Mormonism

[hosemonkey]

As usual, it is interesting to see that mormons are refusing to address the sins and shortcomings of their revered founder, dancing about and telling us all about what Jesus and His Apostles Really thought.They are very careful not to answer the questions about Joseph Smith, the “prophet” of sin and deceit. In any religion, you must look very hard at it’s founder. From Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Catholic Church, to the likes of charlatans like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, from the best to the worst, the founder’s character will be reflected in the veracity of what that religion teaches. The truth of mormonism rises and falls on Joseph Smith. Was he a prophet of God? Hardly. He was a rural con-artist with a fertile imagination and a gift for manipulation, who was able to sell theological fantasies to gullible farmers. Certainly no prophet. And gullible people continue to buy the magic beans that promise them godhood. Sad.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

This comment shows that a person making such a comment doesn’t trust that Simon Peter had an understanding about what the words “the Christ” or “Messiah” meant–that he hadn’t studied or listened about the prophesied Messias and the Anointed One.

On the contrary, I believe Peter accepetd Jesus’ words precisely because he did believe he was the Messiah, even though he did not fully understand the words “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. That was my point.

Andrew and Simon Peter would know that this entailed a blood sacrifice, in order to take away the sin of the world, and that the words “Lamb of God” meant that the law of Moses was going to be fulfilled through the blood of the Lamb of God. (See Leviticus 17:10 and 11). So whenever Simon Peter used the word “Christ” meaning “Anointed One”, then he was showing that he had a knowledge of the prophesies about the Anointed One.

Peter did not come to a knowledge of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God, through his study of Scripure. He was a fisherman. His knowledge did not come through some comparative reading of the prophets. His knowledge came directly from the Father, as Jesus said “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (MT 16:17-18)

So looking again at John 6:68 and 69, Simon Peter was showing that he understood both the words “Bread of life” (the “words of eternal life” which he had already begun to hear from the Savior of the world), and understood the “blood of atonement” to be shed for the sin of the world by the Lamb of God “which taketh away the sin of the world”.

Yes. But what does this have to do with your supposition that they understood Jesus’ words to be metaphorical? My point is that they did not, but believed him anyway because of who he was. Is it not obvious that those who left because of what he said were the one’s in error. If Jesus’ words were metaphorical did he not have a duty to make that point clear to those who were going away under some false assumption?

If someone has taken the time to read the above, but hasn’t looked up the passages noted, then they aren’t going to “get it”. One needs to have in their mind that Simon Peter had a knowledge, just as John the Baptist did, to know what the words “Lamb of God” and “Anointed One” meant.

Parker, it really isn’t necessary to make these little insults. Your implication that I have not taken the time to read Scripture and that I have no knowledge of the terms “Lamb of God” or “Anointed One” and therefore just don’t “get it”, are just another example of the arrogance and feelings of superiority that you cannot seem to shed. Can we just stick to the conversation please and refrain from the cute little insults?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Telstar]

SteveVH,

Here was your earlier comment to which I responded where I specifically wrote about the apostles:

You clearly misunderstand what Steve is saying. He never said that the Apostles were offended by Jesus saying that He was the Bread of Life. Steve said that all of the Jews were offended because Jesus told them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, in order for them to have any ‘life’ in them. The thought of any Jew eating the flesh of a man, or drinking his blood, was abominable to all of them. That was the ‘hard’ part that bothered the disciples who decided to stop following Him.

While the Apostles were certainly shocked at the thought of it, they also knew very well that Jesus always spoke the truth, so they humbly accepted His words being true, even though they didn’t fully understand what He meant by them. They trusted everything He said, because they knew in their hearts that He was the true Messiah. That’s why Peter said what he did, because even though they didn’t fully understand, they were still willing to accept His words, on faith alone (except Judas). It was a sure sign of their simple and childlike faith in Him, because they were totally convinced that He really was the Son of God.

But, the Pharisees and many of the other Jews were also ‘offended’ because Jesus said that He was the Bread of Life, because they didn’t want to believe that He was the true Messiah. He didn’t fit their perception of what the Messiah would be like. He was meek and mild, as well as humble and poor, but they were expecting Him to be a royal ‘warrior’ king that would fight their battles for them. He preached love and mercy for all, including our enemies, but they expected Him to lead them into battle to defeat all of their earthly ‘enemies’, like the Arc of the Covenant that was carried into battle in the past. He wanted peace, they wanted war.

