Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Mormon Brothers?
Reformed Evangelist ^ | May 14th, 2007 | Jeff Fuller

Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock

Mormon Evangelists

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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; boggsforgovernor; brothers; christianity; lds; mormon; mormonism; orthodoxy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 1,341 next last
To: DelphiUser
I asume that everyone on this forum is aware of their own shortcomings, maybe that is an error, but I will assume it none the less.

Yes; it is an error.


HEY!!

You out there!!

(Yeah you!)

Are you aware of ALL your failings and shortcomings??

1,021 posted on 07/13/2007 5:18:56 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote; restornu
“You just never know their might be a grassroots who would like to run the LDS out of Utah.

I heard similar expression from fastcoyote, and maybe Utah binger and who know how many others have this agenda?”

Probably ALL the Muslims of the world!

1,022 posted on 07/13/2007 5:20:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

ARRRGH!!!!

150% of The BEAST's number

1,023 posted on 07/13/2007 5:23:00 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

I have nothing left to say.


1,024 posted on 07/13/2007 5:24:40 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

That’s okay, your interpretation may very well be the correct one. And I’m going down now to catch breakfast. ;)


1,025 posted on 07/13/2007 5:32:12 AM PDT by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Not a fact or assertion in your post other than “that’s your opinion.” I noticed you didn’t preface the assertion of incorrectness with “in my opinion.” One of the sillier non-responses I’ve recieved on the thread.

Logically, if God was born, he was born in time, meaning creation pre-dates God, meaning he is not the God of the Bible but a god. Small “g” — created thing. Wrong choice for worship. Not God.

First words of the Bible “In the beginning God . . .”


1,026 posted on 07/13/2007 6:09:36 AM PDT by Greg F (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: restornu; FastCoyote; colorcountry
and maybe Utah binger and who know how many others have this agenda?

Please do not use my name in vain. I can speak for myself if and when I decide to.

Further, you can come to my place of business in Utah anytime but remember, if you have to ask the price of the artwork, you can't afford it. Also you can get the best coffee in Southern Utah here. Seems many of the local Mormon's think so too.

1,027 posted on 07/13/2007 6:24:59 AM PDT by Utah Binger (Sanctimony: Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

Placemarker (this menas I will not be responding for a while.)


1,028 posted on 07/13/2007 6:58:17 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
How the moderators handle thread jumping is a judgment call.

If there is a pattern specific to another Freeper, it may be considered "stalking." If there is a pattern specific to a subject, it may be considered "trolling" or "troublemaking."

The general behavior of the jumper contributes to the decision making.

1,029 posted on 07/13/2007 7:06:33 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I Said: My God died for me on the cross....
You Said: The FLESH that His Spirit was using died.

So, are you saying that when a man dies, his spirit dies also?

Mormons do not believe that the spirit can die other than what we call the second death which is a metaphor for being separated from God spiritually, not an actual death of the spirit.

To a Mormon, all death is just a death of the flesh, the spirit which existed before this earth lives on, hence the need to paradise and spirit prison.

Anyway, I can agree with it the way you said it too, but the point is there was no possibility for God dieing in Mormon theology either, so again (IMHO) we have a distinction without a difference.
1,030 posted on 07/13/2007 7:19:18 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
No one can tell if I misspell a word when I am talking!

Especially if no one is listening.





Hey, where'd every body Go?
1,031 posted on 07/13/2007 7:23:03 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

False doctrine must be exposed to the light of Truth, which can only be found in the revealed, written Word of God - that which has been recognized as the Bible for nearly 2,000 years.

...and which book of scripture and those who choose to interpret it, have generated quite a few “Christian” denominations with wildly differing doctrines all designed to lead adherents to salvation, if one can believe such a statement. To suggest that God himself is the author of such confusion is to bastardize the word “church” in the extreme.


1,032 posted on 07/13/2007 7:23:53 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaksi@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: restornu

[Did you not at one time when CC talked about this before say something like it?

There was some remark you have made in the past several weeks caught my attention at the time!]

Well, typical. Make up something you think you mighta heard and not bother to quote anyone. Well, I “heard” resty is a prevaricator, how do you like an accusation like that?


