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.
So how do you answer all those who did read the BOM, and prayed for Holy Spirit guidance....and left the Mormon church?
If THAT was a personal attack....I'm Jim Thorpe.
I could give many answers, but some people just aren't ready yet seems to be the most appropriate, I'm sure a one size fits all answer is wrong in many specific applications of it to any specific person.
Exactly how I view those like yourself....
You equate genealogical and DNA lineage which are two seperate things when it comes to the requirement for the Levitcal priesthood lineage. It doesn't work like that. Jesus' lineage is identified in Matthew chapter 1 through Joseph (his "adoptive" Father). John the Baptist was a Levite both through his Father's and Mother's line. (wouldn't that give him both Y and Mitochondrial markers?) Genealogical lineage requirement in the Bible was not as precise as modern scientific DNA understanding.
IOW, you didn't have to have the exact DNA (or only the Y side) to still be considered of the lineage.
You provide an example of one line or tribe that can show they are related through the Y marker. OK, what about all the other lines from the Tribe of Levi? What about the other 11 (technically 12) Tribes besides the Levites and their descendants. The Nephites don't claim the tribe of Levi but Manasseh. You have shown another straw man argument (that BoM people must have the Y Levirate DNA)
So my intellect is judged upon a typo.....just wait, for with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged. I've seen your typing and it ain't perfect....LOL
Dig a little, learn a little about DNA alleles and markers and we'll discuss it further ... you may awaken to come out of Mormonism! The DNA evidence of Native Americans points to their being descended from Asians not Jews. If they were descended from Jews, there are markers that would be present regadless of how much 'mixing' you try to infer. Period. This is not seeking to prove a negative, the evidence points away from the fabrication by Smith in his novel. Trying to substantiate the fable in the B of M is like sending someone to find an address in Chicago by giving them a map of Los Angeles. It's getting comical, actually.
In a court of law, if the assertions by Smith regarding genetic descent were on trial for fraud, and DNA evidence proving Asian descent were presented, the fraud would be verified. Apparently you choose to ignore this. That's fine, readers aren't missing the fine points here. Keep spittling.
Besides offering him Salvation, Exaltation and a personal relationship with Jesus, the Church can offer him some information about his lineage in many ways ;-)
He can go to the Church's geneology site here -http://www.familysearch.org/
Modern Saints can get their lineage through Revelation through a Patriarchal Blessing (like it happens in the Bible). Those who are not directly descended from one of the twelve tribes can be adopted in. (Much as Jesus' lineage is listed through his adoptive father Joseph). Most Native Americans and Mexicans I have met (who are Mormon) are identified as descended from the Tribe of Manasseh. Most Northern European descended Americans are the Tribe of Ephraim. The Tribe of Manasseh and Ephraim have specific Biblical blessings prophesy about their role in the last days. (On a side note I met a woman whose mom was Mexican and Dad Anglo. She was identified as the Tribe of Ephraim while her siblings were identified as the Tribe of Manasseh.)
Also, the book "House of Israel" by Hyrum Andrus lays out geneologies for different Tribes from genealogial records.
BTW, I met an Indian from the Tigua area on my mission who said his Tribe had religious teachings passed down about the White God who visited them, and taught them better farming and how to live in peace with the neighboring tribes. He painted me a picture of Chief Sitting Bull (Lakota) that I keep in my office.
That kind of “holier than thou” attitude is common among the chosen. How many times on these threads have we heard what speshull people, so hard working, good neighbors....
But what’s in their hearts? That is what God sees. Blessed are the humble.
Given your belief in the Greek Philosophy of subordinationism and homouosis - one subtance, I can understand you geting confused about when someone is a seperate person, But in reality we are two seperate FReepers.
Jim Thrope Wikipedia.
Well I just learned something new. I assume you are from Ok. My family was good friends with a Ponca man from OK.
I have already posted (#449) of the evidence of the Q-P36 genetic haplotype that shows a link. Apparently you decided not to dicuss it. You are still taking the position that there can be no link. So lets discuss the haplotype identified, What is your opinion?
