Mormonism and the heresy of the Anthropomorphites

Jeffrey R. HollandBack in 2007 Mormon Apostle Jeffrey Holland gave a talk at General Conference titled, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent.” In this address, Mr. Holland denounced the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in what some have called a “demeaning and misleading” way. Because the new Mormon Church curriculum for youth, “Come Follow Me,” directs students to Mr. Holland’s talk as part of one lesson (“What do we know about the nature of the Godhead?”), I recently re-read Mr. Holland’s remarks. My curiosity was piqued when he quoted a fourth-century monk. After mentioning the formulation of early Christian creeds, Mr. Holland said that the creeds

“declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted ‘mystery of the trinity.’ They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

“We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, ‘Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.’” (Ensign, October 2007. Ellipsis in the original)

Since Mr. Holland helpfully provided a reference for the quoted monk (Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism, 1958, 235) I found the source and read the fuller account of Egyptian monk Sarapion “who had for many years lived a life of strict discipline and had achieved the leading of a truly good life” (ibid., 234). As it turns out, Serapion was not lamenting the incomprehension of the Trinity (as Mr. Holland implied) when he cried, “Woe is me!”

Owen Chadwick’s book includes lengthy sections from a work by John Cassian (ca. 360-435), “The Conferences of Cassian.” This is how Cassian tells the story that Mr. Holland referenced:

“A few days after the first conference with Abba Isaac, arrived the customary festal letter from Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria [in the year 399]. Besides declaring the date of Easter, he included in the letter a long refutation of the absurd heresy of the Anthropomorphites. Nearly all the monks in Egypt, being uneducated and therefore holding wrong ideas, received this with bitterness and hostility: and a large majority of elders from all the ascetic brotherhood decreed that the bishop was guilty of a grave and hateful heresy, because (by denying that Almighty God was formed in the fashion of a man, when Scripture bears clear witness that Adam was created in his image) he seemed to be attacking the text of Holy Scripture. Even the hermits in the desert of Scete, who were more educated and more spiritually advanced than any other Egyptian monks, rejected the letter of Theophilus. The priests who were presiding over three of the four churches in Scete would not allow the letter to be read at their meetings: and the only exception was Abba Paphnutius, who was the priest of my own congregation.

“Among those caught by the error was a monk named Sarapion, who had for many years lived a life of strict discipline and had achieved the leading of a truly good life. Almost first among monks in merit and in years in the desert, equally he was almost first in his ignorant prejudice against orthodox believers. The saintly priest, Paphnutius, used many exhortations to bring him back to the true belief, but unsuccessfully. To Sarapion the view seemed a novelty, not found in tradition.

“It chanced that a deacon of great learning, named Photinus, arrived from Cappadocia with the object of visiting the brothers in Scete. Paphnutius gave him a warm welcome. And to support the doctrine contained in the letter of Bishop Theophilus, he led Photinus into the middle of the congregation, and in the presence of all the brothers, asked how the Catholic [i.e., “universal” or “general.” See note at the end of this post] Churches of the East understood the text in Genesis: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness [Gen. 1:26].’ Photinus explained how all the leaders of the churches understood the text spiritually, not literally or crudely, and made a long speech adducing numerous proofs from Scripture. ‘That unmeasurable, incomprehensible, invisible majesty cannot be limited by a human frame or likeness. His nature is incorporeal, uncompounded, simple, and cannot be seen by human eyes nor conceived adequately by a human mind.’

“At last old Sarapion was moved by the numerous and convincing assertions of this learned man, and consented to the traditional faith of Catholics [i.e., “universal” or “general”]. Abba Paphnutius and the rest of us felt great joy at his assent; joy that the Lord had not allowed a man of such age and goodness, who had erred in simple ignorance, to end his days unorthodox in the faith.

“When we stood up to give thanks to the Lord in prayer, the old man felt mentally bewildered at having to pray, because he could no longer sense in his heart the Anthropomorphic image of the God which he had always before his mind’s eye when praying. Suddenly he broke into bitter weeping and sobbing, and throwing himself prostrate on the ground with groans, cried, ‘Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.’” (234-235)

EgyptianMonkSo with the change in Sarapion’s understanding of the true nature of God, brought on by a clear understanding of Scripture, came a necessary change in the way the man was accustomed to praying. He knew that directing his prayers to an image in the form of a man, as he had always done, was not right; he wasn’t sure how to pray now that he had no image of flesh and bone in his mind.

John Cassian was deeply moved by this whole scene. When he returned to Abba Isaac he asked for an explanation of how someone so devoted as Sarapion could be “misled by skillful demons” and fall into such grave doctrinal error. Isaac responded,

“It is not surprising that a very simple man who had never received any instruction on the being and nature of God could be caught and deceived, even until now, by an error which he mis-learnt a long time ago. This error is not, as you suppose, a modern illusion of demons, but an inheritance from the ignorance of the old heathen. They used customarily and erroneously to worship demons fashioned in the likeness of men, and even now they think to worship God in his majesty – the incomprehensible and indescribable – in the limited form of some statue. And they suppose they have nothing to worship unless they have in front of them a statue, which they can continually address in their devotions, can mentally conceive, and can keep in front of their eyes. Against this error is directed the text, ‘And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man [Rom. 1:23].’ And Jeremiah says: ‘My people have changed their glory for an idol. [Jer. 2:11].’

“This is the way in which this error has been implanted in some men. Nevertheless, in people whose souls have never been polluted by heathenism, the error is contracted by ignorance, under the cover of this text: ‘Let us make man in our image and in our likeness.’ Hence, the so-called Anthropomorphic heresy has risen out of the detestable interpretation of this text, a heresy which maintains obstinately and perversely that the limitless and simple nature of God is fashioned in human form and features. Anyone well-instructed in Catholic [i.e., “universal” or “general”] doctrine will detest the idea as heathen blasphemy: and in detesting it he will come to that pure state of prayer where the person will allow (I need not say) no effigy of God to be mingled in his prayers…” (235-236)

By God’s grace, Sarapion abandoned the heresy of worshiping an idol, a god made in the image of man, a god much like the god Mr. Holland proclaims. Would that Mr. Holland himself would break into bitter weeping and sobbing at the realization of the heresy he’s embraced, throw himself prostrate on the ground with groans, and cry out, “Woe is me! They have taken my false god away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.” I hope this for Mr. Holland because anyone who abandons his idols and seeks the one true God will find Him.

“Thus says the Lord GOD: Repent and turn away from your idols… that they may be my people and I may be their God.” (Ezekiel 14:6, 11)

The appearance of the word “Catholic” in Cassian’s work does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church (which did not yet exist during Cassian’s lifetime), but rather to the entirety of Christianity — the universal church.

catholic (Gr. katholikos, ‘universal,’ ‘general’) Term used since the 2d century to designate the Christian church throughout the world” (Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms).

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in General Conference, God the Father, Nature of God and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Mormonism and the heresy of the Anthropomorphites

  1. shematwater says:

    After reading this more detailed account, I have to agree with Elder Holland and how he portrayed the story. They may have been convinced by the learning of men, but when he went to pray he found that that learning did not enhance his spirit, but rather that a lifetime of devotion was now clouded but incomprehensible doctrine, and for this cause he wept. He wept because he had been convinced this was right, but his own spirit told him is was wrong.

  2. jaxi says:

    “Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs, operations, and general characteristics of human nature. This tendency is strongly manifested in primitive heathen religions, in all forms of polytheism, especially in the classic paganism of Greece and Rome.”

    Took this from a Catholic Encyclopedia.

    So like all polytheists, Mormonism fits right in.

  3. grindael says:

    What Holland and all Mormon apologists do is quote without context. In this case the context of what the “anthropomorphites” really believed in.

    In the broader context of the early church there was a group of people called the anthropomorphites who took the Bible “literally” which led them to believe and teach that God has a body. Since the Bible talks about God’s right hand, his footsteps, his eyes, (etc.) they thought that God was some sort of majestic and divine giant. Audius was a prominent leader of this group, therefore sometimes the anthropomorphites are called Audians.

    Cyril (d. 444), Jerome (d. 420), and many other early orthodox Christian leaders were quick to condemn the group for this heresy, which opened the door to a host of other heresies. For example, if God had a body he could not be omnipresent nor could he be simple (simplicitas Dei; without parts or composition) both of which the Bible clearly does teach. If God had a body, he would be subject to time; he would be contingent and part of creation – all of which the Bible clearly does not teach. The modern-day Audians include the Mormons who say that ”the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). There is nothing new under the sun.

    The Church Father Theodoret wrote on this heresy the following, as Chapter IX of his Ecclesiastical History (Book IV), titled “Of the heresy of the Audiani”:

    The illustrious emperor thus took heed of the apostolic decrees, but Audaeus, a Syrian alike in race and in speech, appeared at that time as an inventor of new decrees. He had long ago begun to incubate iniquities and now appeared in his true character. At first he understood in an absurd sense the passage “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” From want of apprehension of the meaning of the divine Scripture he understood the Divine Being to have a human form, and conjectured it to be enveloped in bodily parts; for Holy Scripture frequently describes the divine operations under the names of human parts, since by these means the providence of God is made more easily intelligible to minds incapable of perceiving any immaterial ideas. To this impiety Audaeus added others of a similar kind. By an eclectic process he adopted some of the Manichean doctrines of Manes and denied that the God of the universe is creator of either fire or darkness. But these and all similar errors are concealed by the adherents of his faction.

    They allege that they are separated from the assemblies of the Church. But since some of them exact a cursed usury, and some live unlawfully with women without the bond of wedlock, while those who are innocent of these practices live in free fellowship with the guilty, they hide the blasphemy of their doctrines by accounting as they do for their living by themselves. The plea is however an impudent one, and the natural result of Pharisaic teaching, for the Pharisees accused the Physician of souls and bodies in their question to the holy Apostles “How is it that your Master eateth with publicans and sinners?” and through the prophet, God of such men says “Which say, ‘come not near me for I am pure’ this is smoke of my wrath.” But this is not a tithe to refute their unreasonable error. I therefore pass on to the remainder of my narrative.” (Theodoret, Chapter IX.—Of the heresy of the Audiani; in: Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3)

    If that is the god that Holland is lamenting, he can have him. There really is nothing new under the sun. You see how these apologists only quote a sentence or two without really investigating what they are quoting. There is no way that this has any bearing on the Christian God. Audaeus was an Heretic. Just like Jo Smith was. Nothing new under the sun.

  4. falcon says:

    This is pretty much standard cult stuff. Mormons are among the worst interpreters of the Biblical text. They have no systematic way to look at Scripture, no common sense set of rules. AH HA! the Mormon will scream. We are led by the Spirit not by any conventions of men. I say, “Give me a break!” Mormons might as well just open the Bible randomly, point to a verse and declare they have received an answer to a perplexing question.
    Jesus said that He was “living water”. He is described as “bread”. God is said to protect us under his “wings”. Jesus is said to be “the door”. So is Jesus these things, literally or is this a means of using descriptive language to make a point. The Bible is full of these devices and they are not meant to be taken literally but used for the purpose of making a point.

    This is just one more example of a bunch of children with immature thought processes playing religion.