But, Jesus came into the world to defeat Satan in the spiritual battle for souls. That battle is still being waged in Heaven and on earth. We (Christians) are all His soldiers, who in the end, hope to win our own personal victory against evil, by using Jesus as our model. His main purpose in coming to earth, was always to win the battle for the souls of men, by defeating Satan. He didn’t come to save our bodies. Everything He taught us was related to spiritual reality, not the physical world. That’s why He said His words were of “spirit and life”. We’re all in a spiritual battle against Satan, for our very souls.

The apostles wouldn’t have been offended if they knew Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and my comment was that the apostles weren’t offended. So we are talking about several different groups of people with different backgrounds when we see the events described in John 7:

No one would have been offended if He was speaking metaphorically, but He wasn’t. That’s why He kept repeating and explaining Himself in such a blunt manner. He wanted all to understand that He meant exactly what He said, that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have everlasting life.

1. The apostles, several of whom had a background in their Jewish religious heritage through study and association.

They were all very much aware of Jewish Law and traditions. But, the part about eating His flesh and drinking His blood was something that none of them expected to hear from Him. It wasn’t something that the Jews knew about, because it was only hinted at in the prophecies about the Messiah.

1. Other disciples besides the apostles who didn’t “also go away”, such as the sisters Mary and Martha and presumably some others.

Just a little side note for clarification: Martha didn’t always follow Jesus around as He preached. She was much too busy tending to her duties at home, because that was her calling from God. But Mary, who chose the “best part”**, is the one who always faithfully followed Him, along with His Mother and many other holy women.

***The “best part”, that was mentioned by Jesus in the story of Mary and Martha, is the total abandonment of the world by someone who only wants to follow and live for Jesus, alone. Part of the purpose of living that kind of life, is so someone can dedicate most of their time to prayer. Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and the other holy women that followed Him, were the early models for the type of lives that Nuns and Monks throughout the centuries have also chosen to live, and still do today. Their purpose is to pray to God for the whole world, and for the salvation of all souls. *
Just an FYI.

1. The followers who did “go away”. I wouldn’t call this an apostasy, because they weren’t really staunch followers. They were “fair weather” kinds of followers.

I don’t think I would describe all of them as “fair weather” followers, but they were the ones that tended to be very weak in their faith. They were more easily misled by the reactions of the Pharisees, that they respected because they were supposed to be so well versed in Jewish Law, so they were deceived by them. Much like many people these days are misled by those that also seem to be so well versed in the Bible, but their interpretations are incorrect and they refuse to accept the real truth. It was certainly a kind of apostasy amongst the Disciples of Jesus, because those who were weak in their faith apostatized because of it.

1. The possibility of some Pharisees or Sadducees who perceived Jesus as a threat and thus went where He went to see how the crowds were responding to Him.

They were always present in the crowds so they could spy on everything Jesus said and did. They were always looking for Him to show some kind of fault, so they could accuse Him (just like the devil does to all of us).

 

[TexanKnight]

Hpw sad we need to go to such lengths in this debate, when Joseph Smith was not a prophet, in any sense of the word.

yes. If you look at the fringe cults out there, one of the threads of similarities is that they read the Bible correctly and no one else does. They spend their time telling us what Jesus REALLY meant or what Paul was REALLY thinking. This should not be a huge surprise.

 

[Jerusha]

If you look at the fringe cults out there, one of the threads of similarities is that they read the Bible correctly and no one else does. They spend their time telling us what Jesus REALLY meant or what Paul was REALLY thinking. This should not be a huge surprise.

We have a consistent interpretation of what the Bible says in the CCC, one that has developed in two thousand years of human history.

And those fringe cults are nothing new-- just variations on the same old-- same old.

 

[twopekinguys]

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but…

It was said by one of our mormon posters recently that Smith didn’t use the Urim and Thummim, because god had given him the power to do so without them. Well,…I found this on an “official” mormon site. (bolding mine)

"The Prophet was ready to begin the translation. On at least six different occasions, Joseph Smith gave brief descriptions of how he translated the Book of Mormon. All six accounts agree that he translated them by the gift and power of God, through the Urim and Thummim [see Joseph Smith—History 1:62 ; D&C 9:4–12 ; Warren Cowdery, Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1, in LDS Church Archives, 121–22; Elder’s Journal, 1 July 1838, 43; Times and Seasons, 3 May 1842, 772; and Times and Seasons, 4 Nov. 1843, 373]” (Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 11 ).

kr.institute.lds.org/manuals/pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/pgp-4-jsh-55.asp

Yet, all of the more recent mormon artwork clearly depicts him not using them…Hmmmmm

Also on that same page, I found this.

"Wrapping them in a linen frock, he started through the woods, thinking it might be safer than the traveled road. But just as he jumped over a log, he was struck from behind with a gun. Joseph, however, was able to knock his assailant down and flee. Half a mile later he was assaulted again but managed to escape, and before he arrived home he was accosted a third time. His mother said that when he reached home he was ‘altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue of running’ History of Joseph Smith, 108]. "

Didn’t he have a bum leg and had to have bone removed from it as a child? Pretty amazing stuff don’t ya think?

Just these two things should make a rational thinking individual question *anything *surrounding Smith.

 

[Godric2]

A particualr problem with Mormonism, I think, is that they add to Sacred Scripture books which they, and they alone regard as of equal standing to Scripture - The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price …

In that way they separate themselves from mianstream Christians.

[Little Sisters in Manchester UK](http://stchrysostoms.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/little-sisters/ ‎)

 

[ParkerD]

On the contrary, I believe Peter accepetd Jesus’ words precisely because he did believe he was the Messiah, even though he did not fully understand the words “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. That was my point.

Peter did not come to a knowledge of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God, through his study of Scripure. He was a fisherman. His knowledge did not come through some comparative reading of the prophets. His knowledge came directly from the Father, as Jesus said “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (MT 16:17-18)

Yes. But what does this have to do with your supposition that they understood Jesus’ words to be metaphorical? My point is that they did not, but believed him anyway because of who he was. Is it not obvious that those who left because of what he said were the one’s in error. If Jesus’ words were metaphorical did he not have a duty to make that point clear to those who were going away under some false assumption?

Parker, it really isn’t necessary to make these little insults. Your implication that I have not taken the time to read Scripture and that I have no knowledge of the terms “Lamb of God” or “Anointed One” and therefore just don’t “get it”, are just another example of the arrogance and feelings of superiority that you cannot seem to shed. Can we just stick to the conversation please and refrain from the cute little insults?

Thanks.

Steve

SteveVH,

I wasn’t meaning at all that you wouldn’t look up those passages. I meant that I realized there are other readers, some of whom probably wouldn’t look up those passages of scripture, so I was thinking about them, not about you.

As far as Jesus “duty”, I don’t at all feel that He had a “duty” toward those who scoffed at His words. He already had made it clear that they were there for bread and fishes, or to see a miracle, or both. Throughout His ministry, He was consistent in using parables so that “seeing they would see not”. This was not a parable, but it was a situation where He was doing the separating of “sheep” (true followers) from “goats” (those who followed their own personal desires).

He was using this situation as a way of separating those who had no inkling about the promised Messiah and the Lamb of God from those who truly desired the “words of eternal life” and truly desired to follow what John the Baptist had begun teaching already–that there needed to be sincere repentance, and that the Lamb of God had come to earth as promised to take away the sin of the world through the sincere repentance of those who would believe in the Savior and Redeemer, and through His atoning sacrifice to come–the spilling of His blood for their and our sins.

 

[Jerusha]

JD 4:218-220 Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man of woman in this house but what would say, "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?"
All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness…

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up − conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.
This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.

 

[TexanKnight]

JD 4:218-220 Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

How can ANYONE believe that people from a church where HE was a “prophet” can believe in the same God we do?

 

[Jerusha]

Absolute blasphemy!!!

And I just happened to have it on my desktop when I (against my better judgment) read Parker’s post.

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,

I wasn’t meaning at all that you wouldn’t look up those passages. I meant that I realized there are other readers, some of whom probably wouldn’t look up those passages of scripture, so I was thinking about them, not about you.

As far as Jesus “duty”, I don’t at all feel that He had a “duty” toward those who scoffed at His words. He already had made it clear that they were there for bread and fishes, or to see a miracle, or both. Throughout His ministry, He was consistent in using parables so that “seeing they would see not”. This was not a parable, but it was a situation where He was doing the separating of “sheep” (true followers) from “goats” (those who followed their own personal desires).

He was using this situation as a way of separating those who had no inkling about the promised Messiah and the Lamb of God from those who truly desired the “words of eternal life” and truly desired to follow what John the Baptist had begun teaching already–that there needed to be sincere repentance, and that the Lamb of God had come to earth as promised to take away the sin of the world through the sincere repentance of those who would believe in the Savior and Redeemer, and through His atoning sacrifice to come–the spilling of His blood for their and our sins.

By the way, to understand my last sentence above, please see Luke 22:44 (KJV), and John 19:34.

