Posted on 03/25/2011 3:03:04 PM PDT by Paragon Defender
By President James E. Faust
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
James E. Faust, "The Surety of a Better Testament", Ensign, Sept. 2003, 2–6
The Apostle Paul was well acquainted with the adjustment in thinking needed when moving from the Old Testament to the New Testament. It is a journey from the rigid formality of the letter of the law taught by Moses to the spiritual guidance found in the Holy Spirit.
In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul described this adjustment: “For the law [of Moses] made nothing perfect, but [was only] the bringing in of a better hope … ; by the which we draw nigh unto God. … [And] by so much was Jesus made [the] surety of a better testament” (Heb. 7:19, 22; see also Joseph Smith Translation, Heb. 7:19–20).
It is important that we study, learn, and live the hard doctrines taught by the Savior—“[the] surety of a better testament”—that our Christlike behavior may move us up to a much higher level of spiritual attainment.
What is a surety? We find in turning to the dictionary that surety is a “state of being sure”; it is also a pledge “given for the fulfillment of an undertaking”; it also refers to “one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another.” 1 Does not the Savior, with His mission, have claim upon all these meanings?
What is a testament? To us, the primary meaning of testament is that it is a covenant with God. It is also holy scripture, a will, a witness, a tangible proof, an expression of conviction. 2 So the Savior as a surety is a guarantor of a better covenant with God.
The New Testament is “a better testament” because the intent of a person alone becomes part of the rightness or wrongness of human action. So our intent to do evil or our desire to do good will be a freestanding element of consideration of our actions. We are told we will be judged in part by the intent of our hearts (see D&C 88:109). An example of being convicted by freestanding intent is found in Matthew:
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27–28).
This New Testament is harder doctrine.
Because of the formality and rigidity developed in the administration of the old English common law, in order to obtain justice the law of equity was developed. One of my favorite maxims in equity is “Equity does what ought to be done.” The New Testament takes the concept of law even farther. In a large measure we will be judged not only by what we have done but what we should have done in a given situation.
Much of the spirit of this higher law of the New Testament is found in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Jesus taught that His law requires a reconciliation of differences with others before coming unto Him:
“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
“Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23–24).
Another example of the harder doctrine is this passage, in which swearing is completely prohibited:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
“But I say unto you, Swear not at all. …
“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt. 5:33–34, 37).
The text that follows is more of the hard doctrine of the New Testament:
“Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. …
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:39–40, 43–44).
In the New Testament, the Savior teaches a new and higher form and content of prayer. It is profoundly simple and uncomplicated.
“When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
“Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
“Give us this day our daily bread.
“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (Matt. 6:7–13).
Also in the New Testament, the Savior teaches that the doing of our good works ought to be done a better way, namely in secret:
“But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
“That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly” (Matt. 6:3–4).
But the greatest challenge, the hardest doctrine, is also found in the Sermon on the Mount: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
As “the mediator of the new testament” (Heb. 9:15), the Savior also introduced a higher law of marriage. When some Pharisees came to Him and asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” (Mark 10:2), He answered:
“From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
“And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6–9).
The challenge Jesus issued was for people to replace the rigid, technical “thou shalt not” of the law of Moses—needed by the spiritually immature ancient children of Israel—with the spirit of the “better testament.” How was this to be done? Time was short. The Savior had only three years. How should He begin? Obviously He must begin with the Apostles and the small group of disciples around Him who would have the responsibility to carry on the work afterward.
President J. Reuben Clark Jr. (1871–1961), a counselor in the First Presidency, describes this challenge as follows: “This task involved the overturning, the virtual outlawing, of the centuries-old Mosaic law of the Jews, and the substitution therefor of the Gospel of Christ.” 3
It was not easy for even Jesus’ Apostles to understand. Thomas was an example of their lack of comprehension. Thomas had heard the Savior, on several occasions, foretell of His death and Resurrection. Yet when Thomas was told that the resurrected Christ lived, he said, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Perhaps Thomas can be forgiven because so great an event had never happened before.
Peter’s conversion to the great principle that the gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone is another example of this slowness to comprehend. He had been an eyewitness, as he stated in 2 Peter: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). To what had he been an eyewitness? He had been an eyewitness to everything in the Savior’s ministry.
Following Christ’s encounter with the Samaritan at the well of Jacob, Peter had seen the Savior welcome the Samaritans, who were loathed by the Jews (see John 4). But when Peter saw a vision and heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15), he was thoroughly confused. Finally, when Peter was fully converted to the instruction and had received a spiritual confirmation, he “opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34–35).
