19
Feb
09

Jesus and the Melchizedek Priesthood

Jesus and the Melchizedek Priesthood

     A point Christians and Mormons agree on is that Melchizedek and Jesus were in the Melchizedek priesthood.  The point of contention is  whether or not they were the only ones holding that priesthood.  Christians say yes, Mormonism says no.  In this post, I  will expand on why Christians state that and the importance they have for stating that.

     To do that we have to look at the book of Hebrews, because it is the only place that gives us any details about the Melchizedek priesthood.  In 7:22-28 it contrasts Christ’s priesthood with the Aaronic priesthood.

 “22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

[23] And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

[24] But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

[25] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

[27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

[28] For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

    Note the contrasts.  In the Aaronic priesthood there were many priests (v. 23, 28) because they died and could not continue in the priesthood.  In striking contrast to “men” in verse 28 is the “Son”.  Not other men.  And there is no need for others because Jesus “is consecrated for evermore.”   This is a contrast that continues throughout the book.  The contrast is always between the many priests of the Aaronic priesthood and the one priest of the Melchizedek priesthood.  There are no “priests” when it comes to the Melchizedek priesthood.

     Secondly, note the contrast in verse 27.  They daily sacrificed.  He once for all.  Again this is expanded on greatly in the coming chapters.  For example, Hebrews 10:

10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
[11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
[12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
[13] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

     What a striking contrast.  Aaronic priests stand working because their work of sacrificing is never done. Jesus sits because his work of sacrificing is done.

     The Bible does not talk about subsequent priests in the Melchizedek priesthood – in fact, the idea of subsequent priests violates the whole argument put forth in the book of Hebrews.  There are no successors because Jesus remains forever our priest – because Jesus has made the one offering “once for all”.

     The Bible intertwines the Melchizedek priesthood with Jesus’ sacrifice for sin.   That is what Christians immediately think of when they hear the phrase, “Melchizedek priesthood”.  They immediately think of God’s great love for them in sending Jesus to do everything for them so that they are perfect forever, not by anything they do, but by his one offering.

Advertisements

154 Responses to “Jesus and the Melchizedek Priesthood”


  1. 1 GB
    February 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Perhaps this post really belongs here.

    Sorry folks but two people do NOT an “order” make!

    Words do mean things.

    From “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” – Manly P. Hall (1928)

    The words “after the order” make Jesus one of a line or order of which there must have been others of equal or even superior dignity. If the “Melchizedeks” were the divine or priestly rulers of the nations of the earth before the inauguration of the system of temporal rulers, then the statements attributed to St. Paul would indicate that Jesus either was one of these “philosophic elect” or was attempting to reestablish their system of government. It will be remembered that Melchizedek also performed the same ceremony of the drinking of wine and the breaking of bread as did Jesus at the Last Supper (p178).

    The robe of the High Priest of Israel were often called “The Garments of Glory”, for they resembled the regenerated and spiritualized nature of man, symbolized by a vestment which all must weave from the threads of character and virtue before they can become High Priests after the Order of Melchizedek (p. 135).

  2. 2 ladonnamorrell
    February 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Mark, in this post you are making a great case for the difference between the Law of Moses and the New and Everlasting Covenant. the scripture lesson here is that the Savior FULFILLED the law! No where does it say that the Savior is the ONLY one to hold the Priesthood….it is inferring that HIS work is HIS alone….he is the ONLY SAVIOR!! He, by His atoning sacrifice, accomplished MORE, infinitely MORE, than any of the “schoolmaster” sacrifices of the Law of Moses Priests! His sacrifice was indeed, ONCE AND FOR ALL! THIS IS NOT A “PRIESTHOOD” SCRIPTURE! correct me if i am wrong, but the Books of the New Testament are not in chronological order….and High Priests ARE mentioned…and High Priests ARE of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

    FYI: deacons, teachers and priests belong to the Aaronic priesthood . Elders, High Priests and Seventies belong to the Melchizedek priesthood.

  3. February 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Ladonnamorell: you wrote

    it is inferring that HIS work is HIS alone

    exactly…and does the previous priesthood remain….if it does, what’s left to be done ??
    and it seems like Mark is pretty insistent about Biblical support to back this up….

    rather than just make strong statements, I’d suggest showing us from the NT where it says what you are saying.

    thanks, GERMIT

  4. 4 faithoffathers
    February 19, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    While Mark is arguing that the Bible does not “prove” the LDS take on the Priesthood, I submit that it does not “prove” the EV take on Priesthood either. The default position can be taken that ‘since it isn’ explicitly laid out for us’ it must not have existed. But this position requires assumptions as well.

    The passages Mark includes in the article do not prove that Christ was the only holder of the Melchezedek Priesthood. The passages show that the Melchizedek Priesthood- that which Christ held- was greater than the Aaronic Priesthood, and that the central role of the priests within the Aaronic Priesthood under the Law of Moses had been fulfilled.

    By the way, the High Priest in the Law of Moses was an office of the Aaronic Priesthood, not the same as High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

    fof

  5. February 19, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    FoF; you wrote

    The default position can be taken that ’since it isn’ explicitly laid out for us’ it must not have existed. But this position requires assumptions as well.

    Really the burden is on you to support, somehow, your view of the priesthood and all that represents. To appeal to an assumed style of priesthood prior to Moses, one that seems to me ultimately unknowable , comes across as more bluff than anything substantive. Your argument could “prove” ANYONE”S theory about virtually anything….

    You have spent very little time showing us from either testament that if you take away the sacrificial elements of the priesthood, that you have anything left worth talking about. How will you ever hope to make a case that this “pre-Moses” priesthood was biblical ?? Based on what ??

    It seems the most we know of Melch’s priesthood is covered in Hebrews, so great, camp out there and show us why the LDS remdition of this priesthood is the biblical one…. I’m guessing Mark will rebuttal…..or some other goofball cum theologian…..

    enjoy the weekend

    GERMIT

  6. 6 ladonnamorrell
    February 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    hi mark,
    i think we have exhausted this topic. how about telling us who you believe Satan is and where he gets his power?

  7. February 20, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    On a little bit of a sidenote… although related. I find most interesting is how the LDS Church can maintain that the Aaronic Priesthood still exists given the fact that Hebrews address this VERY directly. Hebrews 7:18019 says:

    18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    Hard to get much more direct than that… yet, they still maintain that the Aaronic Priesthood exists on earth and in fact, teach that kids can hold it.

    Darrell

  8. 8 GB
    February 20, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    Derrell,

    There you go, reading something into that verse that isn’t there. Let’s look at several translations, OK?

    International Standard Version (©2008)
    Indeed, because it was weak and ineffective, the former commandment has been annulled,

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    The former requirements are rejected because they are weak and useless.

    King James Bible
    For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

    American King James Version
    For there is truly a cancellation of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

    American Standard Version
    For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness

    Bible in Basic English
    So the law which went before is put on one side, because it was feeble and without profit.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof:

    Darby Bible Translation
    For there is a setting aside of the commandment going before for its weakness and unprofitableness,

    English Revised Version
    For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    For there is verily a disannulling of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and unprofitableness.

    Weymouth New Testament
    On the one hand we have here the abrogation of an earlier code because it was weak and ineffective–

    World English Bible
    For there is an annulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and uselessness

    Young’s Literal Translation
    for a disannulling indeed doth come of the command going before because of its weakness, and unprofitableness,

    It was the “commandment” (Law of Moses) that was “disannulled”, NOT the Aaronic Priesthood.

    Is it possible for you to comprehend the difference?

  9. 9 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Mark: thanks for getting all this started, the meditation on the Priesthood of our Blessed Savior…Hebrews in general, and Hebrews 7 in particular; after meditation of what the Priesthood of Jesus is all about, it makes a soul grateful

    from kenneth wuest/expanded translation

    Heb 7:23-25
    …and they indeed have been made many priests in number, because they were hindered from continuing by reason of death. But this [priest], because HE is abiding forever, has the priesthood which is UNTRANSFERABLE, for which reason also HE is able to be saving completely and forever those who come to GOD through HIM, being always alive for the purpose of continually making intercession for them.

    Laddonna: the Priesthood above is fine with me….why would I want to trade ??

  10. 10 GERMIT
    February 20, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    GB: good afternoon, sir….

    you might want to back up and read v.11

    Heb7:11 (NASB)

    Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (FOR ON THE BASIS OF IT THE PEOPLE RECEIVED THE LAW), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not designated according to the order of AARON ??

    in other words, if the AARONIC thing was REALLY working, there would be no need for something…acually SOMEONE, BETTER….no upgrade would have happened if the AARONIC priesthood (through which the people received the LAW) was enough, and satisfactory…

    the entire theme of HEBREWS is that the Melch. priesthood was NOT ADDED to what preceded it, but TOOK ITS PLACE…..you guys (LDS) need to address this claim with more than just slogans and just-so stories. Please….. almost forgot my manners…..OOOOPS, time for my ‘greening session….”

  11. 11 GB
    February 20, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    Germit,

    There you go again, reading something into the verse that isn’t there.

    NOWHERE is the Aaronic Priesthood eliminated. BTW the Aaronic did NOT precede the Melch. Melch. precede Aaron, get it? The Aaronic Priesthood has ALWAYS been subservient to the Melch.

    As a side note.
    The Melch. Priesthood is required for the achievement of perfection v.11. Now see Eph 4:11-14. The office of apostle exists “for the perfecting of the saints” (among other things). Humm. Are you getting any clues here? Could it be that the Apostles were High Priests after the order of Melch? Humm.

  12. February 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    GB,

    You said:

    “NOWHERE is the Aaronic Priesthood eliminated.”

    and

    “It was the “commandment” (Law of Moses) that was “disannulled”, NOT the Aaronic Priesthood.”

    How was the Levitical Priesthood established? Through what law? The Law of Moses of course!

    What was the Levitical Priesthood used for? SACRIFICE!!!

    The Law of Moses was fullfilled and the need for sacrifice was done away with… based upon the ultimate sacrifice of God Himself.

    Therefore, on what basis do you determine that we NEED the Aaronic Priesthood or Priests today? Christians are not the ones who perform Exegesis on this subject… LDS are.

    Since you do not believe that you are performing exegesis… please show me specific scripture in the Bible which says that we need the Aaronic Priesthood to do ANYTHING today. The only reason we needed it AT ALL was to perform sacrifices under the Law of Moses. It was NEVER USED FOR ANYTHING outside the Law of Moses. Since the Law of Moses was satisified you need to demonstrate from the Bible that we need it for something else. You won’t find it… in the Bible (or the BOM for that matter).

    Another point here… Germit said:

    “in other words, if the AARONIC thing was REALLY working, there would be no need for something…acually SOMEONE, BETTER….no upgrade would have happened if the AARONIC priesthood (through which the people received the LAW) was enough, and satisfactory…”

    and you rebutted with:

    “The Melch. Priesthood is required for the achievement of perfection v.11. Now see Eph 4:11-14.”

    I want to make sure I am understanding you here and not putting words in your mouth. Germit was pointing out that CHRIST was what satisfied the Law of Moses and it is by CHRIST that we are perfected. Are you saying that you believe Christ was NOT ENOUGH and that we need something MORE THAN HIM to be perfected? If so, please point me to the specific verses that support your assertion.

    Further down in Hebrews 7 the writer says:

    “25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.”

    I have a perfect High Priest forever in Jesus Christ. He is able to save me completely. Why do I need an earthly High Priest, or a teenage Deacon, Teacher or Priest to be saved?

    Darrell

  13. 13 germit
    February 21, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    WoW: now we’re getting somewhere….Darrell asked:

    Are you saying that you believe Christ was NOT ENOUGH and that we need something MORE THAN HIM to be perfected? If so, please point me to the specific verses that support your assertion.

    Let’s assume that the LDS believe in Christ’s perfect sacrifice…..OK , great, but was HIS work in fulfilling the old covenant and establishing the new lacking in anything ?? Again: what’s left for the priest , someone OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST, our great high priest, to do ?? If this is something that Jesus wants help with (like evangelizing the world…a la Matt 28 ) then great, show us where this is the new instruction…

    Great question Darrell….back into my tank… the webbing is drying out…

    Green-with-envy-GERMIT

  14. 14 germit
    February 21, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    GB: about the “added vs. replaced” thing

    Yes, Melch. obviously preceded Moses by many years, but Melch.’s priesthood was a TYPE of that held by Jesus, not the entire, full blown thing….similar in SOME ways but not all: how COULD it be JUST LIKE what Jesus held, Melch. was a sinful man, though a great man… So even tho Melch. and his priesthood forshadowed Jesus and HIS, the High Priesthood of Jesus is in many ways UNIQUE to JESUS…. hope this makes sense.

    I’m hoping you are still laughing…. in these tough times, we need some mirth

    GERMIT

  15. February 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    By the way… in my post 12 above I made a mistake. I used the word exegesis two times when I meant the opposite… eisegesis. Sorry!!

    Darrell

  16. 16 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 2:11 am

    darrell,

    You said: It(the Aaronic Priesthood) was NEVER USED FOR ANYTHING outside the Law of Moses. Since the Law of Moses was satisified you need to demonstrate from the Bible that we need it for something else. You won’t find it… in the Bible (or the BOM for that matter).

    ****i think you are wrong. The priesthood was used to minister to the people. It was the people’s sins that were being atoned for with the sacrifices. the priests were administering the law. If another law is in place, why does that displace the priesthood? there would still be laws to administer.

    how about when Hannah went to the temple?…the priest administered to her, promising her that she would have her heart’s desire. how about anointing in Christ’s day. it was done with oil, which is also how authority was passed (remember the horn of oil poured on David’s head)in New Testament times. you can argue that things aren’t spelled out in the Bible, but you can’t argue this: that everything the LDS teaches about the Priesthood is intimated, inferred and mentioned in the Bible, all the ends are tied up in a pretty little bow, so to speak! [oh,believe me, i know you will try to argue it :)…you would just be wrong. perhaps because you don’t fully understand what the LDS church teaches about the priesthood or perhaps because you are quite biased against it. i understand both]

    The Book of Mormon clearly teaches about priesthood. Much more than the Bible. Have you read it from cover to cover? or just done topical guide searches? anyway, i am sure i am not going to change your mind, but i did want to make my point.
    thanks,

  17. 17 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 2:25 am

    germit,

    i see that you have asked me a question.

    I would like to tell you that the priesthood that YOU DON’T have is wonderful! it is the power and authority to act in God’s name. Because of it, i have the saving ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Baptism,the Gift of the Holy Ghost, temple covenants, temple sealings that bind me to my children and husband and parents forever and ever. the priesthood is the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. It is His. He has allowed us this blessing so that we may progress and someday enter His Kingdom. If you recall, we have been promised all that the Father has….why not His priesthood authority and power? The Savior left the priesthood authority with his 12 Apostles. They received the “keys” to his authority and when they died or were killed, the keys were taken from the earth. i am glad you are happy with what you have. good for you. but boy are you missing the blessings of having the real deal! i have been healed, comforted, and blessed with the priesthood. I hope i am never without it in my home,and i thank the Lord each day for His perfect love and the priesthood of God.

    don’t let your pride keep you from listening to the truth someday!

  18. 18 germit
    February 22, 2009 at 2:40 am

    LaddonnaM: it’s your absolute Fave Greenie-thing chiming in….you wrote:

    ****i think you are wrong. The priesthood was used to minister to the people. It was the people’s sins that were being atoned for with the sacrifices. the priests were administering the law. If another law is in place, why does that displace the priesthood? there would still be laws to administer.

    about the law(s)
    Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for every one who believes. GAlations 5:14 the entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Faith in Jesus Christ, and a new righteousness that is born of faith now produces the LOVE that was NOT POSSIBLE with the old law and the old sacrificial system. There are some ‘ordinances’ to oversee in the NT, but the only new “law” is the law of love. This is the Royal law referred to in James 2:8-12, and it’s THIS law that gives FREEDOM. the Levitical law, though God ordained, never gave freedom.

    It’s great to chat with ya….have an awesome Sunday

    GERMIT

  19. 19 germit
    February 22, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Laddonna; you just got your post in before my webbed toes could tap mine out…GERMITS type a little slower… you asked a very good question:

    If you recall, we have been promised all that the Father has….why not His priesthood authority and power?

    this is a very good question, and to get the best answer, just read Hebrews 7 , because the author spells out MANY unique distinctives of the priesthood that Jesus held, things that make HIM above and beyond ALL others, including Melchizedek, by the way…

    7:26 Such a high priest meets our need–one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Laddonna, look at that list: are your priests as HOLY as JESUS?….as PURE as JESUS?…. as EXALTED ABOVE THE HEAVENS as JESUS ?? why should I pick the 3rd string dudes, when Heavenly Father has given me HIS all-star (forever an all-star) SON as my OWN PERSONAL HIGH PRIEST….WHO meets my need ??

    v.22 Because of this oath (see v.21 which HEAVENLY FATHER ONLY gave HIS SON…none other) JESUS has become the GUARANTEE of a better covenant…..wow, I like that word GUARANTEE….and it’s connected to JESUS….not Bob, or Joe, or Henry…..or even GERmIT….

    You’ve been very kind if you’ve read this far…..but it sure looks like that from the HOLY BIBLE itself that the priesthood that JESUS STILL has (because it is UNTRANSFERABLE) is really really good…. what you have sounds OK….but it doesn’t sound better than Heb ch.7….or even close, to me.

    blessings on you and yours
    GERMIT

  20. February 22, 2009 at 4:51 am

    Ladonna,

    You said:

    “i think you are wrong. The priesthood was used to minister to the people.”

