09
Feb
12

Joseph Smith

This Sunday, in their Gospel Doctrine Classes, LDS members will be studying 2 Nephi 3-5 from the Book of Mormon.  This section is famous because it contains a supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. (I say, “supposed”, not to be unduly disrespectful, but to be clear that I do not believe this to be a true prophecy.)

One of the most common flashpoints between Mormons and Christians is their vastly different views of Joseph Smith.  Mormonism’s viewpoint is probably best summed up by one of their scriptures.  D&C 135:3 states:  “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”  This is not an obscure reference but one that is quoted frequently.  For example, the LDS manual True to the Faith, in its brief treatment of Joseph Smith, quotes it.  That Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God is part of every Mormon’s testimony.

Because of Mormonism’s emphasis on Joseph Smith, his life has been the subject of intense scrutiny over the years by both Mormons and non-Mormons.  Fawn Brodie’s No Man knows my history is still considered one of the best treatments of his life.  Interestingly, Mrs. Brodie was raised Mormon. Many have followed in her footsteps with the result that there is an immense amount of material available on his life.  One topic that has especially been in the spotlight has been his polygamy.  In her book, Mrs. Brodie lists the name of 48 women who were his wives but also makes the comment that research indicates that he was sealed to 66 or 67 living women.

One popular argument Mormons make to prove that Smith was a true prophet is the position that nothing else can explain how an unschooled boy/young man could produce the Book of Mormon.  But the same argument could be used to “prove” that Mohammed was a genuine prophet.  He too was unschooled.  He too claimed to receive revelations from God.  He too claimed to be a prophet of God.

What does the Bible say about determining whether or not somebody is a true prophet?  The most important thing to examine is not the person’s lifestyle or his claims, but his teachings especially what he teaches about the gospel.  “But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

As has been amply demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere, there is a huge difference between the gospel proclaimed in the Bible and Mormonism’s gospel.  The biblical gospel simply consists of the good news (the word gospel means good news) that salvation comes through trusting solely in what Jesus has done for us: his perfect life led for us, his sacrificial death as payment for our sins.  Mormonism’s gospel is far different.  “In its fullness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom.” (True to the Faith, p. 76)

Because Joseph Smith preached a vastly different gospel, he is not a true prophet of God.  Rather, according to the Bible, he is cursed.  Instead of having “done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it”, the sobering truth is that, because he was a false prophet, he has done more than most persons who have ever lived, for the damnation of people.

I realize how harsh that comes off.  But that is my sincere and heartfelt conclusion.  And that is why biblical Christians continually plead with Mormons to listen only to the Bible.  For, if they continue to follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, they will suffer the consequences of that for all eternity.

Advertisements

59 Responses to “Joseph Smith”


  1. 1 shematwater
    February 9, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    MARK

    As I am sure you know, I have read the Bible more than once. Listening just to the Bible (using the KJV) and nothing else, I have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that God revealed to biblical prophets that it would be brought forth in the last days. I have also come to the conclusion that any church that does not have a prophet leading it, with all the attendant callings is not a church that is lead by Christ. Because of this second conclusion I am forced to conclude that when the church stop relying on prophets they fell into a total apostasy.
    Putting all this together the Bible convinces me that Joseph Smith is not only a prophet of God, but that he is one of the greatest prophets that ever lived.

    I think that you need to modify your one statement just a little.
    It should not say “Christians continually plead with Mormons to listen only to the Bible.”
    It should say “Christians continually plead with Mormons to listen only to their (meaning Christians) interpretation of the Bible.”

    (PS I have never found any reliable source that Joseph Smith was ever married to more than 9 or 10 women. I have, however, found evidence that Fawn Brodie did a lot of speculating in her book. One such example is the speculation of children [five in particular] who have since been proven through Y-DNA analysis to not be his children. Just thought I would put that out there.)

  2. 2 shematwater
    February 9, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Also note that Fawn Brodie has lost much of her previous stature as a scholar and biographer for how she treats Thomas Jefferson in a similar work.
    The book “No Man Knows My History” was so widely acclaimed and accepted because it is what people were wanting to hear on the subject, and what people still want to hear. Her newer book is not what people want to hear, and so scholars criticize it.
    The interesting thing is that the same criticisms they make regarding her treatment of Thomas Jefferson are the ones made regarding her treatment of Joseph Smith, which were dismissed as being biased.

