Posted on 04/09/2008 9:33:38 AM PDT by Domandred
Texas authorities named the wrong man in search and arrest warrants used to enter the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado and begin questioning FLDS children, two opponents of the sect said Tuesday.
The warrant issued Thursday evening named 50-year-old Dale Barlow, alleging he had married and impregnated a 16-year-old girl. Officials, who later sought a second search warrant, have removed 419 children.
But Joni Holm, who has helped children leave the FLDS, said the teenager who called officials on March 29 and 30 and claimed she was abused is married to a different, younger man. The girl's husband is in his late 30s, is related to Dale Barlow, shares his surname and has a similar sounding first name, Holm said.
"I know they're looking into the wrong one," Holm said.
Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, on Tuesday said police were continuing to serve warrants and attempt to locate "the person that we are looking for."
When asked if that person was still Dale Barlow, she said, "As far as I know."
But Flora Jessop, who left the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at age 16 and now helps others do the same, also said the wrong man was named in the initial warrants.
Texas authorities have made no effort to apprehend Dale Barlow at his address in Colorado City, Ariz. He reported to his Arizona probation officer on Friday - less than 24 hours after the raid began to tell the officer he was under investigation.
His probation officer has said Dale Barlow claimed to not know the teenager making the abuse accusations. Later Friday, Arizona authorities questioned him and searched his home.
The Salt Lake Tribune, which generally does not name alleged victims of sexual abuse, and other media outlets have not published the girl's name.
But Holm said the girl's identity, and the correct identity of her husband, is "common knowledge" in Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah, where the sect has traditionally been based.
The Tribune is not naming the man identified by Holm as the girl's husband because he has not been named as a suspect or in court filings.
Holm, who is married to a former FLDS member, said she has spoken with people who know the teenager. She thinks Texas officials confused the two Barlows.
She believes it is possible the teenager did not know her husband's correct age and told authorities he is about 50. Also, she noted, Dale Barlow has a 2007 conviction in Arizona for criminal charges related to marrying and impregnating a different 16-year-old girl, which may have contributed to confusion.
The first warrant identified Dale Barlow by name and his birth date. The copy on file in court does not list the name of the investigator who petitioned for it.
A second and more expanded warrant, signed Sunday night, was based on observations and evidence found by law enforcement and child services workers inside the compound, according to court documents.
EW, I saw your thread on this & thought about responding but it was difficult--not knowing your motivations for posting this. (I hate when another poster ascribes a motivation to me minus knowing my heart; so I try to respect that same feeling in others)
The reason why this is relevant is that I can think of at least two generic motives off hand for you making the effort to do this:
The more positive motive would be that you're a person who genuinely enjoys dialogue with folks of other faiths; you would like to concentrate on more what we have in common, and not just "snipe" at what sets us apart; you would like to unite (more, but not completely unite) with those who share your values in a world completely hostile to those beliefs you've outlined. (does this describe you?)
On the other hand, and I word this carefully because this is not necessarily the "conscious" you...but on the other hand, here's a bit as to why those of us who have experienced Mormonism in various ways are a bit suspect: If I had to pinpoint a major concern here it would be that your cherry-picking of these beliefs can also fall into the "deception" category. Why do I say that? Because this list yields a false impression of Mormonism as it doesn't mention any of its MAJOR unique teachings or interpretations (I'm not talking about minor distinctions here).
I mean if I moved to a foreign country, picked out the dozen traits that I shared as an American with that culture, and then tried to pretend that our cultures were more unified that disunified, that pretense would not necessarily win over friends of that culture. Oh sure, they might appreciate that I'm trying to be "all things to all men" and that I've become a student of their culture, but just because I quickly stuffed the excess baggage--the mess in my living room--into the closet so that my guests wouldn't notice that mess, won't mean that upon opening that closet door, the massive baggage won't refraining from falling upon my guests!
Allow me to give you a daily real-life example as to why Evangelical Protestants are suspect about Mormons. LDS missionaries and the LDS Church HQ daily publishes, prints, & distributes the Book of Mormon to unwary individuals.
These folks read words like "eternal damnation"--not knowing that Joseph Smith redefined both of these words. These folks read all this King James English, not knowing that many of the BoM verses were lifted verbatim from the Bible. Perhaps worst of all, is that folks with at least a semblance of a Christian background look for descriptions of the faith described in the BoM that would set it apart from general Christianity. Not readily finding a tremendous amount of such surface easy-to-spot content, a false sense of spiritual security sets in. "Well, this sounds like the real thing," they might conclude.
