Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
??? You can’t be serious! Of course there are righteous people in every religion and, despite their rejection of Christ’s divinity, are still deserving of some level of fecund joy in the afterlife. Is Dennis Prager going to hell just because he’s a Jew? Is Anne Frank currently roasting in hell after being roasted by the Nazis? What about Natan Shcharansky, Simon Wiesenthal, and Walter Annenberg? Are they all going to hell for being Jews? What about Ghandi? Is he currently being tortured for all eternity in hell simply for being a Hindu?
I say no, and God is not that hateful. They deserve to go to heaven for their righteousness.
I understand many confuse the NT description of righteousness - after all, none are righteous in God’s eyes, but the notion that God will torture unbelievers or those who’ve never had a chance to accept his Son, for all eternity is REVOLTING!
I will never worship such an evil god. At least LDS eschatology, with its three tiered heavens reconciles God’s mercy and justice.
Oh, come on! Grow up.
Wow! All these years of attacking Mormonism and you didn’t understand our cosmology until today? Wow!
Ah, a theological answer. I happen to agree with you in principle, but you’re merely arguing semantics. Of course any place where people can experience fecund joy in the absence of active suffering and misery is “heaven” to them. Why, haven’t you ever gone on vacation to a place you’d consider “heaven?” Why begrudge non-Christians that option in their afterlife? Besides, who the heck to you think you are to deny them some level of happiness?
Joseph Smith lied to his church to serve his own personal interests in a sermon. It should make you evaluate Smith’s credibility and not base your life on his words. I’ve never worried about the “literary” merit of prophecy. It’s whether it is true or not. Tens of Joseph Smith’s prophecies failed. Each can be dealt with in some fashion, I’m sure, by an apologist creating some argument, any argument, to explain it away, but cumulatively they show a false prophet. As far as “years” of looking at Mormon theology goes, that’s not the case with me. Growth in the Mormon church stalled, it didn’t impact me, until Romney started his run and I had to figure out what the Mormons believed and whether they were a cult.
I’m shocked that anyone falls for it given Smith’s history, the Jewish Indian history in the Book of Mormon, wholly unsupported by archeological, genetic, linguistic or written evidence, the promulgation of doctrine and then the alteration or denial of it by the Mormon church (only polygamists can get into the Celestial Kingdom, only now monogamists can too, as one example), the bragging of Smith that he is greater than Christ, the clear contradiction of Biblical scripture in doctrine after doctrine of the Mormon church, yet the concurrent claim that the Bible is inspired by God (for example the judgment of Smith to enter heaven rather than Christ alone, another example Christ’s clear words that there is no marriage in heaven while Mormon doctrine is that marriage is continued in heaven), the adoption of Masonic rites into Mormon temple ceremonies, etc. It’s hard to believe that intelligent people continue in the faith as true believers. I know from testimony of former Mormons that the Mormon church breaks up families and demands or at least encourages divorce if one of the spouses leaves the church. All these things should raise huge red flags for anyone in the Mormon religion or considering it. The apologists I’ve seen online here for the Mormons aren’t clear in their language (denying polytheism yet believing in multiple gods) and sort of hide the ball regarding their beliefs. I don’t think you do that to your credit.
It’s not literature. It’s your relationship with God that is at stake, your soul. Literary merit is irrelevent to that. And as far as literature goes, did Bloom read the 1830 or the 1837 Book of Mormon? Because the 1830 version sure got a lot of verb tenses wrong. Mormons are asked to believe that the spectacles provided by God had poor grammar that had to be cleaned up in a later printing. Thousands of things, from history of the founder and early church, to lack of evidence, to changes in doctrine should lead to the understanding that the Book of Mormon is false.
Stop apologizing and start thinking, please. I’m not the judge but the words of the Bible applied to your situation are pretty grim when it comes to your relationship with God. I don’t know what Mormon’s feel when they believe they’ve been touched by the Holy Spirit. I know that I was touched by the Holy Spirit, and I didn’t pray for it, I didn’t have have someone direct my prayers to a particular book, or any other gimmicks that can be used to pull in a seeker. Three words of scripture on the back of a book cover and I was off, the Spirit came in waves and it lasted for many days, and I was a different man after than before. I was a complete athiest prior and now have no doubt that God exists. I also have not found the red flags in Christianity that I know you have to see in Mormonism. I’ve had the reverse experience. The evidence supports the Bible. Think about how nice it would be to believe in scripture that is supported by evidence and reality.
Finally, at least some decency in your postings. Keep it up if you want to be taken seriously by Mormons such as myself.
1. I admit, for whatever reason, Joseph Smith lied on at least one occasion about his practicing polygyny. There are credible reasons why, and I tend to sympathize with his plight at the time since the practice was viewed with abhorrence by 19th century Christian America (and still is today) despite the Bible on six occasions EXPLICITLY approves of the practice and even has God saying he was the one who gave David his wives. Regardless, polygamy is not the issue (if it was, we win since the Bible NEVER condemns the practice and the Jews were a polygynist society as opposed to the Roman monogamists); Joseph Smith’s fallibility is. Unfortunately for our opponents, the Bible repeatedly describes prophets as fallible, quarrelsome, contradictory, genocidal, and yes, even engaging in false prophecies (Ezekiel re Tyre; Jonah re Nineveh). Many of them also “lied:”
a. Abraham - Gen 12:10 20.
b. Isaac - Gen 26:7.
c. Jacob - Gen 27:19,24,32,35.
d. Jeremiah - Jer 38:24 28.
e. David - 1 Kg 2:8 9.
f. Micaiah - 1 Kg 22:14-15; 2 Chr 18:13-14.
g. Elisha - 2 Kg 6:19; 8:10,14-15.
h. Peter - Matt 26:69 75.
The suicide literalism many use on Deut 18 is utterly devastating to the credibility of biblical prophets.
2. Speaking about Joseph Smith’s so-called “false prophecies” I actually have an entire section devoted to examining every single one and refuting the claim they are false prophecies.
3. Re Jewish Indian heritage in the Book of Mormon. Shortly after my wife died four years ago, I attended a FAIR conference in Utah where I met the man (forgot his name) who started the so-called DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon argument that one now hears all the time among opponents of the church. I asked him and his wife a simple question, “Is there any DNA evidence that the Vikings lived in Newfoundland?” He said not to his knowledge. I then asked him “Does that then prove they never existed despite the demonstrable fact of the Viking presence in Newfoundland?” He couldn’t answer.
Critics face four problems when using DNA arguments against the BoM:
a) The relative size of the surviving BoM people as per overall American population was incredibly SMALL and will inevitably diminish by half with each passing generation due to genetic dilution. This then makes it virtually impossible to locate since we’re looking at a 70-90 fold dilution ratio over 1600 years. It does not matter whether one just focuses on the maternal or paternal genetic markers - it is impossible for the Lamanite survivors to maintain genetic purity without interbreeding with the larger indigenous people of the Americas.
Let me give an example: within the space of just four generations, my current wife’s Negroid ancestor (black skin, black eyes, black kinky hair) has two white, light brown hair, and brown-eyed great grandsons. And that’s only in the space of four generations. How much more severe will be the genetic dilution after 70-90 generations?
b) Science can never prove the historicity of the BoM because its transmission is so different from the Bible. Otherwise, science then proves the existence of God, which destroys our free agency, thus it becomes impossible for archaeology or any other science to prove the BoM true (no space here to elaborate further).
c) We simply do not know where the BoM civilizations took place, only that it occurred somewhere in the 42 million sq km of the Americas. It is foolish to assume we know where.
d) Many Mormons, probably up to a third, disbelieve the historicity of the BoM narrative, accepting its spiritual teachings as Scripture in the same way of the first nine chapters of Genesis. I happen to believe the BoM’s historicity, but admit an awful lot of Mormons do not share my view.
4. Sure the LDS church has changed doctrines over its history - what church hasn’t? However, doctrinal modification is not proof of falsity, given the Mormon belief in whatever is true and whatever is right. We grow, and change as we learn more about God and his will.
5. Re Joseph Smith bragging - while unseemly, strictly speaking, he was correct within the parameters of what he actually said. It’s kinda like me bragging to have lived longer than Jesus - strictly speaking, absolutely correct, but a really cheesy thing to do.
6. Clear contradiction of Scripture with LDS doctrine? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I know what I’m talking about. I remember an article I wrote for the FAIR magazine where I nailed the Tanners (called “Tanner Worship and Real Scholarship” - Google it) on their work (it was a refutation of James Juris and another’s hit piece). The MOST you can say is our interpretation differs on specific biblical passages - I’m giving you fair warning - don’t go there, you’ll regret it.
7. Well, we do not believe in the dictation theory of Scripture, so all your criticisms of the BoM’s grammar are irrelevant.
8. Gotta go to bed - I’ve done my apologetics quota for this year - good luck and I wish you the best.
Hey, you’re the one who made the claim that all the idol-gods mentioned in the Bible are real gods.
BTW, what’s Dagon say for today? Rain or no?
1 Timothy 3:2
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire 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 awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower 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 alying 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, bmother 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.”
HOSTILE?
HERE's hostility!!
You simply cannot be that shallow.
Hmmm ... perhaps you are.
One thing REAL biblical scholars are united on, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or LDS is the Bible is not a monotheistic canon but a monotheising canon - it’s earliest portions show a henotheistic worldview. This is why the Divine Council, with Elohim/YHWH leading the council of the Gods is so prevalent and why I provided a ton of proof in my references:
The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:249-252; 835; 2:214-217; 3:238,302; 4:43,922,1004-1010; 5:986; 6:129,156-157,510-511; The Triumph of Elohim (Edelman) pp.28 f.2, 30-31,36-38,40-43,60-63,65,71,80,91; The Early History of God (Smith) pp. 9-10,26,101,114 e#138,165; The New Interpreter’s Bible 1:272-274; 4:347,792,1006-1007,1035, 1093; The Illustrated Bible Dictionary p. 1474; The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Layman) pp. 285,263,279; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1:254,258,282; 5:519-520; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 8:347-349; The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Achtemeier) pp. 276,1054; The Jerome Biblical Commentary 2:20 (1); 6:74 (8); 16:17 (8); 22:9 (A); 35:26 (6), 46 (1), 74 (Pref-2), 98 (Pref-2,6-7); Dictionary of the Bible (Ed. James Hastings. Rev. Edition by Frederick C. Grant and H. H. Rowley) pp. 32,134,334; A History of God (Armstrong) pp. 50-51; Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mills) pp. 176-177, 581,845; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis 1:375-376; The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Job. Intro 8; 1:6-12,20; 34:1; Ps 82:1; Dictionary of the Bible (MacKenzie) pp. 30, 316, 830; A New Standard Bible Dictionary pp. 46-47; The Religious Background of the Bible (Schofield). p. 181; The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Myers) p. 55; The New Layman’s Bible Commentary. In One Volume pp. 308, 618, 659; The New Bible Dictionary (Douglas) p. 1206; Judaism and Christian Beginnings (Sandmel) pp. 169, 171, 173.
Could all these biblical scholars, not one LDS, be wrong? Don’t you recognize ANY of them? Think you know more about the Bible than all of them put together? They ALL say the same thing - the earliest portions of the Bible taught the Divine Council, with God ruling over other Gods.
When I wrote my book on Mormonism, fully 98% of all my references were from non-LDS scholars. No one could then accuse me of relying upon “faulty” LDS scholarship. REAL biblical scholars agree for the most part on the LDS interpretation of Scripture - it is you fundies who diverge from the conclusions of your own biblical scholars. No wonder they have such disdain for you.
