To my son John Caleb and daughter Lydia, I “mock” the earth in showing just how small it is compared to the wider universe, which is itself small compared to the “bigness” and beauty and power and ultimacy of God himself. This isn’t to deny the inherent beauty and largeness of the earth, or the universe, or to deny that God himself did not give the earth its beauty, but it is to put things in context.
Listen to God himself mock idolatry in Isaiah 44:12-17:
“The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!” And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”
This passage sits within a large context of serious courtroom drama. God has called all the witnesses of the nations to testify of their gods, and he triumphs over them in boasting of how great he is compared to them. He alone is the true God. He alone is the Most High. And in this flow, God, before the witnesses of these nations, even employs mockery. If we condemn such mockery, I think we are taking ourselves too seriously.
Humor seems necessary, even mandatory, for the Christian life, inasmuch as it means not taking ourselves too seriously: God is big, and we are little compared to God’s bigness. Complaining about the scuffs on our new iPhones deserves mockery. Life is short, heaven is forever. Losing this perspective, we become like Pharisees. We make the big things small, and the small things big. Christian humor helps us put these things back into perspective. A holy mockery, satire, ridicule of the absurdity of sin, seems fitting for people who love what is most lovely.
I “mock” Joseph Smith’s re-rendering of Romans 4:5 — after all, the whole context of Romans 3-4 is about God’s grace in light of the ungodliness of humanity. Smith didn’t merely botch it, he royally screwed it up, turning the meaning on its head. When we read the JST of Romans 4:5 — “But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” — we should drop our jaws. We should be aghast. We should lose our breath in dismay. And then smile, and laugh! WHAT?! He did THAT?! What scorn we have for such an abuse of the text! What derision we have for a such an awful and tragic and horrific perversion of the text! Why have this attitude? Because we love the gospel! Because we love the truth! Because we love Romans!
It seems to me the main issue behind the ethics of “mockery” is whether it comes out of a deep love for what is good, true, and beautiful. If I love God and the gospel and the Mormon people, I ought to think belittling thoughts and, ultimately, have a condescending attitude toward the LDS temple. Why? Because we know just how supreme Jesus is in his fulfillment of the temple! Because we know just how silly it is to say that the LDS temple is an authentic restoration of what went on in Solomon’s temple! If my mockery of the LDS temple comes, however, out of a belittling of the dignity, value, and beauty of the LDS people, out of a lack of love for their well-being, out of a bitter contempt for the individuals, made in the image of God, then that is a whole different matter.
Mockery and persecution, the two LDS trump cards. It usually means that Mormons don’t like anything said about their religion unless it’s in a positive vain.
I hear that to “mock” is a big deal in Mormonism. I don’t know why. I’ve never heard that in regards to other religions. I grew-up Catholic and if any religion gets mocked I’d say that’s one. But I never heard any Catholic claim it.
Maybe for Mormons it has something to do with Jesus being mocked by the Roman soldiers and Mormons are trying to gain something by claiming they are being mocked also.
I really wouldn’t mind mocking the Mormon god since he doesn’t exist any way. I guess what I’d be mocking is the LDS idea that they are going to become gods. I think that needs to be mocked loud and often. Now good mocking is an art form. I’d have to think it through how I’d mock the idea that someone thinks that they are going to become a god, have their own planetary system to rule, and procreate spirit children into eternity in the Celestial Kingdom.
In the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” there is a song the title of which is “I believe”. Now that is some grade “A” mocking. It hits all of the high points of Mormonism and the earnestness with which the young “missionary” sings it, is classic.
OK, I’ll let the taste police decide if this link to the song “I believe” is over the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHEqCXY2B-w
Actually there’s about four things in the song that I actually believe. They’re easy to pick out. And that’s the insidious nature of Mormonism. The really out-in-left-field Mormon beliefs are mixed in with what sounds like normative Christianity. This is dangerous because people get the idea that Mormonism is orthodox Christianity because there are similar sounding terms. The fact is, however, that there is no similarity between Mormonism and first century Biblical Christianity.
Does Mormonism then deserve to be mocked? After all I think our “missionary” singing the song “I believe” is certainly a nice, devout and sincere young man. So should he be mocked. Should his “beliefs” be mocked.
Well maybe it all comes down to style.
Speaking of Mocking in the Bible. My all time favorite story is Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Read the entire story on 1st kings.
In this verse it clearly states Elijah mocked them.
I don’t know if this would be considered mocking. It is satire. I don’t think it’s over-the-top. I don’t get any exposure to Mormon missionaries so I don’t know how point on this is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzRFpvL4fws
We shouldn’t ignore the fact that Mormons mock God.
