Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

  • Thread starter Thread starter RebeccaJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Your church’s beliefs never change? Does this look familiar:

Joseph Smith first president, prophet, and founder of the Mormon Church:

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218).
mmsiciliana,

Quoting non-canonical material will not strenghten your arguments. Prophets and
Apostles are entitled to their opinion the same way Prophets and Apostles of old had. These statements you quoted never became scriptures, therefore they are not to be used as something that Mormons believe or preach.

Anyone can speculate, Mormons are humans and they also speculate, but they are not considered official doctrine of the Church.
 
Uh evanfaust - why would Jesus tell them to “go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit” and not “go, therefore, but hurry up! because the whole darn thing is about to fall apart!”

Would Jesus really limit His Church to only the 11 apostles and whoever they could quickly baptize…but the rest, SORRY!!
Lax,

This is what the Apostle Paul said…

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and **which was preached to every creature **which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” Col 1:12
 
mmsiciliana,

Quoting non-canonical material will not strenghten your arguments. Prophets and
Apostles are entitled to their opinion the same way Prophets and Apostles of old had. These statements you quoted never became scriptures, therefore they are not to be used as something that Mormons believe or preach.

Anyone can speculate, Mormons are humans and they also speculate, but they are not considered official doctrine of the Church.
Gosh, the guy you LDS named your university after would beg to differ:

Brigham Young second President and Prophet:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be (ibid., 10:110)

Brigham Young stated that his sermons (as cited above) are Scripture:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).

Are you greater than your prophet Brigham Young?
 
Lax,

This is what the Apostle Paul said…

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and **which was preached to every creature **which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” Col 1:12
You would need to provide ample evidence that Jesus spoke with great urgency knowing that an apostasy was right around the corner. It does not exist. Why would Jesus go through all the trouble picking apostles and laying the ground work if it wasn’t going to work?

Why would the OT have numerous scriptures promising a Messiah if that Messiah would not be able to get it right?

WHY???
 
Lax,

This is what the Apostle Paul said…

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and **which was preached to every creature **which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” Col 1:12
Is it your claim that every human being has heard the gospel?
 
Mmsiciliana,

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Mormons believe in that too. Joseph Smith went through Christ…in fact Christ called Joseph to be His prophet in the last days and restore His Church. So, we Mormons completely endorse this scripture. We have no problem with it. Mormons believe in Christ, follow Christ and preach of Christ and the Mormon Church bears His name.

The expression “end of the world” comes from the Greek word “aion”, which means “age”, “epoch” or “era” and not necessarily endless time. Mat 28:20 refers to a period of time,** more precisely it means the end of a dispensation**. In this case it was the dispensation that would end aproximately 100 AD, the dispensation of Meridian of times. See the article below for more information about the word “aion.”

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RI6eM_TCXMQJ:www.elevangeliodelreino.org/miselania/THE_MEANING_OF_THE_GREEK_WORD_AIONIOS.doc+aion+meaning+end+of+ages+or+epoch&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Well now you have to convince us of this “dispensation” thing.🙂
 
You got to seriously be kidding me…Our church beliefs never change…and neither does our church doctorine…We go by the scriptures found by Joseph Smith and translated for us to read. We never broke down the words and never changed the doctrine of our Savior Jesus Christ…our Heavenly Father and Savior in which we believe…We do get new prophets but they never change the church’s doctrine and I think you are judging us by this I really think you need to go sit in one of the LDS Wards in your area…and you will see that our church’s are rather similiar…But like you guys we believe that Jesus Christ died on a Christ to save our sins and then his body was placed in a building where he was resurrected…The LDS Baptism is kinda similiar to yours also…we just believe that Jesus Christ went to John the Baptist and was baptized by immersion of water…Not by trickling of water on the head…But seriously…get real!!!
Hi ld(name removed by moderator) -

If your scripture founded by Joseph Smith and translated for you to read has never been broken down or changed then why does the Book of Mormon say:

And now, behold this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 31:21)
And Zeezrom said unto him: Thous sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said; Yea, there is a true and living God. And Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And He answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me (Alma 11:26-31).

but Joseph Smith in 1844 said:
I will preach on the plurality of Gods…I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Diety, it has been the plurality of Gods…
 
Lax,

This is what the Apostle Paul said…

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and **which was preached to every creature **which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” Col 1:12
evanfaust - I am unable to find that scripture…are you sure it is Col 1:12?

thanks!
 
Gosh, the guy you LDS named your university after would beg to differ:

Brigham Young second President and Prophet:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be (ibid., 10:110)

Brigham Young stated that his sermons (as cited above) are Scripture:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).