The problem is that nobody's ever told them that the bulk of distinctive LDS doctrines aren't even found in the Book of Mormon (despite its description as the supposed "fulness of the everlasting gospel.") [All: The bulk of distinctive LDS doctrines come from its Doctrine & Covenants].
I mean, suppose I gave you a new Bible-looking book, told you that "the fulness of the everlasting gospel" is contained in the book, if you knew the Bible's version of the gospel well, you would probably immediately start looking for what has additionally been added that sets it apart from the Bible (otherwise why bother with the word "fulness"?) I mean what additional "gospel truths" would you expect people to find in the Book of Mormon?
These statements are taken at face value with no elaborations. I can prove every single declaration.
If this is so, then what do you do with the statements below where I've added key Mormon "elaborations" that sets LDS apart from Christians?
The Holy Bible is the Word of God and is authoritative over us. LDS article of faith: "...insofar as correctly translated." (Are you now claiming that this LDS article of faith phrase is not an "elaboration?")
Christ’s followers are saved by his Grace through his Atonement [What do you then do with the Book of Mormon Nephite elaboration that you're "saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU can do?" What do you do with the constant references by LDS "prophets", like Spencer W. Kimball, saying that you earn forgiveness; and that salvation is a matter of works & worthiness, etc.]
Jesus Christ is the only source of Salvation and the greatest name possible
If Jesus Christ is the only source of Salvation, then Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong to label the LDS people as "saviors" via proxy baptisms for the dead...and you might as well tell the LDS missionaries in the other world (D&C 138, I believe it is) to go on to their final resting place or place of torment, whichever it is. (Also, nor do LDS wives need either Joseph Smith's consent to enter--as Brigham Young claimed--nor do they need their husband's calling from beyond the veil to enter therein). Either Jesus is the Lone Exclusive "Way" (John 14:6), or He has many (false) competitors.
Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God and Savior of Mankind.
When Christians use this phrase, "Only Begotten Son of God," there is no reference to "Mary" whatsoever. This is purely a pre-son of man reference. I have a feeling, however, that's not what LDS mean when they use this term. I think it's more of an LDS reference to the physical birth of Jesus. Why do I say that? Because I don't see any distinction LDS make between the supposed pre-existent spiritual "birth" of Jesus than the supposed pre-existent spiritual "birth" of any of us [Not that I believe that; I'm just describing LDS doctrine]. According to LDS, Jesus might be "Savior" primarily because of spiritual birth order...had Lucifer been born ahead of Jesus, he might be the Mormon savior!
As for Jesus being "Savior of mankind" since LDS "Prophets" are already on record as referencing Mormons as "saviors" via proxy baptisms, if I started at age 8 and did Mormon proxy baptisms for dead folks 24/7 til I dropped head at a Noah like age of several hundred years, would, I not come a relatively "close second" in Mormon terms to being a "Savior of Mankind?"
The fact is, for Mormons, Jesus is more of a son of God than THE son of God.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “One God”
Boy, are you really going to get me started on this one & pretend that LDS don't have at least two "elaborations" attached to this? (The two I can think of is LDS saying well what this really means is that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "One Godhead" and the second elabortion is that they are "one in spirit and purpose" but are not otherwise essentially one or unified.) [All I can say to that is that any Christian man is more "one" with his wife than what the typical Mormon would allot for members of the Godhead...most Christian men are more "one" with their wives than simply spirit & purpose.]
God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.
OK, from the Mormon point of view, how is this statement all that distinct from the peculiar Mormon doctrine that all pre-existent spirits are literal children of Heavenly Father, and that therefore, they are already "gods-in-embryo" (LDS "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball & other LDS "prophets" phrase), and that they, too, have an "incarnation" and became men & women in the person of Whatever-their-names-are? Other than Jesus being the "firstborn" and had a unique role & purpose, & other than a physical God coming down & impregnating Mary, how is Jesus' incarnation unique from the supposed incarnation of me or you?
We take upon ourselves the name of Christ, pray to the Father in his name, worship and obey him.
Although both the Book of Mormon and Bible makes it clear that we directly worship Jesus, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie told BYU students in the early 1980s that this "worship" is of an indirect nature...McConkie clearly elaborated that this "worship" was more simply described as "awe" and "thankfulness" than anything that approaches how we worship Heavenly Father.
I have yet to see a Christian Denomination that accepts mormonism as an equal. And that is not because fLDS are mormons too.
Sowy. If they agreed they wouldn’t be adding scripture. That’s a no no. Mormons live under a wholly other cosmology than that of The Bible.
Were they?
Yes, please do!
The Holy Bible is the Word of God and is authoritative over us
Forgetting the 'as long as it correctly translated and isn't superceded by some prophetic revelation or other wise gets in the way.
God became man in the person of Jesus Christ
A spirit child became man - according to mormon doctrine, since time as a human is necessary for progression to godhood.
Christ’s followers are saved by his Grace through his Atonement
After having followed the law, ordinances, etc.
This is enough to show that mormonism is not Christian. You may equivocate and spin definitions but when it takes a one-to-one comparison, mormonism is a cult. And from the cult have sprung hundreds of other mormon groups - some like the flds, take the mormon standard works and the example of the prophet(s) more seriously than the SLC branch does. And while you are citing denominations, many if not all have expicitedly rejected mormonism as Christian.
“Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith. Their denominational taxonomy, following the Religion-Branch-Family-Denomination matrix, is “Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”
I just want to post the Christian links on Mormonism, this way the Christians can look at their own church and verify that it states that Mormonism is not Christian.
The wider Christian community agree that Mormonism is not Christian. In fact most denominations use the word cult.
Catholic
http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Here is Southern baptist http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.3471385/k.6CD7/Are_Mormons_Christians.htm
Lutheran http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239
Lutheran http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_mormonism.pdf
Assemblies of God http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm
United Methodist http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive1999.asp?story=%7B3BE161B2-8603-4B32-A64F-0C9D2CBFAF85%7D&mid=3368
Presbyterians http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/study/lds.htm
Here is the Greek Othodox position on mormonism as Christian.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp
cults in America http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7075.asp
Finally! I was wondering when we’ll have a real discussion instead of the constant sniping against Mormonism.
Mormonism affirms every single one of those 12 declarations. While we definitely disagree on HOW we understand them; the differing interpretations are insufficient to invalidate them. Note my next sentence after I provided the 12 Declarations:
“These statements are taken at face value with no elaborations.”
When a lawyer asks the person on the stand a yes or no question, the person must abide by the conditions of the question. It is only later when the person’s understanding/motivation is elaborated upon. Regardless of how unfair the lawyer’s tactics (and the judge’s tolerance), appear to be of not tolerating the person’s elaborations; it is a sound logical framework, with a pedigree going back to the ancient Greeks.
Think about this for a moment.
Look at #3: “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘One God’”
Of course Mormons understand this differently than Catholics, Protestants, and Anglican/Independent Catholics, but the Latter-day Scriptures repeatedly say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “One God” (2 Ne 31:21; Morm 7:7; D&C 20:28). We don’t need to invent a Johannine Comma to justify the declaration.
However, the Eastern Christian families of the Oriental Orthodox and Dyophysite/Nestorian also understand this declaration differently. Is it then appropriate to deny them the label of “Christian” despite they’ve been around since the second century, and millions of them have been martyred for Christ?
In my earlier post when I first mentioned the 12 Declarations (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1997522/posts?page=464#464) I also included the unique differentials of Mormonism. I said:
******************
“Catholicism has unique beliefs that are not shared by Protestants (Bishop of Rome has Monarchical Supremacy over all by Apostolic Succession, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Sinlessness of Mary, and Canonization of the Saints). Protestants have Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Priesthood of all believers). Eastern Christians have the Equality of Patriachates. Mormonism has a corporeal God, functionally omnipresent God, threeness of the Godhead, beginningless reality, resolution of the problem of evil, heavenly family, eternal marriage/family, temple ordinances, the Latter-day Scriptures, continuous revelation, modern prophets and apostles, baptism for the dead, Paradise/Hell (Spirit World), three tiered heavens + Outer Darkness.
The question is, does a faith’s unique differentials INVALIDATE its core beliefs if they are not diametric to each other? IOW, does the Mormon belief in a Corporeal deity invalidate its central belief that Christ is the Son of God and our Savior? If the Catholic belief in Papal Infallibility doesn’t invalidate it being a Christian religion because it teaches Christ is the Savior of the World; neither will Mormonism’s unique differentials.
All we ask is for others to treat us honestly, instead of the constant lying and misrepresentation of our faith.
Is that too much to ask?
******************************
Let’s hope this real dialog lasts!
Many of us LDS have received a lot of FM from other faiths who are appalled at what how you few are behaving!
Is there grounds for invalidation--not necessarily automatic invalidation? Yes! Let’s say you and another poster begin an online relationship with a third Person. That third person, as an online personality, is authentic & true to the other person, but you primarily only hear false hearsay information about the third person. Now tell me, who would best know the true identity—character & attribution-wise--you or the other poster? (Who would therefore more properly relate to that person as they really are?)
The primary aspect of marriage is intimately knowing someone as they really are—no duplicity--in a committed covenant relationship, and reproducing another who is made in your collective image.
The primary aspect of “faith” is intimately knowing Someone as He really is (the Father and Jesus Christ, John 17:3) in a committed covenant relationship, and reproducing others who are spiritually made character-wise in His image (not become future gods).
The primary aspect of “truth”Z is being “true” and “authentic” (no masks) in a faithful relationship as part of a committed covenant relationship.
The primary aspect of an ongoing authentic online relationship is to know someone by their character –one who speaks the truth in love—and does not misrepresent themselves or twist the truth.
IOW, does the Mormon belief in a Corporeal deity invalidate its central belief that Christ is the Son of God and our Savior?
I let Jesus define the terms (not me) of a proper relationship to the Father: God is spirit, and his worshippers may? [NO!!! it doesn't say "may" but] MUST worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24) Jesus very specifically says that true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks (John 4:23). IOW, if we don’t worship the Father as He truly is, we wind up (at least eventually) constructing a philosophical vision of him that resembles more of a false idol than Him. “God is spirit,” and His children emulate him.
If the Catholic belief in Papal Infallibility doesn’t invalidate it being a Christian religion because it teaches Christ is the Savior of the World; neither will Mormonism’s unique differentials.
Last time I looked, the Pope hasn’t created Scripture that directly conflicts with the mainstream of the Christian gospel or the mainstream Judeo-Christian understanding of God. The last time I looked, the Pope hasn’t preached on our divinity or that we’re going to be beings who are worshipped & obeyed like God…or that we’ll one day be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent beings.
You’ve got to understand there are significant boundaries to even beings who have just a few “unique differentials.” Let me give you an example: Lucifer. He was probably one of the top angels. A cherub. One of the highest ranking angels. Now tell me something, when this “war” in heaven broke out, what do you think is the likelihood that Lucifer was at odds with the multiple doctrines & covenants & “articles of faith” of heaven? I think you & I would say, “not much.” But on just one or two matters, the gulf was so huge that Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning.” He got the boot over pride…of thinking he could attain godhood status right alongside Heavenly Father (Isaiah 14:12-14).
Mormonism affirms every single one of those 12 declarations. While we definitely disagree on HOW we understand them; the differing interpretations are insufficient to invalidate them.
No, we can’t just toss out words that we adhere to without noting how somebody has altered them on the side. Let me give you a cross-cultural example: Let’s say you’re British. You are hosting me in your country, and you leave me a “to do” list of things to do or get for a party the next weekend. You leave me a written message for me to: “Buy jelly, sweets, crisps, chips, chippies, and then on the way home, to hire a flat.” So, being the jolly American, I acquire jelly (as in peanutbutter), donuts & pastries (sweets), crackers (crisps), potato chips, chippies (well wasn’t sure about that…so I thought that just meant small chips), and I went out & hired a bad karaoke singer—someone who could sing “flat.” Now what’s the problem when my host graciously tells me I’ve badly screwed up? What he meant was: sweets=candy; jelly = jello; crisps=chips; chips=fries; chippies=fish & chips; and hire=rent a flat (lodging).
Mormonism has absolutely massacred many good Biblical words, twisting them beyond recognition, which has only deepened communication problems with those of historic faiths. And if Mormons would truly assert themselves to understand Hebrew & Greek Biblical words, they would be perceived less as exhibiting a lack of intellectual honesty, which is displayed when they absolutely insist upon using loaded-up words that have been “prophetized” with new meanings.
“These statements are taken at face value with no elaborations.”When a lawyer asks the person on the stand a yes or no question, the person must abide by the conditions of the question. It is only later when the person’s understanding/motivation is elaborated upon. Regardless of how unfair the lawyer’s tactics (and the judge’s tolerance), appear to be of not tolerating the person’s elaborations; it is a sound logical framework, with a pedigree going back to the ancient Greeks.
No, this is equivocation. Examples: Joseph Smith, not knowing the underlying Greek, thought he could take a perfectly good English term like damnation & change it to a different meaning. The Greek word means “judgment” and “destruction”—to “destroy fully.” Instead, Joseph latched on to the distinctly English close word of “damn” (as in “damned up”) and try to claim that “damnation” = slowed progress on eternal progression.
Now why is that a problem for what you are suggesting? Because when folks from 1830 on have read the Book of Mormon for the first time, and they saw “eternal damnation,” they concluded, “Yup, this teaches what the Bible teaches.” (Answer: No!) Joseph played games with words, and then added in another LDS Scripture—Doctrine & Covenants—that “damnation” = “damned up.” The problem is that the same words to describe “hell” in the Book of Mormon, eternal and everlasting, are the same words used to describe “heaven.” So how did Smith deal with that? Oh, he said, well "eternal"=merely an adjective of God—He is eternal…so his heaven & hell is like him, eternal.
When those kinds of word games are played, when words like “eternal” and “everlasting” become redefined so that they are treated more like a baseball uniform with the word “eternal” on it (“eternal” = only identifying which team you’re on), then words and phrases and stories and contexts all become meaningless. You have to then have a special Joseph Smith decoder ring on because only he in all the world assigns a vastly different meaning to these terms. I could say the same thing about “grace” & "resurrection" & "forgiveness" & a whole slew of other perfectly good Biblical words.
Without knowing these “elaborations” and redefinitions in advance, the reader is tricked into thinking, “Oh, we agree.” Let me give you other Mormon examples: The inventive capacity of Mormons intent on entering polygamy by some means that would preserve a measure of ethical redemption is impressive. In addition to semantic usages such as UNION and SEALING, thus permitting denials of plural MARRIAGE, reference has also been made to instances involving the marrying of two wives on the same day; reliance on the fact that women were always sealed to men, allowing their husbands to deny that THEY had married polygamously…” (B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, p. 377) Hardy even said one Mormon when asked by the magistrate if either he or his new wife had been married before, the groom said “yes, but she’s in the cemetery.” (“His first wife was indeed in the local cemetery, standing up very much alive.” Hardy, p. 377)
So, a century ago, Mormons might say they were "sealed" to someone as an "insider" cover so that the outsider wouldn't think of polygamy. Or it would give him plausible denial to be able to technically say, "No, I wasn't MARRIED to her" (thinking all the time, I was only "SEALED" to her or "UNIONIZED" to her). Most folks don't know all of the Mormon "code" words & therefore don't realize how miles apart they are on phrases that each side say they believe in.
However, the Eastern Christian families of the Oriental Orthodox and Dyophysite/Nestorian also understand this declaration differently.
The Nestorian heresy wasn’t just that Jesus had two natures, divine and human, but that Jesus himself was two persons—one divine, one human…which makes him into a schizophrenic being and that the person he was embodied as a man was different than the one with the Father from eternity (John 17:5) or was different from the Resurrected Jesus. But Jesus clearly told Thomas to place his fingers in his nail wounds (John 20).
Latter-day Scriptures repeatedly say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “One God” (2 Ne 31:21; Morm 7:7; D&C 20:28). We don’t need to invent a Johannine Comma to justify the declaration.
Let me give you some illustrations here.
Illustration #1: In the 19th century some LDS women would intentionally marry one man (perhaps less spiritual) for “time” (on this earth) but another more spiritually “worthy” man “for eternity.” [Let me know if you want documentation for this]. Now, let’s say you were one of those supposedly “more spiritually worthy” men and you eyed a comely young married woman who was married to a Jack Mormon. You, being the “spiritually motivated” man you are, who is “only” thinking of her eternal welfare (after all, why should she potentially live in only the lower-class “ghetto” of heaven when she could reside in Kolob Heights?), you approach her with the idea of being sealed to her “for eternity”…and besides, maybe if her husband dies anytime soon, you could add her onto your existing “timeshare” household harem.
Illustration #2: We know that Joseph Smith married anywhere from 9 to 11 wives who were already married. Now why would they do such a thing? Well, for some of these women, the answer resides in Illustration #1. These women started thinking long-term…and if you want eternal security in the top heavenly mansion, who’s spiritual (& in some cases physical) sugarbaby do you become?
Now why do I mention these illustrations as relevant to our dialogue? Well, I contend that the elevated supposed “spiritually worthy” man in Illustration #1, and Smith, in Illustratration #2, both had the wrong worldview about these women they sought to marry…and that this wrong worldview also carried over to their worldview of God!!! And what was off-base about it?
Well, think about it…if you could go & ask them the following question, how would they answer? “Mr. Mormon Spiritually Worthy Man, and Mr. Joseph Smith, when you sought to marry these already-married women, did you see them primarily as an eternally 'individual' woman-—given that the covenant of eternal marriage extends only to those who live in the highest celestial kingdom—or, did you comprehend these women as a “unit”—part of a whole complemented by their current husband?”
Why, Edward, you & I, --if we both gave the benefit of the doubt to these men as exercising their highest spiritual aspirations and not just their lowest base motivations of obtaining sanctioned adultery—would say that their “worldview” of these women were as eternally “separate” women! (Correct?)
