found guilty or having charges brought against you by other men should not be your basis for righteousness. By your assumption, then all the martyrs of the NT were bad people. They were found guilty by someone and killed. Jesus was found guilty and killed. So, are you saying that there were no ulterior motives in these cases? Because they were found guilty, they must have been.
Not only that, but the court record we have from Pearsall that claims Smith to be guilty is pretty funny and has been shown to be fraudelant.
We know that the supposed “court record” obtained by Miss Pearsall can’t be a court record at all.
Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
No witness signatures–they were required in an official record
It appears to be a pretrial hearing
Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts
This story has changed so many times over the time since it was initially put to trial and when people looked back at it, it is a mess.
we dont even have the original records that started all this. we just have the word of the methodists who published it and said the original was lost, but NOT before they copied it. Awesome evidence. It was copied by the methodist church supposedly from another document supposdly that cannot be found. Do you guys even research these things before you just regurgitate them?
We don’t have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:
Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer’s Magazine in 1873.
Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall’s death
Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
Then the record was lost.
It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.
So the whole story is religiously motivated by the methodist church 30 years after smith dies. Not only that, but who cares?? Again, I dont find it odd that the methodist church hated Joseph Smith. He stole their memebers in their area and stood up to their doctrine. Jesus stood up to the saduccees and they killed him for it. Thats what happens. It has happened throughout all of history.
I dont intentionally ignore you Old Man, but I find your posts to be silly. I just pass by them because they are full of absurd remarks that dont follow logic or make any sense. I will probably not post back to you much again. I can have a discussion with, Kate. Or at least i was trying. With you, its just silly accusations and logical fallacies.
Fighting lee.
I can understand your need to defend Joseph Smith, if it was just the rock in the hat I could probably get passed that but look at all he did. The polygamy is enough to turn my stomach. Let’s not forget the taking of other men’s wives. What about his Danites and his Avenging Angel. He was not a peaceful man. He wasn’t a moral man either.
What made you choose the LDS church instead of the FLDS or the Community of Christ? They all have a prophet so which prophet is the true prophet? They all claim they are the true followers of Joseph Smith. How are we to know which one is legit and which ones are false?
Read it again. What is your point with this scripture? Jesus was the INCARNATION of the one true God. “I and my Father are One”. “Before Abraham was, I am”. Jesus Himself was most aware of His pre-existence in John 8:58:
His enemies knew perfectly well that He was claiming divinity, which is why they planned to stone Him. The Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi I am) is important, because the Greek verbs already had information on the person—εἰμί means “I am” on its own. There are a number of these I AM statements, which also relate to God’s statements in Isaiah, ani hu. This one would have brought to mind to God’s revelation of his special name to Moses in Exodus 3:14:
Furthermore, Jesus contrasts Abraham’s γενέσθαι (genesthai) denoting that he came into existence at some point in the past, with His own “am”, which is in the present tense because He just exists. It is very clear that He is claiming not only to have pre-existed Abraham, but even more: that He didn’t even come into existence. He was NEVER a spirit baby of one of many gods and a goddess mother, he was GOD himself who always existed, neither created or made: “BEFORE ME was no god formed, NEITHER WILL THERE BE AFTER ME.”
The contradiction is that there is only one God and you are claiming more than one.
Yet Jesus claimed to BE GOD. So is Jesus lying when he says that the Father is the ONLY true GOD? He would have to be if he is also “a” god.
Like what?
What I was asking for is for you to prove that the Christian Trinity was lifted from the Egyptian. Show me exactly how this happened. What you are quoting from is an Islamic argument against the Christian Godhead. The mythological family of gods known as Osiris, Isis and Horus constituted a family of father, mother and son – as far from the Christian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as you can get. Furthermore they were only three of a multiplicity of Egyptian deities which also included Nun, Atum, Ra, Khefri, Shu, Tefnut, Anhur, Geb, Nut and Set.
