| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| Mormons Believe In Direct Revelation, Man Is Imperfect And Cannot Understand Even If He Reads The Bible, Changes In Joseph Smith's Story, The Trinity Not In The Bible, Changing Mormon Doctrine And Unchanging Biblical Doctrine |
|
The Mormon Challenge Monday, July 7 I have read another of your series of arguments trying to disprove LDS Doctrine (by responding to others message). One thing that one needs to remember when comparing LDS doctrine with Protestant and other doctrines is the principle of "direct revelation" in which LDS believe. That is the first and probably most important premise to be considered about LDS as we go about discussing and comparing it to other doctrines. Direct revelation means that LDS believes God continues to instruct men through His servants, the prophets, when men are humble enough to receive His instructions. LDS believes that the canonized standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, all are RECORDS of revelations that God the Most High God has given to man. Therefore, the LDS Church doctrine is not derived from books or writs. Rather, the holy writs and books are derived from revelations from God (hence the qualification "holy"). Therefore, there may be other writs that may be canonized in the future to serve as "Standard Works", as God never stopped giving instructions to His children (collectively and individually), only when they reject Him. The other point to consider in discussing or arguing about LDS doctrine is that LDS believe that man is imperfect, and doesn't know much. Man is flesh and blood (as Jesus said to Peter), and his intellect is extremely finite. Therefore, he cannot understand (even if he reads the Bible) the things of God who is infinite and eternal, unless he is humble enough and worthy to have God's Spirit to understand them. So, when we discuss LDS doctrine it is imperative that those above premises be taken into account. Otherwise, you will be judging LDS doctrine against your or someone else's interpretations. Therefore, the arguments will not be fair or will be useless. From your arguments, and considering that you never allude to the above premises, I will presume that, you don't believe there is anymore direct revelation from God to men, that He has stopped calling prophets and apostles, and has stopped giving instructions to mankind. And that all mankind needs to know about religion is in the Bible. So, if that is your premise to judge and argue about LDS doctrine, then your site, as it relates to the Mormon beliefs are useless, because LDS believes that God called Joseph Smith as a prophet and gave him instructions to organize His church on earth. So, as you discuss other aspects of the LDS doctrine but leave this premise out, with all respect, you are not being truly honest in your purposes, and arguments because they are misleading. You will need, first and foremost, determine if Joseph was or was not truly called by Father in Heaven, or if God continue or not to reveal His will directly to man as He did in the Bible. When, and only when you determine those principles to be false (there is, know of a certainty they are not true) than you can argue about the other aspects of LDS doctrine, as everything else in LDS doctrine depend on those premises. As it is, I believe it is futile and misleading to ignore the premise of continued direct revelation from God. As per the apparent changes in Joseph Smith story as it relates to the nature of God, if you take into consideration that God really has called Joseph Smith as a prophet, then the different versions of his story had NOT the purpose to get away from the Trinity theory, but to clarify, and give further understanding about the true nature of God. LDS leaders in Joseph Smith time and Joseph himself were learning bit by bit, step by step about the true doctrine that came straight from God. This is clearly in line with the fact that human intellect is imperfect and that the ways of the Lord are not the ways of man, and that flesh and blood cannot reveal the truth, only the Spirit of the Lord can. As Joseph and the others learned more and more they saw the need to clarify records of instructions and revelations received. So, you see, if you take in consideration (or acquire a testimony of) the principle of direct revelation, then the reasons and purposes for correcting texts and records are of clarifying, helping man to come close to God, and not simply to differentiate from other doctrines. Revelation from God is not the same as evolution of human theories or doctrines. Revelation is alive, and as such it is not static, they are cumulative. And they are not given all at once, they are given according to our capacity to understand and apply them, until we understand and apply the whole of the will of God and become perfect like He is. The Bible itself says that God has things to reveal to those that are humble and truly love Him, that never has come the their hearts. The Book of Mormon has no trinity inferences there. You will see such inferences only if you read it through the optics of trinitarian theory. But, then again, without the Spirit of God to guide, one can see trinity (or anything else they make up) anywhere they look. However, be noted that the Bible has not one mention of the word trinity, or triune, or modalism. It says that Jesus and the Father are one. But, then again, Jesus says we need to be one with God too as He is one with God. Does that mean we all that become one with God will eventually be part of one great big God of one substance? The apostles, or the recorders of the New and Old Testaments never mention those words. Those words, are product of the minds of men. They all come from the imperfect intellect of man trying interpret and explain things of God without the Spirit of God. The very same God who gave what is written in the Bible in the first place. Also if you take into consideration (or obtain a testimony of) the premise of direct revelation from God, then you will be able to understand clearly that man err, but God doesn't. Therefore, even though God gives revelation and they are perfect and true, the ones that record them are imperfect and fail, and do err. So specially in the beginning of the LDS Church there were errors or not so clear records of the things that were being learned, made by some who recorded revelations and testimonies, which records stood in need of clarification, including Joseph. Such corrections were made with the spirit of revelation. Therefore, they corrected not because they made them up and decided to change. If you truly believe in revelation then the Spirit of the Lord will tell you what is right and guide you. So, whenever such instructions were either not well understood and/or recorded incorrectly for various reasons, including the fact that persecution was constant, they were corrected by revelation as needed. Clarifications and record corrections by revelation stand also as a testimony to the fact that God is in control and wants man to know the truth. So He will inspire worthy men (prophets called by Him) to correct texts or do what is necessary to set His word straight and help men to understand His will to go back to Him. Revelation is dynamic and given according to need and the learning progress, as God will never give "meat" when men can only take "milk." All of that is not possible if you don't believe God continues to reveal things to men. You will have to rely on your judgment and interpretations or the interpretation of "scholars" who, ironically, take the role of prophets. As man individually and collectively enlarge their understanding of the things of God, then they receive more revelation (which is true in the individual level too). Under that optic you can see why the world plunged into its darkest period called dark ages when superstition reigned for centuries. The majority of the people, leaders and common people alike were not ready even for "milk" as men had reject direct revelation from God centuries earlier, killed the original apostles and other leaders, and chased the true Church of Christ to the "desert." Paul says that the church was established with apostles and other positions to help men progress until we become one with Christ and the Father, and also, that we may achieve the fullness of the stature of Christ. Those apostles and other leaders had been called to receive revelation directly from God to help men progress to that Christ's stature he mentions. But, apostasy crept into the church early, and those apostles and