    Please show me where The Bible teaches that the Levitical Priesthood is a necessary requirement to being able to minsiter to people. Do you honestly think that God is that powerless that He could not minister to people unless someone was called by the LDS Church? The problem with your position is that the very structure of the LDS Church violates your requirement. The ward, stake, area, and Church wide Presidencies for the Primary and Relief Society are all made up of WOMEN who DO NOT hold the Priesthood. They are the ones that minister to the children and woman. If the Priesthood is a necessary requirement for being able to minister than they cannot rightfully minister to their respective flocks.

    You may come back and say that they REPORT TO Pristhood Holders.. that will not work to support your argument because the women themselves are the ones doing the ministering and according to your statment, unless they hold the Priesthood they cannot minister… despite who they report to.

    I like Germit’s statement above. He quoted two great scriptures.

    Romans 10:4 “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for every one who believes.”

    Galations 5:14 “The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    I will add to this another one of my favorite scriptures Matthew 22:37-40.

    “37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    The old law of rules, regulations, sacrifices and men holding priesthood offices was done away with by Christ. He replaced this with a very simple straightforward pathway home to Him. Christ is our High Priest… Hebrews is very clear about that. Where does it say that we need teenage Deacons, Teachers and Priests? Where does it say that Christ passed the Melchezidek Priesthood on to others? Where does it say that the Levitical Priesthood is used to pass sacrament, collect fast offerings and Baptize? You won’t find it… because you are performing eisegesis on this subject.

    You mentioned that I may not know a lot about the Priesthood in the LDS Church or whether or not I have read the BOM cover to cover. I was a member of the LDS Church for years. Among other things I served as a:

    1. Ward Mission Leader
    2. Elder’s Quorum President
    3. Stake Missionary
    4. Early Morning Seminary Teacher
    5. Counselor in the Bishopric
    6. Member of the Stake High Council

    I understand the Priesthood very well and have read the BOM cover to cover many times. In addition, I have read the D&C and Pearl of Great Price many times. Given my knowledge of the BOM, I have to disagree with you on another issue. The BOM teaches nothing more about the Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood than the Bible does. If you disagree with me, please show me the specific verses to support you assertion. The LDS Position on the Priesthood was not taught by JS in the BOM. It was taught in the D&C. Given the fact that the BOM claims to bring the fullness of the Gospel, this makes no sense.

    Ladonna, I would like to encourage you to read the Bible and to open your heart to the Christ that is taught within it’s pages. He is different from the Christ of the LDS Church. The LDS Church teaches a Christ that is a mediator of a DIFFERENT COVENANT than the Christ of the Bible. I just did a post on this at my blog this morning. The Covenant that the Mormon Christ teaches is very unforgiving… it is not the New Covenant that Christ teaches. It is something different and is known as “The New and Everlasting Covenant” As Moroni 10:32 teaches, in Mormonism it is not until you deny yourself of ALL UNGODLINESS that grace is sufficient for you. Can you do this? Can you deny yourself of all ungodliness? I know that I can’t. I am a sinner and I give myself to Christ. I am thankful to Him that He has saved me…. for even will I was a sinner “Christ died for me”. All praise be to Him!

    Darrell

  21. 21 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 5:54 am

    boy, darrell, you are in deep doo-doo. (pardon my french) if you held those positions, you KNOW better! you should read the “Second Chance Theory” in Mormon Doctrine. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes when you cross the veil. oh well…good luck!

    you should also know that there is a difference in administering the LAW and ministering to people. the Bishop is one of only 4 people in the ward who holds keys of any kind. HE administers the law. yes, there are many who serve…..and they do so by authority of the Priesthood and those keys.

    next…ok so the word priesthood isn’t in the book of mormon….but the ordinances are and just like the epistles in the bible, the people had a knowledge of the priesthood…it isn’t spelled out in so many words. but the “power” is the same. (are you a fan of bill clinton…you know..”it all depends on what is, is”?)

    just like you lived as an LDS person before your fall…oops i mean “conversion”, i grew up as a denominational Christian. it was empty and meaningless. i tried and tried to feel something..but nothing! the doctrines, especially about life after death were hideous!
    your “god” sends people to hell because they never heard the gospel! what rot.

    there was no consistency in the interpretation of the scriptures…(oh horrors, i actually learned from my pastor that we lived in heaven before we came to earth….something about “going home to God from whence we came”…he would be tossed out on his ear now-a-days!!)

    the protestant religions are a dead branch off a dead tree. period. but that doesn’t mean you aren’t a very nice person! :)

  22. 22 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 6:13 am

    hi there germit, my slimy green friend!

    once again we simply must agree to disagree. it is kind of a flat earth vs. round earth argument. obviously only one of us is right, but how to present it without a vision from space? i think you lack faith and vision both! you are mired in the flat ol’earth and limit yourself to teachings that don’t add up.

    just what was the “power” that is talked about in the scriptures??
    how was the law administered?? how were the people organized?? who did the anointing, the laying on of hands, who were the bishops, evangelists, presbytery, pastors, teachers, priests, high priests?? how the heck did they have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”?? it sounds like a disorganized mess to me. My Lord is not disorganized. He fashioned this earth by the same priesthood power that governs it today. WE were created by His priesthood power. He gave man a portion of his power to seal on earth and seal in heaven, to baptize with water and with fire, to anoint, to heal, and to bless!! This power practically oozed out of Jesus as he walked among the people, they had to only touch his robes and they were healed! His power and authority were again returned to the earth after the prophesied apostacy. Joseph Smith was the instrument! What an awesome blessing! YOU ARE MISSING OUT!!

    you remind me of the scripture that is coming true right before our eyes….2 Timothy 3:1-5

    you want to “deny the power thereof”… You are denying the priesthood which is the power of God…and not just you, but the whole Christian Anti-Mormon crowd. verse 7 sums it up: “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!”

    sorry to say but my church is better than your church :) (can’t you just here the “na na na na na” )but i still like you…you seem to be a pretty decent person….but you won’t ever agree with me( but i can hope!) and i won’t ever agree with you!

  23. 23 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 6:17 am

    wow darrell. i just re-read your last post…….the doo-doo just may be too deep to EVER climb out of!!

  24. 24 Bryant A.
    February 22, 2009 at 6:53 am

    This is another christens look at the Melchizedec Priesthood. The Melchizedek pristhood belongs to God alone and no body else.The definition of Melchizedek in Hebrew is a title, not a person. Melchizedek = “my King in Sedek”, “King of Righteousness”, King of Salem (Jerusalem), and priest of Jehovah. Abram’s King and King of Righteousness was God. Even in the Psalm of David (110), he say’s The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Elohim),Sit thou at my right hand. This put Jesus and God on the same level. The LORD (Jehovah) hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou (Elohim) art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. And goes on to say, The Lord (Elohim) at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. God’s wrath. On to Hebrews 7:15 it say’s, And it is far more evident: for that afer the similitude (in like manner,after the likeness) of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. The definition of order dose not put a number on order, there for it can be two our more. In witch there are three. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God bless us everyone. B

  25. 25 Bryant A.
    February 22, 2009 at 7:39 am

    ladonnamorrell Just read your refrance to 2 Timoty 3:1-5. If you read the whole chapter of 2 Timothy 3 it”s actually is talking about mormons and you. God bless us everyone. B

  26. 26 germit
    February 22, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    LaddonaMorrell: ah, yessssss………flat earththtth…..flat warm sun drenched rocksssssss…. let me stretch my short green arms a bit….and type awhile…

    LOVE 2cdTimothy, it’s actually my favorite epistle….it’s kind of like Paul’s kick in the you-know-what to his understudies…men need that from time to time… and the opening to IITim3 reads like todsay’s newspaper, does it not ???? we’re seeing this stuff come to pass right before our eyes…

    I agree with you totally about the power and authority shown us by the living CHRIST….HE not only spoke words , HE did deeds. As an aside, do the LDS belief in miraculous works today, healings, words of knowledge, that sort of thing ?? Or are you more dispensationalist ??

    I’m still studying out the authoriy topic, but Matt 18 and Matt 28 have been on my mind a lot lately. Esp. Matt28; Jesus says ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ME….that’s quite an intro to what follows isn’t it ?? then HE sends folks out to do the work of the Kingdom….There ARE some offices or roles found in the NT: overseer, bishop, elder, pastor (by the way, why don’t you guys’s have un-paid PASTORS, that’s part of the list in Eph.4 you are so fond of….what about EVANGELISTS, is that an official office in your church also?? that’s in the Eph.4 list also…perhaps your next prophet will get this started…maybe it’s not time yet…

    OOOps, I digressed….but the REAL authority is found….drum roll please….in NO PARTICULAR office at all…..it’s found “where two or more are gathered in MY NAME” and I think those last 3 words are THE KEYS !!!!! yeah…..we all seem to like keys…..yes, when we TRULY REPRESENT CHRIST, then HIS power comes !! I’ve seen this in my life and the lives of countless others…just yesterday morning I heard the testimony of a crack dealer who , while in prison, prayed for the healing of MAnY of his inmate buddies and saw incredible results, including MAJOR back problems (fused discs) healed !! that’s pretty cool, and not only did this guy have no rank, position, or title….his first healing was an answer to his prayer BEFORE HE WAS YET A CHRISTIAN !!!! That’s just wild….and just like our generous, loving, extavagant, ridiculous GOD…..I mean that’s not even FAIR…

    Sometimes GOD’s ways are, to me, rather messy, and it’s not the way GERMIT would have drawn it up….but it’s probably better that GERMIT is not GOD…..although we WOULD see a lot of GREEN, and green seems to be cool these days….

    have an awesome SUNDAY….
    your little green friend

  27. February 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Ladonna,

    You said:

    “wow darrell. i just re-read your last post…….the doo-doo just may be too deep to EVER climb out of!!”

    Honestly not trying to be a smart-aleck here but fortunately for me the LDS Church is not true and Christ is. The only way I would have been in deep doo-doo would have been if I died before coming out of the Mormon Church to the true Christ. Thank God the He called me, my wife and my four precious children out!!

    You said:

    “you should also know that there is a difference in administering the LAW and ministering to people”

    OK, you have now made yourself clearer. You are talking about ADMINISTERING THE LAW not Ministering to people. In post #16 you did not say this. Instead you said:

    “The priesthood was used to minister to the people.”

    You must have meant ADMINISTER THE LAW to people NOT minister to people. Thank you for clarifying.

    So, let me ask you a question. Since we are told that The Law of Moses has been satisfied and the The Levitical Priesthood was used to ADMINISTER THAT LAW, on what basis do you claim that it is still needed to Administer the Law today? We have a new, perfect, everlasting High Priest who adminsters HIS Law today and that is Jesus Christ. Where do you get the idea that we need a High Priest on the earth today to Adminster the Law? What scripture is it found in?

    I am glad to see that you will admit that the BOM does not teach about the Priesthood when you said:

    “the word priesthood isn’t in the book of mormon”

    You are correct about that. The idea of a Priesthood is found NOWHERE in the BOM. You know something even more interesting… Lehi and his family were said to be strict followers of the Law of Moses… yet there is nearly no indication of them following it in the BOM. There is no explicit reference to the rules, dietary constraints, sacrifices, etc. Why not? Isn’t that wierd? If the idea of the Priesthood is such a necessary part of the fullness of the Gospel and the BOM is said to contain the fullness of the Gospel, why is not mentioned in there at all? Why doesn’t it even show Lehi and his family living the Law of Moses and setting forth the offices of Priest, High Priest, etc? They were supposed to be following it because it had not been fullfilled yet.

    This, to me, is a major problem for Mormons. They say the Priesthood is necessary to admibister the Law today… yet their most precious scripture (the most correct book on the face of the earth according to JS) does not even teach the Law Of Moses prior to Christ… big problem!!

    Darrell

  28. 28 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    darrell,
    you have fallen into a deep trap. i am sorry for you, but especially those 4 precious children. what a sad, sad tale. You sure have taken a huge responsibility on your shoulders…the eternal lives of 5 victims….that is a heavy burden! good luck!

    FYI:there are no problems with the Book of Mormon..not one. YOU have a problem with the truth and frankly i am bored with this topic. YOU blew it. You lost the spirit so there is NO USE in even “arguing” this with you. Now someone like Germit, who never had the truth, is a different story.

    (just tell me exactly how one can go from having the fulness of the Gospel back to flat earth?
    no, actually i don’t want to know. it would just be a bunch of mish-mosh like others i have heard. it usually boils down to sin. the Christians sure take the easy way out and that just might have been too tempting for you!)

  29. 29 ladonnamorrell
    February 22, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    hey germit,

    you asked:
    As an aside, do the LDS belief in miraculous works today, healings, words of knowledge, that sort of thing ?? Or are you more dispensationalist ??

    ***yes, we believe in miracles, healings etc. i personally have seen many.

    what is a dispensationalist?

    you said:

    ….There ARE some offices or roles found in the NT: overseer, bishop, elder, pastor (by the way, why don’t you guys’s have un-paid PASTORS, that’s part of the list in Eph.4 you are so fond of….what about EVANGELISTS, is that an official office in your church also??

    ***yes, we believe in these “offices or roles” And we DO have un-paid clergy such as Bishops, Stake Presidents and Area Seventy, Temple Presidents, Mission Presidents Patriarchs (also known as Evanvelists) and missionaries. those that work full time for the Church are paid.

    you said:
    “where two or more are gathered in MY NAME”
    ***that is a description of where the SPIRIT is…not the authority.
    what a crazy mixed up mess you would have if that were true. oh wait, Christendom is a crazy mixed up mess of conflicting doctrine!

    more later, the love of my life just got home.

  30. February 22, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Ladonna,

    Wow… this got ugly fast. I am so sorry that you harbor such bad feelings towards inidividuals such as myself. I am simply trying to have a conversation with you surrounding a topic of mutual interest. You came onto this website to have conversations I am assuming? That is a logical assumption as no one forced you to come here.

    You have made many assertions that Germit and myself have addressed. I have provided scriptural support for my opinions and have repeatedly asked you for scriptural support for your assertions. I have asked:

    1. On what basis do you claim that it is still needed to Administer the Law today?

    2. Where do you get the idea that we need a High Priest on the earth today to Adminster the Law? What scripture is it found in?

    3. Where does it say that we need teenage Deacons, Teachers and Priests? Where does it say that Christ passed the Melchezidek Priesthood on to others?

    4. Where does it say that the Levitical Priesthood is used to pass sacrament, collect fast offerings and Baptize?

    Up to this point you have chosen not to answer my questions but have instead provided more empty assertions and have chosen to attack me personally by saying things such as:

    “…just like you lived as an LDS person before your fall…oops i mean “conversion””

    And then you follow with saying that I have fallen into sin when you said:

    “it would just be a bunch of mish-mosh like others i have heard. it usually boils down to sin.”

    Really, Ladonna, is that the best you have? Because you can’t address an argument head on and provide sources to back up your empty assertions you instead turn to attacking and discounting the PERSON instead of the MESSAGE? That is sad.

    One thing this will do is help all those who read this who may be questioning the LDS Church. Who really is acting like the Christian here? You, a member of the only “true” church, who resorts to personal attacks and provides no evidence to back up your arguement? Or, myself and Germit, who do not attack you personally at all? I have delivered a message but have NEVER ONCE said you are Anti-Christian, sinning or “fallen”. Yet you will readily accuse me of being fallen, anti-mormon and lastly succombing to sin.

    Ladonna, you might want to do a little more research about those of us who leave the church. One source I would recommend is John Dehlin. He is an active believing member of the LDS Church. He did a great presentation about a year ago titled “Why They Leave”. There are about 100,000 leaving a year and it has nothing to do with sin… despite your desire to discount us by believing that it is.

    God bless you on your journey!!

    Darrell

  31. 31 germit
    February 23, 2009 at 1:29 am

    Darrell: nice job summarizing some of the major points in this conversation. Your last post was well packaged.

    LaddonnaMorrell: I’m glad to have the conversation, and I realize that your group hold to continuing revelation, but consider Darrells questions and points….this is NOT about someone, Darrell or myself or you or FoF winning an argument, but who has the words of life…we both say “Jesus”, but we both cannot be right.

    May the Heavenly Father lead us both into all truth

    GERMIT

  32. 32 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 1:41 am

    wow, i re-read that post and don’t think “it turned ugly”. i was summing up my experiences. if you were my brother and had left the church i would think it was incredibly sad. and EVERY single person that I KNOW that has left the church has done so because of sin. whether it was pride, adultery, or whatever.

    i have made my points in earlier posts. others have as well. i realize that i cannot convince people that read those very same scriptures differently than i do. i told germit that we would need to agree to disagree. sorry but i feel differently towards an excommunicated member of the church. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!! and it is sickening to me. sorry, but that is how i feel.

    sorry, too, that you were offended. i meant no ill will. are parents “Un-Christian” when they chasten their children? i see that charge alot with ex-ed members…they can trash the doctrine, trash the prophet, trash the church but are quick on the trigger with the “whose the REAL Christian?” question. kind of funny.

  33. 33 germit
    February 23, 2009 at 2:31 am

    LaddonnaM: we’ve probably about “put this thing to bed” so don’t feel like you need to answer this one…and I appreciate your endurance so far.

    you commented

    i realize that i cannot convince people that read those very same scriptures differently than i do.

    my only observation is WHAT SCRIPTURES ?? Darrell repeatedly asked you to make a scriptural case for maybe 5 to 8 different Mormon claims….honestly, you didn’t give him much back… this seems to be the major point of Mark, Darrell, and GERmIT….if you want to hold to a belief and call it “christian” and “biblical” OK, but we want to see the “beef” behind the “bark”, that’s all. I know you are at a disadvantage because the focus is on the NT and not the BofM or D & C, but if you want credibility here, then make the biblical case…as best you can.

    grateful for the push to understand GOD and HIS ways and HIS WORD
    GERMIT

  34. February 23, 2009 at 3:03 am

    “sorry but i feel differently towards an excommunicated member of the church.”

    FYI… I was not excommunicated. My family and I had our names removed from the church. It was OUR CHOICE to leave and had nothing to do with sin. It was 100% to do with doctrine and history. Again, Ladonna, I recommend researching a little more and not lumping all Ex-LDS into one little box. Especially if you are trying to be a witness to those that are leaving in an attempt to bring them back. Accusing someone of sin who is having issues with the doctrine and history of the church will not help your case. It will do nothing but alienate them. Again, check out John Dehlin’s presentation. Although I don’t agree with his conclusions, he hits the nail on the head as to why people are leaving at such a high rate.

    It might bring you comfort to think that the only reason people leave is “sin” but it is not reality. 100,000 are leaving a year… when my wife and I had our names removed we got a STOCK BROCHURE in the mail from church headquarters inviting us to return. It has a stock number on the back because the church orders them in bulk. Our exit letter that came from Salt Lake had a stamped signature on it because they are printing so many of them. People aren’t quiting at such a high rate due to sin… they are quitting because they are finding out the church has major issues with it’s history and doctrine.

    Darrell

  35. February 23, 2009 at 4:49 am

    “we both say “Jesus”, but we both cannot be right.”

    Maybe so germit, but it is possible that God is not that fussed about the error on one or both of our parts.

    “People aren’t quiting at such a high rate due to sin… they are quitting because they are finding out the church has major issues with it’s history and doctrine.”

    Now it’s your turn to stereotype and generalize Darrell. Most people who drift out of activity do not do it for the “devastating” truths they uncovered about the Church. Most just lose interest because people in general tend to lose interest in things. In truth, the number one reason for leaving the LDS Church may be nothing more than “I got tired of going.”

    Sure people leave for simply taking a moral stand. But don’t think that your position represents the majority. Fact is, a lot of humanity just isn’t as passionate about “Truth, justice, and the American Way” as your standard blogger is.

    And people do leave the Church for petty, selfish, and unholy reasons. I’ve encountered guys who pretty-much treated their family like dirt, abused their wives, got called to the mat by their bishop, booted out of the Church and spent the rest of their petty, vindictive and wretched lives trying to ruin their ex wife, and the Church that sided with her. Few years ago, I was privy to a bishopric meeting where we were warned that a certain woman had just moved into town (not in Utah) and to avoid her. Seems she had made a career of raising frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits against the LDS Church and people in it. We were warned never to be caught alone with her and without a witness.

    By the time I moved from that town, word was she had already sued the public library, the police, the city council, the stake president, a couple bishops, and about 7 other various individuals.

    Other people are simply mentally ill, and you can bet your life several of them find their way onto the internet. So you can never take anything online for granted.

    That said, I never find accusations of deficient character to be particularly useful in discussions devoted to the ISSUES (which not all discussions are, of course). Really, whether or not the person you are talking to is admirable or loathsome is quite beside the point. What matters are the arguments and information presented.

    I suggest sticking to those. I don’t always succeed at it, but I think it’s a good goal to shoot for online.

  36. February 23, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Seth,

    People “leave” the church for numerous reasons. First of all, I am not talking about those that go inactive. There are a whole other multitude or reasons for people to do that. However, when someone CHOOSES TO LEAVE THE CHURCH by having their name removed, you can usually boil that down to one or two reasons… and they generally have nothing to do with sin.

    Darrell

  37. 37 GERMIT
    February 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Seth wrote:

    That said, I never find accusations of deficient character to be particularly useful in discussions devoted to the ISSUES (which not all discussions are, of course). Really, whether or not the person you are talking to is admirable or loathsome is quite beside the point. What matters are the arguments and information presented.

    very well said…..and if a person WERE that loathsome, we should be meeting them in private anyway….on target here, Seth R

  38. 38 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    darrell et al,

    i did want to correct one error on my part (yes, i am human)
    when i said “the word priesthood is not in the Book of Mormon”, i intended to say “the words “Melchizedek priesthood” (meaning the two LINKED together) are not in the Book of Mormon. the Priesthood very definitely is taught in the Book of Mormon. which leaves me to ask ….what did you mean when you said it wasn’t taught in the Book of Mormon…did you mean the adminstrative “do’s and don’ts”?

    thanks

  39. 39 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    ok, now to address darrell and “germie” who think i haven’t used scriptures to make my case.

    may i remind you that this is Mark’s THIRD post on the subject, and addressing him, as it is his blog, i covered all my problems with his assertations very early on.

    for example: I totally disagree that Hebrews says that Jesus is the ONLY High Priest. no where does it use those words. there are verses that DESCRIBE Jesus, but no where does it exclude other people from ever being high priests….anyway, see earlier posts to get the full picture.

    next: Darrell, i personally do not care what church you belong to …follow your heart! have fun! i do not even know you and as this is Mark’s blog, i choose to post to Christians without the knowledge of the True Gospel. You had the True Gospel and left it behind. therefore you have a bit of an agenda. all ex-mormons do. all ex-Albertsons employess probably have an agenda against Albertsons….it is just the nature of the situation.
    i totally disagree with your numbers. i seriously doubt that 100,000 people a year are leaving the church. and i also wonder why you don’t revel in the fact that you have been excommunicated! that simply means you are not in communication with the Church anymore. and make no mistake, your records are stamped “EXCOMMUNICATED”. you would still have to go through the First Presidency to become a member again. and also, the Church doesn’t “order” brochures to be printed….they do the printing themselves and since they are very organized (His House is a house of order) they have stock numbers. big deal, that hardly proves anything. just curious, did you send in the internet version of the “i quit and don’t you dare call me “excommunicated” or i will file a lawsuit” letter? i think that one is hilarious.

    so darrell, enjoy your life…but i would like to ask a few questions.
    1. how can you go from knowing that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father have a body of flesh and bones to believing they are one big puff of air, without form or substance?
    2. how can you go from believing that everyone will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel to believing that only the few lucky ones that hear about Christianity will get to be saved?
    3. how can you go from believing you will be with your family forever AS A FAMILY, to believing that we will “just be friends” heaven?

    just curous.

  40. 40 GB
    February 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    So to summarize,

    No one has yet shown that the Aaronic/Levitcal priesthood was eliminated.

    Let’s also be clear here. The LDS understanding of the priesthood comes from the same source that Paul got his understanding of the Gospel. REVELATION!!!

    Also, apparently some missed my first post here so I will post the contents again.

    Sorry folks but two people do NOT an “order” make!

    Words do mean things.

    From “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” – Manly P. Hall (1928)

    The words “after the order” make Jesus one of a line or order of which there must have been others of equal or even superior dignity. If the “Melchizedeks” were the divine or priestly rulers of the nations of the earth before the inauguration of the system of temporal rulers, then the statements attributed to St. Paul would indicate that Jesus either was one of these “philosophic elect” or was attempting to reestablish their system of government. It will be remembered that Melchizedek also performed the same ceremony of the drinking of wine and the breaking of bread as did Jesus at the Last Supper (p178).

    The robe of the High Priest of Israel were often called “The Garments of Glory”, for they resembled the regenerated and spiritualized nature of man, symbolized by a vestment which all must weave from the threads of character and virtue before they can become High Priests after the Order of Melchizedek (p. 135).

    Some of the saving ordinances are only available thru the Melch. Priesthood. The gift of the Holy Ghost can only be giving thru the authority of the Melch. Priesthood. This is supported by events described it the book of Acts. (also notice that the office of Priest continued when Priests joined the Church.)

    As with most things, these discussions won’t change the minds of the Antis.

    And as they say, people can leave the Church, but they can’t leave the Church alone. I think that sometimes people are looking for vindication for their apostasy. If they, like Korihor, can have success in leading others away from the truth, then they will feel vindicated and justified in their own apostasy.

    And Germit,

    The ONLY difference between Jesus and other High Priests after the order of Melch., is that Jesus was a High Priest after the order of Melch. by nature of being the Son of God. All others have to be ordained to said Priesthood as the Apostles were.

    Hebrews 7:25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

    “those who come to God through him” is a very important phrase here. Coming to God through (Jesus) can only be done through obedience to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is NO OTHER WAY.

    If the Bible was clear how this was to be done, THEN there wouldn’t be so much confusion about it. The fact that there are 100’s if not 1000’s of different “Christian” denominations is prima facie evidence to the inadequacy of the Bible alone approach.

  41. 41 GB
    February 23, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    And here is another interesting quote.

    From The Legends of the Jews – Chapter 5 – Abraham – The War of the Kings

    “When Abraham returned from the war, Shem, or, as he is sometimes called, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, priest of God Most High, and king of Jerusalem, came forth to meet him with bread and wine. And this high priest instructed Abraham in the laws of the priesthood and in the Torah, and to prove his friendship for him he blessed him, and called him the partner of God in the possession of the world, seeing that through him the Name of God had first been made known among men.”

  42. 42 GERMIT
    February 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    GB; thanks for the input…from where I sit, I give Mr.Hall high points for imagination….a shame he didn’t stick with fiction and instead, ventured off into theology. I’d say a waste.

    Blessings on you and yours.

    GERmIT

  43. 43 GERMIT
    February 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    LaddonnaM; Please believe me that I’m not being snarky, but allow me to make one simple comment ….you wrote:

    ok, now to address darrell and “germie” who think i haven’t used scriptures to make my case.

    and then, dear woman, you spend roughly 500 words in a post without referencing ONE verse…
    please know that I hold out the possibility that you are right and I am wrong, but did you help or hurt your case with your last post ?? Have some strong Postum, with vanilla sugar , and try again……

    Blessings on all you hold dear

    GERMIT

  44. 44 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    germie,

    i told you I HAVE MADE MY CASE in previous posts….aren’t you sick of this? no one is convincing anyone! i believe the way i do because i am converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have access to the Doctrine and Covenants, a veritable handbook for the Kingdom on earth. I have access to the Book of Mormon! i have access to the JST in the Holy Bible. All of these things hold NO SWAY with you. all i can do is comment on YOUR TAKE on the Bible, specifically Hebrews. If all the information that we needed was still in the Bible then we wouldn’t have needed a restoration. The restoration WAS needed. the apostacy was real! The Lord loves us enough to send us a Prophet, but like the prophets (and Jesus himself) in the old days, you want to cast stones. Have at it! I am not hurt by it in the least. I have the priesthood in my very own home. I have seen it operate…i KNOW it is real. the Gospel I believe in has no holes, no problems adding up. Christians, however, can’t explain many things that are in the scriptures.
    how about the case Paul makes about baptisms for the dead? (mormons do that, you don’t)
    how about tithing? How about the return of Elijah the prophet? How about that angel flying through the heavens proclaiming the everlasting gospel? (Revelations) Where are your prophets and apostles? You don’t even believe that God has a body, when it says so in the scriptures, Hebrews again, that Christ is made in the “express image” of His father….how much plainer can it be? I don’t think you even have any agreement on the need for baptism or the mode thereof!
    I hope i didn’t sound snarky because you of all people have been decent on this post….but, sorry my little green friend, but you guys are the ones who are hurting for explanations!

    PS….thanks GB and Seth R. for your excellent comments…it was feeling pretty lonely here!
    PSS i don’t drink postum…do they even sell it anymore? i prefer hot chocolate with a little German Chocolate syrup added :)

  45. February 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    “i also wonder why you don’t revel in the fact that you have been excommunicated! that simply means you are not in communication with the Church anymore. and make no mistake, your records are stamped “EXCOMMUNICATED”. you would still have to go through the First Presidency to become a member again.”

    Ladonna,

    You are unfortunately incorrect on a number of points here. Excommunication does not mean “you are not in communication anymore”. Here is the definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary…

    1 : an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership
    2 : exclusion from fellowship in a group or community

    There are two ways for a person to get their name off the records of the church. One is Ex-Communication and it is an act that is initiated by the church. The Stake High Council is brought together and a court is held. While I served on the Stake High Council I participated in these. The second method of name removal is for a member to request their name to be removed. A letter must be sent to the Bishop and then the Bishop will fill out a particular form THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EX-COMMUNICATION. That form is then sent in to Salt Lake. This is not an ex-communication… the letter I got back from Salt Lake specifically says that “at YOUR REQUEST your name has been removed from the records of the Church”. The letter that comes back when someone has been ex-communicated reads VERY DIFFERENTLY.

    My dear, you can believe what you want… if it brings you comfort to discount me by saying I have sinned and have been ex-communicated, go right ahread. The reality however, is I was not ex-communicated from the church. I initiated the process… no court was held… the stake high council were not involved… to be exact, I have seen members of the stake high council SINCE I HAD MY NAME REMOVED who were completely unaware prior to meeting me that I had left the church. If I would have been ex-communicated they WOULD HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

    You asked:

    “so darrell, enjoy your life…but i would like to ask a few questions.
    1. how can you go from knowing that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father have a body of flesh and bones to believing they are one big puff of air, without form or substance?
    2. how can you go from believing that everyone will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel to believing that only the few lucky ones that hear about Christianity will get to be saved?
    3. how can you go from believing you will be with your family forever AS A FAMILY, to believing that we will “just be friends” heaven?”

    Not trying to be smart here… but I could ask you the same thing about a different subject…

    How could you go from believing in Santa Claus to no Santa Claus? How could you go from believing in the Easter Bunny to no Easter Bunny? The answer of course is because it is not real. That is what happened to me. I went from believing in something that was false to something that was real. While it might be easier in many cases to stick your head in the sand and believe a lie (people do it everyday… “my husband is a good man. he won’t hit me again.” Lifetime Network has many movies about this… ha ha!!) the lie is still a lie nonetheless.

    You might think that this brought sadness but in reality it did not. It actually brought great comfort. I went from believing in a God that is an exalted man to a God that is, was and has always been God. In the process God became more real and personal to me because I know He is always with me. The process was actually wonderful. While it was painful to unwrap my mind from the spiritual bondage of legalism and falsehood that is known as Mormonism… to come out the other side was absolutely wonderful. I now know God is fully in control and He is perfect. He is not a man like me who then grew to become a God… He is the great “I AM” and He fully embodied Himself in Jesus Christ when He came to earth to pay the price for my sins.

    As for the part about being with my family forever… I will be with them forever. Do I believe my wife and I will have spirit children and be gods over our own worlds? No! There is no scriptural support at all for that. In fact, it is blasphemous. Nevertheless, the whole concept of families being together forever is not something that Mormons have cornered the market on. Christians believe this… they talk about it in different language fromMormons. We don’t believe husbands and wives will be having children in Heaven. They won’t be together as “husband and wife” but they will be together. Let me add another item to the list you have failed to address:

    Please show me any verse from the Bible that teaches that husbands and wives will exist together in marriage in Heaven.

    Germit said:

    “and then, dear woman, you spend roughly 500 words in a post without referencing ONE verse…”

    Dittos!

    Darrell

  46. 46 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Darrell,

    please keep on believing that your name was “simply removed” from the church records…i happen to KNOW differently. there is only one file for ex-members and i guarantee that your records were stamped with that offending little word……and YOU are wrong when you say that the High Council would have known. it doesn’t always happen that way. there are many instances when the member will not submit to a court and the action is done anyway…..but whatev.

    relish your new found beliefs! just look me up someday in the “Spirit world” and i will even refrain from saying “i told you so!”

    you asked about marriage in heaven. you know full well that the sealing power is referenced in the Bible….but as usual it is incomplete…thus the need of a restoration!

    do you have a job? how can you be on the computer so much?

  47. 47 GERMIT
    February 23, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    LaddonnaM: thanks for the ping back….and if it were possible, I’d order you up a super-tall hot chocolate, with German choc. syrup as needed.

    probably right about each side remaining unconvinced….but it’s reassuring, is it not, that our job is not to convince , or convict, anyone ??

    Hope your day is a sweet confection, minus the calories

    GERMIT

  48. February 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    “please keep on believing that your name was “simply removed” from the church records…i happen to KNOW differently. there is only one file for ex-members and i guarantee that your records were stamped with that offending little word”

    Ladonna,

    So, the Bishop and SLC Headquarters both lied to me in the letters they each sent me? Because, if my file has been stamped Ex-Communicated, that is exactly what they did.

    BTW, yes, I work full-time… I work on a computer and have time to read and type at lunch.

    Have a nice day.

    Darrell

  49. 49 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    darrell,

    the bishop is not in charge of dispensing with your membership…i am glad he was polite and didn’t “offend” you with the WORD.

    SLC didn’t lie. they told you what you wanted to hear. i am sure they have had enough of the “internet/lawsuit” letters to know how to word things….

    i still am baffled as to WHY YOU CARE!!

  50. February 23, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    For my own sake I do not care. I care in that I do not want to be a stumbling block for someone seeking the truth about the church. Let me explain…

    The reason hardcore LDS people like to label people as “excommunicated” is because it allows them to lump all of the people who have left the church into a one nice little box and “discount them”. Much like you have attempted to do here.

    If you say someone was “ex-communicated” from the church… then everyone starts thinking the worst… They cheated on their wife, they beat their children, got involved in pornography, etc, etc, etc.

    If you say that someone chose to have their name removed then the story is different. People start wondering why someone would leave but they can’t automatically discount the reason to “sin”.

    I work with several mormons in my own community who are having major issues with the church. Many people have opened up to me about how they really feel about the church and they are having serious doubts. If I were “ex-communicated” it my effect how they view me. However, given the fact that I requested my own mame to be removed I am not a stumbling block to them.

    So, now I will ask you… why do you think people like yourself want to automatically call it “ex-communicated”? Why did you insist upon telling me I have been “ex-communicated” even after I have told you that my name was removed because I wanted it to be? Why do you have such a problem admitting that someone can leave the church and it not have ANYTHING to do with sin? Do you believe someone can leave simply due to doctrinal differences or problems with the history of the church and it not have anything to do with sin?

    BTW, it wouldn’t surprise me if there is in fact only one file and that they have all of the former members lumped in as “exed”. The way the church will stretch the truth about it’s own history, they would not have any problems lying to people about this.

    Darrell

  51. 51 markcares
    February 23, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    Ladonna:
    I deleted your last comment to Darrell. Please keep your comments tasteful. The reason I did not allow your first comments to this blog was because of their tone. I think I have been quite fair with you and allowed you to state your case. But I ask you to do it tastefully.
    Mark

  52. 52 ladonnamorrell
    February 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    thanks, mark,…i was actually getting back on to apologize for being a little snotty, even though it was said tongue in cheek.

    ok back to darrell,

    do you understand that as far as the Church is concerned you are a liability? I personally do not have a problem with ANY thing relating to doctrine or history…not one. and i am a church history nut! i read it all the time. But i certainly wouldn’t want YOU running around trashing it.(i guess i don’t know if you actively trash it, or wait for someone to ask you) But can’t you see that dis-satisfied ex-members have an agenda? surely you could see that. you may not like the church, you certainly do not have any respect for the church, but you seem like a smart guy….can’t you get it? you also need to give people a little credit. if someone is an ex-member for whatever reason, it sends up red flags to any card carrying member. i doubt very much if their opinion of you varys much one way or the other. i have a family like this in my own area. at first, everyone was still nice to them, hoping they would come back to church. but the longer it went on, and the more they trashed the church, it becomes harder to want anything to do with them. their sweet little 13 year old daughter is now a full fledged tramp, and their other kids aren’t far behind. i love the Gospel and the Church. Our leaders are good, honest men. Our Church History is amazing and something to be proud of. yes, there are real mistake-prone humans in it, but everyone is trying their best. obviously your feet and mine are still firmly planted and we haven’t been translated yet!

    Your contention that people in Salt Lake City lied to you about your membership records shows me your lack of respect and indeed your outright dislike for the Church. It is what it is….you are no longer a member of the Church. YOU took yourself away from the Community of the Church and YOU took yourself away from the sacraments of the Church. YOU cut yourself off from the Church. Do you really think that gives you MORE credence with people? i think i would rather you be a sinner…..then there might be a hope in repentence. sinners aren’t so bad, the Lord spent a lot of time with them! but unbelievers……

  53. February 23, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    MARK: I know this wasn’t your main goal in following this topic, but in looking more closely at the Priesthood held by Jesus, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to meditate on HIM, and how “other than all of us” HE is. The mystery is how SOMEONE WHO is so “other” can also share in our very nature….

    At any rate, soaking my head in Hebrews makes me appreciate the exalted and special nature of WHO Christ is and what HE has done. Some commercial awhile ago had the motto: “Accept no substitutes”…… I can see why….

    Good work

    GERMIT

  54. February 23, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    Ladaonna,

    For once I think we may somewhat agree with one another. You said:

    “do you understand that as far as the Church is concerned you are a liability?”

    Absolutely!! I can see how the church would consider me a liability. That is why people like youself want to discredit me by saying I was “ex-communicated”. Doing so puts the ex-LDS in a category where their arguments carry no weight and the individual does not have to consider them… because they left simply due to immorality. Admitting that the former member left for doctrinal/historical differences forces one to consider things they may not want to consider. So, I completely understand the DESIRE to categorize all former LDS as being sinful beings who were ex-communicated. Unfortuantely, it is just not the case.

    “YOU took yourself away from the Community of the Church and YOU took yourself away from the sacraments of the Church. YOU cut yourself off from the Church.”

    Thank you for admitting that and you are completely correct. I left the church… the church did not kick me out.

    “Do you really think that gives you MORE credence with people?”

    Yes, I do believe that it prevents me from being a stumbling block for those who are questioning the church. My prayer in Christ is that they can see in my example that a person can reasonably decide the church is false, leave for no “sin” reason and turn to the true Christ and be saved. It has already happened right here in my hometown. Praise God!!

    As for my respect for the LDS Church… it depends upon what you mean by respect and to whom you mean I give it. I respect the individuals right to believe what they believe. I believe there are many wonderful people in the LDS Church… I just think they are misled by a false doctrine. However, the church organization and the doctrines it teaches… no I do not respect those. I believe the doctrines are utterly false and lead people away from Christ. So how could I respect that?

    Darrell

  55. 55 ladonnamorrell
    February 24, 2009 at 5:04 am

    darrell,

    your last two lines tells me all i need to know about you. and it isn’t good.

  56. February 24, 2009 at 6:40 am

    Well, this exchange has been a little less than helpful…

  57. 57 Brad
    February 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Darrell, your last 2 lines tells me all I need to know about you, and it’s great!

    Ladonna, what are your motives for coming on a blog such as this? Just curious. Is it to convert? To speak up for what you believe is truth? What?

    To people who believe as you do (though I’m not one of them), I can’t say how you come off to them, b/c I honestly don’t know. I assume they may believe most of what you say, in some form. But since I’m not Mormon, I don’t know.

    But to people who don’t believe as you do (such as myself), when we read what you say, and the way you say it, do you realize that you are no closer to converting us, or leading us to believe what you do, than before? In fact, people might be further away, just based on the WAY you’ve conducted yourself? You don’t come on here attacking the beliefs, Scripturally, you come on here attacking the character, the character of people you have admitted you don’t even know.

    Just think about that, Ladonna.

  58. 58 ladonnamorrell
    February 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    brad,
    of course you are looking at it from your own perspective….that is natural. darrell trashes my church and i am supposed to take it because i am molly mormon and not allowed to have an opinion that might offend someone.
    believe me i am used to a double standard. (mark care’s [no offense mark] whole ministry is designed to derail mormonism…yet i am not allowed to defend it?) for darrell to say that my church does not lead people to Christ is a HUGE red flag that he has a major agenda because that is the stupidest thing he could have said. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does a stupendous job of “helping” people come to Christ. It is still their own responsibility to do it themselves. the Church can’t make anyone do anything. it simply told me something about Darrell….something that i hoped was not there.

    as to why i am here? i am here converse with others about doctrinal subjects. i am interested…isn’t that why you are here?

    maybe you all would rather just have your own party and not have any opposition. well, at least Germit liked me!(i think)

  59. February 24, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    ladonna,

    I think you were doing fine until you got personal with Darrell. I didn’t see much point in doing that. I’m just as confused as Brad is as to your motive in arguing with Darrell, and I’m a believing Mormon.

  60. February 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    LadonnaM: you read me correctly, and since we’re both married, this is “platonic antagonistic apologist” friendship only….is that safe enough ?? I will ditto SEth, Ladonna, and I say this as one who REALLY wants an interchange with the LDS….when I say “LDS friends” I want that to be more than wishful thinking….of course I’d aslo like to see you saved (green grin…..and gecko stare….HERE…)

    TOTALLY unsolicited advice from a follower of dead orthodoxy: stay away from the personal in your back and forth….you don’t know Darrell from Donny Osmond…. just my 3cents worth.

    please stay in the “game” , excuse the expression, and remember to your own Master you stand or fall…..

    The GERMSTER

  61. February 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Ladonna,

    I don’t expect you to agree with this but I do want to make myself a little clearer. When I said I believe the LDS Church leads people away from Christ I meant…

    The LDS Church teaches a different Christ from Christianity. Even former President Gordon B Hinckley himself admitted as much. In my opinion the LDS Church does a GREAT JOB at leading people to the Christ of Joseph Smith’s imagination… but it is not the Christ of the Bible that Christianity teaches.

    Now, there is a lot more we could go into to expound on this subject but that may be for another thread or another time. In addition, you may not even really care to talk about it and that is fine. I simply wanted to clarify myself.

    In addition, I just realized you asked a question that I did not address:

    “what did you mean when you said it wasn’t taught in the Book of Mormon…did you mean the adminstrative “do’s and don’ts”?”

    What I mean is that the Levitical Priesthood is not taught completely in the BOM. In fact, there are references to things and practices that completely violate the Law of Moses (wrong sacrifices, etc). More importantly though after Christ established His Church among the Nephites/Lamanites there is no mention of the Melchezidek Priesthood which He supposedly gave. If Christ gave that how come it is not clear in the BOM? Why was it not until JS that this was clearly established? If it is such an important part of the Christ’s plan and the Book Of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth it would seem that Christ would have referenced the Melchezidek Priesthood being passed on.

    Ladonna, I am so sorry that you have such bitter feelings towards me. I know that you earnestly believe what you believe… I did at one time myself. I am confident you are a good person who thinks they are earnestly doing Christ’s work. Obviously, I view things differently but that does not mean that we cannot talk about the issues without attacking one another personally. Hopefully, if we continue to converse on-line, we can do it in a more constructive manner going forward.

    God bless you in your journey!!

    Darrell

  62. 62 Brad
    February 24, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    brad,
    of course you are looking at it from your own perspective….

    And you, Ladonna, are looking at things solely from YOUR perspective. Remember to keep that in mind, especially when you say (rightly so) that others look at things from THEIR perspective.

    darrell trashes my church and i am supposed to take it because i am molly mormon and not allowed to have an opinion that might offend someone.

    One, where did Darrell trash your church? He gave his opinion as to what the Mormon church believes, and I would say that’s a pretty good opinion, given the years he spent in the church himself, so it’s more than just a “I heard they…” point of view. Yes, his opinion on Mormonism differs greatly from yours, but that doesn’t mean he’s “trashing” your church – he’s presenting an alternate viewpoint, and further, he did so without attacking you personally.

    Two, who said you couldn’t have an opinion that offended someone? Nobody has kept you from that, Ladonna. Further, if it’s OK for you to have an opinion that might “offend” someone (based on your beliefs differing from their beliefs), then why can’t someone from the opposite side also have their opinion (which will probably offend you, b/c the beliefs are different)? Nobody’s saying you can’t have an opinion as to what is being said – but you’ve gone farther and attacked character and made wild, wide assumptions, rather than sticking to the facts and what you personally know to be true.

    believe me i am used to a double standard. (mark care’s [no offense mark] whole ministry is designed to derail mormonism…yet i am not allowed to defend it?)

    Feel free to defend it all you want – but you really need to learn to do so without attacking people that you yourself have admitted you don’t even know! Further, trying to bring in the “look, I’m getting picked on” mantra is probably not going to do you any good, either; all religions get “picked on”, in one way or another, so you wouldn’t be alone, Ladonna.

    for darrell to say that my church does not lead people to Christ is a HUGE red flag that he has a major agenda because that is the stupidest thing he could have said.

    Stupid, from whose perspective? It’s not from Darrell’s, b/c of the beliefs he has and of what he knows about the LDS church. You might think it is, b/c of what you believe. It may be a “huge red flag” to you, Ladonna, but it doesn’t make the statement untrue, nor will your rantings convince Darrell, or others on here, otherwise. You may disagree with his statement, but that doesn’t mean what he said is stupid. Under that reasoning, if you were to say non-Mormonism is wrong, people could call that statement stupid as well, b/c they don’t believe it. I’m just guessing, but I’d say you wouldn’t like that very much, would you?

    We ALL have agendas, Ladonna, not just Darrell. You have an agenda when you try to argue and call character into question. I have an agenda when I ask you why you do it. Darrell has an agenda when he expresses his opinion to others. So be careful when you try to paint “having an agenda” as bad, b/c if you do, you’re painting yourself into that same corner.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does a stupendous job of “helping” people come to Christ.

    From your perspective. From the perspective of Darrell, myself, Mark and others, there are a lot of problems with the definition of “Christ”, as well as other issues, that makes us think much differently. However, doesn’t cause us to attack YOU, rather we question the beliefs.

    It is still their own responsibility to do it themselves. the Church can’t make anyone do anything. it simply told me something about Darrell….something that i hoped was not there.

    Again, you don’t know Darrell, so you aren’t possibly in a position to make any judgments as to what he is, isn’t, did or didn’t do. Your best bet would be to stay away from personal attacks, and instead focus on the argument of the facts themselves.

    as to why i am here? i am here converse with others about doctrinal subjects. i am interested…isn’t that why you are here?

    Absolutely – we would prefer to do so without getting into personal attacks or baseless accusations against character, especially when there’s no basis to hold the opinions held, such as you’ve demonstrated. Discussion is one thing – attacking people you don’t know, and attributing characteristics to them that you couldn’t possibly know were right, is entirely another. Just keep it respectful, Ladonna – we can all agree to disagree, happens all the time.

  63. 63 GB
    February 25, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    D: What I mean is that the Levitical Priesthood is not taught completely in the BOM.

    GB: So?

    D: In fact, there are references to things and practices that completely violate the Law of Moses (wrong sacrifices, etc).

    GB: I doubt that you are an expert on the Law of Moses or that you have the authority to make such a declaration.

    D: More importantly though after Christ established His Church among the Nephites/Lamanites there is no mention of the Melchezidek Priesthood which He supposedly gave.

    GB: Thank you for recognizing that Christ did indeed establish His Church among the Nephites/Lamanites. The authors/compilers of the BOM were aware that there would be a restoration and that the true understanding of the Priesthood would be a part of that restoration. They didn’t need to include information about the Priesthood.

    D: If Christ gave that how come it is not clear in the BOM?

    GB: Because it didn’t need to be in there.

    D: Why was it not until JS that this was clearly established?

    GB: Because it wasn’t needed until then.

    D: If it is such an important part of the Christ’s plan and the Book Of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth it would seem that Christ would have referenced the Melchezidek Priesthood being passed on.

    GB: Well, OBVIOUSLY the Lord did reference the Melchezidek Priesthood. You can find it in the D&C. (Also notice that it is referenced in Alma 13).

    Just happy to help you out there Darrell, although I would have thought that you would have already known all of this, if you were what you say you were. :-)

    As Paul would say: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (And I do mean from both of them.)

  64. February 25, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    GB: forgive me if you’ve already answered this quesion, my memory is not that great.

    Has the Melch. priesthood been with us since the days of ADAM….or the days of Melch ?? Am I correct in thinking that the Lamanites and Nephites had it ??

    While I’m at it: Would ADAM also have had the AARONIC priesthood and the temple rituals that you currently have ??

    Thanks

    GERmIT

  65. 65 GB
    February 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Germit,

    The fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can only be administered through the Melch Priesthood. So whenever the Gospel was had, the Melch Priesthood was also had.

    Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

    The law was changed from the Law of Moses to the Law of the Gospel or the Law of Christ.

    However, the Gospel was offered to ancient Israel through Moses (See Heb 4:2) but they didn’t accept it, so they were given the less law under the lesser priesthood. To offer the higher law (gospel) Moses must have had the higher priesthood.

    Also the Gospel was given to Abraham (Gal 3:8) which would have required that he hold the Melch Priesthood which he would have received from Melch himself.

    This doesn’t completely answer your question but it is a start. Unfortunately we don’t have a complete record from Adam to the present. But it is apparent that Paul had access to more information on this topic than is available in the Bible.

  66. February 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    GB: so are you saying we just don’t know about ADAM, as to what kind of priesthood he did or did not have ??

    GERMIT

  67. 67 Brad
    February 25, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    GB, how do you know what you’re saying is correct?

  68. 68 GB
    February 25, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Germit,

    No, that is not what I am saying. I am trying to keep to things that are either directly mentioned in the Bible or can be inferred from it.

    Now if you are willing to look at other sources we can get deeper into this topic.

    Brad,

    John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    The Spirit has guided me to the truth.

  69. 69 Brad
    February 25, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    GB,

    Question – what if other people, who also feel led by the same Spirit, come to different conclusions? How would you know who’s right?

  70. 70 GB
    February 25, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Brad,

    “Feel(ing)” that they are led by the Spirit doesn’t make it so. Sometimes the Spirit gives a witness on one aspect of the truth and people apply it to all of their current understanding and thus (unfortunately) they deceive themselves.

    The Spirit can only lead those that are sincere, humble, willing, unafraid of the truth and have faith in Christ.

    Some people say they have faith in God but don’t trust Him to answer a sincere, humble prayer. They refuse to pray with sincerity and real, honest intent for fear they will be deceived. Is that trusting God? I think not.

  71. February 25, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    GB,

    Thanks for responding to me. Listed below are my responses to your comments.

    D: In fact, there are references to things and practices that completely violate the Law of Moses (wrong sacrifices, etc).

    GB: I doubt that you are an expert on the Law of Moses or that you have the authority to make such a declaration.

    Your argument here is not addressing the issue that there are violations of the Law of Moses in the BOM. You are trying to turn the argument around on me. Deal with the issue not the person. If you would like, I would be happy to list the violations that I know about and provide sources.

    D: More importantly though after Christ established His Church among the Nephites/Lamanites there is no mention of the Melchezidek Priesthood which He supposedly gave.

    GB: Thank you for recognizing that Christ did indeed establish His Church among the Nephites/Lamanites. The authors/compilers of the BOM were aware that there would be a restoration and that the true understanding of the Priesthood would be a part of that restoration. They didn’t need to include information about the Priesthood.

