tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15221890347504139692024-02-06T18:52:36.827-08:00Escaping GodhoodMy experiences and findings as a former LDS turned Christian, and my life since.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-69489704248295905572014-10-18T13:27:00.000-07:002014-10-18T13:27:18.239-07:00An Atheist's Response to the Book of MormonI still have a number of Mormon friends on Facebook, and some of them post a lot of articles related to their religion. It's always interesting to me to see what is currently persuasive or interesting to LDS members. It gives me a chance to see articles like <a href="http://www.dearmissmormon.com/2014/10/an-atheists-response-to-first-31-pages.html" target="_blank">this one</a>, called "An atheist's response to the first 31 pages of the Book of Mormon."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg" height="210" width="320" /></a></div>
And seeing such articles, I can respond to or critique them, usually after a face-palm, head shaking, or internal ranting.<br />
<br />
This one is supposedly a letter from an atheist to a Mormon, from when she was on her mission and visited him and his wife. He was supposedly raised Lutheran, but from a Christian perspective, I think its obvious that he had limited understanding of Christianity and the Bible, or he wouldn't hold some of the views expressed in this letter. I also take leave to doubt that this is really a letter from an atheist, because it sounds very, very Mormon-ish.<br />
<br />
My responses will be in (parenthesis and <i>italics</i>.)<br />
<br />
<br />
_________________________________________________________________________________<br />
To [Miss Mormon],<br /><br />I hope the following helps to keep you motivated and inspired. I hope it is confirmation that Mormon beliefs are justifiable, and deserve to be respected alongside other Christian denominations:<div>
(<i>If Mormon beliefs are justifiable, why wouldn't he accept them? Why would he want to confirm her beliefs for her? You see why I am skeptical that this is really from an un-converted atheist.)</i><br /><br />I just read the first 31 pages of the Book of Mormon, and was entranced by 1 Nephi chapters 8 and 10. I feel as thought I could almost stop there, and come away with something. That something is this:<br /><br />The Book of Mormon should be read by all Christians.<br /><br />As an Atheist, that's not the effect I thought the book would have on me. Nevertheless, I can imagine the amount of "push back" Mormons have to face, trying to convince a "Christian" to read it. What a shame. Because it is the most clearly written Christian Biblical Document. If Christians would be willing to read the text, compare it to what they already believe, most would not only agree with it, but would find that it strengthens their faith even further. (<i>The only reason that Christians would agree with things in the Book of Mormon is because most of the theology was taken either directly from the Bible or from 19th century reformation preaching. However, it is only faith-strengthening if we accept the Book of Mormon as legitimate, historical, and truly penned by prophets of God. Otherwise, it is just a work of biblical-sounding 19th century fiction, which isn't particularly useful for strengthening faith. Further, experience to the contrary. I know a number of Christians who have read all or part of the Book of Mormon and do not find that it strengthens their faith, because they reject it as scripture.)</i>1 Nephi 10 provides a greater and more straight forward message than Paul's letter to the Romans. And Romans is considered to be the definitive New Testament Epistle. The Reformation was based on Romans. But Nephi chapter 10 tops it. (<i>I just don't see this. The prophecies contained in this chapter is found in the Bible; for instance, that the Jews would return to Israel, that a Messiah would come, that he would be preceded by John the baptist, etc etc. Other parts are contained clearly in Romans and other parts of the Bible, such as the statement that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all mankind is in a lost and fallen state without Jesus. This chapter is an extremely simplistic summary; it no way tops the beautiful and deeper doctrines laid out through the epistle of Romans.)</i></div>
<div>
<br />There are really only two hangups to widespread Christian acceptance of the Book of Mormon. The first, is the fact that, the Book of Mormon isn't already in the Bible. If the chapters of the book of Mormon were placed within the standard bible , and Christians just grew up knowing that 1 Nephi was found after Malachi and Jeremiah or Habakkuk...they would bite into it hook line and sinker. It would be accepted as biblical cannon. What could possibly make them object?<br />(<i>Placement in the Bible would require that it be legitimate scripture written by authentic prophets who really lived. There are many reasons to reject the Book of Mormon on both of those criteria. For instance, Nephi and his family do things that are in direct disobedience to God's commandments to Israel, which calls into question his status as a prophet inspired of God. Another is the complete lack of evidence that these people really lived and really came to the Americas, and the existence of evidence to the contrary, for instance, the DNA of Native Americans.)</i><br /><br />The second hangup ins that the origin of the book of Mormon is still relatively new. But they confuse the translation of Joseph Smith in the 1800's with the 600 BC time frame of 1 Nephi. If Christians could accept 1 Nephi as 600 BC writing they would accept what it says. Can you imagine the level of excitement they would have if the dead sea scrolls contained excerpts from 1 Nephi? (ignoring the continental logistical problem). If the ancient text was carbon dated to 600 BC with the quote, " six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jew--even a Messiah...a Savior of the world"... what christian would protest that? They would consider it the greatest confirmation of the actual existence of Christ!<br />(<i>We can't accept 1 Nephi as truly historical for many reasons. All evidence points to the Book of Mormon being a work of 19th century fiction, and a relatively simplistic one at that, drawing heavily on the King James Bible, the theology of the time, and the questions and speculations found in the area at that time (e.g. the origin of Native Americans, the book Views of the Hebrews).)</i><br /><br />And as for the "craziness" of the Mormon origin story, is it no worse than any biblical story? Christians believe that God carved and wrote the ten commandments on stone tablets. But gold plates are somehow impossible? (<i>Gold plates are completely unhistorical and can't be proven. It's not a question of a miracle of God, it's a question of whether people really recorded things that way, and if they kept records in the amount that the Book of Mormon claimed, why don't we have examples of it?) </i>Christians believe that God sent Daniel and St. John visions. But Nephi's father can't have visions? (<i>Funny thing is, those visions were had by Joseph Smith Sr. before the Book of Mormon was written. What's more likely? That God happened to send J.S. Sr. those same visions for some unknown reason and then the Smith family for some reason didn't use that to proclaim God's provision and foresight, or that Joseph Smith borrowed those so-called visions and wrote them into the Book of Mormon, just like many other things he borrowed from the people and culture around him?) </i>Saul a persecutor of Christians can play a surprise role in God's message, but Joseph Smith can't? (<i>The question isn't whether he can, it's whether he did. And he didn't. All evidence is that he was a womanizing charlatan who wanted money, even after becoming a so-called prophet.) </i>Christians see Christ as an all powerful Savior of the whole human race. But Jesus isn't allowed to VISIT the whole human race? (<i>He's certainly allowed to, but he didn't. There's no reason to think he did, and no reason to need to believe that he did, especially if the record of it is so tangibly false.)</i> I just don't see and of these "Mormon" things as being anymore preposterous than anything else that is already accepted by all Christians.<br />(<i>This paragraph kind of feels like the token "skepticism" of an atheist, but really sounds like a Mormon argument.)</i><br /><br />Finally, it is massively ironic that, Christians reject Mormons in the same way Jews rejected Christians. Christians see Christianity as strengthening and clarifying the Jewish faith, but fail to even consider the strengthening and clarifying that Mormonism could do to their christian faith. (<i>I do not see Christianity as strengthening and clarifying the Jewish faith. I see it as fulfilling their scriptures. I see it as an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts the Old. There is nothing in the New Covenant that is not in harmony with the Old. Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies, he became everything that their rituals symbolized. The same cannot be said of Mormonism in comparison to Christianity. There are blatant contradictions, as opposed to fulfillment or clarification. Mormonism even contradicts and perverts the Jewish traditions that pointed to Jesus, like the temple or the priesthood. There is a profound difference there.)</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
_________________________________________________________________________________</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I see things like this, I want to go a little Jesus-in-the-temple-with-a-whip, to be perfectly honest. Assuming that this letter is even authentic, it's ignorant and misrepresents the problems that Christians actually have with the Book of Mormon and the Mormon religion.</div>
~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-89423370973848279662014-10-10T16:44:00.002-07:002014-10-10T17:13:29.062-07:00Missionary Visit 10/10/14I hadn't had the missionaries over for a few months. I was busy, it was overwhelming trying to take care of my son while visiting with the missionaries. My son's sleep schedule was still terrible.<br />
<br />
Things have gotten a little easier though, I think. My son only woke me up twice between the time I went to sleep and 7:00am last night, which is getting towards being typical now that he's eating solid food. Getting multiple 3 hour stretches at night and a total of 8+ hours makes a huge difference in what you can handle. Not only that, my son is crawling and playing with toys with supervision but without needing direct interaction on a regular basis now, so I don't have to worry about him as much when there's people over.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://missionary.lds.org/dress-grooming/image/07-grooming-01-bill/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://missionary.lds.org/dress-grooming/image/07-grooming-01-bill/" width="320" /></a></div>
With all that, when the missionaries showed up at my door yesterday, I decided to schedule a meeting with them. They came over this afternoon.<br />
<br />
The last set had been under the impression that I was merely inactive; they knew I'd grown up in the church and stopped attending, and now attended a Christian church, but they'd never asked why I left or checked for my records. This set did check before coming over, so one of their first questions was about my relationship with the church.<br />
<br />
"I grew up in it, and most of my family are members, but I left when I was 19," I explained simply and bluntly. "I'm not hostile to the church or anything, I just don't believe in it. I had my records removed about a year after I left, and my husband attend a Christian church now."<br />
<br />
They handled that pretty well. They didn't run screaming, at any rate.<br />
<br />
I made a point to make sure they knew that they were welcome, and to be as non-confrontational as possible even when I disagreed in order to not scare them off.<br />
<br />
Anyways, the big point of their little lesson was on building faith, so they went to Alma 32. I have generally forgotten how inane the BoM is since I haven't read it through since leaving, but I really had a hard time with what they read because of the quality, more than anything.<br />
<br />
Here's the verses we went through.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<br />
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.<br />
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.<br />
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.<br />
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.<br />
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.<br />
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.<br />
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.<br />
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.<br />
41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and withpatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.<br />
42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.<br />
43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.</blockquote>
<br />
Okay, I have no problem with the first verse. It echoes Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But then it gets kind of weird to me. Why would I desire to believe his words if I had no reason to think they were true, to hope in them? (vs 27) </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RME176BYOLO-A4LBuo_sv_jymYtglGtWWPws3mNaT8TFYE4hJyY_MelZcLjC4lRc5uUifNUlsXu0FBBGhGOt8mzYb2k70t4ujX3rxRzln5-Vy9SEyvT8AcvMdlhH6pIL8-HvqGc-EMs/s1600/Burning+Bosom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-RME176BYOLO-A4LBuo_sv_jymYtglGtWWPws3mNaT8TFYE4hJyY_MelZcLjC4lRc5uUifNUlsXu0FBBGhGOt8mzYb2k70t4ujX3rxRzln5-Vy9SEyvT8AcvMdlhH6pIL8-HvqGc-EMs/s1600/Burning+Bosom.jpg" height="195" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
And then apparently there's a seed swelling under my breasts. (vs 28) That is just a weird way to say it. Why in this world is it breasts, plural? Merriam-Webster shows the difference clearly. Breast, singular, can mean,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
": the front part of a person's body between the neck and the stomach<br />
: the chest thought of as the place where emotions are felt"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But plural, well, we don't have more than one chest or more than one front part of our body between the neck and stomach. Breasts, plural, is talking about...well...duh.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I know, I know, it's a little nit-picky, but it's just weird.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyways...why is the seed going to start enlarging and making me feel it under my *snort* *clears throat* breasts? Why am I going to think it's good? What does that even <i>mean</i>? I mean, what are these swelling motions? Why are they good? Why does it tell me that the word--whatever word Alma's talking about (his? the BoM? scriptures in general?)--is good?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My best guess is that what is trying to be said is that, if we live what's being taught, we'll see the good of it on our lives. That's what the sisters seemed to be thinking it was saying. There were a lot of vague pronouns thrown around ("it" was said quite a lot), so sometimes it was hard to know what "it" was. The word? What word? What am I doing with the word?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then we have this whole bit about a seed being good just because is grows. (vs 30-32) Well, why? Why can't bad seeds sprout and grow? I mean, aren't there such things as thorns, poisonous plants, etc? Wouldn't the most deceptive seed the devil could plant be one that does sprout and that <i>seems</i> to produce good fruit, but actually isn't good and the fruit, while it may appear pleasing the way it did to Eve, actually produces a path that leads towards damnation? The reasoning behind bad seeds not growing just seems so...well, non-existent.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What struck me with vs 42 is that it seems to be making the fruit of living according to the word (which I'm just going to assume is now talking about scripture) as something that comes from your own work. That is so different from Galatians 5, which talks about the fruit as being of the Spirit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And in all this, I still don't know why in the world I'm supposed to do this vague experiment! I don't know for sure what is going to happen to show me that this "word" is true (other than something having to do with my breasts?), or that it's good, or that I should have faith in it!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyways.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We moved on from there to, of course, Moroni 10:4-5. As usual, that brought up the whole pray-and-get-answers-through-feelings thing, which they then both testified to. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is where I brought up my objection to all of this (since making fun of the text for using the word "breasts" in that particular context didn't seem very constructive). I explained to them that, while I 100% agreed with the power of prayer and the ability to learn truth and for God to reveal it to us, I am not in agreement that the knowledge of truth comes through feelings alone. I shared 1 John 4:1 and Jeremiah 17:9, and explained that I believe feelings can far too easily be deceptive by either coming from our own possibly sinful or incorrect feelings from our heart, or by a false spirit creating those feelings in us to deceive us. I explained that I believe that God gives us a number of other means of discerning truth, and emphasized the Bible as one of those standards of truth and that if something contradicts the Bible then I'm going to trust the Bible on it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thankfully, they understood where I was coming from. I didn't push them to agree with it, and didn't push their theology on it. The important thing for me was to lay that groundwork so that they know that I'm not just going to pray and, if and when I feel good about things, come back to the church. But, they also know that I'm willing to seek and find truth, particularly through one thing that they also believe in (to some extent).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The lesson more or less ended there. One of the sisters asked me what I expected out of meeting with them since I no longer believe, and when I hesitated, she said, "Are you just wanting to have discussions with us?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Yes," I affirmed. "You guys are totally welcome, and I'm interested in talking with you. And even if you're just in the neighborhood and need water or something, feel free to stop by." They're on a bike route, and seemed to appreciate that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because I'm not really an investigator, they said they'd probably come every other week or so when they have extra time, but didn't schedule anything. I got the impression that I'm essentially second-class, as far as their priorities with meetings go. Investigators get first dibs on their schedule, and I get to be a fill-in for empty slots. That's okay. The last set of missionaries pushed for every week, which was extra overwhelming on top of everything else, so once every 2-3 weeks feels much more doable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I just hope it wasn't code for "we're actually not coming back."</div>
~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-44047493274026154582014-08-13T08:43:00.003-07:002014-08-13T08:43:52.237-07:00Can We Trust the New Testament<object height="275" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://marshill.com/v/8ox272tae34u"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param>
<embed src="http://marshill.com/v/8ox272tae34u" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" allowscriptaccess="always" height="275"></embed></object><br />
<br />
This sermon, entitled "Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then," is by Dr. Daniel Wallace, one of the leading Greek scholars in the world. His organization is currently photographing every single page of ancient New Testament manuscripts in existence, and are currently at around 300,000 pages and nowhere near finished.<br />
<br />
Please listen to what he has to say. And then, if you are a Mormon or a skeptic of Christian scripture, consider whether the Bible is translated correctly based on the <i>evidence</i>. Then you can face the theological implications of that with intellectual honesty.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-18354505767715314302014-07-15T13:43:00.002-07:002014-07-15T13:43:52.048-07:00Translation and Historicity of the Book of AbrahamThe LDS church recently released an <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham" target="_blank">article </a>on LDS.org with the same title as this post. It is one of a series of essays addressing historical issues within the church, all of which have caused people to question or even leave their faith.<br />
<br />
The Book of Abraham isn't one of the ones that was much of a factor in my choice to leave, but the bit I've learned of it was one of the many nails in the coffin. When reading the essay on the church's website, I was flabbergasted at things they said, over and over, and many are worth noting.<br />
<br />
Here's some quick background first (although you should just read the essay). The early Mormons purchased four mummies and some papyri from a travelling entrepreneur in Kirtland, and Joseph Smith declared the papyri to be the Book of Abraham, which he then began to translate. The Rosetta Stone had not yet been found, so Egyptian was as yet unreadable. Joseph Smith's translation process included writing out many of the hieroglyphs with their "meanings" next to them, which still exists. When the early Mormons left Nauvoo, the artifacts didn't travel with them, and eventually a portion of them were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire, but the surviving pieces were later discovered at another museum and repossessed by the church.<br />
<br />
Even before the fragments were rediscovered and reclaimed, Egyptologists had been asserting that Joseph Smith's explanations for the facsimiles were wrong. When the fragments were examined by Egyptologists, who by that time could translate ancient Egyptian, they were found to be merely ancient funerary texts commonly buried with mummies, and were dated sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D; long after Abraham's time.<br />
<br />
<b>By His Own Hand...</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The article asserts many hypotheses for the discrepancies between what is on the fragments of papyrus versus what Joseph Smith "translated" into the Book of Abraham. Most of these hypotheses are shut down by one statement in the introduction to the Book of Abraham.<br />
<br />
"...written by [Abraham's] own hand, upon papyrus."<br />
<br />
It is clear that Joseph Smith really did assert that the papyrus contained the actual Book of Abraham and that he was literally translating them, and wasn't just a catalyst for revelation. In the History of the Church vol. 2 pg 236, it says,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />" I commenced the <i>translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,</i> and much to our joy found that <i>one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham</i>, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
In light of these two statements, these assertions from the essay seem quite weak:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />"...the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri."</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Denial of Biblical Teachings and Legendary Embellishment</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The essay asserts that,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost."</blockquote>
Yet the Book of Abraham contradicts the Bible in a few ways. I was utterly floored when reading the essay when blatantly affirmed the denial of creation <i>ex nihilo, </i>which is made clear in the opening chapter of the Bible. <i>The existence of preexisting matter would mean that God is not alone eternal and affirms the teachings of the church that there are generations of gods who have each formed their own "worlds," even though another of their essays denies that exact teaching.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
There was a point that matter, time, and space did not exist. The Bible says so, and science and logic support this. To deny such a thing is a glaring error.<br />
<br />
To make it worse, some of the "support" for the Book of Abraham given in the essay is from legendary embellishments on the stories of Abraham that date well over a thousand years <i>after</i> Abraham was in Egypt. We see in the legends that cropped up about Jesus a couple hundred years after his death that legendary, late stories are unreliable, yet this is <i>exactly</i> what the LDS church is using to support this book of "scripture."<br />
<br />
And again, the Bible is denied when the Book of Abraham teaches about "Abraham’s being 62 years old when he left Haran, not 75 as the biblical account states." <br />
<br />
Denial of both biblical truth and about scientific reality is a red flag if I ever saw one.<br />
<br />
<b>It's False, But You Should Believe It's True</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
That is exactly how the conclusion reads. After admitting the reality of the papyri being simply an Egyptian funerary text (and then downplaying that reality repeatedly), the essay concludes by essentially saying that the truth contained in the book--the Bible-contradicting, reality-contradicting "truths"--are the only way to tell if it's truly a book of scripture, and that that truth can't be found in history or scholarship.<br />
<br />
I would bet that if it had been historically verifiable, they would be trumpeting the support for its truth.<br />
<br />
Some of the best support for the Bible includes its historicity and it's manuscript evidence.The Book of Abraham is <i>nothing</i> like that, and even has reasons to <i>disbelieve</i> it's historicity and authenticity.<br />
<br />
And yet we're supposed to believe it's true.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-48850342431263238622014-07-13T10:35:00.001-07:002014-07-13T10:35:55.824-07:00The Gospel Topic EssaysOver the last few months, the LDS church has been releasing essays on sensitive historical issues within the church, all of which have caused people to begin questioning and even leave the church in the past. This is essentially the church's way of giving people a reason to stay when they find these issues, which has become a lot more likely with the plethora of information available on the internet. Many Mormons have been and would be shocked to know that some of these topics even need to be addressed, so firmly have the believed and so thoroughly have they been taught the official versions.<br />
<br />
The essays include:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/christians" target="_blank">Are Mormons Christian?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts" target="_blank">First Vision Accounts</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation" target="_blank">Book of Mormon Translation</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood" target="_blank">Race and the Priesthood</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah" target="_blank">Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah</a><br />
<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng" target="_blank">Book of Mormon and DNA Studies</a><br />
<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng" target="_blank">Becoming Like God</a><br />
<a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham" target="_blank">Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham</a><br />
<br />
There may be a couple more in progress.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to not a few things. First, that these are posted on the church's official website, www.lds.org. This means that these have almost certainly at least been reviewed and approved by some of the general authorities, perhaps even Monson, if not contributed to by any general authorities. Second, these have been produced by anonymous scholars.<br />
<br />
In some instances, these essays being produced by scholars makes a certain amount of sense. There is history involved, after all, as well as DNA studies and other such things. But in some cases and in some areas of each issue, it would be easy for Monson or even an apostle to declare the matter decided by revelation. For instance, the Book of Abraham issue has a few competing hypotheses, and the correct one could be settled by revelation. And don't Mormons love to quote James 1:5, which says <span style="color: red;">"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."</span> They assert that this means that we can ask God about something that we need knowledge of (as opposed to wisdom) and that God will reveal it. Shouldn't that be even more true when it comes to God's mouthpiece on this earth?<br />
<br />
But no. We see scholars writing anonymous essays, often glossing over the issues so that they seem as minor as possible and even giving multiple possibilities for the resolution of those issues. The merit of those possibilities is hardly examined.<br />
<br />
The irony of these essays is that they have been causing people to leave the church in droves. It only takes a little thoughtfulness and perhaps some research to see the weakness of the proffered explanations or the contrast with the actual teachings and experiences during Sunday school and General Conference. I saw the greatest reaction, within my own circle of Mormon friends, from the Race and the Priesthood essay, which never actually apologizes for the church's racism and which essentially admits that the prophets who aren't supposed to lead the church astray because they're true prophets actually did lead the church astray for about a century, at least in this matter.<br />
<br />
I'll be going over some of these essays in greater detail, but I would encourage anyone reading this--especially Mormons--to take a look at these essays and think very hard about what they're saying and what aspects of the church probably call for closer research in light of the content of the essays.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-68239554008386690672014-05-20T10:44:00.001-07:002014-05-20T10:44:09.288-07:00"The Logic Behind Joining the Mormon Church" Analysis<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1rem;">
<span style="font-family: Roboto Slab, serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: 400; line-height: 26px;">This is a blog <a href="http://www.gregtrimble.com/the-logic-behind-joining-the-mormon-church/#.U3pTocc2tgI.facebook" target="_blank">post </a>that a Mormon I know shared on her Facebook the other day. It got many cringes as I read it. So, my analysis will be in (</span><span style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 26px;">parenthesis</span><span style="font-weight: 400; line-height: 26px;">), <i>italics, </i>and <span style="color: blue;">blue. </span></span></span></h1>
<h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3.6rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 1rem;">
<span style="font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;"><br /></span></h1>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h1 class="entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3.6rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 1rem;">
<span style="font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">About a month ago, my wife and kids were standing in line at Disneyland waiting to go on the newly renovated Thunder Mountain. Normally standing in line for an hour is really boring but not this time! We were blessed to have a couple standing behind us that decided they would like to bag on Mormons for awhile. My ears are big…so I got to hear everything, and since they were unaware of us being Mormons, it was nice and unfiltered. The quick synopsis is “Mormons are soooo weird”, but in all of it I never heard any</span><span style="font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;"> </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">logical</span><span style="font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">reason for why we were so weird…</span></h1>
</header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Roboto Slab', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
I’m not one of those people that can just accept something without working it out in my own mind. I’ve got to work things over and look at all angles in order to come to a conclusion and devote myself to an ideology. Many people will obviously disagree with my reasoning but I’d like to present some of the logic behind why I continue to be a “Mormon”.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
I’ve studied every single major religion and many of it’s factions. I’ve gone straight to the source in my studies of these religions because I know that I’ll never get an accurate depiction of a religion from its detractors. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(You don't normally get a totally accurate depiction from the source, either.)</i></span> I’ve read from Catholic Catechisms, Hindu Sacred Texts, The Koran, and from Primal Religion writings. I’ve studied under non-LDS PhD’s in religious studies and have poured over the Bible. I’ve traveled personally to Basilicas and Cathedrals, to Mosques and Synagogues, and to Mandirs or Temples. I’ve talked with the people at these places about their origins and I’ve studied their history. They were devoted to God, and I loved them for it.</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
“One True Church”</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">The only conclusion I could come to in all of this was that each of these religions had </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">one common origin</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">. Their stories of creation and their moral laws seemed to all coincide with one another and each of them had a desire to become more and more like </span>deity<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">. The Bible has shown this pattern over and over again throughout it’s history. God would reveal His plan for us. People would then follow the prophet that revealed the plan and they’d become righteous because of it. Then…over time, people would splinter off and start their own religion because they personally </span>disagreed with a few of the commandments or teachings of the originally established church or religion.<span style="color: blue;"><i> (This is actually a very Mormon idea of biblical history. You see people going off to already established pagan religions in the Bible, but you almost never see them start a new religion.)</i></span> New churches were started for any and every sort of reason. King Henry the 8th started the entire Church of England because he wanted to divorce his current wife Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. Does this mean the Church of England is devoid of any truth? No…not at all. They still had pieces of the “one common origin” as did all of the factions that broke off from them in subsequent years [Baptists, Episcopal's, Methodists 7th Day Adventists Quakers, and many of the Evangelical churches of our day]. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(One of the things that Mormons often miss about many Christian denominations is that we all believe in the same essentials. Those Christians that know the Bible well accept people of other denominations as Christians if they believe in those same essentials, and consider differences to be "in house" or "in family" differences.)</i></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
After studying all of the world religions, I came to the conclusion that Christianity made the only claim that appealed to my eternal perspective on life. Other religions fell short of promising a future worth pursuing for myself. But there was a big problem in my mind. As of today there are about 50,000 different Christian denominations, while the Apostle Paul is telling the Ephesians that there is only “One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism”. [Eph 4:5] <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">It wasn’t logical to me that there would be so many churches if Christ himself setup just one. <span style="color: blue;">(This isn't about a denomination, this is about salvation. As I stated above, people of multiple denominations can be Christian -- can be saved -- regardless of which of those denominations they attend. Each and every one of those saved Christians of those many churches believe in one Lord, have faith in the same essentials and the same Jesus, and are baptized by the same Spirit.)</span></em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
Some people get ticked off at referring to a “one true church” but isn’t that what Christ would have called His Church when he established it? Don’t you think that if Thomas came up to Him and said… “Lord, I think I’m not liking this doctrine your teaching about baptism, so I’m going to go start the Church of Thomas”…does anyone think that Christ would have considered Thomas’s church part of the “one true church”? One denomination just became two denominations because of a doctrinal disagreement but it doesn’t make Christ’s church any less true. If Christ was who He said He was, then His Church is the “one common origin” found within the religions of the world. His “gospel” was not just revealed when He was on the earth, but had been given to prophets since the beginning of time. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(What in the world does he think this "one common origin" is? All religions outside of biblical Christianity reject Jesus or believe in him wrongly. Not all prophets point to Jesus. Heck, even in the Old Testament, they often didn't realize that everything was pointing towards and building up to the Messiah. Many things only made sense in retrospect. The "gospel" is the good news of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for our sins and salvation. That wasn't fully revealed and understood until it happened!)</i></span></div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
So Where Is The Church That Christ Established?</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">I figured I’d look to see which if any Christian </span>churches<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;"> claimed to be the “one true church”. Only a few made this claim. Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Again, a "one true church" doesn't matter as far as denomination. There is one true Jesus, and those who follow him. Many people of various denominations fit that definition.) </i></span>A few others may make the claim but don’t have enough content to mention here. Now its time to determine whether any of the three measure up to the Church of Jesus Christ from a couple thousand years ago. Some of the most important attributes I looked at from the New Testament consisted of the following:</span></div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
Paid Ministry</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
I could not find anywhere in the New Testament in which servants of the Lord were paid. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Paul actually very specifically said that those whose full time job is ministry can be paid for it, and even deserve to be paid for it (1 Corinthians 9:11-14, 1 Timothy 5:17-18). It's pretty obvious what he means when he says that, "The worker deserves his wages." Further, the LDS church DOES have paid ministry. The general authorities get paid a stipend, plus they are involved in all of the business aspects of the church, which brings them further income, on top of often already being retired businessmen. Some of the general authorities own multiple million-dollar homes.)</i></span> Peter was a fisherman and Paul was a tentmaker. They had to make a living first and then preach the gospel. In fact, multiple scriptures speak against receiving money for preaching the gospel. Paul specifically says that we should preach the gospel “without charge” in 1 Cor 9:18 “that we abuse not our power in the gospel”. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Paul did not say that people should not be paid for preaching. He said that he chose not to. Only a few verses before, he said that it is allowed (vs 11-14), and that he chose not to use that right (vs 15).)</i></span> If you look at it logically, how can a man that is relying on money from his church members as his livelihood make perfectly unbiased decisions when it comes to church matters. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(A pastor and other members of paid ministry should be subject to oversight, including being transparent with the membership. The LDS church is not. It's highest members are paid, and members don't know exactly what the tithes go towards.) </i></span>Every member that leaves his church represents less food on the table. Money…especially when it comes to survival…can be a very influential foe. The pastor of the Saddleback mega church might summarize what I’m trying to say best. He paid back all of the money he made from his church after his book went viral and then summarized his decision by saying, “The Bible teaches that we are to love people and use money, but we often get that reversed and you start loving money and using people to get more money. Money is simply a tool to be used for good.” – <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaura/2013/03/21/pastor-rick-warren-is-practicing-what-he-preaches-and-getting-ready-for-retirement/" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out; box-sizing: border-box; color: #e5554e; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out;" target="_blank" title="Rick Warren">Rick Warren </a> (Founder of Saddleback Church) When money is involved in church governance, compromises are sure to be made because of man’s fallen and natural condition.</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
Nature of God</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
I couldn’t find “The Trinity” anywhere in the scriptures. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(If he means that he didn't find the word, well, "monotheism" isn't in the scriptures either, yet the scriptures clearly teach it. I've <a href="http://escapedlds.blogspot.com/2010/10/trinity.html" target="_blank">referenced</a> <a href="http://escapedlds.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-trinity.html" target="_blank">the Trinity</a> a few times before, so I'd recommend reviewing that, but the long and short is that the concept of the Trinity is clearly within the Bible.) </i></span>Where I did find it was in the ecumenical councils of the early 2nd and 3rd centuries. Tertullian [known as an "early Christian father"] is supposed to have first coined the phrase and it was made famous through the well know Nicene and Athanasian councils. I couldn’t logically get to know God based on a concept that was voted on by politicians and then ratified by a Roman conquerer, emperor, and pagan. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(The councils were actually convened to fight against heresy. They made official what was taught in scripture and believed by believers, in order to fight again those who would teach heresy.) </i></span>The creeds that Constantine oversaw were driven by political agendas and every historian knew it. I once undertook a project to go through the New Testament and write a “G” at the top right or left corner of every page whenever there was a reference to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being two distinct individuals. In my scriptures [KJV] virtually every page in the “4 Gospels” has a “G” at the top right or left corner. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(The idea of the Trinity isn't that the Father and Jesus are the same exact person, who just appear at separate times. That's a heresy called modalism. The biblical concept of the Trinity is that both the Father and Jesus are one God. One God, three persons. One essence. He's not a man, like us, but the person who is Jesus became a man. Again, see my other blog posts on the Trinity. And maybe get a good book on systematic theology, such as the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400607754&sr=8-1&keywords=systematic+theology+wayne+grudem" target="_blank">one by Wayne Grudem</a>.) </i></span>The description of God I found in the Mormon church was logical. Two distinct beings with glorified bodies. Not just a spirit essence that was everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The creeds that defined the Trinity told me that God was incomprehensible, but John 17:3 said that I need to know Him in order to find eternal life. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(You can know someone without fully comprehending them. God specifically says things like "my thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9) and "I am not a man." (Hosea 11:9))</i></span></div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
I’m Saved If You’re Saved</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
Almost every page in the New Testament emphasizes the need for us to work the works of righteousness. However, many churches teach that our works are unnecessary. I’ve been told that I need to “confess the Lord Jesus Christ with my mouth” and that I would be saved. I have done that. However… is not the act of me opening my mouth and confessing the Lord’s name a work in and of itself? Do I not need to repent? What of baptism or serving others? Can I honestly do none of those things and expect to be received into the Kingdom of God? Every logical bone in my body tells me that the only way I can show my faith in God is to do the works that He has asked me to do. Throw Revelation 22:12 and Revelation 20:12 on top of that logic and I can see no logic in someone telling me that I do not need to do any works as a servant of Jesus Christ.<span style="color: blue;"><i> (All of this is something that Mormons fail to understand and accept scripture on. Passages like Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Titus 3:4-7 make it clear that works can't earn salvation. All we can do is have faith to accept it. If faith is a "work," then sure, we have to work for our salvation. But that's the only work required. However, true faith, true salvation, changes us. We become a new man, a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17-18), and the Spirit works in us to bear fruit, to sanctify us. But in no way do our works, which are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) earn our salvation, but someone who is truly saved and being changed by the Spirit will manifest good works. There is some great preaching on this by good pastors. <a href="http://marshill.com/media/james-jesus-s-bold-little-brother/james-2-14-26" target="_blank">Here's </a>one example from my pastor.)</i></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
The Mormon Church Is The Most Liberal With Salvation</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
I am being told that I am damned to go to hell on a regular basis. People that care about me are “praying for my soul” because I have “been deceived”, and because of that deception I have no chance at salvation. This is very interesting, because Mormons believe that very few people will go to hell. They actually believe that everyone will be saved and inherit a glory that will suit them and make them happy. Mormons don’t have sunday school classes devoted to tearing down other religions or damning them for eternity. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Most other churches don't, either.)</i></span> Instead, they focus on the doctrine as it is found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Funny, since Jesus preached on hell more than anyone else in the Bible, including making it clear that those who don't believe in him will go there, yet Mormons pretty much reject that many will go to hell.)</i></span> They serve missions only for the opportunity to serve others and try to add a measure of truth to a person’s existing testimony of the Savior. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(That's disingenuous. They serve missions to try to bring more people into the Mormon church.)</i></span> It is logical to me that the Saviors Church would focus on building others up instead of tearing others down. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(That is true, but if people are going to hell outside of belief in the true and living savior, then the most loving thing a believer can do is warn those who don't believe and teach them about the truth. What do you think Peter was doing in his amazing sermon to a bunch of pagans on Mars Hill in Acts?)</i></span></div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 3rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;">
Families Are Forever</h2>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
Mormons are known for believing that they will know and love their families in the hereafter. Most people believe this in their heart regardless of what their pastor might say on Sunday. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Family is forever insofar as family that is saved will be together in eternity. They don't have to be "sealed" to be together if they are all saved. That's just silly. However, family as we have it on earth isn't necessary in heaven.)</i></span> It is logical for me to look toward a church that has an eternal perspective regarding the family. The Mormon church is the only Christian church that I know of that builds temples in order to perform baptisms for the dead (1 Cor 15:29) [something that was practiced in the early Christian church] <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Actually, Paul is most likely referencing a pagan practice. He was trying to make a point about the resurrection, not teach that baptism for the dead is necessary. In fact, it would be pointless since we're judged after death, not given a second chance (Hebrews 9:27). Temples aren't necessary in Christianity (Acts 17:14-25) because we are the temple of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16), and Mormon temples aren't anything like the Old Testament temple, which was for sacrifices and which pointed to Jesus. Jesus fulfilled that need.)</i></span> and seal families together for time and eternity. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(Not a biblical teaching at all.)</i></span> Mormons believe that they retain their identity in the next life and that our relationships will only be magnified, not diminished. This concept of an after life is far more logical than believing that we will all somehow coalesce into one giant cloud of God’s glory and lose our identity to become full time trumpet blowers or harpists. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(The Bible doesn't teach that, so anyone who believes that has a bad understanding of scripture. Revelations explains a lot about the after life.)</i></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">There are many other logical reasons why I continue to be grateful for the Mormon church. The resemblance it has to the New Testament Church that Christ established is unparalleled and it makes me happy. <span style="color: blue;"><i>(It's actually not much like the New Testament church at all. I explain a bit about that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d5knylXtVM" target="_blank">here</a>.)</i></span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">To the couple standing behind me at Disneyland; I’m hoping this article finds you somewhere in the world of social media and that you can understand a little more about why the little family in front of you loves being Mormon. <i>End post.</i></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 2.6rem; padding: 0px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em;">Back to me. This post is full of a lot of misconceptions rooted in incorrect Mormon teachings. I'd encourage someone who believes these things to look closer at them, and not in the same way as this guy thinks he did, but actually looking into history, scholarship, and solid Bible-based theology. Please check out everything I've linked to in my analysis.</span></div>
</div>
~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-79427523319203401182014-05-20T09:46:00.003-07:002014-05-20T09:46:29.484-07:00Meetings With the Missionaries: 5/15/14This meeting was pretty uneventful. They were doing exchanges again, and Sister T was once again the one who was gone. They didn't have much time, since they'd arrived late and had another meeting to get to. They brought up church, including asking us why we attend church. We explained that we attend, in large part, to learn from people (mainly our preaching pastor) who have more knowledge of the Bible than we do. Our pastor goes through whole books or sections of the Bible at a time; he even spent a couple of years going through Luke once. It's great.<br />
<br />
They invited us to church. I may go; not because I want to, so much as because it would be interesting for a few reasons. One would be to see how different it seems to me now that I no longer believe it all. Another would be because I want to keep track of how often certain key words are said, outside of the closing phrase of prayers. I'm betting Mormon key words like Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, restoration, etc. are said much more than words like Jesus Christ, Bible, etc.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-80872176758434987692014-05-14T14:44:00.001-07:002014-05-14T14:44:08.947-07:00Meetings With the Missionaries: 5/8/14Sorry this one is late. This was a particularly interesting meeting, too.<br />
<br />
They were doing exchanges, so one of the regular sisters wasn't with us. I really liked the young woman that came instead. She was very friendly. I handed them my new list of questions, and they didn't run for cover upon reading through them, so that's a good start.<br />
<br />
Sister M, one of the regulars, wanted to know what I thought about some of questions I had given them last week before they give me their answers. The first she asked was what I thought we would need a modern day prophet for. My answer was straightforward: I don't believe we need a modern day prophet, because the revelation we need is complete in the Bible.<br />
<br />
The second she brought up was my question about why the priesthood wouldn't have been passed on. Here I explained that my belief in what the priesthood is is different than theirs. I briefly explained the universal priesthood, reading 1 Peter 2:5, and explained that all believers received this priesthood by virtue of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which gives us God's power and authority. She asked how the priesthood is received, and I said that all who are saved receive it.<br />
<br />
This began an interesting and important discussion about how one is saved.<br />
<br />
Sister M: What is salvation?<br />
Me: Salvation is being saved from death, sin, and hell and to heaven and life with God through faith in Jesus.<br />
Sister M: So you only have to believe to be saved?<br />
Me: Yes.<br />
Here I read Ephesians 2:8-9 for them, which they had obviously not considered before. There was a thoughtful silence.<br />
Visiting sister: So...what if someone believes in Jesus, and then goes out and murders someone?<br />
Me: If someone becomes a murderer, do y think they really have faith in Jesus?<br />
Visiting sister: No.<br />
Me: Exactly. Real faith changes a person. Real faith works. But like that verse I just read to you says, it's the faith that saves.<br />
<br />
They had a few more questions about the concept, punctuated by long thoughtful silences as they tried to digest what I was saying. Then my baby got fussy, so they left with the promise of another meeting at the same time in a week.<br />
<br />
I was both surprised and pleased by the direction that the meeting went. It was very unplanned, but understanding salvation is obviously important. I plan on putting together a few more verses on the idea for them to look up and consider before the next meeting.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-55145515101666234142014-05-01T18:33:00.003-07:002014-05-01T18:33:38.286-07:00Meetings with the Missionaries: 5/1/14 MeetingAfter scheduling issues and a meeting that got nowhere because they were on exchanges, we finally had a good one today.<br />
<br />
One of the first things I explained to them is that part of why I'm not committing to read the Book of Mormon at this point is because I think God can answer my prayers about it even if I'm not reading it, especially since I have read it before. They asked me a few questions about what I'd be willing to do if I decided that what they're teaching me is truth, and they were satisfied enough with my answers (I'll follow truth where it leads) to stop asking me to commit to reading.<br />
<br />
They also asked me what I was expecting from the meetings, since I grew up in the church and they don't want to just be teaching me things I already know or even believe and not answer the questions I really have. I told them I pretty much just want them to go through their lessons and I'll ask questions, and that led to them suggesting that I go through the pamphlet (The Restoration) they gave me the first time they stopped by and write down all the questions that I have for them. I'm not sure they know how much they got themselves into, but it sounded like a great idea, so I agreed to it.<br />
<br />
They suggested we start with one section today, and asked me to choose a section. I chose the section on the great apostasy, and we only got through the first paragraph. They didn't even try to answer any of the questions; they simply wrote them down and promised to get back to me at our next meeting.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority--including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church--was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.</blockquote>
<br />
The first two sentences weren't a problem for me. The third was where I started having questions for them.<br />
<br />
One of the most basic questions I asked was if there was any historical proof of a great apostasy. I explained that the Bible, including the New Testament, has the most manuscript evidence of any ancient document, and that there are a lot of historical records from that time. I therefore wondered if there was anything that proved such a massive apostasy. I know the answer to that--there's no such proof--but I'm interested to see what they come back with on that one.<br />
<br />
I asked if there was any reason that the authority wouldn't have been passed on. (I didn't want to get into their teachings on priesthood yet, since that's in another section.) I pointed out that there obviously were people other than the apostles who had authority in the early church, since many of the New Testament writers weren't part of the Twelve, and that the Apostles were alive through the writing of the New Testament.<br />
<br />
We also talked a bit about the need for continuing revelation. I explained that I believe the Bible is a whole picture, beginning at the beginning of things and ending at the end times, and that it all points to Jesus. Jesus is the culmination or climax of the Old Testament, so prophets of the type in the Old Testament aren't needed anymore, and pointed out Luke 16:16 to support that. The New Testament then contains everything we need to understand the New Covenant through Jesus and to look forward to the end.<br />
<br />
One of the sisters asked me if I'd ever considered if we needed a modern prophet and what that role would look like. I explained that I do believe that the gift of prophecy still exists as a spiritual gift, but that we don't need prophets in the Old Testament sense because their purpose was ultimately to point to Jesus. I had to explain the difference between the two types of prophets. I also explained that I believe that the Bible contains everything we need for salvation, so a prophet of the sort in the Old Testament is no longer necessary.<br />
<br />
I then moved on to the assertion that error crept into church teachings. I had two questions about that. One was, again, if there was any historical evidence to support this. The second was what sort of error they believe crept in. I'm betting we'll be talking about the Council of Nicaea next week in answer to that one.<br />
<br />
We decided that was enough questions to start with for one week, and didn't move on to the next paragraphs in that section.<br />
<br />
At that point, seeking answers through prayer came up again, and I explained to them very clearly why I wasn't comfortable getting answers through feelings/impressions alone. I read a few verses to them, including Jeremiah 17:9 and 1 John 4:1, to explain why I feel that those aren't trustworthy on their own, as well as pointing out that sometimes truth doesn't always feel good and sometimes things feel good that aren't true.<br />
<br />
They brought up how sometimes good things feel good and bad things feel bad, and I pointed out that people can still be deceived, giving the example of how a Jehovah's Witness is probably a fairly good person doing good things but still deceived, and they might be able to say their testimony is based on the same sort of feelings that they (the missionaries) have had.<br />
<br />
I talked to them about other ways that we have been given to find truth, emphasizing my trust in God's Word in seeking truth and supporting that with Acts 17:11. I reminded them that Jesus said one of the ways we love God is with our mind, so truth should be reasonable and logical and provable, which I explained is a lot of why I'm wanting to ask them so many questions about their beliefs. I gave the Big Bang as an example of how evidence can support God's truths, so I seek evidence where it's reasonable to do so as well. They understood everything I said and couldn't contradict it, so they accepted it and even said I had some very good points.<br />
<br />
I also gave them an example of how prayer can be answered through experiences. Recently, we were worrying about transportation as my husband is starting a new job, and a very good one. Attendance is pretty much the biggest thing that would cause him to lose this job, and his car is near the point of dying. He talked to the friend who helped him get that job (this friend attends our church), and the friend urged him to make sure he had reliable transportation. We were literally about to walk out the door to buy a car on a loan, which we had been hoping to avoid, when the friend called back and said, "My brother literally just called me to tell me he's giving away a vehicle and to ask if I know anyone who can use it." The vehicle has some maintenance needs, but not nearly as bad as my husband's current vehicle, so it was a blessing to receive it.<br />
<br />
We concluded we me again committing to going through the pamphlet and writing down questions for them. They promised they'd get back to me next week with whatever answers they find for the questions I asked this week. It will be interesting to see how that goes.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-18976971627352969332014-04-06T14:09:00.003-07:002014-04-06T14:09:52.345-07:00Visits with Missionaries: 4/5/14 Meeting<div class="tr_bq">
Let me put this in context before I get into the meeting my husband and I had with the local sister missionaries.</div>
<br />
A week or so ago, we ran into some missionaries while we were on a walk. They were on a Spanish-speaking mission, but took our address and names to let the English-speaking missionaries know that we were open to contact.<br />
<br />
On Thursday, the sister missionaries showed up at our door. It was good it was the sisters, because my husband was at work, so I wouldn't have been able to invite male missionaries in. They shared a pamphlet, which they went through with me using the pictures to summarize what the pamphlet shared. It was very basic Mormon doctrine; the apostasy, the restoration, priesthood, the challenge to pray for truth. Verses taken out of context to mean things they actually don't. You know the drill.<br />
<br />
I let them know, in the course of conversation, that my family was Mormon. Since I had a quad and other Mormon books, and my brother is on a mission, it was natural to share that information. They knew I knew at least the basics of their religion; I didn't hide that. They asked if I'd be willing to be baptized if I discovered the church to be true. I said yes, which was true; they just didn't know that I've already discovered the church to not be true.<br />
<br />
I invited them to come back on Saturday, the 5th, when my husband would be home too. They showed up right after the second session of General Conference was done. My goal is to stay in a student-like role with them by asking them a lot of questions about what they teach and bringing Bible verses and such to their attention, in the context of asking them how those verses relate to what they're teaching. It's very easy to cause the missionaries to stop coming if you evangelize them too aggressively.<br />
<br />
Steven is less familiar with LDS teachings and was less comfortable than me with interacting them, plus he had the baby, so he mostly listened and answered direct questions while letting me handle the actual conversation.<br />
<br />
They shared the Book of Mormon with us. (I'm glad they didn't look at our movie rack first, since it has DNA vs. The Book of Mormon and the Bible vs. The Book of Mormon on it.) They brought us to the introduction of the Book of Mormon, and had me read the first paragraph and the last two out loud.<br />
<br />
The first paragraph includes the claim that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. I asked them how they think it contains the fullness if it doesn't have important LDS doctrines like temple marriage. Their answer was essentially that it contains the most important basics, like faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. I asked them if they feel that it teaches those things differently than the Bible, or if there's things about those basics that the Bible doesn't contain. One of them said she doesn't know the Bible as well as she should, but she thinks those things are a little clearer in the Book of Mormon.<br />
<br />
I didn't point out that most of the clearest teachings in the Book of Mormon regarding those subjects are either exactly like or very similar to sections of the New Testament.<br />
<br />
The last two paragraphs have a challenge to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon. It says,<br />
<br /><blockquote>
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.</blockquote>
<br />
This brought up the idea of using feelings to get an answer to prayer. I then asked a number of questions regarding this.<br />
<br />
Q: There are a number of religions that believe in the power of prayer, and the people within these religions often feel that they've received a witness of their faith and that their religion is true. For instance, a Muslim would be sure that Islam is true. How do you think the feelings you get as a witness are different than those people from other religions get?<br />
<br />
A: They didn't really have much of an answer. The best they could come up with was that maybe things that are good get affirmed, but that true seeking would eventually lead to full truth. And then they gave their testimony that their church really is true.<br />
<br />
Q: There are more ways than feelings to determine truth, and things that can support faith. For instance, I have faith in God, but I have evidences, such as the Big Bang showing that the universe really began like Genesis says, to show me that its reasonable to have such faith. Do you have any evidences like this for the truth of the Book of Mormon and the church?<br />
<br />
A: Essentially, after some more floundering, they said the fruits of the church are evidence. They then, once again, testified of the truth of the church.<br />
<br />
Q: The Bible says that there are false spirits that can deceive. How can you know that the good feelings you get in answer to prayer are the real Spirit rather than a false Spirit deceiving you?<br />
<br />
A: They didn't actually have much of an answer for this one, although they really tried. One of them tried to say that they didn't think a false spirit would affirm good things, but I pointed out that something that seemed good but was really false would be the perfect thing to deceive someone with. Once again, they fell back on their testimony.<br />
<br />
I don't think they even saw the irony of the fact that they couldn't actually tell me why a testimony based on feelings was valid, but that they kept using their testimonies based on feelings to tell me that I could get a testimony based on feelings. I didn't keep challenging their answers, though, because I didn't want them to feel attacked. It was clear that they knew they'd had a hard time with the answers and maybe hadn't given good ones, because they kept telling me that I'd asked good questions, and they didn't seem confidant that the answers they'd given had been adequate. That's all I want for now; I want them questioning.<br />
<br />
They ended, of course, by challenging us to read the Book of Mormon. I've read it before, and Steven has read some of it, but they of course still wanted us to do it. I wouldn't commit, mostly because I knew I'd be lying to them if I did. I told them we're busy, my husband is starting a new job in a couple of weeks, we're currently working on the New Testament, and I've already read it and he's read some of it; all of that is true. I didn't add that I feel that reading the Book of Mormon again is a waste of time, at least at this point in my life. The only reason I'd be reading it again is to be more familiar with it to use in evangelizing to Mormons.<br />
<br />
I also told them that I really wanted to continue to be able to ask them questions and meet with them more, and that we'd certainly be praying. They eventually asked if they could read a little out of the Book of Mormon with us when they meet with us, and we said that would be fine.<br />
<br />
We scheduled out our next meeting (which I've since realized will probably have to be rescheduled, since we'll have family visiting from out of town). At least I didn't scare them off with my questions that they couldn't really answer.<br />
<br />
Next meeting, I intend to talk with them a bit about the reasons that I'm not comfortable having prayers answered by feelings alone. I'm going to point out that there are ways other than feelings to know truth; we don't need to pray about whether 2+2=4 is true, after all, and we learned ways to determine whether sources were reliable when we did research in school and none of those ways were how we felt about the source. Besides, sometimes truth hurts or doesn't feel good, so good feelings don't always accompany truth. I'm planning to share the Bible's warning that the heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), that loving God includes the mind (Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27), and that God's Word can be used to determine truth (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16). I'm going to explain that the Bible doesn't say anywhere that feelings alone are valid answer to prayer. I'm going to tell them that I'd like to use the other ways God gave us of determining truth, because I believe these things to be guided by prayer and that all truth is God's truth, and that I want to use those other ways to determine truth.<br />
<br />
To my Christian readers, prayers would be appreciated. This is the first time I've done this with missionaries, and my husband hasn't really evangelized at all, so this is new territory for us. Pray that, at the least, we will plant good seeds, and that these seeds might lead to salvation at some point.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-74867947811679796672013-12-19T15:23:00.002-08:002013-12-19T15:23:52.662-08:00Race and the Priesthood...Another Look<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg46P0CMkrDJACAZj0Q0KYHAJB-zT-_HlhbGoNlk80T5Lmp06VBSo_1ap_nQXj7mdlEal6gNfRU2Zrxi2NtEippin4-jPYKjgiRcaO-aKCYdR3TfxIko_jhVHzMjFQwHstppO9fLv1OiLEj/s1600/brigham+young.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg46P0CMkrDJACAZj0Q0KYHAJB-zT-_HlhbGoNlk80T5Lmp06VBSo_1ap_nQXj7mdlEal6gNfRU2Zrxi2NtEippin4-jPYKjgiRcaO-aKCYdR3TfxIko_jhVHzMjFQwHstppO9fLv1OiLEj/s320/brigham+young.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brigham Young</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Mormon racism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Yes, it’s a hot topic right now
with the release of the church article entitled “<a href="http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood" target="_blank">Race and the Priesthood</a>” on
the church’s website, lds.org.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The article admits something that I
didn’t learn until after I’d left the church: “…for much of its history—from the
mid-1800’s until 1978—the church did not ordain men of black African descent to
its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment
or sealing ordinances.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Essentially, these people were
denied the necessary ordinances for the Celestial Kingdom, according to Mormon
beliefs, just because of the color of their skin.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The article attempts to blame the
teachings behind this on the culture of the time, even going so far as to point
out that many Christian churches were racially segregated and in favor of
slavery. However, this ignores the fact that is has been Christians and
Christian churches that have sought to end slavery in many places in the world
because of the Bible’s clear teachings that all are equal in God’s eyes, and
revolutionary thinking towards slaves as “brothers” such as is found in the
book of Philemon. If Mormon prophets have such a direct line to God, you would
think they would come to the same conclusions as Paul did.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The article mentions that Brigham
Young began the racist doctrines of the church, but glossed over the sort of
things he actually said.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
“The Lord put a mark on [Cain]; and
there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of
Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the
kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and
have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to
remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.” Journal of Discourses 2:143</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
“You see some classes of the human family
that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild,
and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is
generally bestowed upon mankind. …the Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the
flat nose and the black skin.” Journal of Discourses 7:290</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
“Ham will continue to be the servant
of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the
present struggle free the slave? No…our Christian brethren think that they are
going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They
cannot do that…” Journal of Discourses 10:250</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Brigham Young made it clear on more
than one occasion that, while blacks would someday receive the priesthood, it
was only after <i>every single non-black person</i>
who believed already had, after the resurrection of the dead had already taken
place. He declared this was the will of the Lord, but Spencer W. Kimball and
his first presidency received a different version of the will of the Lord in
1978, when the ban was lifted.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
One of the things glaringly lacking
in the essay is an apology for the priesthood ban. The closest it comes is by
saying that the current church condemns all racism, past and present.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
As profound and disturbing as the
lack of an overt apology is, even more important are the implications of these doctrines
and revelations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
For instance, Ezra Taft Benson
promised that “the prophet will never lead the church astray” in his Fourteen Fundamentals
speech. Other General Authorities such as Wilford Woodruff have expressed the
same thing. Yet as this “Race and the Priesthood” article, and the history
behind it, clearly show, the prophets from Brigham Young until Spencer Kimball <i>did</i> lead the church astray on this
issue.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Furthermore, Brigham Young and
other prophets after him presented and taught these teachings as doctrine, as
being from God. Since the church’s position on it now is that they were,
essentially, wrong and misled by the prejudices of the time, this means that
these prophets taught revelation that was not from God. And frankly, I cannot accept that the same God who freed His people from slavery and made laws regarding the release of slaves every seven years in the Old Testament, and who inspired the book of Philemon and statements like that in the Galatians 3:28, could have inspired these revelations. Putting forward doctrine as revealed by God and in line with God's teachings, but which is in reality neither, is false
revelation, making those who taught and endorsed it false prophets. (Deut. 18:20-22)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
And that is really the big issue
here. As important as the history, racism, changes, and lack of real apology in
the LDS church are significant issues requiring consideration, the real problem
rests in the fact that these men who are supposedly prophets of God gave and
supported false doctrine for over 100 years.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
They had no support from the Bible.
The slavery practiced in the Bible was not based on skin color, and God even
had a provision for the releasing of slaves every seven years in the Old
Testament, since people were usually made slaves to pay off outstanding debt.
The New Testament is even more radical, in its open declaration of equality in
Christ in Galatians 3:28, and in Paul’s fatherly attitude toward a runaway
slave and his exhortations to the slave’s owner to treat the returned slave as
a brother and with love in the book of Philemon. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
They knew the opposing view from
the culture they lived in; they even knew that many Christians opposed slavery.
Many of the Mormons came from the North, where slavery was outlawed and
abolitionism began. Joseph Smith, though not against slavery for much of his
leadership, made his presidential run near the end of his life on a platform of
abolitionism. Brigham Young maintained his doctrine in the face of the Civil
War, even falsely declaring that the slaves were supposed to remain as slaves
and that Christians wouldn’t be successful in freeing them. And even in the
1960’s in the face of the Civil Rights movement, David O. McKay didn’t feel
that the priesthood ban should be lifted.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
And yet, in the face of all this,
the false and racist revelations persisted. There is no way to say that that
was from God. Revelation from man, prophecy from man, that is not of God, is
false. The one who utters it is a false prophet.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The Mormon Church needs to do more
than just issue a public apology for the long-standing racist teachings. They
need to admit that the real issue is the false prophets that have led them.</div>
~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-32210232359310811922013-05-14T14:23:00.000-07:002013-05-14T14:23:09.078-07:00Virtue and Virginity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWCofXuwUs0qCbwyuOaGo8v5En_E73vw6l81tOOeafAi6KQN8wysTZvH0Jx6EP1R3hcVdY2hOdqBWmMhxZTOxuLjBfjmay5Tit3HCT6ho2gOSj13jksvuZyQZoBv5SSLmBNDexFqTJcTxB/s1600/mormon-prayer2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWCofXuwUs0qCbwyuOaGo8v5En_E73vw6l81tOOeafAi6KQN8wysTZvH0Jx6EP1R3hcVdY2hOdqBWmMhxZTOxuLjBfjmay5Tit3HCT6ho2gOSj13jksvuZyQZoBv5SSLmBNDexFqTJcTxB/s320/mormon-prayer2.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
Let me say this right off the bat, before my readers start getting ideas at the title of this blog post. I fully support and encourage abstinence until marriage. There are dozens of benefits to it, such as significantly lower risk of both physical and psychological damage and lower divorce rates. Most importantly, God commands it.<br />
<br />
What bothers me is when people associate whether a person is a virgin or not with whether they have worth on various levels. The chewed gum, reapplied tape, licked cupcake, and other analogies for people who don't practice abstinence can be outright damaging. It is true that having sex with more than one partner in one's lifetime comes with many negative consequences, whether we wish to see them or not. But that does not mean that lives cannot change for the better, that healthy marriages cannot be created, or that the non-virgin individual is inherently lessened in their worth. This is especially true for those who are forgiven and renewed through Jesus, who makes us new creations and forgives our sins.<br />
<br />
But even worse, this mindset can do worse damage to victims of rape than would otherwise have been done. Don't get me wrong, rape is always damaging. But if a person believes that someone else committing a sin against them makes them less worthwhile to a future spouse, makes them feel chewed up or licked and therefore less than they were before in ways that they cannot reverse, they may never fully recover from what has been done to them. Rape victims aren't at fault for what has been done to them, but all too often this sort of mindset allows them to go on to be promiscuous or think they are at fault for what has been done to them.<br />
<br />
With that said, you can imagine my horror at realizing that this exact mindset is in the Book of Mormon and that the young women of the Mormon church are encouraged to read about it in their Personal Progress when doing the attribute of virtue.<br />
<br />
Moroni 9:9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue<br />
<br />
Did you catch that? By being raped, those women were <i>deprived</i> of their chastity and virtue, which is most dear and precious. They had their <i>virtue </i>deprived of them, through no fault of their own!<br />
<br />
Now to be fair, the same value experience also has the young women read something else that does specifically say that victims of sexual abuse are not at fault and encourages them to seek help for healing.<br />
<br />
However, that more realistic and right attitude has not always prevailed in the church, and the strong emphasis on virginity=personal worth still strongly pervades. Not every girl will remember the "you are not at fault and we're here to help" when they've heard "your virginity is tied to your virtue" when they have been raped. And if their virtue is already gone, what incentive do they have to seek help? To try to live sexually pure? To try to prepare for a good spouse in the future?<br />
<br />
The message we give our youth should not be that their virginity is inherently tied to their virtue, to their worth, to their worthiness. It should be taught that virginity is something to maintain until marriage for a myriad of reasons. It should be taught that there is forgiveness and help and love for those who voluntarily lose it and that they can heal in such a way to be sexually healthy again in the future. It should be taught that those who lose it against their will--or who get raped at any time in their lives, in fact--are not at fault and should have avenues of help, support, and justice without any amount of judgment and without being treated like they are less than they were.<br />
<br />
Encouraging young women to read things like Moroni 9:9, which contains an ungodly attitude towards what has been done to those women, is not the way to give youth a healthy idea of how sex, sin, and their worth are related.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-11704526021600507572012-04-19T20:01:00.001-07:002012-04-19T20:03:33.387-07:00Do Mormons Understand Grace? A Response to "His Grace is Sufficient"A few days ago, while visiting my parents, I noticed an article printed out on their (not for) coffee table that was about grace. I didn't get a chance to peruse it while there, but skimmed the first page for keywords and phrases so I would be able to search and recognize it, and pulled it up to read once I returned home. When I found and read it, I was in shock at what I was reading. It wasn't quite the Christian doctrine of grace, but it was a far cry closer than anything I'd been taught as a Mormon! Has the church really changed so much in less than three years?<br />
<br />
The article is below for your perusal. My comments are in (<i>italics)</i>, and quotes by Mormon General Authorities are in <span style="color: blue;">blue. <span style="color: black;">It is long, but please bear with me..(http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=2968)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">His Grace is Sufficient</span></span><br />
By Bradley R. Wilcox<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Several years ago I received an
invitation to speak at Women’s Conference. When I told my wife, she
asked, “What have they asked you to speak on?” I was so excited that I
got my words mixed up and said, “They want me to speak about changing
strengths into weaknesses.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She thought for a minute and said, “Well, they’ve got the right man for the job!”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She’s correct about that. I could
give a whale of a talk on that subject, but I think today I had better
go back to the original topic and speak about changing weaknesses into
strengths and about how the grace of Jesus Christ is sufficient (see
Ether 12:27, D&C 17:8, 2 Cor. 12:9)—sufficient to cover us,
sufficient to transform us, and sufficient to help us as long as that
transformation process takes.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><b>Sufficient to Cover Us</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">A BYU student once came to me and asked if we could talk. I said, “Of course. How can I help you?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She said, “I just don’t get grace.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I responded, “What is it that you don’t understand?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She said, “I know I need to ‘do my best and then Jesus does the rest,’ but I can’t even do my best.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She then went on to tell me all the things she </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">should</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> be doing—“because she’s a Mormon”—that she wasn’t doing.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She continued, “I know that I have
to do my part and then Jesus makes up the difference and fills the gap
that stands between my part and perfection. But who fills the gap that
stands between where I am now and my part?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She then went on to tell me all the things that she </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">shouldn’t</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> be doing—“because she’s a Mormon”—but that she was doing anyway.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Finally I said, “Jesus doesn’t make </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">up</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> the difference. Jesus makes </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">all</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> the difference. Grace is not about filling gaps. It is about filling us.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Seeing that she was still confused, I
took a piece of paper and drew two dots—one at the top representing God
and one at the bottom representing us. I then said, “Go ahead. Draw the
line. How much is our part? How much is Christ’s part?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She went right to the center of the
page and began to draw a line. Then, considering what we had been
speaking about, she went to the bottom of the page and drew a line just
above the bottom dot.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I said, “Wrong.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> “I knew it was higher,” she said. “I should have just drawn it, because I knew it.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I said, “No. The truth is, there is
no line. Jesus filled the whole space. He paid our debt in full. He
didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is
finished.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> (<i>Right, that sounds Christian. He did pay it all. It is finished. But...)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">
<span class="commentbody" style="font-size: small;">“However good a person’s works, he
could not be saved had Jesus not died for his and everyone else’s sins. And
however powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who
does not comply with the works of the gospel” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle
of Forgiveness, p. 207).</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i> </i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> She said, “Right—like I don’t have to do anything?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> “Oh no,” I said, “you have plenty to
do, but it is not to fill that gap. We will all be resurrected. We will
all go back to God’s presence. What is left to be determined by our
obedience is what kind of body we plan on being resurrected with and how
comfortable we plan to be in God’s presence and how long we plan to
stay there.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(There it is. The caveat that is not Biblical. Grace belongs to everyone in LDS theology, regardless of faith or obedience. All will be resurrecting into a kingdom of heaven. Obedience decides which one. You did not solve this girl's issue by telling her she will be resurrected by grace no matter what--she's still going to have to struggle for "worthiness.")</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;">“Conditional
or individual salvation, that which comes by grace coupled with gospel
obedience, consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of
God. This kind of salvation follows faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the
Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one’s mortal probation”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 669-670).</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i> </i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Christ asks us to show faith in Him,
repent, make and keep covenants, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to
the end. By complying, we are not paying the demands of justice—not even
the smallest part. Instead, we are showing appreciation for what Jesus
Christ did by using it to live a life like His. Justice requires
immediate perfection or a punishment when we fall short. Because Jesus
took that punishment, He can offer us the chance for ultimate perfection
(see Matt. 5:48, 3 Ne. 12:48) and help us reach that goal. He can
forgive what justice never could, and He can turn to us now with His own
set of requirements (see 3 Ne. 28:35). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(No, you aren't paying the demands of justice, but you are fulfilling a requirement.</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> “So what’s the difference?” the girl asked. “Whether our efforts are required by justice or by Jesus, they are still required.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> “True,” I said, “but they are
required for a different purpose. Fulfilling Christ’s requirements is
like paying a mortgage instead of rent or like making deposits in a
savings account instead of paying off debt. You still have to hand it
over every month, but it is for a totally different reason.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(So...you still have to pay for what you get, you mean? Its just more worthwhile? Right. That's still money owed or invested. That's still our effort earning or gaining something that we can't have at all unless we do it on our own.)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit; line-height: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;">“I
believe in the grace of God made manifest through His sacrifice and redemption,
and I believe that through His atonement, without any price on our part, each
of us is offered the gift of resurrection from the dead. I believe further that
through that sacrifice there is extended to every man and woman, every son and
daughter of God, the opportunity for eternal life and exaltation in our
Father’s kingdom, as we hearken and obey His commandments” (Gordon B. Hinckley,
“The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1986,
pp. 50-51).</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i> </i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><b>Sufficient to Transform Us</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Christ’s arrangement with us is
similar to a mom providing music lessons for her child. Mom pays the
piano teacher. Because Mom pays the debt in full, she can turn to her
child and ask for something. What is it? Practice! Does the child’s
practice pay the piano teacher? No. Does the child’s practice repay Mom
for paying the piano teacher? No. Practicing is how the child shows
appreciation for Mom’s incredible gift. It is how he takes advantage of
the amazing opportunity Mom is giving him to live his life at a higher
level. Mom’s joy is found not in getting repaid but in seeing her gift
used—seeing her child improve. And so she continues to call for
practice, practice, practice.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> If the child sees Mom’s requirement
of practice as being too overbearing (“Gosh, Mom, why do I need to
practice? None of the other kids have to practice! I’m just going to be a
professional baseball player anyway!”), perhaps it is because he
doesn’t yet see with Mom’s eyes. He doesn’t see how much better his life
could be if he would choose to live on a higher plane.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> In the same way, because Jesus has
paid justice, He can now turn to us and say,
“Follow me” (Matt. 4:19), “keep my commandments” (John 14:15). If we see
His requirements as being way too much to ask (“Gosh! None of the other
Christians have to pay tithing! None of the other Christians have to go
on missions, serve in callings, and do temple work!”), maybe it is
because we do not yet see through Christ’s eyes. We have not yet
comprehended what He is trying to make of us. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(I have multiple issues with this part. First of all, what if the child refuses to practice? In both Mormon theology and in the piano lessons, if the efforts stop, so do the payments. If the child refuses to practice and loses all interest in piano, the mother will often stop paying for lessons. In Mormon teachings, if you don't fulfill your efforts well enough, you won't make it to the Celestial Kingdom.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>Second, what arrogant comparisons to Christians! As if Christians are all lesser! Do Christians give of time and money? They do, or if they don't, they should. But since they are not required to do so in order to be "worthy" to go to a temple for "saving" ordinances, they choose to do so out of personal conviction. Any requirement on amount is done away with in the New Testament, but a cheerful giver is praised. In fact, many Christian churches give a significantly greater percentage in outreach and charity than the Mormon church does! Christians do go on missions, often bringing the Gospel to places Mormon missionaries won't touch, and often providing much-needed medical aid, clean water, and food in third world countries that Mormons don't. Christians also often have things like prison outreaches and other ministries that reach out to those who are hurting the most, which Mormons often do not. Christians do serve in callings--because they are actually called by God, not a bishop who possibly has no true understanding of their abilities and demands on their lives, as my own poor mother experienced. I am not saying that all who call themselves Christians or all so-called Christian churches do all these things as well as they should, or at all, but they should and in many cases--especially outside of developed countries--do, and often do so better than the Mormon church.)</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Elder Bruce C. Hafen (BA ’66) has written, “The great Mediator asks for our repentance </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">not</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
because we must ‘repay’ him in exchange for his paying our debt to
justice, but because repentance initiates a developmental process that,
with the Savior’s help, leads us along the path to a saintly character” (</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">The Broken Heart</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], p. 149; emphasis in original). </span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: small; line-height: 200%;">“The
blood of Christ was shed as a free gift of wondrous grace, but the Saints are
cleansed by the blood after they keep the commandments” (Sermons and Writings
of Bruce R. McConkie, p. 77).<br />
“Even that grace of God promised in the scriptures comes only ‘after all we can
do’” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness,” Ensign, November
1995 (Conference Edition), p. 19).</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Elder Dallin H. Oaks (BS ’54) has
said, referring to President Spencer W. Kimball’s explanation, “The
repenting sinner must suffer for his sins, but this suffering has a
different purpose than punishment or payment. Its purpose is </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">change</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">” (</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">The Lord’s Way</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991], p. 223; emphasis in original).
Let’s put this in terms of our analogy: The child must practice the
piano, but this practice has a different purpose than punishment or
payment. Its purpose is change. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue;">
<span class="commentbody">“One of the most fallacious
doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone
by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed
for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary </span><span class="textexposedshow">for man’s exaltation in the kingdom of God this could
rule out the need for repentance. It could give license for sin and , since it
does not require man to work out his salvation, could accept instead lip
service, ‘death-bed repentance,’ and shallow, meaningless confession of sin”
(Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 206-207).</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I have born-again Christian friends who say to me, “You Mormons are trying to </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">earn </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">your way to heaven.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I say, “No, we are not earning heaven. We are </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">learning</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> heaven. We are preparing for it (see D&C 78:7). We are practicing for it.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> They ask me, “Have you been saved by grace?”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I answer, “Yes. Absolutely, totally, completely, thankfully—yes!” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> <i>(How so? In that you will be
resurrected...like everyone else? What have you been saved from, before
the works begin, and no matter how well you do in your works through the
rest of your life? What will you be saved to, by virtue of grace alone?
Certainly not saved from death and hell and saved to heaven and
righteousness the way the Bible talks about!)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue;">
<span class="commentbody">“The Athanasian creed will return to
the realms of darkness where it was spawned. The doctrine of salvation by grace
alone without works shall be anathema. The great and abominable church shall
tumble to the dust. False worship shall cease” (Bruce R. McConkie, The
Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man, p. 430).</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Then I ask them a question that perhaps they have not fully considered: <i>(The author's general assumption that they have no fully considered it is, frankly, insulting to many Christians and arrogant on his part.)</i> “Have you been </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">changed</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
by grace?” They are so excited about being saved that maybe they are
not thinking enough about what comes next. They are so happy the debt is
paid that they may not have considered why the debt existed in the
first place. Latter-day Saints know not only what Jesus has saved us
from <i>(Care to share? If he saved us from sin, death, and hell, why does that not apply to the Christian?) </i>but also what He has saved us for. <i>(Well, if they've got a good pastor or mentor and/or have read the New Testament, they do know. Ephesians 2:10)</i> As my friend Brett C. Sanders
(BS ’00) puts it, “A life impacted by grace eventually begins to look
like Christ’s life.” As my friend Omar Canals shared with me, “While
many Christians view Christ’s suffering </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">as only a huge favor He did for us, Latter</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">-day
Saints also recognize it as a huge investment He made in us.” As Moroni
puts it, grace isn’t just about being saved. It is also about becoming
like the Savior (see Moro. 7:48).
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> The miracle of the Atonement is not
just that we can live after we die but that we can live more abundantly
(see John 10:10). The miracle of the Atonement is not just that we can
be cleansed and consoled but that we can be transformed (see Rom. 8).
Scriptures make it clear that no unclean thing can dwell with God (see
Alma 40:26), but no unchanged thing will even want to.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I know a young man who just got out
of prison—again. Each time two roads diverge in a yellow wood, he takes
the wrong one—every time. When he was a teenager dealing with every bad
habit a teenage boy can have, I said to his father, “We need to get him
to EFY.” I have worked with Especially for Youth since 1985. I know the
good it can do.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> His dad said, “I can’t afford that.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I said, “I can’t afford it either,
but you put some in, and I’ll put some in, and then we’ll go to my mom,
because she is a real softy.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> We finally got the kid to EFY, but
how long do you think he lasted? Not even a day. By the end of the first
day he called his mother and said, “Get me out of here!”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Heaven will not be heaven for those who have not chosen to be heavenly.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> In the past I had a picture in my
mind of what the final judgment would be like, and it went something
like this: Jesus standing there with a clipboard and Brad standing on
the other side of the room nervously looking at Jesus.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Jesus checks His clipboard and says, “Oh, shoot, Brad. You missed it by two points.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Brad begs Jesus, “Please, check the essay question one more time! There </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">have to be two points you can squeeze out </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">of that essay.” That’s how I always saw it. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue;">
<span class="commentbody">“Through grace, made available by
the Savior’s atoning sacrifice, all people will be resurrected and receive
immortality (see 2 Nephi 9:6-13). But resurrection alone does not qualify us
for eternal life in the presence of God. Our sins make</span><span class="textexposedshow"> us unclean and unfit to dwell in God’s presence, and we
need His grace to purify and perfect us ‘after all we can do’ (2 Nephi 25:23)”
(True to the Faith, 2004, p. 77).</span><br />
<span class="textexposedshow">“The phrase ‘after all we can do’ teaches that
effort is required on our part to receive the fulness of the Lord’s grace and
be made worthy to dwell with him” (True to the Faith, 2004, p. 77).</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> But the older I get, and the more I understand this wonderful plan of </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">redemption,</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
the more I realize that in the final judgment it will not be the
unrepentant sinner begging Jesus, “Let me stay.” No, he will probably be
saying, “Get me out of here!” Knowing Christ’s character, I believe
that if anyone were to beg on that occasion, it would probably be Jesus
begging the unrepentant sinner, “Please, choose to stay. Please, use my
Atonement—not just to be cleansed but to be changed so that you </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">want</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> to stay.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(Uh, no. Jesus won't beg them. They had their chance.)</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> The miracle of the Atonement is not just that we can go home but that—amazingly—we can feel at home there. </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">If Christ did not require faith and </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">repentance, then there would be no desire to change. Think of your friends </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">and family members who have chosen
</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">to live without faith and without
repentance. They don’t want to change. They are not trying to abandon
sin and become comfortable with God. Rather, they are trying to abandon
God and become comfortable with sin. If Jesus did not require covenants
and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost, then there would be no way to
change. We would be left forever with only willpower, with no access to
His power. If Jesus did not require endurance to the end, then there
would be no internalization of those changes over time. They would
forever be surface and cosmetic rather than sinking inside us and
becoming part of us—part of who we are. To return to our metaphor, if
practice were not required, then we would never become pianists. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><i>(And not once has the author mentioned yet how the Spirit comes into play...As if we have to do it all on our own. We don't. The Spirit works in us constantly to sanctify us. It is one of the benefits of being a true believer in Christ.)</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><b>Sufficient to Help Us</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">“But Brother Wilcox, don’t you
realize how hard it is to practice? I’m just not very good at the piano.
I hit a lot of wrong notes. It takes me forever to get it right.” Now
wait. Isn’t that all part of the learning process? When a young pianist
hits a wrong note, we don’t say he is not worthy to keep practicing. We
don’t expect him to be flawless. We just expect him to keep trying.
Perfection may be his ultimate goal, but for now we can be content with
movement in the right direction. Why is this perspective so easy to see
in the context of learning piano but so hard to see in the context of
learning heaven?
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Too many are giving up on the Church
because they are tired of constantly feeling like they are falling
short. They have tried in the past, but they always feel like they are
just not good enough. They don’t understand grace.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> There are young women who know they
“are daughters of [a] Heavenly Father who loves [them], and [they] love
Him.” Then they graduate from high school, and the values they memorized
are put to the test. They slip up. They let things go too far, and
suddenly they think it is all over. These young women don’t understand
grace.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> There are young men who grow up
their whole lives singing, “I hope they call me on a mission,” and then
they do actually grow a foot or two and flake out completely. They get
their Eagles, graduate from high school, and go away to college. Then
suddenly these young men find out how easy it is to </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">not</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,
cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, or reverent. They mess up. They say,
“I’ll never do it again,” and then they do it. They say, “I’ll never do
it again,” and then they do it. They say, “This is stupid. I will never
do it again,” and then they do it. The guilt is almost unbearable. They
don’t dare talk to a bishop. Instead, they hide. They say, “I can’t do
this Mormon thing. I’ve tried, and the expectations are just way too
high.” So they quit. These young men don’t understand grace.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I know returned missionaries who
come home and slip back into bad habits they thought were over. They
break promises made before God, angels, and witnesses, and they are
convinced there is no hope for them now. They say, “Well, I’ve blown it.
There is no use in even trying anymore.” Seriously? These young people
have spent entire missions teaching people about Jesus Christ and His
Atonement, and now they think there is no hope for them? These returned
missionaries don’t understand grace.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I know young married couples who
find out after the sealing ceremony is over that marriage requires
adjustments. The pressures of life mount, and stress starts taking its
toll financially, spiritually, and even sexually. Mistakes are made.
Walls go up. And pretty soon these husbands and wives are talking with
divorce lawyers rather than talking with each other. These couples don’t
understand grace.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> In all of these cases there should
never be just two options: perfection or giving up. When learning the
piano, are the only options performing at Carnegie Hall or quitting? No.
Growth and development take time. Learning takes time. When we
understand grace, we understand that God is long-suffering, that change
is a process, and that repentance is a pattern in our lives. When we
understand grace, we understand that the blessings of Christ’s Atonement
are continuous and His strength is perfect in our weakness (see 2 Cor.
12:9). When we understand grace, we can, as it says in the Doctrine and
Covenants, “continue in patience until [we] are perfected” (D&C
67:13).
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> One young man wrote me the following
e-mail: “I know God has all power, and I know He will help me if I’m
worthy, but I’m just never worthy enough to ask for His help. I want
Christ’s grace, but I always find myself stuck in the same
self-defeating and impossible position: no work, no grace.”
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> I wrote him back and testified with
all my heart that Christ is not waiting at the finish line once we have
done “all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). He is with us every step of the way. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> <i>(</i></span><a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="23"></a><i><span class="verse">2 Nephi 25: 23 </span>"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.</i><span style="font-size: 16px;">" <i>Pretty sure it says after...Did I read that wrong? And I have to ask, how does all that fit into the three kingdoms of heaven? Entry into each one is determined by a combination of faith and works, or lack thereof. Is grace just the heavenly aid for those who already believe in the Mormon faith, or what?)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">
“The
Lord will bless us to the degree to which we keep His commandments. Nephi put
this principle in a tremendous orbit when he said: ‘For we labor diligently to
write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and
to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved,
after all we can do.’ (2 Nephi 25:23.) The Savior’s blood, His atonement, will
save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping
His commandments” (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in the Holy Places, p. 246. See also
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, p. 24).</div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written,
“The Savior’s gift of grace to us is not necessarily limited in time to
‘after’ all we can do. We may receive his grace before, during, and
after the time when we expend our own efforts” (</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">The Broken Heart</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">
[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], p. 155). So grace is not a
booster engine that kicks in once our fuel supply is exhausted. Rather,
it is our constant energy source. It is not the light at the end of the
tunnel but the light that moves us through the tunnel. Grace is not
achieved somewhere down the road. It is received right here and right
now. It is not a finishing touch; it is the Finisher’s touch (see Heb.
12:2).
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> The first company of Saints entered
the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. Their journey was difficult and
challenging; still, they sang:
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Come, come, ye Saints, no toil nor labor fear;
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">But with joy wend your way.
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Though hard to you this journey may appear,
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Grace shall be as your day.
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: 16px;">[“Come, Come, Ye Saints,” </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Hymns,</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> rev. ed. (Salt Lake City:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2002), no. 30]
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> “Grace shall be as your day”—what an
interesting phrase. We have all sung it hundreds of times, but have we
stopped to consider what it means? “Grace shall be as your day”: grace
shall be like a day. As dark as night may become, we can always count on
the sun coming up. As dark as our trials, sins, and mistakes may
appear, we can always have confidence in the grace of Jesus Christ. Do
we earn a sunrise? No. Do we have to be worthy of a chance to begin
again? No. We just have to accept these blessings and take advantage of
them. As sure as each brand-new day, grace—the enabling power of Jesus
Christ—is constant. Faithful pioneers knew they were not alone. The task
ahead of them was never as great as the power behind them.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><b>Amazing Grace</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">The grace of Christ is
sufficient—sufficient to cover our debt, sufficient to transform us, and
sufficient to help us as long as that transformation process takes. The
Book of Mormon teaches us to rely solely on “the merits, and mercy, and
grace of the Holy Messiah” (2 Ne. 2:8). As we do, we do not discover—as
some Christians believe—that Christ requires nothing of us. Rather, we
discover the reason He requires so much and the strength to do all He
asks (see Philip. 4:13). Grace is not the absence of God’s high
expectations. Grace is the presence of God’s power (see Luke 1:37).
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said the following:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">Now may I speak</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">to
those buffeted by false insecurity, who, though laboring devotedly in
the Kingdom, have recurring feelings of falling forever short.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.
<br />
.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">This feeling of inadequacy is</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">normal.
There is no way the Church can honestly describe where we must yet go
and what we must yet do without creating a sense of immense distance.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 16px;">.
<br />
.</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">.</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px;">This is a gospel of grand expectations, but God’s grace is sufficient for each of us.</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> [“Notwithstanding My Weakness,” </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Ensign,</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> November 1976, pp. 12, 14]
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"> With Elder Maxwell, I testify that
God’s grace is sufficient. Jesus’ grace is sufficient. It is enough. It
is all we need. Oh, young people, don’t quit. Keep trying. Don’t look
for escapes and excuses. Look for the Lord and His perfect strength.
Don’t search for someone to blame. Search for someone to help you. Seek
Christ, and as you do, I promise you will feel the enabling power we
call His amazing grace. I leave this testimony and all of my love—for I
do love you. As God is my witness, I love the youth of this church. I
believe in you. I’m pulling for you. And I’m not the only one. Parents
are pulling for you, leaders are pulling for you, and prophets are
pulling for you. And Jesus is pulling </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">with</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> you. I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue;">
<span class="commentbody">“In the Restored gospel, grace and
works ever go hand in hand. No one will ever be exalted by the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ, if that person is complacent in his approach to the commandments.
Nor will anyone find himself exalted solely through seeking to keep all of the
commandments of Christ, as no one is able to fully do so” (Alonzo L. Gaskill,
Odds Are, You’re Going to be Exalted, p. 2.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">What I find in this article is a complete misunderstanding of grace and a horribly arrogant attitude towards Christians. Yes, some people who profess to be Christians do not do the works they should and take advantage of grace. The New Testament specifically condemns that. Whether they are truly Christian could be up for debate in many cases, especially in light of the list of those who will not reach the kingdom of heaven in Galatians 5--although we are all sinners, even after being saved, and that is where grace must applied. We, true believers, are sanctified through the Spirit. And through the Spirit you get the Christians who so obviously do love Jesus and make efforts to be good, Godly people. The author's all-encompassing condemnation of some American Christians shows a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a Biblical Christian.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;">Grace, however, is what saves us from death and hell and to heaven, fellowship with God, and righteousness, all thanks to Jesus. We receive grace through faith. The Spirit then sanctifies us, and we do good works as a result. In fact, Ephesians 2:8-10 sums it up neatly:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><br /></span><br />
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29238">8</sup> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29239">9</sup> not by works, so that no one can boast. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29240">10</sup> For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.<br />
<br />
Notice that the works do not get us anything--they were already prepared for us. Salvation is from faith alone, as a gift, and good works are prepared for us by God. How can we earn something (like exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom) by doing something already prepared for us? How can we become worthy of what we already have? Being saved by grace alone does not advocate pursuing sin. What it does do is give all the credit to Jesus.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-87546329798766763512012-04-14T13:49:00.001-07:002012-04-14T13:49:31.058-07:00Mormon Temples<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyb0WFPSSkscBn1LBEnVmhV9AXmwkhfgozf8i5wH-nocrNWcdcm2QCX7ymOF0RdjzJdVahbDWnASvU9mxBIje9IQnp1XRvedf1S6CJcYf2NooTNS_oOT4zW23jYbMPpN2iz_ezUYLYgUPR/s1600/100_70941.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyb0WFPSSkscBn1LBEnVmhV9AXmwkhfgozf8i5wH-nocrNWcdcm2QCX7ymOF0RdjzJdVahbDWnASvU9mxBIje9IQnp1XRvedf1S6CJcYf2NooTNS_oOT4zW23jYbMPpN2iz_ezUYLYgUPR/s320/100_70941.jpg" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Mormon temples are sacred places meant for worship and reception of saving ordinances, in the Mormon mind. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="37"> </a><span class="verse">D&C 124: 37 </span>And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name?<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="38"> </a><span class="verse">38 </span>For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle,
that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a
house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed
which had been hid from before the world was.<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="39"> </a><span class="verse">39 </span>Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy
places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and
judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion,
and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are
ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always
commanded to build unto my holy name.<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="40"> </a><span class="verse">40 </span>And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="41"> </a><span class="verse">41 </span>For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So what do we find in these temples? Are they consistent with the Bible? Are the centered on God and Jesus? </div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHtfNFJKCa5-rAubmLh-KWonv1_r8XitnwhlnjHHdtqt5rzB2SWf6XoOoay-v2djbrgk7EGubkpuIlCMqt0z-I1NX-Rwx9Mg5To4-Ff8Vt78tgwvNeSVUF62VKqpHLIwKsYNUGLJVii2b7/s1600/215050_2232678784135_1462877602_32504537_8006866_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHtfNFJKCa5-rAubmLh-KWonv1_r8XitnwhlnjHHdtqt5rzB2SWf6XoOoay-v2djbrgk7EGubkpuIlCMqt0z-I1NX-Rwx9Mg5To4-Ff8Vt78tgwvNeSVUF62VKqpHLIwKsYNUGLJVii2b7/s400/215050_2232678784135_1462877602_32504537_8006866_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nauvoo Temple</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is a picture my parents took on their Nauvoo trip. The sunstones and pentacles that adorn the temple can be seen clearly. <br />
<br />
This is not the original Nauvoo temple, which was destroyed by fire and tornado. It is built the same, though, and Joseph Smith was heavily involved in its design.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwitjcIAWBy6a0mF38P0EYcvbohxs3UG7S1QQUWqLw1e2WFkOkf38YFpsqKX8TfAKtmqW330BorC6TGDZyW9dWJQy8gpkGSu7Wwa4VbljS2Yd0ETMDaJCTAGgtt9__LeRG6WCPVUOyli4t/s1600/Nauvoo+Pentagrams+large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwitjcIAWBy6a0mF38P0EYcvbohxs3UG7S1QQUWqLw1e2WFkOkf38YFpsqKX8TfAKtmqW330BorC6TGDZyW9dWJQy8gpkGSu7Wwa4VbljS2Yd0ETMDaJCTAGgtt9__LeRG6WCPVUOyli4t/s200/Nauvoo+Pentagrams+large.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
While pentacles are commonly associated with Satanism and magic now, they were not always used for such. Many of the symbols on the temple, including the pentacles, are derived from their use in Masonry, of which Joseph Smith was a member.<br />
<br />
There was a myth long believed about Masonry, which is that it ultimately could be traced back to the Temple of Solomon. This myth, however, has proven unsubstantiated and false, used as a claim to legitimacy. In reality, Masonry is a later creation. Is reasons for creation were not bad, and much of its history has not been bad, though it has had its shady moments.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKx9Rn2YYe0w3g__3negBUprHZwF1EWrAaXUSM1N-enMqNp6l39LFRlqBknuUgn5KKRDp1jeIVCpj7AGcaan0TeBydY1kfM4Tf_arBuzoC-7kMdeo3l_YBQjvWc3k0yPF21_9wQYyOuhdq/s1600/eye2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKx9Rn2YYe0w3g__3negBUprHZwF1EWrAaXUSM1N-enMqNp6l39LFRlqBknuUgn5KKRDp1jeIVCpj7AGcaan0TeBydY1kfM4Tf_arBuzoC-7kMdeo3l_YBQjvWc3k0yPF21_9wQYyOuhdq/s200/eye2.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
In fact, one of these shady moments found its way into the Book of Mormon. A murder took place during the time that Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon, and was done by the Masons to a man who was going to publish the secrets of Freemasonry. This murder sparked general outrage and anti-Masonic sentiment, which found its way into the Book of Mormon in the form of the Gidianton robbers, who parallel the Masons in many respects, such as in "secret signs and combination," which the Book of Mormon condemns.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN72-0x73EHZOg3JSozm9ktm4XxjvMyltqxYmgcVflKrCA1632sNyyIO1BQHLCBbnq3JjFJ2GFMoiFGpqn4Od2Tjheljai0Ez2edJOFeu-WU6D2eTqm1vZ1PHDYasmjOV1dXXvWsLzP2n-/s1600/lds-nauvoo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN72-0x73EHZOg3JSozm9ktm4XxjvMyltqxYmgcVflKrCA1632sNyyIO1BQHLCBbnq3JjFJ2GFMoiFGpqn4Od2Tjheljai0Ez2edJOFeu-WU6D2eTqm1vZ1PHDYasmjOV1dXXvWsLzP2n-/s1600/lds-nauvoo.jpg" /></a><br />
<div class="">
Helaman 6:<span class="verse">22 </span>And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret
words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered
into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he
should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his
band, who had taken this covenant.<span class="verse"> 26 </span>Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit—<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="" name="27"> </a><span class="verse">27 </span>Yea, that same being who did plot with Cain,
that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known unto
the world. And he did plot with Cain and his followers from that time
forth.</div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJMtNUkV2NAMD4MQU_tccealqarErIRaFe0o-L8D3KSPFcN3gY1J2TDflLb3BmGzH_jTnGMS_fRKZROMXqIEJdH4TnjTddc4_pV8VBpp16FYxYvVG1HJsUc3qP3NQLJnxbVgQELaaEIR37/s1600/sunstonevol10no5may1985_p41.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="123" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJMtNUkV2NAMD4MQU_tccealqarErIRaFe0o-L8D3KSPFcN3gY1J2TDflLb3BmGzH_jTnGMS_fRKZROMXqIEJdH4TnjTddc4_pV8VBpp16FYxYvVG1HJsUc3qP3NQLJnxbVgQELaaEIR37/s200/sunstonevol10no5may1985_p41.gif" width="200" /></a><br />
Considering the injunction again secret signs and oaths, its interesting that Joseph Smith later joined Masonry--with its secret signs and oaths--and incorporated its signs, tokens, rituals, oaths, and symbols into the temple and the rituals performed within the temple. And considering that the symbols, rituals, etc. do not trace back to the Temple of Solomon, it is quite difficult to argue that these are inspired symbols and rituals that line up with Biblical teachings. They are not based on the Bible, on Jesus, or on revelation, but from a man's experience with a man-made organization.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjqgkfk1TBIrvYUgjcqj-ikslPsreJbHYbszGHS4f-9s3ZXQhPqBhS5x9GNNBpz6npAQzD4PVE9hxk7iThNe_lWfZbKld2yHh9D9OGr7WGx5KOyENKTH0pwzPWUpjuUpN5R1-XCL7218oS/s1600/Moroni-Birmingham-Alabama-Lightplanet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjqgkfk1TBIrvYUgjcqj-ikslPsreJbHYbszGHS4f-9s3ZXQhPqBhS5x9GNNBpz6npAQzD4PVE9hxk7iThNe_lWfZbKld2yHh9D9OGr7WGx5KOyENKTH0pwzPWUpjuUpN5R1-XCL7218oS/s320/Moroni-Birmingham-Alabama-Lightplanet.jpg" width="290" /></a><br />
Perhaps even more evident of the lack of Biblical truth found in the temple is the use of things like the statue of the Angel Moroni on the top of every temple, along with all the symbolism within the temple that point to forever families and exaltation rather than to Jesus.<br />
<br />
It is profoundly condemning, in my eyes at least, that they are willing to put a golden statue of a man on top of their temples, as well as all sorts of Masonic symbols, some of which have since become associated with the Satanic and pagan, but they are not willing to put up crosses or much else that is obvious tribute to Jesus alone. At best, it is un-Biblical. At worst, it is idolatrous. To claim that these are God's House when they are so obviously based on the imaginings of a man is wrong.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif9YAwcxi2fCAqjppU7-kH7W6th5GuZCyfnMYba8cO1bsSwcFxuPw3CMBt-__nG1AI-EhqyWVLZVKPz5-TFHQnM5P3vyYgaAm0nXmsFkm_e1eIWeL4CyuFhuCtjlgVAd65GySyK-GOg5ih/s1600/mormon_temple_spires.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif9YAwcxi2fCAqjppU7-kH7W6th5GuZCyfnMYba8cO1bsSwcFxuPw3CMBt-__nG1AI-EhqyWVLZVKPz5-TFHQnM5P3vyYgaAm0nXmsFkm_e1eIWeL4CyuFhuCtjlgVAd65GySyK-GOg5ih/s200/mormon_temple_spires.jpg" width="200" /></a> Furthermore, we can compare the Mormon temples to Solomon's temple. If they really are the houses of God, then they should fall in line with the Old Testament mandates for the tabernacle, which later became the temple, and should have the same uses. But again, the Mormon temples fail this test. The appearance is far different. The Old Testament gives much detail on how the tabernacle is to be laid out, and on how the later temple was built on the same pattern. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDUECC1LXCIClEM17_bP3kvAlnOwmxOZytr5s3Br3KWsT25XpmL8lru1FB6IZeLekSzFXtykIGjSmM1wBaqkWYFKI98hY9ZJUX3vdVjEeR66QC1gF40GFaExa8rNUyzLUGAUPeMngWoNuV/s1600/stem.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDUECC1LXCIClEM17_bP3kvAlnOwmxOZytr5s3Br3KWsT25XpmL8lru1FB6IZeLekSzFXtykIGjSmM1wBaqkWYFKI98hY9ZJUX3vdVjEeR66QC1gF40GFaExa8rNUyzLUGAUPeMngWoNuV/s320/stem.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
We can easily see the difference between unique and varied architecture of the hundreds of Mormon temples and the design of the Old Testament temple. The basement baptismal font of the LDS temples are outside, and not used for baptisms for the dead, in the tabernacle and Solomon's temple. Where the floor plan for the tabernacle was laid out in excruciating detail, and the rituals done in all places explained, even if some were restricted to only a select group or single person, the inside of the Mormon temple is little known to the uninitiated,, as well as the rituals done inside being kept secret.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH85wDdcmT-lFfGTmoLM-a7tEFX1bfE4q4R6y2SJmHP2ojZHkj9ncejjL6EZxkib8hxFe-9D4-Q4ZUYTIlPpTxqfvhiHK5ia1hTbdFz_IOLIMcaWLiFD_rAs9IY5OGeeWfCjHszCkujMFA/s1600/solomon_temple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH85wDdcmT-lFfGTmoLM-a7tEFX1bfE4q4R6y2SJmHP2ojZHkj9ncejjL6EZxkib8hxFe-9D4-Q4ZUYTIlPpTxqfvhiHK5ia1hTbdFz_IOLIMcaWLiFD_rAs9IY5OGeeWfCjHszCkujMFA/s200/solomon_temple.jpg" width="200" /></a>Where are the sacrifices, the incense burning, and all the other requirements for the tabernacle to be found in the Mormon temples? If they are even there, their use or meaning has been altered. Where are the celestial marriages, the ordinances for the dead, the secret handshakes and names, in the Old Testament? There are not there, because they were not needed, and still are not. Even temples are not needed anymore.<br />
<br />
Acts 17:24 The God who made the
world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not
live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather,
he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.<br />
<br />
<strong style="color: black; font-weight: normal;">1 Corinthians 3:16</strong> Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? <br />
<br />
This is yet another reason I cannot accept the Mormon claim to be Christian. To tell me that I must go to a building adorned with un-Biblical symbolism derived from a man-made (although not necessarily bad) organization, and therein perform rituals derived from the same organization, in order to be "worthy" and have a chance at "exaltation," is not anywhere to be found in the Bible and is an insult to what the temple was in the Old Testament and what Jesus did in the New Testament.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-53824808696668518432012-03-29T23:10:00.000-07:002012-03-29T23:19:38.148-07:00Have Mormon Prophets Taught That We can Become Gods?There is a growing trend amongst Mormons to deny the long-held doctrine that we can literally be exalted to Godhood. This doctrine was established by Joseph Smith, affirmed by multiple prophets, can be found at least implicitly, if not explicitly, in LDS scripture, and is still believed by many Mormons today, particularly the older generations. Yet it is a doctrine that is hard for many non-Mormons, especially Christians, to accept, and the church is pulling away from it just like they have pulled away from blood-atonement, Adam-God, and polygamy as a requirement in the past. So perhaps establishing that it really was taught as doctrine by multiple prophets and really is contained in their scripture would be helpful.<br />
<br />
Let's start with their scripture.<br />
<div style="color: #0b5394;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0b5394;">
D&C 132: <a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="20"> </a><span class="verse">20 </span>Then shall they be <i>gods</i>, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from <i>everlasting
to everlasting</i>, because they continue; then shall they be above all,
because <i>all things are subject unto them</i>. Then shall they be <i>gods</i>, because they have <i>all power</i>, and the angels are subject unto them.</div>
(It is interesting to note that the footnote for the word "gods" includes the Topical Guide reference "Man, Potential to Become Like Heavenly Father.")<br />
<span class="verse" style="color: #0b5394;">37 </span><span style="color: #0b5394;">Abraham received concubines,
and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for
righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law;
as Isaac also and Jacob
did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because
they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they
have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and <i>sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods</i>.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="color: black;">Notice how closely the language parallels language that is ascribed only to God and Jesus in the Bible...yet they are referring to mere mortal men here.</span> </span> <br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #0b5394;">D&C 76: </span><a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="58" style="background-color: white; color: #0b5394;"></a><span class="verse" style="background-color: white; color: #0b5394;">58 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0b5394;">Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— </span>(speaking of the resurrection of the faithful)<br />
<br />
Abraham 4 is particularly disturbing to me. I would encourage reading the whole chapter, but the first verse sets the tone well enough:<br />
<a class="bookmark-anchor dontHighlight" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="1"></a><span class="verse" style="color: #0b5394;">1 </span><span style="color: #0b5394;">And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, <i>that is the God</i>s, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.</span><br />
<br />
At the <i>least</i> this is referring to the polytheistic Godhead, which is contrary to the Bible's very clear monotheistic teachings which are proven by sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls to predate Jesus. It's more likely that the reference to Gods was a council of Gods that Joseph Smith refers to elsewhere. <br />
<br />
<br />
Here is what I think is one of the most damning evidences of the doctrine of men becoming like God being taught by Joseph Smith. This is the King Follet Sermon.<br />
<br />
"<i>God himself was once as we are now</i>, and is an<i> exalted man</i>, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and
the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things
by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you
would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form
as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and
received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and
communes with another.<br />
<br />
Here, then, is eternal
life—to know the only wise and true God; and <i>you have got to learn how to be gods
yourselves</i>, and to be kings and priests to God, <i>the same as all gods have done before you</i>,
namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great
one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the
resurrection of the dead, and <i>are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in
glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power</i>. (My note: in the Bible, only God is enthroned in everlasting power.)<br />
<br />
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is
the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to
know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that <i>He was once
a man like us</i>; yea, that <i>God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth</i>, the same as
Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.<br />
<br />
In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods;
and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. <br />
<br />
The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is <i>co-equal</i>
[co-eternal] with God himself.<br />
<br />
<i>They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ</i>; and
I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste
them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also
taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these
things <i>which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit</i>, you are bound to receive
them as sweet, and rejoice more and more."<br />
(Read the full sermon at http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm)<br />
<br />
These are not isolated teachings. Many are familiar with the couplet that says that, "God once was as man is now, and man may become as God now is."<br />
<br />
Here are some further quotes by Bruce R. McConkie, a previous General Authority:<br />
<br />
"The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who
worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to
us so that we may do the same," (Bruce R. McConkie, <i>A New Witness for the Articles of Faith</i>, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1985, p. 64).<br />
<br />
"Man and God are of the same race, and it is within the power of
righteous man to become like his Father, that is to become a holy Man, a
Man of Holiness," (<i>Mormon Doctrine</i>, p. 465-466).<br />
<br />
"This
Holy Man, the Father of us all, who reigns supreme and is a saved being ,
ordained and established a plan of salvation so that his Firstborn and
all his spirit children might advance and progress, become like him,
have all power, know all things, live in the family unit, having eternal
increase of their own or in other words, that they might gain for
themselves immortality and eternal life," (<i>A New Witness</i>, p. 704).<br />
<br />
The Gospel Principles manual, used to teach on Sundays, says this in Chapter 2:<br />
"Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see<i> Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, </i>209,
511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would become like
Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on
earth; we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as
He does."<br />
(http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng&query=become+gods)<br />
<br />
Chapter 47 says that,<br />
"When we lived with our Heavenly Father, He explained a plan for our progression. We could become like Him, an exalted being."<br />
(http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng&query=become+gods) <br />
<br />
This has been reflected more recently, such as in D. Todd Christopherson's April 2011 General Conference talk titled "As Many As I Love, I Rebuke and Chasten" where he says that God's purpose is for us "to be with Him eternally, and to <span class="highlight">become</span> even as He is."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
These things have been taught from the pulpit by prophets and published in works written and endorsed by General Authorities. These things were taught by their very first prophet as revelation. The Topical Guide still hints at it. It is still being taught.<br />
<br />
In fact, it is a logical outreach of the doctrines the church espouses. If we are the literal children of heavenly parents, well, how did they become heavenly parents? And if children grow up to become like their earthly parents, as far as being adults and hopefully successful and productive citizens and parents, will we not "grow up" to become like our heavenly parents as far as having the opportunity to reach the same or similar status and have our own spiritual families as well? Moreover, the very fact that Jesus, who Mormons teach is our literal
spirit elder brother, was able to become a God would argue that we
could, too, and that that is the whole point of God's plan.<br />
<br />
This is what Mormon authorities have taught explicitly in the past, and even if they're far more shy about teaching it so openly now--and even if they are sometimes outright duplicitous in denying that the doctrine is taught, as Hinckley did to the public even though he himself taught it within the church--it doesn't not change its existence or that it is the logical outgrowth of the false doctrines about God and how we came to be that the Mormon church teaches.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-41809474106542066872012-03-26T21:59:00.000-07:002012-03-26T22:02:31.489-07:00A Conversation on Sin and the FallThis is a conversation that purely took place in my own head. Admit it, you have conversations in your head too. The Mormon missionary in this conversation is pretty much just the sounding board to work through the whole thing. The Mormon will be M and I will be L. I know missionaries travel in pairs, so I'm just assuming only one engages in the conversation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVdBXvzW0aAwwUz2ePEOHI2RtcY0azdQRJra77Zb-sr5xEYs4-MpMLIAOEK31ZraBJ6JxWf9Sz5y5eCBpnj9ubuR8hv_FmjI74Bm9LvWK3ha2cgLaRMdQ6Zu_iqJx20uOlGybuJOsZqJW1/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVdBXvzW0aAwwUz2ePEOHI2RtcY0azdQRJra77Zb-sr5xEYs4-MpMLIAOEK31ZraBJ6JxWf9Sz5y5eCBpnj9ubuR8hv_FmjI74Bm9LvWK3ha2cgLaRMdQ6Zu_iqJx20uOlGybuJOsZqJW1/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
