mormonism

[By Grace]

Your religion is now exposed

Matthew,
Sorry for not tuning in on this very regularly, but I will attempt to answer your questions from a Mormon point of view. The first problem I can see is one of terminology. Mormons teach exactly what Paul taught, that there are three degrees of Heaven (2Cor. 12:2, 1Cor. 15:40-42).

This is more false than it is true.

FIRST is that you NOT teach "exactly what Paul taught..." at any respect

SECOND is that you mormons build upon something that is unclear, amd mentioned only once in the entire 66 books (third heaven) and create an entirely heretical theory which was created by the con man Joseph smith

THIRD is that you permit everyone to come into your lds heaven, which is a contradiction of what Jesus says.

Mormons believe that in order to dwell with the Father and the Son after the final judgement, one must accept and follow the only WAY, which is that of Jesus Christ.

Another false witness about things. Jesus personified Himself as the way, the truth and the life adding that no one can can come to the Father except by Him.
Your religion is that is based on WORKS and not on a person. If you can do things, such as being "temple worthy" (as determined by a ward leader) and have endowments (secret ceremonies) then you can get into the highest mormo-heaven

For those who end up in the lower degrees of glory they will be in such a state of being that will torment them for eternity because they will be painfully aware that their choices on this earth prevented from receiving the fullness of the third degree of heaven or the celestial. This state of torment is one of the definitions of Hell in the scriptures. Any person in that state would be in the actual place of Hell where ever they are physically. So in that sense Hell would be a place.

There is nothing glorious about hell. Jesus said that in the stoory (NOT a parable) of the riih man ans Lazarus.

I guess then, you could say that the first two degrees of heaven, while being degrees of glory are also the place of Hell. The other part of Hell is another actual place, which is outer darkness, which is where some people will end up. So, you could accurately call anywhere other than the third or celestial degree of glory or heaven to be Hell.

This is NOT your guess, but what mormonism teaches. Therefore to equivocate and call it "your guess" is another incident of bearing false witness.

It is true that the Mormons believe that they believe in the Bible more completely and literally than any other Christian church.

This is ANOTHER example of your bearing false witness. Would you to finish the official version of this mormon statement describing the Bible"...insofar as..."?
ANOTHER false witness is your stating the primacy of the Bible when on mormon Mondays you are required to read from the BoM as a family.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible that uses the word "uncreated" to describe Christ or "not created"?

This is mormon tactic 101 in "mopologetics" it is attack the Bible.
Logically this is a fallacy called "begging the question" when you assume that something false is true, and then ask a question based on a false foundation. Can you show anywhere in the Bible that the word "spaghetti" ... (fill in the rest). THAT is an example of your logical fallacy, and once a logical fallacy is exposed, the entire question is rendered moot.

Mormons believe the Jesus is God and was God from before the foundation of this world, which is the only time frame the Bible refers to. The Mormons may interpret the Bible differently than other Christians in certain instances, but that does not mean their belief contradicts the Bible. I hope that helps.

Here is ANOTHER example of your not telling the entire truth. More properly, you guys believe that BOTH Jesus and God were once humans who got zapped (the lds word is "exalted") into godhood. Because you mormons do NOT believe in the primacy of Scripture ( do you recall that you just made the preposterous statement above that "It is true that the Mormons believe that they believe in the Bible more completely and literally than any other Christian church. " ) but you ignore Hebrews 13: 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Therefore even your equivocation here The Mormons may interpret the Bible differently than other Christians in certain instances, but that does not mean their belief contradicts the Bible. is a convenient ruse also, wouldn't you think?

So in the end, I do thank you for posting as you did. It is ample proof that you statement saying that "we are "just like like Christians" is built upon a foundation of half truths and that to state that, you must resort to bearing false witness against yourself, the Bible, Jesus Christ, God the Father, and of course Holy Spirit.

Certainly you helped many in the post. You have amply demonstrated that your religion is built upon a foundation of lies and half truths, which are spawned by the Father of Lies (John 8:44) and in order to perpetuate the abominations of your satanic theology (which I did not divulge here) you continuously post half truths in order to lure the unsuspecting into your lair.

Have you EVER asked yourself, "If the "burning bosom" is true, then why do I have to lie so much about my religion?" Does it not stand to reason that if your religion is true as you guys so frequently assert so often in the Testimony Meetings, then why is it necessary to lie so much about it? Truth is its own defense. What is true can not ever be false, by definition of the word. And if you believe that the Bible and the BoM is true, then why do they disagree? If you ever want to know the truth, there are plenty here who will be able to help you. But we cannot do it if you want to cling onto the lies of Mormonism in the same way you must cling to your sacred garments, or secret names or secret handshakes or your plurality of wives in the celestial kingdom living on the planet Kolob while you make godlets etc, etc etc.