Falcon, The “mocking” that is so offensive to the Mormon mind comes from the Temple Endowment introduction. The phrase is that (God will not be Mocked) and is linked to “You will be required to take upon yourself sacred obligations, the violation of which will bring upon you the judgement of God, for God will not be mocked.” The obligations are that you will live in accordance to the covenants taken and also that “you will never reveal” the Names, Signs,and Tokens received in the Temple today.”
The Biblical reference to God will not be mocked is Galations 6:7 Man will receive that which he sows. BOM is silent about God will not be Mocked. D&C has three great “God will not be Mocked” But none are in referencing the breaking Temple vows! Love that BOM Mosiah 15 verses 1 thru 5 . Must read about Mocking God. Their are many, many verses that support mankinds mocking of God and Jesus.
The Mormon culture imposes these vows on non-endowed members and even nonmembers because of that threat, “God will not be Mocked!” It shows in the distain of contention and the passive acceptance of authority. It echos in every Mormon’s head all the time.
Falcon, The “mocking” that is so offensive to the Mormon mind comes from the Temple Endowment introduction. The phrase is that (God will not be Mocked) and is linked to “You will be required to take upon yourself sacred obligations, the violation of which will bring upon you the judgement of God, for God will not be mocked.” The obligations are that you will live in accordance to the covenants taken and also that “you will never reveal” the Names, Signs,and Tokens received in the Temple today.”
The Biblical reference to God will not be mocked is Galations 6:7 Man will receive that which he sows. BOM is silent about God will not be Mocked. D&C has three great “God will not be Mocked” But none are in referencing the breaking Temple vows! Love that BOM Mosiah 15 verses 1 thru 5 . Must read about Mocking God. Their are many, many verses that support mankinds mocking of God and Jesus.
The Mormon culture imposes these vows on non-endowed members and even nonmembers because of that threat, “God will not be Mocked!” It shows in the distain of contention and the passive acceptance of authority. It echos in every Mormon’s head all the time.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the Savior only experienced what thousands of other people have also suffered, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that God is so limited in His power and vision that He has only created one planet for His children, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the atonement of Christ pertained only to an payment for sin and not all of the illnesses, pains, and non-sin-related human suffering, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the power of the atonement was limited to only one planet instead of “worlds without number,” I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity does not belief God is either powerful enough or loving enough to make His children like Him, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity cannot offer an explanation for why God choose some individuals to be saved and others to be damned forever, I will not mock those beliefs.
And you might want to consider the opinion of Don Garlington, adjunct Professor at Tyndale Seminary, on Romans 4. I think your response shows dogmatic thinking and a closed mind rather than a follower of Christ interested in truth.
Here is his opinion in response to John Piper:
“The primary passage educed in support of this proposition is Romans 4:1-11. Verse 3 of chapter 4 quotes Genesis 15:6. As translated by Piper, the latter passage reads: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness” (italics his). The mainstay of the argument from Romans 4 is the translation of the Greek verb logizomai as “reckoned,” “counted” or “imputed.” Thus, given such a translation of Paul’s Greek, it follows for Piper that righteousness becomes the possession of the believer by virtue of imputation.
However, the problem resides precisely in the translation and, consequently, the interpretation of logizomai. It is true that members of this basic family of words can mean “credit/charge to one’s account” (for example, Philemon 18 [ellogeô]), and logizomai itself is used by Paul in the sense of “keep a record of” (1 Corinthians 13:5). The LSJ classical Greek lexicon cites a couple of instances in which it bears the sense of “set down to one’s account,” although these are isolated instances and do not occupy any place of prominence in the verb’s semantic range. However, a glance at the BAGD Lexicon informs one that in biblical Greek logizomai characteristically means things like “reckon,” “calculate,” “count,” “take into account,” “evaluate,” “estimate,” “think about,” “consider,” “think,” “be of the opinion,” “look upon as” (as do LSJ).
Given such established and common usages, it is striking that Piper overlooks the fact that the most proximate occurrence of logizomai to Romans 4 is Romans 3:28, where the verb can hardly be translated “impute” or “credit.” Rather, Paul “considers” or “concludes” that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (cf. the same usage in Romans 6:11). Indeed, this strategic employment of logizomai provides a very natural lead-in to chapter 4, which almost immediately quotes Genesis 15:6.
It is true that BAGD translate logizomai in Romans 4:4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22 as “place to one’s account” or “credit.” The editors do so because these verses, they correctly note, are taken after Genesis 15:6. Yet it is just Genesis 15:6, rightly understood, that provides the linguistic and conceptual background to Romans 4. What the exegete must “reckon with” is that logizomai is not an isolated entry in a lexicon, but rather part of an idiom that is Hebrew in origin.