    I have never read the book, and honestly, I have heard nothing that gives me any desire to. The evidence seems to suggest a poor work of scholarship that was excepted because it supported the majority opinion, not because it had any real truth to it.

    Oh, and just so you know, she was the niece of David O. McKay.

  3. 3 Robert Timmerman
    February 9, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Seems so clear. All Jesus or not. Can’t be both.

  4. February 9, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Mark said: “What does the Bible say about determining whether or not somebody is a true prophet? The most important thing to examine is not the person’s lifestyle or his claims, but his teachings especially what he teaches about the gospel. “But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

    This verse sums up the Gospel of the Bible, but I will just put a portion of it here…

    Romans 4:5 (King James Version) “…but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly…”

    This verse in the Joseph Smith Translation sums up the false Gospel of Mormonism…

    Romans 4:5 (Joseph Smith Translation) “…but believeth on him who justifieth *NOT* the ungodly…”

    Two contradicting Gospels. So the choice is….Jesus and his bible or Joseph and his.

  5. 6 choosethechrist
    February 9, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham by the power of God.

    Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon by the power of God.

    When Joseph first gave his translation of the Book of Abraham, hieroglyphics were undecipherable. Today they are and we now know that what Joseph translated was not the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did not get his abilities to “translate” from God. He has been shown to be a false prophet.

  6. February 9, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    “The Lost Book of Abraham is an award-winning documentary that investigates the remarkable claim that Mormon founder Joseph Smith translated a lost book of scripture from an Egyptian papyrus scroll he obtained in 1835. Hear the views of Mormon believers and World-class Egyptologists and decide for yourself.”

  7. 8 JBR
    February 10, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Shem you’re becoming too predictable.
    I do hope people start to realize the circular argument you present nearly everytime you think there’s something incorrect Mark says.

    once again everything fits your typical line of thought: Because…..

    A:…. The BoM is “the most accurate book ever”
    B:…. True prophets “never leads the restored church astray”
    C:…. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church

    = the Bible must then have to be maniplulated to keep A, B, C as the truth.
    ———————————————————————————-

    Let’s see if that is what you did….. Shem said:

    “I have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is the word of God ” .. (A)

    “Joseph Smith is not only a prophet of God, but that he is one of the greatest prophets that ever lived.” … (B)

    “any church that does not have a prophet leading it, with all the attendant callings is not a church that is lead by Christ.” … (C)

    = “Putting all this together the Bible convinces me that”

    ……… to keep “A”, “B”, “C” true (from above)…. requires the manipulation of the Bible accordingly to keep “A”, “B”, “C” true.

    You’re correct Mark, Joseph Smith preached a vastly different gospel, he is not a true prophet of God. He was a false prophet, he has done more than most persons who have ever lived, for the damnation of people.

    ………. Accuratly reading the Bible proves this ……………..

  8. 9 Kent
    February 10, 2012 at 9:40 am

    At least some Mormons will admit that if people just study the Bible as we do, then the teachings are different than if they study the Bible (but do so with caution as its translations, to them anyway, are not completely reliable), the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures, plus the teachings of Mormon leaders past and present.

    Shem, you can’t prove the teachings of the Mormon church by just using the Bible as if you could, then you wouldn’t need to have the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures plus the teachings of Mormon leaders past and present.

    I think Mormons should just come out and say that their church is teaching a different gospel and that they believe that their’s is the correct gospel and the gospel that we have learned is not the correct gospel at least then their arguments would be more consistant.

    Ironic that the introduction to the Book of Mormon in older versions says that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, as does the Bible, but that newer versions leave out the part about the Bible having the fullness of the gospel.

  9. 10 Kent
    February 10, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    The Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, which is in the canon of Mormon scriptures but the scrolls Joeseph Smith supposedly translated don’t mean what he said they mean

    The scrolls really are ancient Egyptian funeral text and are not the writings of Abraham at all so the Book of Abraham is a fraud, a lie of the devil himself.

  10. 11 shematwater
    February 10, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    JBR

    Nice job at twisting my statements, especially putting them out of order (what you list as point B was my conclusion, not a supporting point). It makes the false claims you keep trying to make seem much more credible to those who like hearing such things.

    Let us try this again, and see if you can actually follow my reasoning.