Heck, I'll bet that you did not know that Smith actually stole the idea of "celestial kingdom " from the cultist Emmanuel Sweendnborg.

I could go on and on, but I think that this should suffice. Again I thank you for demonstrating the putrid fruits of your lie-based religion.

 

[Mike]

Before this goes any further, this is a reminder that all members are afforded the same respect any member is due per term 2.5 in the ToS. Please do not make this personal.

Thank you.

 

[proveallthings]

As a former Mormon [who I believe God brought me out of that Religion 17 years ago], I think there is always the problem in that Church of justifying much that Joseph Smith proclaimed when the Church was first established. "Many plain and precious truths" which were supposedly lost he supposedly was led by God to clear up in his new established Religion. The Bible was mistranslated and mistransmitted supposedly by many corrupt people over the ages and the BoM was finally translated by Joseph Smith to be Scripture that was without human error. Of course many glaring changes have come out from the 1830 version of the BoM to the present version.

Over the last 180 years or so, The LDS Church has evolved to where many of Joseph Smith's proclamations are no longer as valid as they were in the 1830's. The KJ version of the Bible in the Mormon Church is now somewhat trusted, despite what Smith said about it all. Either Joseph Smith was a True Prophet of God and thus his statements on the errency of the Bible are true and continue to True OR, he was a fraud and the Church he established really wasn't built on the solid foundation as is proclaimed.

You are not as well read on statements of Joseph Smith on the Bible as you think. Yes, he acknowledged its shortcomings, but truly loved it and claimed it to be the word of God. Joseph Smith and Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics, who show their lack of trust in the Bible by their reliance on extraBiblical creeds. I know Mormon history pretty well and I can see no change in the church's attitude toward the Bible. You are simply not well informed on this issue.

 

[proveallthings]

Of course, that is not at all what Paul meant by speaking of the third heaven and completely ignores all that Scripture states of the final destination of true believers.

And just how do you know what exactly Paul was referring to? There are not contradictions in any of the scriptures that make statements regarding the final destination of true believers and Mormon theology. There are only contradictions with inaccurate assumptions about those scriptures.

There are Mormon beliefs which do contradict the Bible and even core Christian doctrines.

You only have the authority to claim things contradict your interpretation of the Bible. Only God, or someone authorized by Him has the legitimate authority to claim what contradicts the Bible. You have no more authority to make statements about what the Bible means than anyone else who can read it.

They use the same language as Christians but change the meanings to suit their own errant beliefs.

And that claim can be made just as justifiably about the writers of the creeds or anyone claiming to be a Christian today.

 

[farouk]

You are not as well read on statements of Joseph Smith on the Bible as you think. Yes, he acknowledged its shortcomings, but truly loved it and claimed it to be the word of God. Joseph Smith and Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics, who show their lack of trust in the Bible by their reliance on extraBiblical creeds. I know Mormon history pretty well and I can see no change in the church's attitude toward the Bible. You are simply not well informed on this issue.

p:

Sorry, but if one talks about shortcomings, it's not acknowledging what the Lord Jesus said in John 17.17: 'Thy word is truth'.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Joseph Smith and Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics, who show their lack of trust in the Bible by their reliance on extraBiblical creeds.

WOW!
How can you make such a statement? The Book of Mormon is the quintessential book of extraBiblical creeds.

 

[proveallthings]

the BoM was finally translated by Joseph Smith to be Scripture that was without human error.

I just noticed that I missed commenting on this important statement, or misstatement. I will admit that there are some not very attentive Mormons that have this false idea about the Book of Mormon and even about modern apostles and prophets. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe the Book of Mormon is without error. The book itself acknowledges that it has weaknesses. We also believe that, just like the prophets and apostles of the Bible, modern day prophets and apostles are only human. They can and do make mistakes.

This is a common misconception made by Mormons and non-Mormons that causes them to sometimes misjudge the church. It is a common practice for anti-Mormons to hold the LDS apostles and prophets to a much higher and impossible standard, which they would never hold the prophets and apostles of the Bible to. Many of the false assumptions about Mormons are caused by this double standard.

 

[proveallthings]

WOW!
How can you make such a statement? The Book of Mormon is the quintessential book of extraBiblical creeds.

Pizzaguy, I have to say that I do admire your perspective from other posts you have done. This is a very fair question and deserves a more detailed explanation. First of all, the Book of Mormon is not a creed any more than any individual book or collection of books from the Bible would be considered a creed. The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture that compliments other scripture, such as the Bible, just as the epistles of Paul compliment the four gospels. The creeds accepted by Catholics and Protestants were written because there was too much controversy about how to interpret the Bible. Such Christians claim the inerrancy of the Bible in words, but in practice deny it by heavy reliance on their creeds. Because of this, these Christians are in a state of denial of this obvious contradiction.

Mormons, on the other hand, are completely consistant on this issue. They believe the Bible to be the word of God, but acknowledge its flaws. They also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and believe it is not without flaws either. Mormons do believe the Book of Mormon to be more accurate or more plain than the Bible, but that is consistant with their belief in how we received it, verses how we received the Bible.

Mormons believe the Bible to be God's book that He intentionally allowed to be manipulated by man to a certain point. When you study the detailed history of how the Bible came to be what it is today, it is nothing short of a miracle that it is as pure as it is. Christians of the New Testament had a distinct advantage over their non-Christian Jewish friends in that they did not have to rely completely on written scripture, for they had living prophets in the apostles, bringing forth fresh revelation, which also became scripture. That is what gave them the authority to say that their interpretation of the same scriptures was more accurate. This is the same advantage the Mormons have today.

 

[Free]

And just how do you know what exactly Paul was referring to? There are not contradictions in any of the scriptures that make statements regarding the final destination of true believers and Mormon theology. There are only contradictions with inaccurate assumptions about those scriptures.

The first heaven is the immediate atmosphere. The second heaven is essentially the universe. The third heaven is the throne room of God and doesn't necessarily speak of any location. What they are not are degrees of glory. The Bible makes it clear that the final destination of all believers is with God here on earth. It also is clear that the destination of all non-believers is apart from God. That's all there is to it.

You only have the authority to claim things contradict your interpretation of the Bible. Only God, or someone authorized by Him has the legitimate authority to claim what contradicts the Bible. You have no more authority to make statements about what the Bible means than anyone else who can read it.

Anyone who is a follower of Christ and is willing to study and learn is able to make claims regarding beliefs that contradict the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean they are correct but it most certainly is not just up to "only God or someone authorized by Him."

And that claim can be made just as justifiably about the writers of the creeds or anyone claiming to be a Christian today.

No, it cannot. There are accepted historical definitions and understandings of certain words which are at the core of Christianity. Mormonism uses some of these words to appear Christian but completely change the meaning.

 

[proveallthings]

The first heaven is the immediate atmosphere. The second heaven is essentially the universe. The third heaven is the throne room of God and doesn't necessarily speak of any location. What they are not are degrees of glory.

I'm glad to know what you believe Paul was referring to, but where did you get such a theory from? If it is not explained in the same way by Paul in the Bible it is pure speculation.

The Bible makes it clear that the final destination of all believers is with God here on earth. It also is clear that the destination of all non-believers is apart from God. That's all there is to it.

This statement of what you feel the Bible makes so clear in no way contradicts the Mormon view of the three degrees. The Mormon view simply goes into more detail, but is still very consistant with the general description found in the Bible.

Anyone who is a follower of Christ and is willing to study and learn is able to make claims regarding beliefs that contradict the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean they are correct but it most certainly is not just up to "only God or someone authorized by Him."

I agree with this statement, but in making declarations of who contradicts the Bible and who doesn't, one must keep in mind that is only that person's opinion, which carries no more weight than anyone else's. I'm sure you would agree that if Peter were to personally give you such an opinion it would have a completely different level of credibility.

No, it cannot. There are accepted historical definitions and understandings of certain words which are at the core of Christianity. Mormonism uses some of these words to appear Christian but completely change the meaning.

Historical definitions and understandings created by whom? At the core of whose definition of Christianity? Mormons can just as legitimately claim that the writers of the creeds, later Christian scholars and teachers did the same thing. In fact, there is much historical data which shows very clearly that they did just that.

 

[Free]

I'm glad to know what you believe Paul was referring to, but where did you get such a theory from? If it is not explained in the same way by Paul in the Bible it is pure speculation.

It isn't a theory. It's well understood that this is simply how the ancients referred to the universe and the earth's place in it. As for how Paul explained it, if one doesn't consider the historical and social contexts along with the language and idioms they used, then that person is the one doing the speculating. We simply cannot go around and make up our definitions of words to fit what we think the Bible is saying.

If the ancients, including Paul, spoke of the atmosphere as the first heaven, outer space as the second heaven and the place of God's throne as the third heaven, then we must understand Paul to be saying such.

This statement of what you feel the Bible makes so clear in no way contradicts the Mormon view of the three degrees. The Mormon view simply goes into more detail, but is still very consistant with the general description found in the Bible.

In "going into more detail," Mormonism has gone beyond what Scripture has plainly stated and while it may not directly contradict, it is erroneous nonetheless.

I agree with this statement, but in making declarations of who contradicts the Bible and who doesn't, one must keep in mind that is only that person's opinion, which carries no more weight than anyone else's. I'm sure you would agree that if Peter were to personally give you such an opinion it would have a completely different level of credibility.