  5. jaxi says:

    falcon,

    <"Mormons might as well just open the Bible [or Book of Mormon] randomly, point to a verse and declare they have received an answer to a perplexing question."

    (hanging my head in shame) I actually did this as a way to receive personal revelation when I was LDS. I had many friends who did the same. One did this to find out if he should marry a girl. I remember reading another story of someone who converted to Mormonism by doing this. It's relatively common practice.

  6. falcon says:

    Jaxi,

    You are forgiven my child!

    I periodically post some basic rules of Biblical interpretation. I think this pretty well covers it and if practiced, people will avoid the pitfalls that cults like Mormonism fall into.

    1. Consider the Author – who wrote the book? – what was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?

    2. Consider the Audience (why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?)

    3. The Meaning of Words (this has become a lot easier in our day with all the information and technology at our disposal. The computer program Bibleworks 8 is especially recommended).

    4. Historical Setting (avoid anachronism – trying to understand the past while viewing it wearing 21st century glasses – will not help toward understanding the original meaning of the author).

    5. Grammar – (how things are being expressed – imperative is a command, a subjunctive would be “would you like to do this?” – two quite different meanings result)

    6. Textual Issues – (are there any questions about the earliest or most authoritative manuscripts in comparison with others of a later date – and how does this influence our understanding of what was originally written?)

    7. Syntax – this refers to words and their relationship with one another. For example, Romans 5:1 says “Having been justified (a past tense action) by faith, we have peace with God.” It would be incorrect to think that we have to gain peace with God before justification takes place. The syntax is clear that it is a result of first being justified that peace ensues. Correct syntax is a vital component of sound interpretation.

    8. Form of Literature (we should interpret the Bible literally, but that doesn’t mean we don’t recognize that parables are parables, and that to interpret them correctly, we interpret them as literal parables! Historical narrative is historical narrative, nouns are nouns, verbs are verbs, analogies are analogies)

    9. Immediate Context (a text out of context becomes a pretext. It can be made to say something not intended by the author). Always check the immediate context of a verse or passage to determine the correct interpretation.

    10. Document Context (For instance, in Romans, there is a certain argument Paul is pursuing, and when we recognize this, it helps us to determine what is meant in isolated verses when we know the purpose for what is being written. Always keep the author’s broad purpose in mind when looking in detail at the meaning of texts). This, like the others, is a very helpful rule.

    11. Author’s Context (this refers to looking at all of a person’s writings – John’s writings, Paul’s writings, Luke’s writings, etc.).

    12. Biblical Context (the broadest context possible, the entire Bible; allowing us to ask if our interpretation is consistent with the whole of Scripture. Scripture is never contradictory to itself).

    13. Understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive statements in the Bible. Is the verse telling us to do something, or does it describe an action someone does?

    14. Build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences. A necessary inference is something that is definitely taught by the text. The conclusion is unavoidable. It is necessary. A possible inference is something that could or might be true, but not something actually stated by the text.

    15. Interpret the unclear passages in Scripture in light of the clear. Though all Scripture is God breathed, every passage is not equally clear (easy to understand). Even the Apostle Peter struggled with Paul’s writings at times, as he found some of it “hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

    16. Think for yourself but not by yourself. We are not at all wise when we isolate ourselves. God has gifted others with tremendous insights, not only in our own day, but throughout the history of the Church. These teachers are Christ’s gifts to His people (Ephesians 4:8-12). Use their help.

  7. MJP says:

    Shem, you wrote:

    “After reading this more detailed account, I have to agree with Elder Holland and how he portrayed the story. They may have been convinced by the learning of men, but when he went to pray he found that that learning did not enhance his spirit, but rather that a lifetime of devotion was now clouded but incomprehensible doctrine, and for this cause he wept. He wept because he had been convinced this was right, but his own spirit told him is was wrong.”

    Huh? Not sure of who “he” is, nor I am sure who “they” are. Do you mean “clouded BY incomprehensible doctrine”? And what is the positive in the convinced/spirit wrong sentence?

  8. cattyjane says:

    I completely understand where the Serepian was coming from on this. I never believed in the trinity until a week or two ago. When the trinity was revealed to me it hit me like a ton of bricks! I was in the same boat…how do I pray to this god…the true god..what do I say…i cant understand him…i dont relate…because HES NOT a man. The awesomeness overwhelms you and you realize that you are serving a God who is much greater than yourself. A God who cannot be understood and whos ways are not our own. Somewhere in Job it defines that really well. When I experienced this I was consumed by the shame of praying to a FALSE god. The true god was still out there but I had created my own God in my mind and wasted all those years praying to my own created god. I believe this is what this man felt. He realized that the true God is so awesome and indescribable in power that what prayer could he possibly send up to him that could make him anymore glorious than he already was? How do we serve this awesome God who needs nothing from us? To suddenly come to the understanding of who the real God is, is very overwhelming…i cannot even put it into words. No religion, or false god compares to the true God! Finding the true God makes all the other pieces fall into place.

  9. shematwater says:

    MJP

    ‘He’ is the monk of whom the story is about.
    ‘They’ should have also been ‘he’ and I apologyze for the typing error.
    Yes it should be ‘by,’ another typing error.

    As to your last question, I am not sure what you are asking, but let me explain the sentence in greater detail.
    In the account this very honorable monk believed that God had a body. He was then taught by a younger man that this was not the case. Instead he was told of the trinity doctrine. After much learning in this he was convinced that he had been wrong and accepted the arguments and learning of this man. However, when he went to pray he found that this new doctrine was confusing and he no longer knew to what or whom he was to pray. Thus he wept. He found that even though his mind had accepted this new doctrine as truth his heart and his spirit were now clouded by it.
    The spirit that had led him to pray and love God was not enhanced by this new doctrine, as it should have been.
    I don’t know if this helps.

    Falcon

    Funny thing is that we do use all these basic guidelines of reading and understanding, despite your claims to the contrary. We just try to keep the inspiration of the spirit as our guide through the entire process.
    What is even funnier is that I have had Christians tell me not to use some of these idea. I have been told that the intended audience does matter, or that the author himself doesn’t matter. I have also been told that the form of literature doesn’t matter. Actually, your the first person I have ever seen outside the LDS church that has actually listed most of these are necessary or even useful in understanding the Bible.

    I would only point out that even with these it is possible for two people to reach very different conclusions as to the meaning of the text. In 14 you talk about necessary verses possible inferences, and yet you will find many people are not agreed as to what a necessary inference is when it comes to a specific passage. In 16 you speak of others being gifted with insights, but not all people are going to agree on who has been so gifted. In 15 you speak directly to interpretation, which is itself subjective and thus dependent greatly on the individual.
    You get my point. I have taken all these things into consideration, and I find a very different meaning in the Bible than you do. When it comes down to it there is no set of rules or methods of interpretation that are going to render the same results, unless they are specifically designed to do so, which then nulifies their usefulness.

    Just a final note.
    Grindael seems to quote from another site (http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/anthropomorphites-audius-and-mormons/) though he doesn’t reference it. However, the arguments here are in error. It says that this idea opens the door for other heresies. For example
    “if God had a body he could not be omnipresent”
    Actually he can, through his power and influence. The LDS believe completely in His Omnipresence, and yet still believe he has body. The one does not make the other impossible.

    “nor could he be simple (simplicitas Dei; without parts or composition)…which the Bible clearly does teach[es].”
    I know of no place in the Bible where it states this. The Bible is in complete agreement that God has parts and composition.

    “he would be subject to time”
    Why? Again this is faulty logic as one does not mandate the other.

    “he would be contingent and part of creation”
    That would depend on how you understand creation. If you believe in the ex-nilo model than yes. However, this model is not explicitly taught in the Bible, and it is possible to believe it happened in different ways without contradicting the text.

    I just thought I would mention these things.

  10. MJP says:

    Shem,

    Thanks for the clarification. But I am still confused as to how the fact that Sarapion claimed he was then confused after changed his mind concerning the Trinity is a bad thing. That was never said in the text. It only said he was confused because he was no longer sure who he was praying to as a result of his new understanding that God is not a literal man. No value was placed on it the incident or his thought.

    And I have to comment on your statement: “In the account this very honorable monk believed that God had a body.” Who said Sarapion was honorable? Can one be honorable and still be wrong? I think Jewish rabbi’s are generally honorable and still wrong. The Dali Lama are equally honorable but still wrong.

    Its as if you use the term “honorable” to bolster your hope that the story has some truth in it for you. Its much easier to believe an “honorable” man than it is to believe “just-a” man. Unfortunately, in this story, the honor of the man in question is irrelevant.

  11. falcon says:

    Shem,
    You say you use these 16 principles of Biblical interpretation however you come to different conclusions. Forgive me but if you actually applied these principles, you wouldn’t be a Mormon.
    What you do instead is follow the lead of some men who claim they are apostles and prophets and have/are hearing from God. You start with a wrong premise and it takes you further a field. Mormons hold a rather low view of the Bible, insisting that the text has been corrupted. That in and of itself is a dis-qualifier as to your belief that you are being guided by the Spirit of God. I must remind you that Mormons have an entity that they call the Holy Ghost and another that they call the Holy Spirit. The latter entity is a force likened to electricity. So I would say that you guidance is not coming from God but from an entity out there in the spirit world that you acknowledge use to be a man and has now morphed into a god. In fact in your program, there are countless numbers of these gods.
    I don’t recognize the entity that you claim is a god. So the messages you are getting would not be looked upon as from the God of the universe.

    Finally you’re playing the old Mormon game of “it’s just your opinion” regarding Scriptural interpretation. Christians hold to a basic set of doctrines which they consider orthodox in nature. There is agreement regarding the interpretation of the Biblical text as it applies to these basic doctrines.
    Mormons can’t even hold on to their authoratative text “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce McConkie for more than a generation. The last bunch of Mormons held on to it like the final word. Mormonism now has coined the phrase “folk doctrine” which disqualifies this tome.
    I would love to sit down one-on-one with you and work our way through the Book of Romans. You can’t read that Epistle and get to Mormonism even if you torture the Scriptures.
    Your views are just too warped. Read carefully what all of the former Mormons who post here testify to especially cattyjane. She has found God, truth and newness of life. We pray for the same for you.

  12. MistakenTestimony says:

    Shem,

    You said, “Actually, your the first person I have ever seen outside the LDS church that has actually listed most of these [basic rules for Biblical interpretation] are necessary or even useful in understanding the Bible.”

    This statement is coming from a guy who believes that Book of Mormon interpretation uses rule 4 (historical setting) even though he knows the BoM is non-historical, and who uses the JST version of the Bible which completely undermines all 16 rules that Falcon laid out. You may claim that Mormons use this technique for their scriptures while Christians are reluctant to do so but even the lurkers here know how Mormons interpret scriptures: if it gives you warm fuzzies it’s true, if it makes you feel uncomfortable it’s from the devil.

  13. shematwater says:

    Falcon

    You said “What you do instead…”

    Stop telling me how I think and how I read scripture. You have no idea what my thoughts are. Of course it seems to be common practice for you and others here to claim some kind of telepathic power regarding the thoughts of the LDS membership.

