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.
How does Mary get to be an eternal virgin when she had several children by Joseph, her husband?
The “doctor”? You are a funny little person, aren’t you?
It was a lie. You made it up. That beliefs exists in no official LDS doctrine, scripture, etc.
Don’t you wish I would go away and keep quiet?
No, I wish you much happiness in your new faith. And I wish that you'd find another hobby other than making up lies about the beliefs of the LDS Church and reasons why you left.
Don’t go away. You are entertaining.
In my personal opinion, the practice of calling non-mormons (including Jews)"gentiles" may have started because the early LDS made much of their church being different, or "peculiar". They did NOT want to be seen as just another Christian church, and the "gentile" label illustrated the difference. In my time as a mormon, there was quite a distinction made, and much pride taken it it.
That you, resty?
If one wants to be considered a Christian in anything other than the narrowest of circles, they need to submit themslves to the Christian rite of initiation, i.e., water baptism with the proper Trinitarian formula.
Since human beaings cannot look on the heart, they must examine externals to validate a testimony. Denial of water baptism calls this testimony into question. That is what cults are made of.
When someone lies about my church and its beliefs, I'm going to call it a lie. Period.
Besides that you seek to exclude Mormons from "orthodoxy" (another non-biblical term) for a differing view on so called "total depravity" is ridiculous. Arminian and Calvinist Evangelicals disagree wholeheartily on the Doctrine of Total Depravity. So are Arminian Evangelical, Pentacostals, Methodist and some Baptists also outside of your definition of orthodoxy for rejecting total depravity or is it only the Mormons?
The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching', 'glorification'), is typically used to refer to the correct worship or the correct theological and doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body.
The notion that God is "wholly man and wholly human" is also borrowed from Greek Philosophy. It was in fact considered a heresy outside of "orthodoxy" at one time. It is important to use the exact words of the Bible because Doctrinal innacuracies such as this have been substituted for the actual Biblical words.
Clement's descriptions of God as "wholly" was taken verbatim from Xenophanes a Greek secularist philosopher (probably a liberal too). To understand the underlying theology of the Creeds we have to turn not to the bible text but to earlier Greek Philosophers. (homouosis, ex-nihilo,)
The Creed itself referenced the Greek version of the material world in its explanation and reference to the substance of God.
"not made, being of one substance with the Father" also the reference to incarnate
or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
[As an aside to our discussion on the material essence of God - What is your opinion of the last phrase of the Creed which many protestants like to leave out?)
Here is a further discussion of how Greek Liberals polluted God's Word.
Restoring_the_Ancient_Church - Chapter 3 - The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man
Specifically, the phrase, "of one substance or essence," expresses a concept that was adopted and adapted from contemporary Greek philosophy, but was foreign to the thought of the original Christianity. This concept may seem strange to the modern reader because Greek philosophy is no longer the predominant system of thought, although it has remained the basis of many aspects of mainstream Christian theology even to the present time. At the time the Nicene Creed was adopted, the predominant philosophy was a hodgepodge of ideas, mostly based on Neoplatonism and a few other schools of thought. These schools, in turn, largely based their ideas on the thought of a few earlier philosophers, notably Plato, Empedocles and Xenophanes. A quick summary of how these philosophers viewed God should make the language of the Nicene Creed clear to the reader. (Although the Christians modified the terminology of the philosophers to fit their purposes, one still cannot make sense of their language without reference to these Hellenistic ideas.)15
There are many Chritian Father's who reject your view of "orthodoxy" including Justin martyr, Origen, Hipollytus etc. Are they Christian?
Your statement is an extra-biblical concept of what Jesus and the apostles taught. It is your creed. It may be accurate or it may not. It stands or falls on your own ability to accurately determine the teaching of Christ and His apostles.
At least the historic creeds have the advantage of wisdom that comes from a number of counselors (Prov. 11:14).
I gather that you do not approve of the "non-creedal" churches. But are they Christians? If not, what would you call them?
Every Christian has a creed. Every church has a creed. E.g., "No creed but Christ" is a creed.
I would see churches that attempt to deny they have a creed or pooh-pooh the historic creeds as merely illogical and aberrations within historic Christianity.
All heretics start with the Bible. The only way I can know one of these folks or groups espouses the true Christian faith is to show them the historic creeds and ask them whether they agree or disagree.
Oh yes, I am just a loveable little heretic. Why haven't you been around on these posts. I haven't come across your sunny personality for over a year. Have you been busy with your other alter-ego Freeper personality?
Gentile
Latter-day Saints Church usage
Main article Mormonism and Judaism.
