Skip to comments.I Agree With Moroni 8:18 — Do Mormons?
Posted on 02/07/2011 2:56:17 AM PST by Colofornian
Today is the first I Agree With Moroni 8:18″ day. Afterward it will be every August 18th.
If youd like to participate, you can simply put on your Facebook wall today (the 18th), I agree with Moroni 8:18″, or some variation.
If youd like to participate, you can simply put on your Facebook wall today (the 18th), I agree with Moroni 8:18″, or some variation.
The only way to reconcile the 1844 Joseph Smith with the 1830 Joseph Smith is if the definition of unchangeable has changed. (Keith Walker)
Moroni is a book within the Book of Mormon. What does Moroni 8:18 say?
"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."
Other Book of Mormon verses register this same emphasis:
"For behold, I am God...I am the same yesterday, today and forever;" (2 Nephi 27:23)
"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow or changing?" (Mormon 9:9)
"...why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet ben an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God..." (Mormon 9:19)
Now, this was 1830 Mormonism. We have a glimpse that early 1832 Mormonism, it was still the same:
"From eternity to eternity, he [God] is the same..." (Feb. 16, 1832 D&C 76:4)
Indeed, a huge shift was breaking on the Mormon waters by March, 1839, when Smith introduced multiple gods. (When the Bible references "gods," it never goes beyond one TRUE GOD by nature/essence). Smith wrote: "According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of ALL OTHER GODS before this world was..." (D&C 121:32)
By the last year of his life, Joseph Smith, having gone wild in embracing dozens of wives over the previous year and a half, had also moved on to embracing multiple gods.
You see, on Feb. 9, 1831 -- 180 years ago this very week -- I believe Joseph Smith fully meant what he said when the following was recorded as a "revelation": "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." (Feb. 9, 1831, D&C 42:22)
What made Smith go from a "none else" husband to a open philanderer? Well, that very year, the Smith took in a 14 yo "adopted" maid, Fanny Alger, whom he took as another bed partner at least by 1833 when Alger was 16.
On Aug. 7, 2009, one of the groups some Mormon FREEPERS link to -- FAIR -- a Mormon apologetics organization -- held its annual apologetics conference. One of the presenters (Greg Smith) gave a boldly-titled workshop: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage* (*but were afraid to ask) [Source url: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_Plural_Marriage.html
Greg Smith was wrapping up his workshop when he took one last question: "I am a woman and NOT a fan of polygamy, although I and my husband are both descendants of it. Is the text of D&C 132-58-66 the origin of the practice?" Answer: The best historical evidence suggests that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph by 1831, and that he was teaching it to a limited circle by that year.28" (Footnote #28 went to: See discussion here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice)
Well, of course, it was "revealed" in the bodily shape of a minor girl -- one he had in the bedroom at least by 16 if not earlier.
Emma resisted; but Smith gradually added a few more wives and then by 1842 was going hog-wild; getting a new lover each month or more.
The multiple-woman lover, having "graduated" from "none else" from 1831 days...had likewise "graduated" from a "none else" God...and of course, wouldn't you know that Joseph Smith first introduced multiple references to multiple gods in his 1843 "revelation" that was really at the time geared toward one person and "none else" -- his original wife, Emma. (D&C 132). He thought that beings which "have no end" and "have all power" should be properly referenced as "gods." (D&C 132:20)
With these 1839-1843 references to multiple gods, this implied that the Mormon god wasn't the first god -- or the ultimate god.
Less than three months before his death, Smith sealed the "deal" in provoking the real God by preaching at a funeral service where he claimed God was once a man; and that men needed to find out how to become gods themselves.
Smith was preaching against D&C 76:4 and all those Book of Mormon passages! The Mormon god had indeed "changed" in a HUGE way, graduating from mere manhood to godhood!
Please, look closely:
The 1843 Smith continued to show his wobbly self -- certainly not the "voice of certainty" you'd expect to hear from somebody saying he's directly speaking for God -- using a first-person voice:
Q We're we to ask Joseph Smith today, "Is your God a voice of certainty -- or provide some examples how your god frames issues to you?"