Are you greater than your prophet Brigham Young?
mmsiciliana,

The statements above are still Brigham Youg’s own opinion; they have not been approved by the First Presidency or the Twelve Apostles. Therefore, what he said continues to be his opinion. These statement are not Mormon Doctrine; they never became part of the canonical books of the Church and they never made to Sunday School material not they are part of any teachings of the Church Educational System.

Opinion is still opinion no matter how much emphasys you put on them!

The Apostle Paul expressed his opinion and somehow this statement was incorporated into scripture:

“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my opinion, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” 1 Cor 7:25

Paul is not sure if he has the spirit of the Lord here:

“But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and **I think **also that I have the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor 7:40

Brigham Young might have thought he had the spirit of God when he made those statements…after all, he is just human like Paul and many other man of God in the past.
 
Instead of endorsing the Saducees and the Pharisees for example, Jesus founded his own Church. That to me is enough evidence. But the scriptures shows even more evidence of that.

As far as the rejection…In reality the Jewish establishment rejected Christ and revelation. Please read Matthew 21 for the whole picture.

“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Mat 21:42-43
evanfaust - from follow the rabbi.com

The Pharisees had many beliefs in common with Jesus and the New Testament. They believed in the physical resurrection of the dead (the Sadducees did not) and a coming day of judgment followed by reward or punishment. They anticipated the Messiah at any moment. They believed in angels. They recognized a combination of free choice and divine control in human life. They thought of God as all-wise, all-knowing, just, and merciful. They taught that he loved his people, calling them to a life of obedience. The Pharisees believed that everyone had the power to choose good or evil, and die Torah must be his or her guide.

**It is quite unfortunate, then, that history perceives this group as hypocrites and stubborn **uncaring religious fanatics who rejected Jesus. Though it is unlikely this view will ever change, it is important to note both Jesus’ strong condemnation of certain Pharisees and the specific application of that condemnation. Jesus never criticized anyone for being a Pharisee. He criticized “hypocritical Pharisees” (Matt. 23) and those who were “leaven” among the Pharisees and spoiled the whole group (Matt. 16:6,11). Jesus instructed his followers to obey what the Pharisees taught (Matt. 23:2?3) but not to practice their hypocrisy (Matt. 23:3?7). **Many Pharisees supported Jesus, frequently **:**3inviting him to their homes (Luke 7:36, 14:1, 11:34) and even warning him that Herod wanted him killed (Luke 131). **Some were not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34) and others entered it as Pharisees (Acts 15:5). Paul spoke and wrote proudly that he is, not was, a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5).
This should not be interpreted as defending those who rejected and hated Jesus or worked for his arrest and conviction. Nor does it deny that Jesus strongly condemned the hypocritical Pharisees (most references to them make this point). It is intended to say that Jesus pointed out sin, especially hypocrisy, wherever he found it. To paint all Pharisees with the brush of legalism and hypocrisy is unfair and incorrect. Many of them were a powerful force for good among God’s people. In many (perhaps most) respects, the theology of early Christians was similar to that of the Pharisees, including the fact that both groups worshiped in synagogues.

The Sadducees’ authority was one of position and birth, unlike the Pharisees, whose authority was based on piety and knowledge. They hated the Pharisees, believing the synagogue and study of the Torah and its interpretations as a form of worship undermined the temple ritual. They frequently dealt brutally with anyone who undermined the temple, its economy (their income), and its ritual?and with Roman support, they were capable of severe punishment. The Sadducees offered worship that brought God down to the people. In their eyes, worship was an act of homage to the divine ruler, not an exercise in understanding. Their power was largely based in Jerusalem and Judea through the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious council, used by the Romans and Herods as the instrument to govern the Jewish people.

The Sadducees had the most to lose because of Jesus. Any popular movement jeopardized not only their place as the majority on the Sanhedrin, but also the support of the Romans who ruled through it (John 11:49?53), a fact that would have profound consequences. This was the one group most likely to wish Jesus removed from the scene.

The early church, now a growing movement, faced a similar reaction from the Sadducees (Acts 4:1, 5:17), **although a large number of priests who became believers in Jesus probably were Sadducees (Acts 6:7).**When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Sadducees ceased to exist.
 
You would need to provide ample evidence that Jesus spoke with great urgency knowing that an apostasy was right around the corner. It does not exist. Why would Jesus go through all the trouble picking apostles and laying the ground work if it wasn’t going to work?

Why would the OT have numerous scriptures promising a Messiah if that Messiah would not be able to get it right?

WHY???
Jesus got it right, but you don’t! There is ample evidence of an apostasy even in the OT.
 