In the terminology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon) the word Gentile takes on different meanings in different contexts, which may confuse some and alienate others. Members of the LDS church regard themselves as regathered Israelites, and so sometimes use the word "Gentile" to refer to non-members. In such usage Jews may be colloquially referred to as "Gentiles" because they are not members of the LDS Church. However, the traditional meaning is also to be found in the introduction to the Book of Mormon, in the statement that it is written to both "Jew" (literal descendants of the House of Israel) and "Gentile" (those not descended from the House of Israel or those of the tribe of Ephraim scattered among the "Gentiles" throughout the earth).
In order to avoid confrontation and pejorative connotations, Latter-day Saints in the 21st century avoid using the term "Gentile" in everyday matters, preferring "non-member". "Gentile" is usually reserved for discussions of scriptural passages.
That's why I didn't bother with the Joseph & Mary horizontal boogie thing at #181.
Good to know the official version. I remember it being used to distinguish between "them" and "us". As I stated, this was my opinion.
I didn’t make it up, and I didn’t lie. You are a nasty, vindictive man. I can’t beleive the Mod lets your personal attacks against me stand.
Has anyone else noticed how often these Mormon themed threads turn into “attack the apostate, colorcountry” threads? I wonder why? Can’t you just go merrily on your way without these attacks against my beliefs (like you suggest I do) - or is it just that you want me to shut up?
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/gods_1.htm
The LDS doctrine concerning the birth of Christ certainly raises more questions than it answers. For instance, in Mormon theology we learn that prior to coming to earth both Jesus and Mary were born to God the Father and His wife in a pre-existent state. From this it is clear that Jesus was the spirit brother of Mary. It has been suggested that since Mary was the spirit daughter of the Father, it would be an act of incest for God the Father to have had a sexual relationship with her.
While Apostle Orson Pratt probably would have argued that God’s laws were “not intended to govern Himself,” the idea of God having relations with his own spirit daughter, who was at that time betrothed to Joseph, seems to be out of step with the teachings of the Bible and morally repugnant. A careful examination of the Mormon teaching concerning the conception of Christ reveals that it is far closer to paganism than it is to Christianity!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp
We first begin to read that Jesus came in the flesh...But suppose I examine that, a moment. The New Testament tells me that the Father gave His only-begotten Son a ransom for the sins of the world. Do you believe that, brother B.? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father? “Yes.” Do you believe the Son was begotten by the Father, as the Apostles said he was? Here I shall have to disagree with you, to begin with; for I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begot the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 1:237-238, July 24, 1853)
...The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband... The very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 11:268, August 19, 1866)
These are interesting statements, because if we accept them we would also have to believe that the Father committed incest. The Father according to Brigham Young took one of his spirit daughters as his wife and procreated the body of Jesus Christ with her. I find this offensive. Are these isolated teachings only by Brigham Young? No, they are not.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Mormons/mormon_jesus.htm
There was a lot of political intrigue by bishops, philosphers, and government backed theologians. Besides where in the Bible does it say bishops who are outranked by Apostles can vote on what the Apostles really meant. The Bible shows it the other way around and Paul counsels the bishops on what is defined as correct or incorrect Docrtine in his letters. The Word of God is not subject to a political vote. Those who seek to push a narrow definition of orthodoxy today fall into this same pothole, by usurping Jesus as the judge of who is Christian in favor of what is defined by popular demand.
__________________________________________
The Council of Nicea and its Aftermath Arius was suspended from the office of Elder in Alexandria by his bishop, but he had friends in high places, and soon gained a substantial following. This caused great uneasiness in the Eastern Church, but it wasn't until the Emperor Constantine turned his attention to the affair that a resolution was reached.210 Constantine, though not yet a Christian himself, had effected a reconciliation between the Christian faith and the Roman state, and Christianity became the official religion. Thus the unity of the Church was of prime importance to him211, so the Emperor called together a council of bishops at Nicea in the year 325 to resolve the issue.
