Langley, BC
This evening my friend Zombie and I toured the new Langley Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As many of my readers will realize, I have nothing personally against them, or any religious/philosophical group. But my Biblical Reformed theology differs on several points from the LDS and here are two key ones.
The nature of God
I wrote on a previous post:
Joseph Smith and Gods
Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints writes that there is a plurality of gods. Smith preached on June 16,1844, eleven days before his death, that a plurality of Gods existed and that the head God organized the heavens and the earth. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). He explains that the idea of the God of the Christian Trinity is a strange one. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). He also states that the Bible supports the idea of the plurality of Gods. Smith (1844)(2006: 1). The founder of the Latter-Day Saints reasons that if Jesus Christ had a Father, that God the Father would have a Father as well. This concept would create an infinite regression of Father Gods. Smith (1844)(2006: 1).
The Walter Martin website has some interesting comments on this view. Martin first points out that the Bible in Isaiah, clearly states that there is just one God in Chapters 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 45:5, and 21–22. He also mentions that the Lord is called one Lord in Deuteronomy 6:4. Martin (2006: 1). He further explains that others are called god in the Bible such as Moses to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1, but this is a metaphorical use and is not claiming that Moses is the one and only true God. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34, the judges according to Martin are not intrinsic deity, but became mighty ones like Gods in the eyes of the people. In Psalm 82 and John 10:34 the judges are shown to be sinful men that were in no way to be confused with the God of the Bible in nature. Martin (2006: 1). The Bible in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is not only stating that there is only one true God to worship, but that there is only one God in existence period.
I am not going to heavily discuss Trinitarian theology within this article, but I shall state that it is believed within Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (or three distinctions) of one, substance, nature and essence, and therefore are not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is called the exact representation of God’s nature, and in Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God. Philip Edgcume Hughes writes that in Hebrews 1:3, the Greek word translated 'nature' denotes the very essence of God. Christ is the representation of the Father and shares the same substance as God. Hughes (1990: 43-44). So whatever distinctions can be drawn concerning the Father and Son, Biblically it must be concluded that from Hebrews 1:3 they are of the same nature (υποστασεως ) The Greek New Testament (1993: 741) and substance. Hughes (1990: 43-44). They are not two Gods, but two distinctions within one God, and the Holy Spirit from Acts 5 is also shown to be God sharing in the same nature and substance as the Father and Son. Jesus Christ as both God and man has a human body, but shares the same spiritual substance as the Father and Holy Spirit.
Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-Day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes. Slick (2006: 1). Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past. Slick (2006: 1). There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present. In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time and matter.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324).
A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).
In conclusion, Smith's and the Latter-Days Saints' view on the nature of God is contradictory and untrue.
Works salvation
Tonight the kind hostess placed more emphasis on doing good works for salvation, than she did on the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.
Biblically one is chosen/elected (Ephesians 1, Romans 8), born again (John 3) and moulded into a believer via work of God unto good works.
Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;
9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.
From James 2:17, we know that faith without works is dead, and so a sign (not the only sign) of real Christian faith is to walk in good works.
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).
In conclusion, Smith's and the Latter-Days Saints' view on the nature of God is contradictory and untrue.
Works salvation
Tonight the kind hostess placed more emphasis on doing good works for salvation, than she did on the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.
Biblically one is chosen/elected (Ephesians 1, Romans 8), born again (John 3) and moulded into a believer via work of God unto good works.
Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;
9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.
From James 2:17, we know that faith without works is dead, and so a sign (not the only sign) of real Christian faith is to walk in good works.
But, I admit that it is possible that these good works can be limited as in the apparent example of a person saved with works burned up in 1 Corinthians 3: 12-15.
The hostess/guide stated incorrectly twice that baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is rather tied to the salvation process as an act of obedience. Baptism being a human work, in a sense, cannot be a cause of salvation.
In conclusion, human salvation is up to God via compatibilism/soft determinism and certainly not up to incompatibilistic libertarian free will decisions of persons. Although I reason that no person is forced or coerced into heaven by God. At the same time the unregenerate by nature and choice reject God and are not forced or coerced to do so.
Overall the hosts were kind. The Temple seems well constructed in an aesthetic sense. My friend Zombie felt we were being observed and I think the staff was desiring to present the Temple as a holy place of reverence. The refreshments were appreciated and the shuttle from their old meetinghouse to the new one and the Temple was helpful.
Zombie and I decided not to mingle after the presentation as we figured I could get into a debate and Zombie had to get up early the next morning to go to work. On the way to the Temple, Zombie asked me how we were going to play this, as in wondering if I was going to be argumentative that evening.
In conclusion, human salvation is up to God via compatibilism/soft determinism and certainly not up to incompatibilistic libertarian free will decisions of persons. Although I reason that no person is forced or coerced into heaven by God. At the same time the unregenerate by nature and choice reject God and are not forced or coerced to do so.
Overall the hosts were kind. The Temple seems well constructed in an aesthetic sense. My friend Zombie felt we were being observed and I think the staff was desiring to present the Temple as a holy place of reverence. The refreshments were appreciated and the shuttle from their old meetinghouse to the new one and the Temple was helpful.
Zombie and I decided not to mingle after the presentation as we figured I could get into a debate and Zombie had to get up early the next morning to go to work. On the way to the Temple, Zombie asked me how we were going to play this, as in wondering if I was going to be argumentative that evening.
No, I was respectful and listened...but I do have two theology blogs. Sure, I am a very good debater at some points, but that was not the time or place.
But please do not get the impression I am too nice:
Good and not necessarily nice
So, we walked back to the old meetinghouse and drove away.
Please stay tuned, I asked Zombie for his own review and he stated that he would write one which I shall place below.
It will be quite a bit different than this one.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HUGHES, P. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org.
http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,
http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm
SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479.
http://www.utlm.org
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
My review will be quite different from Russ'. Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-the sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.
I can understand that only members would be allowed into the most private worship chambers- I just felt awkward and out of place as a result. I don't have a background in theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine.
Maybe as you ask more questions and spend more time in the belief system you would find out more about specific aspects of what the Mormons believe and why.
Thanks to Russ/Kingpin68 for driving that night.
"Zombie"
But please do not get the impression I am too nice:
Good and not necessarily nice
So, we walked back to the old meetinghouse and drove away.
Please stay tuned, I asked Zombie for his own review and he stated that he would write one which I shall place below.
It will be quite a bit different than this one.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HUGHES, P. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org.
http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,
http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm
SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479.
http://www.utlm.org
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
My review will be quite different from Russ'. Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-the sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.
I can understand that only members would be allowed into the most private worship chambers- I just felt awkward and out of place as a result. I don't have a background in theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine.
Maybe as you ask more questions and spend more time in the belief system you would find out more about specific aspects of what the Mormons believe and why.
Thanks to Russ/Kingpin68 for driving that night.
"Zombie"
"I have nothing personally against them, or any religious/philosophical group. But my Biblical Reformed theology differs on several points from the LDS and here are two key ones."
ReplyDeleteI have nothing personally against anyone or group either, but I do often have a lot of differences on theological view.
I'm not the argument-bent type of person so I generally avoid arguments with such people. I'll discuss it if they show they can be civil in such discussions, present my views and leave it at that. Arguments usually just end up running in a circle and no one gets anywhere.
I once worked for a company owned and run by LDS believers. On the whole they were very moral and decent to work with. But it is the works thing.
On the whole people would say I'm a very moral and decent person too, but I know that isn't the real me and I wouldn't be if it were all on me to be so.
The LDS do have a lot of helpful genealogy information, though.
'Arguments usually just end up running in a circle and no one gets anywhere.'
ReplyDeleteI get tired of arguing in circles.
Well, Larry, thanks. There were many people at the Temple last night and so there is local interest.
Perhaps it will heat up on this blog a little.
I also understand that LDS people believe that Native American's are Israelites that have been cursed with dark skin. I understand that they believe the only way a black man can get into heaven would be as a slave. Now why they would need to have slaves in heaven is beyond my comprehension. So that would mean that my grandfather on my father's side who was Cherokee Indian, was an Israelite cursed with dark skin, and that when I go to heaven I will be a slave. Like you, I have nothing personally against them, or any religious/philosophical group,but my Christian upbringing differs very strongly on a few points and the point I just mentioned. I would like to think that I am a child of God, and not an Israelite that has been cursed with dark skin, and certainly not to be a slave in heaven. If I am to be a slave in heaven, then what is the advantage of my being the absolute best Christian that I can be in this life?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Daij,
ReplyDeleteYes, you heated the blog up...
Last evening, Zombie made the comment to me (quietly) that like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the LDS struck him as a multi-million dollar religion made for white people.
Granted there were non-whites in the promotional video. I want to be fair here.
There is documentation from more than one source that can be researched that Natives of the North America are Mongoloid and not Semitic people descended from 'Lamanites', as the LDS claim. Martin (1965)(1997: 202).
MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.
I just found this from the Walter Martin website:
Black
'Joseph Smith Jr. and Family
SLAVERY - GOD'S WILL
All Mormons generally believe that their Prophet, Joseph Smith, was strenuously opposed to slavery. However, on the pages of the old Mormon paper, The Messenger and Advocate, of April, 1836, may be found an article contributed by him expressly advocating it. He believed in it as representing the will of Jehovah concerning the black man. We quote from this article:
"If slavery is an evil, who could we expect should first learn it? Would the people of the Free States, or would the Slave States? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact.
. . . It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the Ancients upon the matter, as the fact is inconvertible, that the first mention we have of slavery, is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God.
And so far from that prediction being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument to the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."
. . . The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan
. . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn when perhaps too late, for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not directed by His Counsel.
The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the Abolitionists in the world." [1]
In the Church history only the two closing paragraphs are quoted from this article, [2] from which the fact is covered over that Smith believed and advocated slavery as a divine principle.
His attitude is further set forth in the following:
"Question 13th. Are the Mormons abolitionists? Answer: No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered such - but we do not believe in setting the negroes free." [3]
These facts will be something of a revelation to most of the Mormons of today.'
I am not stating that this is LDS policy today, but the documentation is interesting.
There is also the highly esteemed documentary on the LDS by Matt Stone and Trey Parker (Canadians watch here.
ReplyDeleteNext up? A Broadway musical!
All About Mormons
ReplyDelete'Episode 712 (Original Air Date: Nov 19, 2003)
A Mormon kid moves to South Park and Stan has to kick his ass. But when Stan and his dad meet their new Mormon neighbors, they become fascinated with how genuinely nice they are. Meanwhile the other boys mock Stan relentlessly for wimping out.'
Seen it. Funny.
Thanks.:)
Very scholarly and interesting.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much
Aloha from Waikiki
Comfort Spiral
Cheers, Cloudia.
ReplyDeleteThe tour experience was good, and the LDS people were nice and friendly.
I am glad I can strengthen my reasoning and assist others through writing.
My review will be quite different from Russ'. Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-
ReplyDeletethe sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The
structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and
captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and
awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the
presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the
temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.
I can understand that only members would be allowed into the most private worship chambers- I just felt awkward and out of place as
a result. I don't have a background in theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the
hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine.
Maybe as you ask more questions and spend more time in the belief system you would find out more about specific aspects of what the
Mormons believe and why.
Thanks to Russ/Kingpin68 for driving that night.
"Zombie"
Thanks, Zombie...for staying awake and presenting the good review.
ReplyDelete'The structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and
captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and
awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.'
Good point. The LDS is a multi-billion dollar organization. They present a worldview of God.
'Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the
presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the
temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.'
There were several representatives present.
I do not mean this in an insulting way, but as observation, the inside of the Temple in a sense reminded me of one very large sterile washroom. As well, it seemed very corporate with everything in place and with the type of signage used.
'Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the
hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine..'
The distinctive doctrines are largely human made and very vulnerable to Biblical, theological, philosophical and historical attacks by someone in the know.
Having been in religious studies for almost twenty years, I reason that rarely are LDS religious scholars taken seriously in regard to defending Mormonism by outsiders.
Therefore the members typically have too much reliance on faith, as in fideism, and often have blind faith.
Thanks for the reviews and articles on the new Langley Mormon Temple. Most interesting to read. I hope your site attracts many Mormons to read your very well written article which will challenge them to investigate their faith further as well as Christianity!
ReplyDelete-Born Informed-
Thanks, I try to do my humble best.
ReplyDeleteI generally like Latter-Day Saints as people.
Zombie was helpful.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteToo bad you couldn't bring Rick along with you when you visited that Mormon temple. I'm sure he would have made things more interesting.
Rick would have been fun.
ReplyDeleteThe only question I heard on the tour was from a young male teenager that asked why the baptismal area looked like a hot tub.
Thanks, Jeff.
"The only question I heard on the tour was from a young male teenager that asked why the baptismal area looked like a hot tub."
ReplyDeleteThat's hilarious that that was the ONLY question...
Reminds me of when I asked an actual Beefeater in the Tower of London if he ever ate at the McDonald's just outside.
I have been visiting various blogs for my Term Papers research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards
ReplyDelete'"The only question I heard on the tour was from a young male teenager that asked why the baptismal area looked like a hot tub." That's hilarious that that was the ONLY question...'
ReplyDeleteWell, I could have asked some difficult questions, but as noted I was there to tour and write later. I was not there to debate when they were trying to do public relations.
'Reminds me of when I asked an actual Beefeater in the Tower of London if he ever ate at the McDonald's just outside.'
Seems to me he did not think much of Ronald.
'I have been visiting various blogs for my Term Papers research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards'
ReplyDeleteThank You.
I removed your link and moved your comment from the archived Questionnaire Assistance article to this one. After all, I do not need questionnaire assistance anymore but can always use more new comments.
How did your friend get the name Zombie?
ReplyDeleteJeff when I toured the Temple in Utah I almost got me and my friend arrested simply for asking honest questions. I did upset a lot of people, but they are leading souls to hell with false doctrine, so I did not care. Rick b
'How did your friend get the name Zombie?'
ReplyDeleteWhen he would come over to visit in the 1990s, he would usually fall asleep. He would also seem sleepy.
'Jeff when I toured the Temple in Utah I almost got me and my friend arrested simply for asking honest questions. I did upset a lot of people, but they are leading souls to hell with false doctrine, so I did not care. Rick b'
I remember you discussing this story.
Cheers.
The only question I heard on the tour was from a young male teenager that asked why the baptismal area looked like a hot tub.
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me: Mormons baptize by proxy for the dead.
"The LDS church holds that deceased persons who have not accepted or had the opportunity to accept the gospel of Christ in this life will have the opportunity to accept the gospel in the afterlife. As all must follow Jesus Christ, they must also receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism. For this reason, members of the LDS Church are encouraged to research their genealogy. This research is then used as the basis for Church performing temple ordinances for as many deceased persons as possible. As a part of these efforts, Mormons have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high profile people. Of particular interest are: the Founding Fathers of the U.S., Presidents of the U.S., Pope John Paul II, John Wesley, Christopher Columbus, Adolf Hitler, and others.
While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider it a great service to perform vicarious ordinances for the deceased, some non-members have taken offense. To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for direct ancestors of Church members. For example, the Church is in the process of removing sensitive names (such as Jewish Holocaust victims) from its International Genealogical Index (IGI). D. Todd Christofferson of the Church's Presidency of the Seventy stated that removing the names is an "ongoing, labor intensive process requiring name-by-name research ... When the Church is made aware of documented concerns, action is taken ... Plans are underway to refine this process."
In 2008, a directive from the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy directed Catholic dioceses to prevent the LDS Church from "microfilming and digitizing information" contained in Catholic sacramental registers so that those whose names were contained therein would not be subjected to vicarious Mormon baptism, even though the Vatican had previously declared that Mormon baptism was invalid."
from:
Baptism for the dead (Wikipedia)
Jeff when I toured the Temple in Utah I almost got me and my friend arrested simply for asking honest questions.
Wow. Go, Rick! LOL
I did upset a lot of people, but they are leading souls to hell with false doctrine, so I did not care.
Amen! That's right!
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 15: 29
KJV
15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
I still hold to what I have read on this, that being that it was not a Biblical teaching of Paul or any other New Testament Apostle or scribe. Paul was acknowledging the practice and stating that it would be pointless to do so without future resurrection.
Even if we allowed for baptism of the dead, baptism would not be required for salvation as explained in my argument.
The tour exists for the purpose of public relations and not debate.
I did not want to be blacklisted in public, but may be anyway based on this post. I am looking for open dialogue in the future.
This post is high enough on the Google rankings if one searches under LDS Langley Temple or like that if someone LDS would like to contact me privately they could email via this blog and we could talk on the phone or whatever. Or they could leave a public comment.
I reason it was best for me to take the tour as a religious observer.
I am not judging Rick or you negatively Jeff at all, but I do firmly believe I did the right thing in my situation.
I actually debated two LDS missionaries in Didsbury in Greater Manchester in 2001, as I was late for church and went for a walk.
Only the one spoke to me and I gave him the gods and works arguments basically that I provided here and he was quite annoyed with me by the time we were done.
He was all worked up.
He stated, something along the lines of, 'I would not have come all the way to Manchester if this gospel was not true'. I stated, paraphrased that 'We both reason we are being led by the Holy Spirit and are not both correct. Therefore we must go to God's word and I have mentioned Isaiah, Romans, Galatians, James (correcting him), theology and philosophy to you that is sound.'
Perhaps I influenced both of them, perhaps only his silent partner, but he was annoyed. Imagine if I did that at the Temple.;)
Thanks for your post! I missed the tour (thought it went till the end of the month) and tried to get permission for an informal look inside, but was given a very chilly reception. No friendly tour guides for me!
ReplyDeleteWell, thank you. Warm greetings to you from Russ in Maple Ridge.
ReplyDeletePerhaps some of them read my review and thought enough of that.;)
Official LDS video: Langley
LDS Temple
'During the Open House, the church conducts tours of the temple with missionaries and members from the local area serving as tour guides, and all rooms of the temple are open to the public. The temple is then dedicated as a "House of The Lord," after which only members in good standing are permitted entrance, thus they are not churches but rather places of worship.[1]'
Your article and review is well done.
Ang/LDS
I am not judging Rick or you negatively Jeff at all, but I do firmly believe I did the right thing in my situation.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that you didn't do the right thing.
Years ago, I spent months, on a daily basis, trying to witness to a Mormon. He invited me to his LDS church, and I went, on condition that he would visit mine, which he did. While sitting in his LDS church, people would go forward and give "testimony" to how Joseph Smith was God's final prophet. I sat there and prayed hard, "Lord, if you want me to go up there and give my testimony, how Christ radically changed my life, I will do it. Just confirm that you want me to do it, and I will go up there." But it seemed to me that God apparently was telling me not to go up there.
So, although we are commanded to witness, evangelize and spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in obedience to the Great Commission, and though we should be continuously doing this on a regular basis, if we don't do it in the power of the Holy Spirit, but do it in the weakness of our flesh instead, then we will fail. That doesn't mean that we can use this as an excuse not to witness to people, but it does mean that we should seek the leading and guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. The Bible also commands us elsewhere to be continuously filled with the Holy Spirit, and, when we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we then have the power to obey Him, to be victorious, and to make a powerful difference in the world around us.
Unfortunately, the times that I have been filled with the Holy Spirit have been far too scarce. When I have been so filled, however, such unbelievable and fantastic things have happened that some of the things are really hard to believe, and other things are almost impossible to adequately explain in words.
I also wish that I would have spent even more time witnessing to people than I have. And I want to become more active in doing so than I currently am. Other than my own salvation experience, I hold the times that I have witnessed to people as the most important things I have done in my entire life.
Wow. I see in that video (Official LDS video: Langley) that they even have to have their feet covered when they go inside.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of how Jesus said about the Pharisees, that they were like whitewashed graves: clean and white on the outside, but inside were full of dead men's bones.
It also sharply contrasts with the biblical fact of how regenerated Christians have been cleansed by the blood of Christ, and are living, holy temples because the Holy Spirit actually lives inside us. So, God no longer dwells in man-made temples like He did in the Old Testament; He now dwells within those who have been made into holy saints by faith in the redeeming blood of Christ.
It seems that, in the video at least, their focus is on the building, rather than on the heart.
The golden angel at the top of the building blowing a trumpet is of course not Gabriel, but Moroni, who appeared to Joseph Smith in the 1820s and showed him where the gold plates were buried.
Of course, Galatians 1:8 says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Mormons believe that Moroni, as a mortal man, was the last author of the Book of Mormon, burying the metal plates upon which it was recorded, some 421 years after the birth of Christ. He followed in the footsteps of his father, Mormon (after whom the Book of Mormon is named) as keeper of an ancient record detailing the history and eventual destruction of their people, the Nephites, by their enemies, the Lamanites. Moroni served as a general under his father, who was the head of all the Nephite armies, during the final military campaign of his people. Only he and a handful of others survived. After he died, he was resurrected, became an angel, and was tasked with guarding the golden plates, and with eventually directing Joseph Smith to their location in the 1820s.
Ironically, Mormons have had the largest archeological organization in the world, and yet, even though the accounts in the Bible have been proven by archaeology time and time again, not one single account in the Book of Mormon has ever been proven by archaeology.
It's also interesting that the music in the video is "If You Could Hie To Kolob." In Mormonism, Kolob is a star or planet mentioned in the Book of Abraham as being nearest to the throne or residence of God. According to Joseph Smith, Jr., this star was discovered by Methuselah and Abraham by looking through the Urim and Thummim. This literal interpretation has led to conceptions such as that the righteous will be made as gods, that God dwells within this universe, and that the Biblical creation is a creation of the local earth, solar system, or galaxy, rather than the entire known physical reality (in other words, that Mormons can one day become a god and create their own universe, and that we worship one god in this universe, who is actually an evolved man, and who is made of flesh and bone like us, but there are really countless amounts of other gods in other universes).
ReplyDeleteThe first published reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, first published in the 1842 newspaper Times and Seasons, and now included within the Pearl of Great Price as part of the canon of Mormonism. The Book of Abraham was dictated in 1836 by Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith, Jr., after he purchased a set of Egyptian scrolls that accompanied a traveling mummy exhibition. According to Smith, the scrolls described a vision of Abraham, in which Abraham "saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God;....and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest" (Abraham 3:2-3). So, according to the traditional, literal Mormon interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Kolob is an actual star or planet in this universe that is, or is near, the physical throne of God.
'I also wish that I would have spent even more time witnessing to people than I have.'
ReplyDeleteI witness in person and consider my theological blogs a type of witness.
'Wow. I see in that video (Official LDS video: Langley) that they even have to have their feet covered when they go inside.'
Yes, my feet were as well.
'It reminds me of how Jesus said about the Pharisees, that they were like whitewashed graves: clean and white on the outside, but inside were full of dead men's bones.'
Well stated.
'So, God no longer dwells in man-made temples like He did in the Old Testament; He now dwells within those who have been made into holy saints by faith in the redeeming blood of Christ.'
Yes.
'It seems that, in the video at least, their focus is on the building, rather than on the heart.'
Yes. Works salvation, a human attempt to please God who will then supposedly save them.
'The golden angel at the top of the building blowing a trumpet is of course not Gabriel, but Moroni, who appeared to Joseph Smith in the 1820s and showed him where the gold plates were buried.
Of course, Galatians 1:8 says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."'
True.
'Ironically, Mormons have had the largest archeological organization in the world, and yet, even though the accounts in the Bible have been proven by archaeology time and time again, not one single account in the Book of Mormon has ever been proven by archaeology.'