    Unfortunately, there is zero evidence that the Nephites or Lamanites even existed. In order to believe in the BOM one simply has to take JS’s word for it or rely on the subjective experience of a “buring in the bosom”. Answer this for me… I know protestants who have received an answer from the Spirit that they are following the truth. I know Muslims who say God has told them that they are following the truth. I know Jehovah’s Witnesses who say God has told them they are following the truth. Then you have Mormons like yourself who claim God has told them they are following the truth. Obviously they cannot ALL be right as their religions teach VERY DIFFERENT things. So, how do you determine who is right? GB, how do you know that it is actually God who is giving you a spiritual confirmation? The Bible tells us that spirits can deceive… how do you KNOW OBJECTIVELY that you are not being deceived?

    You see, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the Nephites ever existed. In fact, there is substantial evidence that the BOM is a work of fiction. The Bible on the other hand has ample evidence to support its claim to be a historical work.

    D: If Christ gave that how come it is not clear in the BOM?

    GB: Because it didn’t need to be in there.

    Because it didn’t need to be in there? Weak answer… you are arguing from a point of silence. Based upon your reasaoning I could argue for any number of ridiculous things… “God requires us to all stand on our heads from 7 – 8 PM at night to be forgiven” or “God requires us to practice poligamy to be saved” for instance… Christ didn’t talk about it guess what, WE SHOULD!! That is a really weak argument. If it was essential and if He really gave The Melchezidek Priesthood to Peter, Paul and the other apostles it would be in there and we would not be forced to rely on the word of JS alone.

    D: Why was it not until JS that this was clearly established?

    GB: Because it wasn’t needed until then.

    See my above comments. They apply here as well.

    D: If it is such an important part of the Christ’s plan and the Book Of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth it would seem that Christ would have referenced the Melchezidek Priesthood being passed on.

    GB: Well, OBVIOUSLY the Lord did reference the Melchezidek Priesthood. You can find it in the D&C. (Also notice that it is referenced in Alma 13).

    I don’t believe in the D&C… there is no evidence that it is anything more than a work of JS. If the Melchezidek Priesthood was to be held by men today God would have provided something to support this in the Bible.

    Darrell

  72. 72 Brad
    February 25, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    “Feel(ing)” that they are led by the Spirit doesn’t make it so. Sometimes the Spirit gives a witness on one aspect of the truth and people apply it to all of their current understanding and thus (unfortunately) they deceive themselves.

    GB, so what I think you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong), is that just b/c someone SAYS it’s from the Spirit, doesn’t mean it really is? Just want to make sure I understand your response correctly, so I don’t continue in error.

  73. February 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    D: If it is such an important part of the Christ’s plan and the Book Of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth it would seem that Christ would have referenced the Melchezidek Priesthood being passed on.

    Well, yeah, and since the bible is actually 66 separate books compiled into one, you’d think that SOMEWHERE in the bible, we’d get clear word about this all imortant priesthood being passed on….so no help from the bible (yeah, a little about being “ordained”, as if being SENT to do something and being part of the MELCH priesthood are one and the same) and no help from the BofM….your god is not much of an explainer, is he ?? It’s as if the heartthrob of his message is totally on “HOLD” until 1820…. that sure left a lot of people out in the cold, it seems to me

    GERmIT

  74. 74 GB
    February 25, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    D: Your argument here is not addressing the issue that there are violations of the Law of Moses in the BOM. You are trying to turn the argument around on me. Deal with the issue not the person. If you would like, I would be happy to list the violations that I know about and provide sources.

    GB: Your argument here is not addressing the issue 1) you have not provided an example of such a violation and 2) that you have absolutely no authority to declare that there are violations of the Law of Moses in the BOM.

    D: Unfortunately, there is zero evidence that the Nephites or Lamanites even existed.

    GB: Even if that were true, which it isn’t, lack of evidence is NOT proof of absences. I hope you can understand that.

    D: In order to believe in the BOM one simply has to take JS’s word for it or rely on the subjective experience of a “buring in the bosom”.

    GB: Those who are of the world tend to ridicule the witness of the Holy Ghost. No surprise that.

    D: Answer this for me… I know protestants who have received an answer from the Spirit that they are following the truth.

    GB: That is something that you can not KNOW unless it was witnessed to you by the Holy Spirit. Which witness you have just ridiculed.

    D: I know Muslims who say God has told them that they are following the truth.

    GB: So?

    D: I know Jehovah’s Witnesses who say God has told them they are following the truth.

    GB: So?

    D: Then you have Mormons like yourself who claim God has told them they are following the truth.

    GB: True, and so?

    D: Obviously they cannot ALL be right as their religions teach VERY DIFFERENT things.

    GB: True, and so what?

    D: So, how do you determine who is right?

    GB: By the witness of the Holy Spirit, which you ridicule.

    D: GB, how do you know that it is actually God who is giving you a spiritual confirmation?

    GB: Do you not know the fruits of the Spirit?

    D: The Bible tells us that spirits can deceive… how do you KNOW OBJECTIVELY that you are not being deceived?

    GB: Well, let’s actually look at what the Bible says, OK?

    1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    Ok, that is quite clear.

    2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    Well, well that is an interesting criteria, is it not?

    3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    So, it is apparent that neither the Devil nor his minions can admit “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”

    Well let’s see we have this;
    D&C 20:1 The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, . . .

    And this;

    1 Ne. 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

    Alma 7:12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
    13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might ctake upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions accoring to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

    Ether 3:21 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man.

    Need I give more?

    Well that is all I have time for now, perhaps later.

  75. February 26, 2009 at 3:05 am

    GB,

    You are using circular reasoning to prove yourself…. it doesn’t work. Let me explain. I asked you how you determine who in my example is actually receiving an answer from the Holy Spirit and you answered “By the witness of the Holy Spirit.” You cannot appeal back to something to prove itself… it is cirucular and illogical.

    The example I used of the Protestant, Muslim, JW and Mormon is a real life example… I have personally spoken with individuals from all 4 camps… and every single one of them has appealed to a personal answer from God as a least part of the basis for their faith. So, I ask you again, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH IS RIGHT? How do you know that the answer YOU received is not a deceitful spirit? The Protestant believes that Jesus is the Christ and produces fruit of the spirit. So does a Catholic that I personally know. The Muslim friend I have in many ways is more ethical and honest that most Mormons I know and claims that his answer if from God. You cannot appeal to the “fruit of the spirit” as a sole answer either because there are many atheists who display more honesty, morality and peace than Mormons… I have a friend from High School who is atheist and very happy and peaceful about his decision. GB, what is your OBJECTIVE basis for knowing that your answer is from God and that the JW’s, Muslim’s, and Protestant’s answers are not? You cannot use circular reasoning… you need something more objective. Do you really want to trust your salvation to circular logic?

    I like the passage you brought up from 1 John 4. However, I don’t think it will work for your argument. Think about this for a second… when you received your answer from the Spirit that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true church on the face of the earth, what was the spirit that confirmed this to your heart actually telling you? You were praying to know “if the church is true” and what answer did you get? That the church is true of course! You may have also been told that The Book of Mormon is the word of God and that JS was a prophet, etc. You cannot appeal to this verse in 1 John to tell you whether the spirit who answered your prayer about the BOM, LDS Church or JS was from God because that spirit was not telling you that Jesus is the Christ.. that spirit was answering a specific prayer about the LDS Church, JS and The Book Of Mormon.

    Now, the LDS Church tells you that it teaches that Jesus is the Christ. However, what Jesus does it teach? What Gospel does it teach? Does it teach the Christ of the Bible? Does it teach the gospel that is taught in the Bible? IMO, no it does not. It teaches the Jesus Christ of JS’s imagination.

    Galations 1:6-9 warns us:

    “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

    The LDS Church was started by a supposed angelic visitation to JS who delivered “another gospel of Jesus Christ” in the form of the BOM (that is part of the title page of the BOM). Seems pretty clear to me.

    In addition, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:32 how to test Prophets to see if they are from God – “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.” We are to turn to previous prophecy to see if someone who claims to be a prophet is one. On this test JS fails. There are numerous areas where his teachings and the writings he brought forth violate the teachings of The Bible.

    Finally, as to the violations of the Law of Moses in the Book of Mormon. Your argument that “I am not an expert in the Law of Moses” is completely weak. Please stop trying to use ad hominem attacks and just address the message. I offered to give some examples so here you go.

    1) In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel. Numbers 3:9-10 “And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death” (See also Numbers 8:6-26). However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests. 2 Nephi 5:26 “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.”

    2. The Old Testament teaches that the first born of the flocks were to be given automatically to the Lord. Sacrifices were to be made from their remaining animals.
    Exodus 13:12 “That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord’s” (See also Ex. 13:2; 22:29-30; Numbers 3:13; 18:15-18; 2 Sam. 24:24). Deuteronomy 12:6 “And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks.” The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites were keeping the law of Moses. However, the Nephites broke the law of Moses by using the first of the flocks for burnt offerings. These should have already been given to the Lord as tithing. Mosiah 2:3 “And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses.”

    Have a great night!

    Darrell

  76. February 26, 2009 at 4:21 am

    Correction on my post above – I said

    “The LDS Church was started by a supposed angelic visitation to JS who delivered “another GOSPEL of Jesus Christ” in the form of the BOM (that is part of the title page of the BOM).”

    I mistyped and should have said that the title page says “Another Testament (Covenant) of Jesus Christ”. My apologies – of course, this does not change my point.

    Have a good night!!

    Darrell

  77. 77 geoff456
    February 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    This has been an interesting run…but i do have a question or 2.

    Darrell- Could you give me the ref for Hinckley’s talk?

    And this is just an observation but if the Lord thought it was important enough for a man to die (Laban) in order for the Nephites to prosper, then why is it so hard to believe that he allowed them to have the priesthood so that they could live the Law?

  78. 78 GB
    February 26, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Darrell,

    Sorry but it isn’t circular reasoning to say that the only way to know that something is true (from the Holy Ghost) is by the witness of the Holy Ghost. The Bible is quite clear that a reliable source of truth is the Holy Ghost. The only way to really know what the scriptures mean is from the same Spirit that gave them in the first place. If there is a reliable source for truth then it isn’t circular to go to that reliable source.

    I referenced 1 John 4 as EVIDENCE!! Now if you don’t accept the criteria given by 1 John 4 as being valid or true, then I suggest that you approach God in humble, fervent, and sincere prayer to receive a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is a true criteria. The only way you can know for sure is the witness of the Holy Ghost.

    D: Now, the LDS Church tells you that it teaches that Jesus is the Christ.

    GB: True.

    D: However, what Jesus does it teach?

    GB: The Jesus of the Bible (not the creeds).

    D: What Gospel does it teach?

    GB: The Gospel of JESUS CHRIST!

    D:Does it teach the Christ of the Bible?

    GB: Yes!

    D:Does it teach the gospel that is taught in the Bible?

    GB: YES!

    D: IMO, no it does not. It teaches the Jesus Christ of JS’s imagination.

    GB: So? You are entitled to your own opinion.

    And sorry but your assertion that “In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi” isn’t supported by your references. It is true that the office of “priest” was to be given by right of blood secession to all of the male Levites but it doesn’t limit the office of priest to “only” the Levites.

    So what you are trying to say is that “And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks” as separate and distinct things, which of course they are not.

    A burnt offering is a sacrifice, tithes are a sacrifice, freewill offerings are a sacrifice etc. There is nothing there that dictates that “the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks” cannot be use as “burnt offerings” Were not burnt offerings given to the Lord? How else were the “firstlings of your herds and of your flocks” given to the Lord if not through some sort of sacrifice burnt offering or otherwise?

  79. 79 GB
    February 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Testament

    1. Something that serves as tangible proof or evidence: The spacious plan of the city is a testament to the foresight of its founders.
    2. A statement of belief; a credo: my political testament.
    3. Law A written document providing for the disposition of a person’s property after death; a will.
    4. Testament Bible Either of the two main divisions of the Bible.
    5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God.

    Definition 1 fit the BOM nicely.

  80. 80 Brad
    February 26, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    GB, what Darrell is saying, and what I’ve already said (and asked to you for clarification), is: how do you know what you believe the Spirit has told YOU is true, since other people would ALSO say that the Spirit has told them something completely different than what Mormonism teaches. At that point, it’s you saying the Spirit said one thing, and me saying the Spirit said another.

    So, under your logic with that, I’m correct as well when I say that Mormonism is NOT true, b/c that’s what the Spirit has told me, and according to what you said, we can rely on the Spirit for truth. Logically then, that means that a witness of the Spirit can both prove (under your belief) and disprove (under my belief) the truthfulness of Mormonism.

    If you disagree (and I’m sure you do), and if you disagree under the premise of “well, it’s really not the Holy Spirit who’s talking to you, then”, then the question still remains – HOW DO YOU KNOW? B/c I could just as easily say “it’s not REALLY the Spirit who’s talked to you”, either?

    That’s the circular reasoning that Darrell is referring to, which I agree with him.

  81. 81 GB
    February 26, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Brad,

    “how do you know what you believe the Spirit has told YOU is true”.

    By definition, the Spirit of truth can only reveal the truth. So if the Spirit reveals something to you it must be true.

    The real question, is it really the Spirit revealing something to you or is it your own thought process, or is it actually from the spirit of deception? Correct?

  82. 82 GERMIT
    February 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    GB: absolutely….you got it

    The real question, is it really the Spirit revealing something to you or is it your own thought process, or is it actually from the spirit of deception? Correct?

  83. 83 GERMIT
    February 26, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    GB: and the 2cd question: “and how would you know…..”

  84. 84 Brad
    February 26, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Yes, GB, that’s absolutely the question.

    If the Spirit has revealed 2 completely opposite answers (“Yes” and “No”), to completely different people (you and me), about the exact same question (“is Mormonism true?”), then we only have 3 possible options:

    1) We have BOTH been deceived into thinking we heard from the Spirit, when in reality neither of us did.

    2) The Spirit revealed truth to one of us, but lied to one of us, since He gave each of us opposite answers to the same question (in order to believe this, you’d have to be willing to admit that the Holy Spirit would purposefully lie to people. I don’t believe this, and I’m assuming you don’t, either).

    3) One of us has been deceived, and one of us has not.

    If you think there’s a 4th option, please let me know. If you don’t, then tell me which option you think describes what’s going on. I’ll assume you don’t think it’s option 1 or 2 – if that’s the case, then you must hold to option 3. If that’s the case, then let me know how, under that option, we can tell who the Spirit has REALLY talked to, and who has been deceived, keeping in mind that just saying “the Spirit witnessed it to me” doesn’t answer the question, b/c it is what led us to option 3 in the first place. Hence the “circular reasoning” portion of what we’ve been talking about…

  85. 85 GB
    February 26, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Brad,

    “If the Spirit has revealed 2 completely opposite answers . . .”

    The Spirit doesn’t reveal anything but the truth, therefore the premise of your question is faulty.

    So either,
    1) one of us is right and then, by definition, the other is wrong. (at least on aspects that we disagree on.)

    2) both are wrong.

    I think it is obvious that you are convinced that you are right. So then, how do you know that you are right?

  86. 86 GERMIT
    February 26, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    GB: here’s an interesting “sidebar” to these questions

    1)you are satisfied by the witness of the HOLY SPIRIT that the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ represent true christianity

    2)I am satisfied by the witness of the Holy Spirit that it is NOT

    3)one of us is very SATISFIED, and very WRONG

  87. 87 GERMIT
    February 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    GB: OOOPS…..forgot the possibility 4)we’re BOTH SATISFIED and BOTH WRONG….this is possible

  88. 88 faithoffathers
    February 27, 2009 at 12:07 am

    Germit,

    I had what to me was an interesting thought last night as I read Alma 13. I have recently been reading 1 Enoch and thinking about some striking ancient parallels to modern temple worship (another topic). Anyway, I think it is interesting that many ancient theologians and church writers believed that Melchizedek WAS Christ. Many words that are used to describe Melchizedek are also used to describe Christ- King of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, etc. (I of course do not believe this). He gave Abraham bread and wine in a sacred ordinance or ceremony to symbolize Christ’s sacrifice.

    Well, in Alma 13 it speaks of the Melchizedek Priesthood:

    “I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption…..humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord. Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness; But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.”

    The thing I found interesting is that this passage in the BOM says that the Melchizedek Priesthood was given “in a manner that the people would know how to look forward to the Son of God for redemption.” In some way, Melchizedek was a type or symbol of Christ. The fact that the name of this priesthood was altered and named after Melchizedek (to reduce the too common repetition of Christ’s holy name as explained in D&C)does make some sense of this. And these ancient theologians and church writers found Melchizedek so much like Christ that they have confused the two.

    What I am saying is that the passage in the BOM suggests that this priesthood not only existed anciently, but was intended to direct people to Christ. And Melchizedek was such an important figure and symbol of Christ within this Priesthood (as a result of his righteousness and preaching) that some people have over-extended the symbol into believing the two are the same.

    I doubt I am saying this clearly- I promise I had a good thought. I very much doubt that Joseph Smith had access to any ancient texts that suggested Melchizedek was Christ. His suggestion that Melchizedek was a special type or symbol of Christ is very significant.

    This post is far too long. Hope you are well and that this makes some sense.

    fof

  89. 89 germit
    February 27, 2009 at 3:08 am

    FoF; greetings friend

    you are more coherent than you know. Yes your point makes sense UP TO the coming of Christ, then (for me) weakens. AFTER Christ, what use have I for the type, I have the fulfillment of not just that type, but many others as well. Yes, you might point me to the ordinance of the LORD”s supper, but GOD very explicitly set that up and very explicitly said it was to continue.

    And then, like the idiot children we are , we fight like wet cats in a barrel over HOW it’s to be done, how often, wine or grape juice…. you see the difference , I hope, with the above: this is one ordinance that is very clearly IN REMEMBRANCE OF what Jesus did…..

    Melch. is a fascinating and mysterious character…. imagine getting to meet him face to face and learn of what it was like for him to greet Abraham…. get our questions ready, huh ??

    the shalom of God on you and yours
    GERMIT

  90. February 27, 2009 at 3:27 am

    Brad,

    Nice job on clarifying my question regarding the circular reasoning. You hit the nail on the head.

    GB,

    I will leave the circular reasoning discussion to you and Brad before I comment any further. I am looking forward to your answer. In the meantime, you said:

    “It is true that the office of “priest” was to be given by right of blood secession to all of the male Levites”

    Correct.

    “but it doesn’t limit the office of priest to “only” the Levites.”

    Numbers 3:9-10 does not match up with your assertion. It most certainly teaches that it could be only the Levites. In fact, The Lord threatened to kill anyone else who even attempted to approach the sanctuary.

    “Give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to him. Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; ANYONE ELSE who approaches the sanctuary must be PUT TO DEATH.”

    In addition Numbers Chapter 8 speaks further about this:

    14 In this way you are to set the Levites apart from the other Israelites, and the Levites will be mine.

    16 They are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to me.

    19 Of all the Israelites, I have given the Levites as gifts to Aaron and his sons to do the work at the Tent of Meeting on behalf of the Israelites and to make atonement for them so that no plague will strike the Israelites when they go near the sanctuary.

    The Lord doesn’t say anything about the tribe of Manasseh here. I guess that is another one we will have to take JS’s word on. Could this just one of the errors he didn’t get fixed in the BOM before his death?

    Please show me the scripture in The Bible where it teaches that ANYBODY ELSE besides a Levite could be a priest under The Law of Moses.

    Have a good night!

    Darrell

  91. 91 Brad
    February 27, 2009 at 4:43 am

    “If the Spirit has revealed 2 completely opposite answers . . .”

    The Spirit doesn’t reveal anything but the truth, therefore the premise of your question is faulty.

    Nice try to sidestep the question, GB, but no go. Let’s examine what you just said, which indicates more than might be visible on the surface. You said “the Spirit doesn’t reveal anything but the truth.” I would agree with that. By this admission, you are then saying that option #2 isn’t it, b/c that would mean the HS would have lied to one of us, and you don’t believe that would happen (neither do I). So we’re down to #1 or #3. If you were to say you believe option #1 is correct, you would by default be admitting that it really WASN’T the HS who witnessed to you, which you wouldn’t do, so by default you also don’t believe #1. The only one left, since you didn’t offer an option #4, is option #3, which is where I thought you’d end up.

    For you to say “the premise of my question is faulty”, shows I don’t think you understood the question. I asked you which option you thought was true (by process of elimination based on what you’ve said, we now know it’s #3), and if you thought option #3 was true, how we could know who REALLY heard from the Spirit, and who didn’t, since we each say we have, but have opposite witnesses? There’s no way to sidestep that, like you’ve tried, GB – it’s a completely valid question. But here’s the thing – it can’t be answered with the common Mormon comeback of “the Spirit witnessed it to me”, b/c that’s what led to the question in the first place. Moral of the story – feelings are subjective (even if you think it’s from the HS), and shouldn’t be trusted to lead you to truth.

    Are you going to take a real stab at answering the question, or punt on 1st and 10 again? C’mon GB, you can do better than that. I hope…

    So either,
    1) one of us is right and then, by definition, the other is wrong. (at least on aspects that we disagree on.)

    Agreed – one of us is right, the other wrong.

    2) both are wrong.

    I don’t think either of us thinks this is true.

    I think it is obvious that you are convinced that you are right. So then, how do you know that you are right?

    I’ll make you a deal. Once you actually answer the question I’ve asked, instead of just call it invalid, which I’ve shown above it isn’t, especially b/c you didn’t even address the question I asked, but were addressing the scenarios instead, and we’ve discussed it, then I’ll answer yours.

  92. 92 GB
    February 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Darrell,

    There you go again asserting things that aren’t in the text.

    KJV “9 And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel.
    10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

    “the stranger” is translated from the Hebrew u·e·zr which literally means and·the·alien or in other words any unauthorized person who presumes to officiate.

    My, what a difference a translation makes

    KJV 8:14 Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be mine.
    15 And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering.
    16 For they are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me.
    17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I bsanctified them for myself.
    18 And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel.
    19 And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel: that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.

    So again, NOTHING in there precludes a non-levite from being authorized by God.

    I have a question for you Darrell,

    Heb 5:4, what does this verse apply to, the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood, the Melch. Priesthood or both?

  93. 93 GB
    February 27, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    Brad,

    No time now, maybe later.

  94. February 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    ““the stranger” is translated from the Hebrew u·e·zr which literally means and·the·alien”

    Correct… and anyone who is NOT authorized by The Lord is an alien. Since the only authorized people were the Levites anyone else would be an alien. Until you show where in The Bible ANYONE ELSE BESIDES THE LEVITES were authorized you are left having to simply trust in what JS “translated” in the BOM.

    In Hebrews 5:4 the writer of Hebrews is referencing back to the old covenant Levitcal Priesthood can comparing it to our new PERMANANT HIGH PRIEST Jesus Christ… see verse 5 for the comparison…

    “So Christ also did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a High Priest”

    And 7:18-25

    “18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’ ” 22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”

    THe writer of Hebrews does a wonderful job of comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. I love it. The problem Mormons have is they are always looking to the Old Covenant and attempt to take the Old Covenant and intermingle it with the New Covenant. Fogetting that “the former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless>”

    Darrell

  95. 95 GB
    February 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    Darrell,

    Thank you for admitting that ANYONE “called of God as was Aaron” COULD have the “Levitical Priesthood” according to Heb 5:4.

    So, just to recap.

    You have NOT shown that “ONLY” the Levites could have that priesthood. And Heb 5:4 clearly indicates that ANY MAN “called of God as was Aaron” COULD have it.

    So for you to claim that the Levitical priesthood WASN’T among the Nephites, YOU have to show that they COULD NOT have been “called of God as was Aaron”. Which of course, you CAN NOT do.

  96. March 1, 2009 at 2:41 am

    GB,

    I don’t believe the BOM is scripture. Among other things… there is no historical evidence for it’s claims, it teaches a different Gospel from The Bible (which really is no Gospel at all) and there have been numerous revisions to it since it’s first publication. It is actually rather startling to read the 1830 copy and see the differences.

    So, as I said above…

    “Until you show where in The Bible ANYONE ELSE BESIDES THE LEVITES were authorized you are left having to simply trust in what JS “translated” in the BOM.”

    You have failed to do this… therefore, I will continue to place my trust in Christ and we will simply have to agree to disagree.

    Darrell

  97. March 1, 2009 at 7:09 am

    “there is no historical evidence for it’s claims”

    Which as I’ve said before, is pretty much beside the point.

    “it teaches a different Gospel from The Bible”

    You’ve never managed to establish this yet Darrell. Repeating it five times, clapping your hands, and saying “I believe in fairies” doesn’t make it true.

    “and there have been numerous revisions to it since it’s first publication”

    Which is an utterly hilarious statement coming from someone who adheres to the Bible as sacred text – one of the most revised and picked-over documents on earth.

  98. March 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    “Which as I’ve said before, is pretty much beside the point.”

    It is most certainly not besides the point to me or anyone else who wants more than the “blind faith” the LDS Church requires. There is nothing historical to back JS’s claims up… one is simply left with a “spiritual witness” which adherents to nearly every faith on the planet claim to have. Historical evidence shows credibility… which Mormonism does not have.

    “Repeating it five times, clapping your hands, and saying “I believe in fairies” doesn’t make it true.”

    You mean kind of like what Mormons do when they parade their kids up to the front of the chapel on fast Sundays and make them say “I know the church is true” over and over again… simply so they can convince the 5 year old that they actually do believe it. :-)

    “You’ve never managed to establish this yet Darrell.”

    Two things make me disagree with you:

    First, Moroni 10:32 teaches that it is not until “AFTER you have denied youself of all ungodliness that his grace is sufficient for you.” Very different from “for by grace you are saved, NOT of works, lest any man should boast”. We have gone over this numrous times Seth.

    Second, The New and Everlasting Covenant of Plural/Eternal Marriage IS different from what is taught in The Bible. There is no connection between the two. For you to “clap your hands” and say “I believe that the fairytale” that JS wrote in the BOM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price is a continuation of God’s Revelation does not make it so. Please, show me the evidence! The two teach DIFFERENT requirements to get into Heaven. JS even gave the Covenant a DIFFERENT NAME… The New AND EVERLASTING Covenant. Why the different name? Why the NEW requirements if it was not a DIFFERENT Covenant?

    Darrell

  99. March 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    “Which is an utterly hilarious statement coming from someone who adheres to the Bible as sacred text – one of the most revised and picked-over documents on earth.”

    Empty assertion… show me the evidence that it is “one of the most revised” documents on earth. The text we have today has been shown to be 99.5% pure to the autographa…. there is are numerous posts on my blog about the historical reliability of The New Testament. Check it out.

    http://toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.com/category/new-testament-reliability/

    Darrell

  100. 100 ladonnamorrell
    March 1, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    for the benefit of others reading this blog: ( i won’t even try to convince darell)

    There are NO revisions to the Book of Mormon of ANY substance. The fanastic numbers spouted by anti’s are based on the numbering of the verses. When “they” say that “thousands of changes have been made” they are referring to the chapter and verse numbers that were added,
    the word fountain, changed to foundation and a few other mistakes made by a printer that couldn’t read Oliver’s handwriting. There have been some grammatical changes such as placement of commas, etc. Oliver wrote what he heard. Names for example, would have been unfamiliar to him. some of those have been corrected.

    Saying it is the most correct book on earth isn’t dependent on human error. It is dependent upon the doctrine. The DOCTRINE did not change.

  101. March 1, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Darrell, the changes to the Book of Mormon are pretty much all trivial grammar corrections and spell-checks. This is probably one of the most empty criticisms I’ve ever seen from you about the Book of Mormon. And yes, the Bible has PLENTY of these kind of corrections. More than the Book of Mormon as it so happens.

    I don’t think they make a lick of difference in whether you ought to rely on the Bible. And they don’t make a lick of difference for the Book of Mormon either.

    “Very different from “for by grace you are saved, NOT of works, lest any man should boast”. We have gone over this numrous times Seth.”

    Yeah, and I also distinctly remember you backing off slightly on this issue and stating that yes, the grace vs. works issue is more ambiguous, and the divide between us is not clear, but the “different God” and “different Jesus” question was the real problem. You’ve also ignored the detailed explanations I’ve given numerous times before about Moroni’s statement in context with Nephi’s statements and others. It makes me wonder if you’re just grandstanding here, and hoping people will not notice the counterarguments.

    Darrell, I really do have a hard time seeing much substantial difference between Mormons and Evangelicals on the whole grace vs. works. Here is a statement of faith from an Evangelical church that I have seen reflected NUMEROUS times from other Evangelical churches in various contexts:

    “We also recognize what has been very well documented elsewhere: that today there is no discernable difference between the attitudes and actions of those within the churched community from those outside of it. At best, these types of statistics are a sobering reminder of what many know firsthand: conversion to Christ is merely the beginning, and not the end, of the work Jesus wants to do in his people. The role of the church is to not only bring people to faith but to help bring them to maturity so that they might “…be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). There should be discernable differences between those who have given their lives to Christ and those who have not.

    We believe this happens as people become more and more like Jesus. The working out of our salvation is not something we do in our own strength, striving to earn God’s love, but is something that is done in cooperation with God’s Spirit in the context of grace and love. Though spiritual formation is ultimately the work of God within us, we have a part to play as well (see Phil 2:12-13, Gal 4:19, Eph 4:22-23). Paul commands us to “put off your old self which belonged to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

    Funny thing about Evangelicals. When they think there aren’t any Mormons in the room, they talk much differently. I would have a hard time, as a Mormon, faulting any of that statement above. Though a bit of the terminology and speaking style is different, that’s pretty much doctrine in the LDS Church. I could read those two paragraphs VERBATIM from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting today and not a single person in the audience would bat an eye.

    In short, I think this whole grace vs. works debate is a classic example of “making a mountain out of a molehill.” The difference between Evangelicals and Mormons on this issue is paper-thin at best. I think what is really happening here Darrell, is that you are letting your own personal crusade lead you into a caricatured and extremist view of your own doctrine. A good friend of mine once said that these boundary-maintenance impulses in Mormons and Evangelicals – these attempts to define our turf and protect it from each other – run a severe risk of distorting our own doctrines. I think this is exactly what some online Evangelical apologists are doing: radicalizing their own doctrine in an attempt to remain different from the Mormons.

    Heck, I’ve even seen Evangelical apologists demand that a Mormon accept modalism before he can be saved, even though as we all know – that is outright heresy. These guys are so focused on refuting the perceived Mormon heresy of tri-theism that they unwittingly end up pulling too far the other way and becoming modalists just to “stick it to the Mormon.” Then when the Mormon in question (rightly) rejects their modalist arguments, they declare victory, call him a tri-theist and crow about how he isn’t Christian.

    The same thing happens with grace vs. works. Any hint in a Mormon that being righteous actually matters, and Evangelical apologists are all over him like a bad sweater, crowing about how he “arrogantly” thinks he’s going to save himself, and how he has “rejected Jesus.”

    But I’ve been following the Protestant blogosphere Darrell, and I know how you guys talk about grace and works when you think there aren’t any Mormons listening. And I’m calling bogus on it right now. There isn’t much of a difference at all. When it comes right down to it, we both believe people need to act righteously, and we both believe that people who insist on wickedness are not really saved. We both believe that ordinances are an acceptable way of manifesting one’s conversion to Christ.

    I think the divide here is largely make-believe and things aren’t half as clear cut between us as you are pretending they are.

  102. March 1, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Seth,

    You are mistunderstanding my position on faith vs works within Mormonism and Christianity. What I said on the other blog we were conversing on is that I believe that faith vs works takes a backseat to the PARAMOUNT difference between our two camps… which is the nature of God. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans if a person gets faith vs works right if they are worshipping a false God. I would rather Mormons come to the true God then at that point we can help help them with Faith Vs Works.

    I DO NOT believe there is just a minor difference between the two camps on Faith vs Works. I believe the difference is as fine as a razors edge BUT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. That is why, IMO, Mormonism can be so dangerous. It does a great job of APPEARING the same BUT IT IS NOT.

    In Christianity all that is needed to get to Heaven is a true and saving faith in Jesus Christ… period… end of story. Now, that true and saving faith will be lived out in a life that glorifies God. Put simply… a saving faith leads to a life of good works. The works COME AFTER the saving faith… they are the result of someone being changed inwardly by God and are not done in an attempt to reach God.

    In Mormonism on the other hand, many things are needed to get to Heaven. First, faith in Jesus Christ. Second, Baptism by one in authority. Third, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one in authority. Fourth, that same person will pronounce you a member of the only true church on the face of the earth… without this membership you would not be able to receive the further “saving” ordinances that ARE REQUIRED to get into Heaven. Fifth, you must live a life obeying a list of commandements not limited to…

    1. Pay of full tithe
    2. Obey the law of chastity
    3. Obey the word of widom
    4. Sustaining the prophet, counselors and other general and local authorities of the church
    5. Honest in all your dealings with your fellow man
    6. Attend all of your meetings

    etc, etc, etc

    IF YOU DO ALL OF THESE THINGS (and ONLY if you do all of them) will you then be found worthy to go to the temple to receive the further “saving” ordinances that YOU MUST HAVE EITHER IN THIS LIFE (OR DONE VICARIOUSLY FOR YOU IN THE SPIRIT WORLD) in order to get to heaven. Sixth, attend the temple to receive your washing, annointing, and Endowment. Seventh, endure to the end. Then, IF YOU DO ALL OF THESE THINGS, you MIGHT be found worthy to get into Heaven.

    In short, in Christianity your good works are done out of a love for God not in order to reach Him. In Mormonism your good works are done IN AN ATTEMPT TO REACH GOD AND BE FOUND WORTHY OF HIM. Then, hopefully, he will find you worthy. I

    I always find in humorous when LDS say that their “saving” ordinances are simply outward manifestations of an inward change. Because that is simply not true. If they were simply outward manifestations, they would not be REQUIREMENTS. Every Mormon who has told me that, once cornered, will admit that they are absolutely essential to get into Heaven… that is why they are called “SAVING” ordinances by the Church… because without them YOU CANNOT BE SAVED AND ENTER HEAVEN.

    Question for you Seth… Yes or No… if you were to die today can you be positive you would go to Heaven (the Celestial Kingdom)… answer only if you wish… but think about it.

    Back to the BOM changes. There are SOME MAJOR changes in the BOM that do change doctrine. First Nephi originally read as a Trinitarian, almost Modalistic, document. At the time it was written JS was saying that he had seen only ONE being in the first vision. It was not until JS’s change in doctrine to three SEPARATE beings that the BOM was changed to reflect this. It all happened over the course of the first few years of the church. Unfortunately for the Church JS did not make enough changes and actually left Mosiah Chapter 15 unchanged and to this day it reads the way JS originally thought of God… Trinitarian almost Modalistic.

    Here is a link to a good “Book of Mormon Comparison Machine”. You can see the 1830 copy side by side with a modern copy of the BOM. Jim Spencer also has some neat notes on the machine that provide some other useful tidbits of info. There have been some major changes to “the most correct book on the face of the earth”.

    http://www.mazeministry.com/machine/index.htm

    Darrell

  103. March 1, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    Somehow I doubt that anything called “mazeministry” putting up a side by side comparison, is going to be entirely objective. I expect I’ll find a lot of fault-finding and nitpicking, just like I get from most Christian apologists who pursue this worthless and ridiculous avenue of attacking the Book of Mormon.

    You’re right, the ordinances are outward manifestations of inward commitments – which is why they are required. Just like the Bible instructs.

    If you want to talk about self-esteem or insecurity problems among Mormons, fine. Just don’t act like it’s the religion’s fault that they are there. Because the same problems exist in equal measure in YOUR house. Which seems to indicate the problem is less with the religious systems, and more with the people in them. I guarantee you there are PLENTY of practicing Evangelicals who have no idea if they are going to heaven either. Plenty who are struggling with the whole idea of repentance, and plenty who are obsessed with working their way into heaven.

    If I don’t get to blame their insecurities on your religion Darrell, I don’t think you should be permitted to blame them on mine.

    A question for you Darrell: Should we tell people to be good?

  104. March 2, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Seth,

    “Somehow I doubt that anything called “mazeministry” putting up a side by side comparison, is going to be entirely objective.”

    Ad Hominem Seth! Deal with the message!

    “You’re right, the ordinances are outward manifestations of inward commitments – which is why they are required. Just like the Bible instructs.”

    NO… that is not what The Bible instructs. Please show me evidence that says Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Washing, Annointing and The Endowment are required for entrance to Heaven.

    Bottom line though… Mormonism and Christianity are light years apart on Faith Vs Works.

    Mormonism teaches Faith + Works + Ordinances = Heaven

    Christianity teaches Faith only = Heaven – just like the Bible :)

    “If you want to talk about self-esteem or insecurity problems among Mormons, fine.”

    I noticed you didn’t answer my question. So, are you saying that any Mormon who says they aren’t sure they would go to Heaven if they died today has insecurity and self-esteem issues. In other words you are resorting to the age old Mormon argument of “there is nothing wrong with the church or it’s doctrine – there is just something wrong with the person who feels this way.” Can’t tell you how many times I have heard that one.

    “A question for you Darrell: Should we tell people to be good?”

    You appear to be implying that I am saying we should not teach people to do good and simply to let them sin. Therefore, I will quote Paul in Romans 3 on this one since he was accused of the same thing. Pay particular attention to verses 21 – 24.

    “8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved. 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
    “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    11 there is no one who understands,
    no one who seeks God.
    12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
    13″Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
    “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
    15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
    17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[g]
    18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[h]
    19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
    27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

    Amen!!

    Darrell

  105. March 2, 2009 at 1:37 am

    So you agree with teaching people to do good works?

    Now who’s denying the Atonement?

    This is a fruitless argument Darrell. We both agree that a guy who doesn’t manifest good works probably isn’t making it into heaven, so what difference does it make?

    I don’t need to “deal with the message” Darrell. I’ve already read multiple sources on the “changes to the Book of Mormon” argument – for and against. I doubt adding one more to my tally sheet will prove a productive use of my time. If you want to bring up something in specific here, feel free (although it’s utterly irrelevant to the discussion, to be honest). I’m not going to waste my time reading things I’ve already read elsewhere only to arrive at the same conclusions I already had. Namely that the “changes to the book” line of attack is ridiculous, and makes Christian apologists look desperate for a decent argument.

  106. March 2, 2009 at 1:58 am

    “This is a fruitless argument Darrell.”

    Not at all. The doctrine of grace in The Bible has opened numerous people’s eyes to the lies of Mormonism – my wife and several other friends in my community.

    There is a difference in teaching:

    1) Good works done out of love for Christ

    or

    2) Good works done AS A MEANS to get to God.

    Your church teaches the latter. As I said, the difference is a razors edge difference but it has ALL THE SIGNIFICANCE IN THE WORLD.

    It is specifically because you teach good works as a means to reach God that people cannot know whether or not they will go to Heaven when they die. I can’t tell you how many LDS I have asked this question and I always get the same answer – “I hope so”. That is sad… we have been told we can approach the throne of grace with confidence (Hebrews 4:16). LDS can’t do that with a works based theology.

    Darrell

  107. March 2, 2009 at 6:07 am

    I would find the notion that you, Darrell, are going to heaven, regardless of what you actually do from this point, or choose to be equally “sad.”

    Seems like a pretty pointless existence to me.

  108. March 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    “Seems like a pretty pointless existence to me.”

    It probably will seem pointless until you realize that it is possible to do good works simply because you love Christ and want to serve him. I do good works precisely BECAUSE I AM SAVED – not to get something. Afterall:

    “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

    Darrell

  109. 109 GERMIT
    March 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Seth: even if I went with you on the point that the ev. and LDS positions are not that far apart (which is a possiblility) , there are still ample , solid, reasons, not to go LDS, including the LDS position that all other “christian” faiths are part of the great apostasy. This is today’s topic over at Mormon Coffee. Lumping everyone else in that “fallen away” toilet bowl is reason enough to red flag your institution.

    holding up one faith, one LORD, one baptism
    (but not the LDS variety)
    GERMIT

  110. 110 GERMIT
    March 2, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Seth: ooops, insert “about faith vs. works ” after “LDS positions” in sentence one….thanks.
    GERMIT

  111. 111 GB
    March 2, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Brad,

    Shall we see what the Bible says on the topic shall we.

    1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
    10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
    11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Which verifies what I have been saying. Now let us not forget the gifts of the Spirit.

    1 Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
    5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
    6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
    7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
    8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
    9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
    10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
    11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

    Notice that one of the many gifts of the Spirit is the gift of prophecy. I do find that one very interesting indeed.

    So then true “knowledge” and “wisdom” come from the Spirit. So then we know that the witness of the Spirit works upon the mind.

    Now let us look at the fruits of the Spirit.

    Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
    23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

    Lets see here. Love is a “feeling” is it not?

    Joy is a “feeling” is it not?

    Peace is a “feeling” is it not?

    It surprises me that you say that you can’t trust your feelings, because true “love”, “joy” and “peace” come from the Spirit. So then we know that the witness of the Spirit works upon the heart.

    This is verified here. Acts 2:37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

    And also Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

    And also Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

    So then when the Spirit communicates, it communicates to both the heart and to the mind and produces fruit in both.

    Cheers and God bless.

  112. 112 Brad
    March 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    GB, same response I get from virtually any Mormon willing to answer the question – do they provide the pat answer in a manual or something?

    Your post has no point. You quoted the Bible, and tried to expound on what you quoted, but you NEVER addressed my question. Posting Scripture doesn’t address the question, GB, just b/c you posted it.

    I don’t disagree that the Holy Spirit is a witness of truth, and will ONLY witness truth to those He witnesses to. We agree on that, so that’s not a point that needs to be debated. That makes 1 Cor 2:9-14 a moot point.

    You then quote 1 Cor 12:4-11, delving into spiritual gifts. I am in agreement with you that the Holy Spirit imparts spiritual gifts to all believers, so again, nothing to debate there, and that makes this Scripture passage a moot point.

    You then finish by quoting several passages dealing with fruits of the spirit and spiritual confirmation. Again, I’m not debating that Christians (true ones) will have fruits of the Spirit, nor am I debating that the Holy Spirit can prompt our hearts, so these Scriptures, also, are a moot point.

    But you still haven’t tackled the question – why is that? Just so you remember what it is, I’ll cut and paste it from the last post:

    I asked you which option you thought was true (by process of elimination based on what you’ve said, we now know it’s #3), and if you thought option #3 was true, how we could know who REALLY heard from the Spirit, and who didn’t, since we each say we have, but have opposite witnesses? There’s no way to sidestep that, like you’ve tried, GB – it’s a completely valid question. But here’s the thing – it can’t be answered with the common Mormon comeback of “the Spirit witnessed it to me”, b/c that’s what led to the question in the first place. Moral of the story – feelings are subjective (even if you think it’s from the HS), and [let me add “feelings alone” to be more clear] shouldn’t be trusted to lead you to truth.

  113. 113 GB
    March 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    Brad,

    I have answered your question three times now and you are still not satisfied. I am not sure what else I can do for you.

    Perhaps these will help.

    . . . verily, verily, I (the Lord) say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning . . . (this or any other gospel topic.)

    Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

    Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

    – – –

    I would exhort you (to) ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

    So then Brad, I would encourage you, in the name of Christ, to approach our Heavenly Father in sincere, humble, faithful prayer.

    Cheers and God Bless.

  114. 114 Brad
    March 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    No, GB, you haven’t. You’re dancing around the question, trying to give the only Scriptures you know and which you think answer the question, but you’ve yet to address it at all. In fact, in your last post, I addressed the Scriptures you did provide, and delineated what we are in agreement on, but still stated that you haven’t shown, or been able to answer, the question. You then give what I’ve found is a pretty common Mormon comeback of “I’ve answered this multiple times”, to try to project to the reader who doesn’t know any better that I’m simply in disagreement with your answer, when in fact I’m waiting for it, b/c you haven’t answered it. I’ve now stated the question twice, verbatim, and you still can’t (or won’t) answer it. Personally, GB, I believe it’s because you know there is NO good answer for it from a Mormon perspective, other than to hold to the common tag line of “just ask the Spirit sincerely”, when in fact that’s what is leading to the roadblock in the first place! It’s a great way to duck your head into the sand, but you’re either unable, or unwilling, to answer.

    So, I’ll ask again, hoping you have the courage to answer the REAL question that is being asked. If 2 people BOTH claim the SAME witness from the SAME Spirit about the SAME question, yet have received COMPLETELY DIFFERENT answers to that question, HOW can you tell who is right, since both of them CANNOT be?

    You CANNOT provide “ask the Spirit sincerely” as an answer, GB, b/c that is the very question which is being debated upon here, and you would be using circular logic (something both Darrell and I have tried to point out to you).

  115. March 2, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    “It probably will seem pointless until you realize that it is possible to do good works simply because you love Christ and want to serve him.”

    I already realize this Darrell. So do many other Mormons. I don’t do good works just to get a reward. Neither do a lot of Mormons I know. What I find “sad” is how you’ve taken any human element or role out of salvation and turned it into basically a giant cosmic lottery game.

    As a whole, I don’t find Mormons any more disposed toward obedience out of fear or desire of reward than their Evangelical counterparts. So I don’t really see how I’d gain much by crossing over the aisle. I’d just trade one congregation mixed with good and bad, for another congregation with the same mix of good and bad. The only real difference would be the clothes I wear to church each Sunday.

  116. 116 ladonnamorrell
    March 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    ok brad, do you want the REAL answer that Seth is too polite to give?

    here it is: the person seeking to know if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true who gets the burning in his bosom IS receiving a witness from God that it is true. All other “feelings” and or anything other than that answer is false. just because! We are right, the rest of the world is wrong. there you go! :)

  117. 117 GERMIT
    March 3, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    sounds like LaddonnaMorrel is on a roll….so now that we have THAT taken care of, will it be health care or global warming next ?? Glad to see you have your mo-jo back

    GERMIT

  118. 118 Brad
    March 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    That’s what I figured, Ladonna. “Just because” – what a basis for belief.

  119. 119 Bryant A.
    March 3, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    Ladonnamorrell,

    We belive the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true without the burning in your bosom. Not through a
    church, but through the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ to God. That is why Paul was called a Christian, because he taught Christ and nothing more. This is why you are not a Christian. There are members in other churches who are also not Christian’s. There are also a few mormon’s who are Christian. Praying for all of God’s lost children every day.

    God Bless us everyone B

  120. 120 ladonnamorrell
    March 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    truth is truth…”just because”…….didn’t your mom teach you that?

    thanks germie for understanding a little tongue-in-cheek which apparently soars over the heads of others. :)

  121. March 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    “here it is: the person seeking to know if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true who gets the burning in his bosom IS receiving a witness from God that it is true. All other “feelings” and or anything other than that answer is false.”

    So, let’s look at this reasoning to see if it is logical or circular…

    1) You can know the church is true by praying about it

    2) Once you pray the holy spirit will answer you

    3) If you get an answer that tells you the church is not true you cannot trust that answer

    4) Why?

    5) Because the church is true and the holy spirit will only tell you that it is

    Makes sense to me… now let me go so I can check back into the mental hospital!

    Darrell

  122. 122 Brad
    March 3, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    Ladonna, it would be different it it were actually a tongue in cheek answer. Problem is, it’s not – it’s the only thing that Mormonism can rely on as “proof” of its own validity. If circular reasoning is the basis for belief – what a shaky basis indeed.

    If your answer WAS tongue in cheek, and in fact you have a different method for determining which of us would be correct, please feel free to let us all know.

  123. 123 ladonnamorrell
    March 3, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    brad, brad, brad…you take this all too seriously! YOU are not going to be convinced by me and I am not going to be convinced by you so why not have a little fun with it? truth does not change just because you don’t see the truth. all through the scriptures it tells us to “ask and you shall receive”. If i “ask” and “receive” YOU WILL THINK THAT is “circular reasoning”. so, if we can’t appeal to the scriptures….this argument has no conclusion…so ENJOY life a little and laugh! it will do you good.

    I have faith that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father appeared to the boy Joseph.Over time the gospel was restored IN ITS FULNESS. I HAVE asked, and I HAVE received answers. I KNOW this is true. How do i convince you of it?? I guess the only way is for you to closely examine YOUR heart and ask Father in Heaven with pure intent and with faith and with sincerity and YOU WILL KNOW. If you ask with an agenda, with contempt, with sarcasm, then YOU WON’T get an answer.

    Meantime, chill out a little! (lovingly spoken) :)

  124. 124 Brad
    March 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Ladonna, you don’t take it seriously enough. I’m not kidding, either – you really don’t.

    Asking and receiving isn’t circular reasoning. But when somebody poses the question that has been asked – how 2 people who ask the same Spirit the same question with the same intent, and get different answers – and the response is “I just know” or “because the Spirit witnessed it to me”, THAT is circular reasoning. It’s like asking “why is it water?”, and the response is “b/c it’s wet”, to which the reply is “why’s it wet?”, and the response is “b/c it’s water”. It’s totally circular, and the answer is dependent on the question.

    Christianity isn’t true, b/c I have faith in it. I have faith in it, b/c it’s true. There’s a big difference. You (and other Mormons) continually speak of asking “sincerely, and with full intent”, and receiving the correct answer. Yet, when told that I have done that, and received the answer that it is not true, the answer is always “well, you must not have asked with intent”. You’ve set up a self-fulfilling question, that leads the responder to only consider a “yes” answer to be valid, and a “no” answer not good enough.

    Yes, I realize you don’t see that. But it doesn’t change the facts, Ladonna.

    This is eternal life we’re talking about – you may WANT to take it a bit more seriously. If there was a good answer to the question that’s been posed, one that Mormonism could provide a good (non-circular) answer for, why haven’t we heard it yet?

  125. 125 GB
    March 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Brad,

    You continue to claim that I haven’t answered the question when I clearly have. You are welcome to show me where my answer is incorrect if you like, or perhaps you could provide an answer yourself. Either would be more productive than complaining that I haven’t answered the question.

    “. . . trying to give the only Scriptures you know . . . ”

    Wow, you are being judgmental.

    “If 2 people BOTH claim the SAME witness from the SAME Spirit about the SAME question, yet have received COMPLETELY DIFFERENT answers to that question, HOW can you tell who is right, since both of them CANNOT be?”

    The one who demonstrates the fruits of the Spirit, ie love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.

    Hatred, wrath, strife, provoking to anger, revellings, and contention, are NOT the fruits of the Spirit.

    I hope this helps.

    Peace and God Bless.

  126. 126 Brad
    March 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    GB, I first asked you the question “how do you know what you’re saying is correct?” on Feb 25. Your response was to quote John 16:13, and say the Spirit’s guided you into the truth.

    I then asked a follow-up question the same day: “what if other people, who also feel led by the same Spirit, come to different conclusions? How would you know who’s right?

    You responded (paraphrased) that “The Spirit can only lead those that are sincere…some people…refuse to pray with sincerity and real, honest intent for fear they will be deceived. Is that trusting God? I think not.” The implication? That those who ask, and don’t receive the “yes” answer, didn’t REALLY ask sincerely.

    I responded (to make sure I understood what you said): “so what I think you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong), is that just b/c someone SAYS it’s from the Spirit, doesn’t mean it really is?” I further responded in #80, piggy-backing on what Darrell said, to show how the reasoning was circular, and awaited your response.

    You responded (#81) that “By definition, the Spirit of truth can only reveal the truth. So if the Spirit reveals something to you it must be true. The real question, is it really the Spirit revealing something to you or is it your own thought process, or is it actually from the spirit of deception? Correct?”

    I responded (#84) with my 3 scenarios that must be true, and awaited your reply.

    You then responded (#85), stating that “The Spirit doesn’t reveal anything but the truth, therefore the premise of your question is faulty.” Which doesn’t answer the question, but rather refuses to answer it. And then you tried to ask a question yourself, without even answering mine.

    I then responded in #91, calling you out for not answering it, and essentially re-explained and re-phrased the question, saying I’d answer yours when you answered mine.

    You then finally responded in #111, quoting various Scriptures which essentially spoke of the witness of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit. A lot of quotations from the Bible, all of which I agree with, yet NONE of them answered the question at hand.

    I explained this in #112, where I explained I’d heard the same thing from other Mormons as I did from you (that’s why I made the comment of “pat answers” and “the Scriptures you know”, which I stick to. It would be quite a coincidence if you and every other Mormon I’ve talked to all tried to give the same Scriptures and explanations on the same question). I then RE-ASKED the question, b/c you STILL haven’t answered HOW we can tell which person really DIDN’T get an answer from the Spirit, but was deceived.

    And so, in #113, you try to say you’ve answered it 3 times already (which from the above summarization, obviously is not the case), and again quote more Scripture that essentially says the same thing you’ve already said – that the Spirit witnesses to people. You then break into the Mormon mantra of “ask the Father sincerely…”, for the 2nd time. Problem is, still no answer of my question.

    In #114, I call you out – again – and try to re-summarize my points – again – and ask for an answer to the question – again.

    And so here we are at your last post, with you still claiming you’ve answered the question, yet you haven’t. You say “the one who demonstrates the fruits of the Spirit” – what if both people do? There’s people who exhibit these qualities who are not Christian (or Mormon) – what then? There are people who DO exhibit “hatred, wrath, strife, etc…” who ARE Christian (or Mormon) – what then?

    You’re still not tackling it, GB.

  127. March 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Brad, you may find this surprising.

    But, as a believing Mormon, I also believe that God tells people not to join the LDS Church.

    I’ve heard stories of people who’ve had a hard time in the LDS Church for various reasons. I think it’s totally possible that God would protect some of his children and guide them not to join the Restored Church at this point. It’s not right for them, or for their spiritual development.

    I also believe that the same God would also counsel people to leave Protestantism for the same reasons.

    Beyond that, I think a lot of people get the general spiritual impression to stay out of Mormonism, and THEN tack on a lot of their own additional conclusions. The conclusions are false at times, but since they’ve been “added-on” to an initial spiritual confirmation, people read the false conclusions as true.

    I also think it matters how you ask God the question.

  128. 128 GB
    March 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Brad,

    ‘You say “the one who demonstrates the fruits of the Spirit” – what if both people do?’

    Changing the premise of the question I see. Both may exhibit the fruits of the Spirit ON OTHER ISSUES, but not with regard to the one we are discussing. When you discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention?

    Again, why don’t you show me where my answer is incorrect, or provide an answer yourself. Either would be more productive than complaining that I haven’t answered the question.

  129. 129 Brad
    March 5, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    But, as a believing Mormon, I also believe that God tells people not to join the LDS Church.

    Truer words have never been spoken. Though I believe God tells them for a WHOLE different reason than you do, I’d say…

  130. 130 Brad
    March 5, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    Changing the premise of the question I see.

    Not at all – just trying to weed through the pat Mormon answers that I always get from the Mormons who try to answer this. Of course, I’ve explained that already…

    Both may exhibit the fruits of the Spirit ON OTHER ISSUES, but not with regard to the one we are discussing. When you discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention?

    The fruits of the Spirit are not talked about in the Bible in relation to having them as it relates to a particular topic (e.g. “the truthfulness of Mormonism”, as you tried to say). They are overall characteristics of a person’s life, not in relation to a specific topic. If you believe that, show me where the Bible says that. For all the years my FIL wasn’t saved, he exhibited what could have been taken for the “fruits of the Spirit” – he was loving, joyful, peaceful, longsuffering, gentle, good, faithful (to what he did), meek and temperate – but he wasn’t saved. You can’t look to that only for your evidence, GB, b/c I know many people who are unsaved, but exhibit many of these characteristics, just as I know many people who are saved, but don’t always exhibit all of these characteristics.

    Again, why don’t you show me where my answer is incorrect, or provide an answer yourself. Either would be more productive than complaining that I haven’t answered the question.

    Look at evidence, GB, apart from the Holy Spirit, or anything intangible. What other EVIDENCE do you have for the truthfulness of Mormonism, since nothing you’ve given so far is anything that I can’t counter with a “different” answer from the Spirit, or with unsaved people who exhibit the mentioned traits? There’s got to be more, isn’t there?

  131. 131 GB
    March 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Brad,
    When you discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention?

  132. 132 Brad
    March 6, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Doesn’t matter – as I said, the fruits of the Spirit aren’t linked to a specific discussion topic, they are general life characteristics. Also as I said, if you believe they are, show me where the Bible says that.

  133. March 6, 2009 at 1:55 am

    Brad, there’s not much reason for a Christian to believe in the Bible, other than the “fruits of the spirit” and “other intangibles.”

  134. 134 GB
    March 9, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    Brad,

    Mark 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

    That is specific!!

    Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
    26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
    27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
    28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
    29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
    . . .

    That is specific!!

    Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

    That is specific!!

    Acts 10:19 ¶ While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
    20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and ago with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

    That is specific!!

    Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar

    That is specific!!

    Acts 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
    7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

    That is specific!!

    Acts 19:21 ¶ After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.

    That is specific!!

    Acts 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

    That is specific!!

    Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem

    That is specific!!

  135. 135 Brad
    March 10, 2009 at 1:28 am

    GB, at some point, I question your ability to even understand the question. You may think that mean, but after explaining it and re-explaining it, only to have you provide the same types of answers, you truly don’t seem to get it.

    You can quote as many Scriptures as you like that show the Spirit led people to do or believe certain things. I’M NOT DISPUTING THAT!!!

    What I’m asking (and have been asking all along, in fact) is how 2 people, who both feel led by the Spirit, yet who have a witness from the Spirit of a completely different answer to a common question, can tell whose witness is REALLY from the Spirit, and who is being deceived?

    The passages you quote only speak to the fact that the Spirit DOES witness to people – THAT IS A FACT NOT IN DISPUTE! Your quotes don’t begin to address, however, the question that has now been asked you at least 4 times – HOW to tell who is deceived, and who is not.

    You’re either completely unable to understand the question, or you’re intentionally avoiding it. Neither speaks well of you, as it pertains to this discussion, GB.

    But, I can’t say I’ve ever received much different of an answer, from any other Mormon I’ve ever asked the question to. Same Scripture quotes, same inability to answer it – you’re not unique in that regard. Truth is, Mormons don’t HAVE a way to answer the question – if you did, you would have done so already.

  136. 136 GB
    March 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Brad,

    Changing the premise again?

    Both are not led by the Spirit if they are getting different answers. The Spirit only bears witness to the truth.

    The fact that both “feel” they are being led by the Spirit doesn’t make it so. At most, only one of them is truly being led by the Spirit.

    In spite of your initial claim, the Spirit does witness to people concerning SPECIFIC things.

    Your continued insistence that I haven’t answered the question is rather humorous.

    Again, why don’t you show me where my answer is incorrect, or provide an answer yourself. Either would be more productive than complaining that I haven’t answered the question.

    And again, when you discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention?

  137. March 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    GB,

    You are simply not understanding Brad or you are avoiding the question. He is asking you HOW YOU CAN KNOW THAT YOUR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT CHURCH IS TRUE IS FROM THE SPIRIT AND NOT HIS!!! He has been told by the power of the Holy Ghost that the LDS Church is not true and that HIS FAITH IS TRUE. I have been told the exact same thing from the spirit. Asking if when we “discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention” as if that will give us the answer is not valid. For I could ask you the exact same thing in reverse… when you discuss the truthfullness of MY FAITH (or Islam, JW’s or any other religion) do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention”? That does not work GB… think about it and tell us HOW WE CAN KNOW WHETHER YOUR ANSWER OR OUR ANSWERS ARE FROM THE SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit has told me Mormonism is false – why is my answer wrong and your’s right?

    Darrell

  138. March 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    The obvious answer to me is that aspects of BOTH Brad’s religion and my religion are false, and aspects of BOTH are true.

    Determining the percentage mix is a lifelong commitment, and requires a lot more searching, studying, and prayer than a single one-night-stand on my knees.

    Having a one-time spiritual experience is not sufficient light to live on for the rest of your life.

  139. March 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Seth,

    That does not work… I didn’t pray (nor did you or GB I assume) to know whether “aspects” of Mormonism are true or “parts” are true… I prayed to know whether the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God’s TRUE church on the face of the earth, whether it contains God’s Holy Priesthood power and whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. God told me through the power of the Holy Spirit “no”. Yet you and GB say He has told you “yes”. God did not say “Yes ‘ASPECTS’ of Mormonism are true and aspect is false”. Gordon B Hinckley addressed this fallacy of thinking very clearly on numerous occassions. He said very clearly “either the church is TRUE or it is a LIE… there is no in between”. I can provide the quotes from him if you would like. So, HOW DO WE KNOW WHETHER MY ANSWER OR YOUR ANSWER ARE RIGHT? According to Gordon B Hinckley (as well as simple logic) both answers cannot be right.

    Oh, and to address GB’s question… I DO feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance” when I discuss the fact that Mormonism is false and my faith is true. I actually feel a tremendous amount of love for those who are trapped within the lies of the LDS faith and want to do everything within my power to free them from the legalistic bondage of falsehood. When I see it happen to people my heart overflows with joy, peace and happiness. Nevertheless, as I addressed in my previous post, that is NOT a valid way to tell if my answer is true and your’s is false. Try again GB!!

    Have a great day!!

    Darrell

  140. 140 Brad
    March 10, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Changing the premise again?

    Nope, just re-stating the same question for the 6th time.

    Both are not led by the Spirit if they are getting different answers. The Spirit only bears witness to the truth.

    I’ve already said I believe this is true, and you are also saying the same thing. We’re in agreement on the fact that both CANNOT be led. Problem is – that wasn’t the question.

    The fact that both “feel” they are being led by the Spirit doesn’t make it so. At most, only one of them is truly being led by the Spirit.

    I’ve already said I believe this is true, and you are also saying the same thing. We’re in agreement on the fact that, at most, only ONE of them is being truly led. Problem still is – that wasn’t the question.

    In spite of your initial claim, the Spirit does witness to people concerning SPECIFIC things.

    I’ve not said different. We’ve both agreed that the Spirit witnesses to people – for the 5th time, that’s not in dispute. Problem remains – you still haven’t answered the actual question!

    Your continued insistence that I haven’t answered the question is rather humorous.

    To who, other Mormons, who give the same answers you do? At least Seth provides something OTHER than the pat Mormon answer – I don’t agree with his answer, but at least it’s different than the Mormon party line. You, on the other hand, stick only to the way you know how to answer the question, whether that involves actually ANSWERING the question or not (and for the record, your method does NOT involve actually answering the question). I’ve shown you numerous times on here, in specific posts, how you’re not answering it. Your continued insistence that you HAVE answered the question isn’t funny at all – I personally find it rather sad that you either CAN’T (b/c there isn’t an answer) or WON’T (b/c you don’t know how or know where the argument inevitably goes) answer the question. That really says a lot about you, GB, as a person and a Mormon.

    Again, why don’t you show me where my answer is incorrect, or provide an answer yourself. Either would be more productive than complaining that I haven’t answered the question.

    I already have, GB, numerous times. I’ve specifically addressed you, and laid it all right out for you. You either don’t HAVE an answer, or don’t WANT to give it. I’d at least respect you more if you’d come out and say one or the other, instead of hiding behind the “I’ve already answered it” mantra, when clearly you haven’t.

    And again, when you discuss the truthfulness of Mormonism do you feel “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance or do you feel hatred, wrath, strife, anger, and contention?

    I’ve already promised to answer this question (and I will), when mine has been answered and discussed. That has yet to happen.

  141. 141 GB
    March 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Brad: The fruits of the Spirit are not talked about in the Bible in relation to having them as it relates to a particular topic (e.g. “the truthfulness of Mormonism”, as you tried to say). They are overall characteristics of a person’s life, not in relation to a specific topic.

    Brad: Doesn’t matter – as I said, the fruits of the Spirit aren’t linked to a specific discussion topic, they are general life characteristics. Also as I said, if you believe they are, show me where the Bible says that.

    GB: In spite of your initial claim, the Spirit does witness to people concerning SPECIFIC things.

    Brad: I’ve not said different. We’ve both agreed that the Spirit witnesses to people – for the 5th time, that’s not in dispute. Problem remains – you still haven’t answered the actual question!

    GB: Shall we repeat your statements?

    Brad: The fruits of the Spirit are not talked about in the Bible in relation to having them as it relates to a particular topic (e.g. “the truthfulness of Mormonism”, as you tried to say). They are overall characteristics of a person’s life, NOT IN RELATION TO A SPECIFIC TOPIC.

    Brad: Doesn’t matter – as I said, the fruits of the Spirit AREN’T LINKED TO A SPECIFIC discussion TOPIC, they are general life characteristics. Also as I said, if you believe they are, show me where the Bible says that.

    GB: Is honesty a fruit of the Spirit?

  142. March 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    Sure it works Darrell.

    Just because you (and many other Mormons – including me on occasion) want to ask manipulative questions of God, and have him wipe your nose for you doesn’t mean that’s the way the whole package works.

    I may not be certain about every aspect of my religion. Nor do I necessarily have a testimony of every aspect of it. But I know one thing I definitely have a testimony AGAINST:

    The black-and-white kind of fundamentalist thinking that you repeatedly push, and demand that other Mormons adhere to. That, I absolutely reject.

  143. 143 Brad
    March 10, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    GB, have a point. Nothing I’ve said has contradicted itself.

    There’s a difference between the FRUITS of the Spirit (which manifest themselves in the lives of true Christians) and a witness FROM the Spirit. You’re trying to equate the 2, by quoting me. Clearly, looking at the quotes themselves, I was referring to the FRUITS of the Spirit when I said that they are overall characteristics of a person’s life. Clearly, I’ve also said I believe the Spirit does witness to people about SPECIFIC things. However, I’ve NEVER linked FRUITS of the Spirit, to a witness OF the Spirit.

    You are the one who has tried to do that, not me.

    Of course, instead of answering the question at hand, you continue to try to use my words against me, which just won’t work, GB, b/c I haven’t contradicted myself.

    Would love to have this discussion with you in person, or on the air, to see if you’d stick to the same Mormon party line when people could hear or see you, or if you are just this way in anonymity.

    Still waiting…

  144. March 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Seth,

    You can walk the middle road if you like… but according to Gordon B Hinckley that is simply not an option. I guess he must one of those “Black and White Fundamentalists”.

    “Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.” – Gordon B Hinckley

    I agree with him on this… only I think it is fraudulent. Among other things, the Spirit has told me so.

    Darrell

  145. March 10, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    I guess he must be Darrell. Because I don’t agree with him on this.

    And I don’t agree with you either.

  146. 146 GB
    March 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Brad: There’s a difference between the FRUITS of the Spirit . . . and a witness FROM the Spirit.

    GB: Please provide chapter and verse to support this bald assertion.

  147. 147 Brad
    March 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    GB, as I’ve already said, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have, AFTER you get around to tackling and discussing mine. Unfortunately, you’re trying to send everything on wild goose chases and word searches, either b/c you don’t know HOW to answer the question, or you do know how but are unwilling. Neither is good.

    Still waiting…

  148. 148 ADB
    March 10, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    GB, knowing that I stand to inherit eternal life brings me joy (FRUIT of the Spirit). As I read through Scripture and see a passage that tells me the wages of sin is death, I am driven to despair — despair is not a fruit of the Spirit, is it? Nevertheless, didn’t the Spirit work in me to convince me through his Word that I am a sinner (witness FROM the Spirit)?

    That’s just a quick response, but does that help in understanding the distinction, or did I just muddy the waters even more?

  149. 149 GB
    March 10, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    ADB,

    Thanks for actually engaging, rather than stonewalling.

    You ask “despair is not a fruit of the Spirit, is it?” You are correct, despair is not a fruit of the Spirit.

    However, sorrow for sin that impels one to repent (godly sorrow) is a fruit of the Spirit.

    2 Cor 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
    10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

    “Nevertheless, didn’t the Spirit work in me to convince me through his Word that I am a sinner (witness FROM the Spirit)?”

    I will take your word for it.

    1 Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

    Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

    Obedience is also a fruit of the Spirit.

  150. 150 Brad
    March 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    Stonewalling?

    GB, you border on the insane. But that’s OK – I’ve seen it from other Mormons many times, and expect to see it many times in the future. I’ve always thought it odd how you (the general “you” of those Mormons who do this, which would include yourself) can accuse others of “stonewalling”, when there’s an unanswered question that has been lingering about for at least a week. Interestingly enough, it’s ALWAYS this particular question – the one I’ve asked you – that draws the same response; an inability, and/or an unwillingness, to respond. That sure tells me a LOT about the question, and tells me (and others, who follow along) a LOT about the Mormons who can’t/refuse to answer it.

    But again, I’d love to do this in person, or with a crowd where you can’t be anonymous and use the “I’ve already answered it” routine without getting called out on it by just me. That would be a lot of fun.

    GB, I tell you this with all the sincerity I can muster, whether you believe me or not: you are currently on a religious path that leads only to hell, my friend, for you are following a false religion directly to your grave. If you continue on, you will not find out until it is too late, b/c after death there are no 2nd chances for salvation. At that point, you will meet God, and you will be denied entrance into His Kingdom. Truly, when that happens, you will understand the meaning of “every knee will bow and every tongue confess”, except you will understand it in light of the God of which I speak, not the false God you have been led to believe in.

    It’s never too late to acknowledge error and turn away from Mormonism, though. Darrell has done so – you can too. However, you will have to truly admit that you have not been following the truth. Until your heart is ready to do that, you stand in judgment, GB. Not from me – I’m only trying to warn you – but from God Almighty.

    I pray you truly look into what it is Darrell and I have told you – your eternity depends on it.

  151. March 11, 2009 at 2:45 am

    “It’s never too late to acknowledge error and turn away from Mormonism, though.”

    Especially if you actually believe in real free will, rather than that make-believe stuff you get elsewhere.

  152. December 2, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Hi, can I quote some of the content found in this entry if I provide a link back to your site?

  153. December 3, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Wonderful article post on the blog bro. This particular is just a tremendously nicely structured blog post, just the data I was looking just for. Thank you

  154. 154 markcares
    December 3, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    By all means. Blessings, Mark


Comments are currently closed.

February 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  

Blog Stats

  • 182,150 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: