Questions Pt2..1/2
My last post on mormonisn was met with a mix of reviews. Within my comments I asked a few questions NONE of which were answered to the full extent.
The thing is that there are those that believe I am an apostate because refuse to believe the way they do . These people claim they love everyone and want them to come to a saving knowledge of Christ;why won’t they answer my questions then?
1.Mormons believe that people can become gods (Lorenzo snow) ; so does that mean Satan told the truth when he told Eve that man can become like Gods(Genesis 3:4-5)
or that Jesus was a liar because he didn’t?
” John 8:44: When he speaketh a lie , he speaketh of his own;for he is a liar and the father of it.” furthermore Romans 1:22-23 says “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…”
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD…understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”— Isaiah 43:10
2.mormons believe the God is one of many; but Alma 11:26-29 confirms that God is only one as does Isa 43:10.
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. … Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”—Isaiah 44:6-8.
Wouldn’t God know if there were others?”
3. Why have the LDS worked so hard to get their church moved into the mainstream if
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” —John Taylor (3rd LDS Prophet), 1858, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 167
Churches = “join none of them, for they were all wrong”
Creeds = “All…were an abomination in his sight”
Professors = “were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith History 1:18-19)
4. The eighth article of faith “stater the Bible is the word of God; so far as it is translated correctly. Wasn’t the BOM also translated by men? (Cowdery,Smith)
” Why isn’t the same criteria placed on it or any of the other works touted by the LDS?”
5. Hebrews 1; 1-2 tells us that we do not need a prophet. Why do we need Joseph Smith as one then?
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.
1 John 4:1 says to test all things according to the Bible “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
The Bible also tells that if one prophecy does not come to pass that the man is a false prophet
Deuteronomy 18:22 – “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”
Jeremiah 28:9 – “As for the prophet who prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the LORD has truly sent.”
What about the false prophecies of Smith:
- INDEPENDENCE, MO TEMPLE: Temple in Independence, Missouri was to be built in Joseph Smith’s “generation” (D&C 57:1-3; D&C 84:3-5). Temple Lot is a vacant lot to this day.
- ZION ESTABLISHED IN MISSOURI: Zion was to be established in Independence, Missouri and would not be “moved out of her place” (D&C 57:1-3; 97:19-20; 101:16-20). Mormons were driven out of the area and moved “Zion” to Salt Lake City, Utah.
- ZION’S CAMP TO REDEEM ZION: Once driven out of Independence, Joseph Smith was commanded to raise an army of people to “redeem” Zion by physical “power.” The operation completely failed as a plague swept through the army before they reached Independence, MO. (D&C 103; History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 114-116)
- FAR WEST, MO TEMPLE: Temple in Far West, Missouri was to be built, beginning in 1838. Mormon were commanded not to cease working on the temple until it was complete. (D&C 115:1, 7-8, 10, 12) They got as far as laying the corner stones (still visible today), but were driven out of the area and the temple was never built.
- MISSION OF APOSTLE DAVID W. PATTEN: Patten was to accompany the twelve apostles in performing a mission “over the waters” in the spring of 1839 (D&C 114; 118:4), but Patten died in October 1838 defending Mormon territory in the Mormon Missouri War. Some Mormons try to excuse this false prophecy by claiming that Patten was somehow unworthy, but Joseph Smith proclaimed that Patten died as “a very worthy man” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 171).
1. In D&C 87:1-3 Smith stated that all the nations of the world would be in the American Civil War—they were not it involved as its name suggests only America.– Many of Smith’s prophecies have been revised over the years. I don’t think that counts as a prophecy not being fulfilled yet.
6. Mormons tell us to Pray to see if the book of mormon is true! Why is that?
you wouldn’t pray to see that what Joseph Smith gave as “eyewitness” testimony were true would you?
What about the bio of a favorite president?
Friend?
Girlfriend?
How about you parents?
the qur’an?
The satanic bible?
Would the Holy spirit ask you to
pray about committing murder?
or worshiping an idol
is this the wisdom that James 1 verse 5 is talking about?
or is the wisdom found in what is written in the Bible?
