| Author | Message | ||
     cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
The book Leaving the Saints -- How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith by Martha Beck is just out on the book shelves. For those dear ones who have been blessed enough to have found their way out of this terrible cult, I am very confident you will find this book a fascinating read! I just got it and it's almost impossible to put down! This woman is an excellent writer and while I was victimized by another cult, her descriptions put me right there -- even inside the Temple! I can almost feel what it was like for her. It's a top notch read (thus far, I haven't finished it yet!). I would be most interested to hear from former Mormons and their reaction to reading this book! "In Christ alone I place my trust..." 2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. | ||
| steelsword (steelsword) Junior Member Username: steelsword Post Number: 33 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 |
Cjv , i will check it out. steel. Jude 3 | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 93 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.101 |
cjv, I hope my Christian book club has it. I will also check my public library. There is a good article about it at http://cultbusters.com.au. Just read it a couple of days ago since I first saw another article awhile back. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 58 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
godchild, My weenie library down the road got it for me, that's what I'm reading now, but it's so good, that I have it on my order list at Zooba ($9.99 all books that they have) because I need to make notes and mark it up etc! If your local library doesn't have it, put in a request for them to check other libraries and they'll get it. Also -- in the case of my weenie, teeny local library -- they actually ordered it for their library due to my request in advance, so I was the first to get a copy. BTW -- your links are always interesting -- both you and steel always have good ones and I thought I had a good "collection" myself, and then you guys have a link I haven't seen! Thanks for posting the links! In Christ alone I place my trust... (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 141 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.23.216.129 |
I have not read this book, but I've read a review from a non Mormon source. Based on the review, I would approach the book with caution. According to the review I read, it tells the story of the daughter of a leading Mormon apologist who discovers via "recovered memories" that she was sexually abused by her family. I am not saying that this book is false( or that accounts of incest should be treated with suspicion.) I'm only saying that I'm generally suspicious of accounts based on recovered memories. If the review I read was way off, please tell me. EGK | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 63 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
egk, I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, my daughter said EXACTLY the same thing to me as you did (she's in college taking courses in psychology right now). So I absolutely understand what you are saying. My thing is -- not so much the focus on the sexual molestation charges she makes against her father -- but the book itself revealing in great detail, and so well written -- beliefs/teachings/customs etc. of the Mormon Church and the Mormon community. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify though. Also, as far as I can tell -- I'm not finished with the book yet -- she is a New Agey type of Christian -- so then again -- she's not writing "scripture." I didn't mean it to come off that way if I did and apologize for any misunderstanding. BTW -- she says that she has physical scaring and that's why she claims she can back up her charges regarding the child molestation. However -- I am taking that whole portion with a grain of salt. As you said, proceed with caution and others should take your advice as it is wise advice.  In Christ alone I place my trust... http://users.churchserve.com/pa/obadiahministries/2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. | ||
| steelsword (steelsword) Junior Member Username: steelsword Post Number: 39 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.69.138.135 |
Cjv, is gal hugh nibley's daughter. I know she has been in the news lately , and she spoke of sexual abuse. | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 143 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.23.216.129 |
CJV, You didn't come accross incorrectly. I only fear that the woman could be used to unfairly and unjustly discredit her father and through him, Mormonism. No I have not converted to Mormonism and what I read of Nibley has been unconvincing at best. Yet in this day and age, there are individuals who are all too willing to find persons to smear any group that officially stands up for traditional values. (And let's face it, most of us, I believe, would agree with the offical Mormon stand on premarital sex, homosexual activity, the important of family, etc.) All of our groups have clay feet, so we should not be too willing to rejoice when the failings of other groups are publicized. EGK | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 101 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.196 |
Please understand mormonism is not christianity. How many times do we have to explain. Buddhists teach family values, morals, muslems teach family values, etc. Our point is MORMONISM IS NOT CHRISTIAN. It is anti christ. | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 130 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
You can read an article on this here http://www.cultbusters.com.au/modules/news/ Nulla | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 306 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
egk: Nice to find a sensible head around here - for information there are also available online several articles rebutting many of her claims - unfortunately it is the manner of the beast we deal with - those who wish to claim LDS anti-christ or other dimly lit ideas will cling to anything that appears, with no question as to the reliability of it's origin, so long as it is anti-LDS it must be good to them. It is interesting that GC came out with tis one on another thread quite a while ago - same old stuff regurgitated. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 108 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.90 |
Yes, and I do so because your head is so thick you do not comprehend what you read the first time. It also should be obvious not every new poster reads all past posts. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 109 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.90 |
You might have noticed joesdad gives none of the other sites that refute Nibley's book. You would think he would want to do so, if not for nonmormons, then for mormons who might want to read both sides of the story. | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 307 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
GC: HeHeHe, love intellectual debate!  | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 67 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
egk Honey and of course you too joesdad-- Listen, I'm again not making myself clear. It's truly my fault. So the blame lies with me. Now let me elaborate on what godchild has to say. Mormonism is not Christian. This is not such a "dimlly lit" idea. As a Christian, it would be pretty obnoxious for someone to come along and tell me I can't recognize a group that is not Christian. As Mormonism did in the late 1800's. Historical, Orthodox Christianity had been around for over 2000 years, and then came along Mormonism to claim it was the "only true church." As Christians, we stand our ground and say -- SORRY THAT'S A LIE! Just because an organization has a "Christian" name does not make the organization Christian. Because an organization has a "Christian" facade, does not make it Christian. Adolf Hitler was a very, very brilliant leader and speaker. He led Germany out of abject poverty with an economy in ruins -- into prosperity. He was exceptionally kind to his mistress and dogs. Does that make Hitler an historical figure to be admired and emulated? Of course not. He was evil and evil can have many guises. Lucifer -- if you read the Bible (and not Mormon lore) was the angel of LIGHT. That's why evil can be so alluring. There's a book called The Beautiful Side of Evil by Johanna Mitchelson. I suggest any Christian, ANYONE read it. It is one of the clearest examples of the lovely, "warm and fuzzy" side of evil and how it can manifest itself. Mostly -- how evil can disguise itself in "good." This is the Mormon Church. When we peel away the facade -- we find the statistics for a state that has a population where 8 out of 10 people are Mormon (some stats say 7 out of 10 take your pick)-- pretty terrible compared to national averages: Child molestation/abuse/neglect anti-depressant drugs abuse of women divorce rate -- (beats the national average) bankruptcy filings -- numerou UNO Utah children don’t get much shrift inside the womb either. Using stats from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United Health Foundation reports that in 2003, just 58.4 percent of pregnant women in Utah received adequate prenatal care. Only North Dakota ranked worse. And Utah babies don’t get much more respect once they reach daylight. KSL News reported in July that Utah has one of the worst records in the nation for testing for newborn diseases. As they become formative, Utah children have more problems to overcome, like the delusions of those tasked with watching out for them. While child abuse in the state isn’t as rampant as in others, the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported in 2001 that Utah ranked fourth-worst among reporting states for the ratio of children to assessment workers, 1:243. Also, as a proportion of all types of abuse reported—either neglect, medical neglect, physical abuse or sexual abuse—Utah had the seventh-highest rate of reported sexual abuse, at 22.7 percent of all cases reported. What’s more, the state provided future preventive services to only 3.3 percent of those children reporting abuse, ranking it fourth worst in the nation. As the public service announcements warn, the next stop for these kids could be skid row. No worse place than Utah for angst-ridden and idle youth to land. Because Utah remains among the top 10 methamphetamine-producing states and, according to U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah reigns supreme for its prevalence of “speed cookeries.” Depressing statistics, indeed—which might be why Utah tops the nation in prescriptions for antidepressants. According to a 2002 study by Express Scripts Inc., a pharmacy-benefits-management firm, Utahans, per capita, pop the candy-coated devils at nearly twice the national pace. See also: Court Report Saying First Amendment Does Not Shield Churches from Civil Liability. PRNewswire 15-DEC-98 Peeling away more of the facade of Mormonism: Until this weekend, church officials have been uncooperative with police regarding the case against Kevin F. Curlew, a church member and convicted child molester charged with repeatedly abusing a child inside the Methuen Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in recent months. "We're going to tell them what we want," said Detective Lt. Michael Wnek. What police want is more cooperation and better access to the church. In investigating Curlew, police found another convicted sex offender working at the church and arrested him Friday... Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Copyright© 2003 Eagle-Tribune Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Contact Online editor http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050111/FP_001.htm In 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune reported, As lawsuits filed by sexual abuse victims against Catholic dioceses have grabbed headlines and reaped controversial multi-million-dollar rewards, similar litigation against the Mormon Church has proceeded quietly, usually ending in confidential settlements. ("Clergy Ignores Victims, Allege LDS Plaintiffs, 10/17/1999, A1). Consider also: On July 30, 1993, the Deseret News reported that "George P. Lee, former LDS Church general authority, is expected to surrender to authorities next week on charges that he sexually abused a 12-year-old girl in 1989." The article stated, "Investigators say he fondled the girl at his home and during official trips made as a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy." Lee eventually pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a child, a third-degree felony. Another: In 1996 Lloyd Gerald Pond was arrested for sexual abuse of a fourteen-year-old girl. Pond hosted the Times and Seasons, a Mormon Church radio program. He originally denied any wrong-doing; however, he pleaded guilty on Friday, November 22 to a reduced charge of one count of forcible sexual abuse, a second-degree felony. More: In 1998 a Montgomery County (TX) jury awarded a teenage boy $4 million in damages in a unanimous verdict that found the LDS Church negligent for not protecting the boy from John Charles Blome, a church youth worker and known pedophile. (Houston Chronicle, "Molested boy wins more than sought against church /$4 million awarded after Mormons found negligent, 10/9/98). It gets worse: In 1999 four members of the Mormon Church in England were "convicted of sexually abusing children after being caught during a two-year police investigation." Police said they made repeated attempts to gain access to documents from the church, but these "requests for help were denied as the American Mormons closed ranks to protect the English branch of the church" (London Times, "Mormons jailed for child sex assaults, 11/27/1999). The beat goes on: In March of 2000, lawyers for the LDS Church and Raleigh General Hospital agreed to settle a $750 million lawsuit that accused the church and the hospital of failing to report a case of child sexual abuse. The settlement amount was not disclosed. In this case an LDS stake president who knew about the abuse conspired with other church officials, including the hospital administrator, to keep it secret. The LDS perpetrator worked for the administrator at the hospital (Deseret News, "LDS Church, hospital settle child-abuse case out of court, 3/29/2000). Much more: In 2001 the LDS Church was ordered to pay $3 million to settle an Oregon lawsuit that had accused its leaders of failing to protect members from pedophiles within the church." Sandra Scott called her former bishop to warn him that her son had been sexually abused; however, the bishop told her that he already knew that the perpetrator had a history of abuse (going back to the late1970s) but that he was repentant. "The allegations against the LDS Church in the Scott lawsuit were similar to claims made in past lawsuits, which have alleged church leaders have failed to warn victims' families or alert authorities to child abuse reports" (The Salt Lake Tribune, "LDS Church Settles Suit, Paying $3M, 9/5/2001, A1). The following year a child abuse victim identified only as A. Doe filed a lawsuit against the LDS Church claiming church leaders knew Mitchell Blake Young had sexually abused children for more than a decade when he began abusing Doe. Young had a long history of abusing children and was even sent home from his LDS mission after it was learned that he was molesting children in the Whitefish, Canada area. His activity was not reported to authorities (The Salt Lake Tribune, "Victim Sues LDS Church, Sex Abuser, July 2, 2002). If I even attempted to include all of the stats, and news reporst I'd be doing nothing else but trying to collect them for months... Women Stats: ... According to a recent report in the Deseret Morning News, Utah women are murdered by their male intimate partners at a clip 21 percent above the national average. Add to that Utah’s tragic distinction as the forcible rape capital of the nation. The National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center estimated in 2003 that 20.6 percent of Utah women had been victims of rape, more than in any other state. City Beat} - September 2, 2004 Shane Johnson http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/city_3_2004-09-02.cfm I have heard more than once, regarding the cult I was in, The Way International (TWI) that employers have said Wayers were the "nicest, most trustworthy" employees they've ever hired. Yet the leadership of this cult sexually abused wives of other leaders, and in the case of the original cult founder, Wierwille, rape of young girls was going on. All the while they were recruiting new members. All of this done in the name of God. Oh, and by the way, TWI called itself "the only true Christian organization." Seems like Wierwille and Smith have to duke that one out... If you think the Catholic church hid and covered sexual abuse by their clergy, they have NOTHING on the Mormon Church: According to one national estimate 4 percent of all churches have experienced an allegation of sexual abuse. And Utah is no exception, where Mormons account for about 70 percent of the population. The rate of such abuse remains consistent amongst Mormons, paralleling the rest of society. The Mormon Church established an educational program for its leaders regarding child sexual abuse in 1989. However, law enforcement authorities say that church leaders still often chose clergy confidentiality, rather than reporting sex offenders to the police. And Mormon leadership training has certainly not stopped the rise of lawsuits against the church, which claim that Mormon all-male lay clergy, often mishandle allegations concerning sexual abuse. The church has frequently chosen to pay plaintiffs quietly through settlements, rather than face them in court. One West Virginia family claiming sexual abuse, sued the Mormon Church for $750 million. Notes: This article was based upon Bringing Abuse to Light, Salt Lake Tribune, October 17, 1999 http://kosnoff.com/construction/ Bankruptcy: #1: Households Per Filing, Rank During the 12-Month Period Ending March 31, 2004 Utah 36.5 Rank 1 - the highest # of filings for any state Vermont 156.2 Rank 50th - (Alaska ranked 51st was lowest at 171) http://www.abiworld.org/statcharts/HouseRank.htm A group to be emulated? A Christian organization? An organization that espoused "family values." Hardly. When the facade is taken away, the evil comes to the light of day. When we peel away the facade that the Mormon Church has carefully spent millions perhaps billions on (members will never know because members will never be allowed to access any records of what the church spends of member's 'tithes' and offerings...), and there is evil. Evil is evil, no matter how dressed up it is. The Mormon Church is not Christian, it only ACTS like it is, and it is a very evil, horrible, oppressive organization. As Christians, we are called out to defend the }truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is our calling, it is a commandment to tell the truth of the gospel: Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. Jud 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jo 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. Jesus Christ can not be worshiped except in TRUTH. John 4:24 That is because Jesus Christ IS TRUTH: John 14:6 Mormonism lies about Christianity. Mormonism lies about the Bible. Mormonism lies about Jesus Christ. Mormonism is a cult, it is not Christian. In Christ alone I place my trust... 2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 144 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 147.72.101.2 |
CJV, I don't believe I've been clear either. I have difficulties with expose such as this book appears to be when it is directed at any group. I believe that it clouds the issues at hand and makes the it harder to convince the erring to see their errors. For the record, I believe that the Divinity of Jesus and belief in the Trinity are essential Christian beliefs. I do not believe this book will help Joesdad or Solopilot see that. If anything, it will further intrench them. In our present culture, those groups, whether Christian or not, that stand up for traditional values are being smeared. Exposes such as this book appears to be, can be used to paint ALL individuals who hold these values up as frauds, etc. (I remember hearing a person say that the Pope must be money hungry because Jim Baker was.) EGK | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 145 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 147.72.101.2 |
PS I have a friend, a Catholic who was raised in Utah. Her mother works for the city police department and has told her about the stat you sighted above. They are very disturbing; however, I don't see it as being very profitable using them in debating with Mormons. I remember hearing that White South African male Calvinists have very high suicide and abuse rates. I do not believe that these would help me prove that Calvinism is incorrect in some of its theological points. Or to put it in another context, some sociologists contend that male Mulsim are more consistent in living according to Islamic sexual morality than male Christians trying to live according to Christian sexual morality. I don't see that as reason to believe that Islamic sexual morality is more correct than Christian morality. EGK | ||
| x11 (x11) Junior Member Username: x11 Post Number: 42 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 208.186.103.20 |