A. "It MAY PROBABLY arise through the slave question...Joseph, my son, IF THOU livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man..." (April 2, 1843 D&C 130: 13,15)
Mr or Mrs. or Elder or Miss Mormon. Face this Mormon "Scripture" test honestly. It's April, 1843. Joseph Smith is about to take yet another wife to give him approximately two dozen -- 21 that's added in the previous 24 months! Is this a believable man character-wise?
Even if you think God told him to become a polygamist, does a man of God add 21 wives in about a 24-25 month span?
Furthermore, look closely @ D&C 130:13-15. Ask yourself these questions:
(1) Does a true pipeline to God's voice use words like "may probably"? (see D&C 130:13) Do you believe in a "may probably" type of less-than-sovereign god?
(2) Would God address slavery as a "question?" (see D&C 130:13) (As if he wasn't settled on his stance on slavery?)
(3) Would God say to ANY man, "if" and then wonder how long he might live? If you were God and you knew a man was about to die in less than 15 months, would you project his life out another 45.5 years and say, "IF THOU livest until thou art 85"...I mean why bother? What's the point besides needlessly dangling an empty dream before Smith's ears?
(4) Why is God still talking in King James English ("thou livest...thou art") when that's not the way family members spoke one to another or newspapers communicated in 1843!
(5) If God knew that Jesus, the Son of Man, had already appeared to Jesus on earth, why raise this future earthly specter that would supposedly occur in 1890 or 1891 -- and present it as if it would happen for the first time?
(6) Finally if this was truly God giving Joseph this promise, and since Joseph didn't live til 85, guess what? This promise was irrelevant for Smith then -- non-applicable, wasn't it?
Journey through these years and ask yourself, does this sound like a God of certitude who proclaims "unalterable...decrees?"
Two anti-certitude verses:
* "Let there be a craft made, or bought, as seemeth you good, IT MATTERETH NOT UNTO ME... (Aug. 8, 1831 D&C 60:5)
* AND: "And then you may return to bear record, yea, even altogether, or two by two, as seemeth you good, IT MATTERETH NOT UNTO ME;" (Aug. 13, 1831 D&C 62:5)
If God took the time to communicate on something, then it matters to Him! Is this "mattereth not" god the Ultimate God you want to worship?
Another anti-certitude voice:
"And verily I say unto you, the rest of my servants, go forth AS YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL PERMIT..."... (September 22-23, 1832, D&C 84:117)
Wow! Such sovereignty of the Mormon god in action! 'Circumstances rule permissions...NOT the Lord!'
How about Book of Mormon voice of "prophetic narratives" where the narrator just can't make up his mind within the same given point of history?
* Supposed timeframe: 74 BC: "...there BEGAN to be CONTINUAL PEACE throughout ALL the LAND." (Alma 30:2)
* Supposed timeframe: 74BC: It mentions the Ammons leaving one land & heading for another -- and then having the armies engage in warfare in that other land. (Alma 35:13)
So, yes, while it's another land that might be distinct from the other, why bother highlighting "continual peace" being jumpstarted if it didn't continue within even the same year??? Sorry, Alma as any kind of historian thereby flunks any credibility right there!
* "Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of NONE shall behold it SAVE it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein." And there is NONE other which shall view it, SAVE it be A FEW according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto thei children of men; (2 Nephi 27:12-13)
Ask yourself: Is a specific God going to use the word "NONE" right before mentioning three exceptions and then decides to tack on "a few" -- which, it turns out, wasn't supposedly a "few" at all-- but was eight? Which is it? None or 3? 3 or 8? "A few" or 8? "None or 8?" What a maddening god who on the one thing that there is a clear absolute on -- numbers -- can't even figure it out in two sentences!
And speaking of numbers, how many times did the Mormon jesus ascend into heaven?
And while they were overshadowed he departed from them, and ascended into heaven. And the disciples saw and did bear record that he ascended into heaven. And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ascended into heaven..." (3 Nephi 18:39 - 19:1)
Note: The Bible wasn't "carved up" into verses until the 12th century. Hence, what you don't notice about 3 Nephi 18:39-19:1 is that it's the last verse of one chapter, and the first verse of the next chapter. I doubt that in AD34, this Nephi was chopping up these sentences into chapters as he supposedly carved them on gold plates. My point? Think of it: The character "Jacob" in the Book of Mormon has already gone on record, saying: "I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates." (Jacob 4:1) Now think of YOU writing on such "plates." Are you going to etch three back-to-back sentences in which within 33 words, you've used the "ascended" three times, "heaven" three times, "into" three times, and the word "departed" once? Does that make sense that you would do that?
