Wow! Well, I’m sure there’s nothing I can say to turn of the spigot of comments on the Mormon question – both here and at our sister blog (First Thoughts), where they are up to 140+, I think. (One thing I have learned, at least, is that there are really quite a few LDS readers of First Things blogs! I take this as good news, and I hope even the defenders of another orthodoxy can see it as such.) So there is no point trying to end what I seem to have begun (or re-begun), but let me articulate a kind of conclusion for my own part.
I appreciate many discerning and temperate remarks on both or all sides of the question of where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands in relation to a conception of mainstream or traditional Christianity. It is undeniable that Mormons center their devotion on Jesus Christ, and equally undeniable that they hold a number of beliefs about the nature of the Godhead (with its three distinct persons) and about the relationship between divinity and humanity that are alien to official creeds shared by many Christian groups. One question this difference raises, a kind of second-order question, is that of the relation between developed, more or less systematic and philosophically-informed theological positions and the less well-defined notions that more immediately inform the actual practices (prayer, sacraments, repentance, forgiveness – faith, love, hope…) of — let’s just say “people who look to Christ for their salvation,” however different their theologies and even ontologies may be. It occurs to me to suggest that we Pomocons might attend at least as much to these practices and experiences realize that the systematic theological formulations mean nothing if they do not help to make these practices sweeter and stronger for us.
“Jim” and Prof. Lawler take the discussion up a notch — and this in a helpful way – when they raise the question of sin and atonement. It is true that LDS have no taste for the language of “original sin,” and in fact embrace a teaching of Felix Culpa – the fortunate fall – that no doubt goes beyond anything Milton imagined. Just to prove that I’m holding back none of my heresies, here’s a remarkable (for me, magnificently beautiful) exclamation by Eve (of all people!) from a Mormon scripture known as the Book of Moses (5:11) in The Pearl of Great Price: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” But perhaps the spirit of this exclamation is not so far from the old English praise that Benjamin Britten so wonderfully sets to music in his Ceremony of Carols:
Ne had the appil take ben, the appil take ben,
Ne hadde never our lady a ben hevene quene.
Blessed be the time that appil take was.
Therefore we moun singen. Deo gracias!
To be sure, for Mormons, not only Mary, and not only Lewis’s Susan and Lucy, but all God’s daughters can look forward to being crowned “heavenly queens,” in a quite literal sense. Note as well that, for Mormons, Satan’s offering to Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil as a temptation is the true part of a half-truth. The moral knowledge necessary to agency is a legitimate aspiration. But it would be wrong to conclude from this that Mormons (as Jim and Prof. Lawler seem to think) see human beings as capable of righteousness without the Atonement of Christ. On the contrary: it seems to me rather that for LDS agency and atonement are intimately associated. (2 Nephi ch. 2 in the Book of Mormon is a key text on this point.) The very mean of goodness and therefore the ground of agency is not only exemplified but is in fact effectuated in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. There is absolutely no question for Mormons of attaining righteousness without receiving the healing and strengthening power of the Atonement. To become like Christ and therefore like God has nothing to do with making one’s way by some “natural” powers; indeed, “deification” has everything to do with entering into an economy of covenants that draws all its power from God’s gift of his Son, and from the Son’s submission to his Father, a submission that effects an infinite love that draws all mankind to him. This drawing is the very power of the only real human agency. The only real choice we can make is to accept this gift, a reception that enables us to have something ourselves to give.
This to me is “(the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that’s keeping the stars apart. (–e.e. cummings – of all people!)
April 21st, 2010 | 12:10 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ryan alanna, abby sebastian. abby sebastian said: Mormon Menace … Averted!: I appreciate many discerning and temperate remarks on both or all sides of the question … http://bit.ly/95Xvze [...]
April 21st, 2010 | 8:07 am
Well, before the comments head south (as the often seem to whenever Mormonism comes up), I’d like to thank you – as a Mormon – for a fair-minded treatment of some areas where we are perhaps not too far apart.