The Apostles eventually did come to understand and embrace the “better testament.” We are grateful for their profound statements as “eyewitnesses of his majesty.” They form part of the footings of our faith in the higher law taught by the Savior.
It is so strengthening to review the testimonies of the Apostles that Jesus is, in fact, the Christ. These testimonies are also “a surety of a better testament.” For example, following the great bread of life sermon, in which the Savior made clear to those who had been fed by the loaves and fishes that He and His doctrine were the bread of life, John records:
“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
“And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:66–69).
But the miracles performed by the Savior and the testimonies of those who saw and heard were far from convincing to everyone. This is perhaps because a testimony is such a personal, spiritual conviction.
The New Testament is “a better testament” because so much is left to the intent of the heart and of the mind and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. This refinement of the soul is part of the reinforcing steel of a personal testimony of Jesus Christ. If there is no witness in the heart and in the mind by the power of the Holy Ghost, there can be no testimony.
Let us study, learn, and live the hard doctrines the Savior taught in the New Testament, that our Christlike behavior may move us up to a much higher level of spiritual attainment.
So how about those magic underwear and becoming the God of a planet?
I want to know about that kind of stuff.
What’s up with that?
P.D.,
How much did Joseph Smtih take from the book of Enoch to write D and C?
How sure are you that they translated those portions correctly?
it was the peepstones. don't you know? they were hidden in Smith's hat.
And no, I'm not making this stuff up. That's how Smith re-interpreted the scriptures. They'd read passages, and he would say, "true" or "not true", then give the "surety" interpretation because he was a prophet sent from god to straighten the whole mess out, once and for all.
How are we ever going to be a family if you don't search yourself, and find agreement? Your older brother John agrees, and so does your sister Susie.
A lot is riding on this, son. I pray you make the rigth decision.
Well since BYU lost night I doubt any of this stuff is true.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves ... For such are FALSE apostles,
DECEITFUL workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”
(Matthew 7:15; 2nd Corinthians 11:13).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oPcYtfAg18&playnext=1&list=PL0B681156BA0B6F68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4O1lRLWxU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONy8MBHWpg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOiFL6YIVUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOiFL6YIVUI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
You would think that a school lead by a organization with a number of “prophets” would at least cover the spread...
More Shirts?
So the solution to scrapping the bottom of the barrel is to get a larger barrel to scrape from?
How can the Mormon church call itself Christian when it is polytheistic? Christianity recognizes only ONE God in the form of the Trinity.
Things that are different should not be called the same.
they deny all truth, so it is easy.
NO, He did not.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(e-Sword: KJV)
I agree that "replace" might not be the correct word, because Christ clearly still taught the commandments. Maybe in fulfilling, though, he moved it from "thou shalt not" to "love God and neighbor."
But I also think that the sacrament of the last supper "replaces" the animal sacrifices from the law of Moses.
Corrected.( SINCE CONSTANTINE )Christianity recognizes only ONE God in the form of the Trinity.
It must have been really hard for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the rest of his gang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
Plural wife - maiden name (married name) Marriage Date Age[10] Recognized by Marital status at time of sealing Notes
TC[11] GS[12] FB[13]
Emma Hale (Smith) Jan. 17, 1827 22 yes yes yes n/a The first woman to whom Joseph Smith, Jr. was married and whom he claimed publicly was his only spouse.[14] Continued church activity within the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.[15] Throughout life and on her deathbed denied Joseph Smith, Jr. had plural wives.[16] Claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Joseph Smith was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer in 1853.[17]
Fanny Alger Early 1833 16 yes no no Single According to George D. Smith, Alger's marriage to Smith was attested to by several people, including Emma Smith, Warren Parish, Oliver Cowdery, and Heber C. Kimball.[18] Compton cites Mosiah Hancock's handwritten report of his father Levi's account of the marriage ceremony of Smith and Alger, and records his father's account of negotiations between Levi and Smith in procuring their respective wives. Compton also notes that nineteenth-century Mormons in Utah, including Benjamin Johnson, Heber C. Kimball and Andrew Jenson, and former Mormons Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young, regarded the Smith-Alger relationship as a marriage.[19] Historian Lawrence Foster asserts a claim that later Mormons may have falsely assumed there was a marriage where there was only a sexual relationship: he views the marriage of Alger to Joseph Smith as "debatable supposition" rather than "established fact".[20]
Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Est. 1838 37 yes yes yes Married Historians Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring dismiss this claim as being based on "no solid evidence".[21] Compton notes the following evidence: she is the third woman on Andrew Jenson's 1887 list of Joseph Smith's plural wives; Compton writes that "Sarah Pratt reported that while in Nauvoo Lucinda had admitted a long-standing relationship with Smith"; and that there is an "early Nauvoo temple proxy sealing to Smith...." This marriage was polyandrous, as Lucinda lived with her then husband George Washington Harris until about 1853. Compton believes the marriage occurred around 1838, when Smith was living with Lucinda and her husband.[22]
Louisa Beaman Apr. 5, 1841 26 yes yes yes Single (February 7, 1815 - May 16, 1850). Though Mormon history and press indicate Beaman was not baptized until May 11, 1843,[23][24] she had migrated with Mormons to Nauvoo in 1839 or 1840.[25] She has been called the "first plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith." [26] After Smith's death, Beaman remarried, becoming the ninth wife of Brigham Young. They had five children together, all of whom predeceased Beaman, who died young at age 35.[27][28] Listed as a Smith plural wife by Joseph F. Smith,[29] who noted 1869 affidavit of Beaman's brother-in-law Joseph B. Noble, stating he officiated at the wedding,[30][31] William Clayton said Smith told him in February 1843 that Beaman was one of his plural wives.[32] This would have been prior to her baptism.