There were also more than one Horus – Horus the elder, Horus of Edfu, Horus son of Isis, etc. The Egyptians were not trinitarians believing in one Supreme Being who is triune in personality and nature. They worshipped many gods of whom Osiris, Isis and Horus were but three and they did not believe that these three shared an absolute unity. These pagan triads are closer to the Qur’anic misconception of the Christian doctrine and Joseph Smith’s polytheism than they are to the actual doctrine as it is founded on the Bible.
One can find similarities in anything. But it is another thing to prove it. One can rip these things out of context, as has been done here, but with further study it is proved that this is just out of context defensive posturing.
Fglee,
You said to old man,
Let me point out a few things, How do you know we dont feel the same about you? Just because you say this is how Oldman or one of us is acting does not make it true. You cant say, I said so, therefore it’s true.
Now I agree their is only one of you and you cannot reply to everyone, I get that. But at the same time, I find you as well as all other mormons who come here Ignore the honest and hard questions and answer easy questions, or questions that are of no real merit.
Example, You will talk with Kate and say, I answered her/your questions. But the question at hand might be, JS was found Guilty of said crime, you reply, so that means everyone found guilty makes them guilty.
So in reality, who really cares if JS was guilty of said crime or not, that does not prove Mormonism true or false. But now the honest questions you ignore in favor of those easy questions are things like this.
You started off telling everyone, why bother talking to you guys when all it will end up being is, me being told I am going to hell?
So I gave you scripture and said, Jesus said, Hell is eternal and will never end. You replied with, well Rick, thats how YOU interpret it. So I replied with, That is not how I interpret it, I simply believe God when He said that eternal means for ever and I take Him at His word.
Now after that you moved on, you ignored everything else I said, I asked you, How do you interpret Eternal and forever to real mean, a period of Time that has an end? I also asked you If you dont take God at His word and you believe something different, then how can we/I trust you to know what your talking about since, We see example of false Mormon prophets teaching things like Adam God, Blood Atonement Blacks will never hold the priesthood.
I’m not asking you to debate these things, Only asking if your prophets taught them as Scripture, and Doctrine, and they are no longer that, but are now called false, How can we trust you guys to get things right or Interpret it correctly?
Then along that lines, I pointed out The BoM teaches eternal, never ending damnation, How exactly do you interpret it to be less than that?
Then the other Hard question you ignored stemming from this was, If you claim as you did, to read and love the Bible, how can you feel that way when LDS claim it is translated incorrectly, If it really is as you say, Incorrect, how can you love it? Thats like me saying, I believe the Quran is a false book, but I love it and quote it.
Then if the Bible is false and incorrect, how come you dont follow your prophets advice and use the German translation since he claimed it is the most accurate, and then he “corrected” the Bible and gave us the J.S.T, YET LDS never use or quote that, Why not?
See then you will ignore everything I said, Claim you dont understand me, and make excuses as to why you cannot or will not answer me, then wonder why we Christians here dont trust you guys and claim your all a bunch of Frauds. You guys simply cannot or will not enter into Honest debate.
Fglee said of me
You either did not read what I said, or you ignored it. I did not say there is NO ROOM for interpretation in the Bible.
What I said was, The Bible says so, God says so, I believe it, Simply put, God said It I believe it.
Examples, God says to Moses, I am. Jesus says, I am, He is calling Himself God, The same God that Moses talked with.
Jesus said to the religious Leaders, Believe on the son, this was in response to them asking, what Works must we do? He said, Only ONE work, and that is to believe upon Him.
Jesus Said Hell is eternal, He never said, It will end after X amount of Time.
Jesus said, I am, The way, the truth, the Life, Jesus DID NOT SAY, I am A WAY, A TRUTH, A LIFE.
I could give more example, So I believe God and His word. You clearly dont, I asked, If your going to make the claim, I Fglee interpret things/scripture Differently, Then explain How? How do you do it, how do you decide what it really means.