April 21st, 2010 | 8:23 am
Quite well put. I’m glad to see that there are forums where people recognize that there are differences between Mormonism and orthodox theologies (and very deep differences at that), but where people can also recognize Mormons’ true devotion.
I like the way one theologian (although I cannot remember who) put it. I’ll paraphrase. Are Mormons Christians? I’m sure the answer is the same as for Protestants or Catholics: some are and some aren’t. It depends on the devotion to Christ and his teachings of the individual. Certainly many Mormons, as with many Protestants and Catholics, are trying to be Christian.
I hope instead of putting down one another’s theologies, religious people of all faiths can help each other find peace and happiness in Christ and do good in the world.
April 21st, 2010 | 10:47 am
[...] Saints know: entering into an economy of covenants that draws all its power from God’s gift of his Son, and fro…. No Comments » Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: are mormons christian, culpa felix, [...]
April 21st, 2010 | 11:42 am
“Note as well that, for Mormons, Satan’s offering to Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil as a temptation is the true part of a half-truth.”
.
In Genesis 3,
(Satan promises),
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
(Adam and Eve fall)
(Then God confirms the true part of this half-truth),
22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil
.
Are you saying that for some non-Mormon Christians that this is not true?
April 21st, 2010 | 2:25 pm
I think many readers of FT would profit from a clear account of the Mormon doctrine of God from a Mormon believer. Mormons, as all parties recognize, mean something quite different by the word “God”, and it would be helpful to have all this spelled out. Nobody disputes Mormon devotion to their understanding of deity. What is at issue is much more important than obvious Mormon faithfulness: namely, the very object of Mormon faith and hope.
Mormons believe the gods are exalted human beings and that believers, too, can become what god now is. I guess I would like to have these fascinating claims explained in First Things.
NB: The best post on this topic was on the other blog by renowned theologian David Yeago. Perhaps that should be reposted here. Perhaps he can even expand on his thoughts.
April 21st, 2010 | 3:23 pm
St. Anselm said “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.” A correct theological understanding of God is important for our view of right action and our ability to do good works. Without it we are like a house with a foundation of sand. Unfortuantely, Mormonism gives credence to the idea that spiritual concepts are subjective, and it does not matter what one believes as long as they are “good” people. That the spiritual is all a bunch of make believe, because whatever one believes to be true in his heart is what matters. This leads to the modern divide of faith and reason. Things of faith are in the category of make believe and things of reason are for the world of empirical facts.
For the Christian, especially the Catholic, there is no divide between Faith and Reason. Both are necessary and intertwined serving man in his ability to live the good life. Why does the Christian believe in the Resurrection? In part, from a series Apostolic Witnesses and martyrs. We can find historical accounts from various sources telling us the same story, and there after dying for it. This empirical evidence seems quite credible, if you will reasonable. The Resurrection comes not from make believe, but a Reason to Believe.
But with the witness of Joseph Smith, we have one witness, whose view of the Resurrection in America is an assault on the sciences of history and archeology. Time after time, the search for the historical Lamenites in the US has shown the Smith story to be make believe. Many a Morman scholar has left the LDS Church in studying the historical claims of the Laminites and the Christ Resurrection in America. Yet the events of the actual Resurrection do not defy reason history or archeology.
What does this mean for Mormons? It leads to the double-bind that faith is just one of those irrational things and reason stands in a separate category. It leads to a standard of ethics based purely on sentimentality (much like Islam) and respectability. The double-bind hinders and depresses the human spirit.
So it kind of matters what we have reason to believe, or what we make believe.
April 21st, 2010 | 3:33 pm
Per Sly Stallone’s comment above, the doctrine of multiple gods including God the Father being just one of a Council of gods that we might later become comes from Joseph Smith’s sermon on the King Follett Discourse. This sermon is doctrinal in the LDS Church and you can find a link to it here:
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm
April 21st, 2010 | 4:52 pm
Sly, did you just ask for a Mormon to state what we believe and then proceed to tell everyone what we believe?
Why was it necessary then?
God is our Heavenly Father. The Father of our Spirits. The Father of Jesus Christ, born of Mary through the Holy Spirit.