Zina Diantha Huntington (Jacobs) Oct. 27, 1841 20 yes yes yes Married Husband was Henry Bailey Jacobs, who was aware of Zina's plural marriage to Smith. Jacobs wrote, "[W]hatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." (Compton 1997, pp. 81–82) Sister of Presendia Huntington. After Smith's death, married Brigham Young while husband Jacobs was on mission to England.
Presendia Lathrop Huntington (Buell) Dec. 11, 1841 31 yes yes yes Married (7 September 1810 in Watertown, New York - 1 February 1892 in Salt Lake City, Utah) Sister of Zina. After Smith's death, married Heber C. Kimball.
Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Jan. 6, 1842 33 yes yes yes Single Widow of Smith's brother Don Carlos. (1808–1876) She had been married to Don Carlos Smith, Joseph's younger brother. After Don Carlos died in 1841, Coolbrith married Joseph in 1842.[33] Coolbrith was the mother of Ina Coolbrith, who became the first poet laureate of California.
Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon Feb. 8, 1842 23 yes yes yes Married Daughter of David Sessions and Patty Bartlett Sessions, who married Joseph Smith one month after her daughter's marriage to him. On her deathbed, Sylvia informed her daughter Josephine Lyons that she was Smith's daughter:
"Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside … to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith." (Newell & Avery 1994, pp. 44, Compton 1997, pp. 183)
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Jan. 17, 1842 23 yes yes yes Married (9 April 1818 in Lima, New York–17 December 1913 in Minersville, Utah) Claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve years old,[34][35]
[At age 12 in 1831], [Smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. … In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife … [In 1842 I] went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing … for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do[.]
After Smith's death, she remarried, becoming the 24th plural wife of Brigham Young. They married in 1845 and she bore him no children. Mary Elizabeth and her sister Caroline were instrumental in salvaging printed pages of the Book of Commandments when the printing press was destroyed by a mob on 20 July 1833.[36]
Patty Bartlett (Sessions) Mar. 9, 1842 47 yes yes yes Married (4 February 1795 in Bethel, Maine - 14 December 1893 in Bountiful, Utah). Her daughter Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, who had married Smith one month before, was present at Session's wedding to Smith.[37]
Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde) Apr. 1842 27 (16)[38] yes yes yes Married (28 June 1815 in Pomfret, Vermont - 24 March 1886 in Salt Lake City, Utah). Jon Krakauer wrote in Under the Banner of Heaven,[38]
"In the summer of 1831 the Johnson family took Joseph and Emma Smith into their home as boarders, and soon thereafter the prophet purportedly bedded young Marinda. Unfortunately, the liaison did not go unnoticed, and a gang of indignant Ohioans—including a number of Mormons—resolved to castrate Joseph so that he would be disinclined to commit such acts of depravity in the future."
Elizabeth Davis (Brackenbury Durfee) Bef. Jun. 1842 50 yes yes yes Married (11 March 1791 in Riverhead, New York - 16 December 1876 in White Cloud, Kansas)
According to Anderson and Faulring, this claim is based on Bennett and "an ambiguous statement attributed to Sarah Pratt by the hostile journalist Wyl."[21]
Sally A. Fuller 1842 ? no yes no ?
