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.
Cisco is just south of I-70, ABOUT 20-30 miles west of the UT/CO border.
It’s on UT-128, a scenic byway that goes along the Co river into Moab.
It used to be a water stop for trains when they had boilers. It got pumped up from the CO river about 5 miles away. That area is now a BLM rafting in/out point. (The float from Grand Junction to there is easy! I have pictures of folks who were carrying a PLAYPEN for their baby on a raft!)
I hear it gets a bit fun from there down to Dewey; the juntion with the Delores.
When diesel engines came in, Cisco became a maintenance area, and when I-70 bypassed it, it dried up and almost blew away!
Bluff (On the San Juan) was pretty far gone before Clinton signed the Escalante act. It’s now perked up nicely. I recommend the Navajo burger at the Twin Rocks Cafe.
Please don't start quoting Patrick Macnee's monolgue opening to Battlestar Galactica.
I believe in Jesus Christ and worship him as the Son of God. I believe He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no man will come unto the Father except by Him. I profess him as my Savior and Redeemer and strive to follow His teachings.
Based upon the foregoing, it would not be accurate to describe me as “anti-christ” since I am not “opposed” to Christ, but rather a follower of Him.
Best wishes.
Especially mine, for I use a lot of standard LDS output.
I join CC in distaste of the "anti' label...I much prefer "Opposition poster" or "opponents". We are not "anti" mormon (as in all mormons), but opposed to the teachings of mormonism. I guess you COULD say, though, that in the case of the coming election, I AM anti-Romney.
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,”
I know that the LDS church takes a very strong stance against anyone questioning the theology, and Featherstone is not alone in his condemnation.
I'm quite sure you would all scream if we DID start using the "anti Christian" label. Remember there was some trepidation about our even using the neutral "apologist" term.
Then your god could have died.
Mine can't and never was any danger of doing so.
I know that. I said I could call you anti-christ as a nickname for “one who is opposed to orthodox christianity” .....sheesh!
Next you’ll want to tell me you’re not opposed to orthodox Christianity. Just to stop you in your tracks I want you to consider this......
.....If you aren’t opposed to orthodox or mainstream Christianity, then why do your missionaries try so hard to convert us away from it?
Using that logic then...
Opponents of the Orthodox Christian Church are called “anti-Christians” because, that is an accurate description. According to the dictionary, “anti” is an adjective meaning “opposed.” You are “opposed,” to the 'other' Christian Churchs, aren’t you?
Therefore being Anti-Christ would fit quite well; wouldn't it??
Spellcheck would NOT have found that you spelled CLOWNS wrong!
Which trail is that that zigzags up the slot?
(or down, if you go the other way!)
Pretty area, and pretty people!
We parked at Looking Glass Rock and basically followed the drainage down. I had a handheld GPS that I used to backttrack a shorter route.
My digital camera LOST all my pictures on that trek!
I guess it would have been a bit longer getting back if the GPS had crapped out too!
Welll...that's a hard question to answer...in the cones from the PINION tree here, there little hard-shelled seeds that are delicious when eaten roasted, although I have eaten them raw. These are sold OTC here as "pinion nuts" but, and don't hold me to this, I think I have seen the same seeds called "pine nuts". The nuts from the tall pines I recall are not good.
The danger in sitting by the fire eating a handful of pinion nuts in the shell is, there sometimes have been sheep in the area and you might bite into a nut that isn't a "nut"...YUK!
From Wikipedia; In United States and Mexico, the main species are three of the pinyon pines: Colorado Pinyon (Pinus edulis), Single-leaf Pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and Mexican Pinyon (Pinus cembroides). The other eight pinyon species are used to a small extent, as are Gray Pine (Pinus sabineana), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) and Sugar Pine (Pinus lambertiana). In the United States, pine nuts are mainly harvested by Native American tribes; in many areas, they have exclusive rights to the harvest.
"We used to spread sheets under the trees and shake the trees to get the cones to drop down. The Natives didn't have rights to the harvest in our area."
Did they say they'd just had a phone call from the Romney campaign? ;)
I am “opposed” to certain tenets of orthodox Christianity. To that extent, I could accurately be described as “anti-orthodox.” Trying to be inflammatory by suggesting that members of the LDS Church could be referred to by the “nickname” of “anti-christ” is disgusting.
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.