 

[Garland]

The blood atonement doctrine came about after 200 travelers in a wagon train were murdered and their goods stolen by the"saints", Like most lds doctrines they came about to justify some horrible thing they did. Garland

 

[Jerusha]

No, they were practicing it before. That speech was in Feb. MMM was in September of the same year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

 

[TexanKnight]

No, they were practicing it before. That speech was in Feb. MMM was in September of the same year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

That is true. People say BY had nothing to do with it. But anyone with an IQ over 10 who has read BY’s speeches know EXACTLY where it came from

 

[batman1973]

JD 4:218-220 Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

No,No… This is mis-understood. Taken out of context…President Young wasn’t speaking as a prophet when he said this, only as a man…The Journal of Discourses isn’t used as official Church Doctrine… Ah, the excuses that Mormons give…

 

[Jerusha]

Funny you would say that. They no longer call it doctrine, they hide it. However, it lives on in LDS culture.

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.
*President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol.8. *

1. Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their children’s children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.
   Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.

It is impossible to give monetary value to the past volumes of this publication, … Those who read the utterances of the servants of God, contained in this book, under the same influence by which the speakers were inspired, cannot fail to receive profit from the perusal.
President Joseph F. Smith, Preface, Vol.18.

We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning **the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants **in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.
Apostle Albert Carrington, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol. 15.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I wasn’t meaning at all that you wouldn’t look up those passages. I meant that I realized there are other readers, some of whom probably wouldn’t look up those passages of scripture, so I was thinking about them, not about you.

Right.

As far as Jesus “duty”, I don’t at all feel that He had a “duty” toward those who scoffed at His words. He already had made it clear that they were there for bread and fishes, or to see a miracle, or both. Throughout His ministry, He was consistent in using parables so that “seeing they would see not”. This was not a parable, but it was a situation where He was doing the separating of “sheep” (true followers) from “goats” (those who followed their own personal desires).

He was using this situation as a way of separating those who had no inkling about the promised Messiah and the Lamb of God from those who truly desired the “words of eternal life” and truly desired to follow what John the Baptist had begun teaching already–that there needed to be sincere repentance, and that the Lamb of God had come to earth as promised to take away the sin of the world through the sincere repentance of those who would believe in the Savior and Redeemer, and through His atoning sacrifice to come–the spilling of His blood for their and our sins.

You are completely ignoring Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It was those who believed him that stayed with him. They believed even though they did not fully understand because they knew he had the words of eternal life. Those who could not accept his words left him. That is a choice we all must make. You have chosen to change the meaning of those words into something you can accept, rather than accepting the words he spoke, and not only spoke but reiterated with even stronger language. “Amen, Amen I say to you…”

 

[ParkerD]

Right.

You are completely ignoring Jesus’ command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It was those who believed him that stayed with him. They believed even though they did not fully understand because they knew he had the words of eternal life. Those who could not accept his words left him. That is a choice we all must make. You have chosen to change the meaning of those words into something you can accept, rather than accepting the words he spoke, and not only spoke but reiterated with even stronger language. “Amen, Amen I say to you…”

SteveVH,

Whenever I respond to you, I have not the slightest impression that it will change how you view the Bible or how you view Catholicism, so it really is that I respond to you because I am interested in there not being misconceptions about my beliefs by other readers, and so that they have a little bit better basis for understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs; also because I am interested in trying to help other readers (such as youth) pull out their Bible and read some passages for their benefit.

So, “right” is not sarcastic, but is correct. I was not thinking of you when I wrote that sentence.

The words “Amen, amen” or “verily, verily” are used throughout John 6 in several places, including when Jesus told those who were going to turn away that they were only there because of the loaves (v. 26).

John 6:27 contains the major message of the Savior, wherein He transitions from talking about the loaves to talking about “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.”

So you can have the meat that you want, and I will seek “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life”, and we’ll both be receiving that which we have sought.

 

[TexanKnight]

SteveVH,

Whenever I respond to you, I have not the slightest impression that it will change how you view the Bible or how you view Catholicism, so it really is that I respond to you because I am interested in there not being misconceptions about my beliefs by other readers, and so that they have a little bit better basis for understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs; also because I am interested in trying to help other readers (such as youth) pull out their Bible and read some passages for their benefit.

So, “right” is not sarcastic, but is correct. I was not thinking of you when I wrote that sentence.

The words “Amen, amen” or “verily, verily” are used throughout John 6 in several places, including when Jesus told those who were going to turn away that they were only there because of the loaves (v. 26).

John 6:27 contains the major message of the Savior, wherein He transitions from talking about the loaves to talking about “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.”

So you can have the meat that you want, and I will seek “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life”, and we’ll both be receiving that which we have sought.

We do not misinterpret anything. Even the issues you dodge like LDS Church only being a true church if Jesus is dishonest and weak…and the quotes from BY mentioned above.
And the fact you have to tell us what Jesus REALLY meant to make LDS work…

Brother Parker, the more you post, the more you prove the LDS Church is NOT the true Church. Come Home, Brother.