1,033 posted on 07/13/2007 7:32:12 AM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 991 | View Replies]

To: restornu

“If I confused you with someone else I apologized FastCoyote!”

well you certainly did confuse me with some figment of your imagination


1,034 posted on 07/13/2007 7:33:53 AM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: Utah Binger

Wow, nifty digs. I may be close enough to visit some time.


1,035 posted on 07/13/2007 7:40:02 AM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1027 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I extracted quotes from the web page in order to illustrate this published doctrine that quite clearly defines Jesus as separate from God the Father. Jesus is, according to this doctrine, inferior to GOD, and a creation of Him. Further, there are other statements of Mormon faith that appear to diverge significantly from orthodox Christian faith. There are many quotes that I lifted out in published order - I agree that it rambles on and is less than coherent.

I have found that in debates such as thesea claerly defined header paragraph followed by your quotes makes it much clearer to those you wish to as the question of. Just some advice. (It's worth what you paid for it...)

Now, as in life things are never as simple as they seem, without going back to your prior post which was difficult to extract meaning fro, i will just answer your questions here to the best of my admittedly limited ability (for I am just a man).

There is almost never a single relationship between things and most who start trying to pin things down in either life or religion to one end up defining a relationship that in reality just does not exist.

We have amnay relationships with God:
  1. Creation
  2. Child
  3. Potential Peer
  4. Sworn Subject
and many more, this is just an example.

Jesus in Mormon theology has a very special status, and while he shares some relationships with us, there are others that are unique to him and him alone.

For example, whiule Jesus has all the relationships in the list above, he also has these:
  1. Memeber of the God head
  2. First begotten spirit child
  3. Only begotten child in the flesh
  4. Co-Creator (as in he was assigned to create everything God created, and followed Gods the Father's plans perfectly.
So, some relationships like child people would thing jesus inferiro, some like memeber ofthe God head people would not think that. As for me personally, Jesus is the loyal Son who has earned all that his father hath. Thus to deal with him is to deal with the father for all practical intnets and purposes, however, he still defers tot he father out of fililial responsibility and love.

Do you understand these to be at least a portion of Mormon doctrine?

I truly did not understand enough of your first post to answer this question.

Id did my best toanswer this post, is that good enough?

DU
1,036 posted on 07/13/2007 7:40:37 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I think it is called an “asinine motive” but in psychology it is a form of transference.

From Wikipedia:

Transference is a phenomenon in psychology characterized by unconscious redirection of feelings for one person to another. One definition of transference is "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood."

[1] Another definition is "the redirection of feelings and desires and esp. of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object."

[2] Still another definition is "a reproduction of emotions relating to repressed experiences, esp. of childhood, and the substitution of another person . . . for the original object of the repressed impulses."

3] Transference was first described by Sigmund Freud, who acknowledged its importance for psychoanalysis for better understanding of the patient's feelings.

1,037 posted on 07/13/2007 7:40:54 AM PDT by Porterville (I'm an American. If you hate Americans, I hope our enemies destroy you. I will pray for my soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

ARRRGH!!!!

155.555555555555555555556% of the BEAST’s number. ; )


1,038 posted on 07/13/2007 7:43:08 AM PDT by Greg F (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Awww, Delphiuser, you messed up my calculation of the % of the BEAST’s number I had in the post . . .


1,039 posted on 07/13/2007 7:47:19 AM PDT by Greg F (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Well, you appear to be the only apologist that wishes to enter into discussion of what I understand to be published Mormon doctrine, instead of huffily pronouncing that the non Mormon Gentiles don’t understand anything about the faith and leaving the discussion.

Thank you.

I feel the same way about being called an "Apologist" as others do about being called anti Mormon, I have nothing to apologize for, my faith is a good thing. However, i accept it because it is the term that is in use, as Anti-Mormons should accept the accurate, but unflattering label that is in use for their position /rant

For some fun, click on my name and check out my page here at FR, I have done some research on the Trinity and the First Council at Nice from the Mormon perspective. it might be illustrative, then again, it might just be boring to you. (YMMV)
1,040 posted on 07/13/2007 7:49:55 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 1,341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson