Huckabee Mum on Romney's Mormon Faith

seedplanter »

Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza, From reading your posts, it is clear that it makes little difference as to whether or not 1 Cor. 15:29, is referring to the Mormon temple practices. My point was and still is the lack of continuity between Scripture and LDS teachings. The fact that there is good evidence from the immediate context and from Scripture as a whole that stresses interpretations that differ from LDS’ interpretation, reveals that it cannot be used to support a continuity between Scripture and LDS. This was my challenge when you produced this verse as evidence.

Pastor »

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter ~ Try digesting this . . .

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757

Apollo »

Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html

http://stopbigots.com

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"The Mormon interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is fraught with difficulties. If LDS apologists wish to affirm that the rite of proxy baptism is the subject of a new revelation, they may do so--but they cannot appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:29 as support. The verse does not confirm the LDS practice of vicarious baptism."

Well, this is quite the conclusion, in which Mr. Holding thoroughly contradicts himself since earlier in the same article he states that a PREPONDERANCE of commentators hold that 1 Cor. 15:29 does, in actual fact, describe an early Christian vicarious practice of baptism for the dead. It is only Mr. Holdings reading of the scripture, based on a few "other explanations," which the LDS can't appeal to. But then again, we never appealed to the scripture to establish the ordinance in the first place. God established it, and we must obey.

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"Significantly, Welch closes his review of DeMaris' article by saying that "the full meaning of [1 Cor. 15:29] becomes clearer and more coherent through revealed knowledge." This amounts to an admission that the evidence, as it stands, is insufficient to support Welch's thesis. While Welch's appeal serves within a framework that begins with the assumption of revealed knowledge, it is less effective within a rational apologetic context."

This is great. Another intellectual that wants a sign! Well, God won't give him any, because that isn't how God works. Signs follow them that believe, not disbelieve. "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matt. 12:39). "Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe" (John 4:48).

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ok. I'll read it, seedplanter. Here are my comments:

First of all, we didn't build the ordinance of baptism for the dead around one scripture in the Bible. It was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith directly by God. That is why we do it, not because of a scripture. We only point out 1 Cor. 15:29 as evidence that it was practiced also by the early Christians. Joseph Smith received countless revelations from God on the particulars of how, when, and where to establish the vicarious ordinance of baptism. That is why we do it, yet Mr. Holding doesn't believe that, and uses the rest of his article trying to prove how the Mormons could not have possibly gotten the doctrine of baptism for the dead from this one verse of scripture. Well, we never claimed to have gotten it from there. Mr. Holding is the one that claimed that.

Even Mr. Holding admits that, "A PREPONDERANCE of commentators agree that 1 Corinthians 15:29 refers to a practice of vicarious baptism for the dead" (emphasis added). Unfortunately, that is where Mr. Holding stops commenting on that proponderance, and begins to focus on "OTHER explanations have been offered, and we will critically examine several of them" (emphasis added). Sounds like there is much more commentary "for" than "against" vicarious baptism for the dead from this verse, but Mr. Holding doesn't care to elaborate on those that are for it. It is only the few explanations that are to the contrary where he really wants to dig in his nails. Why? Does he like going against the tide of contemporary critical exegetes?

Mr. Holding comments that "Christians point out that Paul mentions the practice in passing and voices neither approval or disapproval." Although, if it was a practice that was extremely heretical and satanic, don't you think Paul would have mentioned it at some point? Paul was very wont to do that. Instead he uses it to assure the reality of the doctrine of the resurrection.

"This verse alone is insufficient to bear the weight of the LDS doctrine." Again, has Mr. Holding even considered that we received the commandment to do vicarious baptism for the dead from God through revelation and might not have plucked it out of one verse of the Bible? No.

This article is a perfect example of Nephi's teaching - "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish" (2 Nephi 9:28).

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza, I'll make a deal with you. If you read my citation, http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/baptdead.html, then I'll read yours and we can come back and continue the discussion.