However, such a resolution was no simple proposition, because at that time there really was no single "orthodox" position on the nature of the Trinity. As Richard Hanson states:
In the first place, on the central subject of the dispute, how divine is Jesus Christ, there was in the year 318 no universally recognized orthodox answer. This is one reason why the controversy lasted so long. It was a controversy which resulted in the determination of orthodoxy, not one consisting solely or even mainly in the defence of orthodoxy . . . . There were indeed certain extreme views which virtually everybody repudiated: that Jesus was a 'mere man' and nothing more . . . , that there were no distinctions within the Godhead but only one God in three different aspects . . . ; that the doctrine of the Trinity meant that God was cut up, divided or diminished. But within these very broad limits no doctrine could properly be said to be heretical. Even Arius's views when they were first propounded could have been regarded (as Eusebius of Caesarea regarded them) as no more than a radical version of an acceptable tradition of theology.212
Three major parties were represented at the Council of Nicea and in subsequent controversies.213 First were the Arians; second and most numerous were those that Kelly calls "the great conservative 'middle party'";214 third was a group later called the "Nicene" party, led by Athanasius and others.215
The "middle party," of which Eusebius of Caesarea was a representative, taught that there were three divine persons, "separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will."216 This, as we have seen, had been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning, but there were a variety of interpretations which fell under this heading. As Hanson pointed out above, the Arian doctrine was not far removed from that of some factions of the middle party. After all, Arius taught that Jesus was the "prince of angels"217 and a "second god" subordinate to the Father, just as Eusebius himself did. Thus, the only truly radical component of Arian Christology was the belief that Jesus had been created out of nothing rather than out of the Divine Substance.218
Athanasius and the Nicenes, on the other hand, started with the assumption that the Son must be fully God. This naturally precluded the Arian position, but also that of the "middle party," because an indivisible, uncompounded, and simple "One" cannot admit of the division, or at least the compound nature, implied by traditional subordinationism. Athanasius reasoned that the Trinity must be "one being," but not so as to destroy the distinction between the three "persons." How can this be? Athanasius balked at explaining how this could be, because, after all, the subject of any such explanation is infinite, eternal, and ultimately beyond the grasp of the human mind. Therefore, he merely affirmed as fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one being" with respect to the "Divine Substance," with no divisions as implied by differences in rank and glory, and yet in some very real sense, "three persons."219
In keeping with their philosophy, the Nicenes proposed the use of the word "homoousios" or "of one substance" in the Nicene Creed, but gave to it a meaning that it had not had before within Christian circles. According to J.N.D. Kelly, the root word ousia or "substance" could signify either the "essence" common to a class, in the sense that earlier Christians had used it, or alternatively an individual thing. He writes that "there can be no doubt" that as applied to an immaterial and indivisible Godhead, the term "homoousios" requires the latter meaning.220 And indeed, this is the manner in which modern mainstream Christian theologians interpret the wording of the Nicene Creed. Although it is apparent that Athanasius and his followers applied this meaning to the word, they were in the minority. The "middle party," on the other hand, constituted the majority, and they applied the word "homoousios" in the traditional sense, implying only that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same kind of being, differing in rank and glory.221 Therefore, when the Nicene Council affirmed that the Trinity is "of one substance," they were not attempting to create any sort of precise definition of the oneness of the Godhead. Rather, they were affirming the deity of the Son in terms that could attract broad agreement so they could formally discredit the Arians.222
This was not the end of the controversy, however. Many who aligned themselves with the middle party were uneasy with the language of the Nicene Creed. They felt that Athanasius's interpretation of it was nothing more than thinly veiled modalism.223 Therefore, some of them suggested substituting the word "homoiousios" or "of like substance" into the creed. Over the next 50 years the battle raged back and forth, and some 14 councils produced competing creeds ranging from Nicene to Arian positions.224
Eventually, the Nicene position won out, and from the time of the Council of Constantinople (381) on, subordinationism was officially rejected. Davies summarizes:
This meant the end of subordinationism. The Son and the Spirit are equal to the Father as touching their divinity because each is a presentation of an identical divine being. The only priority of the Father is a logical, not a temporal, one since the Son and the Spirit derive from him as their source; but this priority involves no superiority.225
Likewise, there was no more talk of a "second god." As Basil of Caesarea explained, this was considered no better than heathen polytheism:
They on the other hand who support their sub-numeration by talking of first and second and third ought to be informed that into the undefiled theology of Christians they are importing the polytheism of heathen error. No other result can be achieved by the fell device of sub-numeration than the confession of a first, a second, and a third God. For us is sufficient the order prescribed by the Lord. He who confuses this order will be no less guilty of transgressing the law than are the impious heathen.226
Certainly this represented a break from tradition. However, it is clear that given the concept of God as "the One," either the full deity of the Son had to be rejected (as in the case of the Arians), or subordinationism had to be rejected.
One could also say "since the creeds add to the testimony of the Apostles"
>>>There is much bad teaching among the "no creed but Christ" crowd, including poor constructs on the Trinity that lead to a form of modalism. The very purpose of the creeds is to sort out the bad theology among the faithful. And to help keep cults and heresies (wolves) away from the flock.
Was Athanasius Christian? Was he a wolf among the flock? He was accused of believing in Modalism. In fact he was one of the main inital supporters of the Nicean version of the creed that eventually won out.
In rejecting Modalism (which incidentally, I agree is a false Doctrine) Another false Docrtine homouosis "of one substance" was substituted. That's what happens when decisions about what is orthodox or not is left up to men instead of the revelaed words of Jesus and his Apostles. They start arguing greek Philospohy instead of what Jesus and the Apostles actually said.
