Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
The following draws from the book Is the Mormon My Brother by apologist James White. Earlier this year, Paul Kaiser reprinted a Worldview article titled 10 Mormonism Facts which generated a myriad of responses from visitors who stated that Mormons were being misrepresented and are simply our brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ. Let’s look at what Dr. White presents using LDS resources:
The First Vision
Without question the key revelation in Mormon Scripture regarding the nature of God is to be found in what is known as the First Vision of Joseph Smith. The vision itself is fundamental to all of LDS theology. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie described the vision:
That glorious theophany which took place in the spring of 1820 and which marked the opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times is called the First Vision. It is rated as first both from the standpoint of time and of pre-eminent importance. In it Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son, both of which exalted personages were personally present before him as he lay enwrapped in the Spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.
This transcendent vision was the beginning of latter day revelation; it marked the opening of the heavens after the long night of apostate darkness; with it was ushered in the great era of restoration, the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21.) Through it the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men. (John 17:3.) With this vision came the call of that Prophet who, save Jesus only, was destined to do more for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. (D. & C. 135:3.) This vision was the most important event that had taken place in all world history from the day of Christ’s ministry to the glorious hour when it occurred.(1)
And Mormon Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said,
Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, restored the knowledge of God. Joseph’s first vision clearly revealed that the Father and Son are separate personages, having bodies as tangible as mans. Later it was also revealed that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, separate and distinct from the personalities of the Father and the Son. (See D&C 130:22.) This all-important truth shocked the world even though sustained by the Bible. (2)
How is it that the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens and the knowledge of God was restored by this one vision? While the story is as familiar to Mormons as John 3:16 is to Christians, we present Joseph Smith’s own recounting of the story in full, taken from the LDS Scriptures (and hence carrying canonical authority). However, we note that the account that appears in the LDS Scriptures was written in 1838, eighteen years after the events described:
14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon bysome power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)–and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;(3) and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well I am well enough off. I then said to my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? (Joseph Smith History 1:14-20).
What does this vision, recorded in LDS Scripture, teach concerning God? First and foremost, it presents to us the concept of a plurality of gods. This arises from the fact that God the Father is a separate and distinct physical entity from Jesus Christ, His Son. God the Father is possessed of a physical body, as is the Son. This is why McConkie can claim the creeds of Christendom were smashed to smithereens, for the vision has always been interpreted by the LDS leadership to teach that God the Father is a separate and distinct person and being from the Son. The unity of Being that is central to Christian theology is completely denied by Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Hence, you have one God, the Father, directing Smith to another God, the Son.
While it is not our intention to critique these teachings at this point, it should be noted that there are a number of problems with the First Vision, and with the entire development of the LDS concept of God as well. As we noted, this version of the First Vision was not written until 1838. Previous versions, however, differed in substantial details from this final and official account. Most significantly, the presence of both the Father and the Son as separate and distinct gods is not a part of the earlier accounts.(4)
————————————————-
(1) Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,2nd ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), pp. 284-285, LDSCL.
(2) Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), p. 4, LDSCL. On page 101 of the same book, we read this strong statement:
The first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith is bedrock theology to the Church. The adversary knows this and has attacked Joseph Smith’s credibility from the day he announced the visitation of the Father and the Son. You should always bear testimony to thetruth of the First Vision. Joseph Smith did see the Father and the Son. They conversed with him as he said they did. Any leader who, without reservation, cannot declare his testimony that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith can never be a true leader, a true shepherd. If we do not accept this truth if we have not received a witness about this great revelationwe cannot inspire faith in those whom we lead.
(3) One of Mormonism’s leading scholars, James Talmage (and a General Authority), said the following in the General Conference of April, 1920:
This Church, therefore, from its beginning, has been unique, for the organization of the Church was forecasted in this declaration that at the time of Joseph Smiths first vision there was no Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth; and I do not see why people should take issue with us for making that statement (CR1920Apr:103).
(4) I noted a number of the historical problems with Mormonism in Letters to a Mormon Elder, pp. 88-106. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism (Salt Lake: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp.1-41, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), pp. 143-162.
I clicked on colorcountry's posting history to find the latest example of one of her lies about the LDS Church and its beliefs, and I didn't have to scroll far to find Post #58 right here in this thread.
You better do a little more digging. Colorcountry wrote: Mary has many offspring according to Mormonism." And frankly that's what has been taught in Mormonism for a very long time that Mary/Joseph had children together after Jesus was born.
Perhaps you could post data to refute what you consider to be a lie instead of attacking the messenger?
I suppose that it is, in the widest sense of the word.
However, I thought you were using the word in a much narrower sense. You specifically mentioned the three "ecumenical" creeds: the Apostles' Creed, the Nicean Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. These are formal, authoritative statements of religious doctrine promulgated by councils of churchmen and scholars.
My understanding is that "non-creedal" churches reject the formal creeds, presumably including the Apostles' Creed, the Nicean Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Since you stated that acceptance of these creeds is required for one to be considered a Christian, I was wondering whether non-creedal churches are Christian in your view. Apparently you consider them heretics, unless they would agree with the content of the creeds.
Personally, I can accept the Apostles' Creed, although Mormons do not use it. Most of the Nicean Creed I can accept, but it contains a few points that I do not understand and some that I do not accept. The Athanasian Creed is completely incomprehensible to me.
Do I fulfill the creedal requirements for being a Christian, according to your definition?
For me a Christian is a Trinitarian. Do you believe in the Trinity?
If you were part of a creedal church which systematically taught you these things it might not be much of an issue. Folks have been making sense of these creeds for centuries. They have been part of the foundation of the Christian faith.
Apparently you consider them heretics, unless they would agree with the content of the creeds.
That is correct. They may not formally need to paint the creed on their building, but they need to agree with the the subststance of the creed, otherwise they are, by definition, heretics.
