SVG version available here
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Kate
You have yet to offer any proof of anything you have said in this thread. You give a list and assume that it is sufficient to prove your point, and it isn’t.
Despite your accusations I know these events, and I know the true history behind them, as I do not rely on those obviously biased against the church for my information.
“Mormons weren’t the innocents that your church has portrayed them to be.”
Are you speaking collectively, as a church, individually, or in some other manner? As a church organization, yes it was innocent, as the church never condoned these actions. As individual members, most were innocent, though some were not. As a collective body of people (not the organization of the church, but the people as a body) they were also innocent, and sought every legal way to address and resolve the conflicts.
Again, you show an inaccurate picture of history in your attempt to downplay the persecution of the saints at this time.
Spartacus
You said “What is the point of a prophet but to have clear communication from God?”
Actually, Brigham Young did say something to this effect, though it was a few years later, after the the saints had moved to Utah and the RLDS had the JST published themselves. I do not have the time to hunt down the quote right now.
However, I never said I wasn’t assuming something. I said that you were also assuming something. Your assumption is that if we do not have in our possession a statement to the effect given than it is more logical to assume that such a statement was never given. I make no comment on who is more logical, only on the fact that in truth, neither point can be proven and so to argue either is pointless.
Of course, God also said “I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.” (D&C 58: 32-33). God is here setting down the principle by which he works. In speaking of the Temple in Missouri he was confirming this principle, comforting those who felt they had failed in their work. When he revokes and the promised blessings do not come because of disobedience, he still accepts the work of the obedient and they are thus justified in ending their labors.
No, I cannot prove that God did this. But as this is how he works, as declared by him, I can assume, and be justified in that assumption, that he did, until proof is offered to the contrary.
You said “Your reasoning so far has been based on the excuse of “enemies” hindering completely obedient followers (JS with the JST and Mo Temple), not the disobedient choices of those commanded (the Israelites).”
This is wrong. In my last post to you I specifically said “but due to internal disobedience and external persecution the work was not completed.” This means that I have included both internal and external forces in my argument. In D&C 124: 29 it speaks of “their enemies” hindering the work. It does not specify who these enemies are. In the case of Israel the enemies were from within; those who were disobedient. In the case of the Latter Day Saints the enemies were both internal and external. It was because on internal disobedience that the external forces were allowed to hinder the work.
“and obedient” this is where your assumption is wrong. The saints have not always been obedient. Yes, I would say the majority have striven to live by the commands of God, but internal dissension and disobedience has been present from the beginning, and thus have hindered the work.
“we only have Joseph doing the translation assumedly obediently and him getting killed by enemies.”
Again you are wrong. There were also a few called to act as scribes, and William Law was commanded to use his money to support the cause and get the printing finished (D&C 124: 88-89). There were a number of people involved in this work. The main reason it wasn’t published was because people were unwilling to give money to the work, which would have cost a bit of money.
You said “Your replies throughout this discussion have not even entertained this possibility – that God empowers His (obedient) followers to do His Will. But why doesn’t Heavenly Father backup those who follow him? Why isn’t Heavenly Father faithful to those who are faithful to him? Why deny the power of God?”
I don’t. I simply don’t think that everyone was faithful, as I have pointed out. God will empower his faithful followers, but he will not empower the unfaithful. The problem with everything you say is that you assume that everything was dependent on the faith of one man – i.e. Joseph Smith. The faith and obedience of all the saints were required, and when groups became disobedient they caused God to withdraw his complete support. Joseph Smith himself, on more than one occasion, told the saints that if they did not repent the promised blessings would not be realized. He told this to the men of Zion’s Camp, and the promise that Zion would be redeemed was not fulfilled, because there was too much unbelief and disobedience among those men.
Joseph Smith, though he suffered many trials, was greatly blessed.
So, if we stop assuming that everything was rosy among the saints and face the reality that it was through unbelief and disobedience on the part of many members that the blessings were not realized we can then start to see the workings of God.
Typical Mormon Bubble talk. Blame it on everyone else besides Jo Smith. You know NOTHING about William Law. Here is something (perhaps where you got your idea from) From lds.org:
Unfortunately, one must look at the date and circumstance of this. This was at a council meeting held on January 3, 1844 that was convened specifically to get to the bottom of this, because it was found out that CARN LIED:
So lds.org is LYING about this whole incident! This is how the Mormon Bubble works folks. Plus, if you read further in the Article, you will read,
So Jo gave Law a “commandment” that he could not fulfill because Jo himself did not have the translation “ready for printing”. Jo was simply putting off on someone else, what he didn’t want to do himself. The FACT is, Jo was “commanded” to publish the “New Translation” years earlier, but never did. He had plenty of money in Nauvoo. He was building a HUGE MANSION HOUSE which he lived in. He had many of his wives staying there. He had access to all the tithing in the church and had plenty of money and resources to publish this. He had plenty of land in Emma’s name that he transferred to her, (declaring bankruptcy) because of his MASSIVE DEBTS from Ohio.
What “unbelief and disobedience”? Some petty squabbling along the way? LOL. Please list for us ALL OF THE THINGS they did that were “disobedient”. Two or three hundred men marched a thousand miles and were “disobedient”? The “saints” did everything Jo asked them to. It was JO who messed everything up. It was Jo who said the “Lord” would fight their battles and send a “destroyer” and then made them all “march to Zion” to take it by force. No, this is all on Jo. The HISTORY proves it so.
Thank you for the conversation Shematwater, for brevity and ease of communication I will limit my responses to this part of your last post:
Shem:
I simply don’t think that everyone was faithful, as I have pointed out. God will empower his faithful followers, but he will not empower the unfaithful. The problem with everything you say is that you assume that everything was dependent on the faith of one man – i.e. Joseph Smith. The faith and obedience of all the saints were required, and when groups became disobedient they caused God to withdraw his complete support.
My response: Shem if something as pure and independently important (in themselves) and generally blessing (to all generations not just the one living at the time) as the Temple of Zion and the restored word of God – the JST can be hindered because “The faith and obedience of all the saints were required” then NOTHING would ever get done. Or do you think everyone involved in the restoration of the word of God – the Book of Mormon – and the construction of later Temples “was faithful”? If “God will empower his faithful followers, but he will not empower the unfaithful.”, then things should get done. That’s it, plain and simple. But if “everyone” has to be “faithful” then nothing will ever get done.
You said things about withholding blessings to the generation a command is given to because of that generation’s disobedience or incomplete faithfulness, but what about the following generations that could have been blessed by the Zion Temple and the restored Bible?
What I am intrigued by are the following:
-Your expressed statement that not all LDS at the time were faithful and obedient, so that is the reason why things didn’t get done. Because that seems to give a universal answer to any negative evidence against the LDS church. It’s like with spiritualist scams where “you have to have enough faith” or “you have to believe without doubt” or else all promises are off. It’s not that the spiritual guide is a phony, but the customer’s lack of faith, that led to the negative evidence.
-Your apparent assumption that God wants to inexplicably delay the Zion Temple and the JST for an indeterminant amount of time.
Let’s look at it with the basics:
-The JST was commanded to be made – with multiple reiterations of the command and more specific and chronologically dependent subcommandments (like building the press for publication) to multiple people for all steps.
-Joseph died, no mention of anything about the JST except reasons/excuses – Joseph didn’t finish, that’s why we haven’t published/used only the JST for the Bible
That is why I focus on JS, because the LDS focus on JS’s death as the reason for the the JST not being finished. Given that excuse, there is no excuse, because the LDS church has a person with the mantle of JS – Monson, and plenty of resources and, assumedly, people willing – to publish.
The people are there, the supposed power is there, but the fruit – the word of God restored and the First Temple of Zion – is not. Why? Because of unfaithful people? Then nothing should ever have been done. Because God has another time in mind – despite all indications that it should have been done then, or at least as soon as possible? Then there is never a deadline for any command of God ever. In the end, then, there seems only to be a universal excuse – unfaithfulness, and an infinite vagueness – God’s timing.
bad weather, got to go, May You all Be Blessed with what God has already Given
Spartacus
I am also thankful for the conversation, especially the tone which is very respectful. I understand what you are saying, and let me see if I can answer it.
First, you said “If “God will empower his faithful followers, but he will not empower the unfaithful.”, then things should get done. That’s it, plain and simple. But if “everyone” has to be “faithful” then nothing will ever get done.”
Again go back to the story of Israel driving out the inhabitants of Canaan. You yourself admit that it didn’t happen because the Israelites were not completely faithful. Yet it was partly done, in the fact that they did establish themselves as a nation is a large part of that country. However, despite the righteousness of leaders like Joshua and Caleb, the final work was not done. Thus we see that things can be done in part, and yet not completed, which most frequently happens when there is a mixing of the faithful and the unfaithful.
Let us compare this to the JST. Joseph Smith was only commanded to translate. This he was faithful in, and this he completed. The work of publishing was given to others, and they were less faithful. Thus, just like with the Israelites, we see and partial completing of the given command. Because there were faithful the work was done in part; but because there were also unfaithful it was not completed.
You then said “what about the following generations that could have been blessed by the Zion Temple and the restored Bible?”
We have been so blessed. Almost all the blessings that would have come from the temple in Zion have come through the construction of other temples; such as the Nauvoo Temple, Salt Lake, and the nearly 140 other temples that have been built and bless the lives of countless faithful men and women. The only blessing that hasn’t come is the actual establishment of Zion, and that is because we, as a church, are still not ready. It will come when the time is right.
We also have been given great blessings from the JST. Many of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were the result of the translation and we do have access to all the corrections that Joseph made. We are lacking in no blessing that would have come. They have simply come in different ways.
As to intriguing you, you say “Because that seems to give a universal answer to any negative evidence against the LDS church.”
Yep, and this is stated directly in the scriptures. D&C 58: 30-33
“Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?
Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.”
D&C 82: 10
“I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”
D&C 130: 20-21
“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”
I know that many use this concept to hide their lies and scams, but the reason it is effective is because it is a true principle.
If I tell my son that he will get an ice cream when he cleans his room and he doesn’t clean it, he doesn’t get the ice cream. If he then tries to claim that I have not fulfilled my promise he is lying.
The same thing is true of God. All his promises as contingent on our obedience. If we are not obedient than we will not receive the promised blessing; but that is no proof that the command was not from God.
You say “assumption that God wants to inexplicably delay”
First, I make no such assumption. I believe firmly that God wants us to have that temple built in Zion and that he wants us to have all his words in their original perfect state. But God will not give that which is holy to the dogs, so until we are ready for such we will not receive them. I am speaking of the church and of the world. Within the church there is still much wickedness that must be rooted out. But see how the world treats the Book of Mormon and the JST, as well as the rest of the word of God that he has already given them. Why should anyone expect God to give more when the church has difficulty with what it has and the world shows almost complete hostility against it?
You said “That is why I focus on JS, because the LDS focus on JS’s death as the reason for the the JST not being finished.”
I don’t know about others, but my focus is not on the death of Joseph Smith in this case. My focus is the behavior of descenters and non-members; which behavior led to both the death of Joseph Smith and the unfinished work of translation. These are two different results from the same cause.
“Given that excuse, there is no excuse, because the LDS church has a person with the mantle of JS – Monson, and plenty of resources and, assumedly, people willing – to publish.”
While this is true, Thomas Monson is not the Prophet of the Restoration. Joseph Smith had the unique calling of restoring the Gospel in its fulness. This is why he felt rushed in the last years of his life, because he knew he was going to die soon and that he still had much that he needed to restore. As such, while Thomas S. Monson has the keys, he may not have been given authority to use them.
Numbers 27: 18, 20
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him…And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.”
Just as Joshua only received some of the authority that Moses had, I do believe that the presidents that came after Joseph Smith received only some of the authority he had.
This is why you can’t trust what Mormons say, because they speak about the church from their own individual bubbles of made up beliefs. Shem here, is always claiming that the critics “twist” things, don’t understand things, and that we don’t know Mormon doctrine. Well, with this statement folks, Shem has proved that it is he that does not. Here is why, and you can believe Shem…. or you can believe lds.org which says something completely different:
Mormonism teaches that Jo laid the foundation and that other “prophets” would have to complete it. That is what is on lds.org. Spartacus has the right of it, Shem is still living in his fantasy bubble and making it up as he goes along. Lurkers, you can’t trust a single thing that Shem is saying.
Shem just called the collective Mormon Church “dogs”. Wow. Do you want to join this church, lurkers?
“As such, while Thomas S. Monson has the keys, he may not have been given authority to use them.”
Floored. Just floored. I have said before that I don’t recognize Shem’s Mormonism. I have NEVER heard anything so blasphemous to a Mormon than this statement. I wonder what Thomas Monson would say to this? Let’s look at what a LDS apostle has to say about the keys:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2008/04/the-twelve?lang=eng
“President Monson was specifically given the authority to exercise all of the priesthood keys of authority. Now, as the scriptures provide, he is the only man on the earth who has the right to exercise all of the keys.”
“In Peter’s hand, depicted in marble, is a set of heavy keys. President Kimball pointed to those keys and explained what they symbolized. Then, in an act I shall never forget, he turned to President Benthin and with unaccustomed firmness pointed his finger at him and said, “I want you to tell everyone in Denmark that I hold the keys! We hold the real keys, and we use them every day.”
According to a LDS apostle, as seen on LDS.org, Thomas Monson has the right to exercise ALL the keys. It amazes me how the Mormons who post here will twist or spin absolutely ANYTHING instead of admitting they are wrong or Mormonism is wrong.
[Deleted by the moderators]
First, I said “As such, while Thomas S. Monson has the keys, he may not have been given authority to use them.”
Now, this is a little misleading. Rather than saying authority I should have said calling. He has the keys, as I have stated here, despite Grindael’s attempt to say otherwise. He also does have authority to use all the keys. However, just as the president has the authority to solemnize plural marriages, he does not do so without the direct approval of God. So, while Monson has this authority, until he is called to do so, or commanded to do so, he cannot exercise that authority. That is what I was speaking of, and I apologize for any confusion.
While President Monson holds these keys, it is my opinion that God has not yet permitted him to exercise them in completing the JST.
Oh, and my comment about dogs was including all people currently living on the earth. I do include many LDS members in this, but I do not speak of the church as an organization or of all members. I speak to those who seek to deny the words of God, or twist it to fit their own philosophies. When I speak of the world I do not speak of those who are respectful of Gods word, but those who hold it open contempt and come out in open and deliberate hostility against it. Those people that fit either of these categories are prevalent enough for God to hold back the rest of his word, refusing to expose those sacred writings to the vile slanders of the unfaithful.
Shem said,
Here he is very CLEAR, that Monson is NOT the “prophet of the restoration”. He then says that while Monson had the keys he may not have been given the “authority” to use them.
Then Shem says,
This, of course as I pointed out is NOT what Mormonism teaches:
The President of the Church does have “authority” to use all of those keys. That is why he is the President of the Church. As we read on lds.org:
The President of the Church, therefore, is the only man on earth who has the power to exercise all of the keys of the priesthood (see D&C 132:7). There is no caveat given with this.
So how is Shem’s argument cogent? It is not. He then tries to backpedal:
“Grindael” did NOT say otherwise, you did. Keys are authority. You just didn’t think anyone would catch you on it.
That is ridiculous. He already has “direct approval” by having the authority confirmed on him. It only says in the D&C that he cannot exercise them in “unrighteousness”.
You are making this up. He already has the keys and authority to do so.
This is only your convenient “opinion” because no one has done any “translating” for almost 200 years.
Unfortunately Shem’s scenario does not apply here, because GOD did not give a direct commandment (like in polygamy) NOT to practice it. He, in fact, gave a commandment to finish the translation and publish it. This then, would still be a standing commandment to any future holder of the keys. (Like building temples, etc.) Shem here, was just wrong. He is still wrong, and doesn’t understand the doctrines of his own church.
Shem,
Did you miss the part where President Kimball said to tell the Danish people that he has the real keys and they use them everyday? He didn’t say that they have the keys but they only use them when God commands them to do so and even then they only use some but not others. He says they use them everyday. Nice backtracking on the “authority” you claimed Pres. Monson doesn’t have.
“While President Monson holds these keys, it is my opinion that God has not yet permitted him to exercise them in completing the JST.”
And here’s the million dollar statement…. “In MY opinion…… Your opinion doesn’t match the teachings and doctrines of your church and your church would never back you up on anything you say because it’s just your “opinion” and not official.
First of all, despite what Kate and Grindael try to claim, having the Keys and having the Authority to use them is not the same thing. If you had any knowledge of the gospel you would know that everyone who has been ordained a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood holds every key that ever existed or was ever given to man on this earth. My father is a High Priest, and so he holds every key that President Monson holds. Keys and authority are not the same thing.
Second, I have realized where the confusion has come from. We are confusing priesthood keys and authority with gifts of the Spirit, which are two very different things. I am just as guilty of this, and I apologize. The interpretation of tongues, or the translating of records, is a gift of the spirit. Joseph Smith had this gift as part of his calling to restore the gospel. He exercised it on many occasions. Oliver Cowdry sought this gift, but was denied it due to unbelief at the time.
Now, I do not know every reason why things are done, but I do hold the opinion that God has not called any president since Joseph Smith to translate ancient records, and thus has not given this gift to them. The reasons behind this may be complex, or as simple as the fact that the LDS doesn’t hold the copyright on the material, and we seek to obey the law at all times.
I will admit that this is back tracking. But if we can’t backtrack when we have realized our mistake than discussion is useless. Now, I gave the original answer to Spartacus, and I would be happy to discuss this farther with him. However, I doubt I will respond to anyone else on this thread unless they are more civil in their manners.
You just love to make things up don’t you Shem? And what is this “WE are confusing”? YOU are confusing you mean. WE aren’t confusing anything. As for keys, your “dad” doesn’t have all the keys that Monson does. As found on lds.org:
And,
It seems that every time you try and get yourself out of a gaffe, you make it worse for yourself. Keys ARE AUTHORITY. That is the point:
“The power to GIVE PERMISSION.” He doesn’t need to ASK. He already has the keys/authority. This is very basic Mormon doctrine. This is the reason why you can’t be trusted with any of your answers here on this blog. You need to go back and do some homework on Mormonism. And this,
1st. Oliver Cowdery was given the “gift” of “working with the rod”. Oliver Cowdery was NEVER denied anything because of “unbelief at the time”. You are making that up.
2nd. He just couldn’t “translate” (supposedly) because he didn’t “work it out in his mind first” (which is crazy anyway, because how can you “work out” a translation of a language you have never before seen in your life?) It’s like if I were to write this Hebrew phrase and give it to someone who didn’t know Hebrew and say,
“Work this out in your mind and I’ll tell you if you are right”. Please tell me how someone would be able to “work out” this translation “in their mind” before getting the ok from God that you had “translated it correctly”? The reason why Cowdery couldn’t, was because there were no plates, and Jo was a fraud. There is nothing in the account though, about Cowdery having “unbelief”. Cowdery couldn’t “translate” a few lines from the gold plates because of “unbelief” but he could see angels like Peter, James & John, & John the Baptist, and Christ, and all kinds of other things. Right. That makes total sense. Another gaffe from our know it all Mormon.
LOL. What a lame excuse. Monson could just start at the beginning and do his own “translation”. The fact is the Mormon God COMMANDED that the translation be finished and published, and every Mormon “prophet” has failed to do so. And Smith on two occasions said that he “finished” it. He just never published it. The RLDS did, so I guess the Brighamites are condemned and the RLDS should be praised. But one thing is sure, whatever Shem says about this will be wrong, because he can’t get anything right.
The problem here, (which Shem fails again to realize) is that they are ALL given this “gift” when they are ordained Apostles. An Apostle has ALL the keys. (“These sacred keys have been given to all the Apostles and prophets of the Church and are held by the prophet and Apostles of the Church today.” lds.org) They have ALL the gifts. That is why they are called ‘prophets, seers, & revelators’. Jo used a peek stone (which he called the urim & thummim to “translate” the BOM, and give “revelations” and for some of the JST. He then said he didn’t need it for the rest because he had “evolved”, or been trained enough not to need it). From lds.org,
Monson can’t translate or finish the “Inspired Version” because Monson is not a “prophet, seer, revelator & translator”. He shows no “fruits” of that calling. None.
I said I would not respond unless there was a little civility, which is almost completely abscent from anything Grindael ever says. However, I will point out a few things.
“Counselors do not receive keys, but they do receive authority and responsibility by calling and assignment.”
This is from LDS.org (http://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng) and clearly states that one can have authority and yet not have keys. Thus showing clearly that the two terms are not synonymous.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the terminology used to explain the various aspects of the priesthood can be confusing. I will even admit that I was a little in error again, and I apologyze. Keys are authority, but not all authority comes from these keys, a distinction that I should have made more clear.
I hold no priesthood keys myself, as I am not called to a position of leadership. However, I am called as a counselor in my Elder’s quorom, and thus I hold authority to preside over the quorom when the President, who holds the keys, is not there. I have authority as a Father and Priesthood holder to give blessings, and to confer the Holy Ghost; though this latter requires permission from the Bishop who holds the keys to this ordinance in my ward.
When I mentioned my Father what I meant is that because he is a High Priest he can be allowed to exercise any of the keys of the Priesthood. As an Elder I cannot do this. Thus it is that a High Priest has within that ordination the ability to have all keys, and that is found in all High Priests. Before a person can be called as a Bishop they must first be ordained a High Priest, as the authority to have those keys is contained in the office of a High Priest. This is what I was talking about. My father, as a High Priest, can be called and set apart to any calling in the church, by virtue of his priesthood.
Now, I have looked into things a little to clarify this, and I have found that I have been mistaken on one point. The Apostles are themselves an office in the Priesthood. Thus they are not called or set apart, but are ordained. Thus they would have more keys available to them. In truth they share all the same keys that the president has, because the President is not an ordained office, but rather a calling within the office of Apostle. However, he is the only one authorized to use those keys.
So, a High Priest holds the Keys of all lesser offices, but he cannot use them until he is given permission from one holding the higher keys. An Apostle holds all the keys, but does not have the authority to use them until the President gives permission.
Keys and Authority are not the same thing.