I am always amazed at the smugness of anti-Mormons - you get a little knowledge of the Bible and suddenly you’re experts and unteachable. And yet it is us Mormons who are out to lunch ... the sheer arrogance ...
The Celestial Kingdom is higher and different - it is also a place of eternal bliss but it is a place that allows eternal progression. Those eligible to be exalted develop, grow, and metamorphoses into replicas of the exalted Christ. They receive both the blessings of divinity as well as the responsibility that goes with it. To say nothing about the pain of seeing one’s spirit children rebel and suffer as well as the fecund joy when they succeed and are happy themselves.
Lookit, if you don’t want to be exalted, who’s forcing you? You don’t have to join the Mormon church in order to be saved and go to heaven. Stay where you are, have faith in Christ and live righteously. You will be judged and be blessed with eternal bliss in heaven. Why get upset just because we call this heaven the Terrestrial Kingdom and believe in the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation?
As for those who refuse to accept Christ but live righteously, they will also go to a heaven, but the Telestial Kingdom, a lower heaven where they will not associate with Christ.
I do wish you would make up your mind!
??? Another display of a shallow understanding of the Scriptures.
Might I suggest you find out who Timothy was, what he was doing, where he was, the laws of Rome concerning marriage, the Jewish exception to Roman marital laws, the perception of what Christianity was during Paul’s time, and the mindset of the Roman Gentile converts concerning marriage after conversion.
Then and only then can you come to the correct conclusion of what Paul was talking about. Might I suggest you actually use a reputable Bible Commentary?
A is true because of B
B is true because of A
Oh Great Won! You mean like THIS??
BoM is true because of Burning in my bosom
Burning in my bosom is telling me the 'truth' because the BoM says God is answering my prayers
You are welcome, O Great Apologist!
To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
Unless; of course; as it does NOT come from ANY anti-site or them demon possessed Tanners!
--MormonDude
Two different things my dear Elsie as my post made clear without you selectively editing it to make it appear I’m contradicting myself:
“Anyone who professes faith in Christ and lives in accordance with his wishes has salvation - he or she will go to heaven. However, those who want to receive the fullness of God’s blessings, which confers divine sonship by Grace (i.e., exaltation, becoming Gods), will need to join his church, receive all the necessary ordinances, and maintain faithfulness until the end. These select few move on to the next stage of evolution so to speak.
Everyone will have a chance to be exalted. There are untold millions of the righteous who will refuse, and prefer to stay where they are, enjoying companionship with Christ in heaven (what we call the Terrestial Kingdom). Whatever you consider heaven to be - the most wonderful place imaginable - that’s the Terrestrial Kingdom. A place of eternal bliss.”
- oh, and I do APPRECIATE your contribution to rational discourse. It’s nice to see you’re trying - keep it up!
The first is in reference to righteous CHRISTIANS, who ALREADY have faith in Christ but who refuse to join the true church (ahem, ours not yours). They will go to the Terrestial Kingdom and enjoy companionship with Christ.
The second group are righteous NONCHRISTIANS who refuse to accept Christ as their Savior.
Comprende? Probably not ... sigh ... oh Elsie!
No; he's re-defined 'circular logic' so YOUR argument is just so silly - or else...
You claimed that the Bible teaches polytheism, while I showed that the whole point is to drive one away from those false idols and towards the One True God.
By insisting that the Bible teaches polytheism, you must also give legitimacy to all those idols.
How's Ba'al doing, anyway?
"smugness" "sheer arrogance"
Oh? Let's review some of your statements, shall we?
"You simply cannot be that shallow. Hmmm ... perhaps you are."
"I’m giving you fair warning - don’t go there, you’ll regret it."
"My conclusion is in accord with his - simply unrivaled."
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.