egk, I dont think cjv has been trying to prove mormonism as false in any of her posts, mormonism was proved false over 2000 years ago when Christ established and fulfilled the truth. She has however brought many interesting facts to light here on factnet. Numbers and statistics are very informative in determining certain factors, and what is shown by the stats provided by cjv on this thread is that mormonism does'nt deliver on those pictures on TV we see of happy couples and families having pillow fights, and all the other propaganda we see them put out in their marketing ploys. The mormon church is selling happiness at a discounted rate of 10% of what ever you make in a lifetime and years of devoted service towards whatever they need done, useually recrueting new members. It would be more accurate if the mormon church put out a TV commercial that had a teenage boy with a gun to his head about to kill himself because he does'nt want to serve an lds mission but the pressure is way too much for someone of that age to properly deal with, or one where the young parents are in the court room filing bankruptcy because their church tells them to "procreate" and have many children then requires them to pay 10% in order to be eligeable for salvation and temple practices so they can no longer properly support their 15 children without filing bankruptcy. I would like to see any number of the different scenarios mentioned by cjv put into a lds commercial. The problem is that the mormon church would have the general public believe that their church is a cure all for everything, magic snake oil if you will. And when members look to the leaders of that religion for answers they always put the ball back in your court by saying it must be you who is not doing something right. While the numbers and statistics may not prove that a church is not true, they do not lie, and they do point to certain patterns of behaviuor found within certain groups or organizations | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 114 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.90 |
My hope is that people 'outside the mormon church', will read some of these posts. I believe people can make wise decisions only when they are informed, not when things are hidden and denied. I have read the life stories of many great men of many world-renowned religions. Their life stories do not lesson my desire to remain a christian. They enhance it. No one would/should be so naive to think that any 'religion' has members who are all above reproach. But when a church is 'obviously' not of Christ, Christians must speak to it. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 115 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.90 |
If I had not read a book about the things the mormon church hides, I would still be a member. Thanks be to God that now I, my children, and their children, worship the God of the Holy Bible. That's 10 christians in my family, that would have been lost. I consider that more than worth it. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 71 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
Thanks x11 and godchild. Well said. egk, I understand what you are saying as well -- the book Leaving the Saints by Martha Beck isn't going to "convert" Mormons out of the church. That's not why I posted that here. In fact, my aim was to post to the former Mormons because reading it I felt would be very much like a "been there done that" experience for them, especially in regard to what the author describes about the church and living amongst Mormons. My ministry however, as x11 indicated, is to 1) prevent others from making the same mistakes I did by getting lured into a cult. 2) tell the truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ. If by telling the truth of Jesus Christ's gospel some leave the Mormon Church (the Lord has been very merciful to show me that He has used me to do this sometimes), than Praises be to God! My aim however in this thread is always to tell the truth, and the truth is, the book I've talked about here is an eye opener no matter who you are -- Christian, Mormon, cult victim whatever. It's an insight into mind control group think -- and that was my purpose for mentioning it. Now that I'm further along -- the author is not a Christian -- she's "spiritual" as she distinguishes herself -- and I do not believe the book will lead someone who does not know Jesus to Him. However, I believe it would be a very interesting read for my brothers in sisters in Christ Jesus who have left the Mormon Church and who frequent this blog. That was all. The other course this thread apparently has taken is your point -- "conservative" or "family Value" groups are often attacked or unfairly depicted. I say -- you can't put the Mormon Church in that catagory unfortunately as their facade is one thing, the reality of the Mormon Church is quite another. In Christ alone I place my trust... 2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 310 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
CJV:I am astounded at the way you seem to speak of my Church and beliefs with authority, yet have been so lazy as to depend on second, third or unreliable accounts of those beliefs. You condemn me, what arrogance you show - your goal is to rubbish the Church, by whatever means you find easiest. In reality what you say is, fortunately, just an extremely biased and uneducated view of something you barely know of let alone have bothered to try to understand. I sincerely hope you put more effort in to your claimed testimony of Christ. | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 311 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
CJV:I am astounded at the way you seem to speak of my Church and beliefs with authority, yet have been so lazy as to depend on second or third hand or unreliable accounts of those beliefs. You condemn me, what arrogance you show - your goal is to rubbish the Church, by whatever means you find easiest. In reality what you say is, fortunately, just an extremely biased and uneducated view of something you barely know of let alone have bothered to try to understand. I sincerely hope you put more effort in to your claimed testimony of Christ. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Advanced Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 548 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.31 |
Joe: Don't be astounded at how they talk about the Church, when there is no proof to offer all they have to puff themselves is if all others are wrong. Notice how reluctant they are to claim any particular church as their own, though -- they know that whatever cult they attend can be proven false by other "good Christians," and as I noted elsewhere, they eat their wounded. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 76 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
joe,joe, joe... Now you wouldn't be trying to twist the truth here would you????? You're so "astounded" and yet you've asked me for my "credentials" before in another thread. Hmmmm...what are you trying to do here joe? You remember our talk, I'm sure. You said: Cjv YOUR misunderstanding of LDS doctrine is giving you a problem, before starting out to say what we believe, why not take the unusual step of finding it out from us first? If one of your sites said the Mormons believe the moon is made of cheese, then produces a document (so they say) showing the words cheese and moon in the same paragraph you believe them because you want to. No sense to this approach at all. I KNOW we don’t believe what you say about virgin birth, polytheism etc etc, you believe some persons CLAIM of what I believe – your blinkered attitude is astounding. Remember? You were "astounded" then too. Then I replied: BTW joesdad -- You said for me to "get my head out of the books" -- and then I could better know what it is you believe. Would you then say: The Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price The Book of Abraham Mormon Doctrine The Mysteries of Godliness/A History of Mormon Temple Worship (by David John Buerger) Achieving a Celestial Marriage Family Home Evenings Search These Commandments -- Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide Encyclopedia Of Mormonism can not tell me what it is that LDS believe? And this is just to name a few of the actual LDS documents/books I own. What will do a better job then? And shucks, you never gave me the courtesy of an answer! The link is below if you need to refresh your memory of the entire thread's discussion. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part... http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=151590#POST151590 While I've never claimed to be an expert, I do claim I can learn quite a bit about the Mormon Church through those materials mentioned above (and I didn't list all that I have or have used). So I can say with some authority, yeah, I can talk about the Mormon Church with a fair amount of knowledge of what I speak of. I became a student of the Mormon Church (if you will) when I found out that this organization is the only cult in history that has mainstreamed itself into American culture. I became really passionate about telling the truth about Mormonism when I found out the teachings attack my faith, the Bible and the God of the Bible. I'm particularly passionate about revealing all Christian cults for the evil entities that they are because I survived (barely) the trauma of being in a cult. Now I try to warn others about these organizations. It's one of the reasons I do what I do here on these blogs. The primary aim here is to tell the truth. Something you should consider joe ole boy.  In Christ alone I place my trust... Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Advanced Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 554 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.31 |
cjv: If you are such an "expert" on Mormonism, it should be easy for you to read Wally Martin's writings and pick out, say, 10 errors between what he says and what we believe or what we do. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 77 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
solopilot -- As to the "reluctance" to claim any church as "their [our] own." solo -- you don't really get it. No organization, no church -- by your definition -- can save a soul. Not a single organization. That would mean that we could then be saved by works, not grace. The word "church" to Biblical Christians means -- BODY OF BELIEVERS. It's not a BUILDING made by MEN of bricks and mortar. It's THE BODY OF CHRIST. It's ultimately from the Greek word: that I can't spell in Greek characters here which is defined: [thing] BELONGING TO THE LORD. Which later MEN applied the word as meaning a church building. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word meant "assembly" or "congregation" ESPECIALLY those "within the covenant." There are BILLIONS of my brothers and sisters in the Lord. There are billions who are members of my "church." They are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Calvinists, Greek Orthodox, Messianic Jews, Presbyterian, African Methodist, Association of Vineyard Churches, Lutheran,Episcopal, Russian Orthodox, and so many more I couldn't type the entire list here! See, we're not exclusive. As a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, my "church" is anywhere they teach the Bible is God's Holy Word and is irrefutable, there is only one God and we are saved by the blood of Jesus because of His grace and not by works. That's also why I can feel so comfortible with the other Christians here on this board even if we're from different "churches." I can be at home in any of those "churches" because unlike Mormonism, which disallows anyone into their Temple worship unless they are "faithful" Mormons -- I go to churches that don't exclude people or close doors in anyone's faces. Second of all -- my husband is career military. By virtue of the fact we always wanted to worship where other soldiers worshiped, we went to the military "generic" Protestant services, at the Army chapel most every place we were stationed. So I'd walk in with Baptists, be preached to by say a Methodist Chaplain and sing in the choir with Nazarenes and {SHARP INTAKE OF BREATH  } EVEN MORMONS!! Perish the thought! So now that we are in a civilian area, we have chosen a "Baptist" independent church. Not because we're Baptist, but because this church fit the criteria mentioned above among many other great things. For example -- I love the music ministry and what they present musically every Sunday service. My son likes the high school youth program they have. My husband likes the extremely intelligent Pastor and how he presents the message of the gospel. Stuff like that. But tomorrow I could go to my mother-in-law's church and feel as if I'm in a worship service because I'd be with OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST JESUS. I'd still be in "my church." An organization can not get you to Jesus. An organization is not GOD, an organization is just that -- organized worship. Nothing more. The Mormon organization is evil and leads members away from Christ Jesus. It is organized evil that brainwashes and controls its members. Just like the cult I was once in. So I say to anyone who might be stopping in and reading these posts -- if your search is for Jesus Christ, there is no way the Jesus of the Bible can be found in Mormonism. Seek Him in the Bible and other mainstream Christian organizations. If you want to know more about the Jesus who saved my life -- literally -- feel free to contact me through my web site: In Christ alone I place my trust... (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 165 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.15 |
God often meets our deepest need With help we gain from others. From caring members of His church-- Our sisters and our brothers.--D.De Haan Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.--Galatians 6:2 Solopilot, it wasn't that long ago that you were very ill. We prayed for you and were thanked for it. God saved you. Were our prayers to a god or God? I am sure members of the mormon church were praying for you also. That's not my point. We, as christians, pray for others and our prayers are answered. We pray for every person in need because God tells us by our prayers, he will do his work, and we are drawn ever closer to him. We don't ask first,'is that person a christian?' The point being, no matter what denomination, christians know we are all praying to the same God. "He is our strength and our salvation." | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 323 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
cjv: Once again I say you have no right to comment upon our faith as you are ignorant of it except for the stuff you choose to feed yourself on from site as corrupt and false as your own (I'm looking out for the ads for books by the way). How was I brainwashed?, I'm sure that if it is clear to such an expert on the topic as you, you can provide substantiated and scientific evidence of this. But you can't. You are a shining example of how corrupt Chritianity has become, because you are willing to accept any, and I mean ANY doctrine so long as it spews forth from an organisation you accept as Christian, whether they are or not. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Member Username: cjv Post Number: 84 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
joe, You're looking out for the ads for books by the way? Huh? Sorry, not following that one. Actually, I have every right because I'm telling the truth. You are the one who needs the proof. You've made the charge, now prove it. If I'm so ignorant, prove it. If my sources are corrupt, prove it. Take my posts, pick them apart and use LDS doctrine and the Bible to disprove what I've posted. Which might be a tad difficult since I quote from LDS sources, materials and so-called 'LDS prophets.' Prove what I write is wrong joe. I'll be waiting to read what you write. And as for the brainwashing? You believe that you're going to rule over your own planet earth someday with your numerous godess wives who will all remain eternally pregnant to populate the earth you rule somewhere in the universe with billions of other LDS gods and goddess neighbors and their planet earths somewhere in the system that's also near KOLOB? You believe you can do this by becoming "sealed" to a Mormon wife in a Masonic Temple Ceremony that the LDS like to call their own ceremony -- where you wear a Pillsbury dough boy white costume eqipped with an apron no less -- and do a bunch of crazy handshakes (that are identical to what Masons do in their Temple ritual BTW) and watch a movie? You think THIS will entitle you to becoming a god someday along with being a perfect Mormon -- oh and don't forget tithing, becasue you can't get to heaven unless you fork over 10% of all of your money. You believe doing all of these things above will get you your planet earth to rule over??? You believe that if you wear special underwear ALL THE TIME (sleeping, bathing etc.) you're going to be protected both spiritually AND physically from the devil -- retelling stories how other LDS who wore this special underwear were saved from physical calamity because they had this special underwear on. And you're trying to convince me and anyone else you're NOT brainwashed??? In Christ alone I place my trust... (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 346 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
cjv: You don't know the truth as you have failed to look for it - the truth is not the pile of flasehoods you have accumulated from others that choose to attack us - your descriptions of the Temple are childish fantasy - you are being lied to by your "friends" | ||
| cjv (cjv) Intermediate Member Username: cjv Post Number: 101 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
Oh, but I do know the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ joe -- the only truth a Christian needs. And joe -- you know I'm not having any childish fantasies about Mormons and their belief in turning into gods someday. I have The Mormon Doctrine of Deity by B.H. Roberts and other LDS materials that tell me all about these non-Christian beliefs. I go to the source joe, I go to the source. And not knowing the truth? That would be LDS. because LDS believe that the Book of Mormon is true (now talk about childish fantasy...) and that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Mormon Church is true. That's LDS testimony, your testimony joe. Since there is no mention of the Bible -- I believe you are the expert about not telling the truth and believing lies from "friends." Turn to the Bible -- that's the truth. Turn to the God of the Bible where you can find truth and His peace. It's not in the Book of Mormon or anything related to Mormonism and I'm sorry for you that you believe such things. In Christ alone I place my trust... | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 155 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.23.223.235 |
CJV, According to a review of "Leaving..." I read, Ms. Beck contends that her father made up many of the footnotes, references, he "quoted" to support Mormonism. Then the review claims this was told to her in a supermarket by an academic in a suite. Does she claim that Nibly fake some of his scholarship and does she have more support for it than an academic in a supermarket? EGK | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 368 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
egk: You may find a response to the claims made in the book, written by Martha's Brother-in-law useful: http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw200504.html | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 369 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
cjv: I note the lack of sustance there. I have asked several times now: Why have you chosen to attack Mormonism, specifically. It seems to me, and you have provided not one comment or shred of evidence to prove otherwise, that you have discovere that there are plentiful sources on the net and otherwise that will frely make claims about the Church, with no effort to substantiate what they say. It appears to me, that your laziness in researching my beliefs has led to down the easiest path - with no work or effort you slander beliefs of which you have only discovered biased and bigoted views - and it makes you feel good to attack others. Your beligerant and ignorant (i.e. your ignoraing the fact that what you THINK you know is quite wrong)defense of your web site makes this clear. | ||
| elysium (elysium) New member Username: elysium Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 67.169.233.152 |
Hey CJV...its your friend from California... As for this last point from Joesdad, i must say this; i have perused some of the points Carol has mentioned on a couple of these threads now, and i must say, your criticisms are quite unfounded. She and others here made a point about Young's Adam-god position (that is, the fact that he offically espoused it) then verified their statement with proper quotes and references (for example; "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-Day Saints in regard to one particular DOCTRINE which I revealed to them, and which GOD REVEALED TO ME - namely that Adam is our Father and God.." Deseret News, June 8, 1873). I am not, therefore, sure what you mean when you say "laziness in researching," as i rather think that the normal requirements in good research were met by the majority of statements (not all, admittedly). Myself, since this is an introductory posting, i would like to note that i am an ex-lds convert, and now am a convert and disciple of Christ in traditional, Orthodox Christianity. In the spirit of academic debate and honesty, i would like to hi to all, and pray that what is said here remains in the Spirit of what Christ would endorse, respective to discovering and denouncing heresies... | ||
| cjv (cjv) Intermediate Member Username: cjv Post Number: 105 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
YOU GO ELYSIUM!  Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. In Christ alone I place my trust... (Message edited by admin on June 09, 2005) | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 383 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
elysium: The question on the whole is who should know better what I believe, me or someone that has done no more than search out any negative comment about my church, and then when they find a comment they take out of context and make claims it says something I know it does not? Your friend has not been careful in what she has said or reproduced. Her attitude is clear, even if the whole of the LDS Church told her persoanlly that someting she has said is not correct, she would ignore this and rely upon purposefully biased misrepresentations - I do not trust her. As you know that we do not believe what she says we do - have you the honesty to correct your friend? | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 403 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