They should find that very disturbing.
Well done, Jeff.
Thanks.
From Walter Martin
ReplyDelete'Mormonism stands or falls on the word of just one man—its prophet— Joseph Smith Jr. If Joseph Smith lied, if there was no "revelation", if he is proven a false prophet, then Mormonism is "another gospel"—a tragic lie.
'The following information is taken from books considered rare or difficult to find. Dr. William Wyl's Mormon Portraits (1886) in particular, infuriated the Mormon Church. Dr. Wyl was a well-known and highly respected German physician, who visited Salt Lake City with no intent to attack the Mormons and came away appalled at all he had seen and heard. He wrote, "I do not wish to insult anybody in this book, or to hurt anybody's feelings. I desire to do my simple duty as a writer. That is all; to do it as a critic and observer, having the courage of my opinions, and being happily free from ‘all entangling alliances.'"
From Walter Martin
ReplyDeleteFrom Dr. William Wyl's Mormon Portraits (1886)
Joseph Smith Jr. and Family
'EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS
Peter Ingersoll:
"Smith told me the whole affair was a hoax; that he had no such book and did not believe there was such a book in existence; ‘But,' said he, ‘as I have got the damned fools fixed, I shall carry out the fun.'"[1]
Thurlow Weed
In 1825, when I was publishing the "Rochester Telegraph," a man introduced himself to me as Joseph Smith, of Palmyra, New York, whose object, he said, was to get a book published. He then stated he had been guided by a vision to a spot he described, where, in a cavern, he found what he called a golden bible. It consisted of a tablet which he placed in his hat, and from which he proceeded to read the first chapter of the Book of Mormon.
I listened until I became weary of what seemed to me an incomprehensible jargon. I then told him I was only publishing a newspaper, and that he would have to go to a book publisher, suggesting a friend who was in that business. A few days afterward Smith called again, bringing a substantial farmer with him named Harris. Smith renewed his request that I should print his book, adding that it was a divine revelation, and would be accepted, and that he would be accepted by the world as a prophet. Supposing that I had doubts as to his being able to pay for the publishing, Mr. Harris, who was a convert, offered to be his security for payment.
Meantime, I had discovered that Smith was a shrewd, scheming fellow who passed his time at taverns and stores in Palmyra, without business, and without visible means of support. He was about five feet eight inches in height, had regular features, and would impress one favorably in conversation. His book was afterward published in Palmyra.[2]'
Interesting comment on the unfriendly reception to outsiders at the Mormon Temple, perhaps something to hide on behalf of the Mormon leadership??
ReplyDelete-True Color Mag.-
TCM,
ReplyDeleteI will provide an example of better treatment. When I was in England in Jan 09 I visited my friend in central England. The three of us, he his wife and I saw an old church. It was several hundred years old. It was just closing, and so we just had a quick look on the inside and the outside. But, the man in charge of closing the Anglican Church, I believe it was as opposed to a Roman Catholic Church, spent a few minutes giving us a quick historical overview of the church. He had to go somewhere with his wife, who was with him, but took some time to guide us.
That was good PR.
Interesting. I would love to visit it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, MD.
ReplyDeleteIt was reasonably interesting, yes.
I hope your online radio show is doing well.
Very interesting blog post. As an active LDS member, I have to admit that I'm surprised at the wealth of misunderstanding both in your blog post, and in the many comments made. Let me be honest, I haven't actually read them all word for word, only skimmed the highlights. ;) But what I read was quite surprising. But let me address just a couple of misconceptions just for examples.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I was struck by Daij's comment about black skin. From my study of the Book of Mormon, my understanding isn't that black skin was the curse. We read in the Old Testament that a "mark" was set upon Cain. The mark was not his curse. His curse was to be separated from the Lord. The mark was just a protection for him, so that others would recognize him and not slay him, thereby bringing a curse upon themselves. (Genesis 4:15) So too, my understanding of the dark skin of the people of the ancient Americas was that it was for a time a way to distinguish the believers from the unbelievers. In Biblical times, there were strict rules about marrying with unbelievers. For the children of Israel in the Americas, the danger of marrying unbelievers was the same. However, a careful study of the last half of the Book of Mormon shows that the dark skinned "Lamanites" actually became more righteous than the light skinned people.
The idea that Mormons believe that dark skinned people can only go to heaven as a slave is absolutely false. That's ridiculous. As we read in Samuel, the Lord looketh on the heart, not the outward appearance. But these misconceptions about our beliefs never cease to crop up.
The other point that struck me was your assertion that we believe in a plurality of gods. In fact, we too believe in God, the eternal father, His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. They are three separate and distinct beings, but in purpose are unified, and are "one eternal God". As for the father of God, we have no such revelation on the matter. It is a mere mortal assumption about the origin of God, not a church doctrine.
The one comment made that the blogger felt uneasy with temple workers watching their every move is understandable. It is an uncomfortable situation to feel "watched". But once they have a clear understanding of our view of the temple, they would understand the caution we exert in allowing others to view it. We believe that these temple ordinances have existed throughout time. The Children of Israel also engaged in temple ordinances. Solomon built one of the grandest temples in Old Testament times. There were very strict commandments about who was allowed to enter, and what was performed in their temples. It was considered the holiest place. In absence of a temple, prophets have often sought communion with God on mountaintops. But when a temple is present, that is the place where prophets go to receive revelation and guidance from God. to us they are very sacred edifices, and are literally the "house of the Lord"'. We take great care to make sure that they are not defiled in any way. Before a temple is "dedicated" (a priesthood ordinance to pray and dedicate the house to God) it is just an ordinary building, and anyone may enter. But once it is dedicated, only those found to meet the standards of worthiness are able to enter.
Well, I wish I had more time to discuss the misconceptions, but I have to run. Feel free to stop by my religion blog any time.
Part One:
ReplyDelete'Very interesting blog post.'
Thanks.
'I have to admit that I'm surprised at the wealth of misunderstanding both in your blog post, and in the many comments made.'
We shall see.
'First of all, I was struck by Daij's comment about black skin. From my study of the Book of Mormon, my understanding isn't that black skin was the curse. We read in the Old Testament that a "mark" was set upon Cain. The mark was not his curse. His curse was to be separated from the Lord. The mark was just a protection for him, so that others would recognize him and not slay him, thereby bringing a curse upon themselves. (Genesis 4:15).'
It is not known what this mark is.
'So too, my understanding of the dark skin of the people of the ancient Americas was that it was for a time a way to distinguish the believers from the unbelievers.'
That would be speculation.
Smith did not help with these beliefs cropping up with what he wrote. I am not stating that it is today official Church doctrine.
'The other point that struck me was your assertion that we believe in a plurality of gods. In fact, we too believe in God, the eternal father, His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. They are three separate and distinct beings, but in purpose are unified, and are "one eternal God". As for the father of God, we have no such revelation on the matter. It is a mere mortal assumption about the origin of God, not a church doctrine.'
To be infinite is to be unlimited.
Eternal life is unlimited life and is an aspect of being unlimited.
There can only be one infinite/eternal being.
Three separate distinct infinite/eternal Gods of this type is an illogical concept.
This view on God is therefore false.
Further past this argument:
John Ankerberg and John Weldon state that any claims of LDS leaders concerning official early doctrine are not to be trusted as there has been a 'whitewashing of early history and doctrines'. Ankerberg and Weldon (1996: 275).
They further state concerning LDS core doctrinal beliefs that 'Elohim' of the Old Testament was an exalted physical man and was fashioned by sexual union of a divine mother and father and that Jesus/Jehovah was the first-begotten child of Elohim and Mary. (1996: 276).
So, as Elohim's parents were also fashioned sexually as were their parents before and so on and so, that indeed is a vicious regress.
The LDS belief is a form of henotheism (and still polytheistic), that being a worship/belief of one God with the understanding that additional gods exists in other worlds. (1996: 276).
Again, this ties into a vicious regress in this case.
It is also as noted from Isaiah, not Biblical.
'God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ.'
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
Part Two:
ReplyDeleteA temple is no longer necessary as there is now the completed work of Christ.
Hebrews 7
17For it is attested of Him,
"(U)YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."
18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment(V)because of its weakness and uselessness
19(for (W)the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better (X)hope, through which we (Y)draw near to God.
20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath
21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"(Z)THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND (AA)WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
'YOU ARE A PRIEST (AB)FOREVER'");
22so much the more also Jesus has become the (AC)guarantee of (AD)a better covenant.
23The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing,
24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues (AE)forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
25Therefore He is able also to (AF)save forever those who (AG)draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to (AH)make intercession for them.
26For it was fitting for us to have such a (AI)high priest, (AJ)holy, (AK)innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and (AL)exalted above the heavens;
27who does not need daily, like those high priests, to (AM)offer up sacrifices, (AN)first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did (AO)once for all when He (AP)offered up Himself.
28For the Law appoints men as high priests (AQ)who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints (AR)a Son, (AS)made perfect forever.
Cheers,
Russ:)
Delirious said
ReplyDeleteWell, I wish I had more time to discuss the misconceptions, but I have to run. Feel free to stop by my religion blog any time.
I cannot tell you how many LDS pull this crap. They touch on a point or two, but cannot ever seem to stay and really get to the heart of the matter, they are always to busy. Sure you are.
Since I do not know if this guy will ever come back and really get to the meat of the matter, let me just say, He is the one that does not know his own teachings.
Brigham young spoke of black skin being a curse, then the changes in the BoM about how the Blacks will become white, then when that did not happen, it was changed to pure.
I can see black skin turning white, I cannot see a person turning pure.
Then the multiple gods issue. Please, LDS teach we can attain god hood some day, did you ever read the King Follet discourse? Joseph Smith talked about Millions of gods. What about the Pearl of great price? Again God said he sat in the counsel of the gods.
If you want to debate, I will do it, other wise, either you need to check your facts, or you need to be honest, only time will tell if you really are ignorant of your churchs teachings, or are a liar and a wolf in sheeps clothing. Rick B
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI noticed you quoted from the 1958 Mormon doctrine, I happen to own that own. Try and find a copy of the newest edition and compare them side by side.
This is one thing I hate about the LDS church, the newest version is called among Non-LDS, The sanitised version. So much has been removed that it's not funny.
LDS will make statments like, Bruce did not check to see if he could say what he said, or is not a prophet or whatever, they make hundreds of excuses about the changes, but never tell you unless you know that these changes were ever made.
Then here is something that really shows the mormons are liars and being dectiful when they do not let you know about these changes, or make excuses for them.
Cont,
In the Original 1958 Edition to the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R.McConkie He states In the Preface:
ReplyDeleteThis Work on Mormon Doctrine Is unique--the first book of it's kind ever published.
It is the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom.
It is the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel--the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.
True, there are many Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias; but they all abound in apostate, sectarian notions. Also, there are many sound gospel texts on special subjects.
But never before has a comprehensive attempt been made to define and outline, in a brief manner, all of the basic principles of salvation--and to do it from the perspective of all revelation, both ancient and modern.
This work on Mormon Doctrine is designed to help persons seeking salvation to gain that knowledge of God and his laws without which they cannot hope for an inheritance in the celestial city.
Since it is impossible foe a man to be saved in ignorance of God and his laws and since a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, it follows that men are obligated at their peril to learn and apply the true doctrines of the gospel.
this gospel compendium will enable men, more effectively, to "teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom"; to "be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel,in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient" for them "to understand." (D and C 88:77-7
For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Observant students, however, will note that the four standard works of the Church are the chief sources of authority quoted and that literally tens of thousands of scriptural quotations and citations are woven into the text material.
Where added explanations and interpretations were deemed essential, they have been taken from such recognized doctrinal authorities as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and Joseph Fielding Smith.
Two persons have been particularly helpful in the actual preparation of the work: 1. Velma Harvey, my very able and competent secretary, who with unbounded devotion and insight has typed manuscripts, checked references, proofread, and worked out many technical details; and 2. Joseph Fielding Smith , Jr., my brother in law, who both set the type and made many valuable suggestions as to content and construction.
Abundant needed and important counsel has also come from Milton R. Hunter, my colleague on the First Council of the Seventy; Marvin Wallin, of Bookcraft; and Thomas S. Moson, of the deseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah June 1, 1958 --Bruce R. McConkie.
Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities. So with that in mind, Is a Challenge as it were, Issued By Bruce R.McConkie.
If Bruce really looked into the prophets of old, then this stuff was taught by them, so mormons that say other wise are either lying or have their head buired in the sand and really do not want to look into the truth. Rick b
PS It seems I was correct, no reply from the LDS member.
'This is one thing I hate about the LDS church, the newest version is called among Non-LDS, The sanitised version. So much has been removed that it's not funny.'
ReplyDeleteYes.
The Church seems very corporate. The Church is worth billions. Growth is very important to them.
The LDS is very concerned with public image.
'PS It seems I was correct, no reply from the LDS member.'
Zombie emailed me and stated he hoped we would stir up controversy in order that more LDS supporters would comment.
Time will tell.
Thanks, Rick.
Well done.
From the blog comments of an active LDS member that commented on this post in criticism of my writing:
ReplyDeleteDelirious
'thekingpin68 said... Thanks for your blog comment. There are a couple of replies to you, one from me and another from a blog link that deals with Mormonism. If you reply, I will look for it on my blog. If not, all the best. Russ:)
Delirious said... No offense Russ, but your blog has shown me who you are, and your purpose. What you write isn't an accurate presentation of our beliefs. That troubles me greatly and I feel that if you would misrepresent us this way, I can't trust anything you would write. Others may choose to "kick against the pricks" but I don't have the desire to come along for the ride.'
My reply here for this blog only:
'No offense Russ, but your blog has shown me who you are, and your purpose.'
Who am I?
I am a Biblical Christian theologian and scholar. I am an imperfect sinner saved by grace through faith. I put myself out in the public and take risks. I risk my worldview and Christian faith and philosophy. I take on all comers and I am willing to be both a student and teacher.
My purpose
To accurately represent the Christian gospel, Bible, theology and philosophy of religion and any other discipline discussed.
'What you write isn't an accurate presentation of our beliefs.'
I basically paraphrased/quoted what the LDS tour guide stated and cited what Joseph Smith stated.
So what was inaccurate?
I also discussed reasonable theological and philosophical perspectives on such views.
'That troubles me greatly and I feel that if you would misrepresent us this way, I can't trust anything you would write.'
You can look up Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other LDS writers yourself, and you can look up the same sources I quoted.
What is not to trust?
'Others may choose to "kick against the pricks" but I don't have the desire to come along for the ride.'
I am not judging your heart, but academically this reads like a fideistic approach. By your approach your religious faith and philosophy will not be seriously rationally tested. You came to my blog and basically challenged my views and you did not expect me to defend them?
You wrote:
'Very interesting blog post. As an active LDS member, I have to admit that I'm surprised at the wealth of misunderstanding both in your blog post, and in the many comments made. Let me be honest, I haven't actually read them all word for word, only skimmed the highlights. ;) But what I read was quite surprising. But let me address just a couple of misconceptions just for examples.'
All the best.
This is one blog that fascinates me, and I have actually read it all, remembering when your dad and I visited Salt Lake City. The first morning, being Sunday, we went to the church especially to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, world famous. I am happy I could hear at the time - it was a good experience. The next day we toured the amazing Temple, all constructed of beautiful marble, and there was no sign of dust anywhere. My thought at the time about wearing the white slippers was to keep it clean, and to prevent soil brought in on people's shoes.
ReplyDeleteWe were criticized by some members of the group we were there with, but that was their problem, not ours. Everybody needs to take a good look, and see for themselves and understand the millions upon millions of dollars spent on 'making it look good.' We listened to the spiel about the baptizing of the dead, and the prayers for the dead to get them into that heavenly place. We were told about the places in the temple that no ordinary man is allowed to enter. We viewed the film re their prophet Joseph Smith.
We also went into their library of Kardex files where they have again millions upon millions of cards, all filed in alphabetical order, and each card has the profile of the named.
We took a tour to the University, another beautifully crafted facility, completely built by the labor of Mormon people, and all voluntary and unpaid for their time. I considered it a worthwhile thing to do.
You may publish this if you wish for it is all true! We only went to observe and to learn about what we visited and saw.
Hugs
Mom
This was my 3 part reply to her.
ReplyDeleteDelirious,
I just love how LDS claim they are so full of love and what not, then out of the side of their neck they speak with double talk.
You guys claim we are anti mormon, yet first off many of you have no clue what your founders taught, second you guys are always crying about how we judge you guys, yet you turn around and judge us very harshly.
I love how you guys claim we take things of of context yet you never seem to tell us exactly where we are going wrong or what the truth really is.
Are you even aware of these things you church teaches? Before I share let me be honest and say, You probably will not read everything I write, If you do not, then that should show you your heart and show that you really do not care.
LDS Members are always saying 3 Nephi 11:29, 'He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil. First off, I would like to say, this is not taught anywhere in the Bible. So for those who believe that the BoM is another gospel and basically a work of the devil, then we believe the Devil would teach this.
He is going to want you to believe this because then people will avoid answering hard questions that simply question their faith. The Idea of Contention being of the devil, if this were true, then I see a lot of problems in the Bible. Jesus and the apostles plus prophets in the OT did and said things that easily could be viewed as Contention.
John the baptist said
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Jesus said
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Notice here in these verses, the People were offended because of him.
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Granted Jesus is both Perfect and Speaking the truth, they were offended by the Truth, but still People who claim they are Offended or I am being Contentions means nothing, It in my mind is simply a way to avoid the truth, by claiming it is not true but of the devil.
Here is two more things Jesus said, that Could be taken as a spirit of Contention.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Jesus calls the leaders Blind, and says to His Disciples, Are ye also yet without understanding?
In today's words, Jesus would be saying, Are you also Stupid?
Something Else Jesus said to his Disciples,
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken
He called his Disciples, Fools and slow of heart.
Can you believe Jesus did this!
Jhn 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables
He whipped the people and overturned their stuff, if that is not mean and a form of Contention I don't know what is.
Cont,
Cont,
ReplyDeleteNow lets look at this verse,
Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
Notice in this verse the word SALT. I have been in the restaurant business for around 20 years. We use salt to draw blood out of meat, and it draws impurities out of food, it helps slow the growth of yeast in bread, and in the Scripture the use of yeast always refers to Sin and false Doctrine. We use the salt, (Truth) to slow down or kill doctrinal error, and when salt is poured and your hand has a cut on it, it hurts.
We read in Scripture
Galatians 4:16 puts it, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" I could say that, because I share the truth with you and you get mad, you feel it is Contention.
Paul says in
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Paul points out these two people as teaching false Doctrine and says it is a canker. Paul even goes so far as to name names. This could also be taken as Contention.
The Bible tells us in 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. We are told to REBUKE, REPROVE, EXHORT. These things can all be taken as forms of Contention.
Now lets look at what the LDS prophets and Scripture teach.
Read
D and C 66:7 68:1,9 go into the church's public or private to discuss this stuff. D and C 6:9-11 says convince us of our error if we have any.
Why do I get accused of being contentious for doing what the scriptures teach. Now let me add this, would you agree it is good to listen to the mormon prophets? If so then I am. Read
pg 188 of doct of salvation vol 1 I quote. "CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. MORMONISM, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. their is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed: his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false".
Why if your president and prophet said to do this and I believe it, I am in the wrong?. Did your Prophet not read that verse about contention? Let me also add what the apostle Orson Pratt said.
cont,
ReplyDeleteThe Seer pg 15. I quote " if we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God that YOUR religion is wrong we will not persecute you".
Notice he is speaking to people of others faiths. And he states he is trying to show they are wrong through talks, but says if we cannot convince you. Well I don't feel I have persecuted anyone if they disagree. Let me add what else he said.
I quote Orson pratt still pg 15.
"we ask from you the same generosity--protect us in the exercise of our religious rights--CONVINCE US of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds".
I am just trying to look at mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks, But it does not appear to be that way today. Then even after what Orson Pratt said, he does and feels should be done with the LDS I am still accused of being Contentious for sharing.
Ok this is stuff your Prophets have said about Christians. And if this is true, how can you say your a christian. If it is false, then your prophets were wrong, so could they be wrong about other stuff? Also regardless of whether it is true or not, could this be taken as a form of contention?
Here is what some of the former LDS Prophets and presidents have said about christians and I Quote:
"B Young: "with a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth" (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball "Christians-those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth" (J.O.D 5:89)." then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the christian creeds are an abomination in his sight.
I would think the Prophets who said that, had the Devil's Spirit of Contention. Rick b
Thanks, Rick. Well done.
ReplyDelete'Delirious,
I just love how LDS claim they are so full of love and what not, then out of the side of their neck they speak with double talk.'
Yes. It is a sign of fideism, an over reliance or overreliance on faith at the expense of reason.
'You guys claim we are anti mormon, yet first off many of you have no clue what your founders taught, second you guys are always crying about how we judge you guys, yet you turn around and judge us very harshly.'
I thought she was harsh, yes. It was not like I went to her blog looking for a debate, as she came to mine first as a critic. So, I gave her a debate.
'I love how you guys claim we take things of of context yet you never seem to tell us exactly where we are going wrong or what the truth really is.'
LDS founders made some huge foundational theological and philosophical errors which these poor folks are now trying to defend.
'Are you even aware of these things you church teaches? Before I share let me be honest and say, You probably will not read everything I write, If you do not, then that should show you your heart and show that you really do not care.'
A sign of fideism is to shun evidence and argumentation counter to one's religious philosophy and faith.
'LDS Members are always saying 3 Nephi 11:29, 'He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil. First off, I would like to say, this is not taught anywhere in the Bible.'
Via Matthew 18, we can see that personally we should try and be at peace with a brother but sin must be dealt with.
But, as you note Rick, we are to contend for the faith.
2 Timothy 4:2-4 (New American Standard Bible)
2preach (A)the word; be ready in season and out of season;(B)reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great (C)patience and instruction.
3For (D)the time will come when they will not endure (E)sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4and (F)will turn away their ears from the truth and (G)will turn aside to myths.
Actually quite appropriate to this discussion.
1 Peter 3:15-16 (New American Standard Bible)
15but [a]sanctify (A)Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready(B)to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the (C)hope that is in you, yet (D)with gentleness and(E)reverence;
16and keep a (F)good conscience so that in the thing in which (G)you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
Incase the lds person removes what was said, Here is her reply to me, and my reply to her. She is what I thought, A liar and fraud.
ReplyDeletecont,
The Seer pg 15. I quote " if we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God that YOUR religion is wrong we will not persecute you".
Notice he is speaking to people of others faiths. And he states he is trying to show they are wrong through talks, but says if we cannot convince you. Well I don't feel I have persecuted anyone if they disagree. Let me add what else he said.
I quote Orson pratt still pg 15.
"we ask from you the same generosity--protect us in the exercise of our religious rights--CONVINCE US of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds".
I am just trying to look at mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks, But it does not appear to be that way today. Then even after what Orson Pratt said, he does and feels should be done with the LDS I am still accused of being Contentious for sharing.
Ok this is stuff your Prophets have said about Christians. And if this is true, how can you say your a christian. If it is false, then your prophets were wrong, so could they be wrong about other stuff? Also regardless of whether it is true or not, could this be taken as a form of contention?
Here is what some of the former LDS Prophets and presidents have said about christians and I Quote:
"B Young: "with a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth" (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball "Christians-those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth" (J.O.D 5:89)." then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the christian creeds are an abomination in his sight.
I would think the Prophets who said that, had the Devil's Spirit of Contention. Rick b
May 6, 2010 7:28 PM
Blogger Delirious said...
Can I be perfectly honest Rick? I started to read your comments in my inbox, but ended up skipping over most of it because of the tone. I really think you will probably be happier reading a different blog that has an author that agrees with your views. I'm not writing this blog to argue, or to contend. I have met with many other bloggers how had the same spirit of contention, and I have learned from experience that I'm just not interested in discussing with people who are anti-mormon, or who have such severe dislike of our church. But thanks for stopping by. I hope you can find a blog that suits your tastes more.
May 6, 2010 9:42 PM
Anonymous Rick b said...
If your not honestly going to look into what I said, then how can you be honest and say you love the lord but allow me to walk in darkness, this shows you do not know your church or want to now what they really teach. Remember acts 17:11
Plus I did not come here to debate, I saw you hit and run full of misinformation on Russ's blog and was leaving a reply, but yopu simply show what frauds you really are by not even reading what was said. Your the one who does the cherry picking you accuse us of. Rick b
I wish to further clarify the following and provide another perspective.
ReplyDeleteI understood the other perspective prior to posting my argument. I have thought about this issue for more than a decade.
'To be infinite is to be unlimited.
Eternal life is unlimited life and is an aspect of being unlimited.
There can only be one infinite/eternal being.
Three separate distinct infinite/eternal Gods of this type is an illogical concept.
This view on God is therefore false.'
My main conclusion being here that there cannot be in existence three infinite/unlimited beings or any infinite beings, only an infinite being. That would be illogical and false.
Now, one could argue that a being could be eternal and not omnipotent, or omniscient but not eternal, for examples.
Some may argue that a finite being could have an infinite attribute or some attributes. This would be considered logical by many within academics I reason. But I reason this is not reasonable even if technically logical.
I reason infinite nature means all infinite attributes. So, in regard to foreknowledge, for example, if God does not have absolute infinite foreknowledge, he does not have finite foreknowledge. He would instead simply deduce things in a perfect manner in order that his will comes to pass.
An infinite being cannot logically have finite attributes. Although there can be things that are illogical and impossible for this being to do that would contradict nature.
If a being was eternal but was not omnipotent, prior to the existence of creation and matter, for example, what would not be in his/her power? This seems problematic. I would instead reason that an eternal being that was supposedly not omnipotent, actually did not lack omnipotence but what it could not do was against its nature and therefore illogical and impossible.
If a being was eternal and not omnipotent, for example, it would not be infinite. This is a very questionable being although logically possible in the minds of many with academics I reason.
So, I stand by my previous argument but as I often do I do wish to provide another perspective and so critics can realize that I do often see things from more than one perspective.
With either perspective I still reason it illogical for three infinite/eternal beings to exists.
Such a being is false.
'Can I be perfectly honest Rick? I started to read your comments in my inbox, but ended up skipping over most of it because of the tone.'
ReplyDeleteEvasion.
'Plus I did not come here to debate, I saw you hit and run full of misinformation on Russ's blog...'
Some like to propagate their religion and/or philosophy with others but cannot stand for serious criticism of their own views.
See my previous comment. Notice how I reason out more than one perspective even though I favour one over the other.
Cheers. Rick.
Further on the nature of God:
ReplyDeleteWhat if someone LDS argues that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal but not infinite?
This would seem problematic, as time and matter appear from science and philosophy finite. There is the problem of vicious regress mentioned.
So, let's take away the finite entities created, material, non-material and non-eternal.
At some point only the eternal Gods would have existed.
We are left with three separate co-eternal Gods, and nothing else in existence.
This seems to imply infinitude/unlimited nature for three separate Gods/beings.
This is illogical.
This concept is false.
If Bruce really looked into the prophets of old, then this stuff was taught by them, so mormons that say other wise are either lying or have their head buired in the sand and really do not want to look into the truth. Rick b
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be that most Mormons are not lying, but sincerely believe in the things they have been taught. I think a major problem is just as Rick stated:
...yet first off many of you have no clue what your founders taught,...
For example, I knew a Mormon girl who, when I mentioned some books written by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., she had never heard of them. I think one major problem with cults such as the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses is that their leaders keep much from them, because if the members were to be fully exposed to all of the past writings and literature of the church, a large number of them would leave the church. I think this may be related to one thing Russ said:
By your approach your religious faith and philosophy will not be seriously rationally tested.
A cult cannot stand up to a true critique. Both in the LDS (Mormon) church and Jehovah's Witness church (i.e., the Watchtower), many things have been changed over the years---things which completely contradict past teachings. The Bible has withstood more critiquing, textual criticism, attacks, attempts to obliterate all copies completely, etc., than any other work of literature in history. Its accuracy, authenticity, historicity, authority, reliability...not to mention it power to radically change lives...has been proven time and time again over the centuries. In comparison, the Book of Mormon, for example, has been shown to be nothing more than a complete work of fiction, with not a single historical proof for anything it talks about, ever having been demonstrated.
Delirious said...
ReplyDeleteNo offense Russ, but your blog has shown me who you are, and your purpose. What you write isn't an accurate presentation of our beliefs. That troubles me greatly and I feel that if you would misrepresent us this way, I can't trust anything you would write. Others may choose to "kick against the pricks" but I don't have the desire to come along for the ride.
I can verify that Russ always strives to be very accurate, and has not misrepresented Mormon teaching at all. Though in the months I have been following Russ' blog, he and I have not always agreed on every single point, I can say that I trust his views and his writings to be trustworthy...and a thousand times more trustworthy than the false teachings of any cult, to be sure.
As an active LDS member, I have to admit that I'm surprised at the wealth of misunderstanding both in your blog post, and in the many comments made.
I would call this a completely false accusation, and I'm guessing it would be classified as a logical fallacy.
'A cult cannot stand up to a true critique.'
ReplyDeleteWell stated.
Both the LDS and Watchtower claim to be Christian.
The Hebrew Bible and New Testament can be used to clearly show the LDS and Watchtower to both be heretical with essential doctrines concerning the nature of God and salvation.
Therefore they are essentially false religions.
A religion would make more sense, in a sense, if it denied the Bible as supernatural and started something new.
But it would still be essentially false.
Thanks, Jeff.
Rick said,
ReplyDeleteHe is going to want you to believe this because then people will avoid answering hard questions that simply question their faith.
That Mormon girl that I mentioned previously is an example of this. I had tried to engage her in conversation about her beliefs a few times, but she was extremely reluctant to talk about her beliefs with me.
'I can verify that Russ always strives to be very accurate, and has not misrepresented Mormon teaching at all. Though in the months I have been following Russ' blog, he and I have not always agreed on every single point, I can say that I trust his views and his writings to be trustworthy...and a thousand times more trustworthy than the false teachings of any cult, to be sure.'
ReplyDeleteThanks very much, Jeff. Very kind and helpful.
At times there is a lack of open-minded dialogue online.
At times there is too much fear that overcomes too little reason, online.
This has happened to me recently in regard to relationships and religion online.
You and I have the same essential beliefs but differ on some secondary issues as we have different experiences and reasoning.
'As an active LDS member, I have to admit that I'm surprised at the wealth of misunderstanding both in your blog post, and in the many comments made.
I would call this a completely false accusation, and I'm guessing it would be classified as a logical fallacy.'
I published her comment and replied and even went to her blog to let her know. She calls my understanding, misunderstanding.
Cheers, Jeff.
'Rick said,
ReplyDeleteHe is going to want you to believe this because then people will avoid answering hard questions that simply question their faith.
That Mormon girl that I mentioned previously is an example of this. I had tried to engage her in conversation about her beliefs a few times, but she was extremely reluctant to talk about her beliefs with me.'
Yes, fideism, my latest audio post here:
satire and theology/audio post
Rick said:
ReplyDeleteCol 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
Notice in this verse the word SALT. I have been in the restaurant business for around 20 years. We use salt to draw blood out of meat, and it draws impurities out of food, it helps slow the growth of yeast in bread, and in the Scripture the use of yeast always refers to Sin and false Doctrine. We use the salt, (Truth) to slow down or kill doctrinal error, and when salt is poured and your hand has a cut on it, it hurts.
Nice. I like the real-life analogy/explanation.
From satire and theology/audio post:
ReplyDelete'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason.
Yes, some of the things in LDS theology seem to me to contradict reason. For example: If, according to LDS theology, God is supposed to be made of flesh and blood like us, then how is it that his children are spirit?
Also, if---again according to LDS theology---god is an evolved man, and his god was an evolved man, then where did the first 'god' come from?
Rick, we need some beef with that salt...;)
ReplyDeleteYou are making me hungry.
'Yes, some of the things in LDS theology seem to me to contradict reason. For example: If, according to LDS theology, God is supposed to be made of flesh and blood like us, then how is it that his children are spirit?'
Very good point.
'Also, if---again according to LDS theology---god is an evolved man, and his god was an evolved man, then where did the first 'god' come from?'
A vicious regress.
There is a need for a first cause.
Cheers, Sir Jenkins.
Me and the LDS lady are still going back and forth, so here is the Meat that you asked for. I said to her,
ReplyDeleteHere are the Big points I am trying to get across.
1. LDS claim us "Anti-Mormons" Are filled with hate. But yet LDS ignore the fact that the BoM calls us members of the church of the devil and were abominations.
2. LDS claim we judge them, yet LDS turn around and judge us unworthy of the Gospel. They judge our hearts by saying we really do not want to hear the truth so they wont tell us.
3. The LDS Claim we take things out of context and cherry pick, Yet they never show us where or how wwe are wrong and correct us in love as the scriptures tell us.
4. LDS as your self admit you do not read all of what we write, so how can you judge honestly and say we are wrong or misquoting when you really do not know?
5. LDS claim we know we are correct because we prayed about it. Yet the JW's and muslims and all other religions claim the same thing. Yet not only does the Bible teach to search the Scriptures and not say, Pray about truth, but so does the BoM.
So my point is, where is the love from LDS that they preach so much about? I see none, and you guys wonder why we say what we say. Your actions tell me you are not interested in the truth or even care for the lost. Rick b
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteShe states:
Her blog
'Rick,
I don't feel that my comments on the other blog were "hit and run". I was SHOCKED at all of the attacks and misinformation, and simply wanted to make the point that ALL of it was way off the mark. I wasn't there to start an argument. And frankly, I have no interest in returning to that kind of a blog.'
Delirious had opportunity to defend her views and tried on this blog, and I countered.
She then gave up and cried foul on her blog.
It was never convincingly demonstrated that I was providing misinformation.
Cheers.
Nice to read the article. I sometimes get confused between JW's and Mormons but some JW's have come to my house thrice now. Do tell me if you have some stuff on them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found this great resource on you tube, "John Ankerberg Show". Walter martin in in it to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA.
Always enjoy reading your posts,
Varun
Thanks, Varun.
ReplyDeleteAlways good to hear from you.
These are some of the sources I use.
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.
MARTIN, WALTER (2006) 'The Mormon Doctrine of God', San Juan Capistrano, Walter Martin.org.
http://www.waltermartin.org/mormon.html#mormdoc
Vaurn,
ReplyDeleteOne thing you can ask the JW's is, if you will only inherit the earth and not heaven why would you want to be a member? Rick b
Cheers, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI stated in the post 'Parousia and eschatology' in archives:
It should be noted here that The Kingdom of Heaven/God will therefore not only include access to God in the heavenly non-physical spiritual realm, but also a physical creation restored to an original perfection ruled by God. The elect in Christ will be physically resurrected and not live everlastingly as spiritual beings alone, because God wants the those in Christ to live forever in the restored Kingdom described in Revelation, Chapters 21-22. Robert H. Mounce points out that contrary to Greek dualism, God always intended for human beings to exist on a redeemed earth, not in a heavenly realm removed from physical existence. Mounce (1990: 368). This makes sense as a physical resurrected body naturally requires a physical realm to exist in, but Paul calls the resurrected body, spiritual, in 1 Corinthians 15: 44.