One news story about the study comes from Nicholas Wade, "Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Levites," New York Times, September 27, 2003:
A team of geneticists studying the ancestry of Jewish communities has found an unusual genetic signature that occurs in more than half the Levites of Ashkenazi descent. The signature is thought to have originated in Central Asia, not the Near East, which is the ancestral home of Jews. The finding raises the question of how the signature became so widespread among the Levites, an ancient caste of hereditary Jewish priests. The genetic signature occurs on the male or Y chromosome and comes from a few men, or perhaps a single ancestor, who lived about 1,000 years ago, just as the Ashkenazim were beginning to be established in Europe. Ashkenazim, from whom most American Jews descend, are one of the two main branches of Jews, the other being the Sephardim, whose ancestors were expelled from Spain.
When you make an assertion regarding haplotype, you had better know what you're talking about or you make stupid fumbles like the one you offered. Go play gotcha with someone you can baffle with your bullsh!t.
Who says that I or anyone has to go prove that King Benjamin was a fictional character? That's like trying to say that someone must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there has never been a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer or Easter Bunny in order for there to be any validity to the argument that these characters are make-believe.
A few of the most dishonest examples of how the Mormon apologists have been trying to explain away the Lamanite/DNA issue are as follows:
(1) The apologists will try to deceive people into thinking that the traditional Mormon leaders' point-of-view was that the Book of Mormon peoples were only a small number of the Native Americans. They'll do this by stating the fact that the Book of Mormon never explicity says "all the ancestors of the Native Americans were the Book of Mormon people". But anyone who looks at the whole context will see that the understanding was that all or almost all the ancestors of the Native Americans were these Book of Mormon people who came to an almost empty continent circa 600 BC where the Jaredites had self-destructed. Go read what Joseph Smith said that the heavenly messengers told him. In order to believe the apologists I believe that one must assume that the angels of the Lord of Nephite origin sent to Joseph Smith like Moroni were very clueless about the geography of their people, and even after they were resurrected and supposedly possessing of great knowledge on all things. I'm so tired of the blatant dishonesty of this tactic.
(2) They present an idea that perhaps the Lamanite mixed with the natives that were already here. But for anyone who reads 1st Nephi 13 and 2nd Nephi 2 this whole mixing theory idea is absurd. What about the flood? What about the Jaredites? Why is there no contemporary talk of these mixings in the days of Joseph Smith? These whole ideas of mixings came AFTER the scientific evidences became overwhelmingly strong against the church's original viewpoint on Native American ancestry. The church tried to change their story on the Kinderhook Plates by discrediting their own historians once physical studies proved the Kinderhook Plates to be a hoax. And they've tried to change the whole story about the Book of Abraham being written by Abraham himself upon papyrus AFTER the original Joseph Smith papyri was found.
Don't the apologists for Mormonism realize how they are perceived by the rest of the world? They only dig themselves in deeper when they try to defend the undefensible problems they have. They act like a defense attorney for a criminal suspect who has a long rap sheet. And they flip-flop like crazy in order to try to play the difficult balancing act they must play to self-justify their belief system in light of all the facts.
In a court of law its possible for a high-powered defense team to persuade a carefully picked pool of jurors that some reasonable doubt exists and that they should acquit. But the rules of engagement in a presidential election aren't as easy for the defense. Just because you raise millions more than your opponents doesn't guarantee you'll have an easier time winning votes. You have to come across as brutally honest. When people ask you about your church's beliefs on the Second Coming then you should either consistently decline to talk about religion or you should be completely honest about your church's historical beliefs. When Mitt Romney failed to disclose the church's historical teaching about Missour being the place where Jesus will come and reign in the Milennium then he lost alot of credibility.
I'm curious to know if any non-Mormon on FreeRepublic has become more inclined to vote for Romney because of the explanations given by any of the Mormon apologists here. If so then what made the difference. Are there any non-Mormons here who really think that the Mormon apologists are being completely honest? Or do you fear or think that they are being less than forthright?
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.