Living by the Scriptures

116 Responses to Living by the Scriptures

1. grindael says:

   March 18, 2013 at 8:21 am

   The same people that brought you the Trinity also brought you many other bible contradictions …

   The same person that brought you an infinite progression of man-gods got his “revelations” from a peep-stone and the ideas of other people:

   Dan Vogel writes,

   “Far from being the passive participant portrayed in his official history, he was an aggressive, ambitious leader among Manchester’s treasure seekers. In addition to locating treasures through the use of mineral rods and seer stones, the Smiths employed various forms of magic in an attempt to dislodge stubborn treasures from the grasp of their guardian spirits. That Joseph Sr.’s personalized and heterodox religious views incorporated folk magic beliefs was something that Lucy did not deny. Evidently aware of the criticism of indolence that was leveled against the treasure seekers, Lucy declared in her preliminary manuscript – “Let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopped our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing magic circles, or soothsaying to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation.” Concerned that her family appeared to be lazy, Lucy nevertheless confirmed that they were involved in treasure searching, magic, and the occult. It was more than Joseph Jr. was willing to admit.” [..] Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith The Making of a Prophet, pages 35-36.

   Joseyism.

   From the Palmyra (N. Y.) Reflector — Printed abo[u]t two miles from Smith’s Bible quarry.

   It is well known that Jo Smith never pretended to have any communion with angels, until after a long period after the pretended finding of his book, and that the juggling of himself or father, went no further than the pretended faculty of seeing wonders in a “peep stone,” and the occasional interview with the spirit, supposed to have the custody of hidden treasures; and it is also equally well known, that a vagabond fortune-teller by the name of Walters, who then resided in the town of Sodus, and was once committed to the jail of this county for juggling, was the constant companion and bosom friend of these money digging impostors.

   There remains but little doubt, in the minds of those at all acquainted with these transactions, that Walters, who was sometimes called the conjurer, and was paid three dollars per day by the money diggers in this neighborhood for his services, first suggested to Smith the idea of finding a book. Walters, the better to carry on his own deception with those ignorant and deluded people who employed him, had procured an old copy of Cicero’s orations, in Latin, out of which he read long and loud to his credulous hearers, uttering at the same time an unintelligible jargon, which he would afterwards pretend to interpret, and explain, as a record of the former inhabitants of America, and a particular account of the numerous situations where they had deposited their treasures previous to their final extirpation.

   So far did this impostor carry this diabolical farce, that not long previous to the pretended discovery of the ‘Book of Mormon,’ Walters assembled his nightly band of money diggers in the town of Manchester, at a point designated in his magical book, and drawing a circle around the laborers, with the point of an old rusty sword, and using sundry other incantations, for the purpose of propitiating the spirit, absolutely sacrificed a fowl, (Rooster) in the presence of his awe-stricken companions, to the foul spirit, whom ignorance had created, the guardian of hidden wealth; and after digging until daylight, his deluded employers retired to their several habitations, fatigued and disappointed. Abner Cole, The Painesville Telegraph, Tuesday, March 8, 1831.

   “According to other Palmyra neighbors,” writes D. Michael Quinn,

   “the Smith family first organized their neighbors to hunt for treasure in early 1820 (Tucker 1867, 20-21; McIntosh 1877, 150; Joshua Stafford 1833, 258), and Chase’s affidavit implied that “money digging” was the basis of Chase’s initial association with the Smiths in 1820. Furthermore, during Chase’s expeditions with his sister Sally, Alvin Smith served as a digging companion. Chase’s brother-in-law remembered: “Well I will tell you they did dig; Willard Chase & Alvin, the one that died; they dug before Alvin died [in 1823]. Willard Chase told me about a place; He said he & Alvin Smith went there to dig & there was a chest there; and he said it was so long, & so wide (measuring with a cane). It was an iron chest. And he said they dug down & it only lay a little under the ground. Willard Chase claimed his Sister Sally had a peep stone” (L. Saunders 1884c, 9). Finally, it was no coincidence that Willard Chase and Alvin Smith were digging on the Chase property in 1822 while another village seer, Joseph [p.43] Smith, Jr., looked on. Lorenzo Saunders discussed this incident with his brothers-in-law Willard and Edmund Chase, and learned that when Joseph Smith discovered his brown seer stone during this excavation on the Chase property, the well was an afterthought: “They dug that hole for money. Chases & Smiths altogether was digging it” (1884c, 9). 9). [..] D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.43