Well of course what Peter said would carry much weight being that he was an Apostle and wrote some of Scripture. However, seeing as how there are no Apostles today, it is left up to theologians and scholars for the most part, although we are responsible for our own study.

Historical definitions and understandings created by whom? At the core of whose definition of Christianity? Mormons can just as legitimately claim that the writers of the creeds, later Christian scholars and teachers did the same thing. In fact, there is much historical data which shows very clearly that they did just that.

While there were some changes within Christianity, Mormonism came relatively late on the scene and changed the meanings quite apart from anything that could be considered historical orthodox Christianity. As a result, much of what Mormons believe is at complete odds with Christianity.

There is far more agreement among the various streams of true Christianity than there is with any of them and Mormonism.

 

[Jamesone5]

You are not as well read on statements of Joseph Smith on the Bible as you think. Yes, he acknowledged its shortcomings, but truly loved it and claimed it to be the word of God. Joseph Smith and Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics, who show their lack of trust in the Bible by their reliance on extraBiblical creeds. I know Mormon history pretty well and I can see no change in the church's attitude toward the Bible. You are simply not well informed on this issue.

"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 its precepts, than by any other book," (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461)

This one is a gem: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3). Of course this prophecy" refers to the Belief in Eternal Progression which many Mormons now do not acknowledge, as was the case in early Church history as succeeding prophet of the LDS Church referred to it much.

The trouble is, my friend, that as your read Church history through the Church itself and put out by the Church it tends to be tainted. the LDS Church will always defend itself---it has done just that for 180+ years.

As to your assertion that Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics--that is also am LDS generated argument that merely assumes something that you really have no way of proving.

 

[proveallthings]

It isn't a theory. It's well understood that this is simply how the ancients referred to the universe and the earth's place in it. As for how Paul explained it, if one doesn't consider the historical and social contexts along with the language and idioms they used, then that person is the one doing the speculating. We simply cannot go around and make up our definitions of words to fit what we think the Bible is saying.

What is theory is that Paul and his Christian readers were in agreement with the Greek world view of Heaven. I agree that it is not a theory without merit for what he may have been referring to in 2 Cor. 12:2, but it certainly is not Biblical doctrine. It is more of an educated guess. And it does nothing to explain the degrees of glory of the resurrection described in 1 Cor. 15:41-42. You fall extremely short of a conclusive argument that Mormon doctrine on this issue contradicts anything in the Bible.

If the ancients, including Paul, spoke of the atmosphere as the first heaven, outer space as the second heaven and the place of God's throne as the third heaven, then we must understand Paul to be saying such.

Where did Paul speak of the atmosphere as the first heaven and so on? You lump Paul in with the same people who believed in Greek mythology as if it is a given that he and other Christians agreed with them on this. That is quite a logical leap.

In "going into more detail," Mormonism has gone beyond what Scripture has plainly stated and while it may not directly contradict, it is erroneous nonetheless.

Of course it goes beyond what the Bible plainly states. So what? At least we are consistant in the belief that it was revealed directly from God to a prophet, which is consistant with Biblical pattern. You do not make that claim with your creeds, which also go beyond what is plainly stated in scripture. And if it does not contradict the Bible, as you say here, then how can you say so positively that it is incorrect without contradicting your own belief that the Bible is the only real authority?

Well of course what Peter said would carry much weight being that he was an Apostle and wrote some of Scripture. However, seeing as how there are no Apostles today, it is left up to theologians and scholars for the most part, although we are responsible for our own study.

Saul, who became Paul, a great student of the scriptures, didn't believe there were any true apostles in his day either. How can you be so sure there are not any apostles of Jesus Christ on the earth today?

While there were some changes within Christianity, Mormonism came relatively late on the scene and changed the meanings quite apart from anything that could be considered historical orthodox Christianity. As a result, much of what Mormons believe is at complete odds with Christianity. There is far more agreement among the various streams of true Christianity than there is with any of them and Mormonism.

Let's consider carefully your assumptions here. The time in Christian history where there was the most open debate was the two or three centuries immediately following the death of the apostles. Once Christianity became the state religion most of those who taught things that differed significantly from the official doctrines were put to death, exiled or censured. Their writings were burned and made illegal to possess. This condition lasted for more than a millennia. The groups of historical orthodox Christianity coming out of that condition would obviously have many things in common. Much more in common with each other than with the Christians of the 1st century.

Mormonism's claim is that God restored the truths believed by the 1st century Christians, correcting the errors of an appostate church that developed over several hundred years of corruption. To say that Mormonism disagrees with the historical Christianity of the last 10 centuries is about as weak an argument you could make to support the idea that Mormonism is somehow less Christian than those groups born from corruption.

 

[proveallthings]

"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 its precepts, than by any other book," (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461)

This quote does not say that the Book of Mormon is without error. It just has less error than other books. That is a big difference. Such a claim should make sense to any rational person when one realizes that it is assuming that the only ones involved with its writing and translation were prophets of God. But even then, we do not believe it is without error.

This one is a gem: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3). Of course this prophecy" refers to the Belief in Eternal Progression which many Mormons now do not acknowledge, as was the case in early Church history as succeeding prophet of the LDS Church referred to it much.

This quote is really off topic. How does this show that Joseph Smith did not value the teachings of the Bible? And by the way, this in no way contradicts anything in the Bible, only false assumptions. I was aware of this doctrine as early as a teenager. It is not official doctrine, but I believe it personally. As far as I know it is a commonly accepted belief among most Mormons today. It sounds strange in the same way the doctrine of calculus that says that a straight line can curve and still be a straight line sounds strange to someone just learning the basic definitions of a line in beginning geometry. We could say that your understanding of the Bible is comparable to basic geometry and this doctrine of God by Joseph Smith can be compared to calculus. If you haven't learned what is between the two or had it explained, it sounds contradictory, even though it isn't.

The trouble is, my friend, that as your read Church history through the Church itself and put out by the Church it tends to be tainted. the LDS Church will always defend itself---it has done just that for 180+ years.

It is a widely held belief that the archives of church history are not accessible to most people. It is simply not true. I have heard men who were apostate and openly known as scholars who believed Joseph to be a false prophet, an opportunist and fraud, say that they had the same access to delicate documents in the church archives as any Mormon scholar. They were surprised at this too, but it is true. I have personally studied the many seemingly scandalous challenges made about church history and I can confidently say that I have not found anything that would cause me to doubt the divine calling of Joseph Smith or any of his successors. If you believe strongly that I am in denial or have been deceived, I welcome a one on one discussion where I would be glad to dig into any challenge you feel is significant to see if it has merit or not.

As to your assertion that Mormons today actually value the Bible more than most Protestants and Catholics--that is also am LDS generated argument that merely assumes something that you really have no way of proving.

Proving is a pretty strong word in the realm of religion. If you read my recent responses to Free in this thread, you will see that there is a lot of evidence, much of which is outside of what the church teaches, that I can present to validate this claim.

 

[By Grace]

Before this goes any further, this is a reminder that all members are afforded the same respect any member is due per term 2.5 in the ToS. Please do not make this personal.

Thank you.

This is for public comment, and not just Mike. We conversed about the issues I raised, and I believe that we now have an understanding of what I need to do, and more importantly, what I should not do. Therefore, I state in the beginning of the post that it never has been my intention to insult poster at this site just because the person is a mormon. As a consequence, should any one believe that I deliberately insulted them, I offer my sincere apologies.

But now I do have a problem, and I am asking for a better way to express myself. The essence of the problem is that too many posts and retorts on CARM and Walter Martin have created an approach in my dealing with Mormons that not overtly antagonistic but are overly aggressive. In the above-referenced post, despite my efforts to be less aggressive here, Mike has made it clear that I was what I hoped not to be: going personal, and insulting.

Let's not kid ourselves as what exactly the crux of the issue is: many Mormons on many sites and here are making statements that are unverifiable and are contrary to reality. So when I see someone making statements that are like that, I will admit to having an emotional reaction, and I seek to set the record straight from my resources, and demonstrate that Mormon leaders, X, Y and Z do not agree with what the poster is claiming Then I can go to various quotes from the D & C, PGP, BoA, BoM, etc to demonstrate again the poster is providing information that are contrary to reality. The simplest, and perhaps knee-jerk reaction is to go make a statement about the poster who asserts something that is not in compliance with reality. Yet, that is a taboo here.

Pushing the issue further, we can see that there are great differences in what is put out by Maxwell, or FARMS, and what is in the BoM. One central example of that is the location of Cumorrah. In HJS 1:52 ff, Smith clearly states that it is in Ontario County , (now Palmyra is a part of Wayne County) outside of Palmyra, NY, as well as the fact that president Hinkley stated that Cumorah was indeed outside Palmyra, NY. But on the other hand, the guys at BYU and environs advocate the "Two Cumorah theory". The only problem with that theory is that it severely undercuts the Mormon motion that Smith was a prophet. There is no prophet who gets the location of such a major event such as Cumorah so wrong.

But rising above all these is the issue of the Book of Mormon, and its contents. Absolutely nothing in it has been independently verified by any peer-reviewed publication. The problem with this that since Smith wrote the BoM (translated, you say), then the things mentioned in it should have been existence in 1820 when the book was first published, or else Smith could not have identified it.For example, to lift a term from 18th century literature, the fictional frumious bandersnatch, had the animal been in existence c 1820, then Smith would have been able to identify it and include it in the BoM. If there was no frumious bandersnatch, but instead a Bengal Tiger, it would be correct for Smith to say "Bengal Tiger" instead of a frumious bandersnatch, which could not have been seen. Therefore to claim that a Frumious Bandersnatch an ancient name for a Bengal Tiger is preposterous because it asserts something that can not be verified, and is not in compliance with reality.

