Mormons Answers by PeanutBono

[lax16]

lax16;7028719:

Thank you for posting your source, I visited the site and straight away found error when they stated Joseph Smiths age at his Death at 36. He was born in December 1805 and died June 1844 making him 38 years old. This is a problem with getting information from sources not in authority.

Hi PeanutBono - Thank you for pointing this out. I am very careful about using offiical sources for my quotes. Luckily, the website is “unofficial” and not “anti-Mormon.”

How some LDS people attach it to Joseph Smith is exactly as the site you mentioned at the top of this post. Many LDS Scholars see it differently.

**Isn’t there official LDS teaching on the prophecies of JS mentioned in the Old and New Testaments? **

Isaiah 29 has long been seen as a prophecy of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
In the spring of 1995, FARMS held a symposium on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. I noted that one of the papers presented was on Isaiah 29. I obtained the video copy of this presentation and was most disturbed to find that the speaker, an institute instructor, said that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was not the message of Isaiah 29. In fact he devoted most of his paper to the demonstration that my minister friend’s interpretation was correct: Isaiah 29 is about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering and gathering of Israel. My first impression was that his position as institute instructor should at least be reconsidered. He went on to explain that Nephi’s use, in 2 Nephi 27, of verses from Isaiah 29 was not a reconstruction of the original Isaiah 29, it was, rather, Nephi’s own prophecy in which he freely used Isaiah’s words. I couldn’t buy this explanation. Joseph Smith had made clear that Nephi was giving us Isaiah’s original text. In the JST the Prophet used Nephi’s version for Isaiah 29, copying almost verbatim 2 Nephi 27, beginning with verse 2.

Well, three years of reflection and careful review of Brother Robert Cloward’s symposium paper have brought me to a new understanding. This understanding has been further solidified by reading Brother Cloward’s full paper, recently published.(7) Nephi is teaching us to liken the teachings of Isaiah unto ourselves. Nephi specifically says that this is what he intended to do: “For I will liken his words unto my people” (2 Nephi 11:2). I now believe that Nephi is teaching us that an important, perhaps the most important, understanding of Isaiah comes as we learn to relate Isaiah’s words to our own time and circumstance. I believe that Joseph Smith used Nephi’s words to teach us the same thing–the only meaning of Isaiah’s words that are important to us today is that meaning which applies to our day. Yes, Isaiah 29 teaches of the destruction and gathering of Israel. And that message of gathering is significant and is not lost in Nephi’s likening. Rather, the focus is the gathering and the means whereby that gathering will be accomplished.

**Thank you for your thorough and well-explained response. I understand, however, isn’t it unusual for an event to be prophesied about in the OT that is to happen in our own time and circumstance? Can you give any other examples of where the OT prophecies were not specific to the Jewish people or to the coming of the Messiah fulfilled in the New Testament? **

Nephi is also teaching us a pattern of biblical prophecy. Like the two meanings of Isaiah’s poetic parallelism, prophecy often has multiple fulfillments. Isaiah 29 does have the meaning ascribed by my minister friend. It also has the meaning given to it by Nephi. Similarly, the world sees the LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37 to be strange. In context the meaning is clear. The nation of Judah and the nation of Ephriam (these are the Southern and Northern Kingdoms of Israel) will one day be again joined together as one people. This is how the Christian world understands this prophecy and we should have no problem with this interpretation. However, the Lord has given us a second interpretation. We might try to develop this second meaning from the context, but we must remember: that’s not our source. We came to know the application of this prophecy to the Book of Mormon when the Lord himself referred (D&C 27:5) to that book as the stick of Ephriam. Both meanings are true!

**If the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t it also be like part III of the series? It should not in any way change God’s message in the Old and New Testaments? **

no we do not believe that JS prepared the way for Christ we know it was John the Baptist

**Do you have any references to support this?

See above comments it also has address to this scripture**

Not that I am aware of, our official doctrine is not to convince anyone about Joseph Smith, It is only to convince the Jews and Gentiles That Jesus is the Christ

If the Mormon church is the one, true church, and it is necessary to believe that JS was a prophet and received the BoM, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it would have been prophesied so that ALL people could hear the message? Is the message only for a select few LDS and not for the rest of us?
Please show where official doctrine attempts to convince Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ.
Thanks!

 

[LongJourney]

Thus, the Nag Hammadi codices are of interest to Latter-day Saints because they seem to demonstrate that certain doctrines and ordinances, whose very existence was denied by later “orthodoxy,” were part of early Christianity. They also provide us with the negative example of a people whose lust for mysteries and secret doctrines caused them to lose the simple truths of the gospel.

The author of the first article seems to present a justification for ignoring/sliding over the Gnostic tendencies of 1830-1900 Mormonism, but not denying them, as it contains a justification for the teaching of the “Great Apostasy”.