inspired leaders were killed leaving the church to the leadership of uninspired men (wolves entering the flock as Paul said). So the comparison you make really seems to be more between a static man made doctrine which are presented through interpretations of the Bible, against the live, dynamic instructions from God Himself in which LDS believe. Such direct instructions from God, if were to be all recorded, would not be able to be contained in one book alone. On Doctrine Reply I am aware of the fact that Mormon doctrine is based on the concept of continuing revelation through the Living Prophet, which is why the Gospel message as found in the Mormon church today is not the same as that found in the Book of Mormon. Revelation is the manner in which Joseph Smith claimed to have been given the information about the location of the Book of Mormon, translated its contents and was apprised of his doctrinal positions. Within a year after the Book of Mormon was published, it is claimed that Joseph Smith received his polygamy revelation, the practice of which was condemned in the Book of Mormon, but became the new means to obtain exaltation. Joseph Smith's original and first polygamy revelation in 1831 stated that Mormon men were to marry the Lamanite women so that they would become "white and delightsome" which changed the statements in the Book of Mormon that the gospel and repentance would bring about the change in skin color, 2 Nephi 30:5-6; 2 Nephi 5:21-22; 3 Nephi 2:15; Jacob 3:8. Within fourteen years of its publication, Joseph Smith denied the statement in the Book of Mormon that God was a spirit and claimed He was a personage of tabernacle, possessing a body, which means the persons described in the Book of Mormon were taught to believe a false definition about the nature of God that was also given by direct revelation, so God is made to be a liar and is forgetful as well, since He did not correct the error during the translation process from the golden plates. In that same period of time, Joseph Smith, by claiming a revelation, also denied the concept that the Holy Ghost was the mind or power of God and instead claimed that the Holy Ghost was a personage of spirit. In that same period, he introduced the concept of the Eternal Progression, not even mentioned in the Book of Mormon, not part of the restored gospel message and the tenets of which were not practiced by the believers mentioned in the Book of Mormon or by the early Mormon church until after 1844. There is the revelation regarding the establishment of the priesthood, when the Aaronic priesthood is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods did not even exist in the Mormon church for the first twenty-two months, and required that interpolations be inserted into the Book of Commandments to make it appear that the revelations printed in the later Doctrine and Covenants supported their existence at the beginning of the church, when those revelations had not even been given. Even Joseph Smith stated that the Melchizedek priesthood was not manifested and conferred on "several" of the elders until June of 1831, which was about 22 months after the foundation of the church. The Mormon church was not founded on the authority of the priesthood. Then there is the entire issue of temple work not found in the Book of Mormon: no temple marriage, no sealings, no temple ceremonies and no genealogical work leading to baptisms for the dead. There is no escape from hell in the Book of Mormon by means of a second chance to accept the gospel message during the thousand year stay in "spirit prison" and no celestial, telestial or terrestrial levels in the heavenly realm and no teaching whatsoever regarding exaltation to godhood. I am aware of the direct revelation by which the major doctrines of the gospel now taught in the Mormon church are not found in the restoration of the Book of Mormon gospel message. Continuing direct revelation has taken you into a gospel of performance that was never part of the Book of Mormon. I realize that you believe that God has given revelations to your prophets that you believe are absolutely true. However, the Bible was given by direct revelation also, and there is a universe of difference between it and Mormon doctrine, so there is an issue of credibility that must be resolved. The issue between the Bible and Mormon doctrine is not one of revelation, but of historical reality. Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible was altered in a certain manner and that certain elements were removed and others added, and those changes occurred within a specific historical framework, authorized by a specific organization and carried out by specific individuals. If what he claims is true, then the Book of Mormon can represent what he says, but if what he says is not true, then, as a product of a false prophet, the Book of Mormon fails the test of a true revelation. Either history supports his claims or it does not, and so far the Mormon church has failed to produce the evidence to support its position. I am not denying your right to hold your position. You can believe anything that you might choose, however, that does not mean that I have no right or cannot challenge Mormon doctrine, because Joseph Smith threw down the gauntlet when he stated that every religious belief and organization was wrong and apostate except his own. I understand that you believe that was a revelation from God, but in the absence of a statement from God confirming those claims, I have every right to challenge what Joseph Smith claimed just as you have every right to challenge what I might claim, but the evidence must be presented. In relation to the Book of Mormon, Apostle Orson Pratt stated, "If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated." The Mormon church is faced with a double task, because it must decide whether the Book of Mormon gospel or the current gospel as taught in the church today was changed and removed from the Bible. I am sure that there will be no revelations received that will significantly change the current Mormon gospel message, which effectively seals the decision. That makes all the pontificating by Joseph Smith and future presidents and general authorities about how necessary it was to have a restored gospel message through the Book of Mormon, to be a sham, because the Book of Mormon did not restore what the Mormon church today considers to be the fullness of the gospel message. Each change or addition to the precepts of the gospel message by a Living Prophet lessens the claims that the Book of Mormon is authoritative or authentic in relation to its "perfection" and the belief that it restored the fullness of the Mormon gospel message, which it did not. Each additional revelation by a Living Prophet has added an additional burden of performance necessary to obtain exaltation that was not practiced by the individuals in the Book of Mormon. It is only in Mormon doctrine that human beings become gods, not in Trinitarian theology. In 4 Nephi 1:17 the footnote refers to John 17:21-23 in the my 1989 edition of the Book of Mormon, so it must be connecting the two passages together. However, Mormon theologians do not claim that everyone will one day be one big god and Trinitarian believers do not make that claim either, so I don't know what your point might be. In relation to the term "Trinity" not being in the Bible, every Trinitarian believer will freely admit, but it is taught in the Bible and can be demonstrated as such. You have a number of terms and offices that do not appear in the Bible or the Book of Mormon either, such as: First Presidency, President of the Church, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Quorum of the Seventy, High Council, Stake, Ward, Telestial, Eternal Progression, etc. Using your logic, those terms and offices should not exist - but you assume their legitimacy by means of their establishment through a claim of direct revelation and not by any reference in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Apparently, what you are claiming is that the revelation given to Joseph Smith through the Book of Mormon contained errors, because "the ones that record them are imperfect and fail, and do err. So (e)specially in the beginning of the LDS Church there were errors or not so clear records of the things that were being learned, made by some who recorded revelations and testimonies, which records stood in need of clarification, including Joseph, Such corrections were made with the spirit of revelation . Therefore, they corrected not because they made them up and decided to change." I guess that explains why the relationship of God to Jesus Christ presented in the 1830 Book of Mormon was rewritten in subsequent editions. What you are actually saying is that God gives revelation, knowing the prophet has made an error in its translation, but doesn't bother to correct His prophet until centuries later, after believers have adopted and followed the false doctrine or adopted the error as Scripture. In the case of the Book of Mormon, God was not able to correct the error regarding His nature until hundreds of years after it was recorded on the golden plates and then was erroneously included in the Book of Mormon and was not corrected until 14 years after the Book of Mormon was published. Prophets who claim to have made the error in the first place, are the same ones who claim to be the only ones able to correct the error, by revelation, and everyone can be assured that the second revelation can be trusted as the truth, just like they claimed for the first. When you must resort to an explanation that prophetic errors are simply learning experiences that are essentially of no importance, then it is a sad day for the concept of truth which is demoted to only a hope that what is said to be revealed is actually correct. A person who claims to be a prophet but who makes errors is a false prophet, according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, and a person who claims to be a prophet but who teaches a different definition of God other than who He defines Himself to be is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13:5-10. The comparison that I make is between the unchanging doctrines found in the Bible as opposed to the ever changing doctrines in the Mormon church, continually requiring correction. The Mormon Challenge Friday, July 25 Hello Gary, You have written, Revelation is the manner in which Joseph Smith claimed to have been given the information about the location of the Book of Mormon, Comments: Before you make an assertion such as this "Joseph Smith claimed" you need to be completely sure that he was not a Prophet of God. You really continue to judge everything about Joseph Smith and the LDS Church against your interpretation of what should be the truth, according to what you have read in the Bible and the opinion of scholars, ancient and modern. So, to make an assertion such as this, one needs to have no shadow of a doubt that he is not reviling against a true prophet of God. Because if your are, then you would be missing out a crucial thing. Take for example the Jews of Jesus' time. They said they had Moses, meaning they had read the books of Moses and the books of law and the prophets. They took to themselves to administer the laws and what they read in the those books according to what they thought it was the truth. When Jesus told them He was the Messiah, the Son of God, they were not able to accept it. They just said, as you say today, we have Moses, as for this Jesus we don't know were he comes from. It is striking similar to your position. They said they had Moses, you say: "I have Moses and the New Testament, as for this Joseph I don't believe him." In reality what Jesus was doing was bringing new revelation, which had been interrupted until John the Baptist. The last prophet God sent before that was Zachariah whom they had killed some 400 years earlier. Jesus came to give more revelation, new ones to complement and fulfill the ones He had given before He came to the earth. But they, the Jews, didn't want to have anything to do with it. They stood firm saying that Jesus could not be a prophet or a Messiah because it was not in accordance with what they believed. Did the Jews knew what the Son of God should be like and should behave and act? Did they have ever seen the Son of God and talked to Him before? No, they had their own conception of what He should be like, according to their interpretations of the scriptures. And Jesus didn't fit that conception. They rejected Him. And you stand firm saying that Joseph can't be a prophet because he didn't act or did behave according to what you believe to be a prophet. The question arises. Do you really, I mean, really know how a prophet should be? Other than having read about it, have you ever seen or talked to a prophet? All you know is what you believe. Which may or may not be true, because you rely on your own understanding of what you read. So, to know what is a prophet, you would need to be humble and ask God directly to tell you. Like the Jews, you're truly judging Joseph with a measure you don't even have. Joseph doesn't fit your conception, so you reject him. Because Joseph Smith and his work don't agreed with what you believe a prophet should be, that doesn't mean he was not what he said he was, a prophet of God. You have written: I realize that you believe that God has given revelations to your prophets that you believe are absolutely true. Comments: Gary, I don't just believe. I don't judge the doctrine, because I know what we know is an infinitesimal part of what is the mind of God. I didn't come to a conclusion and convinced myself of it. I have asked God and I know it is true. I don't need adjectives to assert what I know. I know it is true because God has revealed that to me. Not because I read it in some book, but because I asked Him and He witnessed that to my spirit, directly, no middleman. And the beautiful thing is that I cannot deny what I know. You may dismiss all that, but it will not change the fact that I have had the Spirt of the Lord testifying to my spirit it is true. But, in keeping with the above line, that the Jews not being able to accept that Jesus was the Messiah because they claimed that it was not in accordance to what they believed, they too referred to lack of credibility. For example, they were enranged when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. For them, the law seemed to be clear, you don't do anything on the Sabbath. And yet here it was, a man that claimed to be the Son of God, doing things on the Sabbath. Do you want more lack of credibility than that? The other point is that Jesus had come from Nazareth, a region basically dispised by the Jews. In their interpretation, the Messiah would not come from such a place. There was no credibility at all for the Jews to accept Him. And yet, that didn't change the fact He was who He said He was. Since the Messiah had to conform to their interpretation of the scriptures, they didn't accept it. So it was that they rejected Him even seeing that He did miracles and taught sound principles. Again, your position is strikingly similar to that of the Jews. That is why in my other message I said you are anchored in the traditions of man, not totally on the scriptures. If you judge Joseph and the LDS Church from the optics of man's intellect and interpretations, searching for a proof that he was in fact a prophet of God (like the Jews did to Jesus), you will not find it. First and foremost you need to understand what a prophet of God is, does and behave like, not from reading but from the One that calls prophets. For you to know whether Joseph was a prophet of God you will need to put aside your learning from the intellect and become like a child. Then you will be able to see that, in spite of all the apparent dicrepancies, the work of Joseph has been blessed. True principles have come through his mouth from the Lord. All you have to do is, with humility, look more in depth and see what the LDS Church and its members are and do today. Look at their doctrine with a more open mind, without the clouds of your intellectual judgements. So, if you really want to know whether Joseph was a prophet of God, read the Book of Mormon and ask God. Or ask God if he was a prophet. If you rid yourself of your interpretations, you will make room for our Loving Father to tell you the truth. And you will see you cannot deny it. He has told me, directly to my spirit. I don't need to rely on my own understanding. Here is the promise Gary: Moroni 10:2-4 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder it in your chearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all things. 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. If you put this promise to proof with total humility, like a little child, you will know. I left verse 6 for you to consider also. Nothing that is Good denieth the Chist, but acknowledgeth that He is. That is what the LDS does plainly for anyone to see. On Doctrine Reply I make the statement that "Joseph Smith claimed" in relation to statements that he made because he actually stated them, and because it has not been established from a historical point of reference that what he said actually happened. I note the claims when discussing them and most of them are statements involving personal encounters with deity and angels that have no validation outside of the fact that he said they happened. The statements of Joseph Smith are considered to be the validation of of his own statements, which is unacceptable. That is the very issue in relation to the First Vision in which he gave several conflicting accounts. You believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet first and then you accept his claims as truth, but you do so because of your testimony, not as a result of any empirical evidence supporting what he said. Joseph Smith was never able to present prophetic credentials on the order of the prophets found in the Old Testament or the apostles in the New Testament There is a very old argument presented by the Mormon church attempting to make the case that because Joseph Smith was an uneducated and religiously ignorant person, he could not have written the Book of Mormon on his own, therefore the only conclusion is that it was given to him by revelation. I noted the following in a reply to another Mormon: "I never found that argument to have any relevance at all, because lack of an education does not correlate to a lack of ability, and it is also apparent that Joseph Smith was not uneducated to the degree that was being claimed, his natural abilities were significantly greater than the church wished to admit and his social and political connections were much wider than stated.The issue with Joseph Smith is two-fold: 1. Is he a prophet? 2. If he is a prophet, is he a prophet who represents God? The first standard the Bible gives for judging whether a man is a prophet or not is fulfillment. The standard is found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, "'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' 'When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him'" If the prophet claims to speak truth but actually states a lie, then he is false. If he prophesies and the prophesy does not come true within the time frame stated, then he is a false prophet. The standard is not whether he has more prophecies correct than not correct - it only takes one false prophecy to make a false prophet. The validation of a prophet is not how you personally feel about him, but whether his performance meets the standard. The second standard the Bible gives for judging a prophet is truth. A prophet may prophesy correctly, but he may not teach truth about God. The second standard is found in Deuteronomy 13. "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not harken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." 13:1-3, 4ff (KJV) You apply a different standard to your prophets, not based on their performance or their accuracy or their truthfulness, but the fact that they occupy the office of a prophet by which you give them a pass as to accountability which allows their errors to be ignored. That is one of the reasons why Brigham Young has never been declared a false prophet although he originated and taught false doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie states the case in graphic terms in relation to two issues, not only in order to justify Brigham Young but also to justify his own false claims: "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This {his teaching - ed.}, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works. . . . This puts me in mind of Paul's statement: 'There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.' (1 Cor. 11:19) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: 'And all those who preach false doctrine, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!' (2 Nephi 28:15) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of those fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in this instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrine, we are making an election that will damn us." Apostle Bruce. R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England, February 19, 1981 What He is saying is that if you had believed Brigham young it would have been your own fault, even though you believed the prophet. So, if you believe a prophet without judging his doctrine, you may be in serious trouble, because the prophet will not bail you out at the judgment. However, if you express disapproval or question a prophet's doctrine, then you come under suspicion by the church because you have dared to question what is said to be the mind of God. "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, an how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young of president George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. . . . We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness. . . . It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)." Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Council of the Twelve, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2. He actually deliberately misstated the seriousness of the issue, because it was not in relation to statements in early Mormon literature, but in relation to Mormon scripture - specifically the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Abraham where the only verse prohibiting the priesthood to persons of black skin is found. That which he did not wish to admit was the reality that all of his own statements in opposition to persons of black skin holding the priesthood were based solely on the Book of Abraham (canonized as Scripture) but was a hoax perpetrated by Joseph Smith, who fabricated the book. It is not possible to go beyond point one in relation to Joseph Smith, because of his numerous false prophecies. It only takes one false prophecy to be a false prophet and his false prophecy about the successful venture to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon is sufficient as a qualification to be a false prophet. There are others, such as, Saints to Gather In Independence, Missouri and Build a Temple (D&C 84),United Order (D&C 104), Riches of Salem to Pay Church Debt (D&C 111), New Gathering Place and Temple in Far West (D&C 115) and Christ to Return in Period of 1890-1891 and Joseph Smith to Live to be 85 Years Old (D&C 130:14-15). There are others. You are making a comparison of Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith fails the test. Jesus Christ came with credentials validating who He was , including audible statements by God from the heavens, an appearance by the Holy Spirit at His baptism and He performed miracles, including authority over nature, healing every disease and individual and raising the dead. Joseph Smith came claiming to be a prophet and having received revelation, but with no credentials validating who He was: he did not have authority over nature, he did not heal, he did not raise the dead, and he gave false prophecies and presented as scripture that which he had fabricated. Your comparison fails the test also. Joseph Smith didn't have to meet my qualifications, because I adopt the testimony of the Scripture and the direct words of God that state the reality of who He presents as a prophet. The prophet who claims a revelation from God that does not come true makes God into a liar. The prophet who claims to have accomplished a translation by "inspiration" through the mind of God, but has fabricated that translation makes himself into a liar as well as God. That is where the issue stands The Mormon Challenge Monday, September 15 Hello Gary, You seem to believe that you are well protected in your beliefs. That sense of protection you have seems to come from the following sources: 1. Your intellect 2. Scholars, ancient and modern 3. Your interpretation of the Bible 4. Scholars' and others' interpretation of the Bible Notice that God is not in that list. As you write copiously about Joseph Smith and present so convoluted arguments to prove that Joseph was not a prophet, that also seems to give you protection from doubt. However, all your arguments are founded, ultimately, on doubt. Which by the way is the origin of the scientific method. In other words, you are taking a page from the early scholars that differed from the Catholic Church in the Renascence and afterward. The scientific method has its merits, as more enlightened men started to be skeptical about everything and would meticulously investigate the causes of phenomena such us the shape of the earth or the origin of diseases. It came in opposition to the monopoly the church had on knowledge, which was based on superstition in the name of God. I say one can use skepticism, but it can be used only to a certain measure. Scientific method, combined with human reasoning cannot prove the things of God. As it is written that the things that God has prepared for those that love Him didn't go up to the hearts of men. What that means to you is that you may argue as much as you want. But, until you have a true communion with the Spirit of the Lord you will not know the truth because there is only one source of truth, and that truth is not a book, nor a scholar, nor your intellect, or any man. The source of truth is Father in Heaven. No amount of interpretation, or theory, or opinion of scholars will tell you who the Father is, simply because they don't know. And even if you read the Bible until you get purple, you will not know the nature of God. You will not know Him until you have a true communion with Him. As it was the case of Peter when Jesus asked him who he thought Christ was. As Peter told Jesus He was the son of the Living God, Jesus said that it was not flesh and blood that revealed that to Peter, but the Father which is in Heaven, directly, without any intermediary or interpretations, or readings. Gary, in all your arguments, you employ imperfect human reasoning to try to understand a Perfect God. You apply human intellect only, to understand the Bible. You employ human theories to tell what a true prophet is. You, in fact, expect people to read the Bible and come to the same conclusion you came to, through your methods and the methods of others. In a way you are placing yourself in a place of a prophet, as you assert your convictions and conclusions, but have never realy being called and ordained by the true Priesthood of God. In actuality all you are doing is reviving the dilemmas people had after the original Apostles of Christ were all rejected and killed. After the apostles and other leaders of the original Church of Christ were killed, the people had nothing. They had lost the authority, they lost true instructions from God through the apostles and other leaders in the true Priesthood of God. So what the intellectuals and others did? They started to look for manuscripts, they started to look for reputable manuscripts that would tell then how the true Church of Christ was, or how the apostles acted. All they could come up was the extremely small collection of second hand letters and accounts. As you read the writings of that collection, you can see that none or next to none were directly addressed to our day. While many of the teachings in there, are universal and applicable to any sincere truth seeker, none of them were addressed specifically to our days. They were accounts and instructions specifically to those original congregations of the true Church of Christ, and in some cases they were even specifically addressed to individuals. What that tells us is that, either God does not like people that were born after the first century, or the intellectuals and people in general of the first and subsequent centuries didn't like God. I know the later to be true by the evidence that they killed all the source of revelation, the Apostles, who by the way, were also prophets of God as they spoke in the name of God, being called and ordained to do so. The other evidence is that after they were killed there were no scripture produced. Killing the source of revelation, dealt a fatal blow to the original Church of Christ. That church was chased to the desert as the scriptures say. Most of the apostles actually had predicted that. And some of the books and letters of the New Testament are specifically to warn the saints of that time about it. John, Paul and others said that the Antichrist was already there and had lead many away. Those antichrists are the ones that directly or indirectly killed the conduit of revelation, and direct instruction from God. They were agents of Satan. And, howelse you can keep people in the dark other than cutting their source of truth, by killing the apostles whom were called and ordained from God to, legitimately, represent God and teach the truth? You can read in the Bible that even with the apostles still alive there were many interpreting the teaching according to their own wishes. The letters of Paul and others deal mostly with that problem. By your arguments, and even citing ancient scholars you are not doing anything new. If you do a search and read the so called "Fathers of the Church" of the first centuries after Christ you will see that their arguments are very similar to yours. Then, as now, there were many, many sects that claimed to be the true way. And, the same way you do, they relied on the interpretation of some accounts and letters that survived from the apostles and leaders of the true Church of Christ, but didn't have the source of all truth, wich comes from revelation directly from God through prophets and apostles. Ultimately, by being radical about the Bible you are not really following Christ per se. You are following the so called "Fathers". Because, you are doing exactly what they did, they gathered whatever they could find of the acounts and letters of the apostles and tried to make sense of them with their own intellect. This is true because before the first century ended and before the Apostles and other leaders of the Church of Christ were killed, the saints didn't have the Bible. There was no Bible. The true Church of Christ was not organized because the Apostles read something somewhere and decided to organize a church. They were were taught directly by revelation of God through the apostles and other leaders. Some of those teachings were recorded and some survived to this day. The Church of Christ was organized by Christ Himself as He called and ordained Apostles and other leaders and gave them authority to conduct the Church. And He said that His Church would be lead by revelation, not by a book. The books were only records of revelations for the saints to refer to. As you may or may not know, scripture is not a book, it is every word that comes out of the mouth of God. It may or may not be written. Believing in the Bible is great and commendable. However, the true Church of Christ was not organized because anyone read the Bible and decided to organize a Church. Rather, Christ called righteous men and ordained them and organized the Church Himself, which before the end of the first century the antichrists destroyed and people rejected. The conclusion of all that is simple. You don't need to rely on your interpretation of the Bible, or in any "orthodox" teaching, or theory, or doctrine. You can and should go straight to God the Father and ask Him where is the truth. More specifically, instead of looking on "evidences," ask the Father, with a sincere heart if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He will tell you if you REALLY want to know. Didn't Jesus say that if we ask He will give us. So, what is preventing you from asking directly in the name of Christ if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? Then you will know what a true prophet of God is and does. For now you only have yours and the scholars word for it. Mind you, your arguments are founded in doubts. Therefore, you only BELIEVE Joseph was not a prophet, based on "evidences" you and others dug. But, the eyes of the intellect are not the eyes of the Spirit. The Spirit can see things we cannot with our natural eyes and intellect. So, to believe ONLY on things you can see is a huge gamble, as you are really only believing and not knowing. You don't know, or, in other words, you have not witnessed, you only read about it reasoned with you imperfect reasoning and bought it. We don't buy the truth, we know the truth. The only way to know the thruth is going straight to the source: The Father in the name of Christ. Paul says that the Spirit of God witnesses the truth to our spirit. Can you afford to continue to rely on your own reasoning, or in your own beliefs? Can you afford to base you belief system upon doubts and opinions of scholars, and others? You should be careful because Paul says that every man is a liar, but only God is true. That puts all your arguments in jeapardy, because you are relying heavily, perhaps totally, on man for your source of knowledge. On Doctrine Reply Welcome back to On Doctrine.Thank you for your reply. I do not place confidence in beliefs that I have originated, but in the message of the biblical Scripture, which does not change in relation to the gospel message. The Mormon gospel message does and has changed from that taught in the Book of Mormon as a result of revelations claimed to have been received by the prophets, and is completely different from that found in the Bible. If the Mormon church today did not have the Book of Mormon, its gospel message would be substantially the same, as it would be sustained by the Living Prophet, or further changed, since it would not and does not have a foundation in the Book of Mormon, but was originated by the prophets. The Book of Mormon is a source of many of the feel good verses and minor teachings of the church, but as a repository of the major doctrines of the Mormon gospel message taught today, it has none of those within its pages because they are products solely of the Living Prophets, primarily Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is not the foundational criteria of truth in the church and does not contain the fullness of the Mormon gospel message, despite the historical claim that it does, because it is not authoritative regarding the pronouncements of the prophets, who are the actual foundation of the church and have established themselves in that position. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have far greater authority than the Book of Mormon, which relegates that book to third place on the list of the Standard Works. Your entire premise of belief is based on a claim by the church that modern day prophets lead the church by means of modern day revelations for a modern day people. That might be very well and good if the revelations were of such a nature that they spoke to those modern issues, but the revelations of your prophets speak to and are more concerned with the changing nature and content of the Mormon gospel message, which is not the same today as found in the Book of Mormon or in the first years of the Mormon church. There is a very big difference between leading the church in a modern era and leading the church into a belief in a different gospel message and different definitions of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Those inconsistencies do not mean anything to you, because you have not been subject to a time in the Mormon church when those other doctrines were the official position of the prophets, and, as such, you either do not believe that the church has claimed opposing and conflicting doctrines as a result of revelation, or you don't wish to believe that it makes any difference because those differences are simply part of the learning curve. What the prophets and general authorities assert is that it doesn't make any difference if doctrines and revelations change, which is a great convenience for them, and is the very point that apostle McConkie was trying to convey in his statement about accepting the revelation on persons of black skin holding the priesthood, and it is what I believe is the approach that you actually accept. "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)." Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Council of the Twelve, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2 I am not sure how you view my arguments about Joseph Smith being convoluted. Have I quoted him incorrectly or stated that he taught what he did not? Have I quoted the Book of Mormon or the Bible incorrectly? The Bible is the source of the case against the claims of Joseph Smith, which is based on the directly quoted words of God in Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and Deuteronomy 18:20- 22. Joseph Smith changed the teaching about the nature of God taught in the Book of Mormon, which is the case against him presented in Deuteronomy 13:1-11. The difference between a God who is a spirit in the Book of Mormon and a God who is a body of tabernacle in the King Follett Address and current Mormon doctrine is fundamental to a definition of the nature of God. Brigham Young misidentified the actual person of God, stating that He was Adam as Michael the archangel (who is actually one of the sons of God in Mormon theology), and caused several generations of Mormons to worship the wrong God; not just the wrong God but a non-existent god. The first two prophets of the Mormon church, who established virtually all of the major Mormon doctrines, either changed the definition of God or misidentified who He is, and is the substance of the case against Joseph Smith and Brigham Young presented in Deuteronomy 13:1-11. I noted several prophecies that Joseph Smith gave, especially the one about the sale of the copyright of the Book of Mormon that he said would be successful, which he claimed was a direct revelation from God. Yet the prophecy failed, and he came up with the excuse that prophecies can come from God, from human desires and from the devil, and he could not tell the difference, even though he was the Living Prophet and had the magical inner feeling that confirmed truth. That is the substance of the case presented against him in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. As I have mentioned before, the Mormon church does not consider the Bible to be authoritative and you adopt that belief also, because when it speaks to the issue of false prophecies and false doctrine by your foundational prophets, you look the other way and use the subjective nature of your feelings to confirm what you wish to believe. You do not apply the verses in Deuteronomy to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as a test. If the Bible is authoritative then it applies to the conduct and statements of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and any other prophet. If the Bible is not authoritative, then it is not Scripture and it cannot be included with the Standard Works by claiming that it is Scripture. You are accepting the translations and interpretations of the prophets, who are the very persons called to accountability by the Scripture. Prophets cannot define their own standards by which they subject themselves to the standards which they have created. Actually, the standard as applied to the prophets in the Mormon church is less rigorous than the standard demanded of ordinary members, since Brigham Young originated and taught a heretical doctrine but escapes being identified as a heretic. However, if an ordinary Mormon believer holds to Brigham Young's teachings because he is a prophet, they will be the one who will pay a severe price, since the prophet will not stand in their place at the judgment. That is a very self-serving double standard for the prophets, and a very great onus for the believer, since there are a great number of Mormons who died believing the prophet's heretical doctrine. Here is the reasoning for that approach, again represented by Bruce McConkie's statement, as it was applied to the issue of persons of black skin holding the priesthood: "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, an how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young of president George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. . . . We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness. . . . It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978)."Apparently, according to Bruce McConkie, erroneous statements by previous prophets don't matter, and even the prophets don't interpret Mormon scriptures correctly, so where does that leave you? If the prophets were in "darkness" on the issue of persons of black skin being denied the priesthood, it was because they were in total darkness regarding their ability to discern false doctrine and false revelation taught and claimed to have been received by Joseph Smith, and canonized false revelation as truth. You think you are safe within the doctrines presented by the Living Prophet, when generations of faithful Mormons lived and died believing a heretical doctrine originated and taught by the Living Prophet, sustained by future Living Prophets, and the faithful believers are said to be the ones who are at fault, not the Living Prophet. Which doctrine that you embrace now and taught by the Living Prophet will be declared heretical by tomorrow's Living Prophet after you have died, and you will be paying for the error in the next life? Will Brigham Young take to himself the penalty from every person who believed his false teachings? Apparently not. "I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in this instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrine, we are making an election that will damn us."There is a contradiction between Apostle McConkie and President Grant that needs to be resolved on this issue. Apostle McConkie says that the person who believes