Praise to the Man!

[Toms777]

Yes, as you interpret and experience them. It will not be the same as any other individual.

I quote the words which have been spoken and frequently obtain the interpretations of Mormon leaders regarding those same statements. Frqeuently I also have individual Mormons such as yourself confirm what I have read. So, no, it is not so simple as you suggest. I do a lot of indepth research.

Further, if indeed there are errors inw hat we say, you should be able to show that by providing evidence, but more often what we get is simply a statement that we are wrong, with name-calling or other attacks.

I just don't see those 'attributes' in the same way. Songs have been written about, and men have been 'praised' in literature for millenia. Yes, some of the terminology is the same as that which has been written in praise of God and Christ; this does not render those descriptive phrases moot or give them the ability to describe only one individual or entity once used. If I remember correctly, az_sunshine provided other Biblical reference to 'praises to men'. Secondly, the lyrics hardly claim greatness more significant than Christ. Certainly, they are going to be interpreted as being 'over the top' by others outside the faith, but for those within it, their references to the man that brought together their church are not exactly unreasonable - and not indicative of greater worthiness than Christ.

Some of the attributes, as I have shown, can apply ONLY to God. I am not objecting to praises to men, it is what they attribute to him. I responded to az-sunshine, but apparently you missed that response.

You cannot suggest that these are isolated ‘Over-the-top’ references. This comes from the official Mormon hymnal.

I say my prayers to God and Christ. This would imply, to many, that because I see them as separate beings, that I am polytheistic, or subsequently tritheistic. I have never sat and composed prayer to the Holy Spirit as defined as such. Regardless, I realize that my opinions are at odds with those that believe God and Christ to be 'one' in the strictest sense of the word, but my interpretation of the Bible is not based on official decree of hundreds of years ago, but rather, the words as recorded within the Bible itself, and there seem to be many of them that support my belief. This is bound to offend someone, but remarkably, it doesn't seem to hamper my ability to do my best to lead a life in accordance with Christ's principles (and it won't hamper their's either), and if I am in error, then He will judge me on my last day with regards to my beliefs.

So, since Mormonism says that there are three Gods, you therefore (assuming that you hold to Mormon doctrine which seems a safe assumption) pray to 2 gods. Yes, that is polytheism and therefore you are not worshipping the same God that I do, one God in three persons as shown in the Bible (Is 48:16-17 for example).

This still isn't making much sense. It only looks as if it might hold water if you define LDS Theology as being opposite, or opposed to the teachings of Christ.

I do because the Bible is very much in opposition to the teachings of Mormonism.

Again, not name calling. It only serves to facilitate the identification of opinion or sentiment.

No it does not. It does not identify opinion. It applies a negative image onto a person which is not representative of their opinions. Call me a Christian, a Bible Believing Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour – any of these describe my beliefs, but anti-Mormon does not.

I have stated before that I do respect Mormons as persons and have always respected Mormons if they says that they prefer to be called members of the LDS church, then I do so. I simply ask for the same respect in return and unfortunately some Mormons are determined to insist that they have the right to call us disrespectful names.

Why is that?

Can you suggest an alternate descriptive term that would sum up your feelings/beliefs about LDS theology? Not a joke; I'm curious as to how you would rather see it defined.

Call me a Christian, a Bible Believing Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour – any of these describe my beliefs. If you cannot find your way to clear to do that, then call me Toms777 – my beliefs will become clear in the discussions – if you will stop the name-calling long enough to let us get into the discussions.

 

[spike]

Call me a Christian, a Bible Believing Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour – any of these describe my beliefs. If you cannot find your way to clear to do that, then call me Toms777 – my beliefs will become clear in the discussions – if you will stop the name-calling long enough to let us get into the discussions.

Fair enough. Toms777 it was, and is! Keep in mind, though, that usage of the term 'anti-LDST' may pop up in writings occasionally. It does refer to viewpoint, not the first person. It doesn't differ much than 'anti-abortion' or 'pro-life' - both arguably the same descriptive term as relates to the issue, neither designed to be all-inclusive of the views of said person expressing the viewpoint. Like it or not, this is still the accepted and standard way of treating such things in the world, and for better or worse, I'd suppose that neither you nor I will be able to change much about that.

So, I am polytheistic by your definition. Much of what I believe may run counter to your own thoughts, and would make for spirited discussion (no pun intended). Nevertheless, I will proudly stand by that definition. We could each start quoting supporting verse, but I don't think that will be necessary in order to allow ourselves to practice our beliefs with, interestingly, the same intent. I could never think to tell someone who thought differently with regards to the 'Godhead' that they are not Christians. This has always been the thrust of my commentary when I throw myself into these discussions - again, we are all under the same Commander. I realize that you don't believe that, though - but perhaps we can hash out the finer points of the matter when we are no longer members of this mortal coil.

But, like I said, it would make for a monster new thread..

Enjoy lunch!

-spike-

 

[Toms777]

Fair enough. Toms777 it was, and is! Keep in mind, though, that usage of the term 'anti-LDST' may pop up in writings occasionally.

Okay, as long as you don't mind "anti-CT popping up from time to time.

It doesn't differ much than 'anti-abortion' or 'pro-life' - both arguably the same descriptive term as relates to the issue, neither designed to be all-inclusive of the views of said person expressing the viewpoint.

It varies greatly. It ranks more with those who try to use certain words to describe a race or a group as a slur or other terms which are good and proper in their proper usage but are sometimes used in a different context to smear a group or a race. I have rarely seen such a desire to defend abuse such as this.

I'd rather see us deal with the issues. We have spent too much time on this point anmd if you think that you have a striong position doctrinally, I wonder why you spend all your time defending your desire to use slurs against others.

Like it or not, this is still the accepted and standard way of treating such things in the world, and for better or worse, I'd suppose that neither you nor I will be able to change much about that. Enjoy lunch!

Accepted only within the Mormon church from what I can see. Perhaps that is indicative or a cultural thing within Mormonism, but I would think that those within the church who truly believe the Bible when it speaks about how to treat others, that they would try to chnage that culture either by making other people aware that abuse is not acceptable, and by neither practicing it nor defending it in private or public discussions.

 

[spike]

Okay, as long as you don't mind "anti-CT popping up from time to time.

Sure, if you wish. I don't find it offensive, only a misnomer. If you use it, I won't spend any time discussing your usage of it or its appropriateness, I'll just simply note it as a way to sum up your particular theological stand. It will keep things efficient, rather than having to define or restate things already said.

Lunch was good. Hope yours was, too.

-spike-

 

[Toms777]

Sure, if you wish. I don't find it offensive, only a misnomer. If you use it, I won't spend any time discussing your usage of it or its appropriateness, I'll just simply note it as a way to sum up your particular theological stand. It will keep things efficient, rather than having to define or restate things already said.

Lunch was good. Hope yours was, too.

-spike-

I don't plan to use it....I don't believe in abusive treatment of others, but tyhere may be others on here who, unlike me, may respond in that manner.

anti- never sums up anything. I guess that you haven't been reading the messages.

I'd still like to know why so many Mormons defend abuse of others so vigorously. Is it a cultural thing within tghe Mormon church, like you implied when you implied that the slur usage of "anti-Mormon" was commonly accepted? If so, that does not speak well of the Mormon church.

 

[Toms777]

Now can we end the abuse and name-calling and get back to the topic?

 

[spike]

If so, that does not speak well of the Mormon church.

Hey - last I checked, I wasn't a General Authority..

So, what are we discussing?

 

[fatboys]

I don't plan to use it....I don't believe in abusive treatment of others, but tyhere may be others on here who, unlike me, may respond in that manner.

anti- never sums up anything. I guess that you haven't been reading the messages.

I'd still like to know why so many Mormons defend abuse of others so vigorously. Is it a cultural thing within tghe Mormon church, like you implied when you implied that the slur usage of "anti-Mormon" was commonly accepted? If so, that does not speak well of the Mormon church.

FB: Are you making a slur about mormons?

 

[solar_mirth]

please, everyone, stop pointing fingers. reading this thread makes me wish i were a moderator. then i could reprove everyone for getting off topic, arguing about who's slurring who, and getting close to flaming each other. please, let's try to keep to the topic. whether one is anti-mormon or not is not the topic.

so i've spent the last thirty minutes reading every post on this thread. lots of stuff has been going on.

mormon sources have been quoted. those have been refuted (though, i must confess that one could never come to the conclusions that the mormons have in this thread unless one told them that it meant something else. those sources are pretty plain that a man must believe in joseph smith to be saved, making him essential to salvation and equal with Christ).

second there was the whole argument that the hymn (the actual point of this post) contains pronouns which refer to Christ. unfortunately, there are no antecedants to these pronouns which would indicate such. that argument was shot down.

third, there was an argument saying that it doesn't really take away any positions from Christ (completely unscriptural and incorrect).

now that we've had a recap of the parts that mattered, can we continue?

the hymn says that JS will hold his priesthood forever. the bible says that jesus holds the melchizidek priesthood forever. these two contradict each other. who is right the bible or the hymn (i think you know the answer)?

please, would a mormon answer this? this debate will go nowhere if we cannot focus. let us proceed one point at a time. who holds the priesthood?

 

[Nightstrike]

Freemasonry is of satan!
so how can a man that was in one of the highest ranks of a organization of satan be godly!
I hope you people will realize the foolishness you are buying into
Jesus died for everyone! Repent sinners!

 

[MormonFriend]

please, everyone, stop pointing fingers. reading this thread makes me wish i were a moderator. then i could reprove everyone for getting off topic, arguing about who's slurring who, and getting close to flaming each other. please, let's try to keep to the topic. whether one is anti-mormon or not is not the topic.

so i've spent the last thirty minutes reading every post on this thread. lots of stuff has been going on.

mormon sources have been quoted. those have been refuted (though, i must confess that one could never come to the conclusions that the mormons have in this thread unless one told them that it meant something else. those sources are pretty plain that a man must believe in joseph smith to be saved, making him essential to salvation and equal with Christ).

second there was the whole argument that the hymn (the actual point of this post) contains pronouns which refer to Christ. unfortunately, there are no antecedants to these pronouns which would indicate such. that argument was shot down.

third, there was an argument saying that it doesn't really take away any positions from Christ (completely unscriptural and incorrect).

now that we've had a recap of the parts that mattered, can we continue?

the hymn says that JS will hold his priesthood forever. the bible says that jesus holds the melchizidek priesthood forever. these two contradict each other. who is right the bible or the hymn (i think you know the answer)?

please, would a mormon answer this? this debate will go nowhere if we cannot focus. let us proceed one point at a time. who holds the priesthood?

You said that you read all posts. I presented a perspective that explains why we see things differently, and cannot be one in understanding until certain Biblical steps are made.
All things pertaining to God, doctrine, the gospel, heavenly principles (meaning the spiritual counter part of earthly physics), are not understood readily by man. They are hidden, as described in the Bible. Having and reading the Bible does not bring out the hidden truths or mysteries. They must be revealed to each and every individual by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews speaks about Christ and His Priesthood, but Paul could not get his message across to them and they were mature Christians. He explained why. He emphasized that certain basics must be understood and applied before the greater knowledge could be absorbed, stating that they were babes who were not ready for the meat.

Since we present the Gospel as restored, then it follows that one must start with the milk. Trying to comprehend what the Priesthood is cannot happen until the basics are in place. Please read my comments about the puzzle again. So far nobody has responded to it.

 

[Toms777]

Hebrews speaks about Christ and His Priesthood, but Paul could not get his message across to them and they were mature Christians
.

Note that Hebrews speaks ONLY of Christ as a high priest, not any priesthood of men, which was done away with when the veil was rent in the temple. the reason is that the priesthood was merely prophetic of Jesus' priesthood and once he came and fulfilled the prophecy, the rituals and the priesthood was no longer required since through jesus, we now have one mediator between God and man and those who have received Jesus as Lord and saviour no longer require a priest to mediate for them since their sins are forgiven and they can come before the throne of God in prayer in the name of Jesus.(Scripture referecnes upon request). this is the theme of much of the book of Hebrews.

The only other priesthood which continues afterward is the priesthood of believers - which again shows that we no longer need a priest to intercede for us with rituals, or temple work.

 

[Sherman]

Here is a Hymn from the Mormon Church Hymnal, written about Joseph Smith. Does anyone have any thoughts or comment about what this hymn says about Joseph Smith?

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame.

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again.

Chorus: Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

As I have read Toms777 views of this hymn, and his views of what the LDS believe in relation to Joseph Smith and God, I am reminded of a poem:

The blind men and the elephant

It was six men of indostan
to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant
though all of them were blind.
That each by observation,
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the elephant,
is nothing but a wall."

The second feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho! What have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp,
to me 'tis mighty clear.
This wonder of an elephant,
is very like a spear."

The third approached the animal,
and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hand,
thus boldly up and spake:
"I see!" Quote he, "the elephant,
is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out his eager hand,
and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like,
is mighty plain." Quote he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant,
is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
said, "Even the blindest man can tell,
what this resembles most,
deny the fact who can?
This marvel of an elephant,
is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
about this beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail,
that fell within his scope.
"I see!" Quote he, the elephant
is very like a rope."

And so these men of Indostan,
disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion,
exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right... all were in the wrong!

 

[MormonFriend]

My post was directed on a different theme and your response is 180 degrees off of what my point was. And I was answering a specific request from someone else, and you are interrupting.

 

[MormonFriend]

Why do Mormon fight so vigorously for the right to slur others through name-calling?

If they do, they will repent sooner or later. Please do not equate the whole with examples of a few.

 

[Toms777]

My post was directed on a different theme and your response is 180 degrees off of what my point was. And I was answering a specific request from someone else, and you are interrupting.

It is not clear who this was intended for, but this is apublic discussion group and all persons are welcome to jumop in anytime as long as they stay on topic and abide by the rules.

 

[solar_mirth]

ok, i'm back.

i did read your analogy post. but i find it irrelevant. we are talking about a hymn. in this hymn, very specific things are said. i'm a writer, lifetime reader, and a philospher. interpreting what is exactly said is what i am good at. reading this hymn, one can only come to the conclusion that it glorifies JS beyond what is acceptable for man. please, don't argue with "you can't understand" or anything like that. i have specific questions; just try to answer them. i am young, but i am also much more spiritually and doctrinally mature than most. just give me some credit. your answers will not go over my head or anything. you must show how the hymn is in accordance with scripture. it has already been shown that it isn't. so good luck.

so here's the part that i request a response for: hebrews says that christ is our eternal high priest in the order of melchizidek. how did JS take it from him?

 

[emerald Dragon]

A hyman that gives Joseph attributes that belong solely to God

Two things:
This hymn is a romntized (pardon spelling) version of the death of Joseph Smith. It is not official Church doctrine, and cannot be regarded as such. You are trying to read too much into it.

Scond thing: Where in the bible does it say that the atributes given to Smith belong SOLEY to God. The Last I checked, the only attributes mentioned in the bible that God wanted soley for Him and Christ were their titles, and to be worship. Neither are given to Smith.

 

[solar_mirth]

it's easy to say that the hymn is not an accurate reflection of mormon doctrine, but that is not the point. the point is that the hymn gives JS the role of everlasting priesthood. this is clearly not in accordance with the bible. this is doctrine of the mormon church. the hymn is merely a reflection of a much larger problem...but that is for another thread. still, no one has reconciled this hymn with Scripture (the bible).

 

[MormonFriend]

It is not clear who this was intended for, but this is apublic discussion group and all persons are welcome to jumop in anytime as long as they stay on topic and abide by the rules.

It was for you Tom. Granted this is public and you can use your free will as you "will." There are unwritten
rules goverened by courtesy and respect. Using our free will reveals if we posess such capacities and much more. So may I ask you respectfully and out of courtesy that when someone asks me a question as an invitation to dialog, that you not respond to my posts? I am 100% at your mercy with this request.

Thank you, and have a very Merry Christmas.

MF