Now, that’s a long round-about illustration that shows one basic error (among others) of the Mormon worldview about God. The problem is that it’s NOT as you contend some trifling added (or missing) Johanine comma that separates the differences as to how Mormons view God vs. the historic Christian faith. No, the difference is that Mormons view each member of the Godhead primarily (certainly not only) as a separate entity:
They view “Heavenly Father” as some ex-man-turned god, who worshipped, obeyed & prayed to some god or council of gods before him. “Heavenly Father” may not know even know an ultimate divine being—the God of all gods. They view Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as primarily separate entities—even though the Holy Ghost has no body. They view spirit kids in the pre-existence, the embodied spirit kids down here, as primarily separate gods-in-embryo who will one day be gods of their own separate planets.
When you get down to the Mormon bottom line, is marriage a “plurality” or a “unity”? (It’s both, with HEAVY earlier-history emphasis on “Plurality” & only more recent emphasis on “unity”) To the Mormon, is the Godhead a “plurality” or a “unity?” (It’s thinly both, with so much emphasis on “Plurality” that “unity” only gets token acknowledgment like “one will” and “one purpose” and “one spirit”).
On the other hand, the historic Judeo-Christian worldview of both marriage and God is diversity within unity…For the historic Christian, is marriage a “plurality” or “unity:?” (It’s BOTH, but the basic bottom line has to be to see marriage more as God sees it—a unit—rather than just as two individuals living together…Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6…as Jesus said, “They are NO LONGER two, but one.”—Matt 19:6). For the historic Christian, is the Tri-Une Godhead a “plurality” or “unity?” (It’s BOTH—“tri” = diversity; Une = Unity)…but like marriage, there is more that unites the essence of God than what distinguishes the three Persons. Therefore, just like marriage where Jesus says, “They are no longer two, but one,” God has declared that He is not simply three, but He is a compound unit. He is not fractured and divided by 3--for He is indivisible just as the Godhead was indivisible within Christ (see Col. 2:9)...although each has his own personality, He is One.
That’s why, for example, that Matthew 28:18-20 (& even a Mormon “Scriptural” verse mirrors this phrase exactly) says we should baptize folks in the NAME (not plural NAMES)
So, to close this out, in winding back to our illustration: The reason why I believe Joseph Smith marrying already-married women is more objectionable to historic Christians than Mormons even realize is because Christians tend to emphasize the married couple as a unit—one. And that anything that is done to fracture that unit is what God hates (Malachi 2). Whereas, LDS – at least a century ago – would see that woman NOT necessarily as a compound unit with primary attachment with her husband, but rather they would see her as a divided single entity for whom a broader celestial community attachment was “recommended.” (Now as to the true “motivations” of any of these 19th century men, I’ll leave it up to their overall “fruit” for folks to conclude)
Thanks for a thoughtful response, but you really need to open your bible dictionaries and lexicons and verify the correct interpretation of Hebrew and Greek words.
When I wrote my first book on Mormon theology ten years ago, I used over 60 bible dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, and commentaries - ALL from non-LDS sources (see the list at http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id135.htm ). While examining these works, it became immediately apparent that there is an enormous disconnect between the Catholic, Protestant, and secular scholars and those who portray themselves as Christian apologists. IOW, what the scholars actually say about certain biblical words and passages was the diametric opposite of what the religious leaders and pastors would say.
Imagine my surprise to find nearly every single “disputed” biblical text had the LDS interpretation being validated by the Catholic and Protestant scholars in opposition to the conventional interpretations.
Whoops! Gotta go - wife’s pissed - we’re late for a party.
To be continued ...
P.S. Check out my interpretation of crucial Greek words at
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id81.htm, examine the references from the biblical scholars (see the abbreviations page), and tell me if I’ve misinterpreted them. I’m sure you’ll be surprised ...
under 16 year old pregnancies?
What do you consider rape?
Why don’t you go ahead and cite it out of the law instead of making it up?
You FLDS appologists make me sick. All the ‘its in my religion’ excuses in the world does not make it right, for when a girl is 13 years of age it is RAPE.
Apologist? No, not me. Perhaps you confuse anyone who asks a simple question as an enemy. That would make you act like a democrat. Perhaps you would be more at home there.
That is at the best intellectually dishonest, at worst a bald faced lie. The definition of who Jesus is in mormonism is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity. The very definition of God in mormonism (polytheism) is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity (monotheistic trinitarism). Thus your little differing interpretations are nothing more on your, as well as other mormon cultic apologists, to muddy the water to prevent others from seeing the stark difference. Lets see how this works out.
“These statements are taken at face value with no elaborations.”
Where I come from, this is called weasel wording, especially when you present your example #3. Secondly, what is at hand here are the definitions of those word as they are commonly understood within the context of their use. Again, we will see how you twist this below.
When a lawyer asks the person on the stand a yes or no question, the person must abide by the conditions of the question.
Again, this passage obfuscates how EW has set his strawman up. It makes a fundamental assumption that the definitions of the word within the context are commonly agreed upon. Again, another attempt to muddy the water.
Think about this for a moment.
Look at #3: “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘One God’”
Of course Mormons understand this differently than Catholics, Protestants, and Anglican/Independent Catholics, but the Latter-day Scriptures repeatedly say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “One God” (2 Ne 31:21; Morm 7:7; D&C 20:28). We don’t need to invent a Johannine Comma to justify the declaration.
Of course, EW immediately violates his cry of no elaborations by placing One God within quotes. This is an immediate flag to the observant that the definition of the term, but there is no commonality between mormonism and Christianity on this issue. Mormonism has a plurality of gods, their one god is a misdefinition of the term, since the proper term is that they have three separate gods working as if on a committee, with a universe full of other gods. Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie explained current mormon doctrine on this.
"Three separate personages - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods" (M.D., pp. 576-577).
Thus when we see mormons use the term God, this is their definition. Mormon doctrine is contrary to Christianity’s monotheistic Trinitarian doctrine – AND we don’t need the Johannine Comma to justify it either – another common mormon misdirection.
Finally, it is interesting from the citations in the standard works, that in no location is this god(s) defined as united in ‘purpose’ as is the common defense of the one god statement. That needs to be remembered when EW (et al) attack to say that McConkie’s statement above is not doctine.
However, the Eastern Christian families of the Oriental Orthodox and Dyophysite/Nestorian also understand this declaration differently. Is it then appropriate to deny them the label of “Christian” despite they’ve been around since the second century, and millions of them have been martyred for Christ?
Another misdirection and a gross misunderstanding of Christian Doctrine that IS common between Eastern Christianity – another mormon attempt to muddy the water. The issue here is about difference between dwelling and union of the divine (God the Son) and humanity (Jesus). They affirm monotheistic Trinitarism and other core doctrines of Christianity that mormonism reject.
In my earlier post when I first mentioned the 12 Declarations
In keeping with the standard mormon line of all the quibbling of the churches in Christianity EW dredges up the worn out differences in Christianity. First and foremost, these churchs/denominations agree on what is summarize in the Nicean creed – monotheism, the Trinity, sin, the sacrifice of Christ for that sin, etc. Many of these differences listed are serious in many ways, but they never exceed acknowledgement of the core doctrines found in the creeds. Next it is interesting what EW tries to slip in.
Eastern Christians have the Equality of Patriachates. Mormonism has a corporeal God, functionally omnipresent God, threeness of the Godhead,
Note, within the monotheistic Trinitarian Christianity, EW tries to slip polytheist mormon definitions of their god. Then he turns around and assumes the other readers are unaware of this insertion.
The question is, does a faith’s unique differentials INVALIDATE its core beliefs if they are not diametric to each other? IOW, does the Mormon belief in a Corporeal deity invalidate its central belief that Christ is the Son of God and our Savior?
In short the answer is YES. The Bible and Jesus are very specific that there is only ONE God – period (note that EW doesn’t present that aspect of mormon gods). Further the bible is clear that God is spirit – not corporeal. Again, these definitions are mutually exclusive, but the general public may not see these differences in a standard mormon presentation.
If the Catholic belief in Papal Infallibility doesn’t invalidate it being a Christian religion because it teaches Christ is the Savior of the World; neither will Mormonism’s unique differentials.
Again, another typical mormon misdirection tactic (anyone beginning to see a pattern here – same one the missionaries use at your door). Papal infallibility is not a necessary core doctrine for Christianity – an important distinctive, yes, but it is not a factor in salvation as Popes have admitted, their church is not the only way of salvation (though they believe they have preserved the truth). Mormonism’s unique differentials OTOH, invalidate it from the start due to its pagan concept of god, non biblical standard of salvation as well as questionable ‘revelations’ both in writing from Joseph Smith as well as his and other ‘revelations’ from an alledged living prophet and seer.
All we ask is for others to treat us honestly, instead of the constant lying and misrepresentation of our faith.
This is an interesting plea, as well as obfuscation of presentations. In just this post EW has grossly misrepresented the foundational faith of Christianity and deceptively attempted to weave in doctrinal differences that do not affect that core. Finally, there is the disingenuous comparisons made that polytheism can be somehow compatable with monotheism – if only we play with the words and definitions to make them sound Christian.
Well said!