In quoting the LXX of Genesis 15:6, Paul draws upon the phrase logizomai eis (“it was reckoned to him as righteousness”). The language of the LXX, in turn, is based on the underlying Hebrew phrase hashab le. This idiom is common enough in the Old Testament as meaning “to consider a thing to be true.” As such, the Hebrew and Greek phrases at stake are best translated as “reckon,” not “credit” or “impute.” Piper seems to use all three more or less synonymously; but in fact they are not. Dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster assign to “reckon” meanings like “to count or compute” or “to consider as being; regard as,” the latter being more relevant for the present purposes.
In short, the point of Genesis 15:6, as taken up by Romans 4, is that Abraham was regarded as a righteous, that is, covenant keeping, person when he continued to place his trust in God’s promise of a seed. This correlation of fidelity to God and the reckoning of righteousness was alive in the Jewish consciousness of the Second Temple period. According to 1 Maccabees 2:52, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?”
Having quoted Genesis 15:6, with its full phraseology, “it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” Paul, in good midrashic fashion, singles out key words from the text, in particular “righteousness” and “reckon.” In vv. 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, he reiterates that righteousness “is reckoned to” individuals. As observable in Paul’s writing, shorthand expressions can serve as stand-ins for a longer string of words. The most conspicuous example is Paul’s substitution of “works” for “works of the law.” In the instances before us, “righteousness” is placed in the passive voice with the indirect object in the dative case. Thus, instead of wording that renders more literally the Hebrew text of Genesis 15:6, Paul streamlines his diction into a more recognizable Greek idiom.
But in every case, the point is the same: individuals are considered to be righteous. In context, Paul is driving home the argument that righteousness does not hinge on circumcision and devotion to Israel’s Torah. Abraham in particular is singled out, among other reasons, because he was vindicated (justified) as a righteous person before circumcision and the advent of the law. The argument gains in impact in light of the standard Jewish dogma that the patriarch kept none other than the law of Moses before Sinai (Sirach 44:20; 2 Baruch 57:2; Damascus Document 3:2).
Piper picks up on the common understanding that Romans 4:4-5 is cast in terms of a commercial transaction. Verse 4, anyway, is capable of such an interpretation, since logizomai can use used in the sense of “calculating” a wage. It may well be that Paul here pauses to draw on an analogy from the business world, because, in terms of contractual relationships, logizomai can mean a reckoning of payment for work done.
Nevertheless, the control factor over Paul’s choice of words is Genesis 15:6. While 4:4 may be a reflection on a well-known principle of business practice, 4:5 returns to the idiom of logizomai eis: the believer’s faith is considered to be his righteousness. Paul’s thought is grounded in the sphere of the Hebrew covenant, according to which individuals are thought to be faithful when they place their confidence in the God of Israel and give concrete expression to their faith by obedience to his commands. The radical thing in Paul, however, is that peoples of all kinds can be looked upon as obediently faithful quite apart from Torah observance and Jewish ethnic identity. It is those who simply place their trust in Jesus who truly walk in Abraham’s footsteps, making the patriarch the father of circumcised and uncircumcised alike (Romans 4:12).
It is just such an appraisal of the reckoning of righteousness that opens up the intention of Romans 4:6: because of its object, faith, and faith alone, is accepted in the place of allegiance to the law of Moses, including, most prominently, the various boundary markers of Jewish identity. In strict terms, faith is reckoned as righteousness: our faith in Christ is looked upon as tantamount to righteousness in its quintessential meaning—conformity to the will of God—because in Christ we have become God’s very righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Again, we must read Paul in light of his Jewish context and the polemics of the Roman letter. To his Jewish compatriots, righteousness was inconceivable apart from the Torah, so much so that one document can actually coin the phrase, “the righteousness of the law of God” (Testament of Dan 6:11).11 Given, additionally, that faith in Paul is specifically trust in Jesus of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah, the impact of Romans 4 is that righteousness is no longer to be assessed in terms of one’s relation to the law, but rather by one’s relation to Jesus the Christ. His purpose, then, is to argue that Abraham’s (and our) faith is considered to be covenant fidelity, with no further qualifications and requirements.
To my mind at least, this interpretation is bolstered by a consideration of the alternative. On Piper’s construction, faith is “credited/imputed for righteousness” (p. 55). However, this introduces at least a prima facie confusion. Surely, the heart of Piper’s argument is that righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer in the act of faith. This being so, in what sense can faith meaningfully be “imputed?” If righteousness is imputed by faith, then how can faith itself be imputed? It would seem that Piper has arrived at a double imputation, that of righteousness and of faith. This would appear to be a muddling of ideas, particularly as everywhere in the New Testament faith is predicated as the response of the human being himself/herself to the gospel. To be sure, faith is the gift of God, but to speak of the imputation of faith makes for an odd combination of terms. By contrast, if faith is reckoned/considered to be righteousness, the difficulty disappears.”
And this interpretation agrees very well with the Joseph Smith translation.
Thanks.