   Presidet Young also said that the seer stone which Joseph Smith first obtained He got in an Iron kettle 15 feet under ground. He saw it while looking in another seers stone which a person had. He went right to the spot & dug & found it. [..] Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 383, September 11, 1859.

   The stone that Jo looked into to find his first peep-stone belonged to Sally Chase, notorious for her occult practices and scrying.
2. grindael says:

   March 18, 2013 at 8:43 am

   Lucy Smith had always been attracted by formal religion, and more, perhaps, than anyone in her family, she was stirred by the awakening. Being, as her son William says, “a very pious woman and much interested in the welfare of her children, both here and hereafter, [she] made use of every means which her parental love could suggest, to get us engaged in seeking for our souls’ salvation.…She prevailed on us to attend the meetings, and almost the whole family became interested in the matter.” It was to the Presbyterian church, the oldest and the most numerous in Palmyra, that Lucy and the elder children were drawn. Unfortunately, it was the minister of this denomination, the Reverend Benjamin B. Stockton, who had preached Alvin’s funeral sermon a year or so before and been so intemperate in his language as to intimate strongly that Alvin, not being a church member, had gone to hell. This had enraged the elder Joseph, and though Lucy says that to gratify her he attended two or three meetings, he then “peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person’s.”

   Whether because he shared his father’s feeling or because he had been deeply impressed by the Methodist circuit rider, Joseph also resisted the general movement of his family into the Presbyterian fold. There is no doubt that he had been aroused under Lane’s preaching to “look about him for safety”; it is to Lane that Oliver Cowdery, speaking for Joseph, accorded the credit for the providence that his mind “became awakened.” Joseph himself says that he “became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect,” and “felt some desire to be united with them.”

   In this general chorus of agreement the non-Mormon sources join. Orasmus Turner remarks that Joseph caught “a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road,” to the point of becoming a passable exhorter in the evening meetings, while Pomeroy Tucker says that Joseph went so far as to join the probationary class of the Methodist church and make some active demonstrations of engagedness, though his convictions were “insufficiently grounded or abiding to carry him along to the saving point of conversion,” and he soon withdrew.

   Tucker’s further remark, that the final conclusion announced by Joseph was that “all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on a false foundation, and the Bible a fable,” may be received as gratuitous, but there is nothing inherently improbable in it. Within a few years after 1825 Joseph was apologizing for his “former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation,” and his skeptical cast of mind is evidenced as well by the fact that he was finally converted to no church as by a conversation his mother’s memory preserved. When she persisted with him on the subject of religion, he said to her, “Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family’s; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time.”

   The exact date Joseph turned his back on the high promise the revivals had held out to him can only be guessed, but most probably by the early summer of 1825 he had withdrawn altogether from the embrace of the Methodist church. When he went off to the Susquehanna country that fall, he could take up his glass-looking again with an untroubled heart.

   Joseph had not easily been persuaded to yield up the details by which the integrity of his account of himself may be appraised. To importunate followers in 1831 he said shortly that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient” for him to relate these things. Joseph would best have held to that ground. The progressive enlargement of his story, climaxed finally in the breathtaking vision of the Father and the Son, involved him in difficulties that ended by setting reality at complete defiance. He committed himself very early to the thesis that he had been visited by an angel in 1827. When Joseph shifted his ground in 1834-35, drawing upon the troubled emotions of the revivals to give verisimilitude to his account of his visions, the revival of 1824-25 was wrenched out of its proper context and dated back to 1823, for it was logically impossible that Joseph’s awakening to religion should have been delayed for months after the Angel Moroni appeared to him. From this position it was only a step to the final ground he occupied, the revival moved back in time three more years, and his sanction found in the Father and the Son themselves.

   How is it possible that Joseph’s followers accepted all that he chose to tell them, never doubting, deaf to inconsistency and blind to impossibility? A Mormon authority has given an answer of a kind: “Our fathers and our people in the past and now, were and are uncritical. They have been and are now—and to their honor be it said—more concerned with the fact of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and the great work it introduced than [with] the modus operandi of its translation. Overwhelmed by a divine testimony of its truth they have paid little attention to the precise manner by which it was brought forth.” It was emotionally impossible for the Saints to challenge the integrity of their prophet, in the matter of his early life or anything he chose to tell them. If deceived in anything, it might be that they were deceived in everything. The whole power and discipline of their faith conditioned them to belief. Yet their own responsibility in the make of their prophet, in the proliferation of his legend, is not to be dismissed. Their hunger for miracle, their thirst for the marvelous, their lust for assurance that they were God’s chosen people, to be preserved on the great and terrible day, made them, hardly less than Joseph, the authors of his history. His questionable responsibility is the faithful image of their own. [..] John Phillip Walker, Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism, p.258-260.

   The Western Farmer 1 (23 Jan. 1822): 3, Palmyra, New York, contained the following: ”

   NOTICE. The young people of the village of Palmyra and its vicinity are requested to attend a Debating school at the school house near Mr. Billings’ on Friday next.” Notice dated 19 Jan. 1822.

   Jo caught his “spark of Methodism” in 1822, after he joined the juvenile debating club in January of that year. There was no “vision” in 1820.
3. oceancoast says:

   March 18, 2013 at 10:53 am

   jaxi,

   I feel, as many others do, that the Trinity is pretty clear what God is and is not. What we are unsure of is more of the how he is.

   More word games what versus how?

   The God to Orthodoxy is the same as the God to the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and many other Protestant Churches.

   And unless you believe there is more than one God then it’s the same God of LDS. We seem to argue about semantics on how the Godhead is unified and yet the persons are distinct.

   The God of Orthodoxy is not nature or substance. The nature is the uniting factor. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same will, so yes it is a God of one will and three distinct persons or consciousness.

   Now here’s where you’re waffling on the definition..understandably since the Trinity doctrine is paradoxical.. You originally said God was one only in nature which would not be very different than LDS point of view, but now you adding a singular will, which in essence would mean the it would also have a singular conscience, as I can’t think of a way you can have a will without conscience. Therefore I hear you now saying God is a singular being with will and conscience. Yet you are also saying it’s three distinct persons (beings) and consciousness which is logically impossible.. The paradox emerges.

   So the distinction of the LDS Godhead would be that as we agree the Three are separate and distinct personas, with distinct conscience and will, sharing divine nature, we don’t attempt to say the Three are ONE singular being with will and conscience, but yet the act in unity as ONE being through the principal of Divine Investiture”. The Godhead then is the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit and for all practical purposes are ONE, but no paradox.

   You need to get over putting God in a box. The creation will never fully understand its creator.

   I’m not putting God in a box. I’m simply exposing the paradoxical nature of the Trinity Dogma.
   It’s really not a big deal for me as I said before.. I still view my dear friends who believe the Trinity doctrine as “Christian”, and they view me as Christian as well.. It’s the those like MRM and other ministries that propagate the notion that even though LDS a very much followers of Christ by any objective measure, LDS aren’t ‘Christian’ because they don’t affirm the Trinity dogma. Which to me is nothing more than some here hypocritically holding on to ancient Roman empirical (Not Christ like) discrimination against those who don’t conform to the Orthodoxy.