Gordon Fee explains that the resurrection body is not immaterial but supernatural. It is a body adapted for eschatological existence under the domination of the spirit. Fee (1987: 786). Mounce notes that the concepts of new heaven and new earth in Revelation are described with varying degrees of literalness, but the new heaven and new earth provides the setting for the new and everlasting state. Mounce (1999: 369). The new heaven and new earth is not simply metaphor for a spiritual existence with God in his heavenly presence, but an actual physical place where human beings shall live and prosper with Christ. If Christians were intended to live merely a spiritual existence with God in the heavenly realm this would make the resurrection of the natural body, which becomes a spiritual body, as Paul describes it, unnecessary. If God did not intend to restore the physical universe and human body, then saved human beings, after death, could simply remain in Paradise (Luke 23: 43, 2 Corinthians 12: 4) in spirit form only.
FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Delirious blog
ReplyDelete'Delirious said...
Rick, do you really want to be converted?'
Lol. Only if Rick (The Hammer) B did not care about reason and evidence.
Why do people often stay in a cult?
ReplyDeleteFeelings...nothing more than
Feelings
FEEEEEEEEEELings, whoawhoawhoa feeeeeeeeeelings...
Stone & Parker talk about an early Southpark episode which included Mohammed, as well as Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, and "Sea Man" (?) as "Jesus' Super Best Friends".
ReplyDeleteFeelings lyrics
ReplyDeleteFEELINGS
Feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
trying to forget my feelings of love.
Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it.
I wish I've never met you, girl; you'll never come again.
Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms.
Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you and feelings like I've never have you again in my heart.
Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it.
I wish I've never met you, girl; you'll never come again.
Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you and feelings like I've never have you again in my life.
Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
wo-o-o, feelings again in my arms.
Feelings...(repeat & fade)
Albert Morris
Saint Chucklins' Uncle is interviewed:
ReplyDeleteMiracle channel
Superfriends Starring the Southpark Kids
I watched the show:
ReplyDeleteYour Uncle is a very bright scholar, Chuck.
He looks a bit like Uncle Gerry, Chucky.
2 Corinthians 5:10 appears to be a judgment for Christians.
Heaven for humanity is not primarily 'up there', but it is primarily the new Heaven and new Earth in Revelation Chapters 21-22.
Revelation 20, is the judgment of those outside of Christ. Although some debate whether all are judged there.
In regard to 2 Corinthians 5: 10, I can agree that we are judged for good and bad as Christians in Christ, although our sins are atoned for as believers.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New American Standard Bible)
11For no man can lay a (A)foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13(B)each man's work will become evident; for (C)the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will(D)receive a reward.
15If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet (E)so as through fire.
I reason heaven is about intimacy with God primarily and also with others in Christ.
Also:
With 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, after it is mentioned who shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, in verse 11 Paul states that such were some of you (NASB). But that you were washed and sanctified in Christ.
Verse 11 seems to place this position in past tense.
It is possible believers are being discussed and that inheritance is not so much dealing with salvation but with rewards.
But more likely it seems the unregenerate are being discussed and the regenerate are being warned not to act as such.
Matthew 7:21-23 (New American Standard Bible)
21"(A)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"(B)Many will say to Me on (C)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
I reason this is not talking about Christians.
I disagree with him in that some cultists do cast out demons in Jesus' name. I do not reason that only Christians can do exorcisms.
Also:
He likely assumes a form of libertarian free will and incompatibilism, with his view that salvation can be lost.
But:
Whom God chooses (Ephesians 1) is born again (John 3) and permanently part of the Kingdom.
Compatibilism is true.
Thanks, Chucky.
Wow what interesting comments! Very interesting read! Congrats on receiving the many comments on your LDS article. Very academic responses on your part.
ReplyDelete-Eager Reader-
Bobby, thanks for pointing out that this is an academic article.
ReplyDeleteAnyone with an open mind can see that point.
Varun said...
ReplyDeleteNice to read the article. I sometimes get confused between JW's and Mormons but some JW's have come to my house thrice now. Do tell me if you have some stuff on them.
Also, I found this great resource on you tube, "John Ankerberg Show". Walter martin in in it to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA.
Always enjoy reading your posts,
Varun
Friday, May 7, 2010 12:08:00 PM PDT
Not meaning to take readers away from Russ' blog site, but I have some information on Jehovah's Witnesses over on my blog site:
Some insight into the life and practices of a Jehovah's Witness (3 videos of an ex-JW)
The blog article for this one is not really about Jehovah's Witnesses, but in the 577 comments which follow (a record for me for comments), a JW debates me, so you may find the comments interesting (if you care to actually read all those comments):
The Trinity: Echad: Oneness in unity
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe Witnesses are told they will be persecuted when they go door to door teaching their doctrines. They are further told that this is simply the enemy fighting against God's organization because they are in "the truth." So, when someone disagrees with them, they are conditioned to reflect on what the Watchtower has told them. They then feel confirmed in being in God's true organization on earth (like all cults claim). They are strongly encouraged to have friends and acquaintances that are only JW's, thereby keeping outside examination to a minimum. They are told to shun those who leave their group, for in this way there is no way to see why someone has left and no way to find out that they are in error from those who have found the truth in Christ. They are conditioned to shy away from any real biblically knowledgeable person. An example of this is frequently found on the Internet. I was once banned from a Jehovah's Witness chat room after I not only answered their objections to the Trinity and deity of Christ, but challenged them in return. Subsequently, my name was passed around to all other Jehovah's Witness rooms where I was banned from them as well. This is a frequent occurrence on the Internet where the Jehovah's Witnesses are alive and well. It is obvious that critical examination of their doctrines is not encouraged by the Watchtower Organization.
The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from looking into Jehovah's Witness history or old Watchtower literature which is replete with contradictions, altered doctrines, and false prophecies. Instead, they are indoctrinated repeatedly against basic Christian doctrines (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc.) and into the notion that they alone are the true servants of God and that all others are either in "Christendom" or simply unbelievers.
Primarily, the Jehovah's Witness organization is a mind-control organization that uses its people to pass out literature and send in "donations" to the headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible."1
The Watchtower organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian organization that uses its people to promulgate false doctrines, and collects "contributions" for distribution of a multitudinous amount of literature, and expand its grip into the lives of its members and their families.
It is a non-Christian cult."
Here is a brief article on Jehovah's Witnesses which may be helpful:
ReplyDeleteIs the Jehovah's Witness religion Christian?
by Matt Slick
"The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.
Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
* Taking verses out of their immediate context.
* Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
* Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
* Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
* Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
* Changing the meanings of words.
* Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
* Adding to the Word of God.
Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. For confirmation of this, please read Does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking?
(cont.)
This may be helpful as far as what Mormons (LDS church) believe:
ReplyDeleteMormons (Latter Day Saints)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteMormons believe the following about God: He has not always been the Supreme Being of the universe, but attained that status through righteous living and persistent effort. They believe God the Father has a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” Though abandoned by modern Mormon leaders, Brigham Young taught that Adam actually was God and the father of Jesus Christ. In contrast, Christians know this about God: there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8), He always has existed and always will exist (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17), and He was not created but is the Creator (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). He is perfect, and no one else is equal to Him (Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25). God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9). He is Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit is not made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).
Mormons believe that there are different levels or kingdoms in the afterlife: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness. Where mankind will end up depends on what they believe and do in this life. In contrast, the Bible tells us that after death, we go to heaven or hell based on whether or not we had faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. To be absent from our bodies means, as believers, we are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). Unbelievers are sent to hell or the place of the dead (Luke 16:22-23). When Jesus comes the second time, we will receive new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). There will be a new heaven and new earth for believers (Revelation 21:1), and unbelievers will be thrown into an everlasting lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). There is no second chance for redemption after death (Hebrews 9:27).
Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary. Mormons believe Jesus is a god, but that any human can also become a god. Mormonism teaches that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works. Contrary to this, Christians historically have taught that no one can achieve the status of God—only He is holy (1 Samuel 2:2). We can only be made holy in God's sight through faith in Him (1 Corinthians 1:2). Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16), is the only one ever to have lived a sinless, blameless life, and now has the highest place of honor in heaven (Hebrews 7:26). Jesus and God are one in essence, Jesus being the only One existing before physical birth (John 1:1-8; 8:56). Jesus gave Himself to us as a sacrifice, God raised Him from the dead, and one day everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:6-11). Jesus tells us it is impossible to get to heaven by our own works and that only by faith in Him is it possible (Matthew 19:26). We all deserve eternal punishment for our sins, but God's infinite love and grace have allowed us a way out. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
Clearly, there is only one way to receive salvation and that is to know God and His Son, Jesus (John 17:3). It is not done by works, but by faith (Romans 1:17; 3:28). We can receive this gift no matter who we are or what we have done (Romans 3:22). “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Although Mormons are usually friendly, loving, and kind people, they are deceived by a false religion that distorts the nature of God, the Person of Jesus Christ, and the means of salvation."
Is Mormonism a cult? What do Mormons believe?
ReplyDelete"Question: "Is Mormonism a cult? What do Mormons believe?"
Answer: The Mormon religion (Mormonism), whose followers are known as Mormons and Latter Day Saints (LDS), was founded less than two hundred years ago by a man named Joseph Smith. He claimed to have received a personal visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ who told him that all churches and their creeds were an abomination. Joseph Smith then set out to begin a brand-new religion that claims to be the “only true church on earth.” The problem with Mormonism is that it contradicts, modifies, and expands on the Bible. Christians have no reason to believe that the Bible is not true and adequate. To truly believe in and trust God means to believe in His Word, and all Scripture is inspired by God, which means it comes from Him (2 Timothy 3:16).
Mormons believe that there are in fact four sources of divinely inspired words, not just one: 1) The Bible “as far as it is translated correctly.” Which verses are considered incorrectly translated is not always made clear. 2) The Book of Mormon, which was “translated” by Smith and published in 1830. Smith claimed it is the “most correct book” on earth and that a person can get closer to God by following its precepts “than by any other book.” 3) The Doctrine and Covenants, containing a collection of modern revelations regarding the “Church of Jesus Christ as it has been restored.” 4) The Pearl of the Great Price, which is considered by Mormons to “clarify” doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible and adds its own information about the earth's creation.
(cont.)
Thanks for the comments, Jeff.
ReplyDelete'The blog article for this one is not really about Jehovah's Witnesses, but in the 577 comments which follow (a record for me for comments), a JW debates me, so you may find the comments interesting (if you care to actually read all those comments):'
I was pleased to debate on this post, but anywhere near 577 comments, I would rather avoid. By that time we would probably be arguing in circles. But, perhaps you are not Jeff.
'Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
ReplyDelete* Taking verses out of their immediate context.
* Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
* Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
* Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
* Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
* Changing the meanings of words.
* Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
* Adding to the Word of God.'
Thanks, Jeff. Well cited/stated. It is good to differentiate between the LDS and Watchtower as many appear to get them confused.
'Although Mormons are usually friendly, loving, and kind people...'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But a little humourous that this appears in light of certain comments made by Delirious posted in these comments.;)
I see that our good friend, Rick B, is still at it:
ReplyDeleteThe Hammer of Delirious
'Although Mormons are usually friendly, loving, and kind people...'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But a little humourous that this appears in light of certain comments made by Delirious posted in these comments.;)
That is humorous.
I see that our good friend, Rick B, is still at it:
The Hammer of Delirious
It's Hammer time! The pit bull has taken hold, and when he bites down, he don't let go!
'It's Hammer time! The pit bull has taken hold, and when he bites down, he don't let go!'
ReplyDeleteJust throw some 'Happiness' amd 'Sorrow' (Rick's hot spices) on it and The Hammer will take a big bite.
Rick B blog site
He may leave some scraps for The Jeff, because he is a nice guy.