“If my mockery of the LDS temple comes, however, out of a belittling of the dignity, value, and beauty of the LDS people, out of a lack of love for their well-being, out of a bitter contempt for the individuals, made in the image of God, then that is a whole different matter.”
Well said here. It is important that there is a level of respect between the people involved in these discussions. We should always remember that. And we should always remember that Christ was not necessarily a timid or even-keeled guy. In fact, quite often, he got quite angry and was always challenging people in a direct way. But he never disrespected the person, even Judas.
John Piper Responds to Don Garlington on the Imputation of Righteousness
Since FOF agrees with Garlington on that issue, I’m sure he will agree with this too:
Like the Jews, Mormonism does the same thing, ascribes “practices” that one must “work” to be saved. (regulations). This was anathema to Paul, and Garlington affirms this. Overall, FOF misapplies Garlington, (his entire text is found here) and doesn’t understand the Gospel of Grace. Ye are saved by Grace after all YOU can do. This is a “scheme of self salvation based on human performance” if ever there was one. Mormon Jesus only gets you a resurrection, nothing else.
Well folks there you have it.
The Christian gospel and the Mormon gospel. There are no similarities and the facts are that the Mormon gospel is not based on the Biblical text or the traditions of the Christian Church or related to what the first century Christian church believed and practiced.
The Mormon gospel is a gospel that “evolved” over time starting in the 19th century and is still evolving. It swerves here and there and is supported by that unique Mormon feature called “continuous revelation”.
I posted extensively on the other thread about the irony of the Mormon church having a prophet in Brigham Young who was suppose to be hearing from the Mormon god but who didn’t even know who the Mormon Heavenly Father and Jesus are according to the current batch of Mormons.
So at it’s core, Mormonism is a gospel of works. The works are related to the Mormon belief that the men have an opportunity to become gods. This isn’t first century Christianity. It’s 19th century lunacy.
Mormons mock God. I can pull up any number of quotes that the leadership produced that demonstrates that they had no idea who God is.
Grindael et al,
It is important to note that the theological dictums of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Christus are neither Christian nor biblically based. They are the muddled, frenzied products of Reformation Protestants such as Martin Luther and Jean Calvin etc., and in toto constitute a rejection of historical, orthodox Christianity.
Contrary to your misrepresentation, Mormonism is not a “scheme of self salvation”. Such a preposterous assertion couldn’t be further from the truth and belies a lack of even a basic understanding of LDS theology as enunciated in the Articles of Faith:
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4.We believe that the first principle and ordinances of the Gospel are: first Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The LDS creed of faith in Christ and obeying the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is similar to all apostolic Christian faiths (i.e. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, etc.). It is the Reformation Protestants who reject historical, orthodox Christianity by denying the necessity of obeying the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Evangelical Protestants profess Christ with their lips but deny the power thereof.
Alex wrote:
“It is important to note that the theological dictums of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Christus are neither Christian nor biblically based.”
Now how in the world could I have missed that? And then not to know the “real” Mormon gospel. Thanks for the help. Here I always thought that the Mormon “Eternal Father” was actually not “eternal”. I was under the impression that there were millions perhaps billions of Mormon gods all who had a Heavenly Father and Mother (no less) at some point in time. Where in the world do we get such goofy ideas?
And then Jesus? I thought Jesus was the spirit off spring of one of these Mormon Heavenly Fathers and one of his many wives? Another wrong headed idea that must have been made up by a Christian. We’ve got a lot to pay for, I’d say!
Then there’s the Holy Ghost. Again it appears that we are wrong because I thought there was actually a Mormon Holy Ghost AND a Holy Spirit.
“……..by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” How could we think that this would even sound like “works”? Obedience to “laws”; yup that what the Book of Galatians is all about. Let’s see that Biblical verse; “For it’s by obedience to the laws by which we are saved and not by faith………… I forget the rest. What is it?
You last paragraph is really a hoot. I’ll let someone else decipher it.
Alex,
You are a funny guy but I’ll admit, you do practice a particular brand of Mormonism that allows you to ignore both the truth about (Mormonism) and orthodox Christianity.
Am I ever glad you showed up here. I’ve been contributing on this blog for nearly five years and I’ve never been exposed to all of this great information you are providing; or have I?
Hay what about that stellar prophet Brigham Young? He was really a super apostate wasn’t he?
Alex,
“The LDS creed of faith in Christ and obeying the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is similar to all apostolic Christian faiths (i.e. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, etc.). It is the Reformation Protestants who reject historical, orthodox Christianity by denying the necessity of obeying the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Evangelical Protestants profess Christ with their lips but deny the power thereof.”