As I said, I could look in the dictionary, or I could walk up to any number of people on the street and say, Define, Forever, and Eternal. The response would be, Never ending. But if I asked a Mormon, they might also say, Never ending, But then if I said, Ok, now define Never Ending, forever lasting, Eternal Destruction, then they would put time limits upon it. Why is that? And who decides the time frame, if God never set one?
fightinglee
“I was having a conversation with Kate, so I find it rather rude for you to demand responses from me”
The first time I asked a question you were not in conversation with Kate & I did not demand an answer from you, I expected one & that is rather different. Incidentally, I wasn’t aware that on this site one had to ask permission to engage in a debate.
“To your questions regarding the need for prophets today. i dont follow your logic. Why do we need prophets if we have Christ? Is Christ living on the earth today? He called prophets to preach repentance before he came, and he still does.”
Of course you don’t follow my logic, you can’t follow my logic because you do not know Christ. Christ may not be with us in bodily form but He most definitely is with us & if you understood scripture you wouldn’t need me to tell you that. The paragraph in which you talk about prophets is really nonsensical & serves only to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the role of O/T prophets or even the purpose of the O/T itself.
Now let me tell you why we don’t need Prophets, because obviously you don’t know the New Testament either.
Prophets in the O/T had a dual purpose, to be a spokesman for God, i.e. to reveal God to the Jewish nation & to prepare that nation for the coming of Christ. The time of the prophets ended some time pprior to Christs coming, they were no longer needed. Something else you fail to grasp, why was the Holy Spirit given? It was given so that all men could live in union with Christ. The gift of prophecy is still with us but prophets are not, I’ve tried explaining this to other Mormons & they cannot grasp the simplicity of it all. Why do we need prophets when Christ lives in the heart of every true believer? Do you know who Christ is fightinglee & do you really know him? He is God incarnate; will you now tell me that God came among us, died for us & then tell us that in the space of a few short years His attempt failed & for nearly 2000 years men were without God? Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish. The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
I’m sorry that you find arguments such as that above to be silly, you’re beginning to sound a little like jasonrae who had a fine time mocking my comments simply because he lacked understanding but ultimately it was his arguments which were found to be lacking in substance.
I say again, if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!
When you finally see Christ for who He is then you will understand.
One final point, your self appointed prophets do not call men to repentance, when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy? That would appear to be the job of the 50,000 salesmen they send out every year. The purpose of your prophet & leaders is the accumulation of money.
“I was having a conversation with Kate, so I find it rather rude for you to demand responses from me”
I do understand the difficulty of answering a number of questions but the first time I asked a question you were not in conversation with Kate & I did not demand an answer from you, I expected one & that is rather different. Incidentally I wasn’t aware that conversations in here were one on one & comments outside of those criteria were considered rude.
“To your questions regarding the need for prophets today. i dont follow your logic. Why do we need prophets if we have Christ? Is Christ living on the earth today? He called prophets to preach repentance before he came, and he still does.”
Of course you don’t follow my logic, you can’t follow my logic because you do not know Christ. Christ may not be with us in bodily form but He most definitely is with us. If you understood scripture you wouldn’t need me to tell you that. The paragraph in which you talk about prophets is really nonsensical & serves only to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the role of O/T prophets or even the purpose of the O/T.
Now let me tell you why we don’t need Prophets, because obviously you don’t know the old or the New Testament.
Prophets in the O/T had a dual purpose, to be a spokesman for God, i.e. to reveal Himself to the Jewish nation & to prepare that nation for the coming of Christ. The time of the prophets ended some time to prior Christs coming for the obvious reason that they were no longer needed. If as you claim, prophets were still needed then why didn’t any of the apostles after Christ claim that title? Something else you fail to grasp, why was the Holy Spirit given? I’ll tell you, it was given so that all men could know Christ in a way that was not possible until His ascension. The gift of prophecy is one of several gifts given by the spirit & is still with us, prophets however are not! I’ve tried explaining this to other Mormons & they cannot grasp the simplicity of it all. Why do we need prophets when Christ lives in the heart of every true believer? Do you know who Christ is fightinglee & do you really know him? He is God incarnate; will you now tell me that God came among us, died for us & then proceed to tell us that in the space of few short years His attempt failed & for 2000 years men were without God & could not know salvation? Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, adulterer & polygamist to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish? The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
I’m sorry you find arguments such as that above to be silly, you’re beginning to sound a little like jasonrae who had a fine time mocking my comments simply because he lacked understanding but ultimately it was his arguments which were found to be lacking in any substance.