As far as the rejection…In reality the Jewish establishment rejected Christ and revelation.
SEPARATION FROM JUDAISM
At what point did Christians start thinking of themselves as separate from Judaism?

(from pbs.org FRONTLINE)

… Christianity, in its earliest beginnings, is part of Judaism…For example, **as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish ****Communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating
in Jewish festivals. **The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that “you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are.”
This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century … still is not absolute, is not permanent. Yet, on the other hand, we can see even in Paul’s letters, which are the earliest literature we have from the early Christians, **that the social separation in the communities he founded has already taken place. **They’re not meeting with the Jews. They’re meeting in various households. So it’s a varied change. It doesn’t happen all at once and it doesn’t happen in the same way, everywhere.

.
 
Jesus got it right, but you don’t! There is ample evidence of an apostasy even in the OT.
Please provide AMPLE EVIDENCE evanfaust.

While you’re at it, provide evidence that Jesus was speaking with a sense of urgency, or, did he not know the Great Apostasy was going to be happening as soon as all of His hand-picked apostles died off?
 
It’s called Prostlytizing
No–I don’t care about people changing churches–keep the church you have, but I disagree with the understanding that Peter was the rock who was being referred to by Christ and I demonstrated why from the Bible with very clear references to what Peter understood and knew, and that is why I feel strongly about the issue since it means divided “loyalties” or a “house divided against itself” in that Christ must be viewed as the Rock in order for humankind to have sufficient faith in Him to repent through His grace, to seek personal revelation to guide in their own personal sanctification, and not think the “pope” has some authority that divides their loyalty between either (1) Christ or (2) Peter and “his successors”. (Choose one or the other–not both. Having both is tantamount to losing the power of faith necessary to access the full power of His grace.)

Again–I have not the slightest interest in anyone changing church affiliation based on anything I have written at any point in any of these forums, but I think people can pull out the Bible, read the references, think for themselves, and figure out that Christ and Peter were using the foundation of the Old Testament to teach a continuing doctrine and not a new doctrine, which continuing doctrine is that Christ is the Rock, always, and has never been replaced nor has the key of David been given to someone else.

The issue here is not “apostasy”, but the issue is that Christ and His grace and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit are essential to the process of sanctification, and those aspects of His gospel are what enable the gates of hell to be opened, the prisoners to be set free from their prison both here on earth and in the spirit world, and the ultimate triumph that is promised in the Book of Revelation.
 
Lax,

This is what the Apostle Paul said…

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and **which was preached to every creature **which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” Col 1:12
Paul also said in Col 1:6:

…“that has come to you. Just as in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing, so also among you, from the day your heard it and came to know the grace of God in truth…”

Does this mean that everyone in the **whole world **is a believer bearing fruit?

There were no people in the **whole world **that didn’t believe?
 
No–I don’t care about people changing churches–keep the church you have, but I disagree with the understanding that Peter was the rock who was being referred to by Christ and I demonstrated why from the Bible with very clear references to what Peter understood and knew, and that is why I feel strongly about the issue since it means divided “loyalties” or a “house divided against itself” in that Christ must be viewed as the Rock in order for humankind to have sufficient faith in Him to repent through His grace, to seek personal revelation to guide in their own personal sanctification, and not think the “pope” has some authority that divides their loyalty between either (1) Christ or (2) Peter and “his successors”. (Choose one or the other–not both. Having both is tantamount to losing the power of faith necessary to access the full power of His grace.)

Again–I have not the slightest interest in anyone changing church affiliation based on anything I have written at any point in any of these forums, but I think people can pull out the Bible, read the references, think for themselves, and figure out that Christ and Peter were using the foundation of the Old Testament to teach a continuing doctrine and not a new doctrine, which continuing doctrine is that Christ is the Rock, always, and has never been replaced nor has the key of David been given to someone else.

The issue here is not “apostasy”, but the issue is that Christ and His grace and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit are essential to the process of sanctification, and those aspects of His gospel are what enable the gates of hell to be opened, the prisoners to be set free from their prison both here on earth and in the spirit world, and the ultimate triumph that is promised in the Book of Revelation.
Don’t Mormons believe that “Christ and His grace and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit are essential to the process of sanctification…” except not through Peter, but Joseph Smith?

I have already quoted Catholic commentary from the Douay-Rheims bible stating that the key of David belongs to Jesus.

You may not think Peter was/is the Rock, but is Joseph Smith? Isn’t he the cornerstone of Mormonism? Why take such offense to Peter being the Rock that Jesus chose on which to build His Church? This really isn’t so foreign to the LDS at all.

Really, I don’t get this one at all.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top