I’m Eastern Orthodox. I can tell you that Eastern Orthodox view their Protestant brethren to be much closer to orthodox Christianity than Mormonism. They tend to lump Mormonism in with the Pagans, Wiccans, and Hindu. No amount of LDS Church structure or creed or pictures of Christ in their building or putting the Lord’s name on the building will change that. The reason is because the core of Mormon doctrine is what has to be considered (which many Mormonism are afraid to do). The polytheistic, gnostic/Masonic rites performing, Father was once a man side of Mormonism. The EO Church is rather accepting of baptisms performed outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They will not accept Mormon baptism because it’s belief in the nature of God is so radically different that it’s a completely different god, or gods. Mormonism is no where to be found in historical Christianity. I can’t claim to be a scholar but I spent a great deal of time looking, and the closest thing I can find to it are the Gnostics, some of people that the early Church Fathers were writing letters about to combate the gnostic heresy.
Alex,
……and here’s what we Christians always miss. That what the present day Salt Lake City sect of Mormonism teaches, believes and practices, is exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, what the first century Christian church taught, believed and practiced.
I mean it’s all over the Scriptures, the history of the early Church and the traditions of the Christian faith. How could we possibly miss it. Thank heavens for an angel with golden plates written in reformed Egyptian to set it all straight. OOPS!, it’s not there? Well where is it? Must be a game of “button button whose got the button”.
The first thing you have to do Alex is figure out who has the restored gospel and why past ideas and practices, beliefs, doctrines and even opinions that where rock solid in one Mormon generation get dumped by another. Not only that, we have a lot of different Mormon sects claiming they have what was going on in the first century Christian Church.
Well Alex, it’s time for you to take another trip to the FAIR/FARMS website for some more ammunition.
Oh, BTW, those fancy Latin terms that you gave us that came out of the Protestant Reformation? Let’s call them “continuous revelation” or if that won’t work let’s just say it was Martin Luther et al “opinion”. How’s that?
What “laws and ordinances”? The man-made ones of Jo Smith? Certainly. The man-made ones before the Reformation? Certainly. There was no need for Jo and his “restoration” simply because we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE “POWER” OF CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIANS HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT HE STILL WORKED THEN, AND NOW. Your words (AOF) are meaningless. They are trite Mormon sentences that have no meaning. Show me the “power” in Mormonism. Mormons will then say that everything is done by the “Holy Ghost”. But your Holy Ghost is not the same as the Holy Spirit from the Bible, because the Mormon Holy Ghost told Jo Smith to say and do things that the Holy Spirit of the Bible never did and never would. So you fall back on your “ordinances”. There is no power in ordinances, or works, or regulations. That is all the Mormon “priesthood” is. Rote regulations. The form of Godliness without the power. It is all in that personal relationship with Jesus via the Holy Spirit. To add all that other on, is anathema.
And I find it very cheeky to have Mormons try to tear down Christians by misapplying quotes by Christian scholars. You can’t accuse me of lacking a “basic understanding” of Mormon theology because the articles of faith are just watered down sentences that do not explain Mormon doctrine. For example,
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
Anyone can “believe” in generic names. It is who those names are, and how they are defined that makes all the difference. Mormons have “prophets” that believed that God was Adam, for crying out loud. More than one. Then you have “prophets” that didn’t, and called those that did liars who taught folklore. When there is that kind of discontinuity, it begs the question, what else can be trusted? Nothing. Mormons taught at one time that there were only two personages in the Godhead, and that the Holy Ghost was the MIND OF GOD, and that God was a spirit and that Jesus was the Son “because of the flesh.” They were all over the map. Jo made it up as he went along.
That is why, as Mr. Garlington said, and I affirm, “Ad Fontes(“to the sources”).” Christians obey the Holy Spirit. Mormons obey men who have given them a set of regulations that deny the Spirit AS PER THE “SOURCES”. Their FILE LEADERS TRUMP the HOLY SPIRIT. They do EVERY TIME, and look what it got them, Racist priesthood bans, Adam-god, baptism for the dead, polytheism, Danites, revenge oaths, and the list goes on and on. The Reformation came because of a hundred years of prayer. That was the Holy Spirit moving among men. It broke the back of tradition and opened Jesus to the world to freely worship him in Spirit and Truth. Mormons have returned to restrictive regulations. It is a step backwards, not forwards.
My whole point in bringing up Garlington’s scheme quote, was that if you want to quote Christians, and agree with them, you had better be prepared to take in the whole concept of what they mean, not just cherry pick quotes to prove something that can’t be proven by quoting them.
It’s apparent that Mormons like Alex, are totally uninformed as to where those “Latin” terms come from.
Martin Luther was troubled deep in his soul as he considered the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. To clear his mind he decided to take a walk in the forest near the monastery where he resided. He was about a quarter of a mile into the forest when a bright light shone about him and a figure hovered before him. The figure did not speak but he extended his arms out from his body and in his hand were some tablets which could only be described as “chrome” in composition.
Upon these tablet of chrome were “bumps” of various shapes and configurations. Luther inquired of the figure as to what this language was. Luther was told that it was “reformed Braille”. The hovering figure beckoned Luther to touch the shapes with the fingers of his right hand. As he ran his fingers across the bumps, words began to form in front of him in the air to the right of the hovering figure.
These words and their definitions also appeared to Luther. He went back everyday and the figure appeared to him and more words with definitions were received.
On the final day Luther brought three of his fellow monks and they saw the figure and the tablets of chrome and the reformed Braille with the eyes of faith but were prohibited from touching (the tablets). The figure took the tablets of chrome with him and Luther went back to the monastery and started the Protestant Reformation by nailing the edict to the door of the Church. These are what the figure with the chrome tablets with reformed Braille had given him.
If you read this document prayerfully and with humility, you will receive a feeling that these things are indeed true.
I KNOW THESE THINGS ARE TRUE! ……and I was raised Catholic so there it has to be true because I have this testimony and I know its true and it makes me feel good except when I feel bad then I know that what’s making me feel bad isn’t true……and NO I am Not MOCKING!
One more point to the 1st article of faith. In the same JST, Jo defines God as
Not the Father is IN the Son, but the Father IS the Son. Can’t get more clear than that. And that ISN’T current Mormon doctrine, so what are the AOF good for? Let’s take a look at a couple more of those articles of faith.
How many Mormons are called of God “by prophecy”? Not the Biblical definition of the term. Mormons are called only by “inspiration”. That is a whole other thing. What is prophecy in the Bible?
Are Mormons called by “vision and dreams” in EVERY CASE? Mormons will then quote this passage,
Fine. But were are the visions and dreams in relation to CALLINGS? Nowhere to be found. (At least not in today’s church). Lets go to the JST again:
If prophecy is the inspiration of the Spirit as Jo attests, then we have some problems, especially with the 10th article of faith, which is about the literal gathering of Israel (which the church was trying to do until the 20th century when they abandoned the concept). Jo says specifically that his “counsel” in relation to Zion, was “as the Spirit dictates”, and that would be prophecy. Here is how Jo’s prophecy about the Redemption of Zion went.
Now, this scripture that Jo made up, (Mark 9:45) would sure have helped him to “redeem Zion” in 1834, wouldn’t it? Yet Jo blamed that failure on OTHERS. Where was his “faith and belief”? He got them all together and took them a thousand miles only to disband in failure? He should have IMMEDIATELY gotten what he asked for. Then he gives another date for the “redemption of Zion”, as September 11, 1836. That one also failed. (Interesting that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened on September 11, 21 years later to a bunch of Missourians).
Jo should have IMMEDIATELY gotten those men. Did Jo not have faith and belief? He seemed to have it in abundance every other time, and could see God and angels at the drop of a stone in a hat. What is interesting about this diary entry, is that on the 22 of June, 1834 (fifteen months earlier) Smith wrote a “revelation” in which he said,
The “not many years” according to Jo, should have been September 11, 1836. And good American people are “enemies”? But…This didn’t work. But Jo had asked for it in faith and belief. Here are some more diary entries,
His WHOLE SOUL was in it, even though others only had a “superficial view of the same subject”. Why? Because Jo had written this letter,
So, even though God has “set the date” for the “redemption of Zion” and told it to Jo, and that he was told that the Lord would fight their battles and the destroyer would come, nothing happened because of a few people who acted up? Why didn’t Jo IMMEDIATELY get what he asked for in this? We all know why. He was a false prophet. The JST was nothing more than Jo’s pseudepigrapha, there was nothing “inspired” about it.
grindael,
You sure are picky, picky, picky!
None of this matters for a couple of reasons. Number one, it happened a long time ago and two, it isn’t faith enhancing to discuss it.
Mormons have a narrative and that’s the truth regardless of the evidence. Evidence just messes up everything about the precious restored gospel and the fantasy prophet. Salt Lake City Mormonism is a Disney version of the religion; its history and ever changing restored gospel. It’s just no fun when you start bringing up things that are contradictory to what the faithful Mormon wants to believe.
And who would listen to you anyway you old Mormon apostate!
Wow! Why did I decide to look at this blog today? Here is my issue with the Mormon Temple ordinances and all of the other so called god given laws and ordinances from the Mormon doctrine. I have learned quite a bit over the past few months about sacrificial offerings, blessings, keeping the sabbath, keeping the feasts, and baptism. I have also learned how the OT and the NT fit together perfectly in revealing the promised Messiah. If their are translation issues it is only due to the lack of understanding of the OT offerings and feasts in order to interpret the meaning of the NT. The LDS church has proven their lack of understanding of the OT in their so called temple ordinances. Their ordinances in no way reflect those of the OT. Joseph Smith created an entirely new religion, with an entirely different god and an entirely different temple. There is only one temple and at this moment its not standing. Show me in the the first 5 books of the OT where the lds temple ordinances were performed in the Jewish temple. Oh wait you cant. The bible is complete and if the Mormon church had any understanding whatsoever of the feasts ordained by the Almighty they would see that. The feasts are a story of things past and things to come. There is no need for revelation from Joseph Smith or any other self proclaimed prophet. What needs to be said has already been said.
Faithoffathers is actually who set me off with his Hebrew, Jewish stuff but in the same breath saying the Joseph Smith translation was good. How is it that you can graze the surface of truth and then turn so abruptly toward a lie? I didnt read much further after his post so Im sorry if all of you have sense moved on.
I dont come on here much anymore and I wish I could explain better in text what it is to discover the true One God of creation. Mormonism is a mockery toward the true worship God established, they use the terms but dont have any truth within them. My prayer is that one day those of you who are still in the LDS faith will find someone who can lead you and teach you the truth as I did. All roads do not lead home and good intentions are not enough. I wish I was able to explain better. I hope I didnt just talk in circles.
I meant to say lead you and teach you the truth as someone did for me.
cattyjane,
Well look at you all grown up!
And to think you were that confused, meandering, unfocused pilgrim of just a few short weeks ago.
Isn’t amazing what God, through His Holy Spirit can do, when we open up our hearts and be a seeker after the truth. It’s also encouraging that some fellow Christians took time and patience and explained to you the meaning of the gospel.
I’m really impressed with you. Not to get insulting but it reminds me of that line in the Bible, “……and he was sitting fully clothed and in his right mind.”
You’ve put on the garments of praise and claimed the cloak of righteousness that God offers all who would come to Him in faith.
You are an encouragement to me!
Please don’t be a stranger here. We could use you…..or should I say the Lord could use you!
Falcon,
🙂 Thanks! I loved your revelation delivered in Braille to Martin Luther by the way. That was hilarious! I about fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard! I may have to tell you to kick rocks with that revelation.
I think if more lds members would research the cultural and religious practices of the Jewish people they would see how far off the ordinances are in the Mormon faith. I am not concerned with offending anyone except the Almighty. I can only pray that he will forgive me for the time I spent serving the false god of the lds faith. I honestly believe the Almighty becomes sick when he sees these made up temple rituals and pretend Aaronic blessings. Are you kidding me? What a waste! The true god that was not imagined by man but revealed himself to Abraham, Isacc, and Joseph is soo much more than made up ceremonies. The book of Mormon is nothing more than poorly written bedtime stories that sadly people believe happened. There are so many things about the god of the lds church that doesnt match with the Almighty of the bible I dont even know where to begin on this blog anymore.
Jacob not Joseph im using my phone to type sorry.
cattyjane,
Most people are unaware of Reformed Braille especially as it applies to the reformers, specifically Martin Luther. The reason the glowing figure used Reformed Braille is because he wanted Luther to “feel” the message.
I didn’t realize you had gotten into the Jewish rituals etc. and found a pathway to examine why the Mormon temple and the rituals performed there are little more than a Halloween Haunted House routine.
Mormons are fond of saying that they have restored first century Christianity, but can produce no evidence that what they believe and practice ever took place in the primitive Christian Church. Anyone can make up any sort of religious nonsense and claim that the Church did it, especially if they don’t have to prove it.
Joseph Smith lost a crew of people early on when he dumped the original Book of Commandments and went to the D&C. It was a pure power play and a bunch of the early followers weren’t going for it.
Here’s the bottom line, if someone wants to believe something they can find any way to rationalize it. That’s the case with modern day Mormons. They simple define their own doctrinal comfort zone and ignore the obvious. The obvious is that Joseph Smith invented his own little religion and those who follow him dig it despite the fact that it isn’t even good fiction.
Falcon,
Halloween-ish is a great way to describe the temple. And yes so much confusion has left my mind and I finally feel like I have a straight path to walk on. I have so much to learn and I know that is a life long process. I guess a short way to compare the God given feasts and temple ordinances of the bible with those of the lds is like this: all of the commandments, temple ordinances, and feasts all pointed to God in some way. Either by what he had already done, freedom from Egypt, or what he would do ie. the messiah. All of the lds temple ordinances and commands point to self. How to obtain the ultimate glory for ourselves and it has a what we have done sparkle to it. The sad thing is that no matter how much they convince themselves its real, its never going to be. God is not going to accept a made up form of worship. Its no different from the pagan forms of worship in the OT. I have a lot of friends and a few family members in the lds faith. They dont understand why I wont return but I hope one day they will.
cattyjane,
Good point! What our Mormon posters don’t want to say, are the simple words, “You have to earn it!” That’s what Mormonism is all about and that’s not even a distant relative of the salvation that God offers us. This is the constant theme of the NT. We are saved by faith.
However since Mormonism has nothing to do with the NT, we can see why the “earn it” scenario can come forth.
It’s typical of home made religions. The apostle Paul railed against this idea that men can “earn” their salvation. He did, however, as did James and the other writers of the NT, testify that a born again life is exemplified by a change of heart and mind. God does the saving. We don’t. We agree with God that we are hopelessly lost without His benevolence, love and mercy. Faith is how we are saved. Works prove that faith.
Looks like more of the same from Alex and also F of F . With Alex it’s his rhetoric , this time
directed at whom he calls ” Evangelical/Reformation Protestants ” . He sounds like he could be
an anti -Protestant ! With Fof F ,he uses strawmen type comments to try and make his point .
He said : ” Even though Evangelical Christianity believes that God is so limited in power and
vision that He has only created one planet for His children , I will not mock those beliefs.”
Now, he says that he won’t “mock” the beliefs of others here , but on the other hand some of his
leaders have been very descriptive towards the beliefs( and churches ) of others because they
have resorted to using some rather caustic words to describe them .
It’s noteworthy that a few years ago the Mormon church responded to a questionare from Fox
News . One question was : ” Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another
physical planet or planets where Mormons will ‘ rule’ after their death and ascension ?
Answer , No ” . No??? More obfuscation from Salt Lake City .
Falcon , your post at 10:36 am put things in perspective—- in a Falcon type way .
Cattyjane , glad to see you’re doing ok .
Grindael, thanks for sharing yet another reason why the Mormon people simply don’t need
their prophet(s) . The answer for them ( and everyone ) is’nt in following one of the many men
claiming to be prophets who have come on the scene in these latter days . Jesus is the answer
for all , and He already has provided us with His Word and the saving truths therein —Heb 1:2
Col 1: 19-23 ; Rom 1:16 . Truly good news .
MikeR, I read FoF’s comments as very mocking. They are passive aggressive, backhanded ways to mock our faith.
Read this and tell me you do not see some level of mockery:
“Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the Savior only experienced what thousands of other people have also suffered, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that God is so limited in His power and vision that He has only created one planet for His children, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the atonement of Christ pertained only to an payment for sin and not all of the illnesses, pains, and non-sin-related human suffering, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity believes that the power of the atonement was limited to only one planet instead of “worlds without number,” I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity does not belief God is either powerful enough or loving enough to make His children like Him, I will not mock those beliefs.
Even though evangelical Christianity cannot offer an explanation for why God choose some individuals to be saved and others to be damned forever, I will not mock those beliefs.”
I’m curious. Do the SLC sect of Mormons mock there own prophets? I can think of at least two that get mocked. One is Brigham Young, who modern day SLC folks say didn’t know who God is. The other is Bruce McConkie who was really a Big Man on Campus with his Mormon doctrine book, that is until he died.
“During the life of Brigham Young, elements of the Adam–God doctrine were taught in LDS church meetings, sung in church hymns, and featured as part of the church’s Endowment ceremony. However, the doctrine was startling to Mormons when it was introduced, and it remained controversial. Several other Mormon leaders, the most vocal being Orson Pratt, rejected the doctrine in favor of other theological ideas. Soon after Young’s death in 1877, the Adam–God doctrine fell out of favor within mainstream Mormonism, and was replaced by a theology more similar to that of Orson Pratt, as codified by turn-of-the century Mormon theologians James E. Talmage, B. H. Roberts and John A. Widtsoe. Spencer W. Kimball later announced that Mormonism does not and will not support this theory taught by some general authorities, “We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”[5] Mormons accept Adam as “the Ancient of Days and father of all.” [6] They do not recognize him as Heavenly Father.”
So Brigham Young was said to have taught “false doctrine”. Think of that. A Mormon prophet who is said to have taught false doctrine. Young headed this sect that claims to be “the one true church” and their prophet, who it is claimed speaks for the Mormon god, was in error.
Why do people follow those who are in authority in this false religion?
Mike R,
🙂 Thanks!
MJP, what I was trying to get across about Fof F ‘s comments that he won’t ” mock ” the beliefs
of Evangelicals was to try and point out that just because he chooses not to “mock ” those
beliefs means little since some of his leaders have used some other terms that are’nt any kinder
in describing the beliefs of others . In other words it was kind of a red herring .
This is similar to how some Mormons are quick to describe this ministry as a “anti” site because
it dares to evaluate Mormon doctrine and describe much of it as false doctrine , yet they turn
right around and do a similar thing to others whose beliefs they disagree with etc .
That was the point I was trying to communicate , so thanks for asking .
Fof F engaged in strawman arguments , but that is’nt surprising . What he said about people on
other planets I don’t take seriously . His own church leadership’s response to the question from
Fox News I mentioned is a good example of how they choose to obfuscate rather than publicly
admit to some of the doctrinal revealments by their colleagues .
The Mormon people deserve better .