    1. The Bible prophecies the coming forth of a new book of Scripture (Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37)
    2. The Bible clearly teaches that God will always act through prophets (Amos 3: 7; Ephesians 4: 11-16)

    Point 2 leads to the inevitable conclusion that
    3. Any church that is not lead by Prophets is not a church lead by Christ.
    4. Thus, when the early church stop relying on prophets to lead it it stop being lead by Christ.
    5. If a church is not lead by Christ it falls into apostasy, as evidenced by the state of the Jews on the Old Testament, as well as was prophesied by Paul (2 Thessalonians 2: 3)
    6. Thus the bible proves that all of Christianity, for several centuries, was in apostasy and did not have the true gospel.

    Now, we come to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
    7. The Book of Mormon is a new work of scripture that has come forth, as was prophesied in the Bible.
    8. The LDS church is lead by prophets.
    9. Because of this it is more likely to be lead by Christ than the rest of Christianity is.
    10. After examining the details of many prophecies (from Genesis to Revelation) I conclude that the LDS church has fulfilled all that should be fulfilled at this time, and is in position to fulfill the rest.
    11. As such I accept the LDS church as the only true church on this earth.
    12. Because I accept this I also accept that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and one of the greatest, as this is the greatest time ever spoken of in the Bible.

    Now, we add to this the frequent confirmation I receive from God’s spirit that this reasoning is accurate and true.

    There is nothing circular about the logic. It is a logical progression of reasoning, with the first two point leading inevitably to the truth of the rest.
    Of course you can’t accept this, and so you will likely continue with your twisting of my words to color things more to your liking, but that is not my problem.

  11. 12 shematwater
    February 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    KENT

    “Mormons should just come out and say that their church is teaching a different gospel and that they believe that their’s is the correct gospel and the gospel that we have learned is not the correct gospel”

    Have I ever denied this? I have frequently stated that we have different gospels, and have maintained that you are wrong and we are right.
    However, I think you want us to say that we have a different gospel than what the Bible teaches, which is something that I will never do. That is a matter of interpretation. Ours happens to be the correct interpretation, while your is faulty interpretation, caused by centuries of corruption within the Christian religion. This corruption was made possible by the illiterate nature of societies for so long, causing them to be dependent on the clergy to teach them. When people finally started to learn how to read began studying the Bible themselves they were already so indoctrinated with the false Gospel that had been taught for so long that it was fairly impossible for them to decipher what was true.
    Now, many men tried to find the truth, and they began great reforms that lead to the reformation. However, with such a long period of darkness and confusion even the brightest of men could not hope to penetrate it without direct divine revelation and a restoration of all that had been lost in those years of corruption. As these men did not have this direct divine revelation in which truth was restored, they also formed false ideas, as their minds were still partly clouded from the darkness of the past.
    Today people are still fairly well indoctrinated into these past ideas and theologies, making any other understanding of the Bible nearly impossible. They have strong beliefs in certain doctrines, and they will find the Bible to support them no matter what.
    This, however, does not change the fact that they are wrong, and that God will show them their error when he returns.

    “the introduction to the Book of Mormon in older versions says that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, as does the Bible”

    Ironic that this introduction actually only appears in one edition of the Book of Mormon, as the error was corrected in the next edition.

    “you can’t prove the teachings of the Mormon church by just using the Bible”

    I never claimed I could. I simply said that I can find enough supporting evidence in the Bible for them that makes new, clarifying scripture necessary. The Bible is a great book, and is the first book of our Scriptures, and is the one that all others are written to support.
    Compare it to the United States Constitution. The constitution is the primary document. From it we get our basis of law. However, we still use the Federalist Papers, as well as the minutes from the Constitutional Convention to clarify the founders meaning and intent in certain passages.
    So to, the Bible is the primary document. From it we get the basis of law. However, we still use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and all the other scriptures to clarify God’s meaning and intent in certain passages.
    As I said before, I can see evidence of every LDS doctrine in the Bible, but at times it is vague, or only in small amounts. For this reason we turn to other scripture to clarify the meaning of these passages in the Bible, and through them we know the real meaning and intent of these ancient prophets.

  12. 13 Kent
    February 10, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Shem said, “As I said before, I can see evidence of every LDS doctrine in the Bible, but at times it is vague, or only in small amounts. For this reason we turn to other scripture to clarify the meaning of these passages in the Bible, and through them we know the real meaning and intent of these ancient prophets.”