   We don’t have a where God came from because the Christian God is without end and without beginning. He has existed for all eternity. There has never been a time without God. He is outside time. He is outside of the linear time frame.

   This is because you introduce an “infinity” into your concept of God. What has happened since biblical times is the concept of what “Eternal” means has evolved to involve an infinity. LDS also believe very much the same.. God is Eternal, and the Eternal realm where God came from is quite possibly a different space/time, not of this universe as we know.. Therefore he is without beginning and without end as relative to the space/time of the universe we exist in.. What we don’t do is insert an “infinity” into meaning of Eternal or the nature of God. And such an approach would be consistent with the Biblical text, and the context in which they Biblical writers would have written it.

   If you haven’t read C.S. Lewis, Mere Cristianity, please do.

   I have the book and read it a long time ago.. C.S. Lewis is known for having views very similar to LDS BTW and is often cited by LDS.
4. oceancoast says:

   March 18, 2013 at 10:56 am

   I feel, as many others do, that the Trinity is pretty clear what God is and is not. What we are unsure of is more of the how he is.

   More word games what versus how?

   The God to Orthodoxy is the same as the God to the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and many other Protestant Churches.

   And unless you believe there is more than one God then it’s the same God of LDS. We seem to argue about semantics on how the Godhead is unified and yet the persons are distinct.

   The God of Orthodoxy is not nature or substance. The nature is the uniting factor. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same will, so yes it is a God of one will and three distinct persons or consciousness.

   Now here’s where you’re waffling on the definition..understandably since the Trinity doctrine is paradoxical.. You originally said God was one only in nature which would not be very different than LDS point of view, but now you adding a singular will, which in essence would mean the it would also have a singular conscience, as I can’t think of a way you can have a will without a conscience. Therefore I hear you now saying God is a singular being with will and conscience. Yet you are also saying it’s three distinct persons (beings) and consciousness which is logically impossible.. The paradox emerges.

   So the distinction of the LDS Godhead would be that as we agree the Three are separate and distinct personas, with distinct conscience and will, sharing divine nature, we don’t attempt to say the Three are ONE singular being with will and conscience, but yet the act in unity as ONE being through the principal of Divine Investiture”. The Godhead then is the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit and for all practical purposes are ONE, but no paradox.

   You need to get over putting God in a box. The creation will never fully understand its creator.

   I’m not putting God in a box. I’m simply exposing the paradoxical nature of the Trinity Dogma.

   It’s really not a big deal for me as I said before.. I still view my dear friends who believe the Trinity doctrine as “Christian”, and they view me as Christian as well.. It’s the those like MRM and other ministries that propagate the notion that even though LDS a very much followers of Christ by any objective measure, LDS aren’t ‘Christian’ because they don’t affirm the Trinity dogma. Which to me is nothing more than some here hypocritically holding on to ancient Roman empirical (Not Christ like) discrimination against those who don’t conform to the Orthodoxy.

   We don’t have a where God came from because the Christian God is without end and without beginning. He has existed for all eternity. There has never been a time without God. He is outside time. He is outside of the linear time frame.

   This is because you introduce an “infinity” into your concept of God. What has happened since biblical times is the concept of what “Eternal” means has evolved to involve an infinity. LDS also believe very much the same.. God is Eternal, and the Eternal realm where God came from is quite possibly a different space/time, not of this universe as we know.. Therefore he is without beginning and without end as relative to the space/time of the universe we exist in.. What we don’t do is insert an “infinity” into meaning of Eternal or the nature of God. And such an approach would be consistent with the Biblical text, and the context in which they Biblical writers would have written it.

   If you haven’t read C.S. Lewis, Mere Cristianity, please do.

   I have the book and read it a long time ago.. C.S. Lewis is known for having views very similar to LDS BTW and is often cited by LDS.
5. jaxi says:

   March 18, 2013 at 11:39 am

   I’m really done with this topic so this will be my last comment.