Sources
http://nathanaelsblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/false-doctrines-pt2-videos/
http://nathanaelsblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/false-doctrines/
These blogs are not sources but they offer alot of insight
I got my first “answer” to question 1 on another blog
ME–“So God explained to you that the Lie Satan told in Genesis 3 is TRUE claiming that man can become like god”
Shem—Yes, because in the Bible, just a few verses later, he says it was. (Gen. 3: 22
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” If God has declared that this was true, why should say it is false. The “Lie” that Satan told was not that they would be like God, but that they wouldn’t die. This was the deception.
here was my response
Shem–The “Lie” that Satan told was not that they would be like God, but that they wouldn’t die. This was the deception.
Me–So satan did tell a full truth Christians don’t die!–we go to heaven.. is this not so?
so what your saying is satan brings truth!
Shem–The “Lie” that Satan told was not that they would be like God,
Me-this argument called pantheism implies that your a “god”–then if thats the case; Can you not then assure yourself a place in heaven without having to “work” for it?
Me–which would then negate the need for the Christian God/Jesus altogether!
Massey Nathanael
2010/06/06 at 11:52
Let me answer each in turn.
1. You have given my answer to the first one here, but I don’t think you gave it in full.
Satan did not lie about being like God, as God himself declares this to be true, as I stated.
However, he did lie in that Adam and Eve would not die. The instant they ate of the fruit they died in Spirit, and started the process by which they would die in body. As such Satan lied, because they did die. Satan did not bring truth, as no part of this was true. He said “Ye shall not surely die.” This was a direct lie as we all have died.
The argument that Christians don’t die is a false one, as all people die both Spiritually and Physically. It is just that many are reborn in the Spirit. If they did not die they would have no need of the Savior, as the purpose of his atonement was save men from death (being physical) and Hell (being spiritual death).
All men were once spiritual dead, but can spiritually live again. All men will also physically die, but will be raised in the resurrection. Satan said we wouldn’t die, which was a lie.
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 14:49
2. This is more difficult to explain, simply because it take more time.
Simply put, there are many gods, but only one God.
You should notice the distinction in the capitalization in the second God. As it is capital it is a proper noun. To be precise, it is a title.
However, god, not being capitalized, is not a proper noun and thus not a title. This is in reference to a state of being. Much as we are all refered to as men, but Christ is the Man of Holiness.
Thus, the Alma reference, as well as those in Isaiah, and not contradicting the idea of many gods. They are merely stating that among all the gods, there is only one title of God.
Also, in Isaiah 48 we see two very distinct references to two different beings. There is the “Lord, King of Israel,” and his redemer the “Lord of Hosts.” Two different entities, being the Father and the Son (as the Son is the Redemer).
They are referenced as One God because there is only one title. They both share that title, and are equal in power, but are still separate in being, as shown by the separation of identity in verse 6.
(On this point I wrote a rather good article. However, I have never posted it online, as it is 4 pages typed. If you can think of a way for me to send you a copy -word 2007- I would be delighted to.)
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 14:58
Shem-Simply put, there are many gods, but only one God.
Me- How can there be many gods but only one god? that statement is rather contradictory is in not?
Shem-in Isaiah 48 we see two very distinct references to two different beings. There is the “Lord, King of Israel,” and his redemer the “Lord of Hosts
Me–if you read that verse as it is written you will see that two titles are used for the same being
Shem– and his redemer
Me–I’m sorry but this statement is blasphmous, First it implies that God can sin- So God sinned( was disobedient) to Himself?
Second–ithe sins of the father shall not pass to the son as stated in:
Exodus 34:6-7
Ezekiel 18:19-20
Deuteronomy 24:16
Deuteronomy 5:9-10
Exodus 20:6
John 9:1-3
See the links for a more in depth explainable of the verses then I have time to give
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4sins97.html
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not
would it not then be hove you to question Jesus’s need to be the “redeemer” of God
Shem– there are many gods
Me- Really? on anything other than hersay and man-made twisting PROVE it
Here my proof that there is only God
Isa 44:8;
Isa 43:10
Deuteronomy 6:4-5
Psalm 90:2
Alma 11:26-29
Mosiah 3:5
Moroni 8:18
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/19 at 13:14
if we are to be god
why does Isaiah 14:12-14 outline Satan’s fall from Heaven as the punishment for him wanting to be “like the most high”
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer… For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God… I will be like the most High.
with the same being said to the Eve; ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil…’ ” —Genesis 3:4-5
If we are to be gods then why is Moroni an angel?
Why when asked about the resurrection of the dead did Jesus say “you will be like the angels” Wouldn’t He have aid “you will be like the gods? if that’s what He had meant
So I ask you again was Satan telling the truth? but then again if Satan was telling the truth that would make Jesus a lair? cause they both can’t be right?
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/26 at 11:44
3. I have yet to see any real “move” into the mainstream. Nothing has really changedin the church. What is really happening is that the church is being a little more active in letting the world know what we are, in the hopes of dispelling the erroneous ideas many people have concerning us.
It is all a perfectly logical move to make. We do not want to be said to be like the rest of Christianity, but we would like people to acknowledge that we do believe in Christ and the Bible.
(You might be surprised how many people think we don’t use the Bible at all.)
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 15:02
Why are you avoiding the question? I ask again
Was Satan telling the truth?
Is Satan not a liar?
Nathanael Massey
2010/12/13 at 00:53
4. The same criteria is placed on it. It is just that we don’t need to state this as it is translated correctly.
The Bible, though marvelously preserved by God in most respects, went through the hands of many uninspired men who translated and transcribed the words. Whether you agree or not, I have seen many obvious contradictions in the KJV of the Bible, and have yet to see any other version fix them.
The idea is a simple one: The books in Book of Mormon were written by prophets; then they were abridged into one record by a prophet, and then they were translated by a prophet.
The books in the Bible, on the other hand, were written by prophets, but were transcribed and translated by earthly scholars who had no authority to do such work.
I think Joseph Smith stated it better in other places than in the Articles of Faith. It should say this: We believe in all the words of God as they originally fell from the lips of the prophets, and all translations inspired of God.
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 15:08
5A. Hebrews 1: 1-2 is not telling us we do not need prophets. All this is telling us is that Christ himself, the God of the Old Testiment, had personally given his law.
The purpose of this is clear. Paul is writing the the Hebrews who are still wanting to follow the Law of Moses. They are willing to except Christ as a great teacher, but are unwilling to put his word above that of Moses and the ancient prophets. Paul is simply asserting that the word spoken by Christ is above that of Moses, or replaces that of Moses, as he is the Son of God, and not just an ordinary prophet.
But, no where does it say in these verses that prophets are no longer needed. This is an assumption made by the reader, not an assertion made by the author.
In Ephesians 4: 11- 13 Paul writes:
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”
So, unless you believe there is a unity in the faith of all Christians, that we have all become perfect, and that we measure up to the stature of Christ, Prophets are still needed.
Paul actually continues in this chapter to explain that these positions of authority are given to help prevent the church from being swayed by false doctrine. So, we can add to the previous three requirements the absence of false doctrine as necessary before prophets are no longer called.
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 20:11
Shem–5A. Hebrews 1: 1-2 is not telling us we do not need prophets
Me-But it says just that I invite you again to read verse the first half of verse 2
“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,”
Shem–So, unless you believe there is a unity in the faith of all Christians, that we have all become perfect, and that we measure up to the stature of Christ, Prophets are still needed.
Me–For the most part there is a “unity” within Christianity–we believe that Sin entered the world via Adam and Eve, that the world was redeemed by the birth of Christ via the Holy Spirit and that He saved us with His death on the Cross and that Hr intercedes as our High priest after His resurrection
We believe that God in 3 in one and 1 in three a concept called the trinity
we Believe that Christ is the ONLY son of the ONLY GOD who did not progress to godness
we believe that we can’t become Gods and do not need to earn our salvation–the mormons are the only ones that are “off” on these points
but to answer you question when the book of Ephesians was written the church was coming into it’s own that was a time when Prophets and the like were needed thus this was to be considered the foundation of the church(Eph 2:20) which says
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit
http://www.gotquestions.org/prophets-today.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-prophets-restored.html
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/26 at 15:38
5B. People need to realize there is a difference between prophecy and commandment. They also need to learn how to interpret prophecy (which is generally to ask God if he would be so kind as to explain himself).
•INDEPENDENCE, MO TEMPLE: This was a commandment given by God, it was not a prophecy. This is seen in D&C 124: 49-51, when the command is retracted do to persecution.
The temple will be built in Independence however, but it will be done in the future, when such persecution no longer hinders the work.
•ZION ESTABLISHED IN MISSOURI: Zion has not yet been established. These passages refer to the City Zion, or the New Jeruselem. It has yet to be built, and when it is nothing will stand against it. The simple fact that it has not occured yet is not proof of a false prophecy, as many prophecies have not yet been fulfilled.
•ZION’S CAMP TO REDEEM ZION: Again, this was a command, not a prophecy. In section 103: 5-10 the Lord warns that if the people are not obedient they will fail, which they did, and a curse was brought on them. Nothing that Joseph Smith said failed to come to pass.
•FAR WEST, MO TEMPLE: You make the statement yourself; they were commanded to build it. Again, this is not prophecy.
•MISSION OF APOSTLE DAVID W. PATTEN: In this you need to distinguish between the prophecy and the command. Brother Pattan was commanded to go, but the prophecy was simply that twelve men should go. Brother Pattan was commanded to be one of the twelve, but he was not part of the prophecy. The Prophecy was actually fulfilled.
1. In D&C 87:1-3 Smith stated that all the nations of the world would be in the American Civil War
This is not what Joseph Smith said. Please read it again, and this time think about what is being said. Let us look at these verse.
“Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the WARS that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;”
First, notice the plurality of wars that are being prophecied about. The first of these wars would begin with the rebelion of South Carolina. This was all fulfilled.
“And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.”
Again, it is refering to the Civil War as the first in a long line of wars.
“For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.”
Now we get a description, not of a single war, but of a time period in which many wars shall engulf the entire world. The American Civil War will begin it all, as the North and South will be devided. Joseph Smith accurately predicted that the South would ask for aide from Great Britain. He also accurately predicted the Great Britain would ask for aid to defend themselves from other nations, as they did in World War One.
This is not a prophecy about the Civil War only, but about the time of Great Wars that would engulf the entire world in choas. This has been perfectly fulfilled in the fact that since the Civil War there has not been more than a single day in which a war was not being fought somewar in the world. I remember that single day of world peace, as it was on the news when I was in school back the early nineties. This prophecy has been fulfilled to the greatest extent possible.
So, of all the prophecies you site, they are either commandments and not prophecies; misunderstood in their meaning; or simply not yet fulfilled, but waiting the right time.
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 20:36
6. I did answer this one in another thread. However, I will be brief here.
God wants us to pray to him about everything. There should not be a dicision made in our lives that we have not asked God’s advise on, including where to shop for you food.
However, just because God wants us to ask him about everything does not mean he is going to tell us everything. He gives three basic answers to prayers: Yes, no, and go figure it out yourself.
The examples of things in the list given in the article are truly silly, and seem more as a set up than honest inquirey. However, the answer for each remains the same. Yes, we should pray about it.
As to James 1: 5, we really need to read the words better before we start applying meaning to them. Here we are told that if we Lack the Wisdom we are to seek for it. There is great wisdom to be found in the Bible, as well as all the other scriptures that are inspired of God. It may be that we only lack wisdom because we are to lazy to find it. It is when we find before ourselves a question to which we can find no satisfactory answer that we go to God asking for Wisdom.
However, guidance is a different matter, which is what I was speaking about in the first part of this post. Guidance should be sought after in all things, including in our search for wisdom. However, wisdom is to be sought for when we cannot find it ourselves.
Joseph Smith was impressed by this verse because of the many contradicting interpretataions of the Bible being presented. He lacked sufficient wisdom to determine which was the truth, and so he asked of God.
As to praying about the Book of Mormon, it should be done as no man truly has the wisdom in himself to determine the divine nature of any book. This is easily seen in the modern day as well as in the past. Why is it that today some people claim the Apocrypha is scripture and others do not? Why did they have to vote on what books to accept in the past? It is because mortal man lacks sufficient wisdom to determine what is really scripture and what isn’t. That is why we are counseled to pray about the Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible, and the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Because it is part of the mortal condition to lack sufficient wisdom to know by ourselves if they are truly scripture or not.
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 20:51
So, here are my answers to your questions. Hope you get a little more understanding from them.
Just to end I would like to make a comment on something you said in the question 5 section.
You said – 1 John 4:1 says to test all things according to the Bible “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
1 John 4: 1 does not say to test things according to the Bible. In truth, I don’t see any reference to any kind of scripture in this verse. It does say to test all spirits, but not by the Bible.
It would be difficult for John to have meant the Bible when “the Bible” did not yet exist. This was a letter, as is much of the New Testiment. None of it was collected into a canon at the time, and few had access to the Old Testiment books. There was a copy in each church building, but that was about it. So, why would John counsel the people to test spirits by something that they could not have had available to them at the time?
shematwater
2010/07/10 at 20:56
Shem first I want to thank you for commenting on these questions
Shem-1 John 4: 1 does not say to test things according to the Bible. In truth, I don’t see any reference to any kind of scripture in this verse
Me-But John does tell us to in the KJV “try” every spirit meaning “approve, examine, or discern”
What are we to discern? whether they are from God, and we do that by putting what man says against that of God’s truth which we have today in the Bible..Unless of course God himself is false?
Shem–why would John counsel the people to test spirits by something that they could not have had available to them at the time?
Me-they had the truth of God contained not only in the OT scrolls but in the Very words of Jesus, the disciples and apostles
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/12 at 22:41
First, I never said we weren’t to test all spirits. I only denied that this verse states the Bible is the standand to test them by. If you want to infer that as the logical conclusion, fine. But it is still not stated.
In all truth, I really don’t mind the test of the Bible, as I have seen no LDS doctrine that cannot pass such a test, as they are all there, either directly or implied. Well, most are there. However, the ones that are not there are not there are not contradicted by the Bible.
To give further truth, we of the LDS are counceled to check everything we hear by the Standard Works. This is why they are called “standard” because they are what all doctrine must agree with. We just have a little more as our standard than simply the Bible.
As to them having the words of Jesus and Apostles; most of them didn’t have these words, or had only a small portion of them. The letters that Paul wrote the Corinthians very likely did not go to Rome, or to Jeruselem. The words that Jesus spoke went to many, but only as many as were written by the apostles. Communication was not that good. John may have, in part, been referencing the few written words they might have had available, but this would not have been the entire Bible as we now have it, and may have included writings that we do not currently have (like the first epistles to the Corinthians – 1 Cor. 5: 9). As such I find it illogical for the Bible to be the primary test that John was talking about. He had to have meant something else.
shematwater
2010/07/13 at 21:28
Shem-As to them having the words of Jesus and Apostles; most of them didn’t have these words, or had only a small portion of them
Me–When I said words I quite literally meant words–an in spoken, you failed to take note that John would have as stated ;in my last comment, the books of the OT
Shem–included writings that we do not currently have (like the first epistles to the Corinthians – 1 Cor. 5: 9).
Me–1 Corinthians 5:9 es explain is WHY Paul wrote it “not to associate with sexually immoral people”(NIV )”not to company with fornicators”(KJV) as discussed in other letters as well as verses (1-8)
as for the other epistle it is agreed that although that letter was written it may have been lost many including myself suspect that if God had wanted it in the Bible he would have had the early church letters all agree to put in in the bible
Shem–I have seen no LDS doctrine that cannot pass such a test, as they are all there, either directly or implied.
Me–you mean besides every current doctrine of the mormon church which the mormons can’t even agree on–and here I thought that a “true” prophet spoke of God making them honest unless of course your prophets aren’t of God?
Shem–Communication was not that good
Me-Then How did the teachings of “the Way” spread so quickly enough to become Christianity (Acts 11:26)
Shem–I find it illogical for the Bible to be the primary test that John was talking about. He had to have meant something else
Me you wouldn’t be put off if I ask you why you Believe that the Bible is not the primary test for truth?.
Shem–To give further truth, we of the LDS are counceled to check everything we hear by the Standard Works. This is why they are called “standard” because they are what all doctrine must agree with.
Me–You mean like the BOM with which your current religion doesn’t even agree with? Why do you suppose that is? Can you name me one doctrine that does agree with the BOM?
Shem–However, the ones that are not there are not there are not contradicted by the Bible.
Me–Which ones? I thought every mormon doctrine was supported by the Bible?
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/15 at 11:58
John had the Old Testiment, but how many of the gentiles had a copy readily available to them? It does not matter what John had. It matters what the people he was writing to would have had.
Communication was not that good. Christianity spread because many members taught it to their friends and neighbors. It wasn’t just Paul and the apostles teachings, but everybody. This does not mean that the written word was circulated at the same speed, which is what you are claiming.
As to the epistles that we no longer have, whether we need them now or not is not the point. The point is that they were obviously written because they were needed then. As such, any admonishment to read the scriptures to these early saints would have included these.
These are just some of the reasons why the Bible cannot be the primary test for truth. The simple fact that nothing was canonized for several hundred years, and that it was bunch of bickering religionists who voted on what to canonize is another reason.
Of course, I think you know the main reason. It has errors in it. Many of these are rather large, and cause great confusion. As so many people can interpret the Bible so many different ways, it makes things difficult when saying it is the final test.
Now, as to LDS doctrine:
1. Nothing has changed from the time of Joseph Smith in the way as actual doctrine.
2. We are all in complete agreement as to the doctrine of the church. It is the mysteries that we have our differences on.
3. I did correct myself, and state that most are in the Bible. This is true. The ones that are not I see no contradiction of in the Bible. I do frequently just say they are all there, as those that are not as simply the logical conclusion of those that are.
4. The LDS church is in complete agreement with every word written in the Book of Mormon. To name a few:
a. Prohibits infant baptism
b. Need for baptism by immersion
c. Christ was a spirit before his birth to Mary
d. Plural Marriage is only to be practiced with devine approval.
Of course, there are many more, but here are just a few.
shematwater
2010/07/15 at 21:24
Shem–Now, as to LDS doctrine:
Me my responses will be after Hyphens
The LDS church is in complete agreement with every word written in the Book–what about this as one of many example
GOD IS A SPIRIT—NOT FLESH AND BONES: Alma 18:24-28; 22:9-11; 31:15
As compared to
GOD IS AN EXALTED MAN: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” —Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/26 at 19:01
Shem–Nothing has changed from the time of Joseph Smith in the way as actual doctrine.
then why do your leaders seldom agree on what his revelations? actually were?
Why have the Histories of the church the D&C and some of his other writings been “updated”
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/26 at 19:07
The updates are those of language, not meaning.
As to your supposed difference between the Book of Mormon and D&C, you need to read things more clearly, and learn the doctrine.
As I stated in the examples of Doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon that we agree with: c – Christ was a spirit before his birth to Mary.
As all the quotes in the Book of Mormon refering to him as a spirit are BEFORE his birth they are accurate in saying that he is a spirit, because at that time he was. However, since his birth he has taken on a physical body, was resurrected and Exalted, and so the Doctrine and Covenants is also correct, because he is now an Exalted man.
There is no change in the doctrine, for he was a spirit, but is now exalted.
shematwater
2010/07/29 at 13:53
Language nah this is not language its an interview from 1997 found in the SF Chronicle: given by Gordon Hinckley
Lattin:There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
Hinckley: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about
Here is tahat same question in Time Magazine
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah
Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
Wouldn’t the leader of a religious group know his own doctrine or at least agree with the people the profess it? YES
What about
“We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things….They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit… The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle…And he being the only begotten of the Father...received a fulness of the glory of the Father—ppossessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit.” —Doctrine and Covenants, 1935 edition, Lectures Fifth of Faith, Section V, p. 52-53 (Note: In 1921, This Lectures of Faith section was removed from Doctrine and Covenants)
Vs
“I will preach on the plurality of Gods...I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.” —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 37
So you don’t like the doctrine you get rid of it right? Looks to me like the removed sections of the D&C speak of the “trinity” But wait directly under that of how Smith was monotheistic but then that means in the 1920s that MUST HAVE CHANGED but then it was removed I am assuming due to doctrinal disagreements–shall I email you more examples??
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/29 at 18:10
The two quotes you give from the interview are not teaching doctrine, and are thus not contradicting it.
First, he is saying that he honestly is not sure of the exact details of what was taught, and so he prefers not to discuss it. As it is said, this is deep doctrine that has not been discussed by the church leaders in many decades.
Second, he never denies the truth of it, only his knowledge of it. He is not in disagreement with anything anyone else has said.
In all truth all he can be accused of is a little dodging, but not altering of doctrine.
As to the Lectures of Faith, this is what they were: Lectures. As such they are not scripture. They were included in the D&C but were removed for this reason. The D&C is a collection of inspired writing from the early church. The Lectures on Faith, though beautiful and logically laid out, are not inspired.
You will notice that the D&C section that first states that the Father has a physical body was given many years after these lectures were written. As such, we have the word of God correcting the false idea that Joseph Smith had in the past.
I know it is hard to accept that a prophet is not right about everything, but it is true. He got this wrong, and God corrected him when the time was right.
shematwater
2010/07/29 at 19:09
Shem-The Lectures on Faith, though beautiful and logically laid out, are not inspired.
Me-The site Seagull books had to say
These Lectures on Faith were considered the “doctrine,
Source:http://www.seagullbook.com/lds-products-279970.html
this was said at a lecture at BYU
In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language – that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true–Bruce R. McConkie
Likewise the mormons consider revelation as something that is given by God seeing inspiration as the tool draw on that which is given by God which would be revelation! On the other hand one could be inspired to give a revelation which could be given by god thus saying the revelation was inspired by god either way.
which mean one of two things The lectures of faith really aren’t inspired thus aren’t revelaton AND WRONG making Smith INSANE when he and Rigdon wrote them!–which would entail that the whole mormon religion need to be looked at under a microscope
OR number 2
The lectures really are revelation and are thus inspired which would make it doctrine! which would go a ways is saying the mormons are guilty by admission of removing from their own writings–either way does not bode well for mr. smith and his religion
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/29 at 23:14
First, you quote a book store and not church leaders. Second, you quote Bruce R. McConkie giving an opinion. He states directly “In my judgement.” This in itself means that it is not binding doctrine.
For myself I think that Joseph Smith at the time was inspired in many things. The only error he had was in saying that the Father was a spirit. These lectures were prepared by him not under inspiration, but based on inspiration he had at the time.
They do a better job of laying out the character and nature of God than anything written by anyone else. But they did have one error in them. The Lord let this pass for the time, as the church was young, and needed time to grow. One the time was right he revealed the truth and corrected the error.
There is nothing wrong in this, and the writing of the Lectures may have been inspired in part, but not in their entirety.
shematwater
2010/07/30 at 12:41
Shem–These lectures were prepared by him not under inspiration, but based on inspiration he had at the time.
Me-that;s splitting hairs my friend. One cannot be under the “Thumb” of God one minute and the next God be off doing something else He said He would always be with those the profess Him, Smith thought this otherwise he would not he claimed to write under inspiration; to say that Smith wrote the lectures in part under inspiration would be to question his judgment
But they did have one error in them.
Me-Saying that God would allow that God would allow one error in doctrine in his to stand let alone change decades later in contrary to What and Who God is within this statement you admit to me that you see god as a deceiver
Shem–the writing of the Lectures may have been inspired in part, but not in their entirety.
Shem-One the time was right he revealed the truth and corrected the error.
Me- you assert that the lectures were in part written under inspiration
Then I must question under these assumptions
What about the Histories of the Church
the BOM
the POGP
the rest of the D&C
what about the present writings of your religion? the TV program,s the internet articles or the Magazines?
How do BYU students know that they are getting everything from the “source
Massey Nathanael
2010/07/31 at 20:30
The Lectures on Faith were never held up as revelation. They were a text book of sorts for a class on the nature and being of God. Based on the information then had in the Revelations of God they were a beautiful work, and still stand as the greatest explanation of God and his nature.
God is not a deceiver, but he does not give all knowledge all at once. He waits until people are ready to receive more. The church at the time these lectures were written was new, and was just coming out of an apostate religion that held the belief that God was a spirit. God, in his infinite wisdom, allowed people to hold onto some of the false ideas they already had while he gradually prepared them to be corrected.
The other scriptures you sight are Revelation, and thus not in the same category as the Lectures on Faith.
You idea that Joseph Smith could not be in error because God was with him is rediculous. A prophet is not a prophet all the time, and on occasion must think things out for himself, which is what Joseph Smith did. This does not mean that God was not with him.
shematwater
2010/08/03 at 14:17
Shem-A prophet is not a prophet all the time,
Me–That’s like saying because I am off for Christmas break I am not a college student.. The life of a prophet was no different, they could not deny what/who they were and daresay I would they have..Elijah when he was being Chased by the armies of Ahab and Jezzebel I doubt he could “turn the revelation off”
as too the lectures of faith what about:
“In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language – that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true.” (Bruce R. McConkie, lecture at Brigham Young University).
What about this statement on page 256 of the originals . that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine…”
Shem–The other scriptures you sight are Revelation, and thus not in the same category as the Lectures on Faith.
If the lectures on faith are not revelation..Why were they originally included in the “inspired” Doctrine and Covenants? or can man chose what is revelation and what isn’t?
Nathanael Massey
2010/12/13 at 01:38