You see, this last reiteration was a pure creation of Smith to set up another chapter when we know that ancient writers didn't do those chapter & verse demarcations. But guess what this writer (a third Nephi) THEN says happen as he gets further into chapter 19. He's already emphasized beyond any necessity that Jesus departed via ascension. Look at v. 15: "And it came to pass that while the angels were ministering unto the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in the midst and ministered unto them." (So now the ascended Jesus is immediately back? Why make such a big deal about his ascension if he's doing a quick u-turn?) The other thing ya gotta know is how Mormons tend to ignore 3 Nephi 19, anyway...because it repeatedly stresses Mormon disciples praying DIRECTLY to an already-ascended Jesus. That's a Mormon doctrinal no-no-- to pray directly to Jesus. They are told to pray ONLY directly to the Father (in Jesus' name).
"And whoso believeth in me and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoseo believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. Verily, verily I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost...Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare MORE or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them." (3 Nephi 11:33-35, 39-40)
OK, so what do we have here? Supposedly this Nephi writer mentions "doctrine" (singular) twice. What points does it cover? Belief in Jesus, baptism, repentance (not covered above, but mentioned in v. 38), a visitation of "fire and the Holy Ghost," and also -- in vv. 37-39 -- twice emphasizes becoming like a litle child to inherit God's kingdom. That's essentially it. And this Nephi then says if you "declare MORE...than this" as new established doctrine, you're "evil" to the of being hell-bound!
Question: Mormon -- read D&C 20 verses below and then ask yourself,
* "How many gods am I to worship and am to give glory to?"
* "Is giving worship and glory roughly the same thing? And if not, what's the difference?"
"...according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be ALL GLORY both now AND FOREVER....Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen...By these things we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...that they should serve him, the ONLY LIVING and TRUE God, and that he should be THE ONLY being whom they should worship." (D&C 20:4, 12, 17, 19)
Mormon, if Jesus was a different "being" than the Father, then why does D&C 20:4 conclude that God "should be THE ONLY geing whom they SHOULD worship" while simultaneously concluding that God told angels to worship Jesus (see Hebrews 1:6)...As I challenge grassroots Mormons to defy their leaders when they tell them NOT to directly worship Jesus (see Mormon 7:7; 2 Nephi 25:29; 4 Nephi 4:37; 3 Nephi 11:17; 3 Nephi 17:10).
Mormon, you want the truth right? You want to worship Jesus right? How can you worship Jesus -- and obey all those Book of Mormon & Bible verses about worshiping Jesus -- and obey D&C 20:19? Unless...Unless...Jesus is that SAME BEING!
Thomas calls Jesus his God in John 20:28; even the Nephite disciples likewise called Jesus their Lord and God (3 Nephi 19:18). D&C says Jesus is God (19:4; 62:1; etc.) Since theres only one true God in the bible and in the LDS scriptures (for example, Pearl of Great Price says "no God besides me" (1:6), either Jesus is a false god or the one true God. As Jesus Christ is a God to Thomas (John 20:28) -- so Thomas has two gods?
* “Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of NONE shall behold it SAVE it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.” And there is NONE other which shall view it, SAVE it be A FEW according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto thei children of men; (2 Nephi 27:12-13)
If you remember, Colofornian, there were but three who were shown the plates “by the power of God” — Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. They saw the angel who laid the plates before them, and they also heard the voice of God commanding them to bear witness.
The eight witnesses did not see the plates under supernatural circumstances — Joseph Smith allowed them to examine the plates.
Alma is the longest book in the Book of Mormon, and right up front it teaches universalism -- that all will be saved. Hasn't that ever caught your spirit? I mean, c'mon, if Alma 1:4 is true, why bother with the Mormon missionary and genealogical enterprise systems?
"And he also testified unto the people that ALL MANKIND SHOULD BE SAVED AT THE LAST DAY, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and has also redeemed all men; and, in the end, ALL MEN SHOULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE" (Alma 1:4)
Less than a year before the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph Smith was still wrestling with "gift of eternal life" or keeping commandments gets you eternal life:
Q. "Joe, is eternal life a gift -- or something you have to work toward by way of commandment keeping?"
Follow-up comment: "Joe, that's not a yes-no question"
A. "...if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God." (June, 1829 D&C 14:7)
Yet Joseph kept answering those multiple-choice questions with a "yes" answer. Other examples:
Q. "Joe, do ALL men need to repent?"
A. "Wherefore, I will that ALL men shall repent..." (March, 1831 D&C 49:8)
Q. "Joe, are ALL men 'under sin' or MOST men?"
A. [Yes] "Wherefore, I will that ALL men shall repent, for all men are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of." (March, 1831, D&C 49:8)
Follow-up comment: "Joe, that's not a yes-no question! Besides, you just contradicted your answer to my previous question! I asked if 'ALL men were under sin?' And you said all needed to repent. Then you said there were 'except[ions]' to men being 'under sin' -- which if they weren't under sin, why the need for 'ALL men to repent?' Is it all or most?"
The English language dictates that if "ALL" wasn't even in the equation, why carelessly bring it into the conversation? (Especially if that's God talking)
Q. "Joe, is anybody allowed after you receive commandments and revelations in this church?"
A. "...behold, verily I say unto thee, NO ONE shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses...thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom; (Sept. 1830, D&C 28:2,5)
First of all, note "shall be appointed" is a future-tense prophecy. Second any further "revelations," Smith seems to say, can't be relayed as having come as "commandments" from God. Mormon, what good is that "living prophet" you tout if he can only coax people by exposition of "wisdom" -- and NOT by passing any new God's commandments? If you think such a newer "prophet" can reveal new commandments, guess what? You are labeling Joseph Smith a "false prophet" based upon his words form D&C 28!
Finally...was Adam & Eve's sin a good thing (opened door to parenthood & godhood, per Mormonism) or a bad thing (opened door to rebellion, sin, disobedience, generational fall, etc., per Christianity)?
If the Mormon version goes, then what "fall" was that? "Fall" shouldn't even be in the Mormon language. Yet...it is...in fact, the fall was so bad, per the Book of Mormon, that you and I -- no matter what our church heritage is -- needs redemption. Elsewise, why would Ether say:
"Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall..." (Ether 3:13)
Most Christians believe that God is changeable, but Mormons do not?
Q. "Joe, what verse from you do you think that Brigham Young got his theory of 'blood atonement?'"
A. "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." (Dec. 16, 1833, D&C 101:80)
Actually, the true contrast is Mormons have gone on their record to uplife the Lds "prophet" Lorenzo Snow "couplet" enough times to considere it "doctrine" -- even though it didn't make canonized "scripture":
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).
Source: Bill McKeever -- see As God Is Man May Become
Hence, most Mormons believe that God changed -- and they tend to actually discard their own "scriptures" on the topic?
It's one of those "can't win" choices for Mormons! They either wind up dissing Mormon "scriptures" on the one hand -- or Lds "prophet" Lorenzo Snow and their current general authority leaders on the other!
As for your comment "Most Christians believe that God is changeable," are you referencing the incarnation -- or something else?
God is no longer mortal.
Christians believe that not only can God change, He has changed.
In contrast, Mormon scripture says that God is unchangeable. But their current statements seem to contradict that.
Is God "changeable" or not?
Alma is the longest book in the Book of Mormon, and right up front it teaches universalism — that all will be saved. Hasn’t that ever caught your spirit? I mean, c’mon, if Alma 1:4 is true, why bother with the Mormon missionary and genealogical enterprise systems?
“And he also testified unto the people that ALL MANKIND SHOULD BE SAVED AT THE LAST DAY, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and has also redeemed all men; and, in the end, ALL MEN SHOULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE” (Alma 1:4)
You don’t seem to realize that Alma 1:4 is citing Nehor — a man among the Nephites who started to teach “what he termed to the word of God”. Nehor is mentioned in Alma because he was a teacher of falsehoods, and the passage you quote is an example of one of his false teachings.
I'd love to discuss this with you further, but I've got to get ready for work.
I find it strange that you would agree with a scripture from Mormonism.
Is Moroni 8:18 true, or not? (God is unchangeable)?
If so and you have found a correct statement in an incorrect book, then wouldn't that statement also be suspect?
And why would you believe any statement from this source?
Perhaps it comes down to semantics. Maybe your definition of "unchangeable" is in itself changeable.