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Umm... yes it does point to a temple rite of baptism for people already dead, because as far as I know we are the only church on earth that practices it, and it is a temple ordinance. God has restored it today through a living prophet. If you want to read all the evidence of this ancient practice, I would refer you to "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times" by Hugh Nibley:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=67

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The problem here is that this in no way points to a temple rite of baptism for people already dead. I have listed several different views below. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's view is that sense all Christians are baptized for the dead, because "when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." At any rate, it is a general rule of interpretation not to use adhoc theories as proof for a theory, especially when the evidence is inconclusive about the meaning. Paul did not say that this was the church in reference, nor if he affirmed it and at that it is unclear exactly what that “it” was. It could have even been a mistranslation which you spoke of elsewhere. The most detailed explanation is found at: http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/baptdead.html. Thus, this is not conclusive evidence of secret temple rituals involving baptism for people already dead. The Jews certainly never practiced anything of the such.

Through the introductory rite of baptism, are taking the places in the ranks left vacant by Christians who have died. Scofield Reference Notes

(1) All the Corinthians were baptized (Ac 18:8). (2) Their baptism was a planting in the likeness of the burial of Christ, and in the likeness of his resurrection (Ro 6:4,5). They were in, and raised from, a watery tomb. (3) Their baptism in the likeness of the death and resurrection of Christ was in hope of their own resurrection from the dead through Christ's resurrection. ( Huper Nekroon, for, or on account of the dead, with the exception of resurrection from the dead.) But if Christ has not risen, and the dead rise not, this memorial and emblematic burial has no meaning. Why, then, are they baptized for the dead ? that is, for the sake of their own resurrection from the dead. This interpretation harmonizes better with Paul's argument than any I have seen. People's New Testament

CARM:
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

That's easy, seedplanter. 1 Cor. 15:29 clearly shows that the practice of baptism for the dead was occurring in the Church at the time of Paul, and He did not condemn it. In fact, Paul used it to prove the point of the reality of the resurrection.

Krister Stendahl, a Lutheran New Testament scholar and former Dean and Professor of Divinity at the Harvard Divinity School, says "the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes" (K. Stendahl, "Baptism for the Dead: Ancient Sources,").

One of those contemporary critical analysis is a recent book (2005) by Michael Hull, who is a Professor of Sacred Scripture at St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, New York, also makes that conclusion: "On the basis of this study, Hull concludes that 1 Cor 15:29 is a dual rhetorical question in which Paul holds up one group within the Corinthian community as a laudable example for the entire community. Specifically, those who have themselves baptized are undergoing the rite of baptism because of their steadfast faith in the resurrection of Christ and, concomitantly, of Christians. They undergo the rite of baptism "on account! of the dead"—on account of the fact that the dead are destined for life—and thus shame the arrogance and ignorance of those among the Corinthians who deny the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12)" (Michael Hull, "Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection", Brill Academic Publishers).

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza, I read your posts - all of them. I re-posted them in their context. Evidently they don't work the way you wanted them to. When you use quotes that are vague, it means nothing to me. I can post plenty that say the contrary, with equal the intellect, if not superior.


My challenge stands. Let me add another;

Name one example of a "secret temple ritual" in Scripture.

Give me one example of a Mormon temple rite that is distinct from Christianity (i.e. celestial marriage, baptism for the dead), besides the obvious worship, sacrifices and prayer - not mere conjecture and adhoc theories that are without warrant.

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Since you didn't bother to read what I wrote, I will refrain from pointing out the other multitudinous accounts of temple ritual and ceremony which are clearly described throughout the Bible, including in the Old Testament. It would be worthless to show them to you, since you would gloss over them with the same superficiality.

As Frank Moore Cross, emeritus professor of Hebrew Bible at Harvard, has said, "Someone who does not know much about temples or Mormons building temples should be directed to the Bible... I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up in to the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons."

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

There are numerous references to mysteries and secrets in the Bible. Amos 3:7 plainly states “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” What you want to do is twist this to mean that those who have followed God’s servants, the prophets and apostles are excluded from the secrets or that the secrets have been given to Joseph Smith. This is without warrant, especially since Joseph Smith contradicted the apostles and the prophets. Neither does he pass the test of a true prophet. Also to assume an esoteric knowledge is an interpolation that begs the question. Gnosticism and secret rites are nowhere in Scripture. The secrets have been revealed by the prophets. To say that this is referring to another prophet is again an assumption that is without warrant.

You said, “’But where are the specific temple ordinances,’ you might cry?! Since these ordinances were so sacred and secret, the apostles might not have wanted to divulge all the details.” You are presuming that there are secret rituals and you are presuming that the apostles kept secrets from the followers of Christ. This is an adhoc theory. Paul the Apostle said, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Peter said, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16), yet, Joseph Smith clamed to be in league with Peter and Paul. Give me a break!

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza says: “If Christ and His apostles visited the temple regularly to teach and commune, did they believe the temple was practicing heretical rituals?” Seedplanter’s Reply: If Paul preached on Mars Hill to a bunch of idolaters, does this mean that he condoned idolatry? Furthermore my point was not whether or not the Bible referenced temple worship, sacrifices and burnt offerings, but rather the temple rites that are followed in Mormonism (i.e. baptism for the dead, celestial marriages, etc.). So far all you have produced is conjecture, as I charged you before, which I will show you here.
To be far, let’s take a look at the Scripture references you cited,

1. Jesus said, to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN." Matthew 21:13. Where are the rituals here? I must have missed it.
2. Paul stated what the mystery was in the same paragraph, “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” I guess it’s no secret anymore. Maybe I missed the timple cult somewhere along the way. Maybe you were talking about 1 Tim 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Hmmm, maybe not exactly temple stuff, but still interesting.
3. Colossians 1:26-27, “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” What is the mystery? “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” I guess this temple stuff is hidden in the numerical codes.

jcutler9 »

Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Perhaps Gov Huckabee is angling to share a ticket with Romney? One way or the other?

Hesadanza »

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(continued)

But you are still probably wondering, "But where are all the dark, secret, rituals?" Interestingly, several modern apostles have considered the Mount of Transfiguration to be a temple experience for Peter, James, and John (Matt. 17:1-9; Mark 9:1-9). In this, Christ warns His apostles to "tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead". Again, an esoteric knowledge, not told to every man, woman, and child. There were conditions. And certainly we don't know everything that happened upon that mount. Clement of Alexandria reports that even later Peter, James, and John "were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge." Indeed, Christ had promised them this in Luke 24:49, "but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." The endowment.

Christ gave His apostles authority to bind on earth, and in heaven, something which is nothing other than the authority of the sealing power of the priesthood of God, which has been restored today, and which is exercised in every ordinance in the House of the Lord (Mark 16:19; Matt. 18:18).

"But where are the specific temple ordinances," you might cry?! Since these ordinances were so sacred and secret, the apostles might not have wanted to divulge all the details. John mentions that Christ did many things which are not written in his book, and we might presume also were not written in any of the other books of the Bible (John 20:30). Yet Christ still did them.

I could continue, but I think you get the point.

Hesadanza »

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Seedplanter - in response to your challenge "Give me one single New Testament Scripture that even implies that Jesus or his apostles instituted or endorsed a single temple ritual."

The simplicity of your challenge escapes me. Christ himself visited the temple in Jerusalem daily to teach His gospel (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45-47; John 2:14; Matt. 24:1; Luke 2:27; Luke 2:46; Mark 14:49). As well as His apostles and disciples (Luke 21:37-38; Acts 2:46). Serious and laborious temple work is even prophesied (Rev. 7:15).

Do you think that all the Jews did in the Jerusalem temple was teach? If that is the case, pull out any book on Herod's temple and read up. Nope. There were quite a few rituals and sacrifices taking place in the temple in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. Which brings up an interesting question. If Christ and His apostles visited the temple regularly to teach and commune, did they believe the temple was practicing heretical rituals? I don't think they would have gone there so regularly if that were the case. They probably wouldn't have gone there at all. Which means they must have endorsed or agreed generally with what was going on there. Indeed, Christ was so perturbed by the money changers that were defiling the holy nature of the temple that He kicked them out with a whip! (Matt. 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45, John 2:14). For He said that it was His "Father's House" (John 2:16).

But you probably don't want to hear about those temple experiences. You want the ones that are the more mysterious, sacred, secret, "masonic", temple experiences. Suffice it to say that when the term "mysteries" was used anciently, it was usually in reference to sacred, special knowledge and ordinances not revealed to all. Paul mentions such mysteries in Ephesians 3, which he says that Christ revealed to him. Paul also mentions it in Colossians 1:26-27, which was a special knowledge made "manifest to his saints," but was fit for the Gentiles too if they would prepare themselves. Christ Himself spoke of mysteries, and how they were hid from those that were not prepared to receive them (Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10; ). Again, Paul speaks of mysteries that were held sacred to the saints, even "hidden wisdom", that if the princes of the world had known it, would not have crucified the Lord (1 Cor. 2:7-8). And again, more esoteric special knowledge reserved for the saints of God (1 Cor. 2:9-16). Or how about the "temple recommend" faithfulness requirement in order to be a steward of mysteries? (1 Cor. 4:1-2). Interestingly, Paul even mentions in a revealed "mystery" that in a yet future "dispensation of the fulness of times", that God would "gather together in one all things in Christ" (Eph. 1:9-10). What do you consider the "dispensation of the fulness of times"? We know that it is now, today, through the restoration of God's gospel.

maranatha7593 »

Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"I pray that when you see through the deceit that your faith will not turn to bitterness of soul and lead to atheism."

Amen, seedplanter

Online4Him »

Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Devil, the
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

God
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

Online4Him »

Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.

Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught.

Atonement
"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.)
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.)

Baptism
Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

Bible
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28).

Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)

seedplanter »

Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza, Give me one single New Testament Scripture that even implies that Jesus or his apostles instituted or endorsed a single temple ritual.

Remember, context is everything!

Jesus did not come to bring us traditions wrapped in swaddling clothes. He came to reveal God to us, not a plan, not a temple program. This is life eternal, to KNOW HIM. The Mormon Church is steaped in traditions of their own making and they are closer to Catholicism than Christianity.

As I said earlier, Mormonism stands or falls on Joseph Smith. This isn't very good odds and when the evidence is stacked against him, it is too unbelievable. I pray that when you see through the deceit that your faith will not turn to bitterness of soul and lead to atheism.

Jesus was the corner stone, not Joseph Smith!

Strudelcookies »

Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Also the title of "More Americans Believe in Devil than in Darwin" makes it sound like people don't believe Darwin existed. I'm not sure who words these titles, but whatever.

Strudelcookies »

Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I read all the way through this article and felt betrayed. No quotes from Huckabee's mom. I re-read the title and realized that it wasn't "Huckabee MOTHER on Romney's Mormon Faith," it was "Huckabee SILENT on Romney's Mormon Faith." This article could've been so interesting. Sigh.

Hesadanza »

Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Scott Gordon said it well - "It amazes me that some anti-Mormons claim that Mormons don't know their own beliefs and only anti-Mormons know what Mormons "really" believe. How can we believe something if we don't even know what it is? ... It can't be a belief of the Mormons if the Mormons don't believe it."

Yep, you got me. We don't believe in the same "traditional" Jesus Christ, as far as doctrinal beliefs go. You believe in one that was created over the course of 2000 years through creeds that has become the "traditional" Christ. I believe in the one that was born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth and Galilee, died on the cross, was resurrected after three days, and will return in power and glory again. Our belief in that Christ's true teachings and His true doctrines ends when the New Testament ended. We don't believe post-New Testament Christian history! Although, if we aren't talking about the same Jesus Christ, then who are we talking about? Because there isn't any more than one Man that was ever born as the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. Again, we have never claimed, and don't want to claim, to be "traditional" "orthodox" Christians. We don't follow that line of reasoning, those beliefs, those creeds, those man-made decrees. But we are Christians, nonetheless. Christ set that definition, not some men who got together several hundred years later. We call those who followed Christ in the meridian of time Christians also, but there was no Nicene Creed in sight.

If you want to know more about the endless connections and similarities between Mormon Temples and ancient Christianity, Judaism, and other ancient civilizations ritual practices, I would highly recommend "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment" by Hugh Nibley. The Appendix is particularly fascinating.

SweetBeloved »

Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH VIDEOS REGARDING MORMONISM!! WATCH ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE END!!!...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o&feature=related


http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=baedeae873decb4cd01a

seedplanter »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Hesadanza says: "There is no different gospel, and there is no different Jesus. We teach and preach the same gospel and the same Jesus Christ."

That's not exactly what your presidents think.

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )

The Mormon Jesus:
The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
One of 3 gods in the godhead.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
First one to receive a spirit body.
Spirit brother of Lucifer.

Back to the temple rituals: It will take more than a few well meaning quotes about temples to convince me that what you do in your Mormon temples has any connection at all to early Christianity and Judaism (not including gnosticism and other such cultic participants).

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

There is no different gospel, and there is no different Jesus. We teach and preach the same gospel and the same Jesus Christ.

It is not conjecture, seedplanter. Even other non-LDS religious history authorities agree:

"Someone who does not know much about temples or Mormons building temples should be directed to the Bible . . . I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up into the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons."
-- Frank Moore Cross, Professor of Ancient History, Harvard University

"In antiquity, . . . the Jerusalem Temple was a place where you went to carry out holy acts, sacrifices and the like. I feel that the Mormon experience of the Temple has sort of restored that meaning to the word Temple."
--Krister Stendahl, Dean of Divinity Emeritus, Harvard University

The heart and soul of the entire restored gospel and the ordinances which we believe in is based on Judeo-Christian history.

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

DannyPoo - it is pretty clear from the scriptures that God makes provision to call His prophets in the way He wants to. If He wants to appear to Joseph Smith, He can. If He wants to appear to Moses, He can. If He wants to appear to Adam, He can. For these are prophets, or they soon will be. They are transfigured so that they might endure the presence of God.

A simple explanation would be:
1. if a person is transfigured, they can see God and not die.
2. if a person isn't transfigured, and they don't have the priesthood, they can't see God and not die.

seedplanter »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

GAllen says: "Seedplanter…I have a Book of Mormon right in front of me. It says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Learn to read."

I will admit that its been a while since I have wiped the dust off my BOM (probably about as long as most Mormons dust off their Bible). Nevertheless, Mormonism does present a different 'gospel' and a different Jesus.

Hesadanza says: "You have not done nearly enough study about temples. Judaism and Christianity have been full of temples, rites, and ordinances since the days of Adam."

This is conjecture. Mormonism is not based on historical Christianity or Judaism. It definitely does not correlate with Scripture. Mormonism and the BOM stands or falls on the integrity of Joseph Smith. Not much to stand on.

DannyPoo »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

In 1820, Joseph Smith claims he saw the Father and the Son.

In 1829, Joseph Smith was baptised and conferred the Priesthood

In 1832, Joseph Smith made this statement that is now in the Mormon Scriptures.
"Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." Doctrine and Covenants 84:21-22 (Mormon Scripture).

Wait...did you catch that? Joseph Smith saw the father (in 1820)...without the priesthood (of which he was not conferred untill 1829), and yet Mormon scripture says that men cannot see the Father without the authority of the Priesthood.... Something FISHY is going on here....

Contact me if you have questions about Mormonism xdannypoox@aol.com

DRJ »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

If a person doesn't believe that Jesus Christ is God, he/she does not have God's Holy Spirit. Jesus IS God. If Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, He would not be God. Anyone who does not know that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE can not possibly know God. Furthermore, there is a rumor that Mormans believe they will each become a god, complete with their own planet to rule. If this is a Morman belief, it places them in the same category with Lucifer who said that he would ascend to be above God's throne. Mormanism has undergone many revisions, making it a theology that is unstable and constantly changing. God's Word will stand forever, without any need for revision by men.

GAllen »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Seedplanter…I have a Book of Mormon right in front of me. It says “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Learn to read.

calean007…anyone that has actually studied the history of the Bible knows that the New Testament was put together from various documents found by Christians several hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. The books in the New Testament are not in chronological order. In fact, it’s believed 1 John and 2 John were actually written AFTER the book of Revelations, in which case you would be saying the Apostle John is guilty being an apostate. When John says anyone that takes away or adds to the book is basically going to hell he is referring to the book of Revelations only. The Bible as we know it did not exist when John wrote Revelations. He did not have the New Testament in front of him and was putting the final touches on it. The Bible didn’t exist till several hundred years later. Learn your history.

As for a reference, calean007, try 2 Nephi 31:21. I invite you to look it up yourself. And I invite anyone else wanting to actually know the truth behind “Mormonism” to actually ask a Mormon and not their local pastor whose salary depends on whether you show up to church that week.

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here is Romney's speech, if you would like to read it:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America

WakeWashington »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The speech may not hurt Huckabiuliani much, but it sure won't help their team efforts in the early states.

It may be overshadowed by news stories on kinfolk of a murder victim blaming Huckabee for the Missouri killing.

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here is a good story:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-newvoices0507dec05,0,804997.story

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Wrong. The Book of Mormon states it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". It is a testament. Just like the Old Testament is a testament. The New Testament is a testament. The Book of Mormon is a testament. It witnesses of Jesus Christ, and His gospel. It is NOT a different gospel. It is the same gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lol... "Mormon temple rites are not linked to Judaism or Christianity". You have not done nearly enough study about temples. Judaism and Christianity have been full of temples, rites, and ordinances since the days of Adam.

Christ will appear to those He left in likewise manner. That does not mean He can't appear to others.

The "add or take" argument is so ludicrous it's sad. The same thing was stated in Deut. 4:2-3. If your interpretation is correct, why do we have the rest of the Bible from Deut. 4:2-3 and onward?

The Book of Mormon clearly states in Mosiah 3:17 - "And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."

calean007 »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza

The Book of Mormon is not in accord with the Bible. Jesus ascended into heaven in front of the apostles and the angels said that "this same Jesus will return in a like manner" referring to his appearance in the clouds. Appearing meaning that the Bible says when He returns, all will see Him. SO therefore, He did not have another coming to America to sit and make wampum with the American Indians as your book suggests.

Revelation the last chapter specifically details what happens to those who add or take away from the book. Therefore the book of Mormon and the entire religion is nothing short of apostate, false, and frankly is of the devil, as would any religion worldwide that doesn't acknowledge that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Your book doesn't teach that and if you claim it does, then please quote us chapter and verse where it does state that, along with the absurd claims that Jesus and Satan were brothers, where the Bible clearly makes no mention of any relation between the two. Thanks, but you are wrong.

seedplanter »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza says: "The Book of Mormon and the Bible are in perfect accord with each other."

The cover of the Book of Mormon states that it is "Another Gospel of Jesus Christ." Paul the Apostle states in Galatians 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel."

To drive home the point Paul went on to declare, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" Galatians 1:8,9.

With this in mind, you are right that the BOM is in the Bible, but not necessarily the way you may think. The last days are not marked by prophets, but false prophets. The Mormon faith is based on subjective experience, rather than grounded in history. For example: Mormon temple rites are not linked to Judaism or Christianity, but rather a combination of Smith’s experiences in Masonry. Smith was full of lust, conceit, deceitfulness, and vanity.

My prayer is that Mormons will come to know riches of God that is in Christ Jesus, before their faith in Joseph Smith turns to bitterness. Many have turned to atheism. May the God of all hope shed His grace on those who are honestly searching for the Truth.

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

And we will pray for you too, that you might know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom He hath sent.

FT »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

When Paul wrote of the Jews - "For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." - he could have been writing about the Mormons. Mormons are great people, but they have been horribly deceived. Just as Paul prayed earnestly for his Jewish brethren, we should pray without ceasing for our LDS brethren.

Hesadanza »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

The Book of Mormon and the Bible are in perfect accord with each other. They testify of one another. They both testify and witness of Christ the Lord and His gospel. They both help clarify our understanding of the gospel message. There is nothing "unbiblical" about the Book of Mormon, because they are both teaching the same message.

When Christ said to Peter that the "gates of hell" would never prevail against his church, he meant the priesthood authority which He gave to Peter and the other apostles, which they have now restored to the earth in modern times. The priesthood authority will always prevail against hell. 1 Tim. 3:15 says nothing about the early Christian church never becoming apostate. Indeed, 2 Thes. 2:3 makes it very clear that the Second Coming of the Lord would NOT take place until there had come a "falling away first". In the Reina Valera Bible, "falling away first" is translated as Apostasy.

We believe that God has restored His church in these last days, with all the priesthood, doctrines, ordinances, practices, and organization, in preparation for His Second Coming. This too was prophesied many times anciently (Rev. 14:6). We have a missionary force of about 60,000 who are preaching the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people across the earth today.

Mormons are Christian, have always been Christian, and will always be Christian.

seedplanter »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

For me the problem with Romney is not that he is a Mormon, but because he is a liberal Mormon. I have too many problems with his voting record. Glenn Beck is a Mormon and I would consider voting for him if he ran. Mitt on the other hand, well lets allow him to speak for himself.

http://massresistance.org/romney/

Mitt Romney debated against Ted Kennedy over which of them was more liberal,
Mitt:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US senate candidate ...and you will not see me wavering on that"
Mitt's mom ran as a pro-choice Republican in 1970.

Regarding Boy Scouts excluding homosexual members:
"I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
??????????????????????????

"I am not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

-Romney, Fanueil Hall debate 1994

Watch him for yourself at:

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/kennedy_video.html

FullGospel »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Mormons are taught that the early church became corrupt after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.” Mormon theology claims that they are “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,” as stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30].

Interesting teaching, because Scripture teaches that Jesus said the Church He was founding would not be overcome by the gates of hell. Ever. It would never be apostate, the foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

I think the best approach is to take what's good from Mormonism and work for the good of society on pro-life, pro-family issues, hand-in-hand with Mormons. I plan to.

maranatha7593 »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Mormons have *added to* the Bible, with their own scriptures which are not consistent with the Holy Bible. That's where these strange, unBiblical teachings come from.

maranatha7593 »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have not agreed with every decision President Bush has made, but I've been very grateful that he was in office instead of Gore and Kerry.

maranatha7593 »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church, teaches that authentic Christianity disappeared a century after Jesus and was only restored by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Smith, considered a prophet by Mormons, rewrote large segments of the Bible, which many Christians consider an act of heresy.

Mormons are taught that the early church became corrupt after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.” Mormon theology claims that they are “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,” as stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30]."


The problem with this is, it isn't true. It's all lies.

didymus »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

HyperionOverseer and BooGieONdown,

There are no front lines in this “war”. Suicide bombers are either here in America or they are not, and the fact that we are in Iraq doesn’t change that. The US military does not have a magnetic effect on terrorists.

BooGieONdown said, “Also with the liberation of these mid-east nations the gospel will be able to be poured much easiar than if they weren't liberated.”

So is this a Crusade for you? As in killing for Jesus so that others (the survivors) can be saved?

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/

Hesadanza »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Yes, Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God, the truth, the way, and the light, the Savior of all men. I am a Mormon, and that is what I believe.

BooGieONdown »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

i agree. fight them on their turf. Also with the liberation of these mid-east nations the gospel will be able to be poured much easiar than if they weren't liberated.

Is Jesus considered the Son Of God, truth, the way and the light, the savior of all men in mormanisn?

didymus »

Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

HyperionOverseer,

You said, “DO NOT knock Bush… he did what no other president would do, fight terrorism on THEIR land, not OURS”

Sorry, I have to differ with you on this. I think GW Bush did the wrong thing.

http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/