    You said “Mormons hold a rather low view of the Bible…”

    Again, stop telling me what I think or what my opinions are. You show your ignorance of us and our beliefs every time you try to make such unfounded claims. You ignore almost everything about us in order to do so, and it gets annoying.
    The Bible has been and always will be the first and greatest book of scripture that we will ever have in our possession, and we read and study it to a greater extent than any other book.

    You said “I must remind you that Mormons have an entity that they call the Holy Ghost and another that they call the Holy Spirit.”

    Again I must point out your utter lack of knowledge and understanding when you make such ridiculous and ignorant statements such as this.
    “The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.”
    http://www.lds.org/topics/holy-ghost?lang=eng
    Want to try again, or do you insist on pretending your ignorance is truth.

    You said “Christians hold to a basic set of doctrines which they consider orthodox in nature. There is agreement regarding the interpretation of the Biblical text as it applies to these basic doctrines.”

    And here we have the real truth of the matter. Your sixteen rules don’t really matter that much if they logically lead one to conclude something other than what you consider Orthodox doctrine. This is actually how most Christians I have talked with approach the Bible and its interpretation. “Well, I know this is true, so I know the Bible has to teach it, so this verse that appears to contradict it can’t actually be saying what it appears to say.”
    I know perfectly well that the same claim can be made against the LDS, and I really don’t care. I just wish you people would be honest about it, which is very rare.

    Oh, and just two final notes; Mormon Doctrine was never authoritative, despite what some members what to believe. It is a great book, but if an authoritative source contradicts it than it has an error.
    And, I don’t care what former members have to say. Going just on those who post here it becomes rather obvious that they don’t know the doctrine of the church, and I begin to question if they ever did. I don’t want to insult anyone here, but that is the truth of the matter. I have yet to see one of these former members accurately portray the doctrine (at least as far as I remember).

    Mistaken

    You said “This statement is coming from a guy who believes that Book of Mormon interpretation uses rule 4 (historical setting) even though he knows the BoM is non-historical”

    First, I know no such thing, as it is historical, whether people want to accept it as such or not. However, I never once said that all of these rules can be equally applied to interpretation. We actually know very little of the Historical Setting of the Book of Mormon outside what it says itself, and so our use of this particular tool would be limited to a comparison of other information in the book, or more to the 12 tool listed, as regards this book.
    Don’t presume to know how we think and how we interpret scripture.

    You said “who uses the JST version of the Bible which completely undermines all 16 rules that Falcon laid out.”

    How does it undermine anything? It does this no more than using the NIV rather than the KJV would. It is simply a different translation of the Bible.

    You said “You may claim that Mormons use this technique for their scriptures while Christians are reluctant to do so”

    I don’t think most Christians are reluctant to do so. I think these things are used very frequently by all who actively study the scriptures. I just think it is uncommon for Christians to recognize and admit that they use these things. It is much more common for them to speak of Orthodox Doctrine and how scripture has to be understood in the context of that doctrine.
    Again, stop trying to assume my thoughts.

    You said “if it gives you warm fuzzies it’s true, if it makes you feel uncomfortable it’s from the devil.”

    You really have no clue as to what we believe, or are purposely distorting it. Take your pick. Most people do not have ‘warm fuzzies’ when studying the scriptures. Most people use the tools that have been listed in order to enhance their understanding. Most frequently revelation as to the meaning of scripture comes not in feelings but in thoughts. One has an epiphany as to the meaning of a passage and it is clear to their mind.
    You really need to learn more about our faith before you try to ridicule us for it.

    MJP

    You said “But I am still confused as to how the fact that Sarapion claimed he was then confused after changed his mind concerning the Trinity is a bad thing. That was never said in the text.”

    No it wasn’t, but then the text was not written by him. It was written by Cassian who firmly believed that teaching God had a body was heresy, and thus would not be seen as a bad thing by this author, so why would he say it is. Also, the excerpt given ends with Sarapion weeping, unable to pray. We do not get the rest of the story (at least not in this blog and I do not have the proper resources to look it up). We are not told what Sarapion did afterwards, or how he felt about the whole situation. We are only told what he did on this specific occasion and what he said. Thus we are left to infer his feelings at the time. Given what he said and the fact that it caused him to weep it seems obvious that he did not think it was a good thing, at least not at that time. And thus, for Elder Holland to say
    “With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, ‘Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.’”
    The text is in perfect agreement with this statement. When Sarapion was taught this doctrine it caused him to weep and make this statement, and, in our opinion, given the nature of the doctrine, we do not find that this is at all surprising.

    Oh, as to Honorable, I was merely trying to summarize the description of the man given in the excerpt. Rather than saying that he had lived a life of strict discipline and had achieved the leading of a truly good life and was first among monks in merit, I chose to simply say he was honorable. I meant nothing by it, except to summarize what the excerpt given already said.

  14. grindael says:

    Grindael seems to quote from another site (http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/anthropomorphites-audius-and-mormons/) though he doesn’t reference it. However, the arguments here are in error. It says that this idea opens the door for other heresies. For example
    “if God had a body he could not be omnipresent”
    Actually he can, through his power and influence. The LDS believe completely in His Omnipresence, and yet still believe he has body. The one does not make the other impossible.

    “nor could he be simple (simplicitas Dei; without parts or composition)…which the Bible clearly does teach[es].”
    I know of no place in the Bible where it states this. The Bible is in complete agreement that God has parts and composition.

    “he would be subject to time”
    Why? Again this is faulty logic as one does not mandate the other.

    “he would be contingent and part of creation”
    That would depend on how you understand creation. If you believe in the ex-nilo model than yes. However, this model is not explicitly taught in the Bible, and it is possible to believe it happened in different ways without contradicting the text.

    If God is not present everywhere he is not omnipresent. Here is what the Bible teaches,

    Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you (Psalm 139:7-12).

    Mormons believe God is trapped in a BODY. He HAS to be in one place at a time. This is NOT what the Bible teaches. GOD IS SPIRIT and is EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME. If it is through “power and influence” then it is the influence that is there, not GOD HIMSELF. His power (in others) NOT GOD HIMSELF. This is one of the fatal heresies of Mormonism. (How can you be EVERYWHERE if you don’t know that some places exist?) That is why Brigham Young taught (and slammed Orson Pratt for believing what I just said):

    President Young said He was satisfied that He intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrin taught in the Seer that God had arived at that State whareby He could not advans any further in knowledge power & Glory was a fals doctrin & not true that there never will be a time to all Eternity when all the Gods of Eternity will scease advancing in power knowledge experience & Glory for if this was the case Eternity wood seease to be & the glory of God would come to an End. But all of celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge & power worlds without end. Joseph would always be a head of us. We should never ketch up with him in all Eternity nor He with his leaders.

    Brother Pratt Also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat Children & they were Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were Faithful we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofioal reasoning & get Revelation from God to Govern him & Enlighten his mind more & it would be a great Blessing to him to lay aside his books & go into the canyons as some of the rest of us was doing & it would be better for him. He said his Phylosophy injured him in a measure.

    Many good things wer said by President Young. [p.289] That we should grow up in Revelation so that principle would govern evry act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Josephs death. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p. 288-289, September 17, 1854)

    How can the Mormon God be Omnipresent, when he is still advancing in knowledge, power and influence? He can’t. This is just Mormon Bubble talk. Their “prophet” has spoken and it is the word of the Lord. This doctrine, Young always taught and got it from Jo Smith. God cannot perform miracles, he only “organizes elements”. He is not “all powerful” because he has to work within a limited framework. He is just a God of the elements. They control Him, not the other way around:

    President B Young followed & said the organization of man is one of the deepest subjects that the philosopher of the day attempt to investiga[te]. The mystery of man in his organization has been a study for ages. It has been a mystery but it is because of ignorance. Their is no such thing as mystery or miracle ownly to the ignorant. [To] Any intelligent being that knows the caus & effect of things it is no myracle or mystery. It is our privilege to asspire after that knowledge that the greatest intelligence possesses. We should take that Course that we may ever increase in knowledge. Then we are sure of exhaltation. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.187. February 6, 1853)

    Their never was a miracle ownly to the Ignorant. It is all to be accounted for on Natural principles. The Lord will not turn stone & clay into gold to suit me. Their is enough without it. Jesus did not make Bread out of stone but He had knowledge & power & did Call together the Elements to make Bread & the Elements into the water to make wine & he can call the Elements together to make gold as well as bread & wine.(Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.116, April 7, 1852)

    Was Jesus like Superman, who flew off and got some grapes and added them to the water and then sped up the process? Makes no sense. He INSTANTANEOUSLY changed water into wine. FERMENTED WINE at that. But we are not done:

    I attended prayer meeting in the evening Circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what He thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all Eternity. O. Pratt said that He believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of evry thing that ever did exhist to the endless ages of all Eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the church for it was not taught in the Church for it was not [p.402] true. It was fals doctrin For the Gods & all intelligent Beings would never scease to learn except it was the Sons of perdition they would continue to decrease untill they became dissolved back into their native Element & lost their Identity. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.402, February 16, 1856)

    Shem is teaching false doctrine. Young again,

    President Young said while conversing upon Eternal improvement that He knew by revelation while in England that there would be an Eternal increase in knowledge & as we now are God once was & as he now is we shall be if we continue faithful. I told this to Br Lorenzo Snow. While Conversing with Brother Wilard Richards upon the things of God it came to me that the Priesthood is a perfect system of Government. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.439, August 23, 1856)

    Again, Shem is teaching false doctrine,

    The subject of Orson Pratt Came up again Concerning his fals doctrin. Presidet Kimball wished him to make satisfaction to Presidet Young But Presidet Young said he did not wish him to make any acknowledgements to him. Brother Pratt was strangely Constituted. He had acquired a good deal of knowledge upon many things but in other things He was one of the most ignorant men he ever saw in his life. He was full of integrity & would lie down & have his head Cut off for me or his religin if necessary but [p.507] he will never see his Error untill he goes into the spirit world. Then he will say Brother Brigham how foolish I was.

    Now Brother Pratt thinks that he and all the Gods will be learning for many millions of years but by & by will know all things & all will know it alike & that will be the End of their Exhaltations & knowledge. He Cannot see the folly of forming this opinion here in the flesh & in his ignorance. But a thousand years hence he will see the folly of it. I will hold on to Brother Pratt & all these my Brethren of the Twelve notwithstanding all their sins, folley, & weaknesses untill I met with them in my Fathers kingdom to part no more because they love God and are full of integrity.

    Brother Pratt said I do not believe as Brother Brigham & Brother Kimball do in some points of doctrin & they do not wish me to acknowled[ge] to a thing that I do not believe. Brother Brigham Said No you Cannot See the truth in this matter until you get into the spirit world. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 507, September 23, 1860)

    The article is exactly right. Men who teach that God has a body move on to other heresies. Jo Smith and Brigham Young did it. The proof is right here. And thanks for pointing out that EVERYTHING in Mormon Doctrine is speculation or opinion or folklore or whatever you want to denigrate it to. (“Mormon Doctrine was never authoritative”) We already knew that.

