Now that Governor Romney is off the campaign trail — we don't do any columns of candidates on the trail — we can, without commenting on him or the part his church and faith played in his demise, do a retrospective on the Mormon-hate that blighted air waves, the internet, and some printed quotations while he was spotlit.
The locus classicus of the hate, one that has plenty of company, is the on-air MSNBC spewing by Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr., "pundit and actor," on the McLaughlin Group TV show. I quote: "Romney comes from a religion founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist. And he comes from that lineage and says, 'I respect this religion fully.' . . . He's got to answer." The other religion that gets treated that way with impunity is Islam. O'Donnell was not treated with total impunity; he was knuckle-rapped with a feather-duster suspension. That could change by the time you read this, but for now the remark was not treated with the seriousness that an anti-black or anti-Semitic comment by the merest sportswriter would elicit.
One needs hold no brief for (or against) the Latter-day-Saints or the Muslims and their founders to find occasion to ask what went wrong, what goes wrong, when in a United States where so many good things are happening on the inter-religious, racial, ethnic, and gender front, this underground of "anti"s so frequently emerges. I've had numerous Latter-Day-Saint Ph.D. students, know some leaders, have spoken at some of their scholarly gatherings, have learned and taught much about their history, and can't find anyone who can find something that would rule out a Mormon as Mormon from being Chief Executive. (Curiously, the issue did not even come up, so far as I can remember, when Mitt Romney's father ran for President in a generation that putatively was more prejudiced than our enlightened generation is.)
Let the O'Donnells rant on as they present their bill of particulars: The Mormons have secrets. So do the Masons, who met lethal prejudice one hundred and fifty years ago, but get a free ride now along with your friendly neighborhood fraternities and sororities. Mormons are too clubby and do favors for each other. So are the Notre Dame (or any other strong college of your choice) grads. Or they are too successful. That's not a blight elsewhere in capitalist America. Finally: their founding story is really weird.
Let's stop right there: I like to quote George Santayana, who wrote that "every living and healthy religion has a marked idiosyncrasy. Its power consists in its special and surprising message. . ." One notices: Every religion looks "idiosyncratic" and its stories are "surprising" to all others. We Christians and Jews are empowered, motivated, and—hey! I'm a Christian!—are "saved" by those stories and messages. We spend decades and energies helping fellow-citizens and ourselves live creatively with people who, again in Santayana's terms, propound "another world to live in."
Taking testimony about the evils of Mormonism by ex-Mormons is likely to be as objective as it is if it comes against Catholicism by ex-Catholics. Were it our calling, we could find profound fault with many policies and actions of some Latter-Day-Saints or members and leaders of other faiths. My own company, that of historians, is in the business of telling stories about others' stories. No one is to be uncritical, where there is often much to criticize. But criticism is one thing; hate-speech and untruths are another.
_______________________________________________
Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.
RSS
"Mormons and Idiosyncrasy" is a great article, but the some of the comments added below contain the very hate-speech and untruths that the article decries.
My, my…. The venomous language here reminds me of what we read in The Acts of the Apostles:
The fundamentalist Jews of that time felt that their religion was being threatened by the new gospel of Jesus Christ. “…they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45). They used false witnesses to condemn Stephen, because of their worry that this new religion would “…change the customs which Moses delivered us” (Acts 6:10-14). They thought the gospel “…turned the world upside down…” (Acts 17:5-8). Their strategy was to spread lies: "…the unbelieving [fundamentalists] stirred up the [people], and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” (Acts 14:2).
It appears to be no different today with the advent of restored Christianity. Corrupt traditions, which evolved into today’s churches, are just as threatened by the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ as were some fundamental Jewish traditions during the original apostolic declaration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It’s too bad that Gamaliel’s advice was not heeded then or now. “…let them alone… for [if it] be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5: 34-39).
We will simply state what is an indisputable fact, that Joseph Smith, while in Nauvoo had entered into criminal relations with a number of his female disciples, and the scandal became so notorious as to threaten his influence and compromise him as a leader and teacher of religion, when he pretended to have had a revelation from Heaven commanding the Saints to adopt what is termed, “The order of celestial or plural wives.”
(The Women of Mormonism or The Story of Polygamy As Told By The Victims Themselves - Edited by Jennie Anderson Froiseth - 1882)
Ps 36:4 He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil.
When Brigham Young declared that “if women would not submit to polygamy they should be eternally damned,” and when history shows that women who have resisted have often been murdered, the mystery of the non-resistance policy which they commonly pursue, is certainly cleared up.
“Starve them, and beat them if necessary, to bring them to submission,” said the Mormon apostles; “better crucify the body than let the soul go to perdition.” Well was the method of these hypocrites characterized by a Mormon woman who said of one of them, “He is a man who steps on hearts as though he stepped on stones.”
(The Women of Mormonism or The Story of Polygamy As Told By The Victims Themselves - Edited by Jennie Anderson Froiseth - 1882)
Daniel Hendrix writes from personal knowledge of Smith: "He was a good talker, and would have made a fine stump-speaker if he had had the training. He was known among the young men I associated with as a romancer of the first water. I never knew so ignorant a man as Joe was to have such a fertile imagination. He never could tell a common occurrence in his daily life without embellishing the story with his imagination." 2
(A Fourfold Test of Mormonism by Henry C. Sheldon, Professor in Boston University, 1914)
Pomeroy Tucker, who was well acquainted with Joseph, his family, and most of his earlier followers, testifies that as a youth and young man he was "noted for his indolent and vagabondish character, and his habits of exaggeration and un-truthfulness." [1] (A Fourfold Test of Mormonism by Henry C. Sheldon, Professor in Boston University, 1914)
[1] Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, p. 16.
Quecat my good lad,
I am disappointed that you still seem to be missing the mark. The 4 governing orthodox principles you shared, as well as the idea of "three distinct, but inseparable" beings being one God, are all derived from post-apostolic creeds. Need I again share what Peter said, that no prophecy of the scripture is for private interpretation?
Now, Christ commanded us to be perfect as His Father, correct? And He said that eternal life is to know Him, the Father. How are we to know and become like an unperceivable, indistinguishable being? Where in the Bible does it say that God is indistinguishable from Christ? From the beginning to the end, we discover that indeed, Christ was with God, and He is the Son of God. Genesis' account of the creation uses plural pronouns for God, as “They” create the world. John 3:16 clearly states that Christ is God's Only Begotten Son. There are countless times when the Bible clearly defines the relationship between Christ and God as being the Son of the Father. How can you say it is clearly otherwise? Even if you believe otherwise, you cannot "righteously judge" or demonify others for believing Christ when He says that He is the Son of God, and taking it literally.
About your statement of Evangelicalism, you contradict yourself. It is true that we are saved by Grace. But you say "by grace alone, through faith alone..." which is likely not what you meant. Faith, as defined in the Bible, is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What, then, is the "evidence" of our faith? Well, read the epistle of James and find out. "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." “Without faith, it is impossible to please him, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” How do you seek God? How do you please Him? Through faith, which is only manifested by works. “Show me your faith without works,” says James, “and I will show you my faith BY my works.” The Lord Jesus Christ only further supported this absolute truth by saying, "Not everyone who saith unto me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of My Father, but he who *doeth* the will of My Father who is in heaven." (emphasis added).
Hypocrisy. Hmm, you give an interesting definition. Tell me if you believe the following: that God is the Eternal Father, His Son is Jesus Christ, and His Messenger is the Holy Ghost; Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
And stop contradicting yourself by spouting off inapplicable scriptures. You need something much more substantive to say that Mormons are not Christian.
And now an invitation. Go read a part of the Book of Mormon. If you are too close-minded to try that, then go listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing. You’ll feel the Spirit emanate from those you call “unchristian” and maybe you’ll begin to change your mind.
Good luck, and try understanding Mormons from their perspective, instead of some close-minded contentious preacher’s venomous teachings. False prophets indeed. Anyone who would claim to be Christian and knowingly condemn others and put himself in the place of God is more of a false prophet than anybody.
JBA
One more note regarding Jude 3...
Note the crucial phrase “once for all” in Jude 3. The Greek word here is hapax, which refers to something done for all time, with lasting results, never needing repetition. Nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been delivered “once for all.”
Also important in Jude 3 is the word “delivered.” In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. How did He do that? Through His Word—the Bible.
And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. Our Christian faith rests on historical, objective revelation. That rules out any and all later inspired prophecies, seers, and other forms of new revelation until God speaks again at the return of Christ (Acts 2:16–21; Rev. 11:1–13).
(part 2)
And how do we know about Jesus? Jesus isn’t on earth now, revealing Himself to men in the way that He did to his disciples. How do we know about Jesus today? Well, what we know about Christ is dependent upon the written word of the Gospels, the Gospels that were written by men like Matthew and Luke and Mark and John. Jesus commissioned certain men to act as His authorized representatives, i.e., Jesus delegated to certain men the right to speak for Him. They had His ‘power of attorney’ (if I can use the legal expression). In fact, that is very close to what the word ‘apostle’ meant in the days of the New Testament. The apostle of a man was considered the man himself in a court of law. The apostle could speak for that man, and the words spoken by the apostle was legally accounted to be the word of the one that commissioned him!
Again in John 14:26 we see that Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be given so that the Apostles will have brought to their remembrance all that Jesus taught, i.e., Jesus wants to pass on to the world through the Apostles not their wisdom, not their insight, but His own Word! Jesus, remember, is the high point of God’s revelation. Jesus turns to the Apostles and says, “The Spirit will bring to your mind everything that I have taught.”
The office of Apostle is not a continuing office in the Church! To be an Apostle it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ as we see in Acts 1:22 — also reflected in Paul’s defense of his Apostolic credentials in I Corinthians 9:1. Moreover, it was required that you be personally commissioned by the Lord Himself which is what Paul claims in Galatians 1:1, that He is an Apostle not by the Word of men but by revelation of Jesus Christ! The Apostles were those who were witnesses of the resurrected Christ and personally commissioned by Him. And thus the Apostolic office was restricted to the first generation of the Church.
Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is founded upon the Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone. And beyond the foundational days of the Church, the foundation-laying days of the Church, there is no Apostolic revelation. In building a structure, you do not once having laid a foundation, continue to lay additional foundations upon the first! This is common sense.
And that’s why when you look at Jude (the 3rd verse) you see the author in his own day — when Apostolic instruction was still current by the way — Jude in his own day could speak of “the faith” as “once for all delivered unto the saints.”
Without a doubt, Paul is writing to a young Timothy in about the year AD65 in the passages in question. He is exhorting him to remember what his grandmother and mother have taught him regarding the faith and existing scriptures. This is the same faith which Jude later refers to the "faith, once and for all delivered unto the saints"
While two of the harmonic gospels, Matthew and John were not written until after AD65, the Gospel of Luke had already been written by AD60 and Mark was written as much as 5 years before that. Of course what we now know as the Bible was not yet fully and cohesively existant, but then it is without question that Christian disciples of the day were converted and taught doctrine by word of mouth.
In John 14:26 Christ tells the apostles that he will send the Holy Spirit to bring to their remembrance all that He has taught them.
How about Hebrews 1:1-2? The author of that epistle tells us that in the PAST God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways — BUT in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son!
The author of Hebrews makes it clear that the epitome of God’s revelation is found in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is the high point, the apex of all of God’s revelatory manners and means. Jesus Christ is the highest revelation, the clearest revelation of God because obviously Jesus is God Himself.
Quecat - Once again you have failed to address the questions YOU raised several days ago which I then responded to. And don't try to hide behind this "you can't reason with the LDS" claim. Now let me bring you back to a few days ago wherein you claimed that Paul told Timothy he had all he needed to preach, therefore why do we need the BoM. So here is my reposne to you AGAIN:
Quecat - Just a few quick thoughts. Pauls letters to Timothy were at what point in Bible Chronology? Were they last? Or did others write after Paul? This is impoprtant because if the canon was complete at the Pauline epistles no more need be written according to your interpretation of his words, correct? Or is it perhaps more likely that Paul was pointing that the scriptures of his day contained all one needed to preach, not that the canon was closed. And bear in mind he says 'since Timothy's childhood'. That would have negated most of the New Testament if that canon was closed when Timothy was a child. Obviously Paul was not teaching that the canon of scripture was closed, he was simply saying Timothy had what he needed to preach. In much the same way additional accounts of Christ's ministry are not considered superfluous (or do we not need Mark, Luke and John). Instead we are greatful for "two or three wintesses". Well Quecat, the BoM provides another witness of Christ much like Matt., Mark, Luke and John.
The bible speaks in many places about using sound judgment and "reproving" others, urging them to turn from their sin.
Does the New Testament teach believers to not judge? Jesus did say: "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Mat. 7:1) but Jesus gave that teaching to hypocrites (Mat. 7:5). for He specifically commands His followers to judge:
Hypocrisy: The act of pretending to oppose a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time. (Trust me there is no hypocrisy in me when I say that LDS teaching regarding the full nature of the Godhead is heretical.)
John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
1Cr 5:9-13 "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–
not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters (worshippers of false gods). In that case you would have to leave this world.
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who CALLS HIMSELF A BROTHER,but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater (woshipper of false gods) or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Regarding modern day prophets, test them. Do they show a history of inerrancy? If not, beware!
A biblical warning regarding false prophets and their fate:
Deu 18:20-22 " But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken..."
"She" is not nowhere to be found, she is at work and has little time to debate vain theologies.
I've "discussed" at length the true nature of Christ our Lord with enough LDS people to last me a lifetime. What I have found is that they are so entrenched in their twisted view of theology that there is no reasoning with them. I won't be drawn into your 'let me prove to you that LDS is a Christian faith" wranglings any more.
Tts 3:8-11 "This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
But avoid foolish controversies (questioning, debate) and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self‑condemned."
It is not always easy to tell the difference between heretical and orthodox doctrines. Often people of different religions use the same or nearly the same words to express widely different ideas. One of the marks of false doctrines, is the use of Christian terminology to express non-Christian concepts. This is very much the case with deification.
How, then, can Christians tell the difference? There are four essential elements to an orthodox view of the relationship between God and man, and any doctrine which compromises or denies these teachings is less than soundly orthodox.
These four elements are monotheism, trinitarianism, incarnationalism, and evangelicalism.
MONOTHEISM, is the view that a single, unique, infinite Being (called God) created all other beings out of nothing, and that this Creator will forever be the only, real, true God.
TRINITARIANISM is the distinctive Christian revelation of God, according to which the one God exists eternally as three distinct but inseparable persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
INCARNATIONALISM is the teaching that the second person of the Trinity (called the "Word" in John 1:1,14, and the "Son" in Matthew 28:19), without ceasing to be God, became flesh, uniting uniquely in His one undivided person the two natures of deity and humanity.
EVANGELICALISM is the belief that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about where that leaves you and your beliefs.
Why is it when someone makes a substantive point to quecat he is suddenly no where to be found? ProfessorX is the same. It's like they are ninjas who attack then retreat when the fight comes to them.
Dear Quecat,
The Lord said, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." (Luke 6:37) I would be hopeful that your condemning remarks in mentioning Galatians 1:6-9 are not meant to be such, for they had very little to do with the subject of seeing God face to face. Granted, they are true, but you have no busines pointing fingers at other people. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Regardless of our own strengths, we should "Humble [ourselves] in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift [us] up."
Now, concerning the "face to face" doctrine you discussed, first of all: 2 Peter 1:20 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." So for you to quote Wesley is totally meaningless to me. He is not an Apostle of Christ. The idea of speaking face to face is clear and explicit. Indeed, the term "face to face" is interchangeable with "seeing". Any english major could tell you that. It also implies a distinct two-way exchange, as you said. In addition, acknowledging the fact that God spoke "as a man speaketh unto his friend" further supports the idea that they indeed did meet together, within sight of eachother. It certainly cannot be evidence that they did not.
You are right, however, that there is no contradiction in the scripture here. It says that Moses requested specifically to see God's "glory" in Exodus 33:18. That is too much for mortal man to bear. This was the distinguising factor that prevented Moses from seeing God's face thereafter, because as we know in verse 23, the Lord said to Moses, "and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." Obviously, if the Lord said that Moses should see Him, then it is possible.
Also, about the false apostles scripture in 2 Cr. Read Matthew 7:16-20. We as a people are sometimes guilty of assuming all prophets are false ones. That is not what the Lord was saying. We will know the prophet's truth by his fruits. I challenge you to try reading the Book of Mormon and telling me what you think. No one can browse through that book and still think that Mormon's do not believe in the Savior.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=Alma+7%3A10-14&do=Search
You shall know them by their fruits. I do not assume that Mormons or Mormonism is inherently evil. I have seen their works, and I have learned quite a bit about their beliefs, and they have my respect. Again, be careful to "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
With love and respect, and no contention nor ill will in my heart, I hope you see the merits of the LDS people. Think back to the apostle Paul, on Mars' Hill in Athens as recorded in the book of Acts. Did he condemn the Greeks for believing something different? No, he built them up, and used their "unknown god" as an example on which he built a foundation. If one seeks to tear apart Mormon faith, he will never help them see his views. Only building and edifying, "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" then can we be true Christians. (Ephesians 4:13)
Good luck, and God bless you.
JBA
Quecat - Just a few quick thoughts. Paulks letters to Timothy were at what point int Bible Chronology? Were they last? Or did others write after Paul? Because if the canon was complete at the Pauline epistles no more need be written according to your interpretation of his words, correct? Or is it perhaps more likely that Paul was pointing that the scriptures of his day contained all one needed to preach, not that the canon was closed. And bear in mind he says since Timothy's childhood. That would have negated most of the New Testament. Obviously Paul was not teaching that the canon of scripture was closed, he was simply saying Timothy had what he needed to preach. Additional accounts of Christ's ministry are not considered superfluous (or do we not need Mark, Luke and John). Instead we are greatful for "two or three wintesses". In much the same was, the BoM provides another witness of Christ.
Also, the scriptures have many warnings against false prophets. But funny that they warn specifically against "false" prophets. To judge by the churches of today you would think it was simply "prophets" we had been warned against.
Quecat - I'll assume you missed my response and repost it here. Take a gander and let me know your toughts:
Paul writing to Timothy:
2 Tim 3:14-17 (Amplified) "But as for you, continue to hold to the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced, knowing from whom you learned [them] And how from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding for salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Question: If there was yet another testament to come (ie: Book of Mormon), how is it that in Paul and Timothy's day, Paul could tell Timothy that what he had already been taught and the scripture that he already had access to, is ALL that he needed to be complete and thoroughly equipped?
Gal 1:6-9 " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. "
2 Cr 11:13-15 "For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
So when Moses talked to God "face to face" it doesn't mean he was looking at God face to face, but there was complete and total communication between God and Moses. It was a dialogue rather than a monologue. He would talk to God, God would speak right back to him, but he did not actually see the face of God.
In the New Testament Jesus tells us that, "No man hath seen God at any time. But the Only Begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He has manifested Him"(John 1:18).
By comparing scripture with scripture, we realize that Moses did not actually look upon the face of God because here in the very chapter, it says, "No man can see God's face and live."
Did Moses here contradict himself? Did he say in Exodus 33:11 that he had seen the Lord face to face, and then nine verses later say that he could not?
Neither Exodus 33:11 nor Deuteronomy 34:10 say that Moses saw God face to face. Such an understanding of these two texts betrays a lack of care in reading. Notice a few things:
In both texts, God is the subject, not Moses. We are told what God did, not what Moses did.
In neither text do we find the word "see" or anything which is interchangeable with it.
In Exodus 33:11, God "...spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." The phrase "face to face" is not used here to refer to their physical position in relation to one another, but the intimate nature of the LORD's discourse with Moses. Wesley says, "He spake not as a prince to a subject, but as a man to his friend, whom he loves, and with whom he takes sweet counsel."