 

[PeanutBono]

PeanutBono;7029128:

If the Mormon church is the one, true church, and it is necessary to believe that JS was a prophet and received the BoM, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it would have been prophesied so that ALL people could hear the message? Is the message only for a select few LDS and not for the rest of us? There is truth in all Christian Churches and we believe they Preach of Christ and Salvation through him which is the most important doctrine of all. We do believe that Christ is the head of our church and that he personally reorganized it on the earth and restored priesthood authority. Here is a link to the organization of the church scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/20/1,65#1

   here is a statement Joseph Smith made when the church was very small maybe 20 members:     “The Prophet called on all who held the Priesthood to gather into the little log school house they had there. It was a small house, perhaps 14 feet square. But it held the whole of the Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were then in the town of Kirtland. … When we got together the Prophet called upon the Elders of Israel with him to bear testimony of this work. … When they got through the Prophet said, ‘Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it.’ I was rather surprised. He said, ‘It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’ ”

Please show where official doctrine attempts to convince Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ. the title page of the book of Mormon states this: scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg
Thanks!

 

[PeanutBono]

The author of the first article seems to present a justification for ignoring/sliding over the Gnostic tendencies of 1830-1900 Mormonism, but not denying them, as it contains a justification for the teaching of the “Great Apostasy”.

from that article:Accordingly, it has been the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the Apocrypha are not scripture, but that they may be of value if read with the Spirit. One who studies the gospel aided by the Spirit is equipped to discern truth from error in the Apocrypha. The words to one of our hymns, “Now Thank We All Our God” (Hymns, no. 120), were taken from the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (50:22–24). First and Second Maccabees provide valuable historical information for the period between the Old and New Testament. The Apostle Paul seems to have quoted more than once (Eph. 6:13–17; Rom. 1:20–31, Rom. 9:20–22) from the Wisdom of Solomon, a book which teaches, among other things, the premortal existence of souls (8:19f) and the creation of the universe out of unformed, uncreated matter (11:17). The Prayer of Manasseh is surely one of the most beautiful prayers of repentance ever written.

Yet these same books also contain passages that are incompatible with the principles of the gospel—hence the important limitations imposed by the Lord in his discussion of the Apocrypha in Doctrine and Covenants 91. [D&C 91] Furthermore, the revelation considers only the Old Testament Apocrypha. Since that revelation was given, other apocryphal literature has been discovered. Obviously, section 91 does not address such recent discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi codices, and other newly found manuscripts, but the principle of that revelation undoubtedly still applies: “Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth.” (D&C 91:4.)

I read that we deny them as scripture but reading them with the help of the spirit we can find valuable truths but one must be wary of the errors. we believe the holy spirit will helps us discern truth from error.

 

[lax16]

There is truth in all Christian Churches and we believe they Preach of Christ and Salvation through him which is the most important doctrine of all. We do believe that Christ is the head of our church and that he personally reorganized it on the earth and restored priesthood authority.

**PeanutBono - Joseph Smith tells us in his First Vision that all Christian churches are an abomination and that he is to join none of them. Their creeds are an abomination.

There is no way the LDS church (or its members) can state that “there is truth in all Christian churches” now! I’m sorry, but it is very clear from the Lord to JS to start over because all of the existing churches are totally wrong. Totally.**

 

[PeanutBono]

There is truth in all Christian Churches and we believe they Preach of Christ and Salvation through him which is the most important doctrine of all. We do believe that Christ is the head of our church and that he personally reorganized it on the earth and restored priesthood authority.

**PeanutBono - Joseph Smith tells us in his First Vision that all Christian churches are an abomination and that he is to join none of them. Their creeds are an abomination.

There is no way the LDS church (or its members) can state that “there is truth in all Christian churches” now! I’m sorry, but it is very clear from the Lord to JS to start over because all of the existing churches are totally wrong. Totally.**

Here is the account:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Clearly the Lord is acknowledging that they draw near him with their lips and that they have a form of godliness. I cannot see how we cannot say there is truth in all Christian religions the Lord so acknowledged it when he spoke to Joseph Smith. He also said that they were corrupt and teach for doctrines the commandments of men thus making them an abomination in his sight.

 

[lax16]

Here is the account:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Clearly the Lord is acknowledging that they draw near him with their lips and that they have a form of godliness. I cannot see how we cannot say there is truth in all Christian religions the Lord so acknowledged it when he spoke to Joseph Smith. He also said that they were corrupt and teach for doctrines the commandments of men thus making them an abomination in his sight.

Wondering which of the many churches to join, Joseph had followed the counsel in the Bible’s book of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” The Lord told Joseph “that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines” and that he was to await further instructions from on high.2 “In a state of calmness and peace indescribable,” Joseph left that sacred grove knowing the reality of our Father in Heaven and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.3

The Lord told JS that ALL of the Christian churches in existence were:

1. all wrong
2. their creeds are an abomination (creed = fundamental beliefs)
3. lead by corrupt professors
4. talk the talk but don’t walk the walk
5. believed in incorrect doctrines
6. should not be joined

There is no way you can interpret this any other way.

 

[PeanutBono]

Wondering which of the many churches to join, Joseph had followed the counsel in the Bible’s book of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” The Lord told Joseph “that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines” and that he was to await further instructions from on high.2 “In a state of calmness and peace indescribable,” Joseph left that sacred grove knowing the reality of our Father in Heaven and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.3

The Lord told JS that ALL of the Christian churches in existence were:

1. all wrong
2. their creeds are an abomination (creed = fundamental beliefs)
3. lead by corrupt professors
4. talk the talk but don’t walk the walk
5. believed in incorrect doctrines
6. should not be joined

There is no way you can interpret this any other way.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was responding to your statement you posed when you said:
“There is no way the LDS church (or its members) can state that “there is truth in all Christian churches” now! I’m sorry, but it is very clear from the Lord to JS to start over because all of the existing churches are totally wrong. Totally.”
I responded with the actual account Joseph told of his experience in the sacred grove which shows that the Lord acknowledged the form of godliness (truth) that were in the Christian religions.
You may want to read my first post of this thread. I am more than happy to answer ANY question you pose with actual doctrines of the church. I cannot respond to statements with no questions asked nor can I answer based on emotions. I wish to only answer with doctrines. I am not trying to persuade. I will let the reader make their own determinations.

 

[lax16]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was responding to your statement you posed when you said:
“There is no way the LDS church (or its members) can state that “there is truth in all Christian churches” now! I’m sorry, but it is very clear from the Lord to JS to start over because all of the existing churches are totally wrong. Totally.”
I responded with the actual account Joseph told of his experience in the sacred grove which shows that the Lord acknowledged the form of godliness (truth) that were in the Christian religions.
You may want to read my first post of this thread. I am more than happy to answer ANY question you pose with actual doctrines of the church. I cannot respond to statements with no questions asked nor can I answer based on emotions. I wish to only answer with doctrines. I am not trying to persuade. I will let the reader make their own determinations.

I am disputing your claim that the LDS church (now) teaches that there is truth in all Christian churches. I am using LDS sources for my argument.

How is quoting your founding prophet an emotional statement?

I missed where the Lord told JS there was truth in other Christian religions???

 

[PeanutBono]

I am disputing your claim that the LDS church (now) teaches that there is truth in all Christian churches. I am using LDS sources for my argument.
please state your sources
How is quoting your founding prophet an emotional statement?
i never said it was an emotional statement, I was only outlining how I can answer any other questions.
I missed where the Lord told JS there was truth in other Christian religions???

In the account that I posted the Lord said the churches of the day had a form of Godliness. He was speaking of Christian churches since that was Josephs inquiry in the grove " which of the churches should I join?" he never looked at joining any other churches but Christian.

 

[lax16]

In the account that I posted the Lord said the churches of the day had a form of Godliness. He was speaking of Christian churches since that was Josephs inquiry in the grove " which of the churches should I join?" he never looked at joining any other churches but Christian.

All of my quotes from JS are from official LDS websites.

I absolutely disagree that JS related that the Lord said a form of godliness in a good way.

If a Catholic “prophet” were to come and say that the Lord said all of those things about the Mormon church (abomination, wrong, etc) do you think you find the one statement in there that might be a half-compliment at best?

No, I am quite sure we would be called “anti-Mormon.”

 

[PeanutBono]

All of my quotes from JS are from official LDS websites.

I am not denying that all of your quotes are from official lds websites, however in order for me to do the proper research and also get the entire context of the quote I asked for references so I could get the official church doctrine on the issue. There are two official LDS websites www.lds.org and www.mormon.org Then there are hundreds of other non official websites such as lightplanet which is probably similar to this site we are on for the Catholic church. In addition to these sites there are hundreds of other sites that are counterfeit but look very legitimate such as www.lds-mormon.com it is at these sites where the majority of Anti-Mormon literature is spread and many people trying to get an understanding of our religion go there when investigating and never try to understand further because they believe everything they read as fact. The same people responsible for these websites, create Anti-Catholic such as www.bible.ca and people stop trying to understand the Catholic faith in the same way they try to stop understanding the LDS faith. As a Catholic I am sure you are aware of the standard arguments against your church you see them over and over yet you have reconciled them with your own testimony of the truthfulness of the Catholic Church and can doctrinally answer them if the poser of the question or the statement lists their source. That is all I am asking to continue thoughtful and truthful dialog about the LDS Church.
When I converted I went through every LDS doctrine as well as Anti-Mormon literature and doctrinally researched it and found what I was looking for. I am much less of an apologist than a truth seeker. I understand the history of our church and are leaders and have no problem admitting what some members of our church defend without never researching for themselves to find out if the statements are true or not. Our history is our history and our faith is our faith we cannot hide from it.

I absolutely disagree that JS related that the Lord said a form of godliness in a good way.
I never said he said it in a good way, I only said he said there was a form of Godliness in them. Meaning there is a form of truth in them

If a Catholic “prophet” were to come and say that the Lord said all of those things about the Mormon church (abomination, wrong, etc) do you think you find the one statement in there that might be a half-compliment at best?
From what I have read on the posts about have you ever read the book of Mormon I see plenty of people stating the book is a good book that has a good message similar to the bible yet in the same sentence they can say they do not believe the book was brought forward by the power of God and they deny Joseph Smith was a prophet. I find that similar.

No, I am quite sure we would be called “anti-Mormon.”

 

[lax16]

PeanutBono:
Thanks PeanutBono!