Well, we await your superior knowledge, and will see if the context matches the interpretation. Though verbose, I found one interesting absolute
There isn’t any incompatibility between Mormon theology and provable modern science.
Perhaps when you get around to it, you can point me to the officially recognized bom cities that are reputedly spread across this continent, the hordes of artifacts such as steel, shields, chariots, etc. Or explain how the dna and associated morphological/racial characteristics of the native american population were some how changed from Semitic stock to Mongoloid.
I’m about to leave for a business trip to Calgary (just in time for a winter storm of course), so won’t be able to devote a detailed response (Sorry Colofornian).
However, Godzilla (I love that name!), I utterly repudiate what you’ve said about me or my motives.
My concern in developing the 12 Declarations of a Christian was to come to the core doctrines of Christianity that nearly all Christians can accept as an accurate reflection of what they believe in. Even when I acknowledge the differing interpretations of what these statements mean, I’m still the bad guy. Classy.
It really is quite simple: every one of those declarations are believed in by Mormonism. No elaborations, no conditions. Even #3’s “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘One God’” (and yes, the quotation marks are deliberate) finds EXPLICIT support in the Latter-day Scriptures whereas it is absent in the Bible. Of course we believe it - it’s right in our Scriptures for Pete’s sake! Otherwise, we’re disbelieving our own Scriptures.
You really have to step back and stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant: you simply have no right to say, I believe those things but you guys really don’t. And, I truly mean this, try not to debate me on theology, because my familiarity with Traditional Christianity’s reliance on Hellenic thought will really make you look foolish.
As for “weasel wording,” well, a black and white declaration that demands a yes or no answer can hardly be considered weasel words. I’m immediately reminded of John’s shibboleth - yes or no. No if, and, or buts.
You seem to have a hangup concerning Mormonism’s cosmology, which is multiversal, whereas the Bible has a local cosmology. That should be an interesting debate.
Also, you really don’t seem to understand the doctrine of exaltation, or theosis. See my book concerning the subject, note the references, and see if I’m distorting their words (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id33.htm). If I’m wrong, prove it! Here’s 150 quotations from the Church Fathers where they taught similar doctrine (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id161.htm). Show me how I’ve misrepresented them.
Lastly, your insistence on attacking Mormonism’s theistic cosmology seems either irrational or ignorant. Here’s where I talk about it (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id163.htm). I wonder if you’ve ever studied the biblical development of deity, especially the earliest portions of the OT that taught the Divine Council (The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:249-252; 835; 2:214-217; 3:238,302; 4:43,922,1004-1010; 5:986; 6:129,156-157,510-511; The Triumph of Elohim (Edelman) pp.28 f.2, 30-31,36-38,40-43,60-63,65,71,80,91; The Early History of God (Smith) pp. 9-10,26,101,114 e#138,165; The New Interpreter’s Bible 1:272-274; 4:347,792,1006-1007,1035, 1093; The Illustrated Bible Dictionary p. 1474; The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Layman) pp. 285,263,279; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1:254,258,282; 5:519-520; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8:347-349; The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Achtemeier) pp. 276,1054; The Jerome Biblical Commentary 2:20 (1); 6:74 (8); 16:17 (8); 22:9 (A); 35:26 (6), 46 (1), 74 (Pref-2), 98 (Pref-2,6-7); Dictionary of the Bible (Ed. James Hastings. Rev. Edition by Frederick C. Grant and H. H. Rowley) pp. 32,134,334; A History of God (Armstrong) pp. 50-51; Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mills) pp. 176-177, 581,845; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis 1:375-376; The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Job. Intro 8; 1:6-12,20; 34:1; Ps 82:1; Dictionary of the Bible (MacKenzie) pp. 30, 316, 830; A New Standard Bible Dictionary pp. 46-47; The Religious Background of the Bible (Schofield). p. 181; The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Myers) p. 55; The New Layman’s Bible Commentary. In One Volume pp. 308, 618, 659; The New Bible Dictionary (Douglas) p. 1206; Judaism and Christian Beginnings (Sandmel) pp. 169, 171, 173.)
If you have these books, will you please prove I’ve misinterpreted their words.
I’m off!
“All we ask is for others to treat us honestly, instead of the constant lying and misrepresentation of our faith.” That, Edward, is a gross false trail you’ve tried to lay. We post the words of your own ‘prophets’ and leaders of your peculiar religion and you try to paint that as ‘lying and misrepresenting’ your cultish beliefs. You would be ashamed of such a demonic effort to prevaricate, if you had God’s Spirit within your human spirit. Look inward, Ed, you are falling way short of God’s standards.
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.