    Then show specifically, for example, where in the Bible it says, even vaugely, that God was a man first before he became God. Ironically, also show us where in the Book of Mormon it says the same thing as it isn’t even in the supposed most correct book of earth.

    Considering that even the Book of Mormon, on some issues, has some correctness in it as it says in several passages that “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever,” hence God has always been God and He was never a man first.

  13. February 12, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Mark, I have to agree with your assessment of Joseph Smith : ” Because Joseph Smith preached a
    vastly different gospel, he is not a true prophet of God. ” There’s so many prophets advertising their
    gospels today. Jesus forewarned us that this would be the case —-Matt 24:11,24. So many of them
    claim to have been appointed to speak for God because an angel appeared with a spiritual message
    or that Jesus Himself appeared to them because they prayed for guidance etc. I’ve personally had the
    pleasure of taking with followers of three such prophets who claim that God has hand picked their leader,
    a prophet to preach the truth to mankind as His mouthpiece. They all shared the usual authoritative
    claims , namely that salvation is found only in their organization/church, that their prophet is the sole
    channel of communication from God to mankind in these end times, that the truth of how to gain
    salvation , the gospel, has been restored by God through their prophet etc . My wife was once a follower
    of one of these prophets . One thing that I had in common with each of these messengers I talked
    with is that they carried a Bible, and although they had either additional “scriptures” or specific
    publications that were viewed as the means how God served His people ” spiritual food in due season”
    thru their prophet , still we shared some important common ground because of the Bible . Since
    those I talked with claimed that the same God that taught the prophets in the Bible was the one their
    own prophet spoke on be-half of , this afforded us a good opportunity to compare gospels . The one
    prophet my wife used to follow had a test that they claimed would verify if you were a true believer or not.
    The test was if you knew and used God’s actual name. I’ll not pursue that particular teaching since I
    want to look at the topic of this thread , namely Joseph Smith and those who he personally mentored
    and taught to continue the preaching of his “restored” gospel. Today we are told by those who follow
    the prophet Joseph Smith that how we view him divides true believers in Jesus from those who follow
    another master [ Satan? ] , also, the prophet he mentored and who replaced him, Brigham Young
    proclaimed that today [ 1862] there was a NEW TEST to verify true believers : ” The time was when the
    test of a Christian was his confession of Christ ( he cites 1 John 4:1-3 ) …. This is no test to this
    generation ….this generation , however is not left without a test . I have taught for thirty years , and still
    teach , that he that believth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that
    Joseph Smith is his prophet to this generation is of God, and he that confesseth not that Jesus has
    come in the flesh and sent Joseph smith with the fullness of the gospel , is not of God but is
    anti-christ. ” [ J.of D. v9p312]. Today , do we need this test ? Today, I carry N.T. and for me it is how
    I test the gospel of those who claim to be directed by Jesus . The same people who made the above
    claim concerning Joseph Smith also claim that because of him the true gospel is “once again ”
    available to mankind . This claim is not unique , there are prophets today with similar claims . So I’m
    stickin with the original gospel , the one that’s set people free for 2000 yrs now . Thank you Jesus .

  14. February 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Dialogue on the doorstep. recently I had the privilege of talking with a woman who came to the door
    with the news that God has a representative on earth today thru whom alone He channels true
    spiritual food . God called this modern day prophet to restore the fundamental truths thru , this
    commenced in 1879 , salvation was once again available to mankind . I asked this woman about Jesus
    and her relationship with Him. She responded that He was her Savior, Lord, etc. Since I already knew
    what she believed ( my wife once followed the same prophet and believed, the same “gospel ) , I asked
    her if Jesus was her mediator ? She admitted that He was’nt her personal mediator as she was not
    numbered among the 144,000 mentioned in Rev. as her prophet taught that Jesus was only mediator for
    those believers . She also stated that Jesus was not God in human flesh and therefore she was
    taught that worship/prayer was not allowed to Him. She came with news of another gospel , advocated
    by another modern-day prophet. Yet followers of another modern -day prophet come to my door with
    a similar message, the gospel of Mormon prophets/apostles :
    ” to gain salvation TODAY ,they must believe the doctrines revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith
    and his successors, who are the apostles and prophets sent to reveal Christ to the world in this day. ”
    [ A New Witness For The Articles of Faith, p. 28, by Bruce McConkie, cited in the Utah Evangel newsletter].

