Mormons

[Aaron11]

Also it talks about someone chopping someone else's head off with a steel sword WAY before Christ came. Funny that steel was not invented for hundreds of years later.

 

[Aaron11]

Joseph Smith was tricked by some gentleman who had fake plates. Some people buried these plates on their property and had JS come find and "translate" these plates. He translated them and said they were from ancient times. He claimed that they were divinely inspired scripture. Then he was shown to be a fraud when the men told everyone of their trick. These plates are called the Kinderhook plates.

 

[Aaron11]

Then there is the Book of Abraham. The B of A was "translated" by Joseph Smith from Egyptian papyri. These documents were not able to be decoded in the 19th century because Egyptian had not yet been understood. Once the Rosetta stone was found, and a whole bunch of other artifacts, linguistic specialists broke the code of the Egyptian language. When they translated the papyri documents that Joseph Smith claimed to translate, they found them to be completely different than what JS had said. They turned out to be the recording of a burial ritual for Egyptians. No where in the text does JS's version and the experts line up. Fishy.

 

[Aaron11]

Blood atonement is the doctorine that says that some sins are only forgiven when the offender's blood is spilled on the ground. The early Mormons held this doctorine sacred.

 

[Aaron11]

Until a few decades ago, blacks were not allowed in the Mormon priesthood.

 

[Aaron11]

Polygamy was required to enter the Celestial Kingdom in the early Mormon church. This doctorine prevailed until pressure from the US government caused the Mormon prophet at the time to say that he had a revelation that polygamy was now sinful for Mormons.

 

[Aaron11]

The Book of Mormon talks about horses and elephants being in North America. Horses weren't introduced until hundreds and hundreds of years later. No need to go further on the elephants.

 

[Aaron11]

Huge civilizations were supposed to have lived in North America according to the Book of Mormon. No archeological evidence supports the claims.

 

[Aaron11]

I know the secret handshake to get into heaven.

 

[Aaron11]

Brigham Young said that there was a civilization of quaker-dressing people that were about half the height of earthlings on the moon.

 

[Aaron11]

Joseph Smith was a fake.

 

[baker]

Alma,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I'm discussing similar issues with a poster in a different thread.

It’s important to recognize that it wasn’t the “churches” that were called an abomination, it was the “creeds.” Joseph Smith said, “the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” I’m kind of a stickler for looking at what the language specifically says rather than generalizations that might be drawn from it.

Technically, I agree, but aren't we sorta splitting hairs a bit. A creed is really just the authoritative formula or fundamental beliefs of each church. Would you consider what you refer to as your "standard works" the the authority for your doctrines and beliefs or would one go elswhere for your official doctrines? So I don't follow your reasoning by drawing distinction between a creed and church here unless you belive that, by way of example, the baptist "creed" where J. Smith received this vision was different from the baptist church's creed say 200 miles away.

Also, like you, I'd rather look at what the language specifically says rather than make generalizations and I can't find anywhere in the language depicting this first vision where it confines it to a local or regional level. I mean doesn't it make more sense that Smiths god was more a universal figure and would give counsel on a much greater level than just for the local community? Does this make sense to you?

Because of the above, I think my original question is still valid and can't see how you conclude that it was just a local issue.

He doesn’t know if they’re answered truthfully and I don’t believe that the existence of the questions is for the bishop to determine a person’s ability to attend the temple as much as it is an opportunity for the individual to examine his own life and declare that he meets the minimum standard. In several years as someone who issued recommends, I never had someone come that I had to say, “Nope, you don’t pass.” The members of the congregation know what is expected and if they know they’re not living the standards, they opt not to ask for a recommend. The questions have varied over the years. Currently, they’re asked if they are honest with their fellow man, live chaste lives, abstain from alcohol, tobacco and other addictive substances. I think you could probably find the specific questions somewhere on the internet.

Perhaps this is what I find so interesting about your answer. On one hand you say that behavior is more important than the beliefs itself, but on the other hand you say this interview gives members a chance to examine their own life to see if they meet the standards, presumably for their worthiness into the temple. If one doesn't believe in Smith as a prophet, but exhibits all the required "behaviors" because he wants to see his child get married, he would still be considered worthy?

There is LDS scripture, but if you’re wondering about biblical support, I’d say that the 15th chapter of Acts tells us that the Apostles made certain stipulations for Christians including abstaining from fornication and pollutions from idols. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to conclude that Christians were asked about those things.

It wouldn’t at all. But that isn’t the reason for limiting the access. It’s an extension of the fact that to attend a temple wedding, you have to be eligible to attend the temple. It is exclusionary but not without biblical support. Jesus occasionally took only his apostles for specific teaching and sometimes excluded all but a few of the apostles. The vision on the mount of Moses and Elias took place when Jesus only invited Peter, James and John.

Sorry, I don't think my question was very clear here. What I wanted to find out was if you thought there was any scriptural support for your concept of temple/eternal marriage and if there is any support for God requiring marriage as a condition to his greatest glory. Here again, like you, I'm looking for specific language and not try and make any generalizations. Where did Christ teach that one had to be married in a temple or had to be married at all to receive His greatest level of blessings. I have not found any biblical scripture to support the requirement of marriage or the historic evidence that marriages were a common temple practice. I can find, however, several scriptures clearly demonstrating that marriage was not required or even existing in "His" world. Would these requirements be found in your book of mormon?

Finally, would it be fair to say that you believe the ordiance of marriage is more sacred than baptism? I was told that anyone can attend a baptism in your church but not a temple wedding. This seems to be just the opposite from the importance we learn from biblical scriptures. What do you think?

Again, thanks for your input.

 

[Alma]

Technically, I agree, but aren't we sorta splitting hairs a bit. A creed is really just the authoritative formula or fundamental beliefs of each church. Would you consider what you refer to as your "standard works" the authority for your doctrines and beliefs or would one go elsewhere for your official doctrines?

Since most of our critics do go elsewhere, I think you have illustrated an interesting concept. I don't think I'm splitting hairs at all. Why would each church (especially a church that claims to believe in “sola scriptura”) need a formula beyond scripture?

Several years ago, I was told that I could not be considered a Christian unless I also agreed to accept the Nicene creed. I wondered then and I still wonder today, how is it that men could become Christians 400 years before the Nicene creed ever existed, but now, I cannot become a Christian unless I subscribe to it?

So I don't follow your reasoning by drawing distinction between a creed and church here unless you believe that, by way of example, the baptist "creed" where J. Smith received this vision was different from the baptist church's creed say 200 miles away.

There was a group of Baptists only 100 miles away that rejected all creeds except the scriptures. Now, I don't believe that Joseph Smith would have been told by God to join that group of Baptists; but I do believe that they were not included in God's condemnation of churches with "abominable creeds."

Also, like you, I'd rather look at what the language specifically says rather than make generalizations and I can't find anywhere in the language depicting this first vision where it confines it to a local or regional level. I mean doesn't it make more sense that Smiths god was more a universal figure and would give counsel on a much greater level than just for the local community? Does this make sense to you?

Yes it does; but I think you are still confounding two issues: 1) the fact that Joseph Smith was not to join any church (anywhere in the world), and 2) that God's condemnation could have applied specifically only to those ministers with whom Joseph was familiar rather than applying to all Christian churches everywhere.

Because of the above, I think my original question is still valid and can't see how you conclude that it was just a local issue.

You asked a complex question and I don’t believe that it can legitimately be answered without addressing it completely. I believe that Mormons do believe that the requirement to subscribe to a creed is an abomination and that some leaders are corrupt; but certainly not all.

Perhaps this is what I find so interesting about your answer. On one hand you say that behavior is more important than the beliefs itself, but on the other hand you say this interview gives members a chance to examine their own life to see if they meet the standards, presumably for their worthiness into the temple.

I don’t see how that equates to more than one hand. The idea that behavior is more important than belief and that people should examine their lives to see that their behavior is consistent with Christian conduct seems to me to fit on one hand.

If one doesn't believe in Smith as a prophet, but exhibits all the required "behaviors" because he wants to see his child get married, he would still be considered worthy?

Yes, but it’s still more involved than that. A couple of my children are worthy but not eligible to attend a temple wedding.

What I wanted to find out was if you thought there was any scriptural support for your concept of temple/eternal marriage and if there is any support for God requiring marriage as a condition to his greatest glory. Here again, like you, I'm looking for specific language and not try and make any generalizations. Where did Christ teach that one had to be married in a temple or had to be married at all to receive His greatest level of blessings. I have not found any biblical scripture to support the requirement of marriage or the historic evidence that marriages were a common temple practice. I can find, however, several scriptures clearly demonstrating that marriage was not required or even existing in "His" world. Would these requirements be found in your book of mormon?

Probably the easiest answer is that we don’t believe that everything Jesus taught was recorded in the Bible, but that what we do believe is consistent with what’s found in the Bible. The teaching about the necessity to enter into eternal marriage is found in the book “Doctrine and Covenants.” A couple of biblical passages that come to mind on this subject, however, are: “It is not good for man to be alone,” and, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Finally, would it be fair to say that you believe the ordinance of marriage is more sacred than baptism? I was told that anyone can attend a baptism in your church but not a temple wedding. This seems to be just the opposite from the importance we learn from biblical scriptures. What do you think?

Nope, I don’t believe that there is a scale of sacredness in ordinances. We also perform baptisms in the temple, but those aren’t open to everyone either.

Again, thanks for your input.

My pleasure.

Alma

 

[explorerofmind]

Baker,

I think getting married would make me more happy than getting splashed in the face by water.

Mabe the idea isn't that far off.

Oh, I believe there is a scripture that says "niether is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the lord" Isn't that what most christians going for? to be in the lord.

The refference is 1 cor. 11:11

 

[explorerofmind]

Oh, I'm sorry someone already quoted the scripture I posted.

Teaches me about not reading everything.

 

[baker]

Since most of our critics do go elsewhere, I think you have illustrated an interesting concept. I don't think I'm splitting hairs at all. Why would each church (especially a church that claims to believe in “sola scriptura”) need a formula beyond scripture?

I was really trying to keep it pretty simple and straight-forward. Since the word "creed" is what you wanted to clarify, could you provide me what your definiton of "creed" is and a source for it. I am beginning to find out through another mormon poster on a different thread, that it's probably better to make sure we understand what we each define terms as. Here is what I use to define creed:

Main Entry: creed
Pronunciation: 'krEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti
Date: before 12th century
1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

Is this ok with you?

Do you think this definition is applicable to what was meant by the term creed in your first vision? And so I understand, are your standard works where one should go to identify the authorized fundamental beliefs of your religion. I've seen a lot of mormon posters here get defensive if people make statements that are not in their official doctrine. I thought that this is where the mormon's keep their "authorized" or official beliefs.Is this where one go to determine your creeds (ie, your authority for your fundamental beliefs). I just want to make sure I know where you are coming from.

Several years ago, I was told that I could not be considered a Christian unless I also agreed to accept the Nicene creed. I wondered then and I still wonder today, how is it that men could become Christians 400 years before the Nicene creed ever existed, but now, I cannot become a Christian unless I subscribe to it?

I don't know. This sounds like a rather personal experience that you need to answer/decide for yourself doesn''t it?

There was a group of Baptists only 100 miles away that rejected all creeds except the scriptures. Now, I don't believe that Joseph Smith would have been told by God to join that group of Baptists; but I do believe that they were not included in God's condemnation of churches with "abominable creeds."

Interesting. Would you have a source for this information, I'd love to learn more about who and where this baptist group was and how they were different from those in Smiths community.

But could you also give me the specifics in this first vision of how you determine what groups/creeds were included and what ones were excluded. How did you determine what the geographic radius (in miles/distance) was that god was using? When I read this first vision from the lds website, I can't see any of this distinction you refer to. Perhaps you could refer me to the exact part of the vision.

Yes it does; but I think you are still confounding two issues: 1) the fact that Joseph Smith was not to join any church (anywhere in the world), and 2) that God's condemnation could have applied specifically only to those ministers with whom Joseph was familiar rather than applying to all Christian churches everywhere.

Again, without trying to generalize what is in this first vision statement, I cannot find anything that tells me it was only a local issue. Based on how you conclude, it would be as if one had to assume that Smith's god was limited in geography. But if what you say is true, why do you have this as part of your beliefs today. If I asked an official in your church about this vision, would they say it still only applies to some churches in and around Palmyra, New York today?

I'd like to follow up on the comments you made about marriage, but perhaps later. Time is limited, but thanks, as always.

 

[explorerofmind]

It is good to have a reason for believing something. I'm not interested in finding out what this guys beliefs on, what religions have all correct beliefs and what religions have some mistakes, are.

I'm outa here. * leaves thread, mumbling under his breath something about people talking about nonending boring things*

 

[Alma]

I was really trying to keep it pretty simple and straight-forward. Since the word "creed" is what you wanted to clarify, could you provide me what your definition of "creed" is and a source for it. I am beginning to find out through another Mormon poster on a different thread, that it's probably better to make sure we understand what we each define terms as. Here is what I use to define creed:

1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

Is this ok with you?

It’s too vague. My dictionary adds a third definition that I think specifically applies in this circumstance: “3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.”

Do you think this definition is applicable to what was meant by the term creed in your first vision?

Not at all. It is the specific formulas adopted after centuries of debate that rely on extra-biblical terminology and philosophy such as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. I think an excellent comment about creedal Christianity comes from a British theologian named Edwin Hatch. He wrote:

It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers.

The contrast is patent. If any one thinks that it is sufficiently explained by saying that the one is a sermon and the other a creed, it must be pointed out in reply that the question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church introduction.

It is the metaphysical creeds that tend to supplant scripture to which I believe God referred when he said, “all their creeds were an abomination.” The disparity between scripture and these creeds is pointed out in this anonymous re-write of a passage from John:

Jesus said, “Whom do men say that I am?”

And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. Thou art perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching thy Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching thy manhood. Who, although God and man, yet thou art not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”

And Jesus answering, said, “What?”

Alma> There was a group of Baptists only 100 miles away that rejected all creeds except the scriptures. Now, I don't believe that Joseph Smith would have been told by God to join that group of Baptists; but I do believe that they were not included in God's condemnation of churches with "abominable creeds.”

Baker> Interesting. Would you have a source for this information, I'd love to learn more about who and where this baptist group was and how they were different from those in Smiths community.

They were known as “Reformed Baptist Society” under the leadership of Sidney Rigdon – who, along with many of his followers embraced Mormonism once they learned about it. Additionally there were Quakers throughout New England, and they reject all creeds.

But could you also give me the specifics in this first vision of how you determine what groups/creeds were included and what ones were excluded. How did you determine what the geographic radius (in miles/distance) was that God was using?

I think you’re persisting in a misunderstanding that is approaching ludicrous. By simply reading the context of Joseph Smith’s statements it’s more than clear that Joseph Smith expected to find out which of the religious sects in his region of the country he should join:

“… there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. …but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. …I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?”

Look at the words I have bolded: “in the place where we lived…the sects in that region..of all these parties.” Joseph Smith doesn’t provide a map with references for the “region” where he lived, and I think it ludicrous that anyone might think that a 14 year old boy was wondering about the Russian Orthodox Church, or Armenian or Coptic Christianity when he asked “which of all these parties” were right. I think it’s equally ludicrous to postulate that God’s answer that their creeds could possibly have condemned Christians who had no creeds or who had dissociated themselves from others because of their creeds.

When I read this first vision from the lds website, I can't see any of this distinction you refer to. Perhaps you could refer me to the exact part of the vision.

Verses 5 through 20.

Again, without trying to generalize what is in this first vision statement, I cannot find anything that tells me it was only a local issue.

I keep saying that it wasn’t a local issue with regard to which church he should have joined – it’s very clear that they were all wrong; but the condemnation of abominable creeds couldn’t possibly apply to all Christians because all Christians didn’t subscribe to the creeds.

But if what you say is true, why do you have this as part of your beliefs today. If I asked an official in your church about this vision, would they say it still only applies to some churches in and around Palmyra, New York today?

It is part of our beliefs today for the same reason that the account of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus is presumably part of your beliefs today. It’s a historical account.

I would imagine that if you were to ask your question of an “official” in our church that he would probably have a difficult time figuring out just what your question means. Would you think that you could go today to a street called “Straight” in Damascus and find Paul in the house of Judas?

Alma

 

[ByGrace]

Both sides about what?????

He didn't aks for a debate he asked about what the LDS believe. You're trying to show this person what I believe as an LDS. Let the scripture stand on its own and if there is debate about the content, so be it.

TW

Kind of hard to do when the mormon church keeps changing your scripture. over 7000 changes so far to your holy books. Kind of makes finding a final answer to what the church teaches difficult. I am an ex mormon who has gone through the temple and been sealed and worn the black name badge and underwear and can tell you that this church is far from being Christian and will not lead you to Salvation. Mormons like to say that their leaders are not teaching scripture when they say something stupid and then uphold other sayings as gospel. The fact is that Brigham Young stated that any sermon he gave was as good as scripture and that it was to be accepted as doctrine. He then went on to teach the wonders of polygamy, adam being god, Jesus being the result of a sexual union between God and Mary, inhabitants of the sun and moon, and on and on and on. Dont go to the mormons for information about what its historical teachings have been. They have spent billions repressing and destroying information and changing what could damage them.

 

[solar_mirth]

"...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)

"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:4)

"For even our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in the Father".( Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans 1:13)

Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God : as of the judge of the living and the dead".(2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)

Justin Martyr ( 140 A.D.) "the word of wisdom, who is himself God begotten of the Father of all things, and word, and wisdom, and power, and the glory of the begetter, will bear evidence to me".(Dialogue with Tropho Ch.61)

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord..."(Dialogue With Trypho, 34)

Tatian the Syrian (170 AD ) "Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is Himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible and untouchable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. This we know by the evidence of what He has created; and we perceive His invisible power by His works".(Tatian, Address to the Greeks , 4)

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21).

all of these quotes come from men who were either disciples of the Apostles or students of those disciples. none of the quotes date after around 170 AD. the Apostles believed Christ to be God. the Nicene creed does not need to depend upon extra-biblical teachings to be supported. Christ himself plainly said, "i and the Father are one." (jn 10:30). he did not mean one in purpose and mind. that doesn't make sense in the context. these creeds are only evil if you can disprove them with scripture (by that, i mean the bible). since everything points to the book of mormon being made-up, show how these creeds are wrong when held up to the bible.

as for the dark-skinned people being cursed, that is common doctrine of the church. the wicked lamanites were cursed with dark skin. when Christ came, whoever accepted him was given the blessing of light skin. it's right there in black and white in the book of mormon.