  15. grindael says:

    We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni[s]cient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift, and every good principle dwells; and that he is the Father of lights: In him the principle of faith dwells independently; and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation. Doctrine and Covenants (1835), p.12

    Joseph F. Smith quoted the above in a Conference Address in April, 1894 but he had to ADD something to it. (The original was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants because it no longer reflected the changed Mormon Doctrine about God):

    We here observe that God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent [that is, not in person, but by His power and spirit], and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation. (Brain Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 4, p.65, April 17, 1894)

    But Brigham Young said he was told “by revelation” that God is not “all powerful”. Hence, Joseph F. Smith is a false prophet. Hyrum M. Smith illustrates perfectly how the Mormon God is “almost” Omniscient:

    Men in the world have wondered and could not understand how it was that God could be omniscient and omnipresent, and the teaching of this doctrine has led them into all kinds of error as to who and what God is. Now, look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–a church composed of nearly four hundred thousand people, divided into stakes and wards and missionary fields, presided over by men holding the holy Priesthood. Think of all that number of souls, and then bear In mind that the President of the Church can within a few hours, get in touch with the remotest parts of the Church, and become acquainted with almost every individual member. His knowledge concerning any part of the Church, scattered throughout the world, becomes almost omniscient. (Conference Report, April, 1902, p. 22)

    This is how it works for the Mormon God. This is not the God of the Bible. Here is more Mormon confusion. Charles Penrose taught God works through the “Spirit of God” (not the Holy Ghost) that comes from his person. He also says that the Bible passage I quoted about is just “figurative” not literal:

    Now, we want our children to understand that they can learn of the Lord as Joseph the Prophet did. Not that every one of them is to receive visible manifestations as he did; for he was a special witness raised up by the Almighty to usher in the greatest and grandest of all dispensations, but to learn to be, led by the Spirit of God, to understand its whisperings, its inspiration, and if they do learn that and walk in the light that they will not be led astray. When those foolish vagaries that President Lund alluded to this morning, come along from time to time and lead some foolish people away from the straight and narrow path, we know by the Spirit what they are. They are not of God. They come to deceive, to darken the mind, to becloud the understanding, to lead people from that which God has shown to them to be the truth. True, Latter-day Saints have this peculiarity about them that they are born of God, by the water and the Spirit. And that Spirit is a spirit of revelation. It is a spirit of inspiration; it enlightens the soul, as that which we call artificial light lightens the natural eyes. These lamps that shine here today give the same kind of light that comes from the sun and from the moon and is a property and a manifestation of the spirit of truth, the light of truth, the intelligence that always existed, that never was created or made, the Spirit by which God operates throughout all His creations and by which He can learn about us whenever He desires, and behold us, and can hear and answer our prayers.

    It is a great puzzle to some people how it can possibly be that a person, an individual, of form and stature, occupying but one place at a time, can hear the prayers of His people or can comprehend them as David said He does: Said he: “There is not a thought of my heart but lo! O God, thou knowest it altogether. If I ascend up into heaven behold thou art there. If I descend down into hell behold thou art there: and if I take the wings of the morning and flee to the uttermost parts of the earth, there will Thy hand lead me and Thy right hand guide me.” Of course these expressions are somewhat figurative, but there is the great fact that God can be omnipresent by the power of His universally diffused spirit which proceeds from His presence throughout the immensity of space, and He can see and discern all things by that power…” (Conference Report, October 1915, p.38)

    See how Mormon Doctrine keeps changing folks? As we go further back:

    Now, my mission, my duty, from the days of my childhood, has been to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the power of God unto salvation, Unto all who will receive and obey it. It is my duty to proclaim to my brethren, to the household of faith, as well as to the world, when opportunity presents, that I believe in the living God, the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who begot His Son, his only begotten in the flesh, and that Son grew from His birth unto His manhood and developed into the very image and likeness of His Father, insomuch that He declared on one occasion that “he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” I do not believe in the doctrines held by some that God is only a spirit and that He is of such a nature that He fills the immensity of space, and is everywhere present in person or without person, for I can not conceive it possible that God could be a person if He filled the immensity of space and was everywhere present at the same time. (Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, April 1916, p.3)

    Again, something different. God does NOT fill the immensity of space. Penrose said that God could be “omnipresent by the power of His universally diffused spirit that proceeds from his presence” and Joseph F. Smith says no, that’s not true, “for I can not conceive it possible that God could be a person if He filled the immensity of space and was everywhere present at the same time.”

    Yet, F. Smith says in the same discourse,

    But His power extends throughout the immensity of space, His power extends to all His creations, and His knowledge comprehends them all, and He governs them all and He knows all.

    Huh? These guys can’t be consistent about anything. So it is the “power of God” that extends to all of his creations. Penrose again,

    We learn also that this spirit of truth and intelligence and power proceedeth from the Deity, “throughout the immensity of space, and is the law, by which all things are governed, by which God is omnipresent, by which the word of God is declared, whether through Jesus the Christ, or by the personality of the Holy Ghost. That spirit pervadeth all things. The Word is declared through and by its influence in all the worlds that God has created. We should understand the distinction between this universally diffused essence, and the personality called the Holy Ghost, whom Jesus Christ said he would send to his disciples, and who no doubt came on the Day of Pentecost, in person.(Conference Report, April 1920, p.30)

    John Widstoe elaborated on this and said,

    The chief agent or agency by which the Holy Ghost accomplishes his work, is usually spoken of as the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God. It is a universe-filling medium, or influence, by which divine messages may be transmitted to man, and man’s desires carried to the powers of heaven. It may be comprehended, to a limited degree, in our day, by recent discoveries and inventions. Any one of us may send messages by wireless or telegraph to persons far distant, or actually speak with them over the telephone. By radio devices, far distant objects may be controlled and directed in their movements, in the air or on land or sea. (Evidences & Reconciliations p. 62)

    So there are two Holy Spirits in Mormonism. This just gets more and more confusing, because that is not what is on lds.org. They say there that,

    Other names that sometimes refer to the Holy Ghost are Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Comforter, and Spirit. The gift of the Holy Ghost is different from the influence of the Holy Ghost. Before your baptism, you could feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time, and through that influence you could receive a testimony of the truth. Now that you have the gift of the Holy Ghost, you have the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead if you keep the commandments.

    How can you have constant companionship, if the Holy Ghost can only be in one place at a time? Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation explained it like this:

    The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a Spirit, in the form of a man. The Father and the Son are personages of tabernacle; they have bodies of flesh and bones. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, and has a spirit body only. As a Spirit personage, the Holy Ghost has size and dimensions. He does not fill the immensity of space, and cannot be everywhere present in person at the same time. . . . President Joseph F. Smith has expressed it thus: “The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God.”. . . The Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit, which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present. This other Spirit is impersonal and has no size, nor dimension; it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things.

    We also believe that God the Eternal Father is omnipresent. Now by that I might point out that since he is a personal being, he can be in only one place at one time; and yet from him emanates a divine substance or spirit which we term the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Holy Spirit. That divine substance emanates from God to fill the immensity of space. It is through that divine spirit that he performs his great work. Also, it is through that divine Spirit that he is omnipresent. (Milton R. Hunter, Conference Report, October 1948, p.18)

    But Charles Penrose taught that this “spirit” (whatever it is) didn’t come from God. That he acquired it:

    If God is an individual spirit and dwells in a body, the question will arise, “Is He the Eternal Father?” Yes, he is the Eternal Father. “Is it a fact that He never had a beginning?” In the elementary particles of His organism, He did not. But if He is an organized Being, there must have been a time when that being was organized. This, some will say, would infer that God had a beginning. This spirit which pervades all things, which is the light of all things, by which our heavenly Father operates, by which He is omnipotent, never had a beginning and never will have an end. It is the light of truth; it is the spirit of intelligence. (Discourse, Nov. 16, 1884; JD 26:27)

    So, God only acquired the “light of truth” or the “light of Christ” as it is sometimes called and that is how he knows stuff. But since He is always increasing in power and knowledge, he does not know EVERYTHING, and is therefore not omniscient. And to make matters worse, in the lectures on Faith, Jo Smith said that the Holy Spirit was the “mind of God” (Lecture V) and that there were only TWO PERSONAGES in the Godhead. So which is it? Even they don’t know. The “light of truth” became the Spirit of God, and the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead was added later, who it is said “has a body”. What Mormons claim as the Holy Ghost, is really some “divine spirit”, since the Holy Ghost can’t be in two places at the same time and so no member of the church can have the “constant companionship” of the Holy Ghost.

    If the Mormon God has a “universally diffused spirit” that does everything and knows everything, what does he even need a “Holy Ghost” for, anyway. It’s totally redundant. Are you confused yet?

  16. falcon says:

    Shem,
    You are really quite entertaining. We know what Mormons think by reading what they write. It’s not the hard except for the fact that Mormons generally deny what it is their leaders have clearly taught and what they, as members endorse. So where do I start with your rather lengthy and incoherent rant?
    Here we go:
    “Funny thing is that we do use all these basic guidelines of reading and understanding, despite your claims to the contrary. We just try to keep the inspiration of the spirit as our guide through the entire process.”
    …..and who exactly is that “spirit”. You make a vain attempt to identify that “spirit” and based on who Mormons say their god is, we can deduce that the Mormon “spirit” is cut from the same cloth.
    “About the Holy Ghost, McConkie states, “The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a Personage of Spirit, a Spirit Person, a Spirit Man, a Spirit Entity. He can be in only one place at one time, and he does not and cannot transform himself into any other form or image than that of the Man whom he is…” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 359).”
    Now you can try and throw McConkie under the bus but he was known as the “go to guy” for the Mormon leadership.

    If you were actually applying the principles of Biblical interpretation that I listed, you folks wouldn’t come up with such un-Biblical doctrines.

    “President Joseph F. Smith said: ‘The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son…. It is not the Holy Ghost who in person lighteth every man who is born into the world, but it is the light of Christ, the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the source of intelligence, which permeates all nature, which lighteth every man and fills the immensity of space. You may call it the Spirit of God, you may call it the influence of God’s intelligence, you may call it the substance of his power; no matter what it is called, it is the spirit of intelligence that permeates the universe and gives to the spirits of men understanding,….

    “‘The Spirit of God which emanates from Deity may be likened to electricity,… which fills the earth and the air, and is everywhere present'” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 752-53).

    So please Shem, don’t tell us we don’t know what we’re talking about or that we’re interpreting things wrongly or reading into it things that aren’t there.
    You’re making up your own form of Mormonism as I said before. You may as well because it’s got about as much truth as those looney tunes guys you claim are prophets. Finally:
    “Thus, according to Mormon theology, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit who is not omnipresent; rather, He is a deity capable of being in only one place at one time. The Holy Spirit, frequently used in many Mormon writings interchangeably with the terms Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of Christ, Light of Christ, etc., is an inanimate force – likened to electricity – which itself has no thought, compassion or sense of holy purpose, but as a power is employed by the Holy Ghost to accomplish His purposes. This power or force is said to be everywhere present, much like “the Force” in the Star Wars movies, thus allowing the Mormon’s finite Holy Ghost to exert His influence throughout the universe.”

  17. MJP says:

    Shem, “Given what he said and the fact that it caused him to weep it seems obvious that he did not think it was a good thing, at least not at that time.”

    Why is that so obvious? I have cried for joy on numerous occasions, haven’t you?

    Now, as you said, we don’t know the rest of the story, but we do know he believed in the Trinity as defined by us. It seems a huge assumption for you to make that he was negatively affected by this experience. All we know are the facts as laid out in the story. It is our assumptions that go into putting in the meaning.

    Do you agree that that statement is true? If so, how can you conclude with 100% certainty that the experience was negative, and that it proves your point. If you say it does prove it to that extent, I’ll then ask whether it is difficult for someone to have a long held and strong belief upended?

  18. MJP says:

    Shem, I am also going to refer you back to our discussion of facts. A fact simply is. There is no interpretation in defining a fact. A fact simply reflects reality. An honest and unbiased analysis of anything therefore requires us to define facts as simply being there.

    So, putting this to practice concerning the discussion of your faith and our faith requires all of us to acknowledge exactly what was said. We have to do this by first simply stating what the words are. When Grindael and others quote Mormon leaders, this means acknowledging what was said before we put any meaning to it. As an example, it is a fact that we have Young recorded as saying that Adam is god. What that means is another discussion.

    What I am beginning to remember as very frustrating is that you and other Mormon defenders never like to get to the very basics and at least acknowledge that certain things simply are. You are very quick to move to the next discussions, such as meaning or whether something is really as it seems.

    To me, and I think to most of us on the other side, its as if you wish to ignore or sweep away the very real and obvious comments made by the leaders of your faith. There is no desire to lie or misstate anything. We simply look at what is in front of us.

    Does this make sense to you? Can you see what it is I am explaining?

  19. falcon says:

    Shem,
    You are stuck. Which of these guys who claimed to be speaking the truth of the restored gospel are you going to follow and believe? If you want to be an honest to goodness Brigham Young Mormon, then you better join the FLDS. If you want to be a Mormon believing in doctrine as the Mormon church was originally organized then you better jump on board with the Community of Christ or the Temple Lot groups. If none of these groups trip your trigger than why not get with one of any hundred Mormon sects or just do what you’re doing now; make up your own.
    Would you have had the guts to look McConkie in the eye and tell him what you’re telling us about his book, “Mormon Doctrine”?
    I like this”
    “Perhaps the best, most succinct definition of the Mormon distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit can be found in Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine. Some Mormons will undoubtedly argue that this book was simply McConkie’s opinion, written before he was an Apostle. Nevertheless, McConkie would not have become an LDS Apostle if he was thought to be teaching false doctrine about God in what was then his magnum opus.”

    “If there were such errors, he had ample opportunity to correct his book – still selling like hotcakes in Mormon bookstores – during the twelve-and-a-half years he was a Mormon Apostle. As an LDS Apostle, he claimed to have the same apostolic gifts and rights as the Apostles Paul, John, Peter and the rest. Their published statements (in the Bible) about the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit are reliable. If McConkie’s statements about Deity, which he saw published till the day he died, are not likewise reliable, then he did not do the job, or deserve the title, of an Apostle.”

    Face it Shem, you’re in love with the “system” that’s suppose to make you a god. What these individual prophets and apostles say really doesn’t make all that much difference in light of what the “system” can do for you. So just hike off to the temple and do your rituals and keep believing that the priesthood really has some power within this bogus religious system.

  20. cattyjane says:

    Falcon,
    The trinity and knowing God to be ONE, not just in purpose, is something I have become very passionate about. I never thought I would say that! Amazing where God can take us in life isnt it.There is not a speck of doubt in my mind about God being one and the trinity being authentic. I wasnt going to post anymore than I already did but I feel the need to share the information that led me to discover the true ONE God. By understanding that God is one god it completely eliminates the possibility of any of the lds doctrine from being true. Maybe it will help someone else the way it helped me. Before I post it I will have Rickb and Rikkij review it. I want to make sure I wont be crossing in lines. I will try to post it tomorrow.

  21. falcon says:

    cattyjane,
    Excellent! Can’t wait to read it.
    BTW, do you have any insights into the type of thinking that our buddies Shem and FOF are displaying? It blows my mind that they continue to defend the indefensible.
    Getting a firm grip on the doctrine of the nature of God is, I believe, for the LDS the major step. All of these other issues, while important, shrink in comparison to knowing God.
    The LDS god is a former man who had to progress to become a god and continues to progress to this day. Some God!
    Compare that to who the Bible tells us God is.
    Shem may say he’s using solid Biblical interpretive principles but he isn’t. What he’s doing is taking the many and varied ideas produced by the LDS false prophets and going mining for verses that he can twist, shake, mold and separate into what he wants to believe.

  22. shematwater says:

    MJP

    You said “Why is that so obvious? I have cried for joy on numerous occasions, haven’t you?”

    Is this ever once described as tears of joy? No. It is described as ‘bitter weeping’ with ‘groans and cries’ and he cried ‘Woe is me.’ This does not describe the reaction of joy, but the reaction of sorrow, and great sorrow at that. From this account it is obvious that this man did not think that something good had come, but wept bitterly in sorrow and declared the reason to be ‘They have taken my God from me.” There is no way to see this account as him weeping with joy. It just doesn’t fit.

    You said “we do know he believed in the Trinity as defined by us.”

    No. We know that he accepted it through basic reasoning and argumentation as the orthodox doctrine of the church. Belief is much more than an assent and acceptance. I would say that his reaction when he tried to pray is clear evidence that he didn’t truly believe it, but had allowed himself to be persuaded by the learning of men.

    You said “that it proves your point.”

    My only point was that Elder Holland quoting this in the context he did was not a misuse of the account. The man obviously was confused and felt a negative result from this. All Elder Holland said is that his reaction and what he said is not surprising to us. How does the narrative contradict that simple assertion?

    Oh, and if you are going to go back to facts again you aren’t going to get very far. As I have said more than once, facts are only that which we accept as being true, and not a direct measure of what is true.
    For example, you claim “it is a fact that we have Young recorded as saying that Adam is god.” Okay, show me one quote in which Brigham Young utters this statement. Show me where Brigham Young joined those three words together in that order. I know I have never read it, so please provide it for me. Unless you can give a quote where Brigham Young states directly that “Adam is God” than what you say may or may not be true, though you have already accepted it as a fact.

    Falcon

    Shut up. Please. You can rarely open your mouth without it spewing false accusations and just plain garbage when it comes to our church.
    I notice that you give three quotes but fail to actually reference any of them, so we have no idea who said them or how authoritative they are. The one that talks about selling like hot-cakes is almost guaranteed to not be authoritative, as this language is not used for such things.
    So, until we know who made the statement and can evaluate the source I will simply take it as your own rambling, which really isn’t much different anyway.

    you said “If you were actually applying the principles of Biblical interpretation that I listed, you folks wouldn’t come up with such un-Biblical doctrines.”

    Wrong again. The problem is not this principles, but how you accept and apply them. Number 16 seems to be the biggest point of divergence. And you showed this very clearly when you later stated that some orthodox doctrine is accepted and the Bible interpreted based on that acceptance. Thus, you accept things that I do not, and so when I read the Bible I am not trying to understand how a certain verse fits with trinity or other ideas that you may have. Those do not concern me. I do have doctrine that I do accept, just like you do, but it is different.
    So, what you really should have said is this “If you were actually applying the principles of Biblical interpretation that I listed, and accepting the doctrine that I am accepting, you wouldn’t come up with such doctrines that is contrary to what I have already accepted.

    And just to clarify doctrine, since you can’t seem to get a firm grasp on it (as your have presented a very confused idea here); The Holy Ghost is very distinct from the Light of Christ, though both on occasion are called the “Spirit of the Lord.”
    The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead and is an actual being that fulfills vital roles in the plan of salvation. It is through this member of the Godhead that revelation comes and the scriptures are opened to our understanding.
    The Light of Christ is not an actual entity, but is the power or force through which God governs all things, and through which he enlighteneth the mind to seek out truth. This is given to all men, and the result of it are the inventions and discoveries that have been throughout history. It is a source of intelligence. This is the one that is likened to electricity, but only in the sense that it fills all space, in the same way that electricity fills the air around us. In this way the spirit of God, and his presence, can be felt in all creation, for there is no place that it does not penetrate.
    So, when I spoke of guidance from the spirit, I was speaking of the Holy Ghost, through whose power I may receive revelation from deity and gain a fuller understanding of the scriptures; and whose testimony is only of truth and thus can be trusted completely.

  23. grindael says:

    He [Brigham Young] said that our GOD was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ. Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel. I attended meeting in the prayer circle in the evening & then went & preached to the 13 ward. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 4, p.262, February 19, 1854)

    President Young spoke of the first organization of this school By Joseph Smith the Prophet. The word of wisdom was given in this school. Presidet Young said Adam was Michael the Ark angel & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this Principle. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 6, p.381, December 16, 1867)

    I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life.”(Conference Address, February 8, 1854)

    I tell you, when you see your Father in the heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bears your spirit, you will see mother Eve. (ibid)

    Who is “the Father of our spirits” in Mormonism? God. Brigham Young said, Adam is God. Now shut up and listen to the Falcon.

  24. MJP says:

    Shem,

    LOL. Your response is almost funny if it weren’t so sad. You are seriously back to the mental gymnastics we accuse you of performing.

    “No. It is described as ‘bitter weeping’ with ‘groans and cries’ and he cried ‘Woe is me.'” Sounds pretty neutral to me, as I have seen people weep bitterly out of joy, too.

    And are we to presume to know his mind? Gosh, we are told he came to believe, but you are saying he really didn’t believe… Hmmm…. What did I just say about moving ahead beyond what is right in front of us?

    I would maintain that the Elder has abused the statement by taking it out of context, just as Sharon asserted.

    And as to facts, that I won’t get very far is precisely the problem. What you advocate is a very fuzzy picture of the world. A fact is not something you define, a fact is what it is. If you really believe that you can define a fact, then nothing at all is true. Surely you understand where it is I am going by saying nothing is true, because I can have an opposite definition of a fact. If we both identify facts differently, then it is merely our opinion on what is a fact.

    Again, surely you see the problem with that, and the danger in its broader application. And I do not think you would be so loose with the relativistic approach in other areas of your life. For example, I don’t think you would question whether or not two passenger jets flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11/11.

    I would also hope that you would not deny that Young is ascribed to linking Adam and God in a much more connected way than what LDS believe today. In fact, do you deny that the following comment was ascribed to Young. Do you then deny that the comment says that Adam is both Michael and the Ancient of Days; that he is our father and god?

    The comment is:

    “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.”

    Pay very close attention that which I am asking. I am asking if this is ascribed to Young. I am also asking who the comment says that Adam was/is.

    I do expect you to answer this directly and to see sentences similar in structure to these:

    “The comment in question is ascribed to __________. And the comment describes Adam as ____________”.

    Got it?

  25. cattyjane says:

    Falcon,
    Haha! You answered your own question that you presented to me with your last sentence. The type of thinking that is displayed by people who have come to accept a set of beliefs that do not agree with what God himself declared to be true is obstinance. I find that I have some beliefs, not lds related, that I still can be obstinate about. It is related to pride and arrogance in my case. I cannot speak for others. The fact is that we are given free will to choose what we want to believe about God. The important thing to remember is that our choice in choosing what to believe does not alter who the true God is. When we die we will all stand before the true ONE God. We will not stand before “our own set of ideas” god or “our who I wanted god to be” god. There will not be different check out lines in the afterlife based on the the god you worshiped on earth. What we decide to put our faith in doesnt necessarily make it truth. There is ONE truth and ONE God. I prefer to know the true God that I have to answer to in the end. I prefer not to hear Matthew 7:21-23.

  26. MJP says:

    Oh, and Shem, FAIR starts an article on the Adam/God topic thus: “Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father.”

    Yes, it goes on to explain the comment, but are you really going to deny that he said Adam is God? I hope not.

    And for your reference, the article is found here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

  27. MistakenTestimony says:

    Shem,

    You said, “First, I know no such thing, as it [the BoM] is historical, whether people want to accept it as such or not.” Prove it, show me just one ancient artifact or ancient writing that is either Jaredite or Lehite. You know that the BoM is non-historical, you are just unwilling to accept the truth.

    You said, “How does it [JST Bible] undermine anything [rules of Biblical interpretation]? It does this no more than using the NIV rather than the KJV would. It is simply a different translation of the Bible.” English Bible translations (KJV, NIV, etc.) use the Greek and Hebrew scriptures, the JST is not a translation but is rather a series of revelations from the Mormon God. The JST isn’t even in the same ballpark with the KJV and the NIV. You know that the JST is not a translation, you are just unwilling to accept the truth.

    You said, “I don’t think most Christians are reluctant to do so [use these rules for Biblical interpretation].” however just earlier you said, “Actually, your the first person I have ever seen outside the LDS church that has actually listed most of these are necessary or even useful in understanding the Bible.” You know you just lied, you are just unwilling to accept the truth.

    You said, “Most people do not have ‘warm fuzzies’ when studying the scriptures. Most people use the tools that have been listed in order to enhance their understanding.” However, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that, “Testimony is a generic term among Latter-day Saints for the assurance of the reality, truth, and goodness of God, of the teachings and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and of the divine calling of latter-day prophets. It is the core of LDS religious experience. It reaches beyond secondhand assent, notional conviction, or strong belief. It is knowledge buttressed by divine personal confirmation by the Holy Ghost and is interrelated with authentic faith and trust in God as demonstrated by dedication and discipleship.” Gospel Principles (p.145) states, “By the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. If we want to know whether someone else is speaking the truth, we must ask God in faith. If the thing we are praying about is true, the Lord will speak peace to our minds. In this way we can know when someone else, even the prophet, has received revelation.” You know that Mormonism teaches that a subjective experience trumps all objective data, you are just unwilling to accept the truth.

  28. jaxi says:

    cattyjane,

    <"The trinity and knowing God to be ONE, not just in purpose, is something I have become very passionate about. I never thought I would say that!"

    Me neither. I never thought I would say that when I came to the truth about God and I honestly never thought you would say it either. It is one of the most awesome and precious doctrines of the Christian Church. The very nature of God! I look forward to what you write.

  29. Rick B says:

    Shem said

    You said “Mormons hold a rather low view of the Bible…”

    Again, stop telling me what I think or what my opinions are. You show your ignorance of us and our beliefs every time you try to make such unfounded claims. You ignore almost everything about us in order to do so, and it gets annoying.
    The Bible has been and always will be the first and greatest book of scripture that we will ever have in our possession, and we read and study it to a greater extent than any other book.

    It’s not that we can read your mind Shem, It is more a matter of, we can read what your LDS prophets and presidents have said about the Bible.

    JS said

    History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it’s precepts, than any other book.”

    Seems He feels the BoM is better than the Bible.

    Then JS says

    Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on pg 71 we read, ” Take away the book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? we have none.”

    I find it strange that if what you said is true, then why did JS not say this about the Bible?

    Then we read this

    Doctrines of Salvation vol 3, pg 198-199 J.F.S. teaches, ” In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.

    Notice he says, the D and C is greater than the Bible. I guess you two dont agree.

    Now we have this Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

    So it seems none of these guys agree with you, and me and falcon have meet Mormons who dont agree with you either. Now we read A.of F number 8

    8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

    Notice it plainly says, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. But it says about the Bible, It is the word of God IN SO FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY.

    So if it is not translated Correctly, then it is not the word of God. Now it is sayings like this that we simply dont believe you guys love and adore the word of God as much as you claim to. I rather agree with Falcon, LDS dont love or adore the Bible, but view it with contempt. lso I find it funny, you guys cannot tell me what verses are corrupt or not translated correctly since you guys quote from the Bible and never say, This verse is wrong, and then tell us what it really means.

    I know you will claim you answered that question a while back by telling me it was corrected with the J.S.T. But only you must believe that, since I never see LDS missionary’s walking the street or TV ad’s handing out the J.S.T.

    It is always the not correctly translated K.J.V. And I never see you quote the Bible on this blog and state it is the J.S.T. I also have read many books by LDS Prophets and presdients, then looked at every quote from the Bible they give, then looked into the J.S.T and I noticed their are changes among the Verses, so why did they not use the J.S.T if that is the most correct or the corrected version? I know you cannot answer for them, but the point is, if they are not quoting from the J.S.T then it seems they also dont agree with you.

    If your prophets and presidents dont seem to agree with you on these things, then why should I trust you know more than them? And why should I even trust them?

  30. Rick B says:

    It’s kind of Ironic I think, This topic is from some of Apostle Jeffery Hollands teachings.
    Well I just meet with Two Mormon Missionary’s about 1 hour ago right in front of my apartment. I live in Mn, And these two Mormons invited me to a church service this Sunday where it just so happens that they claim the Apostle Jeffery Holland will be speaking.

    Not sure if I will be going or not, but I find as I said, this is ironic and just thought I would post this.

  31. Rick B says:

    Well not much time passed since I wrote that I was invited to hear Jeffery Holland speak on Sunday.
    I decided I will go on Sunday and hear Jeffery speak. The main reason I will go is to hear him speak, then I will meet with the Missionary at my house and we will speak about what ever topic Jeffery talks about. I also hope to get to speak with Jeffery. If I do get to speak with him, I will share the gospel and try and debate him and share problems I see with in Mormonism. I will ask the Christians here to keep me in prayer. Thank you.

  32. Silkworm says:

    Prof. Mark DelCogliano, Adjunct Professor at The University of St. Thomas (Saint Paul, Minnesota) wrote on this very subject.

    Prof. DelCogliano’s paper can be found at:
    http://www.academia.edu/1860504/Situating_Sarapions_Sorrow_The_Anthropomorphite_Controversy_as_the_Historical_and_Theological_Context_of_Cassians_Tenth_Conference_on_Pure_Prayer

    “…. Anthropomorphites who believed that Genesis 1:26 implied that God had a human form.
    8
    Sarapion was one of the so-called Anthropomorphite monks who were disturbed by Theophilus’s letter. Even though Sarapion was widely respected for his ascetical achievements and advanced age, his brothers were stunned byhis ignorant refusal to accept the teachings of Theophilus in spite of the“numerous exhortations” by Paphnutius.
    9
    Paphnutius then had a deacon from Cappadocia named Photinus explain how “the Catholic churches throughout theEast” interpreted Genesis 1:26.
    10
    According to Photinus, the passage was to be interpreted spiritually, not literally, since the “immeasurable and incomprehensible and invisible majesty” of God could not be “circumscribed in a human form and likeness.” Furthermore, “a nature which was incorporeal and uncomposed and simple” could not be “apprehended by the eye or seized with the mind.”
    11
    Upon hearing the arguments of Photinus, Sarapion finally assented to the anti-Anthropomorphite teaching. But when the monks began to pray, the old man [Sarapion] got so confused in his mind during the prayers, when he realized that the anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he had always pictured to himself while praying had been banished from his heart, that he suddenly broke into the bitterest tears and heavy sobbing and, throwing himself to the ground with a loud groan, cried out: “Woe is me, wretch that I am! They have taken my God from me, and I have no one to lay hold of, nor do I know whom I should adore or address.”
    12
    Sarapion had paid a great price in his acceptance of the anti-Anthropomorphite teachings of Theophilus: he could no longer pray. His anguished cry of frustration and desperation is surely one of the more disturbing monastic portraits coming from late fourth century Egypt. (379)”

    “And so, it is the purpose of this essay to situate Cassian’s tenth
    Conference on pure prayer by examining the historical and theological context of Sarapion’s grudgingly painful acceptance of anti-Anthropomorphite teachings. (380)”

    Elder Holland did quote within context.

  33. MJP says:

    Silkworm, somehow I am reminded of the problems that ex-LDS have when they leave the church. They are often quite confused, and I think we have several who can comment on they felt after leaving. But here’s the point: that Sarapion felt confusion on who he was praying to really proves nothing that LDS are right. Its an irrelevant argument to make. The guy was confused? So what?

    There are a million reasons why he would be so confused after spending so much time believing something that was wrong.

    Now, the point of Holland’s message appears to be that our doctrine is incomprehensible. It makes no earthly sense, and LDS offers a better alternative. But that conclusion, though I admit as to why he would use it that way, is simply way off from the story.

    Alas.

  34. falcon says:

    Shem,
    “Falcon, shut up!” Shut up? What, are you two years old. How totally immature.
    This tells me a couple of things. First of all, you’re all out of bullets. You have nothing to offer. Your in a corner and so you lash out. Let’s face it. You’re getting buried here. Your frustrated because there is no defense for Mormonism. I would suggest you grow-up, put on your big boy pants or go to a Mormon site where you can discuss such deep issues like what sort of detergent you should use when washing your magic underwear.

    Let’s examine what’s caused you to lash out in such a childish manner. First of all it’s the culture of Mormonism which keeps the believers in a perpetual state of immaturity. Secondly, you’ve been provided quote after quote by myself and others, most of whom are former Mormons, that proves beyond a doubt that the past authorities within the LDS church were clueless as to what the Bible teaches about the nature of God. It’s embarrassing, their degree of total ignorance and just plain stupidity.
    Finally there’s the case of the Grand Wizard of Mormonism, Bruce McConkie and his definitive work, “Mormon Doctrine”. For at least a couple of generations this book was used by members of the SLC sect of Mormonism as their guide. So now the LDS church won’t even publish it. Why?
    You’re behind the eight ball Shem and the only way to get out from behind it is to grow up and develop some adult thinking especially regarding the cult of Mormonism.

  35. Mr. Holland was speaking about the “confusing” doctrine of the Trinity. When he quoted Sarapion, Mr. Holland implied that Sarapion was distressed over the doctrine of the Trinity — but this is not accurate to the story. Sarapion was distressed over the issue of Anthropomorphism — God the Father in human form. Anthropomorphism and the Trinity are not the same thing; Mr. Holland misapplied the story of Sarapion’s distress, making it sound as if Sarapion could not understand the Trinity when, in fact, the story tells us Sarapion struggled to change his prayer posture to one that focused on God as spirit rather than an image of God in human form.

  36. mapleleaf says:

    Thank you for posting this Sharon. As a mormon I was taught to picture a kind father image that loved me in my mind as I prayed. I was having a nice conversation and sharing my life with the father. It was very hard for me as I was leaving the mormon church to understand the doctrine of the Trinity and to move beyond praying to that image of a man. But one day listening to a Tim Keller sermon on the Trinity – God opened my heart and ears to His truth. My prayers are so much more than they ever were as a mormon – no more of “Dear Heavenly Father, I thank thee, I ask thee, in the name of….” I was never taught to praise or worship God during prayer. The one true God is so much more than the god of Mormonism. So yes I understand the turmoil one goes through as you leave the god of Mormonism behind and learn to truly worship in spirit the one true God of the Bible.