My friend Phil sent me an email on this place and I found sites:
ReplyDeleteRenovated Church Home in Kyloe, Northumberland.
This is a kind of restored church I can support:
swipelife
traveklet
I book marked her website, I'm just getting started. LOL. Rick b
ReplyDeleteKind of a shame a beautiful church created for worshippers ends up being just a house for only one person to enjoy??
ReplyDelete-Here's the church, here's the steeple, where's all the people?-
'I book marked her website, I'm just getting started. LOL. Rick b'
ReplyDeleteFigures.
Well, you are good for web traffic.;)
'Kind of a shame a beautiful church created for worshippers ends up being just a house for only one person to enjoy??
ReplyDelete-Here's the church, here's the steeple, where's all the people?-'
I agree in a sense. I get your point.
But, on the other hand I think the place is cool.
Some web feedback:
ReplyDeletePengunjung datang dengan kata kunci
Pengunjung datang dengan kata kunci
combines some of my writing with Zombie's and states:
'As many of my readers will realize, I have nothing personally against them, or any religious/philosophical group. But my Biblical Reformed theology differs on several points from the LDS and here are two key ones. . Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-the sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into...'
To keep this in proper context, I point to the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://mormonchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/05/opposition-to-church.html
I have been following along reading re this long and detailed blog post and do feel you are handling it in the best and correct manner. I am impressed with your very extensive knowledge and understanding of Scripture, and your high level of learning through deep and intensive study during the past number of years. I do commend you for sticking to the point, and not getting involved in any debates that can only end up in arguments going round in circles.
May God continue to be with you in your endeavours, and that doors will be opened to your future position as Professor at a University, and pray that will now happen quickly for you.
In regard to the post:
ReplyDeletemormonchristianity/delirious/opposition to the church
She states:
'I happened across a blog today of someone who writes quite a bit of disparaging things about our church.'
Her post was the same day as her comments on this blog.
I wrote a fair academic review of two key LDS doctrines.
'This disturbs me greatly on many levels, but perhaps most of all because it is so unjust...'
1. Most of what these people write contains quotes by anti-mormons, apostates, or is information that is taken out of context. That is simply not fair.'
Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church was quoted as was the tour guide.
They were not quoted out of context.
The others reviewed wrote academic articles on the LDS and related subjects.
Their works were reviewed in context.
'2. Much of what is written is simply an untruth...'
She did not significantly defend this notion on my blog, nor on hers.
'...you would think they would be careful to make sure the information was accurate, rather than risk their own reputation and integrity.'
My reputation and integrity is intact as she was unable to significantly defend her views.
'How can a Christian perpetuate untruths in good conscience?'
That is a question she should ask herself.
'3. I have to wonder why they feel the need to attack our religion.'
The LDS Church claims to be Christian.
Biblically, theologically and philosophically it is not as was demonstrated in non-exhaustive fashion with two key points.
'Are we really a threat to them?'
False religion is a potential threat to those in and outside of Christ that remain somewhat ignorant.
'Our church spends NO time attacking other religions, or in printing information that warns against them.'
4mormon
'“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join,”3. Joseph Smith explains: “…for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.…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.…” 4.'
Joseph Smith—History 1:18-19
Smith was therefore critical of Christianity.
'4....they would learn more about our beliefs than by reading any other anti-mormon literature.'
I consulted LDS teachings.
'Notice I used the term "honest study".'
My work is clearly honest.
'Personally, when I search for information, I try to go to the source, not a biased opponent.'
Everyone has bias. But some writers are still objective enough.
'Some may call them "religious scholars", but a true scholar doesn't just study to find evidence to support their own theories, but to learn the truth.''
I read Smith and others related to the topic.
'5....But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Acts 5:38,39.'
She has not demonstrated that the LDS is of God.
Rather I see it as a false religion with a false gospel.
Galatians 1:6-9
'7. The ultimate source of truth is God. The Holy Ghost can witness to us the truth of all things.'
The Holy Spirit guided the Bible's production by human writers which the LDS corrupts and/or assumes to be mistranslated.
So, who is not following the Holy Spirit?
'...but I wonder how many of them actually study, then ask God with a sincere heart if our teachings are correct.'
I do. And I can back it up.
She cannot.
I wish Delirious all the best.
I book marked her website, I'm just getting started. LOL. Rick b
ReplyDeleteLOL! That's hilarious.
When I clicked on the "swipelife" link, it warned me of a virus.
ReplyDeleteThe "traveklet" link has some nice photos, though.
Pengunjung datang dengan kata kunci
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It looks like that site has summaries of a number of articles from both your blog sites.
'When I clicked on the "swipelife" link, it warned me of a virus.'
ReplyDeleteI have viewed the link on this computer and Bobby Buff's and it is fine.
But I will run a virus checker.
'The "traveklet" link has some nice photos, though.'
Both sites are nice.
'When I clicked on the "swipelife" link, it warned me of a virus.'
ReplyDeleteI have viewed the link on this computer and Bobby Buff's and it is fine.
But I will run a virus checker.
It wasn't my own virus program that warned me. A page popped up that said something about a virus, then it showed a status bar that looked like it was downloading something. It looked like those pages that you go to that say you are in danger of a virus, then it has an anti-virus program that you can download and install (I don't know if you have ever seen those pages or not).
In any case, I clicked on the link again, and this time it was fine. Strange.
'I book marked her website, I'm just getting started. LOL. Rick b
ReplyDeleteLOL! That's hilarious.'
Rick B, The Hammer, is like a gospel virus.
'Pengunjung datang dengan kata kunci
Interesting. It looks like that site has summaries of a number of articles from both your blog sites.'
Well, at least he cited my blog and links, unlike some people.
'It wasn't my own virus program that warned me. A page popped up that said something about a virus, then it showed a status bar that looked like it was downloading something. It looked like those pages that you go to that say you are in danger of a virus, then it has an anti-virus program that you can download and install (I don't know if you have ever seen those pages or not).
In any case, I clicked on the link again, and this time it was fine. Strange.'
Perhaps what you saw tonight/this morning on that page was only available in the Excited States of Americana and not in the Socialist Paradise of Canada.
Last night I was deleting Norton off of Bobby's new laptop and HP (the manufacturer), Windows 7 and Norton I gather came up with some tactics since as the Norton was being deleted a bogus list of supposed actual viruses was provided.
Disgraceful.
Once I ran Super AntiSpyware only something minor was found and none of the bogus viruses.
Thanks Jeff, my friend.
well I am going to give delirious the benefit of the doubt and assume she is busy, But over all her newest post is filled with serious charges against people who speak against the church and I replied to them. I have plenty more to say but do not want to over whelm her in a single sitting.
ReplyDeleteI suspect she will not reply and that only shows all the more she is a lair, and I will give it a few days, if she does not give an honest attempt at a reply I will call her out and tell her exactly what I think, like thats nothing new.
Well Jeff, I wondering if interested is not maybe dead, She said once before she had serious health problems and lives down south where their has been lots of death and destruction due to bad weather. She has not posted since April 14 I believe it is.
I'm not writing a post asking how she doing because it's a catch 22. I would hate to hear she died and went to hell, but on the other hand if she is alive, I almost would hate to see her posting lies and hate about God Again.
I figure she knows I will tell her like it is and provide evidence so if she has problems she can always ask. Rick b
Once I ran Super AntiSpyware only something minor was found and none of the bogus viruses.
ReplyDeleteI have AVG Free 9.0 (which can be downloaded for free) as my Anti-Virus program, and it works well. After I run that to check for viruses, I then run Spybot Search & Destroy, and then SuperAntiSpyware Free Edition, both of which are for spyware. Spybot does a pretty good job, and usually, what it doesn't find, SuperAntiSpyware will. Next, I run RegistryFix and then RegistryBooster to fix problems with the Registry. The Registry seems to get corrupted on a daily basis. RegistryFix is a great program. It usually finds a lot of issues and fixes them, and then RegistryBooster finds a few things after that. I also have SpyWareBlaster and ActiveArmor Firewall.
Well Jeff, I wondering if interested is not maybe dead, She said once before she had serious health problems and lives down south where their has been lots of death and destruction due to bad weather. She has not posted since April 14 I believe it is.
ReplyDeleteWow. I was wondering what happened to her.
I'm not writing a post asking how she doing because it's a catch 22. I would hate to hear she died and went to hell, but on the other hand if she is alive, I almost would hate to see her posting lies and hate about God Again.
Yeah. As the Lord wills, may she come to Christ, assuming she is still OK. How horrible for someone to have heard the Truth here on earth, and to have rejected it, and then, for all eternity, to wish that they had listened.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteI then explained what it means to have a relationship with Christ, and then I went over some evidences for the Bible, and he replied:
"I cannot have a 'relationship' with someone only known through reportage, and such is the case with Jesus. Dead people, or folk I have never met or corresponded with I can relate to in a one sided way. I can understand them, though they know nothing of me. Diarists, journalists or poets from distant history I can thus understand and sympathise with. Thus I can appreciate St. Paul's dilemmas and desperation. As a one time, crazy deluded JW I can follow Paul's weird vision of an imminent rapture in Thessalonians. I have never possessed his sense of mission, but his letters portray a tortured soul desperate to hold his new sect together in face of Gentile distaste for circumcision and other Jewish law and the Jewish establishment's despisal of all who flout the Law. Belief based on personal ecstatic vision (and such was Paul's faith in Jesus - he never met the man) is, to me, meaningless.
Jesus himself left no writings and we are left with conflicting accounts redacted decades after his death. That there are some fine teachings is no reason to believe in Jesus' divinity, esp. as even Jesus' reported sayings are a mass of riddles regarding his relationship with God.
Trying to justify, never mind glorify, the Bible as some sort of God given unity is a hopeless task. I do not approve of genocide, and if there is a racist God, then we can do without him/her/it (though the OT God is very macho).
You wrote: 'The Canaanites were pagan, godless people who practiced child sacrifice, prostitution and all sorts of vile practices.'
A recruiting tactic in Britain at the Outbreak of WW1 was to spread reports of Germans bayoneting Belgian babies. Doing the dirt on the enemy is the oldest trick of the warmonger. The racism of the Book of Joshua, Jeff, you would deplore, had it not been bound and sanctified in a Bible in the early Christian centuries after a load of Episcopal argument conducted by fallible blokes. The Bible and its editing are, like any other book, man made. The delusion of Biblical and Koranic infallibility is a menace. Your posts make my blood run cold."
I have been having a brief conversation on Facebook with a guy who is an ex-Jehovah's Witness. Sadly, he now rejects the Bible completely.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few portions from his comments:
"The Bible itself is such a hodge podge, yet it is presented by all manner of churches as unity that describes man's journey from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained. Having read the Bible several times and read of its shambolic and erratic compilation, its mass of internal contradictions, I have long ago rejected it as some sort of Divine guide. I was raised as a JW - the deluge of Biblical quotes and the persuasive style of their literature were sufficient to lodge in my childish mind the whole pack of cruel nonsense that is JWdom. At heart I loved the World, esp. 'Satan's World', and felt sad that I could not enjoy it to the full. I also could not feel happy about the impending divine murder, at Armageddon, of all my non JW friends and family."
"I am currently reading 'The Bible - The Unauthorised Version' by Robin Lane Fox. Israel Finkelstein's books are also most informative. The Bible is man made. It is not a unity. Its veneration by the mainstream churches lends legitimacy to the fundies and nutters. Sure, the Bible contains some fine poetry and worthy teachings, but I can do without fantasies like the 6 day creation, the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension. And as for the glorification of genocide in the Book of Joshua.... The Bible's status as some sort of Divine Truth answers humanity's craving for certainty in an uncertain world and mysterious and beautiful universe...."
After I mentioned my having a personal relationship with Christ, and talked about the manuscript evidence for the Bible, he replied:
"How can you have a relationship with Christ? What on earth does that mean?
Re. The Bible - even if, say, the Authorised Version is an accurate translation of works actually written by the people on the titles, that proves nothing. People make up stories about dead heroes. Wild West outlaws generated a whole load of legends whereby violent criminals were elevated into heroes. Try reading the works of Geza Vermes. He has written a whole series of books about Jesus. Sounds like Jesus was a remarkable freelance rabbi with messianic delusions. 50 years after his death he was given a Davidic lineage and his biog. decorated in order that he would fit into ancient Hebrew messianic prophecies."
(cont.)
'I have AVG Free 9.0 (which can be downloaded for free) as my Anti-Virus program, and it works well. After I run that to check for viruses,'
ReplyDeleteI have AVG, but it has become too slow over the years.
'I then run Spybot Search & Destroy, and then SuperAntiSpyware Free Edition,'
They work for me.
I pay for Registry Mechanic yearly.
'Truth here on earth, and to have rejected it, and then, for all eternity, to wish that they had listened.'
In Luke 16, which may or may not be a parable (scholars debate), which I reason portrays in figurative literal language hell/Hades prior to the resurrection and placement of the unregenerate into the lake of fire, we see the rich man.
He was very sorry to be in Hades, but commentators point out that he was not repentant of sins.
He could not be Biblically repentant of sins as he was not regenerated.
Old Testament era persons still needed to be regenerated to be in God's presence. As they did not have the Holy Spirit in the New Testament context (John 20, Acts 2) perhaps this happened after death, as in a type of spiritual cleansing of sin.
I would therefore conclude persons in hell/Hades remain opposed to God by nature and choice.
Cheers.:)
"The Bible itself is such a hodge podge, yet it is presented by all manner of churches as unity that describes man's journey from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained. Having read the Bible several times and read of its shambolic and erratic compilation, its mass of internal contradictions...'
ReplyDeleteHe may have been 'burned' by religion in his mind.
The use of good commentaries and tools (audio teaching as well) would assist with much of the Biblical confusion if one had an open mind.
Thanks.
'Old Testament era persons still needed to be regenerated to be in God's presence...'
To clarify, I mean to be in heaven/Paradise with God.
I would therefore conclude persons in hell/Hades remain opposed to God by nature and choice.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but remember that the rich man wanted someone to go back and warn his loved ones. So, though I do not believe those in Hell will be repentant, I do believe they will be regretful. And I suspect that all the times that they may have heard the gospel message, yet refused to listen to it, will likely haunt them forever. Of course, this is conjecture and speculation. Then again, their torturous pain and anger against God for punishing them may generally override other thoughts. However, they will have all the rest of eternity to have all sorts of various thoughts running through their heads. I believe they will also feel crushing and intense loneliness, hopelessness and helplessness.
He may have been 'burned' by religion in his mind.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is what I have suspected as well. Thanks for that helpful insight, Russ. Coming out of a cult, he likely needed de-programming, and probably did not get it. He may need counseling as well. All I can do is pray for him.
'Agreed, but remember that the rich man wanted someone to go back and warn his loved ones. So, though I do not believe those in Hell will be repentant, I do believe they will be regretful.'
ReplyDeletePerhaps like a prisoner in prison that is sorry he or she was caught and understands the wrong better than in this realm. This person can feel this for others, but in the heart is still a criminal willing to commit the same type of crime again if the situation arrived.
'And I suspect that all the times that they may have heard the gospel message, yet refused to listen to it, will likely haunt them forever.'
Yes, but not because he or she wants to follow God or are actually considering it seriously as action, but because of consequences and punishment.
'Thanks for that helpful insight, Russ.'
Thanks for your help, Jeff.
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteIt's Russell, I'm sort of back but not fully.
Anyway great post mate and congrats on the comments. Awesome. LDS Buildings seem to be a major focus here in our part of town. I'm interested in the gold statues as there is a huge one in Melbourne right near where I ride my bike sometimes. It's gold and it's big and adornes one of the biggest LDS establishments in our part of the world.
So a question rather than a comment.
Russell, from the land down under.
PS Hey by the way we have a young guy from the US coming to stay next week for a couple of week so you know you are always welcome to stay while you are in Melboune.
'Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteIt's Russell, I'm sort of back but not fully.
Always good to hear from you, Russell.
'Anyway great post mate and congrats on the comments.'
Thanks for helping.
'Awesome.'
It is good to progress in my career. Including online.
'LDS Buildings seem to be a major focus here in our part of town. I'm interested in the gold statues as there is a huge one in Melbourne right near where I ride my bike sometimes. It's gold and it's big and adornes one of the biggest LDS establishments in our part of the world.'
The gold statue you mean is the angel Moroni, I reason.
melbourne lds
From:
moroni
'by Joseph B. Romney
The angel Moroni is the heavenly messenger who first visited the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1823. As a mortal named Moroni 2, he had completed the compilation and writing of the Book of Mormon. He ministered to Joseph Smith as a resurrected being, in keeping with his responsibility for the Book of Mormon, inasmuch as "the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim" had been committed to him by the Lord (D&C 27:5). Pursuant to this responsibility he first appeared to Joseph Smith on the night of September 21-22, 1823 (JS—H 1:29-49; D&C 128:20), and thereafter counseled with him in several reappearances until the book was published in 1830. During that time, he instructed Joseph Smith, testified to the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and otherwise assisted in the work of restoring the gospel.
Because of the angel Moroni's role in restoring the everlasting gospel to be preached to all the world (cf. Rev. 14:6-7; D&C 133:31-39), the Church placed a statue depicting him as a herald of the Restoration atop the Salt Lake Temple, and later on the hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, where anciently he had buried the Book of Mormon plates. Copies of the statue have also been placed atop several other LDS temples.
[See also Angel Moroni Statue; Moroni, Visitations of.; Moroni, son of Mormon]
Bibliography
Peterson, H. Donl. Moroni: Ancient Prophet, Modern Messenger. Bountiful, Utah, 1983.'
'So a question rather than a comment.
Russell, from the land down under.'
'PS Hey by the way we have a young guy from the US coming to stay next week for a couple of week so you know you are always welcome to stay while you are in Melboune.'
Russell, I look forward very much to visiting Australia and you and family in the future.
Cheers.
Hi again Russ.
ReplyDeletePurely trivial but interesting none the less.
The link to Melbourne LDS is the exact one I mentioned that I ride past. Mate that's amazing. They have built a major freeway that passes and they were so kind as to build a perfectly safe bike path right along side with no cars. It's great.
Russell.
Thanks, Russell.
ReplyDeleteGood to read.
Even as I disagree strongly with much core LDS theology, I can state in general terms LDS Temples are architecturally interesting.
It is well done art.
So, a conclusion can be deduced by others reading that I am in overall terms not anti-Mormon.
Well I replied to delirious about not repling, and Interested is alive, she just posted so I replied to her. Rick b
ReplyDeletePerhaps like a prisoner in prison that is sorry he or she was caught and understands the wrong better than in this realm. This person can feel this for others, but in the heart is still a criminal willing to commit the same type of crime again if the situation arrived.
ReplyDelete...
Yes, but not because he or she wants to follow God or are actually considering it seriously as action, but because of consequences and punishment.
Agreed.
BTW, I've heard that Microsoft Security Essentials, which can be downloaded for free, is a good Anti-Virus program, and apparently (from what I understand), is also an Anti-Spyware program at the same time (usually, programs are either Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware/malware, but not both).
(cont.)
ReplyDelete"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27)
"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it…" (1 Chronicles 10:13)
"And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger." (2 Chronicles 33:6)
"And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards." (Isaiah 19:3)
As the evidence clearly indicates, every time the expression “familiar spirit” is used by God, it refers specifically to the presence of evil, derived through witchcraft or mysticism that does not come from God. Let’s take another look at the passage that Mormons use to support and validate the Mormon scriptures, but this time let’s look at it in its complete context (something Mormons often fail to do):
"Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel. And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly. Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire." (Isaiah 29:4)
Clearly, the prophecy of Isaiah here does not refer to the future discovery of the plates used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon. This passage describes the besieging of Jerusalem by the Assyrian army (which was cut off there by an angel). Jerusalem is called Ariel here, and God is using Isaiah to predict the future of the city and its people. And the prediction does not look good! But to misinterpret this passage to say that it predicts the discovery of the plates is irresponsible and misleading.
In some ways, LeGrand Richards may be right when he says that the Book of Mormon truly “has a familiar spirit”. God may simply be using Mr. Richards to warn his chosen people about the true nature and source of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Richards may have been an unknowing tool of God when he warned us that a “familiar spirit” was at work in the Book of Mormon. The Bible tells us that it is a spirit that shares a common source with acts of “abomination”, “divination” and “enchantment”. The Bible tells us that the book of Mormon comes from a spirit that shares a common source with “enchanters”, “charmers”, “witches”, “wizards”, and “necromancers”. It comes from a spiritual source that is “against the word of the LORD”. It is also a spiritual source that produces “much evil in the sight of the LORD”. There is a spirit at work in the Book of Mormon, but is it the Spirit of God? Is it misleading the chosen people of God? Doesn't God tell us that anyone who follows a spirit like this “shalt be brought down”?"
(From PleaseConvinceMe.com)
Mormons won't tell you that they think "familiar spirits" are good, and that their Book of Mormon has a "familiar spirit". Leviticus 19:31 says familiar spirits defile one, and are to be avoided at all costs.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Book of Mormon:
(2 Ne. 26: 16)
"For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust."
"Mormons Claim that when we read the book of Mormon, we will recognize similar words, phrases and themes from the Bible. That really shouldn’t surprise us; over a dozen chapters from the Bible were lifted word for word from the King James Bible and inserted into the Book of Mormon. But Mormons still maintain that the familiarity one might feel while reading the Bible serves as verification that the Mormon scripture is from God. Mormons often refer to this recognizable similarity and say that the Book of Mormon has a “familiar spirit”.
Mormons will point to the Book of Isaiah in order to demonstrate this. They believe that Isaiah was referring to the Nephites (from the Book of Mormon) when he penned these words:
(Isaiah 29:4)
"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."
“Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak ‘out of the ground’ or ‘low out of the dust’ would be by the written word, and this the people did through the book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel” (LeGrand Richards, Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 1979 edition, pp. 67-68)
So, clearly, Mormons believe that this familiar spirit is God-given and positive affirmation that the Book of Mormon is truly scripture from God. But is that actually true? The Bible never speaks positively of “familiar spirits” and God never uses “familiar spirits” to confirm His presence or authenticate His Word. In fact, the Bible tells us that “familiar spirits” are spirit persons who are familiar or intimate with humans and speak to them through a witch or a spirit medium! In every case the person who has the “familiar spirit” is condemned by God. Let’s take a look at the evidence:
"When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee." (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)
(cont.)
"MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that women receive salvation only through their Mormon husbands, and must remain pregnant for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteMORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by talking to you.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they intend to have many wives in heaven, carrying on multiple sex relations throughout eternity, until they have enough children to populate their own earth, so they can be "Heavenly Father" over their own planet!
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that you were once a spirit-child of their heavenly father, and one of his numerous wives before you were born on earth.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the Virgin Mary really wasn't a virgin at all but had sex relations with their heavenly father to produce the Mormon version of Jesus Christ
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the "heavenly father" they ask you to pray to with them, is really an exalted man that lives on a planet near the star base Kolob, and is not the Heavenly Father of the Bible at all.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that Jesus was really Lucifer's brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a "heavenly council" vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that there are over one hundred divisions in Mormonism. They conveniently "forget" this while criticizing the many denominations within the body of Christ
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that all their so- called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official "Mormon Doctrine" statements contradict each other on MAJOR doctrinal points. The King James Bible is likewise contradicted.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of wife-beating, child abuse, and teenage suicide.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the "spirit world", a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.)
MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that there are many accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision besides he one they present to you, and all are different
(cont.)