I say again, if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!
When you finally see Christ for who He is then you will understand.
One final point, your self appointed prophets do not call men to repentance & when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy? Calling to repentance would appear to be the job of the 50,000 salesmen they send out every year, the purpose of your prophet & leaders is the accumulation of mon
I wish I could reply yo you fightinglee but I’m having problems posting, a few days ago all my posts (4 of them) disappeared into cyberspace & now after two attempts they seem to be doing the same thing again. You will get my reply even if you do deem them in your wisdom to be silly. please be patient. Oh dear, silly me, this might disappear as well.
I see it didn’t disappear so I’ll try again with my response.
“I was having a conversation with Kate, so I find it rather rude for you to demand responses from me”
I do understand the difficulty of answering a number of questions but the first time I asked a question you were not in conversation with Kate & I did not demand an answer from you, I expected one & that is rather different. Incidentally I wasn’t aware that conversations in here were one on one & comments outside of those criteria were considered rude.
“To your questions regarding the need for prophets today. i dont follow your logic. Why do we need prophets if we have Christ? Is Christ living on the earth today? He called prophets to preach repentance before he came, and he still does.”
Of course you don’t follow my logic, you can’t follow my logic because you do not know Christ. Christ may not be with us in bodily form but He most definitely is with us. If you understood scripture you wouldn’t need me to tell you that. The paragraph in which you talk about prophets is really nonsensical & serves only to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the role of O/T prophets or even the purpose of the O/T.
Now let me tell you why we don’t need Prophets, because obviously you don’t know the old or the New Testament.
Prophets in the O/T had a dual purpose, to be a spokesman for God, i.e. to reveal Himself to the Jewish nation & to prepare that nation for the coming of Christ. The time of the prophets ended some time to prior Christs coming for the obvious reason that they were no longer needed. If as you claim, prophets were still needed then why didn’t any of the apostles after Christ claim that title? Something else you fail to grasp, why was the Holy Spirit given? I’ll tell you, it was given so that all men could know Christ in a way that was not possible until His ascension. The gift of prophecy is one of several gifts given by the spirit & is still with us, prophets however are not! I’ve tried explaining this to other Mormons & they cannot grasp the simplicity of it all. Why do we need prophets when Christ lives in the heart of every true believer? Do you know who Christ is fightinglee & do you really know him? He is God incarnate; will you now tell me that God came among us, died for us & then proceed to tell us that in the space of few short years His attempt failed & for 2000 years men were without God & could not know salvation? Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, adulterer & polygamist to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish? The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
I’m sorry you find arguments such as that above to be silly, you’re beginning to sound a little like jasonrae who had a fine time mocking my comments simply because he lacked understanding but ultimately it was his arguments which were found to be lacking in any substance.
I say again, if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!
When you finally see Christ for who He is then you will understand.
One final point, your self appointed prophets do not call men to repentance & when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy? Calling to repentance would appear to be the job of the 50,000 salesmen they send out every year, the purpose of your prophet & leaders is the acc
I see it didn’t disappear so I’ll try again with my response. I’ll split it into two parts this time to see if that helps.
“I was having a conversation with Kate, so I find it rather rude for you to demand responses from me”
I do understand the difficulty of answering a number of questions but the first time I asked a question you were not in conversation with Kate & I did not demand an answer from you, I expected one & that is rather different. Incidentally I wasn’t aware that conversations in here were one on one & comments outside of those criteria were considered rude.
“To your questions regarding the need for prophets today. i dont follow your logic. Why do we need prophets if we have Christ? Is Christ living on the earth today? He called prophets to preach repentance before he came, and he still does.”
Of course you don’t follow my logic, you can’t follow my logic because you do not know Christ. Christ may not be with us in bodily form but He most definitely is with us. If you understood scripture you wouldn’t need me to tell you that. The paragraph in which you talk about prophets is really nonsensical & serves only to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the role of O/T prophets or even the purpose of the O/T.
Now let me tell you why we don’t need Prophets, because obviously you don’t know the old or the New Testament.
Prophets in the O/T had a dual purpose, to be a spokesman for God, i.e. to reveal Himself to the Jewish nation & to prepare that nation for the coming of Christ. The time of the prophets ended some time to prior Christs coming for the obvious reason that they were no longer needed. If as you claim, prophets were still needed then why didn’t any of the apostles after Christ claim that title?
Cont……..
Something else you fail to grasp, why was the Holy Spirit given? I’ll tell you, it was given so that all men could know Christ in a way that was not possible until His ascension. The gift of prophecy is one of several gifts given by the spirit & is still with us, prophets however are not! I’ve tried explaining this to other Mormons & they cannot grasp the simplicity of it all. Why do we need prophets when Christ lives in the heart of every true believer? Do you know who Christ is fightinglee & do you really know him? He is God incarnate; will you now tell me that God came among us, died for us & then proceed to tell us that in the space of few short years His attempt failed & for 2000 years men were without God & could not know salvation? Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, adulterer & polygamist to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish? The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
I’m sorry you find arguments such as that above to be silly, you’re beginning to sound a little like jasonrae who had a fine time mocking my comments simply because he lacked understanding but ultimately it was his arguments which were found to be lacking in any substance.
I say again, if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!
When you finally see Christ for who He is then you will understand.
One final point, your self appointed prophets do not call men to repentance & when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy? Calling to repentance would appear to be the job of the 50,000 salesmen they send out every year, the purpose of your prophet & leaders is the ac
Cont………
Something else you fail to grasp, why was the Holy Spirit given? I’ll tell you, it was given so that all men could know Christ in a way that was not possible until His ascension. The gift of prophecy is one of several gifts given by the spirit & is still with us, prophets however are not! I’ve tried explaining this to other Mormons & they cannot grasp the simplicity of it all. Why do we need prophets when Christ lives in the heart of every true believer? Do you know who Christ is fightinglee & do you really know him? He is God incarnate; will you now tell me that God came among us, died for us & then proceed to tell us that in the space of few short years His attempt failed & for 2000 years men were without God & could not know salvation? Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, adulterer & polygamist to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish? The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
And finally………..
I’m sorry you find arguments such as that above to be silly, you’re beginning to sound a little like jasonrae who had a fine time mocking my comments simply because he lacked understanding but ultimately it was his arguments which were found to be lacking in any substance.
I say again, if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!
When you finally see Christ for who He is then you will understand.
One final point, your self appointed prophets do not call men to repentance & when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy? Calling to repentance would appear to be the job of the 50,000 salesmen they send out every year, the purpose of your prophet & leaders is the accumulation of money.
Taking his cue from FAIR, Lee writes,
You obviously made the big mistake of believing what a member of FAIR states as truth. Often it is not.
These claims are ridiculous and made with no proof at all. (Notice in this presentation there is no footnotes to back up this part of their argument, only a list of what they CLAIM is fact) One thing that is not brought out in the FAIR article is the court charges. The Pearsall account CORRECTLY lists them. How could she have known this if she just made it up? Also, they are confirmed with an actual historical document that was found, Constable DeZeng’s Bill of Costs for the Examination.
According to The Justice’s Manual in 1825, the charge for a pretrial mittimus is 19 cents, (See Waterman, Thomas Gladsby. The Justice’s Manual: or, A Summary of the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace in the State of New-York. Binghamton, NY: Morgan and Cannoll, 1825. p.199. Also, The Revised Statutes of the State of New-York, 3 vols. Albany, NY: Packard and Van Benthuysen, 1829. 2:749, sec. 1.) suggesting the account was not of a three-Justice “Court of Special Sessions” that would be required for an indictment or verdict.
A pre-trial setting would also make sense according to the Justice of the Peace instructions from 1825, given that JS was examined first and then the witnesses were questioned under oath. The charges for the seven witnesses also indicate a pre-trial hearing, as they include 12½ cents for each witness’ subpoena and oath, totalling 87½ cents. (E.g., Levi Bigelow, 14 January 1825. Chenango County Historical Society, Norwich, NY.)
On the contrary, the charge is 25 cents when a witness is held for a Court of Special Sessions. The 75 cent charge for “Recognisances [sic] of witnesses,” then, could possibly indicate that three of the seven witnesses were selected to remain in custody to testify in a later trial.
The pronouncement of guilty was appropriate if Smith was to be bound over for trial. If, in fact, it was a pre-trial setting, the pronouncement of guilt would not indicate an indictment or verdict, but that a three Justice “Special Court of Sessions” would be held. Regarding pretrial hearings, the Revised Statutes of the State of New York for 1829, for instance, instructs:
This would include misdemeanors as well as felonies, and they would naturally be recorded. An 1820 Ohio statute is even clearer on this matter:
Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That if the judges upon examination find the prisoner guilty of a bailable offence, they shall recognize him or her … and in case the prisoner fails to give security, he or she shall be remanded to jail, and in all cases where the prisoner is found guilty, it shall be the duty of the judges to recognize the witnesses on the part of the state, to appear at the next court of common pleas ..http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp
Thus Neely’s use of the term “guilty” in the record of his preliminary examination of Smith is consistent with early-19th-century terminology.
An entry in Joseph Smith’s journal for 18 December 1843 is also applicable: “After Dinner, Constable Follet returned with Elliot. Trial in the Assembly room for examinatin . [Elliot was] found guilty of Kidnapping and bound over for trial to the Circuit Court in the sum of $3,000” (LDS Church Archives). See also Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols., 2nd ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1948), 6:117.
And although the issues are complicated, there were good reasons to support Neely’s finding Smith guilty of “disorderly conduct” and binding (or recognizing) him and three material witnesses over to the next Court of Special Sessions.
Changed so many times? How? Oliver Cowdery in 1834 wrote of it, but said that Smith was “honorably acquitted” which is a lie. And there ARE original records. There is the docket book entry that says Smith was a “GLASS LOOKER” and that there was a court cost of 2.38. If this was all made up, how do you account for a court cost? Again, FAIR is wrong. Constable Philip DeZeng’s submitted a bill of costs for the examination, and this is what he submitted:
A warrant was served on Smith. 12 Witnesses were subpoenaed. Smith was held over for two days and 1 night. This is an actual document from 1826. Did we make this up? Did the Methodists make this up?
As for Pearsall, no one has proved that she produced a fraudulent document. There are actually supporting accounts that lend credence to her document. W[illiam]. D. Purple, “Joseph Smith, the Originator of Mormonism. Historical Reminiscences of the Town of Afton,” Chenango Union 30 (Norwich, NY, 3 May 1877): 3. Was an eyewitness and trial note taker, Purple recounted the statement of Joseph Smith, Jr., as well as the testimony of Joseph Smith, Sr., Josiah Stowell, and Jonathan Thompson. According to Purple, Smith was arrested as “a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood,” and was ultimately “discharged.” This agrees with what Joel K. Noble, the Colesville Justice before whom Smith would appear in his 1830 trials (which were dismissed because the statue of limitations ran out), who said in a letter,
FAIR tries to downplay Purple’s memory, but even his obituary says it was uncanny:
You have to overcome that hurdle if you want to say this is a “fraud by the Methodists”.
Not really because we have Purple’s and other’s accounts.
Trying to compare Jo Smith to Jesus is ludicrous. Jesus was completely innocent. Jo was indeed a “glass looker”, and was found guilty. There are plenty of other contemporary accounts to verify that he ran around with a company of money diggers deceiving people. Even Martin Harris said so.
Oldman said Will you tell me that God needed to call a mere man, a convicted con man, adulterer & polygamist to do the work that He himself failed to accomplish? The sheer arrogance of your so called prophets in claiming to be needed because God failed is verging on the blasphemous.
I’m pretty sure fglee is aware of this, But I seriously doubt he would be honest enough to say this or quote it for you in response to your question, So I posted it for you.
D and C 135: 3
Thanks Rick, I guess that says it all & no further words from me are needed.
Just so that people don’t get the ridiculous idea that I drop out of the discussion due to an inability to engage others, I would like to clarify that this past week I have had very little time to do anything, but work on my house and I have had very little access to the internet. Considering the speed at which this particular thread progressed I was unable to keep up and thus felt it unreasonable to try to stay in it.
However, I have read that last few quotes, and I would like to make these comments.
” if Christ was who He claimed to be then Joseph Smith could not possibly have been who he claimed to be!”
I all my reading of the Bible I have been convinced that the exact opposite is true. If the Bible is true and all that it declares of Christ and all that it prophecies is true than it proves Joseph Smith to be exactly who he claimed to be.
Now, Rick and Old Man want to claim that this proves that Christ failed, which would be a great blaspheme. The problem is that they do not understand Christ’s work and mission. He did not fail, but won the greatest victory in human history. He completed his work successfully, and then left to other men additional work that needed to be done. This is made clear in the Bible. He made salvation possible, which was the work he set out to do. He did not take the gospel message to all men personally, nor did he ever promise that the church he organized would not fall away.
” prophets do not call men to repentance & when did you last hear any of them hand down a revelation or prophecy?”
Every six months we have a general conference, as well as a Stake conference, in which we hear from the leaders of the church. On every occasion we are called to repentance by these great men, and on every occasion they speak by revelation the words of God. It is in some ways sad that people can’t understand this.
He promised something better. He said, “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
We have Jesus WORD. We keep his word and he promises to be with us. He says nothing about a “church”. The church is the bride of Christ, the body of saints. They never fell away because we have always had His WORD and followed it. Mormons have to say that everyone was so wicked from the time of the death of Jesus apostles to Jo Smith that NO ONE followed his WORD. That is ludicrous.
Shem
“Now, Rick and Old Man want to claim that this proves that Christ failed, which would be a great blaspheme. The problem is that they do not understand Christ’s work and mission. He did not fail, but won the greatest victory in human history. He completed his work successfully”
We’ve had this discussion before & I’m beginning to get a little tired of the continual distortion by Mormons of the things I say,
I did NOT say that Christ failed, why would I say that? By saying that Joseph Smith was needed to carry on Christs work YOU are saying He failed. Is that so hard to understand? You are in effect saying that Christs death was in vain until Joseph Smith came on the scene to put things right! I hate to say this Shem but saying that Rick or myself do not understand Christs work & mission when you so obviously don’t understand yourself is the height of hypocrisy.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Christ warned us that false prophets would arise but never once mentioned or even implied that His work would have to be put on hold for nearly 2000 years until God could send a genuine prophet?
Here’s a quote that explains things far better than I.
“It seems quite plain from a consideration of Acts and 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 that the New Testament gift of prophecy is quite different to the Old Testament conception of ‘prophet’ ……One of the difficulties for us in understanding the conception of prophet in our day is partly due to the fact that the Greek word translated prophet (propheteis) is really much broader than the English word ‘prophet’, which tends to have quite a specific ring. Truthfully, the Greek word can just as easily mean ‘inspired speaker’, or ‘encouraging speaker’, and some of the New Testament references don’t necessarily go beyond that.”
“The great national prophets of Israel and Judah, like Hosea and Isaiah have now gone; their mission concluded with the arrival of the New Covenant. Hebrews 1:1-2 “
Comparing the gift of prophecy to Mormon prophets is like comparing chalk with cheese. If you cannot understand that then don’t claim to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Christ dwells in the hearts of all true believers so what need is there for latter day prophets? You deny the truth of scripture, you deny the testimony of the apostles & you deny the truth of Christs claims when you say that they are needed.
“on every occasion they speak by revelation the words of God. It is in some ways sad that people can’t understand this.”
No comment apart from saying that it’s even sadder that you believe such baloney.