  37. falcon says:

    Sharon,
    Very good summary which gets to the heart of the matter concerning Mormons and the faith and confidence they put in their leadership which is, totally clueless.
    One of the sayings that is most favored by Mormons goes something like this: “Trust your leaders. They will never lead you astray.” Another fan favorite of the faithful Mormon is: “When the leadership speaks, the thinking has been done.” In-other-words, fall in line and don’t ever question anything.
    I’ve been referencing Bruce McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine”. Looking into the history of the book and the most recent decision to not publish it any more, tells us that their is plenty that Mormons need to question and that their leadership most often does lead them astray.

    One blogger writes the following:

    “It’s not like various leaders of the Church haven’t tried their best to downplay the reliability of this book. When it was first published in 1958, its appearance was news to the prophet, David O. McKay, because McConkie – then just a member of the Council of the Seventy – hadn’t bothered to tell the First Presidency his plans to publish a book claiming to be an encyclopedia of Mormon doctrine. Whoops. McKay and two other apostles (including Marion Romney, Mitt’s dad’s cousin) spent over a year studying the book and compiling a report of the – wait for it – 1,067 corrections that needed to be made. The First Presidency ultimately recommended that the book not be given a second edition at all; it was too full of errors and had been “a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published.”

    But the Mormon people apparently loved it, and six years later McConkie lobbied the ailing prophet for a second edition. It is not clear that McKay ever authorized it to be published under Church auspices, but McConkie moved forward anyway. (The McConkie family disputes this last claim, and if documents are added to the historical record that demonstrate McKay’s approval of the project, I will stand corrected. I have not yet seen any such evidence.)

    Whether the second edition was authorized or not, the book’s success is history. It was a top backlist performer for Deseret for half a century, even after the Church tried several years ago to supplant Mormon Doctrine’s monopoly on the easy-to-use dictionary format with the handy (and free!) little A-Z reference book True to the Faith. It helped some, but not entirely.

    There will probably never be an official repudiation of the book. It’s not seen as good form for general authorities to rebuke one another; they’re much too nice for that nowadays. But at times it would save us all a lot of anguish if they would just stand up in General Conference and shout, “Elder so-and-so, your book was full of crap!” This kind of thing was done routinely in Joseph Smith’s day. Then he’d excommunicate everybody, they’d say they were sorry and request rebaptism, and they’d all sit down to fried chicken. It felt good to clear the air.”

    Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/05/one-year-later-bruce-r-mcconkie%e2%80%99s-mormon-doctrine-buh-bye.html#ixzz2W0rZcKlh

  38. falcon says:

    So that’s really the point of Sharon’s article. Can Mormons trust their leaders?
    Bottom line is, the have to. These guys are suppose to have a special “witness of Jesus Christ” which used to mean that the faithful believed that Jesus actually appeared to them. That’s gone through a serious down-grade in recent years and the witness is now more faith based than an actual appearance of Jesus.
    There is a small band of Mormons out there who actually do question and write about it. They can be found on websites such as “Mormon Think”. Cults like Mormonism depend on members who are willing to fall in line, do what they’re told and believe what they are told to believe.
    Under circumstances like this, nothing is to be questioned. What a sad state of affairs. But this is the price people pay when they give themselves over to a belief system that demands total obedience and compliance with the company line. Believing that they have a prophet who is hearing directly from the Mormon god is the hook. Who in the world would dare to question god’s anointed and special mouth piece?

  39. Kenneth says:

    Rick B:

    I attended a talk by L. Tom Perry (Quorum of the Twelve) last Sunday. The meeting wasn’t structured to allow for direct dialogue with the apostle. Hopefully your experience will be different from mine.

  40. MJP says:

    Quiet day…

    And thanks for bring us back on point, Sharon.

  41. grindael says:

    What is interesting is that Terryl Givens is going about Europe right now giving “firesides” to deal with the problems in Mormon History. In one report that we got about Given’s comments at one of the firesides, he said this:

    “Terryl: When we talk about the First Vision, we often quote what the Lord told Joseph about the creeds of man being an abomination to Him. But what creeds did He mean? Joseph recorded it,
    but he wasn’t talking about the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed, of which he knew nothing. Later on when Joseph talks about the creeds of Christianity, he’s talking about the Westminster Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. It is these ‘creeds’ that state that God is a being ‘without body, parts, or passions.’ To this day, Protestant Christianity believes in a God who is incapable of human emotions. The idea of a loving God may be all the rage among Christians, but the creeds don’t say that, and in Joseph’s day no one taught it. In fact, it was always considered that part of the joy of Heaven would be to look down upon the millions burning in hell for eternity. But Joseph Smith revealed a God who loves us, a God who weeps for us.”

    This, of course is just a blatant lie. Here is The Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646,

    I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

    II. God hath all live, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

    In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

    People who want to give a false impression of the Creeds will say that because it is stated that God is not subject to “passions” that he cannot love. This of course is totally silly, as we see from the Creed itself. And they were preaching that God is love on the Methodist Circuit during the Great Awakening. Givens is simply lying. There are many books that have been written about the Circuit Riders of Jo Smith’s time, and about the others that preached also. He needs to pick one up and read it. (For example, “Sketches of Western Methodism” published in the 1850’s is a great book.)

    Classic theism teaches that God is impassible—not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith above, God is “without body, parts, or passions, immutable”,

    and those like Givens know this, but they are blatantly lying to promote their false anthropomorphic god.

    Classic theism treats such biblical statements as anthropopathisms—figurative expressions ascribing human passions to God. They are the emotional equivalent of those familiar physical metaphors known as anthropomorphisms—in which hands (Exodus 15:17), feet (1 Kings 5:3), eyes (2 Chronicles 16:9), or other human body parts are ascribed to God.
    We know very well that God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39)—so when Scripture speaks of God as having body parts, we naturally read such expressions as figures of speech. Almost no one would claim that the biblical tropes ascribing physical features to God are meant to be interpreted literally.(Except heretics) http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

    It might do them well to read Psalm 50:

    16 But to the wicked person, God says:

    “What right have you to recite my laws
    or take my covenant on your lips?
    17 You hate my instruction
    and cast my words behind you.
    18 When you see a thief, you join with him;
    you throw in your lot with adulterers.
    19 You use your mouth for evil
    and harness your tongue to deceit.
    20 You sit and testify against your brother
    and slander your own mother’s son.
    21 When you did these things and I kept silent,
    you thought I was exactly like you.
    But I now arraign you
    and set my accusations before you.

  42. cattyjane says:

    Ok. Here is the post I promised. I really hope that it helps someone like it did me.

    The word trinity may not appear in the bible as the word ‘trinity’ but the idea of the trinity is implied in the Scripture. I would encourage everyone to research the Hebrew language. I am actually going to start taking classes this fall to learn Hebrew myself. The language is so intricately designed that it is undeniably a language created by God himself. Hebrew is the only language in the world where the letters and the characters represent letters and meanings at the same time. I watched a few videos last fall that helped me to understand how amazing the language is.

    The idea of the “Trinity” is implied in the Scriptures. From the first letter of Torah (ie., the Bet in the word “Bereshit”) through the last letter of the New Testament (i.e., the Nun in the word “Amen”) – These letters spell the word “Son” — here we see God as defined as One yet expressing Himself in different Persons. God the Son is “First and Last” (Isa. 48:12, 44:6, Rev. 1:17, 2:8; 22:13) There is a really good diagram on this website that shows the Hebrew letters and how it forms this word. This is not just a coincidence people! The very beginning of the scriptures in Gen 1:1-2 explains the idea that God represents Multiplicity within Unity. But not just one in purpose! The apostle John identifies Jesus with YHVH, the “First and the Last” of whom there is no other god (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 22:13). Since only YHVH is the true King of Israel it can mean nothing other than Jesus is God himself (Isa. 44:6). But not just one in purpose! The trinity did not come from pagan ideas and you can read more about this at the site I will post. Jesus Christ is YHVH, God Himself, come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:2-3). When we say Jesus Christ is Lord that is what we are saying. Jesus Christ is God, King, Almighty, One and Only (Phil 2:11; Rom. 10:9). But not just one in purpose! This is the clincher so PAY ATTENTION! “Who has ascended to heaven and come down? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4). This is the Old Testament. Jesus Christ had not been born yet so how would they know the name of the Son? Oh wait…because HE WAS YHVH! God Almighty! The name of the Father is the Sons’!

    http://hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Triunity/triunity.html

    The name for God in the OT was Yahweh. The four Hebrew letters ‘Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey’ comprise the name YHWH or the name for God. The Hebrew language has evolved over time but when we examine the original pictographic Hebrew letters we can see some amazing things revealed about the name of God. The website will show you the pictographs and explain in greater detail the meaning of each letter. I would encourage you to look at it. The amazing thing is that the name of God reveals the entire Bible and the redemptive plan. The pictographs onvey the following revelation, which in our English construct would be stated as “Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail”. The name of the Father carries the burden of the Son, and this is written into His Word from the very beginning of creation.

    http://www.answersintheendtimes.com/Hebrew-Studies/YHWH-The-Hand-The-Nail

    Another amazing point is the the ancient pictographic word for Torah displays Jesus Christ as well. Torah (the word of God) is spelled Tav vav resh hey. When all of the meanings are put together it says “Behold! A man nailed to a cross.” The cross is the sign of our covenant with YHWH (Isa 49:8, Isa 42:6, Isa 42,7) Jesus Christ stated that he was the Alef Tav, the alpha and omega as it was written in Greek. The Alef Tav means the “Mighty one of the Covenant”. Yahshua (Jesus Christ the messiah) is the Mighty One of the covenant that was spoken about in Isa 42:6! There are also some other amazing points you should read about but I don’t have room to include all of them, just check them out at the website.

    http://emetyahshua.blogspot.com/2010/08/something-cool-about-ancient-hebrew.html?m=1

    If this is not enough than consider this scripture. Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This is a prophecy of the Messiah that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. These titles that were given to him are only referred in other scriptures when they are applied to God himself (the Father).

    I could include more information that has really helped me to understand how Jesus Christ and the Father are One single God, but I believe that this will give whoever is searching to know the TRUE GOD a good head start. If nothing else it should peak your curiosity enough to research this topic. Knowing this is key to receiving eternal life. A false God cannot deliver you and give you eternal life. Only the true God can do that. And sorry to say…well Im not really sorry when I say this…but the god of the lds church is not the true god. He is not YHWH. The characteristics that the church gives him are only an illusion of YHWH. An illusion and an imitation cannot save you. If it is not the YHWH of the bible, it is not YHWH. Just because the church calls him god or Jesus doesn’t mean that they pray or serve the same god of the bible. Knowing and serving the true God in the way he commands is essential! Remember Matthew 7:21-23.

  43. falcon says:

    Grindael,

    What in the world is this guy talking about?

    “But what creeds did He mean? Joseph recorded it,
    but he wasn’t talking about the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed, of which he knew nothing.”