Your tangent about gods and my belief about gods is a lark intended to dismiss my beliefs out of hand.
I don’t believe I can ever supplant God, nor Jesus Christ. I do have absolute faith in Him when he said he desires all of us to be one, even and he and the Father are one, and he promises us that if we endure in Faith to the end, we can be joint-heirs with him and have eternal life.
If you want to work around to a definition of a man or woman who lives for ever, can not be killed as a god, that’s probably a fairly accurate depiction.
But I don’t believe I’ll ever become God the Creator, although I fully profess it is my sincere desire to live my life as He would and I do my best to be like him as I live my life in accordance with his will. I always fall short, which is why the power of the Atonement, which is real and infinite is important.
I’m not your kind of Christian, but nevertheless, it’s what my mother named me and its the Christian principles that I strive to live my life in accordance with.
April 21st, 2010 | 7:05 pm
I too am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, and I enjoyed reading this evaluation of Mormon belief. Thank you for simply stating what you believe and what we believe without trying to twist our doctrines one way or the other. You even did some good research into some of our scripture! Since we really do believe in personal agency, people can accept or reject our beliefs, but as you have seen, we just don’t like it when other people try to tell us what we believe. Thanks again for a fair treatment of our doctrine.
April 22nd, 2010 | 8:42 am
“Your tangent about gods and my belief about gods is a lark intended to dismiss my beliefs out of hand.”
Tell that to Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse:
“First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.”
“No man can teach you more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. I will simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers and ye doctors who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods, and they sat in grand council. The grand councilors sat in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were created at that time.”
This means that God the Father and the Trinity is not the Unmoved Mover, but rather a “grand council” of gods created the universe. This is not a lark or some sort of tangent. This is Mormon Doctrine. Those who don’t know this don’t know Mormon Doctrine, and need to discuss this with their Bishops.
The discourse can be found on the BYU site:
http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm
To reiterate, it matters what we believe, especially if what we believe is a grand error.
April 22nd, 2010 | 9:02 am
Casey,
I think it it’s clear you’ve thought about a lot and looked into the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints.
But please consider that your conclusions are simply that. Yours. And they aren’t really descriptive of the LDS you’re trying to describe. So you might want to consider why you hold to in inaccurate description.
I don’t have a divide between faith and reason. I have very clear reasons for my faith.
I think it’s clear from your writing that that your concerned how the world generally sees faith as “unreasonable” and you feel it is not true and I agree.
But hammer on the Mormons for this isn’t really going to change anything. With or without the Mormons the world will still try to look at religion via the scientific method and look for proof.
We all have proofs. But they are personal and individual. My reason is personal. I can share them with you, and you can share yours with me, but you can’t own my faith. I can’t force you to acquire mine.
But we can clearly demonstrate that if you have 4 cookies and share one with me, now you have 3. That’s the empirical reason the world is looking for when it comes to religion, and getting bothered by the Mormons won’t change it.
I would also add that I, and my church, feels it is very important to get spiritual things right. It’s not just a “if you’re a good person everything will be ok”, because the way is indeed narrow and straight. But that does not disqualify good people from receiving blessings from our Heavenly Father simply because they are in error on doctrinal matters, or because they never even heard them.
I sometimes think other react so strongly against Mormons because of the strength of our position among beliefs. Yes, there is no silver bullet for Hebrews in the Americas. But of course there wouldn’t be. There will always be ambiguity with that, and I would expect there must be. To claim otherwise would suggest we have to do away with Faith. If God came down tomorrow and handed us the golden plates and said, “Here you go, it’s all true.” that would tend to thwart his plan. If some archeologist found a Nephite or Laminate city with unequivocal evidence for its origin, it would be similar.
Validating that there is historical evidence for a man named Jesus around 2000 years ago that caused a commotion is not the same as validating historical evidence that he was the Son of God (or God the Father Himself as I understand you believe). But finding the golden plates with Egyptian engravings buried in a hill in Mexico would validate -everything- the Book of Mormon says and what Joseph Smith Testified.
It’s a pretty simple point to understand, I wonder why some who are so committed to “exposing” LDS don’t realize the undisputed-archeological-evidence argument is not a very sophisticated one.
April 22nd, 2010 | 9:11 am
BTW, I too want to thank the original author for such an amazingly thorough piece. You put me to shame when it comes to my knowledge of what various Pope’s or Cardinals through the ages have said.
April 22nd, 2010 | 10:17 am
RE: Casey Khan, April 21st, 2010 | 3:23 pm
“Mormonism gives credence to the idea that spiritual concepts are subjective, and it does not matter what one believes as long as they are “good” people. That the spiritual is all a bunch of make believe, because whatever one believes to be true in his heart is what matters.”
.
This is an new description for me, an active life-long LDS. Could you share how you came to say it?
.
Our doctrine is that truth is immutable. We do believe that one of the highest uses of truth is to develop Christlike characters — to become “good people” in your words — but this depends upon us using fixed truths (a foundational one is Christ’s atonement) and the Holy Ghost to change our characters, to become scriptures’ “new man”.
.
Here are a couple illustrative quotations:
.
Doctrine & Covenants 93:
“23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;
27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.
28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.”
.
“But gaining knowledge is one thing and applying it, quite another. Wisdom is the right application of knowledge; and true education — the education for which the church stands — is the application of knowledge to the development of a noble and Godlike character.”
– David O. McKay (LDS apostle at that writing, later prophet and president of the Church), “Gospel Ideals,” p. 440
April 22nd, 2010 | 1:13 pm
“…systematic theological formulations mean nothing if they do not help to make these practices sweeter and stronger for us.”
Indeed. As George Fox said c. 1652:
“The scriptures were the prophets’ words, and Christ’s and the apostles’ words, and what, as they spoke, they enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord…Then what [have] any to do with the scriptures, but as they [come] to the Spirit that gave them forth? You will say, ‘Christ saith this, and the apostles say this;’ but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?”
April 22nd, 2010 | 2:59 pm
Casey,
The King Follett Discourse is *not* “doctrinal in the LDS Church”. In fact, I’ve known plenty of Mormons who reject it openly enough and are never disciplined because of it. I would add that I find it odd that you first say that for Mormons (not Mormans) doctrine is subjective and unimportant and then you drag out an issue of doctrine. Which is it? Please actually become informed about things before you start presenting yourself as knowledgeable.
April 23rd, 2010 | 11:04 am
Many a Morman scholar has left the LDS Church in studying the historical claims of the Laminites and the Christ Resurrection in America.
I know of none who have been faithful Mormon Christians who have then left over archaeological issues, just as I know of no Christians who have rejected Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior because of disparities between accounts in the Gospels. I do know of many who have lost their faith through the normal means — sin and weakness — who have pointed to archaeological issues and interpretations in their after-the-fact justification. Just as no one gains their real faith in Christ through apologetics, no one loses it through “disapologetics.”
And I find it odd that whenever someone disputes LDS concepts of deity as being non-Biblical, they have to resort to non-Biblical formulations — e.g., “Unmoved Mover” — to define those Biblical tenets.
April 26th, 2010 | 11:51 am
When an orthodox engage in dialogs with say, Jews, Muslims, or atheists, the discussion is over who’s right and who’s wrong, there’s little ink spilt on what each party actually believes. The positions are clear and mutually understood. However things are different in discussions with Mormons. As I wrote in a letter to the paper version of First Things previously-
“Bruce D. Porter and Gerald R. McDermott’s dual analysis (“Is Mormonism Christian?” October 2008) provides us with a type of exchange that is far too infrequent. However, there is a long way to go in reaching a meeting of the minds in this endeavor. Unlike other ecumenical exchanges, a dialogue with our Mormon friends contains a peculiar communication problem.
When speaking with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many of us find great difficulty establishing shared and consistent definitions of important words such as God, universe, salvation, and the like. (McDermott omits the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression,” which illuminates their definitions of grace and salvation.)
This nebulosity can give the appearance of concurrence where none exists. McDermott refers to the term God in his discourse on the nature of the Trinity, which inherently contains an understanding of monotheism, omnipotence, and Christian metaphysics. This commendably goes to the heart of the matter, but it is most likely to go untouched in conversations between Christian and Mormon laity. Next time an LDS member knocks on my door, I shall ask him, “What did God worship before he became God, and why don’t we worship that?” Which brings us to the important issue of apostatizing.
When I, as a Lutheran pastor, encounter a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, or a Methodist, I happily encourage them to worship at their respective churches.
This behavior demonstrates that I regard our denominations, despite their differences, as all under the name Christian. However, when a Mormon elder visits a member of my flock, he systematically and aggressively works to divorce said member from my church. This behavior demonstrates that, however the important words are defined, Mormons regard us and our beliefs as sufficiently unchristian as to warrant the need for conversion, rebaptism, and a radical separation from the catholic Church. Through our behavior, we make our words incarnate and, in doing so, give them clarity. If Mormons are truly to regard the rest of us as Christians, they must restrict their evangelism to non-Christians.”
April 28th, 2010 | 4:35 am
[...] Mormon Menace … Averted! If Mormons truly regard the rest of us as Christians, they must restrict their evangelism to [...]
May 15th, 2010 | 3:01 pm
“The head God called together the Gods, and they sat in grand council.” What is the source?
Brother Khan, I assume you are aware that Joseph Smith obtained this from the first line of Genesis; he goes to the original hebrew text to arrive at a literal translation that differs from the King James or whatever text you are reading. Yes. We differ significantly in our concept of God, and many LDS members are not “schooled” in theology; that is, they do not obtain a degree in biblical interpretation, so as to believe alike in all their understanding. You may interpret as you like, or as your schools have taught you to understand the meaning of the text; the texts selected as your canon. We likewise will use the same scriptures, and arrive at different meanings. Please do not assert that Joseph made up doctrines from whole cloth; all our doctrines have scriptural basis, some not in your cannon. We are 1st century Christians. In my opinion, you follow “the scriptures, mingled with the doctrines of men.” You like to debate the lay membership; and our serious scholars generally don’t respond in these forums. You’ll be swimming in deep water if you really hook one of our heavy weight scholars; I hope you know your hebrew, etc. Read some Richard Holzapfel; for example, “Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament”. With regard to the Book of Mormon, read some of Hugh Nibley, and then get back to me. You can start with “An Approach to the book of mormon.” There is nothing irrational in my faith.
May 21st, 2010 | 10:52 pm
Of course, as we discuss what I refer to as ‘traditional Christianity’ versus “Mormonism”, we do come to loggerheads a bit in terms of doctrine, the meaning of terms, etc. But, that is to be expected, given what happened at the beginning of “Mormonism” so-called.
Joseph Smith, as just a backwoods boy, age 14, the 3rd son of his parents, who had, at age 7, experienced almost losing a leg, and his life, with a boil that moved from his shoulder to his lower leg, which in turn infected the bone, causing portions of his leg bone to rot and die. Nathan Smith, a surgeon residing in Hanover, New Hampshire, 3 or so miles from Lebanon, where Joseph’s parents & their family resided, (co-founder of Yale Medical School – I believe), founder of Dartmouth Medical School (& one or two others during his lifetime), was THE pioneer in bone removal, such as was done on young Joseph Smith, in order to save his leg (which both he & his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, insisted upon).
Perhaps it was this life threatening experience that eventually led to Joseph Smith seeking to find out with which Christian church he should join. He said in his own account that by reason, he could not suppose that they (the Christian sects) were all God’s (is Christ divided)?
While praying, and this, audibly, he said, for the first time in his life, he says that a light appeared exactly above his head. In the light, he tells, were two personages, whom descended gradually until they were right above him, young Joseph claims, and he said they had a glory brighter than the noon day sun.”
First off, we must take note that his account, while extremely unique, at least in “our day”, is, nonetheless, fairly precise in its descriptions, it is, remarkably still, without conveys no attempt to exagerate.
Joseph relates in his own words the following—
“One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
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. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.