M: "Hello. Can I talk to you about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?"<br />
L: "Sure. I actually have some things I wanted to ask a Mormon about."<br />
M: "Awesome, what can I help you with?"<br />
L: "Okay, I'm going to process through this with you. Your Second Article of Faith says that you believe that mankind is punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgressions, right?<br />
M: "Right."<br />
L: "And if I'm not mistaken, that is at least in part because you believe that 'Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.' (2 Nephi 2:25) So the Fall was necessary, and therefore we aren't held accountable for it."<br />
M: "Something like that."<br />
L: "Okay, let's backtrack. You believe that before this world was 'organized,' we all lived as spirit brothers and sisters with our Heavenly Father and Mother."<br />
M: "Yes."<br />
L: "So, being good parents, they wanted us to be able to get bodies and become exalted like them, kind of like how kids hopefully grow up to be productive adults who continue the cycle of raising children themselves."<br />
M: "Exactly!"<br />
L: "So because this cycle had been done before, God knew what the best plan was to make sure this happened, and needed a savior. Jesus volunteered to do it God's way, but Satan wanted to do it his way, which involved basically taking away our free will so that everyone would be exalted but no one would have a choice about it. God and Jesus' way involved almost everyone making it to at least some level of heaven, but not everyone being exalted, because everyone gets to make their own choices, which is free will."<br />
M: "Something like that."<br />
L: "So Satan rebelled against the tested and proven plan because he was prideful enough to think his way was better, started a war that was doomed to fail because he was outnumbered two to one and the other side was led by God, and got kicked out of heaven like a rebellious teenager."<br />
M: "Basically."<br />
L: "Alright, fast forward to the Fall again. Adam and Eve have to fall. For some reason, they can't procreate unless they sin first--which is weird, since God made everything else able to be fruitful and multiply, and gave them the same command, but apparently their bodies weren't capable of reproduction, or they were but sex is associated with sin even within marriage so they have to sin first. Anyways, that's another issue, so we'll leave it alone. No matter why it worked that way, they had to sin in order to have children, and they had to have children in order for God's plan to work. But God can't tempt them to sin, and since they had no knowledge of good and evil and no sinful nature and weren't spiritually dead, they couldn't sin. They had to be tempted by an outside source. Does that make sense?"<br />
M: "Sure."<br />
L: "So Satan comes along and tempts them, according to plan. The Bible says he tempts them with a lie, which was that they could become like God or become gods, but Mormon theology says he was actually tempting them with the truth. But that's yet another issue that we won't get into. Anyways, he knew God's plan; God presented it to everyone, including him, and he rejected it, and doesn't want God's plan to work now because of his pride. Everyone who knows much about the Bible knows that. Yet for some reason, he played along with God's plan and did exactly the one thing that God himself could not do; he tempted them to sin. Wouldn't he have left Adam and Eve to be sinless forever if he truly wanted to thwart God's plan?"<br />
M: "Well, uh...you see...I..."<br />
L: "You don't have to answer that right now, there's no scripture for that one anyways. I'll move on to another related question."<br />
M: "Uh..."<br />
L: "Okay, so we agreed earlier that in Mormon theology, the Fall was necessary to God's plan?"<br />
M: "Yes."<br />
L: "So sin was necessary, so that we can be tempted and prove ourselves and apparently procreate and all that."<br />
M: "Right..."<br />
L: "Okay, the Bible says something different, so bear with me here. The Bible says that sin was not part of God's intention for humanity. He made creation good, and then we sinned and fell, and now God has a plan to redeem us. Sin is bad, redemption is good. He could leave us in this state because we got ourselves into it, but we can't get ourselves out, and He is a loving God, so He's made a plan even before He made us to get us out of the mess that we got ourselves into. But sin was not necessary. He gave the command to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall, and He meant it. Satan lied to Eve, and she fell away from God's plan and mankind became spiritually dead, and we can only be made alive again in Jesus. There's no becoming like God or preexistence, there is redemption from a fallen and sinful state to the perfect creation that God originally made. We will be cleansed of all sinfulness and corruption. That's the plan of salvation that the Bible outlines. I know its not what you believe, necessarily, but its what the Bible says. Are you tracking?"<br />
M: "I think so..."<br />
L: "Good. Okay, so think about a rape victim. You probably know one, if you're willing to get personal about it. About a fourth to a third of women are sexual assault victims, and about a sixth to a fifth of men are, so chances are you know at least one, probably a woman."<br />
M: "Yeah..."<br />
L: "Alright, so let's look at the rape they underwent in light of the Mormon view and the Biblical view of sin. In the Mormon view, sin was part of God's plan. He doesn't necessarily like it or what it does, but he planned on it and requires it. So if we get very literal and down to the very core of the issue, when that rape victim you know says, 'Why did this happen to me,' the Mormon view would have to say, 'Because sin is part of God's plan, and not everyone resists temptation, and you became a victim to that.' I know that doesn't sound good, but when you get down to the core of it, that's true, right?"<br />
M: "I guess..."<br />
L: "Now if you go to the Biblical view, when the rape victim asks that question, the Biblical Christian can say, 'Because this is a sinful and fallen world, but God can and will redeem and restore it, and that includes redeeming and restoring what happened to you, if you let Him.' That sounds a lot more right and hopeful, doesn't it? More in line with the nature of a loving and perfect God?"<br />
M: "Yes..."<br />
L: "And that is one of the reasons I can't accept the Mormon God. I can't accept a God that would tell a rape victim--and I know many--that what they underwent was part of his plan in the sense that he meant for sin to come into this world. I can accept a God that did not mean for sin, but knew it would happen because we were able to choose it and He is all-knowing, and then He made a way to redeem and restore, which He is doing through Jesus.<br />
"And that, my friend, is the true gospel."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjb_wohGmPYPF5ZZIsbArcOreTzQW3YdxoirF_oA6Agn6SnG50cAPCGPQCOrPBMd-rxGHWYkDrFXk5BXC9La06I3slaUwIAKFjWfInkUcqWOh9ZundkHyhDhBcnPTZB7FFWn1qys5t8BAP/s1600/crosslove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjb_wohGmPYPF5ZZIsbArcOreTzQW3YdxoirF_oA6Agn6SnG50cAPCGPQCOrPBMd-rxGHWYkDrFXk5BXC9La06I3slaUwIAKFjWfInkUcqWOh9ZundkHyhDhBcnPTZB7FFWn1qys5t8BAP/s400/crosslove.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-4579573941543174542012-03-10T15:42:00.003-08:002012-03-11T12:18:53.821-07:00Response to Mormonism 101: FAQ<h2>
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There is an article in the LDS Newsroom that I wish to respond to. My responses are in <i>italics. </i>This is the "FAQS" about Mormons, as presented by the article, which can be found at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13</span></span></h2>
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
Are Mormons Christian?</h2>
Yes. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is a Christian church but is neither Catholic nor
Protestant. Rather, it is a restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ as
originally established by the Savior in the New Testament of the Bible.
The Church does not embrace the creeds that developed in the third and
fourth centuries that are now central to many other Christian churches.<br />
Latter-day
Saints believe God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to save all mankind from
death and their individual sins. Jesus Christ is central to the lives
of Church members. They seek to follow His example by being baptized
(see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/3?lang=eng">Matthew 3:13-17</a>), praying in His holy name (see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/6?lang=eng">Matthew 6:9-13</a>), partaking of the sacrament (see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/22.19-20?lang=eng">Luke 22:19-20</a>), doing good to others (see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/10.38?lang=eng">Acts 10:38</a>) and bearing witness of Him through both word and deed (see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/2.26?lang=eng#25">James 2:26</a>). The only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/christianity-following-jesus-in-word-and-deed"></a><br />
<i>No, it is not Christian. I've addressed this in past blogs. First, the LDS church is not a historical or spiritual restoration of the early Christian church. It looks nothing like it. Second, rejection of those creeds rejects some very sound and foundational biblical teachings that the apostles held quite sacred. While it is true that salvation is through faith in Jesus, Mormons also believe that works are required--see the Third Article of Faith.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C2"></a>What do Mormons believe about God?</h2>
God is often
referred to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as our
Heavenly Father because He is the Father of all human spirits and they
are created in His image (see <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1.27?lang=eng#26">Genesis 1:27</a>). It is an appropriate term for God who is kind and just, all wise and all powerful. God the Father, His Son, <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/jesus-christ">Jesus Christ</a>, and the Holy Ghost constitute the <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/the-godhead">Godhead </a>or Trinity for Mormons. Latter-day Saints believe God is embodied, though His body is perfect and glorified.<br />
<br />
<i>God does not have a body (John 4:24). Further, the above statements are somewhat deceptive, as Mormons don't just believe that they are created in God's image, but that God is the literal spirit father of us all and that we were procreated.</i> <br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C5"></a>Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?</h2>
Mormons most
commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first
article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God,
the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy
Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the
Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same
being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.<br />
<br />
<i>The Bible "implies" that conception of the Trinity, too. Mormons reject some very clear teachings of the New Testament in rejecting the Trinity as Christians understand it. Further, it makes them polytheistic (or henotheistic) rather than monotheistic, despite very clear teachings in the Bible that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10).</i> <br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C6"></a>What is the Mormon View of the purpose of life?</h2>
For
Latter-day Saints, mortal existence is seen in the context of a great
sweep of history, from a pre-earth life where the spirits of all mankind
lived with Heavenly Father to a future life in His presence where
continued growth, learning and improving will take place. Life on earth
is regarded as a temporary state in which men and women are tried and
tested — and where they gain experiences obtainable nowhere else. God
knew humans would make mistakes, so He provided a Savior, Jesus Christ,
who would take upon Himself the sins of the world. To members of the
Church, physical death on earth is not an end but the beginning of the
next step in God’s plan for His children.<br />
<br />
<i>There is no reason to believe in a preexistence, biblically speaking. Nor are we here to be "tried and tested," because that begs the question, for what? Mormons believe it is for exaltation and progression, but that is not a biblical belief. Sin is not desirable, as it would be if it were necessary for testing and proving ourselves. Jesus' atonement is not an "out" because of something that we have to undergo to prove ourselves. That cheapens Jesus' suffering and triumph at best. We got ourselves into sin, and only Jesus can get us out, and the question is not proving ourselves, but whether or not we choose Jesus, who proved himself, so that we might live with God. That's quite a big difference.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C7"></a>Do Mormons believe in the Bible?</h2>
Yes. The Church reveres the <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/bible">Bible</a>
as the word of God, a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints
cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine
wisdom. Moreover, during worship services the Bible is pondered and
discussed. Additional books of scripture — including the <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/book-of-mormon">Book of Mormon</a>—
strengthen and reinforce God’s teachings through additional witnesses
and provide moving accounts of the personal experiences many individuals
had with Jesus Christ. According to Church apostle <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/leader-biographies/elder-m-russell-ballard">M. Russell Ballard</a>,
“The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor deemphasize the
Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it.”<br />
<br />
<i>While Mormons do regard the Bible as scripture, there is a caveat: "As far as it is translated correctly." (Second Article of Faith) However, there is good scholarship proving, time and again, that the Bible is translated correctly. The other Mormons scriptures often contradict the Bible and each other, not to mention the plethora of issues with the Book of Mormon that make is historicity and authenticity highly suspect at best.</i> <br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C8"></a>What is the Book of Mormon?</h2>
In addition to the
Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is another
testament of Jesus Christ. It contains the writings of ancient prophets,
giving an account of God’s dealings with the peoples on the American
continent. For Latter-day Saints it stands alongside the Old and New
Testaments of the Bible as holy scripture.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/book-of-mormon"></a><br />
<i>It would help if the Book of Mormon did not have issues such as anachronisms, contradictions with the Old Testament Law and practices, evidences of 19th century origin, being written in King James English when that was not spoken at that time, no definite historical setting or archeological support, etc. </i><br />
<a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/book-of-mormon"></a><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C9"></a>What is a Mormon temple?</h2>
Temples existed throughout Biblical times. These buildings were considered the house of the Lord (see <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/2?lang=eng">2 Chronicles 2:1-5</a>). Latter-day Saint temples are likewise considered houses of the Lord by Church members.<br />
To
Latter-day Saints, temples are sacred buildings in which they are
taught about the central role of Christ in God’s plan of salvation and
their personal relationship with God.<br />
In temples, members of the
Church make covenants with God to live a virtuous and faithful life.
They also offer sacraments on behalf of their deceased ancestors.<br />
Mormon
temples are also used to perform marriage ceremonies that promise the
faithful eternal life with their families. For members of the Church
family is of central importance.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8"></a><br />
<i>Temples (plural) did not exist throughout Biblical times. There was only one temple, which began as the tabernacle, and it fulfilled a very, very specific set of purposes which were fulfilled in Jesus' atonement. This is also why it was destroyed within a generation of Jesus' atonement, as Jesus prophesied--it was no longer needed. Marriage, endowments, and ordinances for the dead never took place in the Biblical temple. Mormons spend billions on these lavish temples, and the ordinances done with in can be kept quite secret, with the excuse that they are "sacred"--which is rather strange, because normally sacred things are shared and celebrated and taught, even if their access is restricted, such as the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament. The fact that Mormon endowment rituals closely resemble Masonic rituals is lost on most Mormons.</i><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8"></a><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C10"></a>Do Latter-day Saints believe in modern-day prophets?</h2>
Yes. The Church is governed today by apostles, reflecting the way Jesus organized His Church in biblical times. Three <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/apostle">apostles</a> constitute the <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/first-presidency">First Presidency </a>(consisting of the president or prophet of the Church and his two counselors), and, together with the <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles">Quorum of the Twelve Apostles</a>,
they have responsibility for leading the Church worldwide and serving
as special witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ. Each is accepted by
Church members in a prophetic role corresponding to the apostles in the
Bible.<br />
<br />
<i>It would help if their first prophets were true prophets. There are many documented false prophecies, most of which can be found in D&C or in the History of the Church volumes and the Journal of Discourses--all written/recorded by Mormons and approved by "prophets." The current prophets do not prophesy, they just lead the church, more as businessmen and spokesmen than anything else.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C11"></a>Do Latter-day Saints believe that the apostles receive revelations from God?</h2>
Yes.
When Latter-day Saints speak to God, they call it prayer. When God
responds through the influence of the Holy Spirit, members refer to this
as revelation. <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/revelation">Revelation</a>,
in its broad meaning, is divine guidance or inspiration; it is the
communication of truth and knowledge from God to His children on earth,
suited to their language and understanding. It simply means to uncover
something not yet known. The Bible illustrates different types of
revelation, ranging from dramatic visions to gentle feelings — from the
“burning bush” to the “still, small voice.” Mormons generally believe
that divine guidance comes quietly, taking the form of impressions,
thoughts and feelings carried by the Spirit of God.<br />
Most often,
revelation unfolds as an ongoing, prayerful dialogue with God: A problem
arises, its dimensions are studied out, a question is asked, and if we
have sufficient faith, God leads us to answers, either partial or full.
Though ultimately a spiritual experience, revelation also requires
careful thought. God does not simply hand down information. He expects
us to figure things out through prayerful searching and sound thinking.<br />
The First Presidency (consisting of the president or prophet of the Church and his two counselors) and members of the <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles">Quorum of the Twelve Apostles</a>
receive inspiration to guide the Church as a whole. Individuals are
also inspired with revelation regarding how to conduct their lives and
help serve others.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/divine-revelation-modern-times"></a><br />
<i>There is little "revelation" that has come forth in quite a while, and most of it seems rather uninspired when examined. For instance, blacks were allowed the priesthood in 1978. The fact that civil rights pressure and expansion of the church (and building of temples) in countries where there are many citizens of color seems to have played quite a role in this "revelation."</i><br />
<a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/divine-revelation-modern-times"></a><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C12"></a>Do Mormon women lead in the Church?</h2>
Yes. All
women are daughters of a loving Heavenly Father. Women and men are equal
in the sight of God. The Bible says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/3?lang=eng">Galatians 3:28</a>). In the family, a wife and a husband form an equal partnership in leading and raising a family.<br />
From
the beginning of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints women
have played an integral role in the work of the Church. While worthy men
hold the priesthood, worthy women serve as leaders, counselors,
missionaries, teachers, and in many other responsibilities— they
routinely preach from the pulpit and lead congregational prayers in
worship services. They serve both in the Church and in their local
communities and contribute to the world as leaders in a variety of
professions. Their vital and unique contribution to raising children is
considered an important responsibility and a special privilege of equal
importance to priesthood responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<i>This is quite a deceptive answer. The real answer should be no. Women lead the women's organizations under the leadership of the men. Women cannot fulfill many, many leadership roles outside of that. Their "preaching from the pulpit" are the same assigned talks that any member can be asked to give. The authority of men--the priesthood--is ultimate in the church, and the women are subject to it. While it is not wrong to choose to have men only fulfill certain leadership positions on theological grounds (such as complementarian Christians do; I am one), the Mormon church has overstepped this to a chauvinistic level at times, restricting women even from giving a blessing of healing to their own children and such, even though the Bible does not restrict the spiritual gift of healing--and many other spiritual gifts that Mormons restrict to male priesthood authority--from women. The big issue is really the Mormon priesthood, which is not a biblical priesthood, but which Mormons put complete trust in and give all authority to.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C13"></a>Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?</h2>
Latter-day
Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching
is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The
Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching,
which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we
may be also glorified together” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/8.16-17?lang=eng#15">Romans 8:16-17</a>). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-pet/1?lang=eng">2 Peter 1:4</a>).<br />
<br />
<i>This wishy-washy answer is actually outright deception. Prophets beginning with Joseph Smith and advancing all the way through Gordon B. Hinkley, and perhaps even the current prophet Thomas S. Monson, have espoused the doctrine of eternal progression from the pulpit, which says that God was once a man and that people can become Gods. Joseph Smith introduced this doctrine in his King Follett discourse, and most Mormons who have been in the church for long enough believe it. When Mormons says that they believe that God wants us to become like Him, it is meant literally, although not all Mormons--especially new converts--realize exactly what they are saying. The doctrine is in their scripture, however. D&C 132 speaks of people becoming gods.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C14"></a>Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?</h2>
No.
This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a
doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative
comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we
are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential
to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father
(see <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/8.16-17?lang=eng#15">Romans 8:16-17</a>).
The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the
specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many
mansions” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14.2?lang=eng#1">John 14:2</a>).<br />
<br />
<i>Yes, they do. Their prophets have taught it, and it is a logical outgrowth of their eternal progression doctrines and their idea that God lives near a start called Kolob, according to their scriptures (Book of Abraham). Many Mormons, believing that God is an exalted man and that we are His literal spirit children and that He organized this planet for us (also in the Book of Abraham), believe we too can be exalted and have our own spirit children and planets/galaxies/universes. They even sing about this stuff, such as in the song "If You Could Hie to Kolob." I believe that is Hymn 284.</i> <br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C15"></a>Do some Latter-day Saints wear temple garments?</h2>
Yes.