Most Christians believe God is changeable? Gotta throw the flag on that one. Biblically, God is unchangeable, He, His word are unchanging.
If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.
They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.
They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.
Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.
You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.
Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as being supposedly former Mormons. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. The LDS Church gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn't make them an expert on anything and you certainly won't hear them attacking their forner Church.
Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.
After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.
The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.
Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:
Now you will likely notice the "you never address or answer our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.
Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you? They often state that these sites provide no answer. They just don't want you looking. It is as simple as that.
Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.
I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
* "Let there be a craft made, or bought, as seemeth you good, IT MATTERETH NOT UNTO ME... (Aug. 8, 1831 D&C 60:5) * AND: "And then you may return to bear record, yea, even altogether, or two by two, as seemeth you good, IT MATTERETH NOT UNTO ME;" (Aug. 13, 1831 D&C 62:5)
If God took the time to communicate on something, then it matters to Him! Is this "mattereth not" god the Ultimate God you want to worship?
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under Gods curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under Gods curse!"
God does not change; it is man’s perception of God that changes.
NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH MORONI 8:18 or ANYTHING ELSE IN THE FALSE LDS GOSPEL!!!!
This campaign is ill concieved and will ONLY serve to further the deception that Mormons are Christians and keep them in that cult.
This campaign is already backfiring on the ministry involved and none of the people (many I know personally) involved in this campaign were ever LDS and have no idea how the LDS spin this verse.
Even the parts of the Book of Mormon that Smith plagiarized from the Bible should not be agreed with. Agree with the Bible not a work of FICTION.
BTW, if you would like an answer on how I would have responded to this when I was LDS, feel free to ask. This isn’t a ‘gotcha’ to them at all.
Avoid this campaign, please.
Smith was preaching against D&C 76:4 and all those Book of Mormon passages!
THen Joey Smith was an anti-mormon..
I don’t. If I agree with one part of the BoM, I’m in agreement with mormonism. I am not.
The plagiarization and or bastardaziation of Biblical verses inserted into the BoM is something I cannot endorse.
To simplify the discussion of moronism, see Solomon Spalding (the truth behind the wall of secrecy).
I Agree With Moroni 8:18
There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience, not with their physical eyes. The plates were “seen” in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church. Most were excommunicated as well. In fact, most followed Strang as prophet.
To me that is not a lasting “witness” I would place my eternal future on.
Sorry, but the historic Christian church has taught that Christ never stopped being man. He is the everlasting God-man.
Good advice for truth-seekers.
More difficult to do if you actually want Mormons to occasionally dialogue with you.
Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery after leaving the LDS Church were rebaptized later in life. Significantly, no witness, even after leaving the Church, recanted the testimonies they had given.
These witnesses are a proof system that God has provided to the world for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Best to you,
I don’t agree with Moroni 8:18. Because Moroni is a fictional character from a badly written Sci-Fi/fantasy novel and because the purpose of the book of Mormon is to lead people away from Christianity. I renounce the BOM in its entirety.
I agree with what Moroni 8:18 says. The Book of Mormon itself is a lie from the pit of hell.
Point of fact - Cowdery’s funeral was conducted by a Methodist church and not the Mormon church. Many others believe Cowdery rejoined was the hope that he could convince the saints to abandon polygamy which he was strongly against.
Harris was destitute at the time and mormons paid for him to come to utah after Harris worked for the Strangeites, Whitmerites, Gladdenites, Williamites, and Shakers with the same zeal he did mormonites.
As a ‘witness’ to the truthfulness, one would have to accept equally the ‘truthfulness’ of the Strangeites, Whitmerites, Gladdenites, Williamites, and Shakers on the same level as mormonism as well. I doubt you as a mormon would do that, thus he stands condemned by his own associates.
Testimonies of others who knew these men further point to their lack of character and lack of integrity. If this is the best the mormon world can do - it fails epically.
As always, Reaganaut & Szonian, you make some good points.
I'll take your advice & not post future threads re: this campaign.
Beyond the campaign, tho, it's worthwhile having a discussion how ex-Mormons and Christians deal with...
...both the plagiarized word-for-word KJV chapters imported in the BoM as well as plagiarized phrases lifted from the KJV;
...and then thirdly, what do we do with ANY common-ground theological statements?
