Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
The following draws from the book Is the Mormon My Brother by apologist James White. Earlier this year, Paul Kaiser reprinted a Worldview article titled 10 Mormonism Facts which generated a myriad of responses from visitors who stated that Mormons were being misrepresented and are simply our brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ. Let’s look at what Dr. White presents using LDS resources:
The First Vision
Without question the key revelation in Mormon Scripture regarding the nature of God is to be found in what is known as the First Vision of Joseph Smith. The vision itself is fundamental to all of LDS theology. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie described the vision:
That glorious theophany which took place in the spring of 1820 and which marked the opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times is called the First Vision. It is rated as first both from the standpoint of time and of pre-eminent importance. In it Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son, both of which exalted personages were personally present before him as he lay enwrapped in the Spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.
This transcendent vision was the beginning of latter day revelation; it marked the opening of the heavens after the long night of apostate darkness; with it was ushered in the great era of restoration, the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21.) Through it the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men. (John 17:3.) With this vision came the call of that Prophet who, save Jesus only, was destined to do more for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. (D. & C. 135:3.) This vision was the most important event that had taken place in all world history from the day of Christ’s ministry to the glorious hour when it occurred.(1)
And Mormon Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said,
Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, restored the knowledge of God. Joseph’s first vision clearly revealed that the Father and Son are separate personages, having bodies as tangible as mans. Later it was also revealed that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, separate and distinct from the personalities of the Father and the Son. (See D&C 130:22.) This all-important truth shocked the world even though sustained by the Bible. (2)
How is it that the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens and the knowledge of God was restored by this one vision? While the story is as familiar to Mormons as John 3:16 is to Christians, we present Joseph Smith’s own recounting of the story in full, taken from the LDS Scriptures (and hence carrying canonical authority). However, we note that the account that appears in the LDS Scriptures was written in 1838, eighteen years after the events described:
14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon bysome power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)–and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;(3) and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well I am well enough off. I then said to my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? (Joseph Smith History 1:14-20).
What does this vision, recorded in LDS Scripture, teach concerning God? First and foremost, it presents to us the concept of a plurality of gods. This arises from the fact that God the Father is a separate and distinct physical entity from Jesus Christ, His Son. God the Father is possessed of a physical body, as is the Son. This is why McConkie can claim the creeds of Christendom were smashed to smithereens, for the vision has always been interpreted by the LDS leadership to teach that God the Father is a separate and distinct person and being from the Son. The unity of Being that is central to Christian theology is completely denied by Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Hence, you have one God, the Father, directing Smith to another God, the Son.
While it is not our intention to critique these teachings at this point, it should be noted that there are a number of problems with the First Vision, and with the entire development of the LDS concept of God as well. As we noted, this version of the First Vision was not written until 1838. Previous versions, however, differed in substantial details from this final and official account. Most significantly, the presence of both the Father and the Son as separate and distinct gods is not a part of the earlier accounts.(4)
————————————————-
(1) Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,2nd ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), pp. 284-285, LDSCL.
(2) Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), p. 4, LDSCL. On page 101 of the same book, we read this strong statement:
The first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith is bedrock theology to the Church. The adversary knows this and has attacked Joseph Smith’s credibility from the day he announced the visitation of the Father and the Son. You should always bear testimony to thetruth of the First Vision. Joseph Smith did see the Father and the Son. They conversed with him as he said they did. Any leader who, without reservation, cannot declare his testimony that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith can never be a true leader, a true shepherd. If we do not accept this truth if we have not received a witness about this great revelationwe cannot inspire faith in those whom we lead.
(3) One of Mormonism’s leading scholars, James Talmage (and a General Authority), said the following in the General Conference of April, 1920:
This Church, therefore, from its beginning, has been unique, for the organization of the Church was forecasted in this declaration that at the time of Joseph Smiths first vision there was no Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth; and I do not see why people should take issue with us for making that statement (CR1920Apr:103).
(4) I noted a number of the historical problems with Mormonism in Letters to a Mormon Elder, pp. 88-106. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism (Salt Lake: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp.1-41, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), pp. 143-162.
One off the top of my head would be: "Does God the Father have a body?"Is this body a separate "body" from Jesus?
Mormons say yes."Orthodox" Christians say no.
I repeat myself again: Each can call themselves whatever they wish, however LDS and "other" Christians are sufficiently different to be two different religions.
They may fight over who is properly "Christian", but both cannot be confused for the same religion. Whatever one is, the other is not. Each holds the other as apostate.
with respect...
It’s really impossible to discuss comparative religion if one keeps its teaching secret.
I respect that you may do so, however, you should understand that this makes discussion of it impossible.
You are finally getting the picture!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would agree with you that the two doctrines you cite separate Mormons from orthodox Christians.
The important qualifier is orthodox. What is now considered orthodoxy appears to have developed over time. There is ample evidence from the Bible and other sources that the earliest Christians though and spoke of God in anthropomorphic terms. Hence, Mormons cannot be excluded from Christianity on these grounds without excluding many of the early saints.
I repeat myself again: Each can call themselves whatever they wish, however LDS and "other" Christians are sufficiently different to be two different religions.
I agree that there are great differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity. Yet there are similarities as well. Whether the differences outweigh the similarities, I am not prepared to say. Is Mormonism as different from orthodox Christianity as orthodox Christianity is from Judaism? I doubt it, but others may differ.
They may fight over who is properly "Christian", but both cannot be confused for the same religion. Whatever one is, the other is not. Each holds the other as apostate. with respect...
Rather than fight over the right to the Christian name, I suggest a different approach. We should use the word as it is used in everyday speech, and apply adjectives as needed.
Thus, when talking generally about followers of Jesus Christ, without regard to church, sect, or denomination, the word Christian is appropriate. When finer distinctions are necessary, add orthodox or unorthodox (perhaps traditional or nontraditional) as appropriate. When even finer distinctions are needed, specify Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon or LDS, etc.
Thanks again for your reply.
I’d vote for “traditional” but then my Protestant brothers and sisters might object...
{^_^}
Back to Harry Potter bookmark!
thanks for your reply and I do understand the distinction. However..
If "who says what and why" includes oaths or creedal agreements or similar things, then your problem creates a problem for a comparative discussion of religious beliefs and practices.
Whether this is the case in LDS, I don't know. The larger point is I can't know.
This is similar to the problem I encountered recently concerning whether Masonry was a religion. At some point, the cards are hidden.
I do understand that some knowledge is gained in progression and one cannot skip steps. Contemplative Christian practice is similar to this. However, the practices are published and described and readily available. One may not understand them, but they're not hidden.
Again, I appreciate that a LDS wishes to keep some aspects secret. Whether the cost of this is greater than the benefit is perhaps a future decision for the church.
Thanks very much for your reply, and best wishes to you..
Please no spoilers. ;-)
Our teachings are public, for example what the ceremonies are for has been discussed earlier on this very thread.
I will state that there is nothing doctrinally introduced in the temple that is not in the PGP and the D&C
Using the freemasonry discussion, I was told that nothing there violates the Christian religion. I asked about a reported ceremony, what the candidate said during intitiation to a certain level. This, IMHO, violated Christian doctrine. The person I was discussing with could not confirm or deny what was said by the candidate, or say anything about this ceremony. Similar to your case.
you can take my word for it
I can, but that's not a discussion or debate. These are prevented when one side cannot discuss.
you can look on the churches web site, they talk about the meaning of the temple ceremonies in church publications all the time.
I understand. However we still can't discuss what is actually done and said.
what's the problem because really, I don't see it.
Let me use the fremason example again. He said nothing in freemasonry violated Christianity. I believed a particular ceremony certainly did. I believe he was sincere, but we disagreed. Now, how can we resolve this disagreement, or at least explore, discuss, state our postions and reasoning for them?
We can't. He says the black box contains nothing religious; I say it might. But we can't look at the actual contents.
So, I'm not impugning LDS or you on this particular point. I'm just pointing out that others may disagree with you on the meaning and significance of religious ceremonies and practices. And if these are secret neither side can do more than state their conclusion without discussing the specifics. Debate and discussion stops at the point the secret begins.
Again, this is the LDS's privledge. I see reasons for it, I understand now this is believed to be commanded by God. I disagree and see the value of not having these kinds of secrets. We each includes these factors in our choice of religion and should respect each other for defending them.
thanks very much for your reply.
There we have it, then. I believe that we can therefore agree that the Nicene Creed irrevocably separates the LDS from mainstream Christianity, since the Nicene Creed is required belief for us.
I do not dispute the influence of the Greeks. At no time, have I ever said that the Orthodox was inferior to the Latin. Not at all. The Orthodox have maintained certain traditions and culture that, sadly because of Protestant influence, the Latin churches have diminished.
I will say, however, that I believe that the Church Fathers, who were left in charge, made the decisions that they were authorized to make; they guided the Church to the point where it is today; they did what they were supposed to do.
The God of the Old Testament didn’t spend much corporal time here. For a Catholic treatise of Arian you may wish to visit http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm. It deals with what Arianism is, how it is heretical, who championed it, and how it was put to rest for many centuries. I’d like to know the truth; being here on these forums exposes me to many things that I would otherwise not have seen.
The selection of the Pope from amongst the ranks of the Cardinals is, well, a selection. Discussion and praying. Hardly secret rites.
The Masons’ rites go back to the building of King Solomon’s Temple, and the events and ceremonies that ensued. Joseph Smith’s rites developed over the years; he got his information from tablets that he translated into English via the Thurim and Ummim which were then removed.
I need to read up a whole lot more on the history (and thank you all for the website references). But the seeing stones deal still bothers me. Moses got his tablets directly from God. JS had to dig his up. Moses had the words written directly and plainly. JS had to translate his - and then had to give them back.
I need to keep reading. Thank you for your encouragement.
Oh??
You guys who say that words mean things, now decide that they don't?
The way your apologists spin things on the turn of a phrase and you have the nerve to type what you just did?
Amazing!
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.