In our world of diverse religious observance, many people of faith wear
special clothing as a reminder of sacred beliefs and commitments. This
has been a common practice throughout history. Today, faithful adult
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wear temple
garments. These garments are simple, white underclothing composed of two
pieces: a top piece similar to a T-shirt and a bottom piece similar to
shorts. Not unlike the Jewish <i>tallit katan</i> (prayer shawl),
these garments are worn underneath regular clothes. Temple garments
serve as a personal reminder of covenants made with God to lead good,
honorable, Christlike lives. The wearing of temple garments is an
outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.<br />
Biblical
scripture contains many references to the wearing of special garments.
In the Old Testament the Israelites are specifically instructed to turn
their garments into personal reminders of their covenants with God (see <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/15.37-41?lang=eng#36">Numbers 15:37-41</a>).
Indeed, for some, religious clothing has always been an important part
of integrating worship with daily living. Such practices resonate with
Latter-day Saints today.<br />
Because of the personal and religious
nature of the temple garment, the Church asks all media to report on the
subject with respect, treating Latter-day Saint temple garments as they
would religious vestments of other faiths. Ridiculing or making light
of sacred clothing is highly offensive to Latter-day Saints.<br />
<br />
<i>The temple garments are also thought to be protective. They have masonic symbols stitched into them--I think two symbols on the top, over the breast, very small and discreet but definitely there. I never wore them myself, by I did my family's laundry, and my parents wore them, so I grew up seeing them. The garment has evolved with society and cultural standards. They once went to wrists and ankles, but now resemble boxers and a t-shirt. They are supposed to be a reminder of the endowment covenants in the temple.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C16"></a>Do Latter-day Saints practice polygamy?</h2>
No.
There are more than 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and not one of them is a polygamist. The practice of
polygamy is <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/clarifying-polygamy-confusion">strictly prohibited </a>in the Church. The general standard of marriage in the Church has always been monogamy, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (see <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2">Jacob 2:27</a>).
For periods in the Bible polygamy was practiced by the patriarchs
Abraham and Jacob, as well as kings David and Solomon. It was again
practiced by a minority of Latter-day Saints in the early years of the
Church. Polygamy was officially discontinued in 1890 — 122 years ago.
Those who practice polygamy today have nothing whatsoever to do with the
Church.<br />
<br />
<i>Well, not one of them is supposed to be a polygamist according to the standards of the mainstream church. Some do, though they often end up in one of the fundamentalist sects after becoming polygamists. The command for polygamy still exists in their scriptures, however, in D&C 132. Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets practiced it, and it was a requirement for exaltation for quite a while, as Brigham Young pointed out more than once. It was given up due to social pressure. The sects that still practice it follow the examples and teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young closer than mainstream Mormons do. It is still practiced spiritually, in that men may be sealed to more than one woman (such as in case of the death of a first wife and remarriage) but women cannot be sealed to more than one man.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C17"></a>What is the position of the Church regarding race relations?</h2>
The
gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states,
“Black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto
God” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26.33?lang=eng#32">2 Nephi 26:33</a>). This is the Church’s official teaching.<br />
People
of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church
since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph
Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained
to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male
members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is
not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the
Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance
regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the
priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began
ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended
throughout the world.<br />
The Church unequivocally condemns racism,
including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside
the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared
that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another
race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider
himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all
recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven,
who loves all of His children.”<br />
<br />
<i>Joseph Smith flip-flopped on the issue of abolitionism. He embraced it purely for his presidential campaign. Brigham Young and subsequent prophets were very racist, as their documented statements in the church-published Journal of Discourses bears witness to. That is precisely where the restrictions on blacks holding the priesthood came from--Brigham Young went so far as to declare it as doctrine that no blacks would receive the priesthood until all white races did. The Book of Mormon also makes is clear that dark skin is a curse. The above verse from the Book of Mormon is probably just Joseph Smith paraphrase of Galtatians 3:28, and does not really reflect the rest of the Book of Mormon which, while not outright racist, does have some white supremacist overtones because of dark skin being a curse and white skin being preferable.</i><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C18"></a>Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?</h2>
We
do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is.
While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith
established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that
the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise
number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the
Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing
in the Atonement of <a href="http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2f226a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1">Jesus Christ</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Although its still really weird to think of Missouri as the Garden of Eden...not to mention, the fact that the New Jerusalem is supposedly going to be there. Particularly since the Bible clearly mentions the Euphrates river when describing the general location of the Garden of Eden--and that, for those who don't know, is most definitely not in Missouri.</i> <br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C19"></a>Why do you “baptize for the dead”?</h2>
Jesus Christ taught that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/3.5?lang=eng#4">John 3:5</a>).
For those who have passed on without the ordinance of baptism, proxy
baptism for the deceased is a free will offering. According to Church
doctrine, a departed soul in the afterlife is completely free to accept
or reject such a baptism — the offering is freely given and must be
freely received. The ordinance does not force deceased persons to become
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or
“Mormons,” nor does the Church list deceased persons as members of the
Church. In short, there is no change in the religion or heritage of the
recipient or of the recipient's descendants — the notion of coerced
conversion is utterly contrary to Church doctrine.<br />
Of course, proxy baptism for the deceased is nothing new. It was mentioned by Paul in the New Testament (see <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29b">1 Corinthians 15:29</a>)
and was practiced by groups of early Christians. As part of a
restoration of New<br />
Testament Christianity, Latter-day Saints continue
this practice. All Church members are instructed to perform proxy
baptism only for their own deceased relatives as an offering of familial
love to one’s ancestors — any other practice is not sanctioned by the
Church.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://draft-newsroom.lds.org/article/background-explanation-of-temple-baptism"></a><br />
<i>Physical water baptism is not a requirement for salvation, only faith is. Mormons would do well to take a very close, long, careful reading of all of John 3, not to mention other New Testament passages on the requirements of salvation. Baptism by the Spirit is a requirement, but that comes automatically when one is saved by grace through faith. Water baptism is no more than a symbol--one that shouldn't be neglected, but still a symbol just like communion/sacrament. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that there isn't a second chance after death (Hebrews 9:27). There is no proof that early Christians practiced baptisms for the dead, or that it was condoned by Paul when he mentioned it, particularly since he refers to those who do it as "they," when he usually says "we" when talking about Christians. He merely mentioned it to support his arguments for resurrection; it would not have been the only time that he used non-Christian beliefs, practices, or sayings to prove his point.</i><br />
<a href="http://draft-newsroom.lds.org/article/background-explanation-of-temple-baptism"></a><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C20"></a>Why does the Church send out missionaries?</h2>
The
missionary effort of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is
based on the New Testament pattern of missionaries serving in pairs,
teaching the gospel and baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ
(see, for example, the work of Peter and John in the book of Acts). More
than 52,000 missionaries, most of whom are under the age of 25, are
serving missions for the Church at any one time. Missionary work is
voluntary, with most missionaries funding their own missions. They
receive their assignment from Church headquarters and are sent only to
countries where governments allow the Church to operate. In some parts
of the world, missionaries are sent only to serve humanitarian or other
specialized missions.<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1522189034750413969" name="C21"></a>Why don’t Mormons smoke or drink alcohol?</h2>
The <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/health-practices">health code</a>
for Latter-day Saints is based on a teaching regarding foods that are
healthy and substances that are not good for the human body.
Accordingly, alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee and illegal drugs are
forbidden. A 14-year UCLA study, completed in 1997, tracked mortality
rates and health practices of 10,000 members of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in California, indicating that Church
members who adhered to the health code had one of the lowest death rates
from cancer and cardiovascular disease in the United States. It also
found that Church members who followed the code had a life expectancy
eight to 11 years longer than the general white population of the United
States.<br />
<br />
<i>While Mormons may be physically healthy because of their Word of Wisdom, there are many other problems that the Word of Wisdom does not fix. Utah, with its high concentration of Mormons, is top in the nation for internet porn searches, teen/young adult suicide, anti-depressant use for women, boob jobs, and some kinds of financial fraud, among other things.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I also want to address a picture that accompanied the FAQs: </i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7W3VQLvXapy53OetwAA_oO_6URPro_MQd9Gty4sQHb2r6Hpiw_UEc6X4dFSNMcQeEt1-psinc7nhEaERBtePwoLAJtkDybU0kAhKFfeJ91rNPyVHKjPrFmKF5MdrdOYs4PDswWF2vkX9s/s1600/blog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7W3VQLvXapy53OetwAA_oO_6URPro_MQd9Gty4sQHb2r6Hpiw_UEc6X4dFSNMcQeEt1-psinc7nhEaERBtePwoLAJtkDybU0kAhKFfeJ91rNPyVHKjPrFmKF5MdrdOYs4PDswWF2vkX9s/s1600/blog.jpg" /></a></div>
<i>It is not a Christ-centered faith, it is a church-centered faith. Outside of their sacrament, prayers, and hymns, Jesus is not even one of the main focuses of Mormon meetings and teachings. It is possible to go through multiple Sundays at Mormon services barely hearing about him, specifically, outside of the aforementioned instances. He is part of the church in name only. Even in members' testimonies, the church usually comes before Jesus.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Mormons might be the most "knowledgeable" as far as some basic scripture trivia goes just because they teach the same lessons on it over and over and over again, but next to someone who has actually studied the Bible, their theological and biblical knowledge is quite lacking. I did not know much of the Bible when I was a Mormon, and though I'd read the whole New Testament, much of the epistles were incomprehensible to me because they taught the opposite of many Mormon teachings. I was not unusual amongst Mormons. Most Mormons have never read their whole Bible, more or less the whole New Testament, through. Its far more likely for them to have read the Book of Mormon cover to cover, even multiple times.</i><br />
<br />
<i>While Mormons are family-focused, they do so to the point of idolatry, often putting forever-family first even over God. So while their family values are good, their motives behind it are misplaced.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Mormons have a giving faith precisely because they are required to give in order to go to the temple, and they have to go to the temple in order to get a forever-family and exaltation. Donations go almost exclusively to the church, and the church does not disclose its finances in countries where it is not required to do so. However, what they have released is very telling. They've spent more on a single mall in Salt Lake city than they have on charity in 25 years. So yes, Mormons give...to Mormons.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Furthermore, while the Mormon church claims over 14 million members, statistics show that it is probably less than half this number in reality, as there is no more than a 50% retaining rate for new converts. However, despite half or more of new converts ceasing attendance within a year, those converts are still claimed as membership. Not all of the active membership would be "temple-worthy," either. At best, there's probably less than 5 million active and temple-worthy Mormons. And despite more membership being outside of the U.S. than inside, it is still a very American faith. It is run in America, mostly by Americans, and America is the central focus of the Book of Mormon and of the future restoration of the 10 tribes and the gathering of the New Jerusalem, according to their scriptures.</i><br />
<br />
<i> So there you have it. My take on the FAQs and representations the Mormon church is trying to present to the public to make themselves appear acceptable and desirable. I'm just not buying it.</i>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-79549214486645069782012-03-09T20:08:00.001-08:002012-03-09T20:08:16.940-08:00Why Won't You Listen?When we want to know more about a subject at school, we find reliable resources on it--textbooks, teachers, people who have done their own research, websites, scholars, etc. When we want to know about politics, we--ideally--research the issues and make an educated decision before voting.<br />
<br />
So why can't Mormons do this with their religion? Why can't you listen, Mormons? Suddenly, if it's about religion, you don't want to hear anything negative, regardless if its true. It suddenly becomes a very emotionally charged and irrational topic. And the last thing you do is go to multiple sources and types of sources to put together a big, comprehensive picture so you can come to an educated and complete understanding of the religion and make choices about it based on that.<br />
<br />
Other faiths can/should be able to do this. I know I can as a Christian. I research the historical reliability, whether foundational beliefs are possible and sensible, etc., all the time. I get feedback from atheists all the time, often unsolicited. I have atheist friends, and while they don't usually plaster their pages and such with atheist materiel, they sometimes post things that I will read to get their perspective on it. I usually disagree, though I won't usually start an argument or debate about it unless it seems appropriate and welcomed. But I read. All of it strengthens my faith.<br />
<br />
So why can't you, Mormons, do the same? Do you know that you will fall away if you do, because your religion is on such shaky grounds? Do you doubt your own faith? Do you think that somehow knowledge is in opposition to God and comes from Satan if it does not come from carefully controlled and biased sources (i.e. Mormon sources)? Do you think faith cannot be reasonable, as if God is not reasonable?<br />
<br />
Listen, Mormons! This is not a small matter. Do you really want to not know why you believe what you believe? Do you not want to know with confidence that your faith can stand the tests? If it can't, do you really want to stand before God and say you were too much of a coward to find out, or live the rest of your life believing a lie? You shouldn't!<br />
<br />
Knowledge isn't always fun or easy. It can be scary. It can be a burden. But truth can also be very, very freeing, when you decide to pursue it no matter where it leads you.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-25933471266092922882012-02-27T19:33:00.001-08:002012-02-27T19:33:25.783-08:00Mormon Preexistence ExaminedI think Shawn says this well enough, I'm not going to try to make a blog on the subject (at least at this time). Please take 30 min to watch and consider.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kb8Ad5MsK2c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/whAIXIQ8eoc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-18562201815304909022012-02-11T11:00:00.000-08:002012-02-11T11:09:01.756-08:00Which Denomination is True?There is a myth in existence that has been around for quite a while,
perpetuated by those who desire a claim to possessing the only truth and
accepted by those who are ignorant of what the truth really is. This myth is
that there is one, and only one, true denomination, and anyone else is out of
luck.<br />
<br />
This claim began with the Catholic church and its claim to apostolic
authority. Based on Matthew 16:18, which says, "<span style="color: #cc0000;">And
I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build by church, and the
gates of Hades will not overcome it,</span><span style="color: black;">" the
Catholic church believes that authority came directly form Peter and that
therefore only a church--namely the Catholic church--that could trace its
authority back to Peter was a valid Christian church.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Of course, to believe this misses a few important
points in scripture. First, God calls Himself the Rock and says that there is
none other (Isaiah 44:8). Jesus was responding to Peter declaring who Jesus
is--the Christ (vs. 16). If anything, Jesus is making a point that Peter (whose
name means "rock") is a pebble. He may have been instrumental in
declaring the truth, but authority is from Jesus and the church is founded on
the only true eternal Rock--who is Immanuel, "God With Us." The rest
of the New Testament bears witness to this.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Martin Luther proved from scripture that the
Catholic church does not hold exclusive keys to the authority of Jesus or
salvation, but then Protestants took their new freedom and ran with it, making
new denominations over ever minor disagreement. Is this wrong? Not necessarily.
It did, however, cause each denomination to cry out their "exclusive"
truths and discredit other denominations, particularly during revivals such as
the one that Joseph Smith experiences, causing misunderstandings and the
perpetuation of the myth that there is one true denomination. Some religions,
like the Mormons, use this claim as one of the foundations of the religion, and
it would collapse if it became clear that there are actually other
"true" religions.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">The question becomes, what is the one true church,
and how do we tell?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">The first thing to understand is that it is not a
denomination </span>that one has to belong to or believe in to be saved. No
institution has the power to offer salvation. Jesus said, "<span style="color: #cc0000;">I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me
will live, even though he dies,</span><span style="color: black;">" (John
11:25) and, "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">I am the way and the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</span><span style="color: black;">" (John 14:6)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Jesus' apostles gave the same criteria for
salvation. "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">And everyone who calls on
the name of the Lord will be saved.</span><span style="color: black;">"
(Acts 2:21) "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">That if you confess with
your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead, you will be saved.</span><span style="color: black;">" (Romans
10:9) "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">For it is by grace that you have
been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of
God--not by works, so no one can boast.</span><span style="color: black;">"
(Ephesians 2:8-9)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">There are more that can be cited, but it seems the
point is made. Belief in Jesus, not a religion, is the key to salvation. This
is why Jesus himself didn't establish a denomination, and neither did his
apostles. They established belief in Jesus himself, and people gathered as
churches as a result. This is why believers are referred to as the "Body
of Christ" (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 4:12, Colossians
1:24), and any who believe are accepted into this church body through merit of
their Spirit-filled life and their salvation in common with other believers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">There are then two questions: what churches have
correct authority, and what churches have correct teachings? Both of these are
important in discerning which religions are in line with what is taught in
scripture regarding Jesus and salvation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">The ultimate source of authority and true teaching
is the Bible. "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">Heaven and Earth will
pass away, but my words will never pass away.</span><span style="color: black;">"
(Matthew 24:35) "</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">All scripture is
God-breathed...</span><span style="color: black;">" (2 Timothy 3:16) There
is a plethora of evidence that God's Word has, indeed, been well preserved.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">The apostles transferred their authority into
scripture when they were guided by the Spirit in their writings. Every book in
the New Testament is written by apostles or by those who were with the
apostles. The Spirit guided their writings just like in the Old Testament. It
is important to understand that the Bible is not meant as a fax from heaven;
God used the words and language of the writers to convey His Word. That means
that the Bible is authoritative in any language, and the redaction it has
undergone--none of which effect doctrine--do not effect the truths of the
Bible. It does not lose authority because a synonym is used or a place name
left out in a list. If anything denies the basic, important truths about God,
Jesus, and salvation, they are outside of the authority and teachings of the
Bible and therefore not true.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">These are what we call "closed-handed"
issues. They are all found in the Bible, and were made official in the creeds,
which were issued to fight heresy. They include issues such as monotheism, the
Trinity, Christ's death, burial, and resurrection to conquer sin and death, and
salvation through Christ <i>alone</i>. Again, all these are firmly established
in the Bible, which holds authority. Men got their authority from the Bible and
the Spirit, not the other way around. </span><br />
<br />
Here is the Apostles' Creed:<br />
<br />
<div class="size14px">
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,<br />
the Maker of heaven and earth,<br />
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:</div>
<div class="size14px">
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,<br />
born of the virgin Mary,<br />
suffered under Pontius Pilate,<br />
was crucified, dead, and buried;</div>
<div class="size14px">
He descended into hell. </div>
<div class="size14px">
The third day He arose again from the dead;</div>
<div class="size14px">
He ascended into heaven,<br />
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father
Almighty;<br />
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the
dead.</div>
<div class="size14px">
I believe in the Holy Ghost;<br />
the holy catholic church;<br />
the communion of saints;<br />
the forgiveness of sins;<br />
the resurrection of the body;<br />
and the life everlasting.</div>
<div class="size14px">
Amen.</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
Remember, catholic means "universal." Christians do
still believe in a universal church made up of all believers, as shown above.
This creed, dating from only a short time after the Apostles, is in line with scripture.</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
The clear implication is that any denominational or
non-denominational church that follows these teachings and is under the authority
of the Bible is a viable choice for Christians to attend. Salvation does not
come through a church and its teachings, but instead through Jesus and the
Word. (Interestingly, Jesus is the Word according to John 1:1, 14.)</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
So what of the things that Christians and denominations
disagree on? Well, these disagreements aren't necessarily wrong. There are
simply some things that the Bible is not explicit on and which therefore people
disagree on. Issues that can actually affect one's salvation--the closed-handed
issues--are clear in scripture, but the Bible writers and the Spirit weren't as
concerned with laying out all the little details of every lesser issue. That
means, within the confines of the closed-handed issues and what the Bible
states clearly, disagreement is allowed.</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
Within these allowable disagreements, love and charity should
be shown. That's not to say debate and discussion aren't allowed, but those who
disagree on these issues aren't putting themselves outside of Christ's
salvation by their differing beliefs, and should not be treated as if they do.
It is that sort of treatment that perpetuates the false belief of "one
true denomination" and takes the focus of belief off of Jesus and the
Bible.</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
In conclusion, there are some simple truths that we must come
to understand. The first is that Jesus is the way to salvation and the Word is
the way to knowledge about the important issues. If a church or denomination
places itself under that authority and affirms those closed-handed beliefs, then they are
a viable church for a Christian to attend. There is no "one true church" as in a denomination, but there is a universal church made up of true
believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. We are allowed to disagree on the little
issues, but there is and must be unity in the important issues. That there is
one true religion and we must attend and believe in that religion to make it to
heaven is nothing less than idolatry of a religion and incorrect understanding
of the Bible.</div>
<div class="size14px">
<br /></div>
<div class="size14px">
If you haven't yet given your life to Jesus, and you agree
with what you have read here, I'd like to invite you to do so now. He stands
ready to forgive you and bring you into the Body of Christ, his bride the
church. All it takes is confession of your need for him and belief in him. What
are you waiting for?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-69364872921937213112012-02-11T10:59:00.001-08:002012-02-11T11:12:10.946-08:00The Gospels--A Game of "Telephone?"Some people will compare the early Bible to the game "telephone"
since the story wasn't written down right away--the earliest Gospel,
Mark, was written 30-45 years after Jesus' death, with Matthew and Luke
being written very shortly after. The Epistles began much earlier than
this, but they did not contain the story of Jesus' life and death in
such detail.<br />
<br />
However, to compare this to the game
"telephone" is ridiculous. "Telephone" best represents gossip and
rumors, not important events preserved carefully in the minds of those
who witnessed them and repeated often and then recorded while the
eyewitnesses were still alive. If you have never played "telephone," it
is done by having a bunch of people sit in a circle. One person begins
by whispering a sentence in the next person's ear, for instance, "Joe
likes to dance the salsa." This can only be whispered and cannot be
repeated. It gets passed down the line like this until it gets to the
last person, who then says it out loud, and often is has become
something ridiculous as bits and pieces were missed and distorted due to
the rules of communication.<br />
<br />
Now imagine instead that
each person was allowed to say it clearly and repeat it until the person
next to them got it. How much harder would it be to distort out of
recognition, unless done deliberately? And imagine each person is
allowed to go consult with the very first person to make sure it wasn't
distorted. Do you think it would come out right in the end? Of course it
would! Unless the very first person has some motive for messing
everyone up as it gets down the line--and let's assume they don't--then
it would turn out exactly how the first person said it!<br />
<br />
Now
let's get out of children's games. Imagine your father saw something
significant when he was 18 or so. Perhaps he did, so you can really make
this personal to you. For instance, I'm not sure how old he was
exactly, but my father once saw a gruesome motor cycle accident. He told
me only about it once, and not in much detail, a few years ago, but I
still remember what he did tell me because it was quite a grisly scene
to imagine. Now, these even that your father witnessed--image he tells
you about it over and over and over again through the years in great
detail. Then when you're an adult--let's say its been a minimum of 30
years since this accident took place, so your father is almost 50--you
write it down how he's told you so many times in so much detail over the
years. Do you think you've written it down well? Do you think it
matches what your father saw?<br />
<br />
Let's imagine as well
that this event had multiple witnesses and it stuck with more than one
of them in this way, and they or their children wrote it down as well.
How well do you think those stories would match? Most likely, as
evidenced by testimonies given in a court of law, valid testimonies have
differences in details or perspective (influenced, for instance, by
whether or not the person who saw it thought it was a good thing or a
bad thing), but the core story beneath the perspective and individual
details tends to remain the same, or at least very similar. And now that
this story is written down, it would have to be deliberately altered to
ruin its validity. If there's multiple copies of matching stories, and
eyewitnesses or those who spoke with eyewitnesses still around who know
the true story, a deliberately altered story would be recognized as
such.<br />
<br />
This is what our Gospels are. They are the
stories of the eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and those who learned
from eyewitnesses directly and in detail (Mark and Luke). The Epistles
were written by apostles who were there during Jesus' life (such as
Peter and John) and by people who directly witnessed and were called by
Jesus (such as Paul and James). <br />
<br />
Because of the amazing
news their message was to the early Christians, copies upon copies upon
copies were made very quickly. The apostles were still around while
many of these copies were being made. Now if you're copying something,
and you want to get it right because its the best news you've ever heard
and you want to share it with people, you're going to copy it out
correctly. And because there were so many faithful copies, any distorted
or altered versions were readily recognizable and rejected as false. By
the time the apostles and those who had learned directly from the
apostles were all gone, there were too many copies of their works to
distort them and have them accepted. The only thing people could hope to
do was create new Gospels with their legendary embellishment, which we
see in the Gnostic gospels at exactly the right time period for that to
have begun happening. These Gospels were rejected from Bible canon for
exactly that reason. While they are educational to read and study, they
are not scripture.<br />
<br />
We thankfully also have some early
fragments of the Gospels and Epistles that show us that our current New
Testament is faithful to the originals--that doctrine certainly has not
been changed, even if an occasional word or phrase has been changed (for
instance, "the Lord" being substituted for "Jesus"). We can also see
where people might have added things, such as the very last portion of
the Gospel of Mark, and these additions are often noted in modern
translations. (My NIV brackets them and puts in a small note.) The
oldest fragment of Mark, dating from less than a half century from the
original, may have been found recently as well. I'm looking forward to
hearing more on that one, when they release all their findings and
translation of it.<br />
<br />
So, a game of "telephone" or a
reliably transmitted eyewitness story? Well, I'd definitely say the news
of salvation wasn't gossip.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-19606482195805395522012-01-31T19:13:00.000-08:002012-01-31T19:13:14.770-08:00Do Mormons Worship God?Mormons do not worship God. I know many Mormons will automatically
reject this claim, but I would ask for a thoughtful consideration of the
evidence instead of an emotional rejection.<br />
<br />
1. Mormons do not focus on (worship) God or Jesus in their personal testimonies and beliefs. <br />
<br />
Go
to a Mormon sacrament meeting on the first Sunday of the month, the
fast and testimony meeting. Listen to the testimonies. Usually it will
go something like this: "Hello, for those of you who don't know me, by
name is _______ and I know this church is true. I know that Joseph Smith
was a true prophet, and that Thomas S. Monson is our living prophet
today..." and so on. Somewhere in there they might throw in something
like, "I know Jesus Christ atoned for our sins," but there usually are
few references to God and Jesus, if any, and most are directly related
to the church ("I know that this is the restored church of Jesus
Christ"). Even children are taught to say they "know" these things
before they even understand them. The belief of most Mormons is all too
obviously rooted on the church, its teachings, and its leaders. While
they believe it is the work of God and the church of Jesus Christ, it is
the church and its teachers that truly matter and its leaders that they
truly follow.<br />
<br />
2. Mormons to not usually focus on (worship) God or Jesus throughout church meetings.<br />
<br />
Sit
through the whole three hour bloc of meetings sometime, and keep tally
of what they say. How many times are "God" and "Jesus" mentioned outside
of prayers and hymns? While hymns are certainly worship (singing
praises of a person or thing...yes, done in church for a religious
purpose, that would usually be worship), how much do you think people
are really getting into the hymns about God or Jesus most of the time?
On the other hand, how many times do you hear "Joseph Smith," "the
Church (or a variation)," or some other very specifically Mormon thing
pertaining to the church or its leadership mentioned? For that matter,
is a hymn like "Spirit of God," "Praise to the Man," or "We Thank Thee O
God for a Prophet" sung in praise of the church and its leadership?<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Psalm 29: 2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness.</div>
<br />
I
and many other ex-Mormons (and any Mormon who is truly honest with
themselves) will say that they don't really worship in church, except
perhaps when singing hymns. Singing songs like "I Stand All Amazed" was
probably the closest I got to really worshiping God. I learned plenty
about the church. I learned plenty about things I should and should not
do. I learned a lot about Mormon teachings and the Book of Mormon and
prophets. But there's a lot I didn't know about the Bible, and the Bible
is about God and Jesus. I didn't know a whole lot about God and Jesus
personally. <br />
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Psalm 100:2 Worship the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs.</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">3. Mormons do not worship God in their daily lives.</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">The Bible commands us to worship God alone, and to do so constantly. </span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Exodus 20:1-4 And God spoke
all these words: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt,
out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before<sup> </sup>me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall
not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents
to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing
love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my
commandments. <br />
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">1 Corinthians 10: 31 </span>So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory [worship] of God.<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">We
are worshipers. The question is not whether we worship, but what.
Worship doesn't begin and end on Sunday, it continues constantly. People
who don't worshiping God are just worshiping things that aren't God.
Even if it is a good thing that we worship, if it is not God, it is an
idol. According to the New Testament, many false things we worship are
actually demons. <br />
</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped
and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever
praised. Amen.<span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
</div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;">1 Timothy 4:1 </span><span style="color: #cc0000;">The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by </span><span style="color: #cc0000;">demon</span><span style="color: #cc0000;">s.</span><br />
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">Most
devout Mormons I know worship things such as marriage/family, success,
their own righteousness (read, pride and self-righteousness), and the
church. Now, these things aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves,
but since Mormons place these things above God, they have become idols.
Family is a blessing, but it is not as important as God; God should be
above family for a family to truly be Godly. Marriage is wonderful, but a
marriage should be secondary to and guided by God, actively and daily,
not just in name. Success isn't bad, especially for a husband and father
trying to provide for his family, but if it is placed above God, it is
an idol. Righteousness is good, but true righteousness only comes from
God. The legalistic righteousness of faithful Mormons is self-righteous
and becomes prideful very quickly, since Mormons see it as their road to
their own Godhood, place their own false glory and exaltation above
God's true and perfect glory and exaltation. </span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span>Isaiah 29: 13 The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their
mouth and honor
me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of
me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">If
you are a Mormon, think about your daily life outside of Sunday or
other meetings at church. Do you read scriptures? Pray? Spend time with
family? How much of this do you do to glorify God, in complete honesty?
Think about each thing you do carefully. Do you do it because you know
you're supposed to? Because it makes you feel good about yourself,
maybe? Any reason less than joyfully giving glory and love and time and
attention to God is not worshiping him. And in the daily,
"non-spiritual" things...do you clean your home, raise your children, go
to work, etc., for the glory of God? I doubt it. I don't think I've
met a Mormon who can honestly, truly say they do.</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to
offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this
is your true and proper worship.<span style="color: black;"> <br />
</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">Not
that we usually can perfectly worship all the time. We are human. But
Mormons don't really do it even when its easy, more or less through the
daily grind.</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">4. Mormons do not worship Jesus.</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">I
know what a Mormon is going to think here, roughly. "Of course we don't
worship Jesus! We're only supposed to worship Heavenly Father!" Well,
here's a surprise for you. We <i>are SUPPOSED </i>to worship Jesus! He accepted worship! And it is well recorded that Christians were worshiping Jesus as God <i>before</i> the apostles died! </span> </div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Matthew
2:2, 11 ...and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the
Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” On
coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they
bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and
presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. </div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ”</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Matthew 14:43 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” </div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Matthew 28: 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. </div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
John 9:38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” </div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">Jesus
was God. I've got other blog entries on the Trinity to support it.
Jesus certainly recognized that only God should be worshiped, and
recognized himself as the incarnation of God, and therefore accepted
worship. That means we should worship Jesus! It makes sense. If he is
divine, why should he not be recognized as such? Does he not deserve
praise and adoration? Love and extreme gratitude? Does his sacrifice not
inspire joy and awe? Is that not worship? Yet Mormon leaders say that
we aren't supposed to worship him!<br />
</span></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
<span style="color: black;">I
remember how hard it was to just talk about Jesus when I was Mormon.
Saying the name "Jesus," especially in excited conversation about him,
was foreign. I said "Jesus Christ" pretty comfortably and familiarly,
but just talking about "Jesus" was more than a little awkward. Its not
anymore, but that's because I've learned to worship Jesus.</span><br />
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
</div>
<div style="color: #cc0000;">
</div>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-36760205885825011942012-01-20T20:13:00.001-08:002012-01-20T20:22:23.890-08:00Questions for Mormons to AskHere are some questions for Mormons to consider and try to find answers for:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimEUSl8fShJ0YR7nQlPE5eYa4lN4o6ejO13H8asiHrb9d0vQpgFri1A4ExgZ1SD3Gedjmii1GXDcdzTXEo-t6gwEkxq7IkARPEp57oDrWTdaPDjCYYDC3LXlMExRnfNTYzmz0u9IUOHv6Y/s1600/3_question-mark.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimEUSl8fShJ0YR7nQlPE5eYa4lN4o6ejO13H8asiHrb9d0vQpgFri1A4ExgZ1SD3Gedjmii1GXDcdzTXEo-t6gwEkxq7IkARPEp57oDrWTdaPDjCYYDC3LXlMExRnfNTYzmz0u9IUOHv6Y/s320/3_question-mark.png" width="165" /></a></div>
<ul>
<li>If there is a lineage of gods, as Joseph Smith and subsequent
prophets and General Authorities have taught, and if an actually
infinite number of something is impossible, then there had to be a first
god. Who was he, where did he come from, and why do we not worship him?</li>
<li>If Jesus could prove himself worthy without sinning, why do the rest of us have to suffer from sin?</li>
<li>The Book of Abraham said that the gods made the heavens and the
earth (Abraham 4) but the Bible says Jesus did (John 1:3, Colossians
1:15-18); why the contradiction?<br />
</li>
<li>If Jesus was perfect and the example par excellence, why didn't he get baptized at eight years old?</li>
<li>If God organized the earth (Abraham 4), and matter is eternal,
then why do we not worship eternal matter? Or if matter was made by the
first god, we go back to the question, why do we not worship him?</li>
<li>Why do wives have to depend on their husband to call them forth at
the resurrection, but the Bible says that there is neither male nor
female in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and that resurrection comes through
Jesus alone?</li>
<li>Why does Jacob 2:24-28 say that David and Solomon's many wives
were an abomination and that the people of God should not practice
plural marriage, but D&C 132 says the opposite? Does God change his
mind? Are one of them wrong?</li>
<li>How are families forever if those who achieve exaltation eventually get
their own planets, as prophets have taught? This means that the
faithful children of faithful parents will be separate. Does families
forever simply mean you have access to your family at anytime?</li>
<li>Since God was once a man, could he have been a sinner? The
implication of us being able to become gods is that yes, he could have
been, unless he was the savior. Even if he was the savior, then we, as
sinners, can be gods of our own worlds over our own spirit children.</li>
<li>Brigham Young said that "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the
celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (<i>Journal of Discourses</i>, vol. 7, p. 289). Yet Jesus said that we get to the Father through him. Is Joseph Smith as great as Jesus?</li>
<li>In accordance with D&C 132, Brigham Young said ""Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (<i>Journal of Discourses</i>, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (<i>Journal of Discourses</i>, vol. 11, p. 269). Since many Mormons no longer practice polygamy, can they be exalted?</li>
<li>If Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, how could he have been
conceived by the Spirit, who is not the Heavenly Father? And since
Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and blood, how could he have
impregnated Mary without intercourse? (General Authorities, including
prophets, have said that God did have intercourse with Mary. Do you
agree with this?)</li>
<li>If Heavenly had intercourse with Mary, isn't this incest?</li>
<li>If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book (History of the Church 4:461), then why does it have so many anachronisms?</li>
<li>If all but the sons of perdition are placed in a Kingdom of
Heaven, and if even the lowest Kingdom is a paradise, what is the real
punishment for the sinners who didn't even want to be with God in the
first place?</li>
<li>If Adam and Eve eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why was it a sin, and if its a sin, why is it a <i>good</i> thing for humanity? This means that God <i>wanted</i>
rape, abuse, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, and
everything else to come into the world to test us, knowing that we'd
fail the test to at least some extent because everyone sins!</li>
<li>If sin was necessary and part of the Plan of Happiness, why did Jesus have to pay for it?</li>
<li>Considering that most children can't really made an educated or
heart-felt choice in their beliefs, why is eight years old the age of
accountability? What happens to the nine-year old who grew up in a
non-Mormon home?</li>
<li>If the president of the church is a prophet, why doesn't he prophesy?</li>
<li>If Jesus was Jehovah God of the Old Testament, he gave the commandment to worship him only, but prophets say that only the Father should be worshiped. Why this discrepancy?</li>
<li>How could Jesus have been Jehovah God of the Old Testament when he
didn't have a mortal body and prove himself in mortality yet? For that
matter, why is the Holy Spirit enjoying Godhood without having received a
body and proven himself in mortality?</li>
<li>Since polygamy was originally the New and Everlasting Covenant
(D&C 132), could Heavenly Father be polygamous? Could some of us be
only half spirit siblings because of different Heavenly Mothers?</li>
<li>Why are the fundamentalists so wrong, if they actually practice
and believe the teachings of the early prophets that mainstream Mormons
don't? Wouldn't Brigham Young, having taught those doctrines, believe
the mainstream church to now be apostate?</li>
<li>Why is it that prophets can be just "giving their opinion" as
doctrine from the pulpit if future prophets or current Mormons don't
like it and either denounce it or don't ratify it, but the Old Testament
prophets never just "gave their opinion" as doctrine and had to have it
affirmed?</li>
</ul>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-68251003482930087302012-01-08T14:31:00.001-08:002012-01-08T14:31:19.898-08:00Ask the MissionariesSo many times, I'm told, "ask your bishop" or "Ask the missionaries"
about my objections to the Mormon religion. Completely aside from the
facts that I no longer have a bishop and can school most missionaries in
knowledge of their own religion, this is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
If
I"m trying to decide whether to buy a certain model and year of Chevy,
I'm not going to get an honest and straight answer about the car from
the dealership because they're going to talk it up and make it look as
enticing as they can to make the sale. Nor do I want a for dealership,
as they'll bash Chevy no matter how good or bad the car may actually be.
I want something like Kelly Bluebook or an unassociated car buff or a
friendly, non-associated mechanic.<br />
<br />
The bishop or missionaries are like the Chevy dealership. Although in this case, they often won't even <i>know</i>
something might be wrong with the car, more or less what exactly it is
and whether its true. Unfortunately, Mormon leadership has gotten around
that difficulty by labeling everything else as Ford, even if it not,
which leaves the seeker with only the misrepresenting or more probably
the ignorant Chevy salesman to go to.<br />
<br />
We live in the
information age. Its as easy to access knowledgeable and correct
information about the Mormon religion as Kelly Bluebook. There's some
very simple ways to figure out what you're looking at:<br />
<br />
1)
Is it spiteful, obscene, and angry towards Mormons, especially without
reasonable foundation? That's probably Ford. There is probably truth in
at least some of it, but its not the best source of information. I
personally encounter these fairly rarely.<br />
<br />
2) Is it written by Mormons?
Glowingly approving of the religion or beliefs with little or no
objectivity? Its probably Chevy. There are a couple website that claim
to be Christian but sound overwhelmingly Mormon, because its made by
Mormons, so that's still Chevy--Chevy pretending to be Kelly Bluebook,
no less.<br />
<br />
3) Are sources carefully cited or available?
Are many sources historical, or from sources that are currently or were
originally published by the LDS church and/or its upper leadership? Is
it firm with truth, but not full of either anger and railing or glowing
reports that may gloss over unpleasant facts? This is Kelly Bluebook, or
your friendly mechanic.<br />
<br />
I don't listen much to Ford. I
have listened to Chevy, but have generally found it is biased and
unreliable. I like Kelly Bluebook. <i>Its not the Bluebook's fault if the model is bad.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Note: This is not any indication of whether I prefer Chevy or Ford. I drive a Mazda.)</span>~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522189034750413969.post-43611508215791257612011-12-27T17:16:00.001-08:002011-12-27T17:16:56.600-08:00But I'm a Good Person!How often have I heard this an other defenses of the Mormon church!
"But I'm a good person/we're good people!" "But we have high standards."
"But we have good family values."<br />
<br />
And I say...so what?<br />
<br />
Being a good person or teaching high standards and being family focused are <i>good</i> things of course...but they do not make something true, nor do they provide a good excuse to keep following something untrue.<br />
<br />
For instance, the argument that "we're good people."
First of all, not all people within a religion or worldview are good.
I've known two active Mormons who were unrepentant rapists. While some
religions may be better and some worse in things like this, there are
bad people in all religions and worldviews--whether their belief is
necessarily sincere or not is another question. I know that at least one
of those rapists sincerely believed in the Mormon religion. Second,
there are good people in the majority of religions and worldviews.
Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, Wiccan, and so
forth--it doesn't matter. There are good and bad people in pretty much
all of them.<br />
<br />
Second, good is a relative term. If we're talking about good on the world's standards, sure, many Mormons <i>are</i>
good. Many people in general are good on that standard. But what about
God's standards? Are people good on God's standards? Let's consider
this. Have you lied? Lusted after someone not your spouse? Stolen? Used
God's or Jesus' name(s) as a cuss word (blasphemed)? Coveted? Disobeyed
your parents? If you're honest, you probably have to say yes to most of
these, and most of us would probably have to say yes to all of them.
This means that in God's eyes, <i>you are not good</i>.<br />
<br />
Romans 3:12 All have turned away, <br />
they have together become worthless; <br />
there is no one who does good, <br />
not even one.<br />
<br />
Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."<br />
<br />
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God<br />
<br />
<br />
Having
high standard is good, but does not prove a religion right or true. You
could say Muslims have high standards--but does that make it true? Does
it change that their violence and extreme sexism is wrong? Not at all.
Sometimes, high standards go overboard into legalism, and Mormons fall
into this category, creating guilt for those who fail to meet the
standards (even if they're a good person focused on God) and pride for
those who meet the standards (even if they're self-righteous pricks more
concerned about themselves than God). You can get good standards from
many different world views. Even atheists can have pretty high
standards--many are humanists.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Family values are also good, but again doesn't prove a religion right or true.
In fact, Mormons take family to the level of idolatry. Eternal family,
family values, and family focus are taken to such a high level of
teaching and focus that it is often put over God in their daily lives.
Family is is most certainly something people should focus on--a
Christian is certainly admonished to raise their children right. But it
should <i>never</i> be put above God.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, when all is said and done...yes, maybe that's true. But does that make your religion right, or does it mean you should stay it in if its not right? Definitely not.~Lee~http://www.blogger.com/profile/04204490718754636262noreply@blogger.com3