Brigham Young's heretical doctrine will be damned, while Brigham Young escapes accountability and goes on to his exaltation. President Grant says that if the President tells someone to do something wrong, then they should do it and God will bless them. Am I to assume that doing something wrong is different than believing something wrong? In either case, the Prophets seem to escape accountability, are not removed from their position by God, and the adherent pays the price. But, according to President Grant, '. . . you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray," except for Prophet Brigham Young and Prophet Wilford Woodruff who openly taught the same doctrine. You are applying a double standard to your definition of interpretation, in relation to the prophets and in relation to me. You presume that what I read in the Bible and then state to be factual is only my "interpretation," which means that you do not believe that I can make any statement of truth based on the Bible outside the approval of your prophets. That is a contrived standard that has no validity whatsoever and is the same standard used by the Catholic church when they denied the scripture to the laity, claiming that the ordinary person could not understand it. If that was a legitimate standard, then there would be no necessity for the Bible to be printed for the ordinary person to read or study, which is not what the Bible claims. Your prophets interpreted wrongly the verse in the Book of Abraham that withheld the priesthood from persons of black skin and they did not even know the difference, since they also accepted the book as scripture when it was a forgery. You have granted to your prophets a measure of competence that they have demonstrated that they do not have, beginning with Joseph Smith. It cannot even be claimed that the prophets, after the repeal of the prohibition against persons of black skin holding the priesthood in 1978, are exempt from that issue, because they have all adopted the revelation as scripture and still do today, claiming that God has simply changed His mind after being implored to do so by the prophets and general authorities. However, as I noted previously, the only prohibition in the entire system of Mormon doctrine was limited to only one verse in the Book of Abraham, the entire book of which Joseph Smith forged as a revelation. Although the revelation granting the priesthood to persons of black skin said that God had instituted the prohibition, He had not done so by any legitimate revelation, so the revelation of 1978 makes God into a liar by claiming that He said what He did not, in the attempt to preserve the authority of Joseph Smith, the office of the prophets and the claim that the Book of Abraham is scripture. God may not be on the list that you compiled in the attempt to defuse my comments, but He is certainly on my list who speaks through His word as the author of Scripture and the Person who Jesus Christ reveals to the world, John 1:18. God has spoken through His Son, speaks through His word and through the Holy Spirit. You believe that God speaks through your prophets which you believe is confirmed by the subjective nature of your feelings. What you are actually saying is that I do not accept what are claimed to be the words of God stated by the Living Prophets. However, that is one of the major issues in relation to the disagreement between Orthodox and Mormon theology. You would be quite right to state that I don't accept the words of the Living Prophets, not because I don't accept the words of God, but because the words of the Living Prophets are their own words and not the words of God. I know that you accept every word that the Living Prophets say, but that is the difference between what I believe and you believe, based on the standards applied to prophets in Deuteronomy, and I believe that I have presented some very serious issues as to why I have adopted that position, not the least of those is the fact that the two founding prophets of the Mormon church could not be trusted to teach correct doctrine in relation to the nature of God, because they taught conflicting doctrines between each other and the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith lied about translating the Book of Abraham, that he claimed to be scripture, but was, in fact, a fabrication and Brigham Young taught the false Adam-God Doctrine. It is a fallacy to presume that a prophet is true because God has not removed him and it is an equal fallacy to presume that the testimony of the "burning bosom" confirms truth, when the prophets, general authorities and the voting congregation at large validated the Book of Abraham as scripture, when it was actually a forgery - and the burning bosom did not reveal the problem. There is a fundamental wrong when the emotions are used as the validating factor in order to confirm truth rather than the Scripture being used to validate or invalidate the emotions. You are trying very hard to use your own intellect, human knowledge and reasoning to convince me that intellect, human knowledge and reasoning have no part in communing with God. If that is actually the case, then you do not have to read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, the Bible or listen to any message or read any material presented by the church. You can simply sit, pray and wait for God to speak and reveal Himself to you. But, I just wonder, if I do what you say, which God will He reveal Himself to be? Will He be the God who is, ". . . without beginning of days or end of life," Lectures On Faith, lecture 2, 1835? Will He be the God who has a beginning, because He was once a man, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret." Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3, 1844? Will He be the God who is a spirit in the Book of Mormon, and as originally taught by Joseph Smith. ". . . the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle . . ," Lectures on Faith, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, p. 53.? Will He be the God who is a personage of tabernacle, taught by Joseph Smith after He changed his mind, "First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God, who holds this world in its orbit, and upholds all things by his power; if you were to see him to-day, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man . . . ," Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp.613-14, 1844? Will He be the modalistic God who is also Jesus Christ, noted as such in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon but has been changed in current version, and not by means of revelation, 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21; 1 Nephi 11:32; 1 Nephi 13:40? Will He be the singular individual as taught in Mormon doctrine today? Will He be the God who is omnipotent, Lectures On Faith, lecture 2, 1835? Will He be the God who is not omnipotent, Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120? Will He be the God who is omniscient, Lectures On Faith, lecture 2, 1835? Will He be the God who is not omniscient, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 93, 1852? Will He be the God who is omnipresent, Lectures On Faith, lecture 2, 1835? Will He be the God who is not omnipresent, What is God? He is a material organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. He is in the form of a man, and is, in fact, of the same species... This being cannot occupy two distinct places at once, therefore he cannot be everywhere present." Joseph Smith, The Millennial Star, Vol. 6? Will He be the God who came down to earth to be the Redeemer as the Son of God, also a modalistic expression of the godhead, Alma 18:26-28? Will He be the God who sent His Son to earth to be the Redeemer, taught in Mormon Doctrine today? Will He be Adam-Michael-God as taught by Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff? Will He be Michael-God and not Adam as taught in the church today? Will He be unchangeable as found in the Book of Mormon, "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity," Moroni 8:18? cf. Moroni 5:16. Will He be a changeable ever-increasing-in-knowledge God who is not actually perfected, as taught by Wilford Woodruff, "God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end," Journal of Discourses,vol. 6, p. 120 and Brigham Young, "We are now, or may be, as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection," Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 93, ". . . Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful." Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 286? Will He be the God who has no counterpart, and of whom it is said that there is no other God, Alma 11:26-31? Will He be the God of current Mormon theology who is only one of an infinitude of gods who have preceded Him and an infinitude who will be created and follow Him into the infinite future? Will the Godhead consist of only two persons, Father and Son, "Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead? A. Two: the Father and the Son," Lectures On Faith, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835? Will the Godhead consist of three separate persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, united in purpose but not in being, as taught in the church today? Then there is the Holy Ghost. Will He be undefined as found in the Book of Mormon? Will He be simply the mind of God as taught by Joseph Smith, Articles of Faith, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, p. 53? Will He be redefined as a personage of spirit, as taught by Joseph Smith after he changed his mind? Will he be a spirit man, who has never had a body and cannot be said to be a man? Will He be a God? Will He not be a God, because He does not have a body or a wife, was not married in a temple and cannot be exalted without all of those three attributes? Will He be the father of Jesus Christ as stated in the Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10? Will he not be the father of Jesus Christ as taught by Brigham Young and taught in the church today? Then there is Jesus Christ. Will He and the Father be the same modalistic person as taught in the Book of Mormon? Will He be a separate person, as taught in the church today? Will He be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Ghost, as found in the Book of Mormon? Will He be the son of His own sister and the brother of his own mother, as currently taught in Mormon Doctrine? Will He be the product of an incestuous relationship between God and His own daughter as taught in current Mormon doctrine? Will He be a God, although He does not have a wife and was not married in the Temple and cannot be exalted without either? You say I present convoluted arguments against Joseph Smith, however, the historical changes in Mormon doctrine, taught by the prophets, regarding the nature of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are convoluted and contradictory, but are claimed to have been received by revelation, so, perhaps God possesses those convoluted ideas also. Doesn't the fact that 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21; 1 Nephi 11:32 and 1 Nephi 13:40 state that God and Jesus Christ are the same person in the 1830 Book of Mormon concern you? The fact that those verses have been changed without any legitimate revelation or authorization in order to conform to later doctrine should be a very large concern. None of the doctrines of salvation taught in the Mormon church can be said to be revelations directed to the specifics of our day. They were the products of a 19th century mind set that could not even have conceived of the society and technology found in the 21st century. The last revelation stated to have been received for the church was in 1978, and it only dealt with a problem created by Joseph Smith over 130 years prior regarding persons of black skin holding the priesthood. Before that, in 1976, two revelations were canonized: one, the only revelation given to Joseph F. Smith that was received in 1918 (now 90 years old and only repeated what was then currently being taught in the church), and one given to Joseph Smith in 1836 ("Vision of the Celestial Kingdom" now 172 years old, and is a falsified revelation that I explained in a previous reply). Prior to the 1918 revelation, the last claimed revelation was the Manifesto of 1890, abolishing polygamy. The Mormon church has had 16 presidents, only 4 of the first 6 received revelations that have been canonized and only 1 of the last 10 have received revelations, so, of the 16 only 5 have received revelations that have been canonized and only two of those prophets lived in the 20th century. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the Living Prophets are receiving revelations that deal with the specifics of the modern day. What is being claimed now is that the revelations are the "still small voice" by which the prophet leads the church in general. However, even though those revelations are still as important as the ones starting with "Thus saith the Lord . . ," they are not listed or presented as such and are never presented for ratification by vote. One of the best examples is the temple endowment ceremony that has undergone some very serious revisions in the last 60 years, but was supposedly originally established by direct revelation to Joseph Smith. However, the recent major changes in 1990 were not as a result of revelation but as a matter of convenience and changes in the personal sensibilities of converts that made the older versions of the ceremony outdated and for many actually offensive. You do not know if something is being taught through revelation or through the desires or errors of the prophet, because you have no standard against which you can judge the validity. Your prophets have removed the standard of the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon removed the standard of the Bible and your statements make that very clear. Your foundation for belief is vested only in the current Living Prophet. The historical progression of Mormon authority is very clear: first, the Book of Mormon superseded the Bible, then the prophets established themselves over the Book of Mormon through the pronouncements in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, and now the current Living Prophet supersedes those pronouncements and previous prophets, and the future current Living Prophets will supersede all of the preceding. You can never have any assurance that what you currently believe is true, because what has previously been stated as truth can now be rejected and what will be future truth is unknown, and your prophets and general authorities say that it does not make any difference. Truth in the Mormon church is what is convenient and expedient for the time, and is as changeable as the definitions of God and the gospel that the prophets have presented. To my knowledge, Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet who never claimed to have received a revelation and did not seem to think that very much additional revelation was necessary. As a modern day prophet he did not present any modern day revelation for canonization, but instead, said the following in an interview: Don Latin: Q. - "And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?"In an interview in Time Magazine, president Hinckley stated the following in relation to the doctrine of exaltation: Time:It seems very strange that 153 years after the doctrine was presented by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse, and affirmed by virtually every other prophet since that time, the then Living Prophet was unsure that it was being taught in the church, unsure about the circumstances under which it was presented, unsure about its nature and unsure who else might know anything about it. The fundamental and primary goal of exaltation to godhood escaped the knowledge of the Living Prophet, or else he was dissembling on the issue, perhaps out of embarrassment or anticipating a change or renunciation of the doctrine itself. In both instances, president Hinckley did not seem to represent what you would affirm to be the position of the church. Your description of how you think the Bible was assembled and your assignment of "authority" to your prophets (which you believe comes through the priesthood), represents graphically how you actually view the authority of the Bible, not only in relation to the biblical standards that should be applied to your prophets, but in relation to the church and gospel message that it presents, which are in total opposition to the Mormon message. As I have said from the very beginning of these conversations, the Mormon church does not consider the Bible to be authoritative on any level outside the interpretation by the prophets, and you adopt that view, because the Bible does not support your belief system. My faith in Jesus Christ is not based on any position of doubt, and my belief that the prophets of the Mormon church could lead me to a true understanding of the gospel message in the Bible is based on a solid affirmation that they cannot. |
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE Bible | STORE |