So what I have done here is to point out a problem that far exceeds the individual. It goes to the learning institutions, as well as the writer of the BoM itself. Each of these, in their ways have departed from reality, and stated something that is impossible for independent sources to verify. Where is the genesis of the issue? Is it the individual? Is it the learning centers, is it in the leadership of the church, or is it in the BoM itself? In seeking to identify the guilty, I am faced with the image of the mythical Hydra. If one of its many heads is cut off, two more grow in its place. In that respect, it is impossible to single out a single head of the Hydra which controls the whole, and like the Hydra, the issue of placing blame for the Mormon church's failure to maintain an accurate state of reality lies with every entity of the LDS church; it is organic and systemic.

So now you all see my dilemma. Can you help me by giving guidelines in the issue so that I do not get near to making a matter a personal issue? In reality, I can make euphemisms all day, but some will quote Gertrude Stein, aho said "A rose is a rose is a rose." if I do that. Should I make a broad sweeping statement of the leadership of the church who permit such examples by the individuals to continue, or do I fault the author of the BoM as the source of the problem, that is perpetuated by the leaders, and are proclaimed by the individual members of the LDS church?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Webb]

Do all of the above.

 

[Free]

What is theory is that Paul and his Christian readers were in agreement with the Greek world view of Heaven.

No, it is not. This comes down to very basic principles of biblical interpretation. One cannot simply ignore the historical context within which Paul is writing, and that is precisely what you are doing. "My" position is the significantly stronger one precisely because of what was meant by "heavens" by both the ancient Jews and Greeks.

I agree that it is not a theory without merit for what he may have been referring to in 2 Cor. 12:2, but it certainly is not Biblical doctrine. It is more of an educated guess.

You "agree that it is not a theory without merit for what he may have been referring to in 2 Cor. 12:2"? That is the only place in all of Scripture that the phrase "third heaven" is mentioned. And in fact the phrase "first heaven" only appears referring to something completely different and "second heaven" does not appear at all.

Again, this strongly suggests that "my" position is substantially stronger. It becomes very clear that the Mormon position is one of reading meanings into the text which simply are not there.

And it does nothing to explain the degrees of glory of the resurrection described in 1 Cor. 15:41-42. You fall extremely short of a conclusive argument that Mormon doctrine on this issue contradicts anything in the Bible.

Again, you are reading something into the text which isn't there. The passage you give is showing the difference between our bodies now and what the resurrection body will be like.

Where did Paul speak of the atmosphere as the first heaven and so on? You lump Paul in with the same people who believed in Greek mythology as if it is a given that he and other Christians agreed with them on this. That is quite a logical leap.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Greek mythology. Once again, Paul is using the language of day and using "heaven" the way both Jews and Greeks did. Why shouldn't he be using the language of his day?

Of course it goes beyond what the Bible plainly states. So what?

You admit that this Mormon doctrine goes beyond what the Bible plainly states and then begin to argue that it doesn't matter? Are you serious? Do you know just how serious of an error that is?

At least we are consistant in the belief that it was revealed directly from God to a prophet, which is consistant with Biblical pattern.

Are you actually suggesting the Bible "was revealed directly from God to a prophet"? Who is this prophet? Do you know how the Bible was written and came to be in it's present form? This is not the Quran or the Book of Mormon.

You do not make that claim with your creeds, which also go beyond what is plainly stated in scripture. And if it does not contradict the Bible, as you say here, then how can you say so positively that it is incorrect without contradicting your own belief that the Bible is the only real authority?

We would have to look at what the Creeds state to see if they actually do beyond what is plainly stated in Scripture. The Creeds are summations of core teachings of Scripture as they relate to faith in Christ, meant for easy memorization.

Saul, who became Paul, a great student of the scriptures, didn't believe there were any true apostles in his day either. How can you be so sure there are not any apostles of Jesus Christ on the earth today?

Paul didn't believe that? How do you come to that conclusion? He himself said he was an apostle and mentioned other apostles. Try Rom. 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1, 9:1-2, 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1, 12:12; Gal. 1:1. That's for starters. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Let's consider carefully your assumptions here. The time in Christian history where there was the most open debate was the two or three centuries immediately following the death of the apostles. Once Christianity became the state religion most of those who taught things that differed significantly from the official doctrines were put to death, exiled or censured. Their writings were burned and made illegal to possess. This condition lasted for more than a millennia. The groups of historical orthodox Christianity coming out of that condition would obviously have many things in common. Much more in common with each other than with the Christians of the 1st century.

