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.
You posted this just so I could make fun of your intelligent conversation didn't you? Otherwise you would have kept it hidded....LOL
You would be surprised what lurkers think of our conversations. I have steered many away from Mormonism and its spurious claims. I've even had some PM me and tell me what a nasty piece of work you are....I try to correct them, and tell them you are just deluded and believe a lie.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Many Christians equate the use of the “anti” word by Mormons to be inflammatory and derrogatory much like the “n” word is to African Americans. http://blog.mrm.org/
It is definitely a way of denigrating anything that someone who is opposed to Mormonism has to say. I wish you could see a way to make them stop using it, but I’m sure you won’t since it probably doesn’t have the heightened slur to you as it has to us that are ex-Mormons. I suppose you wouldn’t understand.
Again, I am just trying to point out that quite often these defenders of Mormonism are using an inflammatory word that is quite offensive and yet it slips by your radar without your knowing.
I do not consider the term "anti" to be "making it personal" unless the poster is attributing motives which have not been declared by the Freeper targeted by the claim.
For instance, "your anti-atheist position..." may not be making it personal, if you have made it clear that you are against atheism.
On the other hand, if someone is attributing motives to you - and not merely summing up your position - let them know and ping me because that would be "making it personal."
In 1985, Vaughn J. Featherstone, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church addressed students at the Church-owned Brigham Young University, calling anti-Mormon material “theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit,” stating that “none of it is worth casting an eye upon. Do not read the anti-Mormon materials. Featherstone, Vaughn J. (1985). The Last Drop in the Chalice (PHP). Speeches.BYU.edu. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
Cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormon
So in other words when we are called “Anti-Mormons,” they are accusing us of theological pornography.
I can park in the garage and call myself a car all day long, it doens't make me a car.
If you haven't noticed, you can be all things to all people on the internet. You could even be delphi User and Edward Watson at the same time, all the while being Tommy Monson in real life.
By the way, I consulted with the most famous "anti" mormons (as you call them)that I personally know and they've never heard of an LDS apologist named Edward Watson. Also, just so you recognize this fact, neither Edward's posts nor your's are considered doctrinal by the LDS Church. Your opinions are just that - opinions, and you know what they say about opinions?
Oops, I meant to ping edward to post 789.
See, that didn't hurt did it?
BTW, civil discussions work both ways...just a little tip from a "fruity""mormon assaulter". ;)
Heck DU...by this post you appear to be Restoru.
ROFLOL!!
Interesting position.
Opponents of the pro-life position are described by me as “pro-abortion” because I think that is an accurate description. I don’t view it as a pejorative description. Those who support abortion object to such description and demand that they be described as “pro-choice” and their opponents as “anti-choice.” Regrettably, the mainstream media has, largely, accomodated their demands.
Opponents of the Mormon Church are called “anti-Mormons” because, that is an accurate description. According to the dictionary, “anti” is an adjective meaning “opposed.” You are “opposed,” to the Mormon Church, aren’t you? There is nothing pejorative about the expression; rather, it is an accurate description.
Okay, then it is okay for me to call you anti-Christian orthodoxy....or anti-christ for short?
Wrong. Show me one place where the Bible speaks of a false god while using the capital 'G' to designate the real God.
The Bible speaks of only one God; that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
On the other hand are all the false gods which you and Ed seem so eager to grasp: Nisroch, Nergal, Ashima, Succoth-benoth, Nibhaz, Tartak, etc.
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.