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.
I will never understand your double standard those who were not part of Jewish faith would have been considered gentiles,
When the Lord restored his Church again on earth anyone not being a part would be considered gentiles.
Just like many of you want to feel because the LDS doctrine does not meet you Tradition of men version in your mind the LDS are not Christians.
That's a nice definition but unfortunately it leaves out many of the "Christian Fathers" who are non-trinitarians. Like Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. Other Christian Fathers do not fit the narrow (non-Biblical) definition you have proposed.
From wiki
That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God's person (hypostasis).
________________________________
Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html
also Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus
The Subordination of the Son and Spirit Within "orthodox" circles of the pre-Nicene Church, even where terms like "second God" and "angel" were rejected, it was always made clear that the Son and Holy Spirit are subjected to the Father, who is "greater than" them. The various forms of this doctrine are known as "subordinationism," and Bettenson admits that "'subordinationism' . . . was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."153 After all, Jesus said that "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and He asserted that the He does not know the hour of His Second Coming--only the Father knows. (Matthew 24:36) Paul wrote that the Father is "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:6, NEB), and revealed that after the resurrection Jesus will "be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
In the post-Apostolic era, Hippolytus wrote that the Father is "the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself . . . ."154 And Irenaeus insisted that the Father surpasses the Son in knowledge:
For if any one should inquire the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day [of judgment], he will find at present no more suitable, or becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master), that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For "the Father," says He, "is greater than I."155
Clement of Alexandria taught that while the Father cannot be known, the Son is the object of knowledge:
God, then, being not a subject for demonstration, cannot be the object of science. But the Son is wisdom, and knowledge, and truth, and all else that has affinity thereto. He is also susceptible of demonstration and of description.156
The Fathers maintained a form of "monotheism," however, by asserting the absolute monarchy of the Father as the "only true God." For instance, Irenaeus states:
This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the Apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;--it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.157
Because of the monarchy and harmony within the Godhead, in a sense the diversity of power, rank, and glory was not thought to particularly matter in practice. As Origen put it:
Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . .158
Likewise, Athenagoras spoke of the "diversity in rank"159 within the Godhead, but qualified this by saying, "The son is in the father and the father is in the son by a powerful unity of spirit . . . ."160
Chirstian who are FOLLOWERS of Chirst the Bible mentions 3 times, and those who were in the CONEVNANT were called saints (39)
I think you are in love with the moderator I always see you flagging him/her!:)
IMO, the words we speak say more about us than they do to whom we refer. If you have a circular argument to push make sure it can't be equally applied to your side of the debate. Thus your analysis reapplied.
>>After weeks of debating these folks, it has become clear that extra-biblical orthodoxy Apologists seek to carve out a hollow of doubt about Mormonism(Satan takes pleasure in sowing doubt and accusing so it ought not be surprising that those being mislead by his guile would also take such pleasure) into which they may insert the demonic heresies brought forth in the Council of Nicea. I don’t feel the urge to continue debating such folks. Maybe another day, but not today ... the disgust factor of confronting demonic powers at times nauseates without invigorating.
FWIW, I have no problem with someone who personally believes in and adheres to the creeds of the Council of Nicea. Where I do draw the line is when they try to use the Creed in an exclusionary fashion limiting what it means to be Christian. (Though, I suppose It can be argued, that was the original intent of the creed) Politicians deciding what Christianity meant.
Here's a question, If the Bible is enough, Why did we need the creeds? Wasn't the Bible and Jesus word enough? It is hypocritical that those who accuse Mormons of using extra Biblical scripture seek to do so using extra biblical Creeds.
Specifically and clearly identify the lie, support your contention with facts, text . Otherwise, you are utterly unbelievable.
AWww, resty, you’re just jealous..you thought you had him all to yourself, didn’t you? ;) Remember?
Jesus never used these words. The Apostles never did. So what if they didn't use these exact words? The concepts are found throughout scripture.
By your own logic, where is the word for Kolob in scripture, or the word, goddesses? or spirit children, etc?
What is your credible source for saying that Greek philosophers added to scripture?
SNORT!
When I post a mod it is because the previous person posted him about someone I hardly ping the Mod on regualar debates!
There is nothing new or offinsive you folks haven’t posted before, and it is true some of you are as unkind as the worst lefty!:)
ATHANASIAN CREED
The parts plaigaraized from greek secularists, Plato and Xenophanes, which are not found in the Bible. (of one substance- homouosis). Athanisius is not the author of the Athaniasian Creed which was written after his death. Many of Athaniasius statements are Modalist which was labeled by the Catholic church as Heretical.
As for pinging you, I'll do as I please whether you cry to the moderator or not, whiner.
Backatcha Resty....
GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
Kolob
The star nearest the throne of God (Abr. 3: 2-3, 9). Abraham saw Kolob and the stars, Abr. 3: 2-18. The Lord’s time is reckoned according to the time of Kolob, Abr. 3: 4, 9 (Abr. 5: 13).
Abr. 3: 3-4, 9, 16
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. • • •
9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one aplanet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same border as that upon which thou standest. • • •
16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
Can you explain why you do not believe that is so? If you don't believe it is saying that, then what exactly do you think it is saying, in context and why do you think that based on other scriptures?
If God meant total depravity then why doesn't he say so? It's really pretty simple
Many would argue that this is exactly what He is simply saying. Just because YOU say it isn't saying that does not make it so. Give some scritptural proof for these. Who do you think will believe you on just your authority? Do you? Should you?
Like I said, what we write says more about us than it does the other side. I didn't ping the mod.
Interestingly, Joseph Smith's rendering of his Inspired Version of the Bible bring the KJV in line with earlier texts of the Bible. (It is the same thing that modern scholars and theologians have attempted to do with the NIV.) Joseph Smith just did it 130 years sooner and by revelation, not by referreing to the ancient texts that are available today to modern scholars.
Here are a few examples (among many) of Jospeh Smith's inspired rendition of the sciptures bringing them in line with the earliest known manuscripts.
______________________
Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon:
More Evidence of Authenticity
Detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon is often needed to really appreciate the meaning and depth of the text. Tools of "textual criticism" that have been applied to gain insight into the Bible also yield similar insights into the Book of Mormon. Work by Robert F. Smith in this area is reported in Chapter 20 of Reexploring the Book of Mormon (ed. John Welch, Deseret Book Comp., Salt Lake City, UT, 1992, pp. 77-79). The following excerpt (pp. 77-78) reveals several subtle evidences of authenticity, beginning with a discussion of variants in Isaiah passages:
At 2 Nephi 20:29, for example, Joseph dictated Ramath instead of the usual "Ramah" of the parallel King James Isaiah 10:29. Indeed, there is no "t" in the Hebrew text, the Greek Septuagint, or even in the Syropalestinian Aramaic version. The "t" appears, however, in the later Jewish Aramaic translation known as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as in the Christian Syriac Peshitta version. The words there are Ramata and Rameta, respectively (as is also evident in the Old Syriac Rametha for New Testament Arimathea in Matthew 27:57). Neither source was available to Joseph.
Another difference from the KJV came when Joseph was dictating from Isaiah 48:11 in 1 Nephi 20:11. Among other things, Joseph added an "it" that does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts. However, the "it" is in one Syriac manuscript, in one Jewish Aramaic Targum manuscript, and in a scribal correction to the large Isaiah Scroll from Qumran Cave One (the latter being the earliest Hebrew text of Isaiah).
King James "Ariel," a poetic term for Jerusalem, is not to be found in the 2 Nephi 27:3 quotation of Isaiah 29:7. However, it is also absent from the Jewish Aramaic Targum - which replaces it with "the City." The Book of Mormon reads Zion instead. This fits well, however, since "Mount Zion" appears at the end of the verse (Isaiah 29:8), and "Zion" and "Mount Zion" parallel each other here.
As noted long ago by the late Professor Sidney B. Sperry, the Jewish Targum and Greek Septuagint texts of Isaiah 2:16 confirm the authenticity of the reading "and upon all the ships of the sea" in 2 Nephi 12:16, even though the line is lacking in the Hebrew and King James texts. fn
Yep that Abr. Book of Abraham part of the Pearl of Great Price which IS approved scripture of the LDS.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/abraham.shtml
Do you mind if I join you in ROTFLMHO?
The Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing about this one longer than the Latter Day Saints have been around. I don't want to reproduce a debate that has raged among "orthodox" Christians for centuries on this thread. you can read about it on wiki or google it if you want. I'll just say since when has the non-Biblical "total Depravity" been the standard of who is a Christian or not?
Here I'll give you Freebie. This is a parallel example using mormon Scripture. In Sunday School classes once in a while the theolgical discussion will turn to "Free Agency." As Americans especially we like to discuss this topic. However it is not based in the actual text of Mormon Scripture. The term used is "Moral Agency". Every man may act according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, D&C 101: 78. IOW, there is a subtle textual distinction. Now no one really cares too much about it in class but there is a difference between Free agency and moral agency. One implies we can do anything we want. many secualr liberal Americans fall into the "Free to do anything I want with no consequence" trap. The other implies that there is a moral piece attached to what God has "freely" given us, IOW, what we do with our agency has moral consequence. Now the Calvinists have proposed that what the Bible really means is "total depravity". Arminians (and Mormons) reject this interpretation. It is a subtle textual change of what the scriptures really say.
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.