If we were to draw this on a continuum, I see it as:
Many ex-Mormons' position would be similar to yours, which I might take liberty by using this analogy: "Hey, even if that plate looks like any other plate, why would you serve up anybody food on that knowing both its source and the fact that it's been 'dishwashed' with sewer water?"
(This is a pretty tough argument to try to oppose)
Certainly in this way, I didn't think through the verses Paul deals with a similar matter -- eating meat sacrificed to idols. I should have at least drawn a parallel from 1 Cor. 10:25-33 before posting:
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, The earth is the Lords, and everything in it. 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other persons conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by anothers conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Certainly I am thankful that God's word is not chained or bound (what Paul said of the Gospel to Timothy), but I should have realized the objections it would raise. Still, this matter also goes beyond the Book of Mormon, as Muhammad lifted many phrases from the Bible -- and I certainly don't sanction the Koran.
On the other side of the continuum is the phrase, "All truth is God's truth." This position assumes...
...that no matter what source is trying to distort God's truth, it was His before the usurpers came along...therefore, we honor the Original Dispenser -- not its secondary capitalizers;
...and, that at least from jumpstarting dialogue, we recognize common-ground beliefs.
Certainly dangers exist with this last position:
(1) Do we inadvertently wind up sanctioning poison-well sources?
(2) Do we fail to recognize one of the points brought out in the Hollywood movie, The Book of Eli?
For those of you who haven't seen that movie, one character is desperate to get a complete Bible -- and fully for lack of noble purposes.
He believes the way to deal with social anarchy is to "control the masses" via becoming the chokepoint for no doubt what could be a "filtered" presentation of the Bible to serve that leader's ambitious purposes.
Therefore, were this leader to gain control of a Bible for self-serving purposes, he would have no doubt suppressed a good chunk of it while probably releasing his "reader's digest" version of it.
The parallels with Smith would then be striking:
Smith carefully chose which chapters and phrases from the Bible he wanted to import to give the BoM an air of authenticity;
He suppressed most of it;
He used it for ignoble purposes -- to establish himself as a religious leader and then glorify himself...Even Brigham Young in D&C 136:6 says that Smith & his brother "lived for glory."
Anyway, Reaganaut & Szonian: It's obviously I offended each of you, and I'm sorry. I should have thought through how highlighting this campaign effects ex-Mormons). And I should have thought through its implications. It doesn't mean that this whole issue (my I mentioned in the third graph I wrote above) should not be discussed -- re: advantages, disadvantages, and what the Lord would have us do.
And I suggest people read Texson66's Galatians 1 admonition to me. We need to ask the question, "By highlighting even a smidgen of a false gospel -- even when that portion might be in agreement with the Bible, do we advertently promote it?"
Don’t really care to dialogue with them.
OK, I guess in the same way that Dumbledore and Spock had some compelling quotes.
Well, if Spock or Dumbledore quoted the Bible, you’d have to agree with the quote. Heck, Mormons quote the Bible all the time.
I think there is a corollary between this campaign and Paul speaking to the people of Athens about their unknown God.
Paul did not infer that he agreed with the Athenians and their worship of their pagan God ....
22”Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23”For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Acts 17:22-17:31, KJV
That's a good example.
Certainly Paul might have issued more qualifiers or disclaimers as he cited that example--were there former Athenian pagan worshipers-turned-Christian in that crowd, that is.
I think one of the bottom-line issues is how we go about citing the common ground we have as Christians with other religions.
In our rush to highlight that common ground, do we yield unnecessary false impressions that we sanction it or their sources?
That is where we need to be good at caveats-- qualifiers-- disclaimers.
Campaigns of this nature need to stress those quite heavily. And I should have been a bit more attentive to that in my very first post; hence my apology.
It's the same thing when a writer wants to cite a source that is highly problematic.
If he doesn't use such caveats/qualifiers/disclaimers, the reader is simply going to follow the footnote & assume this is a good, trustworthy source.
I've actually come across one Mormon author who I thought was right-on re: some social insights in this country (& I'm not talking about Glenn Beck). Then I discovered this author has written a deeply, deeply occultic book.
If I posted a vanity here -- and cited the author's first book but failed to tell readers how occultic his orientation is -- I have failed that navigational course of providing proper warnings.