cjv: I note the lack of any denial from you that the prime reason you attack LDS is beacuse of the plentiful source material to use in your attacks, meaning you can wage such attacks with no effort on your part. Instead you pat your buddies' back for defending your indefenceable approach. | ||
| elysium (elysium) New member Username: elysium Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 67.174.155.13 |
Joesdad: The problem is simple...your refering to your current beliefs, those that you hold now, but CJV is not. When people like her and I bring up things like Young's Adam-God theology and such issues, we are making a very specific point. We are NOT saying that this is the current doctrine of the church, because on that score, you are right, that is no longer church doctrine...just like those who accuse the church of polygamy; their position is ludacris if they assert that the church currently condones polygamy, but again, that is not what i think we are doing here... Tell me, who was it that said "a prophet will never lead his people astray?" ("[T]he Latter-day Saints throughout Israel should understand that the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles are led and guided by the inspiration of the Lord, and the Lord will not permit me, nor any other man, to lead the people astray." (given October 25, 1891, Collected Discourses 2:281-282.)) The point behind bringing up Adam-God, which i am sure your sick to death hearing about, is that this is a blatantly false doctrine, as you yourself seem to admit, taught by probably the second best-known prophet of the church...to me, that smacks of a severe lack of divine inspiration... And please, i know that prophets, even the best of them, are human (Elijah wasnt infallible), but this is NOT the point; The Adam-God point is far too significant a doctrine to dismiss by "human fallability..." And since the LDS doctrine demands an unbroken chain of prophets to give authority to the present incarnation of the church, this one point damns the church in my eyes... You said, "As you know that we do not believe what she says we do - have you the honesty to correct your friend..." i know you dont believe these things now, but again, that isnt the point...have you the honesty to evaluate the implications of such erroneous doctrines on the present claims of authority that the church makes? | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 294 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.24 |
I also want to add something that is of great importance. If prophecies aren't 100% accurate, then that is a warning of false prophets. | ||
| cjv (cjv) Intermediate Member Username: cjv Post Number: 120 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.177.85.203 |
Elysium, Exactly -- thanks for making that point for me as well as you did. And notice when it gets down to really asking questions, and expecting answers there is a silence by LDS. When personal destruction tires them out, they move on because they will not answer to these types of questions. They'll just continually repeat "LIAR, LIAR, LIAR." Or attempt to discredit the former Mormons who come here and speak out, or even repeat charges like "You give misinformation." But will not back up this charge, even though they are presented with LDS MATERIALS to counter their baseless accusations. I remember...I once was just like they are now and it pains me to see it in others as it reflects back what I use to be. Lost in my own delusions and misguided, yet passionate beliefs. We can only pray and hope that the truth of the gospel will someday remove the scales from their eyes. godchild -- that's also what I've been trying to say over and over again on this LDS board -- If a prophet says something that isn't true or turns out to be untrue or ISN'T REVELATION ANY MORE -- as in -- B. Young getting who God is WRONG -- even though the LDS Church does not take a stand on that belief -- they should call Young a false prophet. But they won't, and therein lies the rub. The Bible is very, very clear on this. Prophets don't get it wrong, if they do, then they are not only wrong, they are FALSE. You've both made excellent points! In Christ alone... | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 443 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Elysium: What proof do you have that the the A-G theory was EVER doctrine accepted by the Church? The biggest problem that you, I or anyone has with what BY said was that we ASSUME that the comment was made independantly from any other, and that this was ALL he ever said about it. There are further THEORIES by members that may seem to explain the full meaning of his comment, but without asking BY himself we will never be sure what he meant. I myself have IDEAS that i have shared with a few friends regarding matters that seem to fall between the gaps so far as the knowledge we have been allowed to date. Now am I not allowed to speak of these things or should I have to couch them in such terms that will not allow someone seeking to make a point against me, to do so? It is clear that from many more quotes from BY that the claimed theory just DOES NOT fit in with what he believed about Adam or God, showing clearly that it is YOUR understanding that is at odds with his statement. 1 Corinthains 15:45-47: 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. Now say, BY was talking in the context of those verses (I don't know if he was or not) it certainly raises questions as to WHO he referred to as Adam doesn't it!! cjv: What silence? The only delsion is that you think you are right in what you think I believe - you talk of a Church with a set of beliefs that does not exist (in the way you put it al together with your assumptions you sources are correct, and true). GC: What prophecies do you KNOW are not true? | ||
| steelsword (steelsword) Intermediate Member Username: steelsword Post Number: 116 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 207.69.138.133 |
Reminding everyone history channel showing moutain meadows today at 5pm eastern time usa. | ||
| elysium (elysium) New member Username: elysium Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 24.23.3.71 |
Joesdad hello again; Let me preface this with thanking you for thoughtfully responding to my comments thus far; I am truly glad that our conversation has been so civil thus far... Let me also say that this will be a lengthy post (overly so, perhaps) And now, to answer some points; First, let me address the quote(s) from Corinthians... Let me address the Biblical verses themselves, then talk about Young's context; first, take a good long look at 1Cor chapter 15, and you'll see the point of the argument is the resurrection of the Dead, and thus the whole chapter needs to be viewed in this light. In fact, contextually, the Apostle is talking about the resurrection of the body, and the differences between the natural body (what we are born with), and the Spiritual body given at the resurrection (look at verses 42-3). As for the Adam-reference, it is no different from the language used in the Epistle to the Romans where Jesus was demonstrated to be Archetypal for Humanity (just as Adam, according to the ancient view of Original Sin, embodied the whole of Humanity in him as its legal head). BUT, I do understand what you are saying, that we don’t know where Young GOT his statements...and this is very true. But lets look at the WHOLE of what he said, and some recorded Church reactions, shall we? (The following is borrowed from Chris A. Ulachos' article in the Journal of Pastoral Practice, Volume III, Number 2, pages 93 through 119.) On April 9, 1852, Spring Conference that this subject first came up... At 6:00 on the evening of the ninth, Mormon Prophet and President Brigham Young began to address his brethren upon various subjects. He instructed them concerning the place recreation and amusements should occupy in their lives and concerning the principle of tithing. Then, after a moment's pause, the Mormon Prophet took up his next topic. The question was, Who begat Jesus Christ in the flesh? This was a hot issue. There had been no little dispute about it among the LDS Elders, and there were opposing views. As a Prophet and ` mouthpiece of God, Brigham Young stepped forward to silence all erroneous opinions and to declare with finality the true answer to the inquiry (1). First, he repeated the fundamental Mormon doctrine that the Father and Son each has a physical body of flesh and bones. Next, he set forth Mormonism's belief that God the Father in a pre-existent period, begot every spirit that would come to this earth. Then Brigham looked out over the vast audience and boldly commanded all of his hearers, whether near or far, Mormon or non-Mormon to take heed to his next statements: Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later (2). After declaring that Adam was the God of this world and the Father of its inhabitants, Brigham then addressed the original inquiry concerning the savior's birth: When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. he was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.... I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the whole truth as far as I have gone... What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven. Now let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea - "if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Treasure up these things in your hearts. In the Bible, you have read the things I told you tonight; but you have not known what you did read (3). Having made this response, Young concluded his comments with another reference to tithing. The Mormon choir then sang a hymn and Elder H. G. Sherwood gave the closing benediction. Few of the Latter-day Elders who filed out of the Tabernacle that night missed the meaning of what their prophet had just announced. Upon returning home that evening, Hosea Stout, the prominent Mormon pioneer, recorded the following in his daily journal: Friday 9th April 1852. - Stormy morning. attended conference House much crowded, did not stay in House long. after noon was not in because of the crowd. - Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body &c more hereafter (4). Samuel Rogers, who also was present that night, similarly noted the content of Brigham Young's discourse: April 16 1852, Conference commenced on the 6 and continued until the 11, it was held in the new tabernacle, adjourned until the 6 of next October we had the best Conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the earth, and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when we came to the Earth, and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of Father Adam...(5). It must be admitted that Brigham's statements in the 1852 discourse can be taken in more than one way. However, it again needs to be asserted that both Brigham's friends and his opponents had understood him to mean that Adam was God and was the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. He simply could have corrected the misinterpretation, but he didn't. Instead, 25 years after his original "Adam-God" sermon, we find that the Mormon "Revelator" continued to declare in no uncertain terms that Adam was the Lord God Almighty (6). During a discourse given on Sunday night, February 19, 1854, Brigham Young again addressed the question of who begot Jesus Christ in the flesh. Speaking of Christ, he asked: Who did beget him. His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he. He is Father Adam; Micheal; the Ancient of days. Has he a father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say the Son of God was begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say that the Holy Ghost is God the Father, which is inconsistent, and contrary to all the revelations of God both modern, and ancient. I silenced this erroneous doctrine a year ago last fall conference. It was I think when a dispute arose among some of our best Elders, as to who was the Father of the Son of Man pertaining to the flesh. Some contended it was the H Ghost, and some that it was Elohim. When I spoke upon it in this stand before a conference of Elders, I cautioned them when they laid their hands upon people for the gift of the H Ghost, according to the instructions of the Savior, to be very careful how they laid hands upon the young women for if it begat a child in the days of the virgin Mary it is just as liable to beget children in these last days (7). While Brigham in his discourse of 1852 may have been unclear, in this 1854 address there is no question about his meaning. Here Brigham distinctly names Adam as God the Father. Wilford Woodruff, Mormon Apostle and later Church President, had not doubt about what Brigham meant. Referring to this discourse under the date of ` February 19, 1854, in his journal, Woodruff recorded: He [Brigham Young] said that our God was Father Adam He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ - Our God was no more less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel (8). It should be noted that Brigham identifies Adam as the "Father of our spirits."One of Mormonism's fundamental doctrines is the belief that God the Father was married and that he and his celestial wife in a pre-existent period had begotten every spirit that would come to this earth. These spirits then enter into individual infants who are born physically upon the earth (9). By referring to Adam as the Father of our spirits, Brigham was clearly identifying him as the being whom Mormons address as "Heavenly Father". On June 26-28, 1854, a special General Council of the authorities of the LDS British Mission convened in London, England. The council minutes show that Brigham's doctrine of Adam being God was not readily received by some of the members there. After the introductory exercise, Mormon Elder Thomas Caffall rose to state the affairs of the Southern LDS conference. Among other things he reported the following: ...some of the officers have not met in council for three years. They are lacking faith on one principle - the last 'cat that was let out of the bag.' Polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud as vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles, and who has been a great help to the Saints; he as all the works and can get along very well with everything else but the last 'cat', and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a 'Mormon'. I instructed him to write Liverpool upon it (10). Elder Joseph Hall followed with a report of his district's progress. Despite the non-Biblical nature of the Adam-God doctrine, those in his area were willing to receive it as truth: Relative to the principles recently revealed, we have not the least difficulty. If Adam's being our Father and God cannot be proved by the Bible, it is alright (11). On the final day of the council Elder James A. Little rose and made the following remarks: I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it (12). Mission president Samuel W. Richards followed with a concluding exhortation concerning the Adam-God doctrine: Concerning the item of doctrine alluded t by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and God, I have to say do not trouble yourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter... If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, the prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. (13). References (1) Believing himself to be a prophet of God, Young declared that it was his gift and calling to teach true doctrine and to guard the members against heresy: What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I have ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p.127). It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the Church from error, it is my calling ("Misc. Minuets:, unpublished ms., B.Y. Collection, Church Archives). (2) Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1 , p.50. According to Mormon theology, Adam is Michael the archangel and the Ancient of Days, Cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 27:11. (3) Ibid., pp. 50-51. (4) Diary of Hosea Stout. Copied from typed transcript. B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, Provo, Utah. The spelling, grammar, and punctuation in this quotation as well as in all others cited herein have not been changed from the originals. (5) Journal of Samuel H. Rogers, Vol. 1, p. 179. Copied from the original located at B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, Provo, Utah. 6) In his thesis, Rodney Turner similarly discounts the possibility that Brigham was being misinterpreted: It is true that the original discourse of April 9, 1852, could be taken in more than one way; and if he had never mentioned the subject again, his actual meaning would be a moot point. However, he did mention the subject again, many times. Therefore the likelihood of misunderstanding him, in view of his subsequent statements through the years, becomes more remote (The Position of Adam, p.36). (7) Brigham Young Papers, Feb. 19, 1854, call number Ms. F219 #81, Church Historian's Office, Salt Lake City. (8) Copied from microfilm of journal located at B.Y.U. Library, Special Collections, Provo, Utah. (9) See Bruce R. McConkie, MORMON DOCTRINE, pp.516-517. (10) Millenial Star, Vol. 16, No. 31, August 5, 1854, p.482. (11) Ibid., p.483 (12) Ibid., Vol. 16, No. 34, August 26, 1854, p.530. (13) Ibid., pp.534-535. I do hope that perhaps overly lengthy response clears up what Young meant, and how the church took it...personally, I don’t think it matters where he got the idea from, except to say that it was NOT from God... Actually, you mentioned that you and your friends engage in speculation about religious matters, and I must say, I do that all the time as well (a friend and I were doing last night at a bible study!), but come now, your intelligent enough to realize that there is a vast difference between me and a friend talking about what the End Times might be like, and someone standing up at a conference where - unless I am VERY much mistaken - it is generally taken for granted that those speaking are speaking with God’s voice, and utter something so completely unbiblical that I still am in shock that such a thing was said…a HUGE difference. And as for Prophesy... Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Boiled down, it only takes one false prophecy to make a false prophet. Deuteronomy chapter 13 goes on to tell us that even false prophets will get some right from time to time – but ONE false prophecy is all it takes. Let’s apply the Biblical litmus test To Joseph, shall we? (By the way, I am borrowing the sources of these prophesies from others, so they might sound familiar, but the references are included for veracity) "Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world." (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1) This prophecy was made on April 17, 1838. David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and thus never went on a mission the following spring. How about another? "While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall damn them, and there shall be nothing left of them — not even a grease spot." (Millennial Star, Vol. 22, p. 455. See also History of the Church (HC), vol. 6, p. 116, though when this prediction was incorporated into the official history, Mormon Church leaders decided to leave out the "grease spot" part.) The petition was not heard nor was protection granted (Deseret News, Vol. 1, p. 59). Yet, Congress was never broken up and continues to function to this day. It is interesting that the compilers of History of the Church, added an editorial note in an attempt to soften or explain this prophecy. They state that: "This prediction doubtless has reference to the party in power; to the ‘government’ considered as the administration;" (note, p. 116). According to the note in HC, this means the Democratic Party, which was in control at the time. However, the prediction is that "Congress shall be broken up as a government" and Congress is made up of representatives from both parties. The Saints were making an appeal to the General Government, not to the Democratic Party, a point made by a summary statement in the left margin beside this prophecy as it is recorded in HC. And Another... This prophecy comes directly from Doctrine & Covenants Section 84, the introduction of which states: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1:286-295. 1. A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. 2. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4. Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. The Mormons were forced to flee Missouri due to persecution and a temple was never built on the "temple lot" in the lifetime of Joseph Smith or within the generation of his contemporaries. Are these enough to at least begin to make our point? Look, I know that sometimes things are said that are difficult to understand, and this is true of our religious leaders, but come now…some of these things just blatantly didn’t come true…that should give any faithful LDS person SOME pause… I think that covers everything; And I hope that everything I have said will be read in the spirit in which it is written. There is this sad stereotype that those who have left the church are somehow vitriolic in attacking it, but I have nothing but concern and love for those still in the church. I want everyone in the Church to come to a biblical understanding of Christ, and have a relationship founded upon who He really is. I guess that, in this respect, I am an enemy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but please, know that my concern is for your salvation… With much love, Elysium | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 470 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Elysium: Thanks for your response. I do not intend to make any comment upon the verses in Corinthians as these were given as an example and not proof, and to do so would take us away form the subject at hand. There remains two principle topics upon which you comment 1) Brigham Young’s comments about Adam, and 2) your comments regarding the standards required of a prophet. I intend to deal with these in reverse order for reasons that will become clear. May I quote a few verses from the New Testament? Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Please tell me who made these prophecies, and when they were fulfilled. As you say it takes just ONE false prophecy to make Him false. I do not necessarily agree with you on that point! What you do is to place upon a Prophets words your own reasoning and understanding – you may choose to do this, but you have no right to expect the word of God to conform to your expectations. That is simply showing a lack of faith. To expect that those men called as Prophets of God are inerrant is plainly a false requirement introduced only to attempt to prove questionable or plainly wrong assertions by those attacking the Prophets ( a principle that applies equally to ancient as to modern Prophets). Why bother with what I say about this, what about the opinion of a Prophet of God. Joseph Fielding Smith who said: "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.... You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it. If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4). As ANY claim that Adam is God, our Eternal Father has no scriptural support, has never been presented to the Church for a sustaining vote and has NEVER been accepted by the Church as doctrine, as a member of the Church I must reject such ideas. Now of course on to what Mr. Ulachos says: Firstly, is will be good to remember that he did not write this article for any other reason than to attempt to “expose” Brigham Young as a false Prophet and restate the false accusation that the Church has believed that Adam is God. In that context one must of course identify those parts of what he says that are purely made up of his opinion or speculative. He very cleverly sets the scene for his revelation about the 1852. The first 2 paragraphs are very descriptive, and when looking to the footnote 1 expecting to the see the account of the meeting this was taken from, there is no such account referred to, and I assume the setting is elaborated from the writers own view of the events (which of course he did not attend!). The third paragraph, contains more description with not one claim that any of it accurately gives account of the proceedings. All so far has been a manipulation of the reader. Why has the writer, who obviously has access to records of the event, chosen to use his own words rather than leave the quotes in the context they were recorded? (I wonder!) The writer then craftily separates the only 2 quotes he uses from Brigham with a comment that obviously does not reflect what Brigham himself said . The two quotes were close together in the document (being on the same page). If it was so clear as to what he said – why split them with another manipulative comment, why not just reproduce the statements I between? I will refer to the second quote from Brigham first. On my first reading of this, it is clear that the topic being dealt with is that of the parent of Jesus being God, and not the Holy Ghost as is commonly believed. LDS scripture indicates that god did indeed walk in the Garden of Eden with Adam – hence, He, God being “.. the same character that was in the Garden of Eden …”. The writer says that “Few of the Latter-day Elders who filed out of the Tabernacle that night missed the meaning of what their prophet had just announced.” Yet amazingly, from what I imagine were many hundreds of Journal entries made by the vast crowd in attendance, he is able to produce just TWO that indicate they understood Brighams words in this way!. Neither of them by the way an Apostle, or other then current Church leader. WHERE ARE ALL THE OTHER ACCOUNTS, if “FEW” of them failed to understand the meaning – how do you explain this singular inability to show that this was the consensus of understanding amongst the saints attending, or in fact in general? His (the writers) assertion has no basis whatsoever – and completely fails to explain why this was still a matter that had not been made accepted doctrine between the first and second events. He totally overlooks the fact that is was so far from being accepted doctrine that it was still a matter of conversation that needed commenting on by Brigham. The writers attempt to use the comments of others to “prove” it was accepted by members, but they are so suggestive of the writers of them NOT being accepting of the doctrine that he shows that the doctrine was not in accordance with LDS beliefs. Then to the second quote from Brigham. If this is in fact what he said, I cannot see or understand why he said it, as it does not fall in with all of the other comments he has made about Adam. The comment on it’s own in no way shows that this was LDS or even Brigham doctrine, and as I have said before, we do not benefit from being able to ask him to explain his comment. (though again, I find it incredible that that no evidence of Brigham having been examined on this point has been produced – did no one ever ask him?). I want to use the words of the Prophet I quote above in regards to what Brigham actually taught and believed about our Father Adam: The statement by President Brigham Young that the Father is the first of the human family is easily explained. But the expression that he was the same character that was in the Garden of Eden has led to misunderstanding because of the implication which our enemies place upon it that it had reference to Adam. Unfortunately President Brigham Young is not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear. Under the circumstances we must refer to other expressions by President Brigham Young in order to ascertain exactly what his views really were in relation to God, Adam, and Jesus Christ. GOD: FIRST OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. Let me comment first upon the expression that God is the "first of the human family." This same doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the teachings of Joseph Smith, he beheld the Father and the Son in his glorious vision, and he taught that each had a body of flesh and bones. He has expressed it in these words: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." He also taught that, literally, God is our Father; that men are of the same race -- the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race. "In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God." It is a doctrine common to the Latter-day Saints, that God, the Great Elohim, is the First, or Creator, of the human family. THE FATHER WAS WITH ADAM IN EDEN. In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, it should be perfectly clear that President Young was not referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden; and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him, and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the fall, that the Father departed from Adam and no longer visited him in the Garden of Eden. Surely we must give President Brigham Young credit for at least ordinary intelligence, and in stating this I place it mildly. If he meant to convey the thought that the character who was in the Garden of Eden, "and who is our Father in Heaven," was Adam, then it would mean that this expression was in conflict with all else that he taught concerning God the Father, and I am bold to say that President Brigham Young was not inconsistent in his teaching of this doctrine. The very expression in question, "the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven," contradicts the thought that he meant Adam. BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ABOUT ADAM. Now let me present one or two expressions in other discourses by President Young -- of course, the critics never think of referring to these: "How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." "How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world." "The human family are formed after the image of our Father and God. After the earth was organized the Lord placed his children upon it, gave them possession of it, and told them that is was their home. . . . Then Satan steps in and overcomes them through the weakness there was in the children of the Father when they were sent to the earth, and sin was brought in, and thus we are subject to sin." "Our Lord Jesus Christ -- the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [that is Adam and Eve]." "The Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, who came in the meridian of time, performed his work, suffered the penalty and paid the debt of man's original sin by offering up himself, [they believe he] was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to his Father; and as Jesus descended below all things, so he will ascend above all things." It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam died and that Jesus Christ redeemed him. He taught that Adam disobeyed the commandment of the Father, or God, and was driven from the Garden Of Eden. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and also that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression.... I believe that the manipulation of a dead mans words is all that has been achieved by those who pretend that this great leader taught a principle that just does not accord with scripture, or anything else he himself said about Adam. The real question is why those, including you, who pretend that Brigham taught this principle clearly fail over and over again to make ANY mention of what else he said about Adam, to put it all I it’s proper context? I have no problem with anyone havnig concern for me, in fact I appreciate it. However when this concern is used ( and I in no way mean you persoanlly) as a cloak for carelessly misrepresenting what I believe - then of course such claims are shallow and without substance. | ||
| elysium (elysium) New member Username: elysium Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 24.23.3.71 |
Joesdad… I must, I am afraid, take issue with several of the points that you made. First, I take offense at the suggestion that Jesus made a False Prophecy! And lets be completely clear here, that is exactly what you did. You used Christ’s words, insinuating them to be a false prophecy, to prove that one false prophecy doesn’t invalidate the prophet. How could any man, who claims (and I say claims only because I know no other man’s heart) to be the servant of the Lord Jesus Christ even imply that He made a false prophecy?! But you asked about them, let me answer them (and, lol, speaking of taking words out of context); lets see, just what was Jesus talking about? Well, lets look at the question His disciples asked Him, shall we? The disciples asked Him a very direct question; Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" They couldn’t have been clearer; they were asking about the End, and Jesus waxes philosophic about the whole thing for the next twenty or so verses. Now, interestingly enough, Jesus talks about the End, in answer to their question, and talks about what will happen IN THE END! Jesus talks about the signs and such that those IN THE END will see, as portending the END! (Notice how I am emphasizing the end?) Jesus, when He said “this generation,” was referring to the very same generation He was talking about, those that will see the signs He was just talking about! Hardly a false prophecy…and I pray, sincererly pray for the sake of your soul that you don’t honestly think that Our Lord EVER made a false prophecy… Actually, I am just addressing the specific quote you gave; there is a world of information in what He said, so please, understand my response is narrow because your point was specific. Secondly, however, I take offense at even a slight comparison between Our God, and Brigham Young, however indirectly stated. Also, you went on in detail about how disingenuous it was of Mr. Ulachos to present unrecorded details in his article (the narrative at the beginning); lol, on behalf of Mr. Ulachos, I apologize for his presenting HARMLESS and inconsequential, atmosphere-giving narrative PRIOR to launching into the meat of the article… But none of those discredits the ample, and impressive references he used to make his point; and, please, don’t talk about academic honesty, when you say things like “Yet amazingly, from what I imagine were many hundreds of Journal entries made by the vast crowd in attendance, he is able to produce just TWO that indicate they understood Brighams words in this way!. Neither of them by the way an Apostle, or other then current Church leader. WHERE ARE ALL THE OTHER ACCOUNTS, if “FEW” of them failed to understand the meaning – how do you explain this singular inability to show that this was the consensus of understanding amongst the saints attending, or in fact in general?” I am sorry, but you attack Mr. Ulachos for only providing TWO references, when you are content with saying “from what I imagine was many hundreds of journal entries!” If you would like to refute Mr. Ulachos, the onus is now on you to present a number of journal entries that contradict the ones he presented, not PRESUME that such contradictory entries exist! Thirdly, you wrote that I “What you do is to place upon a Prophets words your own reasoning and understanding – you may choose to do this, but you have no right to expect the word of God to conform to your expectations. That is simply showing a lack of faith.” That is a very interesting argument; and completely frightening. Let me explain; God said, “come, let us reason together” (Is. 1.18), and He did give us a strong faculty of reason, and I think it would absurd to ignore it; the problem comes when we put our trust in it so completely that we ignore Faith…but Christ NEVER called us to a blind Faith! Before I go on, I want to re-emphasize this point. Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Interesting, no? The Gospel stories are recorded why? So that we may believe…we are given evidence (not proof, but evidence) to believe… Back to the point; if I call myself a prophet, and make a claim, we should be able to look at the statement, and apply a rational method of interpretation to it, and say it means thus. You shouldn’t have to give me the benefit of the doubt, or anything of the sort, if I make a statement in error. This same standard should apply to Mr. Young as well. And I have NO expectations of the Word conforming to me, but I believe that we should expect, if only because it is in God’s nature, to not give us anything so confusing or absurd that we have to take it blindly…When our Savior was resurrected, did he not appear to so many witnesses? Did he not allow Thomas to touch his wounds? Did He not eat with His disciples? He gave them direct evidence, and let them choose…I take Brigham’s words at their face value, and I see them thusly to be blasphemous. Now, you keep making the same point, so let me address it; you keep trying to discredit those who say things against the church as “merely trying to discredit it” (a paraphrasing of your words). This is say, so what? Of course they are trying to discredit the church, for the church stands in opposition of Orthodox Christianity! A man, in discussing an idea, either endorses or denies said idea…if you were to declare those that use ACTUAL, FACTUAL, and HISTORICAL points (such as direct quotes) against the church are biased against it, and therefore shouldn’t be taken seriously, should you not, in all honesty, make the exact same claim about those who SUPPORT the church? You wrote “To expect that those men called as Prophets of God are inerrant is plainly a false requirement introduced only to attempt to prove questionable or plainly wrong assertions by those attacking the Prophets (a principle that applies equally to ancient as to modern Prophets” Actually, no: it’s a BIBLICAL requirement, even as the verse I referenced, which was not responded to, so emphatically state. Let me give that reference one more time, just in case you missed it; its Deut 18:22. Actually, Deut 13:1-3 talks about False Prophets too, saying that such prophets can occasionally predict the future, but if they say, “come, let us worship other gods,” then they are not from God, even with their skills at divination. Now, isn’t that interesting? Now, I am not insinuating that the LDS church worships “other Gods,” but it does demonstrate an interesting principle for us; either a man advocates the RIGHT God (and that, to me, would include whether or not there is ONE God, or several…and no, there is a HUGE difference in the Trinity and the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, which, if you like, I can readily demonstrate) or he is false… You wrote, “Why bother with what I say about this, what about the opinion of a Prophet of God. Joseph Fielding Smith who said: "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.... You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it. If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4).” Again, NO! Don’t you see the irony in this? I provided you with a bible quote(!) demonstrating that a prophet is either completely accurate or is not from God, and you provide a quote from a man claiming to be a prophet who flatly contradicts that biblical standard! (By saying that anything written contradictory to scriptures should be rejected, but not the prophet himself) This isn’t proof of anything, except that Mr. Smith contradicted the Word… You wrote, “As ANY claim that Adam is God, our Eternal Father has no scriptural support, has never been presented to the Church for a sustaining vote and has NEVER been accepted by the Church as doctrine, as a member of the Church I must reject such ideas.” I am glad that you see the error in this doctrine, but I still think you miss the point; the biblical standard for a prophet is inerrancy in revelation, and if Brigham said something, authoritatively, that was erroneous, then he is not a prophet, regardless if the church of his day had the common sense enough to deny such a doctrine…those that rejected the doctrine, if there were such, should have rejected the prophet as well. You wrote, referencing the major Adam-God claim of Brigham, “If this is in fact what he said, I cannot see or understand why he said it, as it does not fall in with all of the other comments he has made about Adam.” To this I respond, so what? Brigham is a man, and completely convinced of his own status as a prophet; and this is a church built upon revelation from its leaders (for example, Baptism from the Dead, a hugely important ordinance in the LDS view, isn’t even mentioned in the BOM, which, supposedly, contains the “fullness of the Gospel,” and is the “truest book ever written”…). I have no problem if someone asserted that Brigham thought he received revelation and said what he thought, even if this ‘revelation’ contradicted his previous musings… Lol, have you noticed that I have been using the word ‘authoritatively’ lately? Mr. Ulachos provided you with a quote from Brigham stating that he taught that Adam was God, given at a SPRING CONFERENCE! Not a backroom musing that some overheard and carried too far, not something said in passing in a Sunday school class, but on a pulpit, at a conference, speaking as Prophet…hence authoritatively…I beg you, please tell me, when, and in what capacity, did Brigham give the quotes you provided? I think that is everything, but, lol, knowing me I missed a point or two…if this is so, I apologize, and I do hope that this is read in anything but a hostile tone, even though, admittedly, the insinuation that my God made a false prophecy did irritate me. With love, Elysium | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Intermediate Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 475 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
Elysium: I am now off for the weekend - and the whole of next week for some really deserved time off. I don't have time to reply in full to what you say - but just one note - if you had really read what I said in the spirit that it was written and the words written - you can plainly see that I do not consider Christ a false Prophet - but you on the other hand, thoughtlessly think you are able to define Gods desires as your own, and in so doing blaspheme. Take some time to THINK rather than just react. TTFN | ||
| elysium (elysium) New member Username: elysium Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 24.23.3.71 |
Joesdad, Please, enjoy your time off...and i look forward to speaking with you when you get back... Forgive me if i misrepresented what you said, but i did think...let me tell you what i saw... I made the point, in the previous post, that a prophet needs to be completely accurate in revelation. That was one of the major themes in said post; you wrote that you wanted to deal with Brigham's comments and the standards of prophet-hood, and wanted to deal with the standards issue first... Then, right after than, you referenced Jesus' words, and asked me who said it, and when were those fulfilled. Now, if you wanted to say that some prophecies need time to be born out, or something to that effect, i would say okay (but then would ask you to apply that idea to Smith's prophecies), but you ddint go there... after quoting Christ, you say that the standard for a prophet is not innerancy... forgive me, but how else was i supposed to take your quoting God? Perhaps it was just the way you set it up, or perhaps you forgot a transition statement in there, but that is the apparent way in reading what you said... Tell me, what is your definition of 'interpretation?" If i read God's Word, and i think it means thing A, then i go and ask questions about it, and research it, and everything i come across, including the historical arguments endorse A, can i not rest easy? You said that i am thinking that i can "define God's deires as my own..." tell me, what "desires" am I misrepresenting? I had no problem with the Church...i stood my ground everytime someone criticised me, everytime someone argued against it, but when i read, researched, looked at everything i could on the subject, i saw it to be contradictory to the scriptures, which i cannot conscience...but please, if i am misrepresenting something, correct me please... | ||
| godchild (godchild) Intermediate Member Username: godchild Post Number: 308 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.237.114.61 |
Elysium, nice try with jd, and good luck in the future. We have been over and over these same points with him and other mormons here. He has been decidedly brainwashed, so much so he cannot visualize a God who is not a man, who does not have flesh and bones (and what would the purpose of that be other than procreation), who alone has created everything, who alone will always be All. A God whose definition is Love. These ideas are so foreign to mormons. It is as if they were going to school and were suddenly stunted by freezing their minds, eyes, and souls in place. |