   <"You originally said God was one only in nature which would not be very different than LDS point of view, but now you adding a singular will, which in essence would mean the it would also have a singular conscience, as I can’t think of a way you can have a will without a conscience."

   I'm sorry that you can't grasp the difference between will and conscience. As I have stated before to be with God we will all have to give up our independent will and all have the same will but we will be distinct persons. Will is intent and desire. When I say conscience I am talking about your distinct inner voice.

   Yes, Christianity is a paradox. Not just the Trinity, but the whole thing. Just because it's a paradox that can't be explained with the limited capability of human brains doesn't mean its not true. As we have covered, Mormonism is not immune to paradox. Maybe the Godhead in LDS terms isn't a paradox to you but the whole reason on why the LDS is a god to begin with is a paradox. I'm not sure your argument against the Trinity favors LDS theory. Both end in paradox!

   <"I’m not putting God in a box. I’m simply exposing the paradoxical nature of the Trinity Dogma."

   Yes you are, you only want to believe what you can explain. You limit God by your own limitation. And again, Mormonism isn't free of paradox.

   <"More word games what versus how?"

   Word games? You never learned the difference between the word "what" and the word "how?" I can say I know what a car is but not how it works.

   <"This is because you introduce an “infinity” into your concept of God. What has happened since biblical times is the concept of what “Eternal” means has evolved to involve an infinity."

   I'm not buying your whole infinity and eternal argument and I'm not sure many others are as well. "Without measure," to me means infinity. The definition wasn't "not able to be measured by human means." If it can't be measured by anything, even God, it's infinite. God being infinite is one of the beauties of Christianity. Just because I can't understand infinity doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

   <"I have the book and read it a long time ago.. C.S. Lewis is known for having views very similar to LDS BTW and is often cited by LDS."

   These views he has are Christian views, not unique to Mormonism. He wasn't preaching a different gospel with new ideas, he was preaching Christianity. If you like some of his ideas, realize they were and are still with Christianity to this day. I recommend him because of his description of the Trinity. You might need to reread him because a lot of the things you bring up, he talks about. You keep thinking I am misrepresenting something. Read it from his book and tell me if I'm saying different. But on a different post, cause like I said, I'm done commenting here.
6. jaxi says:

   March 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm

   Sorry, I meant to say this as well in the last post. Just in case someone says Christianity isn’t a paradox. Explain the inner working of the atonement. Not just an overview on what happens but the very inner workings of the whole thing. I feel like these are the type of questions Mormons bring against the Trinity. We can tell you what but can’t go into the very details so that it is all perfectly clear. If anyone says they perfectly understand the atonement, I think they are lying to themselves. Just as I don’t totally understand the atonement, I don’t perfectly understand God. But even though I am without a perfect understanding, the reality of the two does not change.

   Now that’s my last comment 🙂
7. Old man says:

   March 18, 2013 at 12:31 pm

   Oceancoast

   Why do you continue with this ridiculous debate, I get the impression that it is far easier for you come up with fascinating, albeit at times rather ridiculous theories than to answer the simple comments I have put to you several times. If you continue to ignore what I have said or fail to come up with a coherent reason as to why I am wrong then you are wasting your time & everyone elses. You claim to be Christian yet you reduce our God to the status of the LDS god/man by your constant need to show everyone that the Trinity doctrine is false. You are in effect telling us that no matter what God says about Himself it can’t be true because you can’t understand it. Your attitude is very similar to the atheists who have come to me over the years saying that such & such cannot be true because it doesn’t make sense to them. Such arrogance from a man who claims to know God! You seem unable to grasp the fact that God is beyond our understanding. I’m tired of seeing arguments about singularities or black holes, I’m tired of reading that eternal or infinity mean this or it means that.
   Just answer a couple of very simple question & let’s be done with it yes or no will suffice.
   Do you know & understand God in a much deeper way than any Christian who has ever lived?
   Do you believe that your intelligence carries greater weight than Gods word?
8. oceancoast says:

   March 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm

   OldMan,

   Why do you continue with this ridiculous debate,

   Ridiculous? The only thing ridiculous is the Trinity Dogma, and the practice of using it as a means of pejoratively discriminating against various Christian faiths as is done here a MRM to claim they can’t be called Christian because they don’t agree with the doctrine.. That’s what’s ridiculous.
9. Old man says:

   March 18, 2013 at 2:33 pm

   Oceancoast

   Yes, I said ridiculous, your intention is to deride & disprove the nature of God as revealed in scripture, you attempt to use human reason to disprove the divine & that makes it ridiculous. Rather than responding to my argument you avoid mentioning it at all, typical LDS evasion tactics. You will make a much better impression if you, rather than using “long words”, just answer the questions, yes or no.

   Ps. All Christian faiths accept the doctrine of the Trinity so I can only assume that you’re telling us you’re not a Christian.
10. Mike R says:

    March 18, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Jaxi, great job in trying to explain the complexities of the Trinity , this is not easy , especially
    since our Creator above is so much greater than a mere human “exalted” male .

    Ocean , I think that Old Man is onto something . Much of what you have said is ridiculous .
    I think this might help:
    The only thing ridiculous is the Mormon trinity dogma and the teaching of using it as a gauge
    of pejoratively discriminating against others who claim to be christian, as is done by Mormon
    authorities to claim that these people are’nt true christians and they constitute part of the
    church of the Devil because they won’t accept the authority of the men who invented the dogma.
11. Rick B says:

    March 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Jaxi and oldman,
    Ocean by his own words has been busted and exposed as a lair and fraud, it is no wonder he cannot answer any questions.
12. oceancoast says:

    March 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    Mike R,

    Ocean , I think that Old Man is onto something

    The only thing he appears to me to be on to is his own delusion driven by emotive antipathy against the LDS faith and he seems to have like minded individuals in his cheering section.

    The only thing ridiculous is the Mormon trinity dogma and the teaching of using it as a gauge of pejoratively discriminating against others who claim to be christian, as is done by Mormon authorities to claim that these people are’nt true christians and they constitute part of the church of the Devil because they won’t accept the authority of the men who invented the dogma.,

    In deed the forgoing is ridiculous, since there is no such thing as “Mormon trinity dogma” and NOr do Mormon’s claim other Christians are not Christians and belong the church of the devil. So indeed you statement is ridiculous.
13. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    March 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    This thread has run its course. I will be closing comments here in the morning. Pease wrap it up, friends.
14. Mike R says:

    March 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    Ocean, yet again you are wrong . You have racked up a display of innuendo’s , half truths ,
    and faulty assumptions in your responses here . Mormonism does have it’s own trinity dogma.
    Perhaps this is uncomfortable for you to admit to this fact , but then you are not the authority
    for doctrine in your religion —your apostles are , so your refusal to admit what I have said
    about this issue amounts to very little . It’s no surprise that you are also mistaken in your
    reply about what Mormon authorities have said about others who claim to be Christians.
    Testimony such as saying that Mormons are the only true christians has come from the pen
    of some prominent Mormon authorities . Since Mormons are the actual true followers of Jesus
    the true christians today , then Mormon leaders needed to relegate all others to be in one of
    only two churches because they have said that since 1830 there are only two churches now :
    1. The Mormon church , 2. the church of the Devil. All this ” discriminatory ” teaching is
    Mormon doctrine . Now you can do whatever you wish with this information, but don’t add to
    your list of errors by denying it .
15. Old man says:

    March 19, 2013 at 3:40 am

    Oceancoast

    Even more meaningless long words instead of simple yes or no answers.
16. Old man says:

    March 19, 2013 at 4:15 am

    Oceancoast

    Just to let you know, the “emotive antipathy” expression you use is nothing of the kind, certainly I loath your false religion but emotion doesn’t come into it. It might be better if you used an expression such as antipathy based on cold hard facts.

Comments are closed.