Therefore, it's the writer's job -- if she/he feels it's important to keep the reference in her/his work -- to point out what is controversial about this source before/after even citing it. And it's not enough for that writer to say they've done that somewhere else.
If it's an article, the reader may only have access to that article; a book, same thing.
A campaign of this nature, I believe, is similar in nature. Yes, I still think it can be pulled off...with the proper navigation and proper disclaimers on board. Certainly it would be good if MRM had plenty of ex-Mormon input before they launched it (I hoped they did).
I am Christian, and that's news to me. Where in the Bible does it state that Christ is "the everlasting God-man?"
The concept of the Trinity contradicts this.
Clearly God is changeable (at least in form), but you say that He isn't. I am curious as to why you would side with the Mormons on this issue.
Good point, but I'm not giving them any credit for it..
Good post, but I’m not offended by the original posting. Although the premise or understanding of the citation is what is being discussed, for me, it’s the source.
I am not in a position yet to fully understand the point being made in the original. So, as an apostate, I’m extremely wary of any comparisons being made between Christianity and mormonism. Especially any that may appear to give sanction to mormonism. My position is to flat out reject them in order to prevent confusion.
Gotta remember, mormonism is the only religion that I’ve practiced, so my theological background and understandings of Christianity are lacking.
No offense given, none taken.
A changing concept of right/wrong belongs to politicians, not supreme beings.
Duped by-the-changing-story Mormons placemarker
I have seen many convoluted attempts to get around the testimony of the three witnesses,but they were as plain as they could be throughout their lives regarding what they saw and heard.
Book of Mormon, Ether 5:4
“And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear recordand all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day.”
Journal of Discourses, volume 8 number 224, October 21, 1860 [ http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-08/]
"No man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven without the approbation of the prophet Joseph Smith, jun. ... If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the prophet Joseph. If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass. Can you pass without his inspection? No; neither can any person in this dispensation of the fulness of time. In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this prophet."
Now Normandy, if you want to go get Joseph Smith's approval, you will have to descend into Hell where the lying peepstone sexual predator false prophet resides with his father, the father of lies a murderer from the start. But I would caution you to give that trip your utmost consideration, to avoid it by accepting the Grace of God in Christ and be born from above, immediately, and repent of following this demonic religion of layered blasphemies.
If you raise up your children in this blasphemous cult, you will have placed around their necks a horrific weight to be removed before they can awaken to the Grace of God in Christ. Teaching your children that they can have God's Grace, if Joseph Smith approves of them is demonic inveigling. They do not have to wait for salvation until after all that they can do, they can be born from above immediately, whether you ever are or not. Do you recall what Jesus said about millstones?
My response: ...the historic Christian church has taught that Christ never stopped being man. He is the everlasting God-man.
Your response: I am Christian, and that's news to me. Where in the Bible does it state that Christ is "the everlasting God-man?" The concept of the Trinity contradicts this.
Let's break this down: First of all, your Q of "Where in the Bible does it state that Christ is 'the everlasting God-man?'"
Have you not read Revelation 1? Rev. 1:12-19:
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was
someone like a son of MAN, dressed in a robe
reaching down to his FEET and
with a golden sash around his CHEST.
14 The HAIR on his HEAD was white like wool, as white as snow,
and his EYES were like blazing fire.
15 His FEET were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16
In his RIGHT HAND he held seven stars,
and coming out of his MOUTH was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. 19 Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.
This is John the Revelators vision of the ascended Christ still very much a glorified man as well as God! Dual, distinct natures, yet united in Him!
Do you think the glorified Jesus was just putting on some illusory pretend guise as this glorified divine-man being?
Your statement: Christians believe that God was once a man.
I guess you deny the authority of Revelation 1 then? How long have you been choosy about which books or chapters you believe?
Do you realize that in 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius from his see position. Why? Because the early church ruled him to be a heretic; the term Nestorian became equated with the belief that Jesus had two distinct natures or was two distinct persons one a Mary-born human & the other divine.
Tell us, Jess Kitting: Is that your contention as well? Are you a heretic after the order of Nestorius? Do you consider yourself a Nestorian 'Christian?'
Besides John, what was the testimony of the early church closer to the apostles of Jesus? Have you investigated that? If you attend a Christian church, perhaps you should go to your church leaders and ask them why they've neglected to tell you who Jesus is today -- or have badly misinformed you in light of both Rev. 1 & church history.
Below is first a brief summary of some of the early fathers expressions which flesh out the early churchs view of Jesus Christs dual nature-- followed by quotations of some of those expressions.
(IOW, if you disagree with me, well, you're disagreeing with the historic early Christian position on this...which is your right...just don't pretend that I'm not representing what was being taught 80 to less than 340 years after Christ died and was resurrected).
Summary of what can be derived from quotes that follow:
(1) The MAN Christ IS [not WAS] to be adored
(2) In Christ two operations exist: one divine, the other human
(3) The Word assumed a human nature, so that now He has two natures, each distinct though united
(4) The union of the two natures in the Incarnate Word is a personal union [IOW, Jesus didn't don a Halloween suit dressed up like a man...He personally became a full incarnation of man...this was part of His identity--His very personhood]
The early church embraced the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius dealt with opposing the Arian heresy toward the end of his life. Arianism as a heresy was defeated at the Council of Constantinople eight years after Athanasius death. A few years before he died, Athanasius said and note the highlighted future & present-tense of how they worshiped Jesus minus separate[ing] Him from the flesh:
Nor, indeed, the body [of Jesus] being such, do we divide it from the Word and adore it by itself; neither, when we wish to worship the Word, do we separate Him from the flesh. Rather, as we said before, knowing that the Word was made flesh, we recognize Him as God even after He has come in the flesh. Who, then, is so lacking in sense that he would say to the Lord: Leave the body, so that I may worship You? (St. Athanasius, Letter to Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor, Against the Arians, AD 370 or 371 pp. 344-345)
Hence, Jess Kiting, Athanasius would ask you this question: Who, then, is so lacking in sense that he would say to the Lord: Leave the body, so that I may worship You?
A dozen or so years before that, Athanasius knew of no compartmentalized worship:
the fact that the Son of God IS STILL worshipped when He became man is for us a grace and an extraordinary exaltation; for now the heavenly powers will not be astonished at seeing all of us, who have with Him a common nature, introduced into their realms. (St. Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, AD 358-362, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens as translator, p. 328)
In those same discourses, he also stressed how the flesh was His and the body in which He bore our sins is His own body (St. Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, AD 358-362, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens as translator p. 332)
I mean, what do you think Jesus did with the body after he was bodily resurrected and ascended? Did He unzip it to free Himself as if the body wasnt His?
We cannot separate His union as God-man notice the is not was in the first sentence by Tertullian:
Or why IS Christ man and son of man, if in Him there is nothing of man and nothing from man? The origins of both His substances display Him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born; from the one, flesh, and from the other, spiritual; from the one, weak, and from the other exceedingly strong, from the one, living Would you with a lie divide Christ in halves? He was all truth. Believe me, He chose to be born, rather than to make a lie of any part of Himself. (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, AD 208, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens as translator p. 146)
Same thing with Ignatius not long after the John of the Bible dies:
There IS one Physician, who IS both flesh and spirit, born and not born, who IS God IN MAN, true life in death, both from Mary and from God (St. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 110AD, Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens as translator, p. 18)
A man is ignorant indeed he does not even know his own life if he is ignorant of the fact that Christ Jesus IS true God as well as true man. And it is equally perilous to deny Christ Jesus, whether as Spirit of God or as flesh of our body
He Himself has been appointed Mediator in His own person for the salvation of the Church. And in that very mystery of mediation between God and man, He IS one and both; for by the fact of His union of natures, He has the reality of each nature equally; and this in such wise that He lacks nothing in neither, lest perhaps He might cease being God by reason of His birth as man, or lest, on the other hand, He might not BE a man while remaining God. This, therefore, is the true faith which brings blessedness to men: to acknowledge Him as God and man, to confess Him as the Word and as flesh, neither forgetting His divinity in view of His humanity, nor ignoring His flesh because He is the Word. (St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 353-355 AD, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens as translator p. 378)
Nearly every Mormon you will ever meet will claim to be a christian. The deception is a favorite with Mormons, to claim ‘I am a Christian’, then go on to offer a satanic twist of scripture to defend some blasphemy in Mormonism. Are you sure you haven’t fallen prey to one of these types of Mormons, claiming first to be a christian but leaving out that they are Mormon?
Post #39 (by colorcountry) & #40 (mine) addresses these questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.