Mormonism's claim is that God restored the truths believed by the 1st century Christians, correcting the errors of an appostate church that developed over several hundred years of corruption. To say that Mormonism disagrees with the historical Christianity of the last 10 centuries is about as weak an argument you could make to support the idea that Mormonism is somehow less Christian than those groups born from corruption.

And yet if one looks, one will still find much in common regarding beliefs from the earliest times of Christianity up until the present. That Christianity has a troublesome past in no way whatsoever means that the beliefs it has long held are false. It is an unbiblical position to state otherwise as it makes Jesus out to be a liar.

If you want to continue to appeal to the history of Christianity, then I can appeal to the life of Joseph Smith and we'll see how far that goes.

 

[Jamesone5]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe the Book of Mormon is without error. The book itself acknowledges that it has weaknesses. We also believe that, just like the prophets and apostles of the Bible, modern day prophets and apostles are only human. They can and do make mistakes.

This is a common misconception made by Mormons and non-Mormons that causes them to sometimes misjudge the church. It is a common practice for anti-Mormons to hold the LDS apostles and prophets to a much higher and impossible standard, which they would never hold the prophets and apostles of the Bible to. Many of the false assumptions about Mormons are caused by this double standard.

So by your own admissions, you belong to a Church which was set up by a prophet who is only human and "who can and did make mistakes" who also issued a lot of Doctrinal beliefs that are basically foreign to main- line Christianity. How do you know what was merely a human mistake in the many doctrinal beliefs that Smith issued or for that matter any of the succeeding prophets? By your own admission [in a very familiar LDS belief} you, as an average believer in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, do not have the "authority" to determine what is True or False, certainly as it is interpreted from the Bible. And please do not say it is the Power of the Holy Ghost or the magical power of your testimony or even the supposed power of the priesthood that affirms these "plain and precious truths" to you.

 

[Jamesone5]

As someone who was formally a 5th generation Mormon Believer who can trace his roots back to Lot Smith, who led the Utah Rebellion back in the 1850's, I was brought up solidly LDS. Had both priesthoods, and had a strong testimony, or at least I thought I did for about 40 years or so. Through a personal crisis, I was given a newer version of the Bible and developed what many refer to as a hunger for the Word. In my new-found understandings with the Bible, I got to the point where I had to test my new understandings against the Mormon Doctrines I had believed since I was a child. I did pray for the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth as Christ Promises.

Back then, I was very wary of those who are referred to as "anti-Mormons", so I stayed away from studying any documents or books put out by anyone who could conceivably have some sort of a vendetta against the LDS Church. Many of the Journal of Discourses, Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and other Church authorized publications, plus of course the D&C and Pearl of Great Price were all pitted against the words of the Bible. This study went on for about 2 years and even then when I made the decision to leave the LDS Church, I struggled much with the decision because I believe the Church itself had a hold on me, I now know that that hold was really from years of hearing that Joseph Smith was a True Prophet of God and the LDS Church was the Only True Church on the face of the earth--typical testimony assertions that I and so many others uttered.

Also for many years, I was told about the falseness of other so-called Christian Religions and that in the LDS church, there was a safe haven of sorts where we had a "modern-day prophet" to clear up all those errors of the other Churchs which did not have the "authority" to teach about God. In the 17 years since I left the Church, I have talked to other former Mormons who also made the decision to leave and their experiences were similar as to the "hold" they also felt. I have numerous relatives in the LDS Church, even some in the SLC area and my decision to leave the Church was met with a lot of arguments and even some hostility. That has somewhat changed over the years and was even Blessed to have shared the Biblical Jesus Christ and pray with both my father and mother at their hospital bedsides before they both passed on about 6 years apart.

proveallthings, I will not assert that you are in denial or are being decieved, but rather point to you screen name and suggest that in "proving all things" one needs to let go of pre-concieved notions and recognize the fact that the LDS Church,[ really like a lot of strong Religions] can exert a certain hold on you or any else.

 

[By Grace]

Originally Posted by Jamesone5
"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 its precepts, than by any other book," (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461)

This quote does not say that the Book of Mormon is without error.

The answer given is a non sequitur, as well as begging the question. It is an evasion of the issue and the author of the quote, Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841
Please address the issue of what Smith stated, and the significance of it before there is another derail. To reiterate, the issue is that your so-called prophet said it was the most correct of any book on earth. Therefore I ask is what Smith said a true statement, or is it a false statement?

It just has less error than other books. That is a big difference. Such a claim should make sense to any rational person when one realizes that it is assuming that the only ones involved with its writing and translation were prophets of God. But even then, we do not believe it is without error.

Is this a statement of presumption where you calling into question the words of your prophet? After all, if he said it was perfect, then how any TBM be calling what he said into question?

Originally Posted by Jamesone5 "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).

This quote is really off topic. How does this show that Joseph Smith did not value the teachings of the Bible? And by the way, this in no way contradicts anything in the Bible, only false assumptions. I was aware of this doctrine as early as a teenager

Are you thus saying that the couplet below is untrue?
As man is, god once was
As god is, man may become But to say that was inaccurate would be a statement not conforming to the reality of LDS beliefs, would it?

Although it is not found in any of Mormonism's Standard Works, an expression which precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God! According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, "Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation ... They are gods."
Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237
​

Perhaps you need to read the resources of Mormonism better before you make another statement that doesn't agree with the real teachings of your church.

And by the way, this in no way contradicts anything in the Bible

So in this sentence you are making the claim that the Bible says what the BoM says. Therefore, you are thus challenged to find the entire doctrine of exaltation, as taught by your church in the 66 books. If you are unable to find that doctrine in the Bible, then you are making ANOTHER statement that does not agree with what your church teaches about our Bible.

. It is not official doctrine, but I believe it personally. As far as I know it is a commonly accepted belief among most Mormons today. It sounds strange in the same way the doctrine of calculus that says that a straight line can curve and still be a straight line sounds strange to someone just learning the basic definitions of a line in beginning geometry. We could say that your understanding of the Bible is comparable to basic geometry and this doctrine of God by Joseph Smith can be compared to calculus. If you haven't learned what is between the two or had it explained, it sounds contradictory, even though it isn't.

The science and mathematics of calculus have nothing to do with the unproved statements made so far in this post, to which I reply. So far, there has been nothing of substance in that post, excepting unsupported and contradicting generalizations. Goodness! If someone who has never been a Mormon (Can we say that I am a "no-Mo? ) can so easily find the errors in the post what does that say about how much of lds theology is known by the average LDS adherent?

Originally Posted by Jamesone5 The trouble is, my friend, that as your read Church history through the Church itself and put out by the Church it tends to be tainted. the LDS Church will always defend itself---it has done just that for 180+ years.

It is a widely held belief that the archives of church history are not accessible to most people. It is simply not true. I have heard men who were apostate and openly known as scholars who believed Joseph to be a false prophet, an opportunist and fraud, say that they had the same access to delicate documents in the church archives as any Mormon scholar. They were surprised at this too, but it is true. I have personally studied the many seemingly scandalous challenges made about church history and I can confidently say that I have not found anything that would cause me to doubt the divine calling of Joseph Smith or any of his successors. If you believe strongly that I am in denial or have been deceived, I welcome a one on one discussion where I would be glad to dig into any challenge you feel is significant to see if it has merit or not.

The poster to whom you reply is NOT asking about the history of the LDS church, as the reply indicates. Rather Jamison is stating that your history of the CHRISTIAN church is acquired solely through the filter of reading second or third hand material, and ALL of that having a strong lds filter attached to it.

Proving is a pretty strong word in the realm of religion. If you read my recent responses to Free in this thread, you will see that there is a lot of evidence, much of which is outside of what the church teaches, that I can present to validate this claim.

Well, for your information, the Christian can point to over 85 tels or digs done by world-class archeologists which correspond exactly to what the Bible says about them. Unfortunately, for the Mormon, there is nothing excepting a "burning bosom", which I sometimes refer to as a "Maalox moment" that can account for anything found in the BoM.

Yes, I am aware that the testimony meetings you go and tell others how firm your collective testimony is, but an "upset stomach" the same thing as a relic dug from the ground as proof?

The way that Christians view the relics is that they are not in and of themselves proof of anything in the Bible. Instead, they are INDEPENDENT records of what God did in the Bible, left there for our benefit so that we can know without a doubt that our God did certain things, and left "souvenirs" for us to know without a doubt that He did as the Bible says.

What is most sad for the lds perspective is that there is nothing mentioned in the BoM that is found anywhere in North America. That is a very poor record.

Since I live very close to Seneca Lake, why can't I find Nehpite arrow heads as I did in my garden? Why don't the Amish farmers turn up anything other than rocks when they plow their fields with their horses around here?

Another thing you need to grapple with is the NYS Regents Curriculum. It is a state-mandated set of standards and subjects that every child in New York is expected to be taught, and to master in this state. If all that stuff happened as Smith said it was, and 100,000 or 1,000,000 men are buried at Cumorah (depending on your lds source) then why is it absent from the curriculum?

When I lived in the Philadelphia area, our schools took us to Independence Hall where we could touch the Liberty Bell. Our scout troop camped at Valley Forge and Washington's Crossing. Those things were things we could touch.

But no one can touch anything at Cumorah because nothing was ever found there. and the amount of people allegedly buried at Cumorah exceed the numbers of troops at Valley Forge, and Washington's Crossing. Yet you guys believe it because you has a belly ache??? I know a guy who can sell to you a few bridges here in NY. Are you in the mood to buy? (just kidding, but the point is made)