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.
Ping ... you might find these Apologist’s assertion amusing.
In truth, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed on nearly every page of the New Testament (concealed yet still present in the OT) for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of the Angel of Jehovah no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of Gen. 1:26, for surely verse 27: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged." -- B.B. Warfield from "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity"
And...
And...
And...
Or as John Calvin's rightly noted distinction...
"God points Himself out by another special note also, by which He may be more particularly defined: for He so predicates unity of Himself that He propones Himself to be considered distinctively in three Persons; and unless we hold to these there is nothing but a bare and empty name of God, by no means the true God, floating in our brain."
Also interesting is the supposed Hebrew word that Kolob would come from. It would be the Hebrew letters kaph, lamed, dalet. This word comes from an unsed root word, according to Strong's, which means to yelp, or else to attack; a dog, hence by idiom, a male prositute. There is no Hebrew word used in the scriptures that would put the o vowel (often the letter vav, which makes an o, u or a v sound) is found.
One could make the argument that the name, Kolob, according to the Hebrew shows that it is false, because of the meaning of the word being a dog, or male prostitute. And if it does have the letter vav in one or more places, then it is not found anywhere else in scripture. Both point to false doctrine using this.
I guess you didn't get the question when I asked you what you thought it did mean. Either that or you can't answer it. I don't want to reproduce the debate either. But there was more than one point. For one, the innerancy of scripture. You avoided discussing that - why?
19 posted on 07/05/2007 7:41:42 AM MDT by AzaleaCity5691
Fixed by reading the Holy Word of Elohim. A Christian accepts that the god of the Jews is God, that he had a son named Jesus Christ, who was crucified, that Mary was a
b'shem Yah'shua
n eternal virgin and was, along with Jesus, the only person on Earth to have never sinned. Those are the basic beliefs.
How so? What’s wrong with the argument there?
Well said Doc. It is all about the person of Christ and the nature of God. It IS revealed on every page of scripture because He IS the Word and all of the Word is about revealing WHO God is (and who we are in comparison). He is God, we are not. He always was and always will be. There is none like Him. We are like grass that withers and fades. He is a triune God. We cannot fully understand that, but we must believe that by faith. And that is not of ourselves. Satan's fall was due to his pride in desiring to be like the Most High was that he wanted to be like God. (note it was not like all of the "most highs"). Why then should man be honored and exalted and be made "like a god" for doing the same thing?
It just doesn't make sense, does it? It makes God out to be a liar.
Abr ... Abr? and Bwahahaha
****
This is so pitiful even your retorts have no substance just disapproval and the only one who gets to disapprove is the Lord!
At this stage you have an opinion and that is as far as it can go you can neither approve nor disapprove until you receive a revelation from the Lord.
Lets see, I can't quote my own scripture to discuss my own belief system. That's ridiculous. Should we discuss Jewish theology without discussing the Old Testament? How about we discuss the founding of America without discussing the Constitution (Oh wait, I guess liberals do that).
Anyway, I believe in extra-biblical scripture such as the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Chirst which acccounts his visit to the Americas and his calling prophets there anciently to testify of his Divinity. No suprise there, to anyone who is halfway knowledgeable about mormon beliefs.
What I am interested in on this thread is the fact that those who seek to exclude mormons from "orthodox" Christianity invariably do so relying on extra-Biblical creeds while saying I can't use any extra biblical source. It's hypocritical.
In my belief system God has revealed more scripture (man hasn't "added it", God has). There is no inconsistency in my stated belief system.
However, some who have posted on this thread have claimed sola scipture, the innerancy of the bible, God Breathed word and then insisted on using extra biblical creeds and the words of secular greeks to describe how they interpret the Bible. That is not consistent with their own stated belief system.
Back to kolob, some scholars have tried to explain it as a Hebrew word (as it sounds like you have been reading the wiki account). So what? Jospeh Smith never claimed it was a hebrew word. It is a straw man argument.
Interestingly, there is proof that Joseph Smith's account of Abraham wasn;t "made up" as you say. In Facsimile 3 has Abraham sitting on the throne of Pharoah teaching him astronomy. There was no other evidence of this "quaint little notion" of Joseph Smith's until 1947 when other docuements were discovered that showed the same thing.
___________________________________
Facsimile No. 3
Facsimile No. 3 from the Book of Abraham.Smith believed this image represents Abraham sitting on the Pharaoh's throne teaching the principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Smith stated that the figure behind "Abraham in Egypt" is "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." The figure before "Abraham" is "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt". The dark character is "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince" and in between is "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters".[15]
Egyptologists interpret this as the judgment of the dead before the occupied throne of the Egyptian god, Osiris.[16] The picture of Osiris shows his typical headdress or crown and his arms are placed in a typical position in which he holds a sceptre and a flail. Examples can be found in several tombs.[17] In front of Osiris, but with her face turned away, is Ma'at, the Egyptian goddess of justice, truth and order wearing her traditional feather on her head.
_______________
Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses....
A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Joseph Smith's day, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Testament of Abraham, documents that exhibit notable similarities with the book of Abraham. For example, in chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matches in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile 3 of the book of Abraham and, incidentally, chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in the pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham.
Ouch! Sorry I'm late to the party. The damn doctor failed to call in my prescription as I was out of the drugs. Silly little man wanted me to come in for an interview. First thing he asked is if I was taking my blood sugar daily..Of course I lied as usual. Can't get along with dumb bastards if you don't tell a fib now and then.
I believe the scriptures were "innerant", as you say, when God spoke. I just don't believe they remained so after having been passed through the hands of men for thousands of years and translated numerous times.
Besides show me in the Bible where it says they are "innerant". I believe the sciptures are the Word of God. God is perfect. The scribes who translated the bible over thousands of years were not.
As another aside, those who belive in "inerrancy" do not even agree on what it means. Once again you holding Mormons to a litmus test on Christianity that even "orthodox" Christians do not agree on.
Wiki - Biblical inerrancy
There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament. Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The first complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments[9] and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts[10]. According to Ehrman,
Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.
Many inerrantists believe that the authorial recensions of New Testament texts are not only accessible, but accurately represented by modern translation.[citation needed] Though some inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction, arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as he was in their creation. These inerrantists are found particularly in non-Protestant churches, but also a few Protestant groups hold such views.
Another favorite of their is filthy rags they love to wallow in this low level force, feeling it is some form of being humble.
But a child who is born again in the Lord is not deprave or a filthy rage.
A child of God is one who submits to the Lord will.
Thy will be done oh Lord on earth, as it tis in Heaven.
I just wonder maybe she just doesn’t realized it but she is true to form as hostile ex LDS.
What a transformation since she removed her name!
As the Holy Spirit indwells us, we become Christ-like.
We do not become another Christ.
To read Joseph Smith and the teaching of the Mormons is to understand just how far that church is from Biblical truth.
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (Teachings of the Prophet, J. F. Smith p 345). "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22). "There is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie pp 576-577) "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (History of the Church, Vol 6, Joseph Smith p 305).
But what do the Scriptures say?
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -- Matthew 12:35-37"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
placemark
LOL....
I think they expect you to fib. Even train you to. We can’t all be as perfect as a true blue Mormon now can we? ,-)
A young monk is assigned the prestigious task of joining the older monks in the copy room copying books of scripture. After being there for only a week, he goes to the head of his order and ask him how often they check against the older manuscripts for accuracy. The Head responded that to his knowledge it had never been done. The Head then suggests that the young monk take his keys, go down in to the crypts under the monastery and check the current copies against the older preserved copies. The young monk goes happily off to his new task. A couple of days later, he does not come to supper. The head goes down into the crypt to look for him and finds the young monk repeatedly bashing his head into the wall while crying in frustration. The head asks him “What’s wrong? Did me miss something?” The young monk says, an “R”. The head says “It’s just one letter, how bad can it be?” The young monk replies the word was supposed to be “celebrate”…
I love that joke, and IMHO it illustrates the point rather nicely.
You are mixing apples an oranges some is doctrine some of your stuff is from a sermon which is not doctrine!
This one is the only Doctrine
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
The rest is discourse or opinion!
And actually, I don't ever use Wiki. It would be the last place I would go on a subject such as this. You know what they say about assuming. ;)
I will bow out of this conversation with you. It doesn't seem like you want to answer question posed to you. It is appearant that you have been trained thoroughly, but it is also appearant that you aren't really willing to discuss. Instead of answering questions and discussing, you bring in very questionable resource that has accountability, you can't show any other supporting evidence. You seem to avoid my questions by throwing in some stuff about what other people say. I don't have the time nor the wherewithall to follow your rabbit trails. Sorry. My eyes are already crossed and glazed over.
Huh?
planet kobol
luupiiieeeee did you find another planet?
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.