    How could Smith not know these creeds? The Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 AD as a statement of faith to battle the Arian heresy. How could Smith not known about it? My guess is these creeds were printed in the front of every church’s hymnal in his day as it is in ours.
    I preached two Sundays in a row recently at a Lutheran Church. Guess what they recite? It’s right there in the front of the green hymnal along with their liturgy, the Lord’s Prayer and several other things.
    What this Mormon is spouting is just plain ignorance or a deliberate lie. Incidentally, the Church Fathers were writing about the things contained in the creeds long before any of the Councils.
    Mormons make much ado about the creeds and the Councils which they know nothing about.

  44. grindael says:

    Falcon,

    Beats me what he is talking about. (He IS lying about the Westminster Confession). Here is an audio file of one of their firesides. MormonThink also has something on it here.

    It would be hard to pin down exactly what Jo knew or when he knew it because he changed his story so much that it’s virtually impossible to know anything other than he was inconsistent and contradictory and his 1838 History does not agree (or were never even mentioned) with the events as recorded by his Mother, Brother William, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight or anyone else from that period. And his 1834 History contradicts his 1838 history.

  45. falcon says:

    Grindael

    “……..it’s virtually impossible to know anything other than he was inconsistent and contradictory.”

    That sounds like Mormonism. Oh wait. He’s the founder of Mormonism. Funny how that works isn’t it?

  46. shematwater says:

    MJP

    Never, in anything I have ever read, has the term bitter ever been used in junction with a theme of joy. If one weeps for joy it is described as sweet tears, or tears of laughter, or weeping for joy, or something similar.
    Bitter is never used to describe something that is not painful or hard to bear. As the dictionary gives it
    3. hard to bear; grievous; distressful: a bitter sorrow.
    4. causing pain; piercing; stinging: a bitter chill.
    5. characterized by intense antagonism or hostility: bitter hatred.
    6. hard to admit or accept: a bitter lesson.
    7. resentful or cynical: bitter words.

    For anyone to claim that bitter weeping does not describe a painful and anguished emotion is misuse the English language.

    You said “we are told he came to believe”

    No, we are told he came to accent, or accept the doctrine. This does not guarantee actual belief in it, which was my point.

    As to the rest, Silkworm did a very good job of showing just how in context Elder Holland was, so I will leave it at that.

    Concerning facts, once again look at the definition of the word. As I have said before truth and fact are not the same thing, and one is not a measure of the other.
    “I don’t think you would question whether or not two passenger jets flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11/11.” This can be called fact by both of us, as we accept that it happened; it can also be called truth because it did actually happen.
    However, the moon landing is called fact by us, as we accept it, but there are those that do not call it fact as they believe it was faked. To them it is not a fact; yet it is still a truth because it did happen.
    Again, to many scientists, and even many Christians, the accounts given in Genesis are not considered fact, but are looked at as allegories. On the other hand, I accept them as fact. Are they also true? I would argue yes, but the proof of that will not be seen until the millennium.
    Are you understanding what I am saying here? You may not like that this is the way the language works, but this is how the word fact is used and how it is applied. Fact is not, nor has it ever been, a direct measure of what is true. It is, and always has been, a statement of what is accepted to be true at the time.

    And no, I do not deny the quote from Brigham Young. I have read it many times. But I would point out that it does not prove what you claimed as fact, as no where in it does it say “Adam is God.” It says similar things, yes, but not exactly this. Adam is our God, and he is a God; but it is never said Adam is God, which would indicate that he is the god we worship. Thus, what you claimed as fact is not supported by this quote.
    Oh, and it really teaching nothing different than what I have always believed, and what is the doctrine of the church, though it is doctrine not commonly discussed, as it is not really necessary to understand this in order to be saved.

    Mistake

    You said “Prove it”

    First of all, I have no wish to. Second of all, proof is a very fickle thing, and depends greatly on whether or not you would accept it or not. As you wouldn’t there is very little proof in offering it. Thirdly, the lack of proof does not in itself prove anything.
    So, since you are so set on proof, why don’t you give us proof that it isn’t historical.

    You said “the JST is not a translation”

    Actually it is. A translation is “change or conversion to another form, appearance.” In 2 Samuel 3: 10 it says that the Kingdom was translated from the house of Saul to the house of David. In Colossians 1: 13 it speaks of the saints being translated into the Kingdom, and in Hebrews 11: 5 it states that Enoch was translated (referring to the fact that God took him off the earth). Joseph Smith translated the Bible from its old and somewhat corrupted version to a pure and uncorrupted version.

    You said “You know you just lied”

    I did not lie, so I would thank you to stop falsely accusing me. I said that I have never before seen a ‘Christian’ list these principles and state they are useful. However, this does not mean they do not use them. As I said, if you would care to actually give my full words “I just think it is uncommon for Christians to recognize and admit that they use these things.”

    You said “the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that”

    I know what a testimony is. That really changes nothing. When reading the scriptures most people utilize these principles and try to understand the text. On occasion they receive a revelation and testimony of a certain passage, but that is not as common as you might think.

    You said “Mormonism teaches that a subjective experience trumps all objective data”

    There is nothing subjective about it. A testimony, a real testimony, is not a subjective experience where one feels good. It is a direct communication from God to our spirit. It is a very real thing that drives all subjectivity away and secures in our minds and in our hearts a sure knowledge of the truth.
    What I find rather funny in all this is that most of what you call objective is actually subjective, though you refuse to admit it.

    Rick

    You can quote whatever you want, but that does not mean you understand anything. A few quotes do not establish a doctrine or a complete thought. The problem here is not what these men have said, but in the fact that you have already determined in your mind what you will accept as our beliefs regarding the Bible. Then you look at the quotes and see only what you have already determined to be fact.

    Read here http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-miracle-of-the-holy-bible?lang=eng and you may understand how the LDS view the Bible. All other references must be seen in light of not only or love of the Bible, but our study of it (twice as long as any other scripture).

    Falcon

    You see, this is exactly what I am talking about. I said shut up as I would to a young boy who ignores everything else. One who just sits there and constantly complains about others, though most of what he says is incoherent or simply false. After a short time of enduring such juvenile rambling, and trying to politely tell him that he needs to stop, getting simply fed up with the idiocy of it all, one shouts “Shut -up” and the shock of it caused the young boy to drop into silence.
    I am only disappointed that it didn’t work.

    Sharon

    I understand what you are saying, I am just disagreeing. I think it is accurate that the man was distressed over the trinity. Quite honestly it makes no sense that he was distressed over a doctrine that he had believed for many years, and that he seems to have found enhanced his faith. The full account you gave does not support this, but rather shows that the new doctrine that he had been persuaded to accept is what he found distressing.

  47. MJP says:

    Shem, are you really still arguing the definition of a fact? This is really quite funny. What the moon landing deniers suggest is the very fact of the moon landing. That they dispute that it ever happened is irrelevant to the definition of a fact. What you are doing is confusing the definition of a fact with whether people accept something as fact.

    Again, Brigham Young said this, specifically: “He [Adam] is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” He is saying that Adam is god, and that is clear and without question.

    Do you really not see the mental gymnastics you just went through to explain that away? You just wrote this: “It says similar things, yes, but not exactly this. Adam is our God, and he is a God; but it is never said Adam is God, which would indicate that he is the god we worship.” Huh? Adam is our God, and a God, but never that Adam IS God? How many gods are there? How do we know which is THE God? It makes no sense, and you call our doctrine confusing? What Young said is clear.

    And yes, I have experienced bitterness and pain that is ultimately joyous. I think of losing a loved one, or moving to a new town. I think of broken relationships that had developed many roots, but had become broken. This is where we have to look at what exactly is in issue.

    What’s in issue in this story is that we had a man who was … was moved by the numerous and convincing assertions…, and consented to the traditional faith of Catholics [i.e., “universal” or “general”]. ” I suppose what’s in question is the definition of the word ‘moved’. I see being moved by something is more than just being convinced. I’ll allow the difference of interpretation, but I would argue that my interpretation works better in context.

    And the context is that Sarapion was not ‘in woe’ due to the belief of the Trinity, but rather that his belief that God was not just like him was destroyed. He’d been wrong. He was unaccustomed to praying to something he was not familiar with. The bitterness was not that he was wrong in his conversion, but rather in his lack of knowledge of how then to pray. In your list of definitions of ‘bitter’, one of them is hard to accept. This actually fits nicely.

    I do, in fact, argue that you take a relativist approach to the word fact. If you refuse to accept that a fact is simply something that happened or is on something or is just simply there. A fact has no intrinsic value. A fact has no life of its own. And we have to realize that before we can ever truly learn something. Your refusal to acknowledge this truth concerning facts will be a stumbling block to you as you move forward, especially in your journey of faith. It will allow you to distort facts in your favor quite easily.

    It is indeed a fact that Brigham Young said that Adam is God. You are free to interpret that, but his words are clearly written. He says that Adam is God, our Father, and in him is everything we do, and that the world will have to find out eventually this supposed truth. For you to deny what he said is to deny his plain words. While I do grant your freedom to explain the comment, you cannot deny the words. The words are fact. They are there.

    If you cannot deny the words are there, then you have additional problems you need to consider. This about it. How can you believe a faith that has to deny the very words of its fathers? And when trying to explain, as you have done, you lead the reader to a place more confusing than before. If Adam is god our father, but isn’t god, then what is it you really mean? Because there has to be more than where it is left.

  48. MJP says:

    Catty,

    Thanks for the information. I have not heard a lot of that information. Sounds interesting.

    Shem, “Quite honestly it makes no sense that he was distressed over a doctrine that he had believed for many years, and that he seems to have found enhanced his faith.” I suggest you ask people who have left your faith how they feel. I would love to see what they have to say about it.

  49. MistakenTestimony says:

    Shem,

    You said, “proof is a very fickle thing, and depends greatly on whether or not you would accept it or not.” Wow, proof is relative. That is Mormonism in a nutshell.

    You said, “You said ‘the JST is not a translation’ Actually it is. A translation is ‘change or conversion to another form, appearance.'” Nice mental gymnastics and play on symantics, good luck convincing anyone outside of Mormondom that the JST is an actual Bible translation.

    You said, “There is nothing subjective about it. A testimony, a real testimony, is not a subjective experience where one feels good. It is a direct communication from God to our spirit.” I don’t think you know the difference between subjective and objective.

    You said, “What I find rather funny in all this is that most of what you call objective is actually subjective.” No, good sir, this applies clearly to your Mormon logic based on your statements.

  50. MJP says:

    MistakenTestimony, I enjoyed your last post to Shem. I am having a very similar discussion with him right now, and I too accuse him of relativism. More specifically, part of our discussion surrounds what is a fact. According to him, a fact is that which any given person accepts as fact. If people cannot agree on a fact, it is not a fact. Its all about what a person believes, not about what is simply there.

    I almost commented on his comment to you about the testimony. It may be fact, but it is also very subjective. There is no way to prove the testimony outside of what a person feels, but because it is a feeling, it is totally subject to emotion and attitude.

    Its been said before, and it will be said again, but getting him or someone else to pin down a single idea or concept is near impossible. It is a faith with its foundation in the realm of relativism.

Leave a Reply