Is the Mormon God/Heavenly Father described in the Bible?

[Janderich]

Think of it this way:

A man states that important parts of the Bible have been interpreted incorrectly. The only proof that he offers is that he has been told so by God.

… The fact that he has gained a following in no way changes the central point that he made fundamental changes that contradict … with the stated purpose of discrediting all other established Christian Creeds … based only on his personal experience … and his word alone.

Can you see how that position is one that is questionable to a person looking at it from a distance?

1voice,
Joseph Smith never stated that his purpose was to discredit other religions. I’m not sure where you get this idea. If he stated such a thing please give me the statement. His purpose was to follow God and find truth. God asked him to begin translating the Bible so he did.

Please do not misunderstand where Joseph is coming from. Here are his words,

One of the grand fundamental principles of “Mormonism” is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may…

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 313, 314)

 

[pablope]

1voice,

Joseph Smith never stated that his purpose was to discredit other religions. I’m not sure where you get this idea. If he stated such a thing please give me the statement.

 

[TexanKnight]

1voice,
Joseph Smith never stated that his purpose was to discredit other religions. I’m not sure where you get this idea. If he stated such a thing please give me the statement. His purpose was to follow God and find truth. God asked him to begin translating the Bible so he did.

Please do not misunderstand where Joseph is coming from. Here are his words,

Yes…where was he coming from?

From Joseph Smith:

These are all from History of the Church, Vol. 6

“I combat the errors of the ages;…I solve mathemtatical problems of universities, with truth–diamond truth; and God is my right hand man.” [1843]

“God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be a god to you in His stead.” [1844]

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had…I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.” [1844]

From Joseph Smith:

Joseph Smith boasted that he was greater than Jesus Christ!!

Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

 

[1voice]

1voice,
Joseph Smith never stated that his purpose was to discredit other religions.

John Taylor, a close associate of Joseph Smith (seriously wounded in the episode when Smith was killed) and Brigham Young. He was third President of the LDS Church.

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
…John Taylor

“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, 1863, p. 127).
…John Taylor

 

[Janderich]

John Taylor, a close associate of Joseph Smith (seriously wounded in the episode when Smith was killed) and Brigham Young. He was third President of the LDS Church.

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense… Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
…John Taylor

“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, 1863, p. 127).
…John Taylor

1voice,
No doubt by digging through various discourses you may find some authorities who state that other religions are corrupt. I would guess that I could do the same for any number of religions. I have never claimed we belive otherwise.

The problem I had with your previous statement is your mis-characterization that Joseph Smith’s stated aim was to discredit other religions. Since you quoted John Taylor on a different topic and not Joseph Smith I would assume you have not found anything verifying your statement. It is fine if you disagree with our beliefs. But people should understand where Joseph Smith is coming from. He believed he saw the Father and the Son. That they spoke to him and told him all religions were corrupt. He sought to testify of the truth as it had been revealed to him. He did not spend his time trying to discredit other religions.

Here is how he saw it,

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." (Joseph Smith History 1:25)

 

[TexanKnight]

1voice,
No doubt by digging through various discourses you may find some authorities who state that other religions are corrupt. I would guess that I could do the same for any number of religions. I have never claimed we belive otherwise.

The problem I had with your previous statement is your mis-characterization that Joseph Smith’s stated aim was to discredit other religions. Since you quoted John Taylor on a different topic and not Joseph Smith I would assume you have not found anything verifying your statement. It is fine if you disagree with our beliefs. But people should understand where Joseph Smith is coming from. He believed he saw the Father and the Son. That they spoke to him and told him all religions were corrupt. He sought to testify of the truth as it had been revealed to him. He did not spend his time trying to discredit other religions.

Here is how he saw it,

of course, that all depends on which of his plethora versions of the vision you believe. I love a “prophet” who makes his visions and prophesies multiple choice

 

[1voice]

1voice,
No doubt by digging through various discourses you may find some authorities who state that other religions are corrupt. I would guess that I could do the same for any number of religions. I have never claimed we belive otherwise.

The problem I had with your previous statement is your mis-characterization that Joseph Smith’s stated aim was to discredit other religions. Since you quoted John Taylor on a different topic and not Joseph Smith I would assume you have not found anything verifying your statement. It is fine if you disagree with our beliefs. But people should understand where Joseph Smith is coming from. He believed he saw the Father and the Son. That they spoke to him and told him all religions were corrupt. He sought to testify of the truth as it had been revealed to him. He did not spend his time trying to discredit other religions.

Part of what is so confusing is the fact that you are able to deny the foundational teachings of your leaders as being incorrect and disconnected from Joseph Smith, when they contradict your paradigm.

John Taylor was one of Joseph Smith’s closest associates. The Presidency of the LDS Church was given to him after Brigham Young. Your response seems to imply that John Taylor’s teachings on the LDS view of Christianity are not in any way tied to Joseph Smith. John Taylor said that he and hundreds of the Elders around him (many of whom would have been Joseph Smith’s contemporaries … or mentored by them) held to the words that he taught.

 

[SteveVH]

Priesthood is another important piece. From before the creation of the world priesthood was held. It was given to Adam and passed down to the present day.

Janderich, in my many disussions with Mormons, this seems to be “all-important” in justifying the Mormon religion. I have been told that, with the “Great Apostasy” that all truth was not lost, but what is important is that “priesthood authority” was lost. This seems to be the real basis upon which the LDS church stands.

Awhile back, in another thread, a very knowledgable poster, “Soren1” addressed this issue on the following basis. He gave the following quote from Jeremiah 33:17-22:

"For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me."

The point he was making was that the removal of priesthood authority subsequent to Christ’s incarnation is very clearly denied in scripture on the basis of a divine covenant.
This was not just a covenant with Israel, but rather a covenant of the Father and the Son. While man can and does break God’s covenants, the covenant between the Father and the Son can neither be broken or altered in any way.

The continuance of the priesthood is guarantied as a fulfillment of the Levitical covenant, a term of the covenant with David. Soren1 points out that “three of the five covenants God makes in the Old Testament are invoked here, so that God basically invests his entire credibility as a covenant-maker on the perpetuity of the priesthood in Zion, effective upon the coming of the messiah.” He continues by saying that “It would require a break in the relationship of the Father and Son - a dissolution of the godhead - to remove the priesthood from the earth.”

I was just wondering if you had a response to this argument as no Mormon seemed to want to touch it when it was made before. If the priesthood, due to a covenant between the Father and the Son, could never have left the earth, what does this say about the Mormon claims that it did leave the earth?

Thanks.

 

[Janderich]

Janderich, in my many discussions with Mormons, this seems to be “all-important” in justifying the Mormon religion. I have been told that, with the “Great Apostasy” that all truth was not lost, but what is important is that “priesthood authority” was lost. This seems to be the real basis upon which the LDS church stands.

SteveVH, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not stand on trying to prove that priesthood authority was lost. We take it as fact that it was lost based on what happened to Joseph Smith. When he was 14 and first went to pray he considered joining the Methodist church and wanted to know which church was right. He plainly states that he had never considered that all churches were wrong. He is told to join none of them.

Then while translating the BofM he and Oliver Cowdery find mention of baptism. In the midst of praying about baptism an angel comes down and tells them he is John the Baptist and is acting under the direction of Peter, James and John. He gives them the Aaronic Priesthood and promises that Peter, James and John will later give them the Melchizedek Priesthood. Why would the priesthood have to be restored by John the Baptist if it remained intact on the earth? Do you see that a protracted discussion about the meaning of a scripture in Jeremiah is a moot point?

 

[RebeccaJ]

SteveVH, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not stand on trying to prove that priesthood authority was lost. We take it as fact that it was lost based on what happened to Joseph Smith. When he was 14 and first went to pray he considered joining the Methodist church and wanted to know which church was right. He plainly states that he had never considered that all churches were wrong. He is told to join none of them.

Then while translating the BofM he and Oliver Cowdery find mention of baptism. In the midst of praying about baptism an angel comes down and tells them he is John the Baptist and is acting under the direction of Peter, James and John. He gives them the Aaronic Priesthood and promises that Peter, James and John will later give them the Melchizedek Priesthood. Why would the priesthood have to be restored by John the Baptist if it remained intact on the earth? Do you see that a protracted discussion about the meaning of a scripture in Jeremiah is a moot point?

Why not respond to SteveVH post? Testimony bearing with Jeremiah being a moot point? What?

 

[Jay53]

SteveVH, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not stand on trying to prove that priesthood authority was lost. We take it as fact that it was lost based on what happened to Joseph Smith. When he was 14 and first went to pray he considered joining the Methodist church and wanted to know which church was right. He plainly states that he had never considered that all churches were wrong. He is told to join none of them.

Then while translating the BofM he and Oliver Cowdery find mention of baptism. In the midst of praying about baptism an angel comes down and tells them he is John the Baptist and is acting under the direction of Peter, James and John. He gives them the Aaronic Priesthood and promises that Peter, James and John will later give them the Melchizedek Priesthood. Why would the priesthood have to be restored by John the Baptist if it remained intact on the earth? Do you see that a protracted discussion about the meaning of a scripture in Jeremiah is a moot point?

This makes it sound like you believe that Joseph Smith’s “vision” trumps Scripture.

 

[Janderich]

This makes it sound like you believe that Joseph Smith’s “vision” trumps Scripture.

The conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood by John to Joseph is modern day scripture. The words of John the Baptist are found in the Doctrine and Covenants section 13:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are all scripture to us.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not stand on trying to prove that priesthood authority was lost. We take it as fact that it was lost based on what happened to Joseph Smith. When he was 14 and first went to pray he considered joining the Methodist church and wanted to know which church was right. He plainly states that he had never considered that all churches were wrong. He is told to join none of them.

Then while translating the BofM he and Oliver Cowdery find mention of baptism. In the midst of praying about baptism an angel comes down and tells them he is John the Baptist and is acting under the direction of Peter, James and John. He gives them the Aaronic Priesthood and promises that Peter, James and John will later give them the Melchizedek Priesthood. Why would the priesthood have to be restored by John the Baptist if it remained intact on the earth? Do you see that a protracted discussion about the meaning of a scripture in Jeremiah is a moot point?

Janderich,

I was really hoping that you had more than this on which to stand. It makes sense that you would not try to prove that priesthood authority was lost, simply because you cannot. I can only reiterate what others have said in response to the above post. Objectively, you have two choices. You can either believe Jeremiah, or you can believe Joseph Smith. You cannot believe both at the same time. This seems to be a trait very unique to Mormonism; the ability to hold two condradicting beliefs simultaneously. Does rational thought not play any part in your belief system? Really, think about this. Your current position is blatantly intellectually dishonest. My hope is that, in the quiet of the night, you will seriously ponder what you have said here in light of the evidence.

I will pray for you.

Steve

 

[Tony888]

The point he was making was that the removal of priesthood authority subsequent to Christ’s incarnation is very clearly denied in scripture on the basis of a divine covenant.
This was not just a covenant with Israel, but rather a covenant of the Father and the Son. While man can and does break God’s covenants, the covenant between the Father and the Son can neither be broken or altered in any way.

.

Steve, accepted bible commentary contradicts your claim. Jeremiah contradicted himself.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Read literally, these verses promise the permanent restoration of the Davidic throne and (of the Levitical priesthood. As a matter of fact Zedekiah was the last king of David’s line, and the Levitical priest-hood has long passed away. Both these changes Jeremiah himself foretold Jeremiah 22:30; Jeremiah 3:16.

 

[rdscheirer]

As I’ve said before a guy finds a “Golden Book” which is translated by a mysterious angel to found a “religion” - similar to the guy who sat in the cave and had Gabriel tell him that he was the one.

 

[Jay53]

The conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood by John to Joseph is modern day scripture. The words of John the Baptist are found in the Doctrine and Covenants section 13:

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are all scripture to us.

But you have to believe Joseph Smith and his contradiction of previous scripture in the first place in order to consider the Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP as scripture to begin with! :ehh:

 

[ParkerD]

To SteveVH or Jay53 or general readers,

Jeremiah 33:14 and 15 talks specifically about “in those days, at that time”, when “Jerusalem shall dwell safely”, which still hasn’t happened, but will unquestionably happen during the Millennium, in fulfillment of Isaiah 11.

In those days will be the fulfillment of the reuniting of Judah and Israel (the literal descendants of the house of Israel, including the descendants of Levi who will no doubt be appointed righteous priests) to live in peace together as one nation with Christ (the promised David) as their King. Then Jeremiah 33:18 will be literally fulfilled.

Verse 26 (that is, the covenant that there will be literal seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who will be “rulers” among their descendants) will also be literally fulfilled “in those days” “when Jerusalem shall safely.”

Peace to each of you and to all readers.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

But you have to believe Joseph Smith and his contradiction of previous scripture in the first place in order to consider the Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP as scripture to begin with! :ehh:

Absolutely no foretelling a restoration would happen in America. God’s MO historically is to pre-announce things & people centuries before. As a result, common knowledge to be on the look out for signs of events to happen or a person to arrive was missing. The Jews had huge fore warnings of people, places and things in their scripture.

In the case of LDS “scripture” it simply dropped out of “Lt. General” Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination onto the American scene to “restore” the world all of a sudden. This must have validated the Smith’s self-importance to a large degree I would suspect.

 

[KathleenGee]

Judah and Israel did become united in the Old Testament. But then the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, 70 AD, and twice the Jews attempted to restore it, but failed.

My pastor said he hopes and dreads Jewish intentions to rebuild the Temple now…yes, I was taught in Catholic grade school that some day the Jews would return to Israel…and the former Holy Father suggested Jerusalem be an international city because of the 3 world faiths…

The New Jerusalem is now, the believers in Christ who are nurtured eternal life by Him…and in the mystical sense…will be fulfilled…and we given a new heaven and earth, after the final Resurrection.

There is one meaning of Israel being, ‘those who seek Truth’…and Christ is Truth.

Another misuse of the meaning of Babylon…this is not to be used to identify some church. Rather, as Scripture has said, Babylon is now destroyed forever…but it was the place of flesh, wantonness and the spirit of the world…and those who follow the likes of Babylon will likewise share in its demise.

 

[TarkanAttila]

But… prophets and apostles operate on personal revelation… (Unless a “prophet” or “apostle” means something other than “one who receives a direct message from God and teaches it” and “one of the original 12 who received witnessed, followed, and revelations from Jesus whilst He was in the world” respectively.)

And while I agree Catholic priesthood, baptism, and the other Catholic sacraments are all important to the faith, we’re talking theologically. And while the priesthood and the sacraments are indeed theological in nature, primarily the Roman Church receives Her theology from Tradition.

Tradition includes Sacred Scripture (the writings of the Apostles themselves), the Traditions of the Church declared authoritatively after the Apostles (including Mary being the Mother of God, and the monotheistic Trinity), and the teaching authority of the Church driven by the Pope (apostolic descendant of Peter), and the patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops (apostolic descendants of the Apostles).

In short, the Apostles - whom Christ instituted as the Church - drive the theology of the Roman Church in whole.

Unlike Mormons, we believe Apostolic Succession means that what the Apostles taught is what we are to believe. Looking at history, we can only determine that what the Apostles themselves taught has been preserved since the beginning. There never was a total apostasy, and therefore the Church of Rome - as well as the Church of Constantinople, and its dependent Churches - teach today what Christ taught the Apostles, and the Apostles, consequently, taught theirs. We are built on Christ’s Church - the Apostles - and not for one second do we believe Christ abandoned us to Hell, much less for 1000-2000 years (before Joseph Smith and his peepstone came along).