Churches can get into trouble when they try to nuance things under their "No creed but Christ" meta-creed.
OTOH, JW and Mormons are outright heretics by the historic creedal standards. By the standard of the meta-creed they are brothers in the faith.
If you mean the Trinity as described in the Athanasian Creed, I must confess that I do not understand the doctrine.
That said, I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three being one God.
Who is they I was taiking to Enosh
After weeks of debating these folks, it has become clear that Mormonism Apologists seek to carve out a hollow of doubt (Satan takes pleasure in sowing doubt and accusing so it ought not be surprising that those being mislead by his guile would also take such pleasure) into which they may insert the demonic heresies brought forth in Smithism. I don’t feel the urge to continue debating such folks. Maybe another day, but not today ... the disgust factor of confronting demonic powers at times nauseates without invigorating.
I've seen the poster's diversions before (and from other identities of similar personality). Unless disputing them would aid others, I'll let the poster dangle out to dry. He can certainly bring another persona to the thread to create the illusion of debate. If not, Mormonism condescension always ends the string.
Which part are you having trouble with?
Maybe you'd have better luck with the understanding that comes via the Westminster Confession of Faith...
There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. Deut. vi. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; 1 Thess. 1. 9; Jer. x. 10; Job xi. 7, 8, 9; Job xxvi. 14; John iv. 24; 1 Tim. i. 17; Deut. iv. 15, 16; John iv. 24, with Luke xxiv, 39; Acts xiv. 11, 15; James i. 17; Mal. iii. 6; 1 Kings viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24; Ps. xc. 2; 1 Tim. i. 17; Ps. cxlv. 3; Gen. xvii. 1; Rev. iv. 8; Rom. xvi, 27; Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8; Ps. cxv. 3; Exod. iii. 14; Eph. i. 11; Prov. xvi. 4; Rom. xi. 36; 1 John iv. 8, 16; Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7; Heb. xi. 6; Neh. ix. 32, 33; Ps. v. 5, 6; Nah. i. 2, 3; Exod. xxxiv. 7. II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service or obedience He is pleased to require of them. John v. 26; Acts vii. 2; Ps. cxix. 68; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix. 5; Acts xvii. 24, 25; Job xxii. 2, 3; Rom. xi. 36; Rev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Dan. iv. 25, 35; Heb. iv. 13; Rom. xi. 33, 34; Ps. cxlvii. 5; Acts xv. 18; Ezek. xi. 5; Ps. cxlv. 17; Rom. vii. 12; Rev. v. 12, 13, 14. III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.
CHAPTER II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
It seems when one hears something they are not familar such as in the King Follett Sermon, its human nature people want to fill in the pieces.
Just as Jesus was always perfect before he incarnated as we read in
John 5
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Even though this observation from the prophet Joseph Smith is intriguing there is no record of the King Follett couplet ever been canonized.
I understand your frustration about this unending debate. However, I note two things: First, the entire thread was an attack on Mormonism and what you condemn is the Mormons’ attempts to explain why their Christianity differs from those based on the creeds. Second, while I note you ostensibly decline to participate in the debate, I also note your declination is filled with insults to the Mormons unbefitting to any who calls himself or herself a Christian. Thus, you are like the guy who rushes in to deliver a kick in a fight and then runs away. If you don’t want to be involved in a debate, just don’t participate. But if you choose to kick one of the debaters, don’t be surprised if they don’t kick back.
bttt
Thanks for posting that, I had never reead it. Seems clear
“Amusing that you so quickly verify my post while trying to dismiss the notions therein.”
Really? Looks like the same could be said for your post. You pretend to highmindedness of not getting involved in the fight while delivering blows below the belt to one of the debaters. I have dismissed no notions. I merely object to your insults while at the same time you claim you don’t want to get involved.
"Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." -- Deuteronomy 29:4
amen!
...and when the light shines calculating & disingenuous appears!
So far, so good.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
Here is where I begin to have difficulty. "Neither confounding the persons" is reasonable clear: We are to maintain a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
But what does it mean by "dividing the substance"? Is substance used here the way that it is used in everyday speech ("tangible physical matter")? Or does it mean something else?
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
No problem here.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
In what way are they "one"?
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
I think I get this.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
What does it mean, "incomprehensible"? Is it used here as a synonym for "beyond understanding"? If God cannot be understood, why try to explain God?
Indeed, there would seem to be no point in devising creedal statements about God and requiring acceptance of those creeds. To the extent that a creedal statement is understandable, it cannot be complete; if it is complete, it cannot be understandable. Why bother?
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
What is meant by "eternal"? According to my understanding of Mormonism, it means "without beginning or end." But I am told that it has a different meaning in this context.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
Statements 11 through 18 make the same point: although we speak of three Gods, they are not three but one. Here I have difficulty, because I count three. I cannot seem to wrap my mind around the idea that three are not three, but one.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
Again, I count three Gods. Why is it forbidden to say so?
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
OK
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
I know what begotten means in the ordinary sense. What does it mean here?
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
What does "proceeding" mean?
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
I am not sure why this clause is necessary. Perhaps I am missing something.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
Well, Jesus considered his Father in Heaven to be greater. Moreover, Jesus came to earth not to do his own will, but the will of the Father. That would seem to imply that one is greater.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
But what exactly am I to think when I worship God? How does one imagine three persons who are not three but one?
My impression from speaking to Christians is that the majority imagine God the Father to be a man with long flowing beard and a halo, usually wearing a robe. Jesus they imagine much the way he is depicted in religious art. The Holy Spirit is a spirit, perhaps in the form of a dove. Can they be saved if they think of the Trinity that way?
That is enough for now. (I have to get back to work.) I would appreciate your thoughts and explanations.
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.