Sarah Maryetta Kingsley (Howe Cleveland) Bef. Jun. 29, 1842 53 yes yes yes Married (1788 - 20 April 1856 in Plymouth, Illinois)
Anderson and Faulring state that this is "only a guess" based on a claim "without any supporting data".[21]
Delcena Johnson (Sherman) Bef. Jul. 1842 37 yes yes yes Single (19 November 1806 in Westfield, Vermont - 21 October 1854 in Salt Lake City, Utah; widow of Lyman R. Sherman)
Eliza Roxcy Snow Jun. 29, 1842 38 yes yes yes Single Sister of Lorenzo Snow. Organized a petition in Summer 1842, with a thousand female signatures, denying Smith a polygamist.[39] As Secretary of the Ladies' Relief Society published a certificate in October 1842 denouncing polygamy.[40] William Clayton said Smith told him in February 1843 that Snow was one of his plural wives.[41] She was married to Brigham Young from 1844 until his death in 1877.
Sarah Ann Whitney Jul. 27, 1842 17 yes yes yes Single Daughter of Newel and Elizabeth Whitney. Joseph C. Kingsbury said he was "well aware" of this marriage.[42] William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Martha McBride (Knight) Aug. 1842 37 yes yes yes Single Widow of Vinson Knight; later sealed to Heber C. Kimball.
Sarah Bapson 1842 yes ? ?
Ruth D. Vose (Sayers) Feb. 1843 34 yes yes yes Married
Flora Ann Woodworth Spring 1843 16 yes yes yes Single William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Emily Dow Partridge Mar. 4, 1843 19 yes yes yes Single Daughter of Edward Partridge and sister of Eliza. After Smith's death, she married Brigham Young. William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Eliza Maria Partridge Mar.8, 1843 22 yes yes yes Single Daughter of Edward Partridge and sister of Emily. Eliza married after Smith's death, to Amasa M. Lyman, who was already husband to Eliza's older sister, Caroline. William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Almera Woodward Johnson Apr. 1843 30 yes yes yes Single (12 October 1812 in Westfield, Vermont - 4 March 1896 in Parowan, Utah)
Lucy Walker May 1, 1843[43] 17 yes yes yes Single Wrote about her plural marriage to Smith,[35][44]
"In the year 1842 President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said, ‘I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.' … He asked me if I believed him to be a Prophet of God. … He fully Explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage … that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father's house. … [Joseph encouraged her to pray] 'that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear [recently deceased] mother … Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience.' And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul. … [The marriage] was not a love matter—at least on my part it was not, but simply the giving up of myself as a sacrifice to establish that grand and glorious principle that God had revealed to the world."
Sarah Lawrence May 1843 17 yes yes yes Single (13 May 1826 in Pickering Township, Ontario, Canada - 1872) Sister of Maria.
Maria Lawrence May 1843 19 yes yes yes Single (b. December 18, 1823, Pickering Township, Ontario - d.? Nauvoo, Illinois) Sister of Sarah. After Smith's death, Lawrence married Brigham Young, becoming his sixteenth plural wife. They divorced in 1845, but remarried the following year.[28]
Helen Mar Kimball May 1843 14 yes yes yes Single Daughter of Heber C. Kimball. At aged 14, Helen Mar Kimball wrote,[35]
"[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur."
William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Hannah Ells 1843 29 yes yes ? Single (4 March 1813 in Newcastle upon Tyne, England - 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois)
Elvira Annie Cowles (Holmes) Jun. 1, 1843 29 yes yes yes Married (23 November 1813 in Unadilla, New York - 10 March 1871 in Farmington, Utah)
Rhoda Richards Jun. 12, 1843 58 yes yes yes Single (8 August 1784 in Framingham, Massachusetts - 17 January 1879 in Salt Lake City, Utah) 1st cousin of Brigham Young whom she married after Smith's death.
Desdemona Fullmer Jul. 1843 32 yes yes yes Single (6 October 1809 in Huntington, Pennsylvania - 9 February 1886 in Salt Lake City, Utah). William Clayton said Smith told him in February 1843 that Fullmer was one of his plural wives.[41]
Olive Grey Frost Summer 1843 27 yes yes yes Single (24 July 1816 in Bethel, Maine - 6 October 1845 in Nauvoo, Illinois) After Smith's death, Frost would remarry, becoming the eighteenth plural wife of Brigham Young. They married in 1844, and she bore him no children.
Mary Ann Frost (Pratt) Summer 1843 ? no yes ?
Melissa Lott Sep. 20, 1843 19 yes yes yes Single Daughter of early Mormon leader Cornelius P. Lott, who managed Smith's farm in Nauvoo.
Nancy Mariah Winchester 1842 or 1843 14 yes yes yes Single Daughter of Stephen Winchester Sr. of Vershire, Vermont, who was a member of the Danite militia and the Quorum of the Seventy, and his wife Nancy Case of Argyle, N.Y. Anderson and Faulring write that this claim is based on "unsupported information".[21]
Fanny Young (Murray) Nov. 2, 1843 56 yes yes yes Single (8 November 1787 in Hopkinton, Massachusetts - 11 June 1859)
Mary Houston Before 1844 no yes ? ?
Sarah Scott Before 1844 no yes ? ?
Olive Andrews Before 1844 no yes ? ?
Jane Tippets Before 1844 no yes ? ?
Sophia Sanburn Before 1844 no yes ? ?
Phoebe Watrous (Woodworth) Before 1844 ? no yes ? ?
Vienna Jaques Before 1844 ? no yes ? ?
Thanks for posting the chart. It physically makes me ill!
Hiya, Paragon. Hope you are keeping well today.
I read the article posted herein and I also went to the site to which you directed me in your last response to me on a previous thread to chat. Unfortunately, the site requires an e-mail addy before one could chat and since my real name is included in my addy I didn’t sign up. However, I did spend a lot of time reading on the site.
I am simply confounded by the whole Mormon theology.
Please, just let me say to you that it is a severe yet awesome responsibility to carry to another the truth of our only Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave us His Good Word to spread to the ends of earth for the saving of souls precious to Him.
The deception presented by LDS is grievous, Paragon. GOD’s truth must go forth from everyone who calls themselves a Christian. If we don’t give the truth to those seeking Him, we need not trample upon His holy name by claiming that we know Him. To do so would be blasphemous.
Those who refuse the Holy Bible wholly - or by second-rating it to the word of another - place themselves in a position to be susceptible to false teachings because they have determined in their hearts not be grounded in the His Word. In that case, we can see how they are “easily led astray” by false doctrine.
Jude 1:3: “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
To add to or take away from our Lamb’s words of salvation would be to mock His suffering by saying that His work was not enough. That His precious blood was not good enough. And there is no doubt that it (adding to, taking away) goes against His instruction not to do so. Those guilty of this may as well count themselves amongst those in the crowd cheering His death. Indeed, they curse Him in claiming that another’s word is better than His and show that they believe His death was worthless to them. At the end of the day, what hope have they since the only way to salvation has been shunned in favor of some sort of passive obedience to a doctrine in direct opposition to His in that they surrender their will and soul to another besides Him?
There is no area on the site (that I could find) that defends the many and varied beliefs that the LDS hold that go against the Word of God in the Holy Bible. That’s what I was interested in finding: the defense of the beliefs of LDS. It’s just not there. Something that would say, “Here is where we start to differ from the Holy Bible’s words and this is why...” Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t read anything here by Mormons on FR or on the Mormon site itself that defends the beliefs of Mormonism.
The pics and writings on the site are beautiful, I have to admit. But they are a distraction from truth. I was also hoping to find some debate on historical issues.
Verbatim from the site: “Joseph lived the doctrine he preached—that strengthening our families should be an important focus of our lives. When his life was in jeopardy, Joseph relied on his faith in Jesus Christ not only to sustain himself, but his wife and children as well.”
A beautiful sentiment indeed. But Joseph Smith had many wives. The LDS does not argue this point as far as I know (?). I did more reading elsewhere and the best answer I could find was that he had around 33 or 34 wives. Even were we to lower the number to 5, the quoted statement would still be misleading (lying). Truth should be put to the statement and it should read, “but his wives and children as well.” Truth, and nothing less, should be blatantly evident on any such site that holds itself forth as being true for the purpose of pointing people to God. The site should be held to the highest standard (truth), otherwise it is a just another pit for the innocent and its leaders will someday answer how they managed to overlook Matthew 18:7.
It can’t be denied that Smith believed God’s Word needed “added to” and required a little revision here and there. I see no need to go further into the “not one jot nor tittle” argument because anyone who’s read the Bible knows it and Jesus made it very simple to understand.
LDS have to willfully, and not ignorantly by any means, reject God’s Word to allow Smith’s to supplant. A dangerous thing at a grave cost.
Know that I am not asking you to defend your beliefs, PD.
Here’s wishing you the best and letting you know I appreciate the time you take to respond. Also, to say that I did “seek the truth” at the Mormon site, but it was not to be found there.
Best Regards Always,
SC
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.