Deuteronomy 34:10 says that the LORD "knew" Moses "face to face". Again, the phrase "face to face" is not being used of physical position, but of their relationship. How did the LORD know Moses face to face? The following verses tells us, "In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land, and in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel." (34:11-12).
Exodus 33:20-23 makes it clear that Moses did not see God's face. There is no contradiction.
Exd 33:17-23 "And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
And he (God) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
And He (God) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. "
Dear JC,
A few scripture I recalled, that I simply wish to offer as supplements. I'm truly sorry I don't have a lot of time today to respond to anything else though.
John 5:18 - "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
Philippians 2:6 - "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
and for Quecat,
Exodus 33:11 - "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."
Quecat, I believe, and I have heard many of my friends of different Protestant faiths explain that impurity prevents men from seeing God, but if one is forgiven of sin through Christ's sacrifice, then that person can be brought into the glorious presence of God.
Regardless, good luck, and Beloved, always be Christ-like in speech and thought, for "the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." (James 3:8-9)
Sincerely,
JBA
ProfessorX - Yep, you must be right. Huckabee must be about to win this thing. I mean he has almost as many delegates as Mitt Romney, a candidate who has been out of the race for over a week and missed several primaries. Huckabee might just catch up with Mitt before he drops out. Come on. get real. It is now mathmatically impossible for Huck to win.
And that litany of reasons Huckabee is superior on your blog is hardly substantive. You forgot to mention that Huckabee is also :thrifty and brave". And then you delved into paranoia territory with the Mormon-Mason" Banking conspiracy garbage.
http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com/g/cf6a5c23-8be1-4dd7-8e95-a30cf68d9d2a
Woa, an article in the Christian Post that isn't villainizing Mormons? I'm in shock.
ProfessorX, in case you weren't aware, it is over. Huckabee lost. Romney gave McCain his delegates. I've persoanlly spoken to some of these delegates. It'll be a cold day you-know-where when they vote for Huck. They are all (those I know) planning to go for McCain. That means he has the nomination wrapped up. Stick a fork in Huckabee, he is done. Sorry to break it to you.
http://evolutionfacts.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/15/the_shift_in_momentum_is_for_president_huckabee_in_2008__exposing_the_tactics_of_political_masons.thtml
And by the way, anyone want to respond to my questions a few posts down?
Quecat - Just a few quick thoughts. Paulks letters to Timothy were at what point int Bible Chronology? Were they last? Or did others write after Paul? Because if the canon was complete at the Pauline epistles no more need be written according to your interpretation of his words, correct? Or is it perhaps more likely that Paul was pointing that the scriptures of his day contained all one needed to preach, not that the canon was closed. And bear in mind he says since Timothy's childhood. That would have negated most of the New Testament. Obviously Paul was not teaching that the canon of scripture was closed, he was simply saying Timothy had what he needed to preach. Additional accounts of Christ's ministry are not considered superfluous (or do we not need Mark, Luke and John). Instead we are greatful for "two or three wintesses". In much the same was, the BoM provides another witness of Christ.
Also, the scriptures have many warnings against false prophets. But funny that they warn specifically against "false" prophets. To judge by the churches of today you would think it was simply "prophets" we had been warned against.
Paul writing to Timothy:
2 Tim 3:14-17 (Amplified) "But as for you, continue to hold to the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced, knowing from whom you learned [them] And how from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding for salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Question: If there was yet another testament to come (ie: Book of Mormon), how is it that in Paul and Timothy's day, Paul could tell Timothy that what he had already been taught and the scripture that he already had access to, is ALL that he needed to be complete and thoroughly equipped?
1Jo 4:1 " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. "
1Jo 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time..."
...including Joe Smith!
While I stand by what I said to kick off this post, let me regress to a point that this article inspires.
I have a friend who started grad school about a year ago. At the time, Mitt was starting his run for the Presidency. At a mixer to kick of graduate school and meet fellow schoolmates. This friend introduced himself and in conversation it came out that he was Mormon. A few in the crowd then made a point of changing the subject to the Presidential race and explained that as Evangelical Christians they would never support Romney's bid. It was a non-starter for them simply based upon his religion. This is an attitude I have encountered frequently. Now, for starters, I find such an admission at an event where people were just getting to know one another completely boorish. How rude to start of ones entire acquaintance with someone by basically telling them in front of their peers that they find their faith so repugnanrt that it would impact their voting for public office. That's like, "hey, nice to meet you, oh you're a Mormon?, yeah, hmmm I find that faith so crazy I wont for Romney. Good luck this semester." What a way to alienate someone right off that bat. And if you were hoping to have any influence over that person, what a way to obliterate any such ability. But what trioubles me more, and what is more germane to this discussion, is that I find such views are often influenced by the very same lies, half-truths and deception that are being described in this article. I can live with the fact that Mitt lost (despite the fact that I worked tirelessly to get him elected). But what nags me is that he may have lost partly as a result of false ideas and dishonesty on the part of some voices in the Evangelical community. That's what keeps me up at night.
And for the record, no, I did not support romney merely because he was Mormon. I worked for him, was impressed, and despite his daliance with more moderate views, I found him to be a better candidate than other (although I liked Fred a lot).
So I hope those that spread the lies and half-truths that influenced the kind of evangelicals I described here are nejoying what they are reaping. McCain has won the nomination. Huckabee has lost (I knew through the grapevine that Romney would support McCain not Huck). It's now public. So I would like to ask those who helped Mitt's demies with such deception, what did you accomplish? Are we better off or worse off as a nation? and did the cause of Christ gain or suffer ebcause you allowed a Social Moderate to win? Babies will die by abortion when Romney would have appointed conservative to the S.C. McCain won't. So what did you reap?
To Shohan:
Beloved, why do you stir things? What I brought to this post was by invitation.
From "tocunningham": I've always appreciated honest questions and open dialog. It's refreshing.
From "ep1433": I can't speak for all Mormons but I never mind an honest critic. Those who come to us with questions and doubts, or even grave reservations shouldn't be villified.
From "quizitor" As an evangelical I am often embarrassed when I hear foolish rants against Mormon religion, but I am also convinced that the religion must be challenged by Protestants and Catholics alike.
Dear Shohan, as far as the Urim and Thummim are concerned, these are a very important part of the foundation of Mormonism.
It seems that the only word read in Martin Marty's piece was the word 'Mormon."
This essay was about Christian behavior, NOT Mormon beliefs. (And I do believe that it is a false religion built upon lies, as clear evidence shows.)
And the sad part is that many Christians do not ACT like Christiians.
We would all do well to remember the wisdom of Luther who said that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.
What hath Urim and Thummim to do with Marty's essay???
To JBA:
Dear one, thank you for your kind words. You're right, some can say hostile comments concerning religion.
There is one important thing you have overlooked. It is true that Jesus did say that we are called to be sons of God as well. However, the Pharisees didn't have Jesus killed because He was claiming to be The Son of God, they had Him killed because He was claiming to BE God. This is a huge difference.
For a creation to be one with it's creator, still doesn't make the creation equal with the creator. This just means they have a relationship, not a partnership.
Be careful dear one when you say "either He is a master ventriloquist or there are two distinct individuals there, one in the water, one calling from the heavens that He is well pleased in His Own Son".
Now you are limiting God's abilities on Earth. This can be a very dangerous position.
Beloved, I am not in anyway suggesting that all Mormons are going to Hell anymore than I would suggest all Catholics would. I think that His Bride is spread amongst many denominations. Out of the seven churches in the Book of Revelation, there was only one that was in danger of losing it's place in the candleholder. The one that had lost it's first love. There were other churches that had issues as well, but were not in immediate danger of losing their place.
What I am suggesting is that we know who we worship. He called us to follow Him, not somebody's interpretation of Him, especially if the foundation of that person's interpretation does not line itself up perfectly with His Word.
Jesus Christ, the Savior of The World, and The Bible are one. They cannot be separated.
Revelation 19:13 "He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God."
This is by what standard we are allowed to look at something to determine whether something is from Him or not.
My comment was a little long, I had to split it in two, sorry to all.
In answer to the "true problem of LDS" according to Smithdl:
A document entitled "The Living Christ" from the LDS Church supplies the following quote concerning Christ and is an official statement of doctrine of the Mormons, from the Mormons: "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New." You already agree with this doctrine. Clearly Mormons do as well.
Here's the link (second paragraph, first sentence): http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,5022-1,00.html
The way I understand LDS theology concerning the Father and the Son is that indeed the relationship, Father and Son, is a real one. So, in reading what I say next, realize this is my own understanding.
When Christ states that He Himself is one with the Father in John 17 during His great intercessory prayer for the Salvation of mankind, aside from other things He also prays that they (Apostles, believers, etc.) will be one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father. He draws direct comparison, that the way in which He is one with the Father is the same as the way in which He will be one with His followers. Also, Stephen the Martyr saw Christ at the right hand of His Father, and again on the mount of transfiguration, Christ stood with Moses and Elias when the voice of God called from the heavens. At the Lord's baptism, either He is a master ventriloquist or there are two distinct individuals there, one in the water, one calling from the heavens that He is well pleased in His Own Son. These are just a few scriptural examples the I hope help you see some reasoning behind what Mormons believe. IMPORTANT: I am not saying I disagree with you on a lot of things, I am saying that Mormons and the Bible are not the same as oil and water, just be open-minded.
And JC, I appreciate that you draw on scriptural examples with Israel and the manifold blessings given to them. The comparison, however, might be drawn on misunderstanding. The nation of Israel was blessed, until the rejection of Christ, and then eventually cursed. With those blessings, they had fairly riotous lives, we know, as they stoned the prophets and whatnot. I agree with you on those points you made, however...
What I was saying before about what LDS people do with the blessings they have already been given is clearly different. I was saying that Mormons, on the other hand, do not live riotous lives, but peculiarly virtuous ones. They do not stone those who call them to repentance, but rather (for the most part) embrace them. And charitable work seems to be a common trait among them. Obviously these are traits you would love to see in all Christians, correct? I don't mind if you want to draw a new comparison. I am just saying that the former one might be drawn from a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I apologize if that is the case.
Also, concerning Jesus and Lucipher, the Bible clearly states that Lucipher was fallen from heaven, the son of the morning. It also clearly states that Christ, the Word, was in the beginning with God. Christ is the Creator of all things (I think this is also mentioned in the Mormon document "The Living Christ"). Jesus and Lucipher were obviously both residents of heaven according to the Bible, but seeking to explain further than that is not my place. I can say, however, that if they are brothers, spiritually speaking, it wouldn't frustrate my faith in Christ as the Savior of the world, so I can offer you that from me personally. I do not say this to invite attack, because it's something irrelevant to me. I say this because we all believe that Christ is our older brother, and that doesn't detract from His divinity, does it? Why should anything else?
And concerning the seer stones, I think it is a moot point. Depending on which historical source you are reading, and whether you are a Jew or a Catholic or a Christian along with a few other factors, the seer stones of ancient Israel could very well have been two stones. But I would like to do more reading, so any resources you have, please send me a link, and I would gladly read up on it.
And I do think of you as Beloved because of your conduct here. Please continue to exhibit quality and high caliber. Too often, I see people disparaging Mormons for no good reason, which is why I was drawn to the above article in the first place.
To JBA:
Beloved, even a Muslim believes that doing works like the aid that Mormons gave hurricane Katrina victims is proper, but will it get them anywhere? Of course not. It's not about works, it never has been. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help our fellow citizens of this planet, not at all. To do this is just inhumane. It's about the heart dear one, not works.
As far as judging an entity on the blessings that were bestowed on it; Was not Israel blessed over and over, but still failed to see the one who bestowed the blessing? They had the King in their midst, but still failed to recognize Him.
Concerning the Urim and Thummim. First of all, they were not both stones, as Joseph Smith has suggested. One was a stone, the other a piece of wood. Both were worn around the Chief Rabbi's neck. When the stone glowed, from the touch of God, the wood would then becan to become warm. How is this in anyway associated with what Joseph Smith claims to be the Urim and Thummim?
JBS, beloved, let's talk about translation a bit, since you brought it up. May I ask you one question? Were Jesus and Lucipher born brothers, or is one the creator and the other the creation?
JBA,
To compare a seer stone and Urim and Thummim to what Joseph Smith used is to lack knowledge of both. They were used completly different.
Second, it doesn't solve the true problem of LDS.
Romans 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
That word Lord there is the greek word kurios, and it is the same greek word used to describe Jehovah or Yaweh of the old testament. That is, salvation only comes from believe that Christ is the Lord, the Father. For you see, Christ and the Father are one.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one
So my point is, the only Christ that brings salvation is the one that is also the Father. This is the true gospel, and is why Joseph should have read his bible more. He would have known to tell the angel that it was lying, for he should have known this truth. And it sir, is the truth of salvation.
To address JC,
The LDS Church has a long history of Christian behavior that I would like to point out before addressing your concerns. For instance, in my home town community, the Church repeatedly was attacked in newspaper articles by the evangelical community, but when Hurricane Katrina came along, no one seemed to be opposed to the fact that the Mormons were the main driving force in helping people get back on their feet. The largest baptist church in the community, with about 3000 weekly church goers, had a sign out front, "If you want food, go to the Mormons". This is just one example, others include the LDS response to the tsunami in southeast Asia, the response to the devastating typhoon a year or so back in Australia, the vaccination of African children, etc.
I say you can judge an entity by what it does with the blessings that the Lord has given it. Don't try to hurt a good thing.
Secondly, the concern that the Gospel according to Mormons is different from what the Bible teaches is invalid. A quick search on google will return an article called "17 Points of the True Church." This is a biblical based process of analyzing church teachings from any denomination, and the LDS dogma is the only doctrine that is in line with all 17 points of the true church as found in the bible. This does not detract from any other denominations. It merely shows the merits of LDS faith, which should be acknowledged.
The Urim and Thummim as Joseph Smith described is in the same way a seer stone as that which Aaron the brother of Moses possessed. The path by which they came to Joseph Smith's hands is easily identified in the same way the people of the Book of Mormon came to be on the American continent.
Also, accusations of witchcraft are erroneous. Clearly the descriptions of the Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament are in line with those of Joseph Smith.
Lastly, the LDS Church states that they believe "the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". Neither the authenticity or divinity of the Bible is questionable to the Mormons, they are points of fact. The only difference most Christians can argue here is that of the Bible's infallibility. If this is a concern, read Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. There is obvious discrepancy in the two accounts of the vision of the Apostle Paul. I confidently assume this was not Luke's intention (who is the apparent author of Acts), but rather an error that was not addressed by the copyists of the centuries. I personally believe the Bible, but as a student of History, I know that mistranslations have been propagated, and tend to agree with my Mormon friends on this perception. The Bible is still the word of God and is still the source of the Gospel, even to Mormons.
An entity can always be judged by it's foundation. The Mormon church is no exception. If we look at the foundation (or beginnings) of the Mormon church, we look back to when Joseph Smith was 14 years old. He claimed to have a vision in which two personages appeared before him, whom he believe to be the Father and the Son. He asked them which Christian denomination he should join and they told him that they were all wrong and corrupt.
In 1873, Smith saw the "angel Moroni" appear at his bedside and tell him of a book written on golden plates by former inhabitants of the continent that would contain "the fullness of the everlasting gospel". Four years later, Smith "dug up" the plates and began translating their "reformed Egyptian" writing with the help of two special stones, called "Urim" and "Thummim".
As Smith translated the plates, he sat behind a curtain looking into a hat, supposedly reading lines of the Book of Mormon, as they appeared on "seer stones" and dictating each line to a scribe outside the curtain. It should be noted here that as a youth and young man, Smith was a well-known hunter for buried treasure with the aid of a seer (or peep) stone.
Despite Mormon denials of Smith's occult practices, incontroversial evidence shows that in 1826 he was convicted of "glass looking" (using a seer stone), a misdemeanor, because those who used these stones were often con-men.
--------------
From a Biblical point of view, there are various problems with the above. First, is written in Galatians 1:8:
8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Second, the Urim and Thummim were in the days of old, and were in the Middle East, not in North America. Also, one was a stone, the other was a piece of wood. The Chief Rabbi would wear these two articles around his neck, pressing against his skin.
Third, never in the Bible does it tell us to use articles of witchcraft, i.e. the seer stone, or looking glass (known more today as a crystal ball), to find God. This is strictly warned against. You see where it got Saul when he had the woman call up Samuel.
Finally, any "religion" that calls itself Christian, must adhere to the Bible, God's Word. They must stay true to this, no matter what else is written or told, they must stay true to His word. To do anything else is a violation of the 1st Commandment. If one were to call themselves Christian, but do not follow the Bible, as it is written, then they are not followers of Christ, but followers of “gods” that they themselves have created in their own minds.
Beloved, the foundation on which Mormonism stands crumbles when exposed to the Word of God.
Why ROMNEY LOST because the INFORMATION on this SITE.
http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com
Just click the word MORMON CHURCH AND HIDDEN AGENDAS AND THEIR CONNECTION WITH THE MASONS.
You may be familiar with the words of the Apostle Paul. If you would open your bible to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, you will see the verses I have copied.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Verse 5 seems pretty clear. Paul just said that there are "gods many, and lords many"
The important part is verse 6. Paul is telling us that though there are other gods, "to us there is but one God."
This doesn't make an apostle polytheistic does it? It seems to me from these bible verses that there are many gods, but we worship one God, the Father. Our worship of one God only makes us monotheists.
jws,
The plural for "us" was probably an honorific, or it could be referring to the trinity, in any case the Bible is clear there is only one God. No amount of wishful thinking can change this, if you say otherwise then your religion is not Judeo-Christian, it is polytheistic.
quizitor said, "Among Christians there are reasonable differences about some details of Creation, but one of them is not whether man is made in the image of God or in the image of "the Gods."
Hmmm.....Doesn't Genesis 1:26 suggest reasonable support for the latter when it says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."? (notice the plural pronouns)
As an evangelical I am often embarrassed when I hear foolish rants against Mormon religion, but I am also convinced that the religion must be challenged by Protestants and Catholics alike. Mormon religion, claiming to be the only true Christian church, waters down essentials of Christian faith. A prime example is its Creation account in its Book of Abraham: "The Gods" created the heavens and earth, and "the Gods" made man and woman "in the image of the Gods." Among Christians there are reasonable differences about some details of Creation, but one of them is not whether man is made in the image of God or in the image of "the Gods."
As a Mormon I have to say that I agree with ep1433's sentiments. I've always appreciated honest questions and open dialog. It's refreshing. It is too often, however, that I run into people like O'Donnell who either don't know the facts or are deliberately abusing them. Many of them have been grossly misinformed of our beliefs. I don't understand what motivates people to misrepresent the beliefs of others. The religious communities in the United States could accomplish a great deal more that is good if energy was not spent in trying to tear each other down.
I can't speak for all Mormons but I never mind an honest critic. Those who come to us with questions and doubts, or even grave reservations shouldn't be villified. It would be hypocritical as I once had many of the same objections. What I don't appreicate are the lies, half-truths and slander offered by some. Frankly even a proper objection delivered from a position of hate or deep mistrust isn't likely to be seen as an objective dispute. But please bring your questions and concerns and open heart.
Thanks for this essay.
As an example of what I described above, my wife and I watched "The Mormons" last night on PBS. It is often critical, often praising. But I didn't mind hearing objections. Admittedly not all LDS see things this way. Much as not all Evangelicals appreciatehonest critics.
I pray we (LDS or Evangelical) all approach or learning with an open heart, fair-minded and just toward others not of our faith.