From the Greek ousia. The Nicene Creed uses the word homoousios, meaning "of the same substance or essence." The common notion of the Trinity as a single person who dons three different masks in order to relate to humanity is actually a heresy called modalism, which was condemned by Catholic councils. Beisner, God in Three Persons, 18.
Ping to #196
Well technically it's not the official version just the wiki version, but it does point out what happens sometimes between actual Doctrine and how that docrtine is applied by some.
I would say your assessment is accurate in descirbing what happens culturally among some Mormons. The Bible uses gentile in different contexts. Unfortunately some Mormons culturally have used gentile as an "us and them" distinction. I had a mission companion who used it this way. However, the Doctrinal meaning and Cultural use isn't always the same.
The same thing happened (different Doctrinal and Culutral usages) in the late 1800's and early 1900's when some mormons started to adopt the Protestant idea that the great and abominable church in the scriptures refered to the Catholic Church. This was expressly repudiated as a false Doctrine by LDS Church authorities but some mormons culturally continued to use it this way even though it was not supported Doctrinally by our canonized scritpures.
_________________________________
GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
Gentiles
As used in the scriptures, Gentiles has several meanings. Sometimes it designates people of non-Israelite lineage, sometimes people of non-Jewish lineage, and sometimes nations that are without the gospel, even though there may be some Israelite blood among the people. This latter usage is especially characteristic of the word as used in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Israelites were not to marry non-Israelites (Gentiles), Deut. 7: 1-3. The Lord would come to be a light of the Gentiles, Isa. 42: 6. Peter was commanded to take the gospel to the Gentiles, Acts 10: 9-48. God also granted repentance to the Gentiles, Acts 11: 18. We are baptized into one church, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12: 13. The Gentiles should be fellowheirs in Christ by the gospel, Eph. 3: 6. The Book of Mormon was written to the Gentiles, Title page of the Book of Mormon (Morm. 3: 17). A man among the Gentiles went forth upon the waters, 1 Ne. 13: 12. Other books came from the Gentiles, 1 Ne. 13: 39. The fulness of the gospel shall come to the Gentiles, 1 Ne. 15: 13 (3 Ne. 16: 7; D&C 20: 9). This land shall be a land of liberty to the Gentiles, 2 Ne. 10: 11. The Gentiles are a likeness of a wild olive tree, Jacob 5. The gospel is to come forth in the times of the Gentiles, D&C 45: 28 (D&C 19: 27). The word will go forth unto the ends of the earth, unto the Gentiles first, and then unto the Jews, D&C 90: 8-10. The Seventy are to be special witnesses to the Gentiles, D&C 107: 25. Send forth the elders of my church to call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews, D&C 133: 8.
BIBLE DICTIONARY
Gentile
The word Gentiles means the nations, and eventually came to be used to mean all those not of the house of Israel. It is first used in Genesis with reference to the descendants of Japheth (Gen. 10: 2-5). As used throughout the scriptures it has a dual meaning, sometimes to designate peoples of non-Israelite lineage, and other times to designate nations that are without the gospel, even though there may be some Israelite blood therein. This latter usage is especially characteristic of the word as used in the Book of Mormon.
The duties of Israelites toward gentiles were defined in the law (Ex. 23: 32; Ex. 34: 12-16; Deut. 7: 1-3; Deut. 20: 10-18; Deut. 23: 3-8; Ezra 9: 2-15; Ezra 10: 1-18; Neh. 13: 1-3, 23-31). These regulations served to emphasize the distinction between Israel and gentile. However, there were numerous provisions showing that Israel was to deal justly and honestly with non-Israelites and to be compassionate toward them (Ex. 22: 21; Ex. 23: 9; Lev. 19: 10, 33-34; Lev. 24: 22).
The pious Jews of New Testament times held themselves aloof from contact with the gentiles. When a gentile was converted to Judaism, he was called a proselyte. Even in the Church there was a cultural and doctrinal struggle among many Jewish Christians before they would permit one of gentile lineage to enjoy full fellowship. The first gentiles to come into the New Testament Church were those who had already become proselytes to Judaism.
Cornelius (Acts 10 - 11) was the first gentile of whom we have record who came into the Christian Church without first being a proselyte to Judaism. He was introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ through a series of divine manifestations both to him and to Peter.
Paul was called the “apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11: 13), and it was primarily through his ministry that the gospel was established among those of gentile lineage throughout Europe and Asia Minor, although the way was opened by Peter’s baptism of Cornelius.
Oh, so you can post lie after lie about the LDS Church, attacking its beliefs and the motives of its members and leaders, and then you play the victim when someone calls you on it.
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.