Posted on 05/10/2010 8:16:49 PM PDT by delacoert
Is the Mormon God the Christian God?
The most important question to be asked when evaluating Robinsons arguments for recognizing Mormonism as Christian is, Is the God of Mormonism the God of Christianity? If the Mormon God is not the Christian God then there can be no thought of understanding Mormonism as Christian.
Robinson readily admits that much of what Mormonism teaches about God cannot be found in the Bible. He insists, however, that this does not mean that the Mormon God is not the biblical God, only that LDS modern revelation has explicated some areas concerning God on which the Bible is silent.28 Concerning Gods corporeality he declares, I do maintain that the Bible makes no unambiguous statement about the materiality or immateriality of the Father, and that we may therefore think of him either as having a body or as not having a body without contradicting the Bible.29 In other words, the Mormon understanding of God is extra-biblical, but not un-biblical. He also admits freely that Mormonism has a different concept of God than orthodox Christianity because orthodox Christianity has a doctrine of God that is the product of an influx of Hellenistic thought corrupting and distorting the biblical picture of God.
To those who insist that a corporeal God is not consistent with 1 Timothy 1:17, which states, among other things, that God is invisible, he responds that aoratos does not mean invisible, but simply unseen. The upshot of this understanding of aoratos is that one is left with a god who plays hide and seek.
The fact that LDS teach that God has a body,30 does not prevent the Mormon God from being omnipresent, according to Robinson, because Gods omnipresence is spiritual, not physical, in nature.31 To those who insist on understanding John 4:24 as teaching the incorporeality of God he replies that the text should be translated God is Spirit, not God is a Spirit. Latter-day Saints do not dispute this passage at all, unless it is interpreted as limiting God to being merely a spirit.32 This limited understanding of God as merely spirit comes from Greek philosophy rather than the biblical witness, according to Robinson. In rejecting Greek metaphysics, he writes, God is spirit, but he is also element; both aspects of existence are included and encompassed within his glorious being. That he is either one does not limit the fact that he is also the otherand infinitely more.33
Robinsons argument seems rather disingenuous to those familiar with Mormonism. He is employing the language gap of which he complains in his introductory remarks34 to take advantage of the evangelical Christian belief that there is an ontological difference between spirit and matter. For example, Robinson argues that Mormonisms God can be omnipresent because his omnipresence is spiritual, not physical. According to Mormon scripture, however, spirit actually is material: There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter (Doctrine & Covenants 131:78). It is hard to imagine Robinson is unaware that the Book of Mormon teaches that the spiritual aspect of Gods existence is coextensive with that of his physical aspect. In a supposed preincarnate appearance, Christ says, Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh (Ether 3:16). Mormon scriptures render Robinsons argument here very non-official (and perhaps even unorthodox by LDS standards).
Another serious defect in Robinsons interpretation of John 4:24 is that in its context this passage involves a discussion of where one ought to worship God, and thus, a question of where one can find God. Jesus responds that the location of worship does not matter. The reason that location is not an issue is because God is not limited to being present in any one location. The reason why God is not limited to one place or another is precisely because God is Spirit, not because God is a material being who is spiritually present (materially present in a finer sort of fashion) in all places.
Yet another argument that Robinson uses to deny that John 4:24 contradicts the LDS concept of God having a body is that since Jesus was God, and he had a body, there is no warrant for thinking that God must necessarily be immaterial. In this argument Robinson: (1) blurs the Trinitarian distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit; (2) ignores the fact that Christs incarnation took place in time/space, and the incarnation body was not essential to his nature as Deity; and (3) ignores the fact that in the incarnation Christ was not omnipresent.
A question related to the corporeality of God is whether or not God was a man prior to becoming God? Robinson affirms that the teaching that God is an exalted man is a linchpin of LDS theology.35 Yet he says this should not be taken to mean that God is not infinite and eternal.36 This, however, contradicts what Joseph Smith, Jr. declared in the King Follett funeral sermon, which Robinson allows has normative force in LDS theology, concerning the nature of God. Smith states: We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see.37 Thus it is apparent that the Mormon founder, through whom all LDS priesthood and prophetic authority is derived, thought that God was not eternally God. That Smith also believed that God was capable of progressing, and thus not infinite, is evident when he puts the following words in the mouth of Jesus:
My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain Kingdom upon Kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.38
Should one be perplexed as to how Robinson can claim to stand in continuity with Smith and at the same time teach radically different things about God, one must consider the LDS meaning of eternity. Latter-day Saints teach that there is an endless series of eternities. Robinson touches ever so briefly on this point when he writes, In regard to the possibility that God was once a man in some prior eternity before the beginning of this one, ... (italics added).39 Consistent with this (re)definition of eternity is his statement: I firmly believe God did exist as God before all ages (from the beginning), but that still does not say anything about before the beginning.40 Certainly my understanding of eternity is different from that of the average Evangelical, but it is not without ancient precedent, nor is it internally inconsistent.41 It is also apparent that Robinsons understanding of time is not biblical. The God of the Bible created all things (John 1:3). A God who did not create time, but instead is himself subject to time, is not the biblical God.
Not only is the Mormon God not eternally God (in the normal sense of the word), he is not the only God. Although Robinson argues that Mormonism is not polytheistic,42 Joseph Smith disagrees. Again, in the same sermon that Robinson allows has normative force, although it is not technically canonical, Smith declares: ... you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you .... The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time.43
There is yet another area of LDS Theology that is troubling to orthodox Christians in LDS Theology, God has a wife. In Achieving a Celestial Marriage one reads: Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.44 From this quotation one can readily see that Gods becoming a God was dependent not only upon his being married but also upon his having the right kind of marriage.
Robinson struggles valiantly to present the God of Mormonism as infinite, eternal, and one of a kind. Yet when one understands the meaning of his terms, the Mormon God is clearly understood to be finite, temporal, and one of many. The similarities are thus more semantic than actual. This cannot be reconciled with the Christian understanding of God.
An Analysis of LDS Scholar Stephen E. Robinsons Arguments for Accepting Mormonism as Christian1 By Robert B. Stewart Copyright © 2002 Robert B. StewartMaterial Issues Is the Mormon God the Christian God? The most important question to be asked when evaluating Robinsons arguments for recognizing Mormonism as Christian is, Is the God of Mormonism the God of Christianity? If the Mormon God is not the Christian God then there can be no thought of understanding Mormonism as Christian.
Robinson readily admits that much of what Mormonism teaches about God cannot be found in the Bible. He insists, however, that this does not mean that the Mormon God is not the biblical God, only that LDS modern revelation has explicated some areas concerning God on which the Bible is silent.28 Concerning Gods corporeality he declares, I do maintain that the Bible makes no unambiguous statement about the materiality or immateriality of the Father, and that we may therefore think of him either as having a body or as not having a body without contradicting the Bible.29 In other words, the Mormon understanding of God is extra-biblical, but not un-biblical. He also admits freely that Mormonism has a different concept of God than orthodox Christianity because orthodox Christianity has a doctrine of God that is the product of an influx of Hellenistic thought corrupting and distorting the biblical picture of God.
To those who insist that a corporeal God is not consistent with 1 Timothy 1:17, which states, among other things, that God is invisible, he responds that aoratos does not mean invisible, but simply unseen. The upshot of this understanding of aoratos is that one is left with a god who plays hide and seek.
The fact that LDS teach that God has a body,30 does not prevent the Mormon God from being omnipresent, according to Robinson, because Gods omnipresence is spiritual, not physical, in nature.31 To those who insist on understanding John 4:24 as teaching the incorporeality of God he replies that the text should be translated God is Spirit, not God is a Spirit. Latter-day Saints do not dispute this passage at all, unless it is interpreted as limiting God to being merely a spirit.32 This limited understanding of God as merely spirit comes from Greek philosophy rather than the biblical witness, according to Robinson. In rejecting Greek metaphysics, he writes, God is spirit, but he is also element; both aspects of existence are included and encompassed within his glorious being. That he is either one does not limit the fact that he is also the otherand infinitely more.33
Robinsons argument seems rather disingenuous to those familiar with Mormonism. He is employing the language gap of which he complains in his introductory remarks34 to take advantage of the evangelical Christian belief that there is an ontological difference between spirit and matter. For example, Robinson argues that Mormonisms God can be omnipresent because his omnipresence is spiritual, not physical. According to Mormon scripture, however, spirit actually is material: There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter (Doctrine & Covenants 131:78). It is hard to imagine Robinson is unaware that the Book of Mormon teaches that the spiritual aspect of Gods existence is coextensive with that of his physical aspect. In a supposed preincarnate appearance, Christ says, Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh (Ether 3:16). Mormon scriptures render Robinsons argument here very non-official (and perhaps even unorthodox by LDS standards).
Another serious defect in Robinsons interpretation of John 4:24 is that in its context this passage involves a discussion of where one ought to worship God, and thus, a question of where one can find God. Jesus responds that the location of worship does not matter. The reason that location is not an issue is because God is not limited to being present in any one location. The reason why God is not limited to one place or another is precisely because God is Spirit, not because God is a material being who is spiritually present (materially present in a finer sort of fashion) in all places.
Yet another argument that Robinson uses to deny that John 4:24 contradicts the LDS concept of God having a body is that since Jesus was God, and he had a body, there is no warrant for thinking that God must necessarily be immaterial. In this argument Robinson: (1) blurs the Trinitarian distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit; (2) ignores the fact that Christs incarnation took place in time/space, and the incarnation body was not essential to his nature as Deity; and (3) ignores the fact that in the incarnation Christ was not omnipresent.
A question related to the corporeality of God is whether or not God was a man prior to becoming God? Robinson affirms that the teaching that God is an exalted man is a linchpin of LDS theology.35 Yet he says this should not be taken to mean that God is not infinite and eternal.36 This, however, contradicts what Joseph Smith, Jr. declared in the King Follett funeral sermon, which Robinson allows has normative force in LDS theology, concerning the nature of God. Smith states: We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see.37 Thus it is apparent that the Mormon founder, through whom all LDS priesthood and prophetic authority is derived, thought that God was not eternally God. That Smith also believed that God was capable of progressing, and thus not infinite, is evident when he puts the following words in the mouth of Jesus: My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain Kingdom upon Kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.38 Should one be perplexed as to how Robinson can claim to stand in continuity with Smith and at the same time teach radically different things about God, one must consider the LDS meaning of eternity. Latter-day Saints teach that there is an endless series of eternities. Robinson touches ever so briefly on this point when he writes, In regard to the possibility that God was once a man in some prior eternity before the beginning of this one, ... (italics added).39 Consistent with this (re)definition of eternity is his statement: I firmly believe God did exist as God before all ages (from the beginning), but that still does not say anything about before the beginning.40 Certainly my understanding of eternity is different from that of the average Evangelical, but it is not without ancient precedent, nor is it internally inconsistent.41 It is also apparent that Robinsons understanding of time is not biblical. The God of the Bible created all things (John 1:3). A God who did not create time, but instead is himself subject to time, is not the biblical God.
Not only is the Mormon God not eternally God (in the normal sense of the word), he is not the only God. Although Robinson argues that Mormonism is not polytheistic,42 Joseph Smith disagrees. Again, in the same sermon that Robinson allows has normative force, although it is not technically canonical, Smith declares: ... you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you .... The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time.43
There is yet another area of LDS Theology that is troubling to orthodox Christians in LDS Theology, God has a wife. In Achieving a Celestial Marriage one reads: Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.44 From this quotation one can readily see that Gods becoming a God was dependent not only upon his being married but also upon his having the right kind of marriage.
Robinson struggles valiantly to present the God of Mormonism as infinite, eternal, and one of a kind. Yet when one understands the meaning of his terms, the Mormon God is clearly understood to be finite, temporal, and one of many. The similarities are thus more semantic than actual. This cannot be reconciled with the Christian understanding of God.
Notes 28 Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), hereafter HWTD?, 86.
29 Ibid, 79.
30 Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22 (hereafter D & C).
31 HWTD? , 88-89. If one is to make sense of LDS statements that God is omnipresent, one must know what LDS mean when they say omnipresent. In A Study of the Articles of Faith, (published by the church), one reads: There is no part of creation, however remote, into which God cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. The senses of each of the Trinity are of infinite power; His mind is of unlimited capacity; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an immaterial being, under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith: Being a Consideration of the Principal Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1961), 42-43. The particular copy from which the writer quotes was a gift of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Fleming Library at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The writer assumes that this means the book at least provides a fairly accurate statement as to what LDS theology actually is.
32 AMC?, 79.
33 Ibid., 81.
34 HWTD?., 13-14.
35 HWTD?, 91. He stresses, however, that more important, more in evidence, more often preached, more often studied, explained and pondered by the Latter-day Saints are the more central doctrines of the gospel of Christ. Ibid. To his credit, Robinson does not seem uncertain about the place of this concept in Mormon theology, as Gordon Hinckley, the current LDS president, did when asked whether God was once a man in an interview for Time magazine: I dont know that we teach it. I dont know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I dont know a lot about it, and I dont think others know a lot about it. David Van Biema, Time 150, no. 5, August 4, 1997: 56.
36 HWTD?, 78.
37 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (TPJS), 345. Robinson seems to want to have it both ways. He agrees with what Smith teaches in the King Follett sermon when it serves his purposes (God was once a man) while disagreeing with Smith on other topics (Gods finiteness and non-eternality) taught in the same sermon.
38 Ibid, 34748.
39 HWTD?, 89.
40 Robinson ignores the fact that the beginning of John 1:1 is not the same as the beginning of Genesis 1:1. Genesis refers to a moment/place in time/space when God created this world. John, however, contemplates the eternity out of which God, by Christ, created time, space and matter, as is proved by verse 3. God was God, Christ the Word was God, without the existence of space, time and matterbefore, as it were, Robinsons beginning.
41 Ibid., 90. The precedent he appeals to is first century Judaism: First -century Jews understood eternity to consist of successive ages or eonsall within the parameters of the beginning and the end. Ibid. He does not support this statement with a reference. The qualification all within the beginning and the end seems to speak of one beginning and one end encapsulating successive eons. Apparently this is not how Robinson understands the statement. This only serves to make the point that the crucial issue is meaning, not terminology. Concerning the internal consistency of Mormonisms eternity see Francis Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991) for a discussion of the logical (in)consistency of the Mormon concept of Gods relationship to time.
42 HWTD?, 132.
43 TPJS, 345, 349. In a separate sermon, preached two months later, Smith declares: In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. . . . The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. (brackets in original) Ibid., 372. It is apparent from this quotation that the God of this earth is not even the highest of the Gods; he cannot be referred to as the almighty in an ultimate sense. James White shows that Robinson disagrees on this point with his BYU colleague, Eugene England, Brigham Young University Studies 29 no. 3, 33, cited in James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Christianity and Mormonism (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997), 182.
44 Achieving a Celestial Marriage, (Salt Lake City: Corporation of the President of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976), 1.
Nope, is the answer.
“Is the Mormon God the Christian God? “
OF COURSE NOT!
“Hear O’ Israel! The Lord Your God is One God!”
“Hear O’ Mormons, You have an Infinite Number of gods!”
For that reason alone, mormonism is not Christian. Circles are not triangles.
(1) he seeks to distance official Mormonism from the non-official statements of past Mormon leaders; and
(2) he seeks to represent the creeds of the church as pagan philosophical impositions upon biblical Christianity
These views are almost identical to what we read on FR from those who are or defend LDS.
A What was said in the past by our leaders doesn't matter unless we say it matters.
B We are better and more righteous than anyone calling themselves Christians because we are the only true christians. Why because the leaders from the past said so, even though we don't accept what they say anymore unless it benefits us today.
Im a Mormon.
So I think your answer is correct. Your God is definitely different from mine. Yours is mean, small, petty, condemning and puny.
_________________________________________________
Our Jesus that threw Lucifer out of Heaven...
But it wasnt our Jesus that threw you out of Heaven...
It was your jesus that did that to you...
FAIR- just another anti Christian organization thriving on propaganda.
Where does the mormon corporation get their money? From scams like “tithing” “temple memberships” businesses, real estate, malls, newspapers, pornography, insurance companies, etc..
Mormonism: Tithing
3. Tithing was an Old Testament principle (Mal. 3:8-10) which has merit in the New Testament dispensation (Matt. 23:23). However, tithing was not instituted as a saving principle as LDS believe. Brigham Young said, The law of tithing is an eternal law... that God has instituted for the benefit of the human family, or their salvation and exaltation (Deseret News, Church News, July 20, 1968, p. 14). D. & C. 64:23 also says, He that is tithed shall not be burned at His coming. Thus the LDS Church is among the churches that the B. of M. warns about when it says, Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins (Mormon 8:32). Yet, LDS often boast that they serve unpaid while ministers in other churches are hirelings, who minister just for all the money they get by passing an offering plate. If ministers want to get rich, they are in the wrong profession, because ministry is often one of the lowest paid professions. A lot of ministers also work many more hours each week than those in secular jobs! But, it is not unspiritual for ministers to receive wages as LDS often claim. While the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker (Acts 18:3) and supported himself that way sometimes, he also said, I robbed other churches taking wages of them, to do you service (I Cor. 11:8; 9:6-14).
Even LDS President Joseph F. Smith said of LDS leaders who are paid a salary, These men, whose whole time is occupied in ministry, are only drawing their necessary support from the church. They must have that - the laborer is worthy of his hire (G.D., p. 291). The D. & C. teaches the same thing in Sections 70:12, 42:71-73. But, an official LDS promotional book claims, There is no paid or professional ministry. Thirty-two general officers and the presidents of missions are given living allowances. Add to this a few specialists and a staff of clerks who give their full working time to the church. These constitute all who may be classified as paid personnel (What of the Mormons, pp. 17-18). An LDS missionary, his family or some Priesthood quorum usually contribute to the LDS church what it costs for him (or her) to serve his mission. Funds were sent directly to the missionary until recently when the IRS would not allow such funds to be counted as contributions to a church. So, now the funds are sent through the LDS Church. Missionary support is not counted as tithes.
Where is the LDS tithe money spent? President Joseph F. Smith said, Thousands of dollars are being expended to feed and clothe the poor, and to take care of those who are dependent upon the church. They look to their mother for succor and support, and it is right and proper that the church should provide for its own poor and indigent, feeble and helpless, so far as it is possible (G.D., p. 291). But, if the tithe is spent on the poor, why is a Fast Tithe collected the first Sunday of each month to help the poor? In addition, the famous Mormon Welfare Program requires a contribution of considerable time and money above the tithe to take care of the needy. The ladies Relief Society was also set up for the purpose of helping the poor. With all the LDS collections for the poor and needy, why has Utah, which is around 75% Mormon, consistently had a larger percentage of people on government relief than the national average? Something is wrong! Either Utah has too many poor, needy people, or all the money collected for the poor is not getting to them!
The LDS Church does not publish an annual report of its income and expenses, and it will not open its financial records for examination. While they build some beautiful buildings, the local wards or churches are charged by the LDS church headquarters in addition to their tithes for much of that expense. Utah Holiday Magazine reported on March 22, 1976, that the daily income of the LDS Church was $3,000,000 (p. 4-11). Since then the church has more than doubled its membership, which has also increased its income.
Much of LDS tithe money is invested in land and business. Some of the nations largest farms, ranches, and orchards are LDS Church-owned. They have large investments in hotels, department stores, insurance companies, newspapers, television and radio stations, canning companies, sugar companies, and so on. The General Authorities of the LDS Church served on the boards of these companies until 1996 and received salaries from them plus their living allowances paid directly by the Church. Thus, LDS leaders are all wealthy indirectly from the tithes paid by Church members! (For further information on LDS business involvement, see The Mormon Corporate Empire by John Heinerman and Anson Shupe, Beacon Press).
( Marvin W. Cowan Mormon Claims Answered (1997 version) Chapter 8 Salvation: Keep the Commandments, 4. Tithing)
So in summary:
tithe is necessary for salvation
tithe helps our own
tithe can be used for whatever the leaders say is necessary without question or over sight by the tither
WOW just WOW
Since these men live lavish lifestyles, I wonder how much that allowance really is. At the same time they (LDS) mock pastors who don't live lavish lifestyles (yea I know a few do, most don't) but serve the One True God.
President Joseph F. Smith said, Thousands of dollars are being expended to feed and clothe the poor, and to take care of those who are dependent upon the church.
______________________________________________________
However MILLIONS are taken in each day as tithes...
So you can see that the “tithes” are taken up fraudulently...
“The LDS church takes in well over 14 million dollars PER DAY in tithing, which amounts to OVER 5 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR (these were estimates from nearly ten years ago, so they are likely higher now).” (2005)
“So you don’t care that mormon apologist Robinson cannot accurately follow smith’s teachings? Or are you unwilling to face the fact that all mormon doctrine is simply the opinion of the speaker at that time.”
So true, Smith couldn’t follow his own teachings!
Welcome to FRee Republic, n00b
:)
Is the Mormon God the Christian God?
OF COURSE NOT!
Hear O Israel! The Lord Your God is One God!
Hear O Mormons, You have an Infinite Number of gods!
For that reason alone, mormonism is not Christian. Circles are not triangles.”
Amen!
Christinaty = one God
Mormonism = many gods
What did Satan tell Eve in the garden? “You will be like God” What did Satan say to himself? “I will be like the Most High”
Brilliant point!
I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.
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 otherThis 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; 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 wellI am well enough off. I then said to my mother,
Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses, 18:172).President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (Journal of Discourses, 10:127).James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.182).President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316).President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196).
I predict:
Sandy will NOT be able to illustrate a LIE she has found in the article.
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.