(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:17 – 20)
Note that Joseph said that Jesus Christ, (quoting, among other prophets, Isaiah), told him what he thought and felt and how he (Christ) regarded ALL relgions (& hence, one must suppose) religionists.
Here it is, once again—
“they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Now, as a father of nine children, seven of whom are girls, I have had many boys date my daughters. They, like many whom the Savior describes (again, using words Isaiah received undoubtedly from God) uses in regards to other religions, including sects of ‘traditional Christianity’.
Now, is there offense to take at this?
In my opinion, there is only offense to be taken if one is insufficiently humble to ever be corrected— and this, ESPECIALLY BY GOD!!!
Also, when traditional Christians say that we, the “odd folks out”, who disagree with them, to be sure, on certain KEY POINTS OF DOCTRINE, this is, I aver, where the ODD MAN OUT is ‘dead on’ correct, and the MANY, in this case, are in error!!!
One of you spoke at length on believing in the resurrection, first accomplished, we must be sure, by Jesus Christ himself.
That is all well and good, and comfortable to read about in the Bible in something that happened nearly two millennia past.
On the other hand, it is quite something else when HE WHO SELF-RESURRECTED descends again from heaven, and speaks again to man!
THERE, in denying not only that Joseph Smith had this experience, but generally denying that he or anyone ever could! THAT is where the truth is made bare in that “they deny the power thereof”
Furthermore, BIBLE scripture speaks of “the MOST HIGH GOD”. That comports perfectly with the Grand Council in Heaven Joseph Smith spoke of in the King Follett discourse (which also was General Conference of the Church that year), just a couple of months before Joseph Smith, with his brother Hyrum, sealed their testimonies of the doctrine they preached, and their testimonies of Christ which most ‘traditional Christians’ today STILL DENY! (i.e., will not accept).
Joseph Smith declared, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:22 – 24)
Now, just as one would think that the sects of Judaism would have thrilled when the long awaited Messiah finally arrives (albeit in a much different manner than they anticipated), it is one of the saddest stories of mankind of how instead of welcoming the heir to the throne (as Jesus gave a parable that paralleled what would become of him), of the Great King (God) — horror of horrors, INSTEAD, they CRUCIFY the heir!!!
Now, fast forward around 18 centuries, and again, and most interestingly, under much of the same circumstances, and EVEN ON THE SAME TRUMPED UP CHARGE (“treason”), Joseph Smith TOO is killed by a mob of religionists who did all they could to stoke up heat and hate against this man whose crime was to declare that he had spoken to God, and he revealed the truths God revealed to him!!!
Interestingly enough, traditonal Christians on this forum choose not to judge Mormons on their fruits (their works), but rather on their words!!! Like the Jews at Christ’s trial, they (modern ‘traditional Christians’), much like their first century pharisaical and sadducceacal counterparts (and like Pilate & King Herod) come to agreement on one thing— Joseph Smith (like Christ) was correctly to be killed— and, furthermore, his followers (“Mormons” or “Latter-Day Saints”) are (in essence), like Joseph Smith, worthy also of DEATH for their HERESIES!!!
Today, as Mitt Romney’s run for the White House made quite clear (even I had some issues with Mitt), ANYONE can be President of the United States (even a first generation American of African descent), but NEVER, NO NEVER a MORMON!!! (Neo-Pharisees in Iowa, and neo-Sadducees in New Hampshire, crossed party lines to make sure of that — the latter state crossover vote explaining how Hillary really lost there)!
Joseph Smith, and Mormons today, teach as the Bible teaches—
God made man in his own image and likeness, and made them Male and Female.
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages, but as Christ’s prayer (may they be one as we are one), baptism (And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased); at his resurrection (Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God); at the martyrdom of Stephen (he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God).
It is interesting, but not necessarily good, in my opinion, to see the growth and flourishing of neo-Pharisees and neo-Sadducees so much at this time. However, if one thing I take to heart, it is this. What Jesus said concerning those who find him truly—
“Broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and MANY there be which go in thereat: ….and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it.”
Even 14 million Mormons in a world of 6+ billion people, a billion or two of them traditional Christian, is a FEW versus the MANY!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact