Joseph Smith: Creator of the Fourth Abrahamic Faith; Mormonism

Auhtor's website ^ | September 15, 2007 | G. Richard Jansen

[MHGinTN]

Reading many of your posts is like walking in the on the middle of a Bible Study class. :- )

[Resolute Conservative]

That is the one I was looking for when I posted from Galatians.

[Resolute Conservative]

It is like when you read “John the disciple Jesus loved”. Is that to say he did not love any of the others? Who knows if the 12 actually had a leader other than Christ.

[restornu]

You are not to post me please remove!

[greyfoxx39]

Ya' got yer orders from the

[Syncro]

Be mystified no mre!

I hope you didn't leave a comma out: Be mystified, no mre!

I've never had one, but I am hungry.

Oh, and thanks for the info

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hee hee! Yes, Peter was like the kid with is hand waving, that's for sure! Impetuous, sometimes inspired by the Father in Heaven and sometimes jumping to his own half-baked conclusions--- that's one reason I think Jesus has a sense of humor, calling him "Rock" when, by certain aspects of his character, Jesus could have called him "Sandy" or "Clod"!

Here's a real good overview of the Scriptures we're discussing.

By the way, #20 and #21 list some excellent resources for you. And on the difference between "sur" (God as rock) and "kepha" (the name Jesus gave to Simon Bar-Jonah), this one is fascinating..

God bless you.

[broncobilly]

Why would you ‘assume’ that they are?
Do you have any knowledge of their beliefs?

---

It has been so many years since I did any reading about them, I had to go to their official web site to answer your question. This is what I found (assuming I understood them correctly):
They believe Jesus existed before he was born as a Spirit Son of God and was called Michael the Archangel. That Spirit was transferred to the womb of Mary and was born as Jesus. Thus Jesus was divine and had no earthly father. He was literally the Son of God. Jesus was “anointed” to save mankind, and thus was the “Christ,” which in Greek means the anointed one. Jesus died on the cross to “pay the ransom” and save all who would believe on him. They believe that they are trying to be followers of this Jesus Christ.

On the basis of all that, if they want to call themselves Christian, I would call them Christian.

However, they believe the Father and Jesus Christ are separate personages. And they do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, the Nicene Creed. On the basis of this, I suspect the same people who claim the Mormons are not Christian will call the JWs not Christian.

That is my present take on the matter. If I have distorted the JW position, I am open to correction.

[x_plus_one]

Thou shalt not kill isn’t in their vocabulary apparently. And by the looks of things, thou shall not covet is out the window too. If they took the ten commandments seriously, they wouldn’t be suicidal perverts waiting to behead the next infidel for Allah and Muhammed’s tome, the Koran.

[TheDon]

LOL! Well, I recognize a rhetorical question when I see it. :-)

[broncobilly]

Thinking about what I wrote, I think I should make one correction. I don’t think the JWs would use the word “divine” with respect to Christ. Christ would be the Son of God in a very literal sense, he would represent the Father, be the Father’s tool in carrying out the wishes of the Father. He died for mankind. He is our Savior. He now stands at the right hand of the Father. But I think the JWs would use the word divine as describing the essence of God the Father only. I may be wrong.

[Colofornian]

I said: Good point, MHG. Most LDS totally skip over John 5:29: And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

You, 7, responded with: Oh really? Then please explain why we teach thus (and proceeded to cite Mosiah 16:10-13 & 3 Nephi 26:4-5).

Then your conclusion was: So either you are not aware of our teachings and misspoke, or intentionally misled with that post. I would like to think it is the former...

I find this absolutely humorous on numerous veins!!!

(1) First, you might want to inform DelphiUser that there's quite a few parallel passages between the Gospels and the BoM; it seemed to be under the impression that wasn't the case.

(2) I found it ironic that you cite 3 Nephi! Somehow, you've come to the false understanding that what is revealed in the BoM = automatic "teachings" by LDS General Authorities. (I'm sorry to break the news to you...I could go on & on about how that's not the case. But suffice it for now, allow me to point out a few examples...using 3 Nephi, of course).

Please review this passage from 3 Nephi 19 and then tell me what OBVIOUS "revelation" here has YET to be imported into LDS "teachings" (Here, I'll make it VERY EASY for you by highlighting what I mean):

"...he..commanded them that they should kneel down...that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth....he commanded his disciples that they should pray. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray UNTO Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God...Father...they believe in me...and they pray UNTO ME...he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray UNTO HIM...And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray UNTO HIM; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them...And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray...And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, UNTO HIM; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus." (3 Nephi 19:16-18,22,24-26, 30)

For those reading this who don't yet understand the implications of the above...well LDS general authorities teach that you don't pray directly to Jesus...You pray directly to Heavenly Father (in Jesus' name). So the LDS Jesus is only an LDS conduit, NOT a recipient of DIRECT prayer.

So the big irony hear is that 7bak jumps all over my case for saying that LDS gloss over John 5:29 (and probably they gloss over 3 Nephi 26:4-5 equally as much!!!) just because this same concept is found in 3 Nephi 26. But direct prayer to Jesus is found in 3 Nephi 19...but that, too, is glossed over by LDS!!!

[I think I could teach an entire class of: Book of Mormon passages glossed right over by Mormons]

(3) Final example (for now): 7bak thinks that just because it's in the BoM it automatically = LDS teachings, and we're all supposed to know that LDS don't gloss over their own teachings. Therefore, according to him, I misspeak--either I'm an intentional misleader or I'm ignorant, and he thinks I'm the latter.

Well, I've copied JoshM99 for a very specific purpose. I want to reference 4 of his phrases from this thread. I want to do so because I want you to see the "evolution" of his theology about directly worshipping Jesus.

In post 199, he says: Further, for the record, the LDS doctrine is that one worships God the Father, through his Son, Jesus Christ, and no one else...

Conclusion? Only direct worship of God the Father and indirect worship of Jesus allowed (like their concept of prayer)

In post 299, he says: LDS doctrine does not teach to worship Jesus Christ...

Conclusion? Nope, NO worship of Jesus Christ!

In post 329, he says: I will only add that in worshiping Christ, it is not in alternative of worshiping His Father. The focus is still on God the Father...

Conclusion? Well, now that if you've pointed out passages about directly worshipping Christ can be found in 3 Nephi (11:17; 17:10; along with 4 Nephi 4:37 & 2 Nephi 25:29), well, OK, I guess we can worship Christ...just so long as it doesn't dilute our worship of the Father, whose the main focus.

In post 361, he says: ...yes, in worshiping God and Jesus, who is God’s son, you can say the LDS worship more than one god...

So, note the "evolution" of beliefs: JoshM has gone from worshipping the Father thru Jesus--and no ONE else...(LDS keep telling us that Jesus is a different ONE than the Father)...(monotheism) to "Yup we worship BOTH gods!" (polytheism)

But, beyond that, to get back to why this goes HERE in my response: JoshM99 is a "perfect" illustration to my point. Apparently, there are indeed many LDS who gloss over passages like 3 Nephi 11:17; 17:10; 4 Nephi 4:37; 2 Nephi 25:29 about directly worshipping Christ. If I point to Heb. 1:6 about directly worshipping Christ, and then say LDS gloss over it, it won't help Sevenbak to cite these above BoM passages and say I misspeak and mislead 'cause I'm ignorant...'cause frankly MANY, MANY LDS are in the dark about DIRECTLY worshipping and praying to Jesus!!!

[Domandred]

I have some simple questions that a yes or no answer to would be much appreciated. Just yes or no please.

Some of these can't be answered properly with a simple yes or no question, but I'll try to.

Do mormons believe the following...

Jesus was married

No.

From an LDS Church spokesman shortly before the release of the movie The Da Vinci Code, but after the book. Many members and non-members alike were asking about this because of the popularity of the book.

“The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine.”

Note also that some LDS Church members are not the only people that have had that opinion.

Me personally as LDS? I do not believe that he was, but I also think that it may have been possible for various reasons, just not important enough for it to be included in any writings.

Jesus and Satan are brothers

No, not in the way you are asking the question.

LDS belief is that we are ALL spirit brothers and sisters so by that it includes Christ, Lucifer, you, me, everyone. This is very much a Biblical concept.

With some research you will find that many Christian Scholars also had the same view that in spirit ALL are Children of God thus by that plainly stated Christ and Lucifer are considered brothers in this sense.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Begotten Son of God however. In earthly terms Jesus and Lucifer are not brothers the same as you and I are not, nor am I Christ's brother.

God was married to Mary and Jesus was concieved through sexual intercourse between them

No.

In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife

To be completely honest I don't know how to answer this one.

Lets take earthly polygamy off the table completely first of all as the LDS Church now condemns polygamy. Even in nations that polygamy is legal it is still an ex-communicatable offense in the LDS Church.

That being said, it is true that the LDS church believes marriage in the temple is eternal. After death a man and wife will be rejoined in heaven. But what happens if a man and woman are married in the temple and the woman dies later. The man gets remarried in the temple. Are both marriages eternal or does the second or first cancel out the other?

What happens if the man dies and the woman remarries. Does that mean that the woman will have *gasp* two husbands?

This is a quandry that even if the whole polygamy thing didn't happen to taint the issue one wrestles with.

What it comes down to basically in my thought is whatever. It's after we're dead so it really doesn't matter here now does it. That's a question I'll be sure to ask after I die. Either way it won't effect me personally as even if my wife dies before me I won't get remarried.

The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere

Yes

Don't have much else to say about that other then it is possible. Given that the Great Flood covered all of the Earth the Garden of Eden could have been anywhere on Earth (except the frozen poles) and still compatible with the Bible. But just because it's Mormon doctrine it has to be wrong.

Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow

Now that's just silly. No. I don't even know where that one came from.

Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters

No.

This thought comes from the policy (not doctrine) that LDS Missionaries can't go swimming. This is to prevent accidents and liability.

The sun receives its light from the star Kolob

No. The sun receives its light from the energy released due to the fusion of hydrogen...or was it fission of helium. Blast I can't remember from my Astronomy class.

You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand

Color of hair? No.

Hand shake? Yes. D&C 129. It's quite a short chapter and is part of our scripture canon.

[TheDon]

Thanks for the references. I look forward to learning more about the Catholic beliefs regarding the early church. Catholics and Mormons share a belief that a formal church was established by Jesus Christ and Peter was the leader of that church under Jesus Christ. Of course, we do differ in beliefs regarding what happened after Peter.

There are Christians that do not believe a formal church was established by Jesus Christ. While the New Testament is not a history book and does not contain all that the Savior said and did, nor much of what the Apostles did after the Ascension, it contains plenty of evidence that a church was established.

[Resolute Conservative]

Can you answer the questions inpost #521 yes or no?

[Resolute Conservative]

I thought not.

[Colofornian]

Have you noticed how Mormonism Apologists like to quote the BofM when it fits what they want to argue for, but seem to fall dumb and deaf when the topic of polygamy instituted by their false prophet in contradiction to the BofM?

See my post #592. In there, I clearly point out that when it's convenient for the apologists, BoM passages = "teachings." But when it's other theological issues, like whether to directly worship or pray to Christ, well, those BoM passages are "glossed over."

And then of course all kinds of other BoM passages that got left in the revelational dustbin after being overtaken by the D&C are likewise downplayed or ignored.

[Old Mountain man]

Actually, they were answered quite clearly. Why do you fail to understand the answers?

[Elsie]

I have long realized that MY opinions were worth just about nothing.

I’ll let the Word do the talking.

If someone thinks I take things out of context, they can post MORE of the Word around the stuff I’ve posted, to show my error.

If the Word needs to be ‘explianed’ too much, just why would we even need it?

[Old Mountain man]

You should at least recommend the KJV since there seems to be great disagreement in the protest churches as to the veracity of the NIV.