    Another gospel to dismiss . I guess for me the old adage of : if it ain’t broke don’t fix it , applies with
    all these modern-day prophets’ gospels . The gospel revealed in the New Testament is’nt in need of
    fixing, what is necessary to please God , be made right with Him necessary for receiving eternal life
    is in there — Jn.20:31; Rom.3:23,24;10:9-13; Heb 7:25 .

  15. 16 shematwater
    February 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    KENT

    If I actually thought that you would listen to anything I said I might offer to give that information. You have given me no reason to believe that you would listen, however, so what is the point? You are so set in your own beliefs about us that nothing we say will ever change that.
    I am almost convinced that if Christ himself appeared to you and told you that the LDS church was true and you should join you would rationalize such a vision away as a deception of Satan.

    So, until you can accept that you don’t really know or understand our doctrine very well there is no point in trying to explain it to you.

  16. February 13, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Kent said: “Then show specifically, for example, where in the Bible it says, even vaugely, that God was a man first before he became God.”

    Shem said: “If I actually thought that you would listen to anything I said I might offer to give that information. You have given me no reason to believe that you would listen, however, so what is the point?”

    The Bible doesn’t teach that God was once a man. (which is why Shem won’t answer the question) The Bible teaches that God has always been God and has alwas existed.

    Mormonism needs to also answer the question of who created the very first man that progressed to become a God? That question paints Mormonism into a corner because Mormonism teaches that God created man.

    But if the very first God was once a man, then God didn’t create that first man.

  17. 18 Kent
    February 14, 2012 at 6:18 am

    Yes, the Bible says God has always been God and nowhere does it even imply that He was a man first and it can’t be any clearer than it is in in Pslam 90 below.

    Psalm 90:2

    2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
    Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
    Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

  18. 19 JBR
    February 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Kent,
    I hope you noticed where Shem circled back to to maintain his position …. it has to be true because in his mind “revelations come via today’s prophets… so”

    B:…. True prophets “never leads the restored church astray”
    C:…. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church

    Where as the true believer will use the Bible as the ultimate source of confirmation to verify what is true or not.

    And if just one part of the revealation is not in keeping with what was revealed in the Bible……. then the revelation, the person who revealed it is the lie and liar. (not the Bible).

    If a supposed “Jesus” would make such revelation … verification begins and ends with the Bible.

  19. 20 shematwater
    February 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    JBR

    Again you lie to try and paint a different argument than the one I presented. I must ask you once again to stop doing this.

    KENT

    God was God before the Earth was created, and he was God from Everlasting to Everlasting, but this does not necessarily mean he was always God. It all depends on how you interpret the phrase “Everlasting to Everlasting” doesn’t it. Your interpretation is fine, but it is not the only one possible.

    If we consider that Everlasting is synonymous with eternity; then we consider that eternity can refer to the time between the mortal life of one generation and the mortal life of another (in other words not necessarily to all eternity); than we can see that God is God from one eternity to another eternity, or from one everlasting to another everlasting. In this way we see that God was not necessarily always God, but that he was God in the everlasting before this Earth was created, and will be God in the everlasting after this mortal life ends. The phrase “from all eternity to all eternity” can have the same meaning, as can the phrase “yesterday, today, and forever” (the eternity before this life, this mortal existence, and ever after this mortal existence).

    It is all in interpretation.

    ECHO

    I realize that you have no real argument here, except to try and attack me personally. It is actually fairly common for you.
    But let me ask a question: Even if I could show what I claim, would you listen? Would you even consider acknowledging what I say?
    From everything you and Kent have said in resent threads I have concluded that you wouldn’t. As I said, I doubt even a vision of Christ himself would persuade you of anything other than what you already believe. This being the case what is the point in giving the information? I could site scripture to support the exact thing you are asking about, but you will only reply with some comment about how it doesn’t mean what I say and use some more personal remarks to try and push me into a confrontation, as you know that you cannot actually stand in an honest discussion.
    So, again, I ask, why should I cast my pearls before swine, when I know that you will simply trample them under your feet and than turn again and rend me?

    (PS Your little corner means little, and only a fool who had no understanding of the Gospel would be caught by it. But I guess I shouldn’t expect too much from you.
    God created the first man of this Earth, and the first man of every Earth that He has populated with His children. He did not created Himself; or any other person who lived before Him. There is no problem here.”

  20. 21 Kent
    February 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    “hope you noticed where Shem circled back to to maintain his position …. it has to be true because in his mind “revelations come via today’s prophets… so”

    B:…. True prophets “never leads the restored church astray”
    C:…. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church

    Where as the true believer will use the Bible as the ultimate source of confirmation to verify what is true or not.

    And if just one part of the revealation is not in keeping with what was revealed in the Bible……. then the revelation, the person who revealed it is the lie and liar. (not the Bible).

    If a supposed “Jesus” would make such revelation … verification begins and ends with the Bible.”

  21. 22 Kent
    February 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    I meant to quote what JBR said in my last post and then comment on it.

    Anyway, JBR and Echo, it seems the stock Mormon answer, and I have encounted this with Mormons elsewhere as well, is that when we quote Bible passages that are very clear in their meaning, that it is a matter of interpretation, that we interpret the Bible differently than they do.

    However,By just reading the passage from Pslam 90 it is clear it says God has been God from everlasting to everlasting, meaning forever, so it doesn’t leave any room to say or even imply that He was a man first before He was God.

    Shem, if you leave out the additional teachings from the various Mormon scriptures and the teachings of the Mormon leaders past and present it is clear that the Bible doesn’t teach, by itself, that God was ever a man first.

  22. 23 Kent
    February 14, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Shem said, “God created the first man of this Earth, and the first man of every Earth that He has populated with His children. He did not created Himself; or any other person who lived before Him. There is no problem here.”

    But even if we aren’t listening there are other people who will read this who will be listening to what you are writing.

    So tell them how, using the Bible alone, that there was a God before God who created a man who became the God we know today as God or even that there was even any dispensations before the current dispensation.

  23. 24 shematwater
    February 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    KENT

    Nice try. However, if people are reading these threads they will understand why I am not giving the information at this time. They are welcome to ask any other member or call the missionaries if they truly want to know. If they do not truly want to know than my telling it here will make no difference as far as they are concerned.

    As to interpretation, that is what it is all about. Even those obvious verses, like Psalms 90: 2 are not as obvious when we fully consider everything.
    Take, for instance Isaiah 57: 15. In this verse the word Eternity is not used to mark time, but as a dwelling place, or a location where God lives.
    “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity”
    Now, if Eternity is a location in which God dwells, then to say He is from all Eternity to all eternity is to say he is God from one dwelling place to another. We then consider the possibility that eternity is not a place, but a state of being (much like living in happiness) and we get the very interpretation I have given; that to be from Everlasting to Everlasting is to be from eternity to eternity; thus He is God from one eternal state of being to another eternal state of being.

    So, it is all a matter of interpretation, and how you view the meaning of several verses in connection with each other.

    Speaking of obvious meaning, (I find it funny that you mention it) there are several verses that have an obvious meaning which you tend to gloss over of interpret away. Such as Mark 16: 16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Now this clearly puts baptism as a requirement for salvation, but how many people on threads have denied such to be the case?

  24. 25 JBR
    February 15, 2012 at 5:43 am

    ” Again you lie to try and paint a different argument than the one I presented. I must ask you once again to stop doing this. ” Shem

    response:
    Mormonism is walking in the darkness. Out of love for people’s eternal existence and not wanting any to go to hell, I’m compelled to continue to cut to the case.

    The only way I can stop is if you do.

    1 John 1:6
    If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

    If you can not, then I’m compelled to obey this command:

    Ephesians 5:11
    Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

  25. 26 shematwater
    February 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    JBR

    “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Deuteronomy 5: 20

    I have no problem with you doing what you think is your duty, but breaking one commandment in an attempt to follow another seems a little bit counter productive. I wonder why you are compel to reprove my “unfruitful works of darkness” but are not compelled to do so honestly, but would rather twist my words and lie concerning what I said in order to try and find something that you can use in your reproof.

    In other words, if you think I am wrong that is fine, but don’t fabricate false accusations to try and prove it.

  26. 27 Kent
    February 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Shem, yes God is in a place of eternity and it does mean He has always been and has always been God. I will try to comment on what you said about Isaiah 57 time permitting but if I don’t have time now to give it a fair treatment. I hope someone else here comments as God inhabiting eternity means He has always been God I just don’t have time to elaborate at this time.

    Regarding the passage you quoted in Mark 16, notice how this passage doesn’t say that he who is not baptized is damned, damned meaning being sent to hell not to a lower heaven just as saved means eternal life in the mansions where God is and not at least going to a lower heaven, so yes we are commanded to be baptized if at all possible, but if it wasn’t possible to be saved unless we are baptized, then the thief on the cross would not have been saved and not damned as he didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized. God knows the hearts of people and not just their outward actions as often the outward actions are to be seen by men and not by God.

    Also, if everyone is saved to at the very least to go to the so called telestial kingdom, that is supposed to be better than anything here on earth, then no one would need to be baptized let alone have to believe in Jesus to be there. It seems that according to Mormonism almost no one is condemned to go to hell that almost everyone is saved no matter what they do. However the Bible says that those who don’t believe are damned it doesn’t say he who doesn’t believe goes to a lower level of heaven.

    Mark 16:16
    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

  27. 28 shematwater
    February 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    KENT

    I realize that Mark 16: 16 doesn’t say that one who is not baptized is damned, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does list baptism as a requirement for salvation. You really have proved my point in that you reason away the clear meaning of this verse to fit your doctrine.

    The clear meaning of this verse is this: If one does not believe they are damned, regardless of what they do. However, even one who believes is not yet saved until they are baptized.
    This is the clear and obvious meaning, and yet you have rationalized this meaning away because it does not fit in with your doctrine. In many ways you are forced to reason it away because you have no way to explain the various implications that it brings with it (such as the thief on the cross that you mention). You doctrine cannot account for these things, and so you have to reason away the clear meaning of scripture to make it fit.

    All I am saying is that what you try to accuse us of is the same thing that you yourself are guilty of, and so it is rather hypocritical to do so. Everyone will interpret verses in different ways, and we might as well both admit and accept it.

    As to Isaiah 57, I know that you can explain this as meaning He has always been God, because you have a different interpretation. This again only goes to prove my point. You are arguing interpretation and claiming you are arguing fact.

  28. 29 Kent
    February 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Shem, yes you can have different interpretations of these Bible passages to say what you believe they are saying if you take into account the other Mormon scriptures and the teachings of the various Mormon leaders past and present.

    However if you believe what the Mormon Church says about the Bible, “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” then why even use the Bible at all if you can’t trust it completely as the word of God? As the either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t the word of God at all.

    It would make more sense for Mormons to use the Bible if the Mormon Church said instead, we believe the Bible is the word of God but it is incomplete and we need the Mormon scriptures and the teachings of the various Mormon leaders, past and present, to show the whole picture.

    But even if that is how the Bible is used by Mormons in practice, the official stance is that it isn’t accurate. That would be true if the Bible was really just authored only by men and not God, like the Book of Mormon, that has had thousands of changes over the years, not very correct if we consider that it was supposed to be given directly to Joseph Smith from God and if we consider that regarding the Mormon Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, that there is strong evidence it isn’t the writings of Abraham at all but are in fact just ancient Egyptian funeral text.

    Regarding the Bible, the real most correct book on earth, at least we can go back to the original languages for clarification but with the Book of Mormon, the plates he translated part of it from, as there is evidence that he translated some of it by putting a seers stone into a hat, are not available to check if it is accurate or not, plus the seers stone and hat are also not available and, as I pointed out, the Book of Abraham’s accuracy is suspect and if Smith’s transation can’t be trusted with one scripture that we can check, how can we trust the translation of the Book of Mormon when we can’t check the accuracy of its translation from the original language?

    I suppose someone could claim that over the centuries before the Bible was written down in its original languages that it couldn’t be accurate because when people pass things down to other people the people repeating might not have passed it on as it was first heard and that could be true if the word was merely the words of men, but then that would make Jesus Christ out to be a liar as His words would have passed away and He said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.”

  29. February 16, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Pastor Fisk explains how the thief on the cross was saved and how Baptism saves…BOTH are TRUE…

  30. 31 shematwater
    February 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    KENT

    Very nice diversion. Skillfully written and easily pulling the topic of the discussion away from what was being discussed.
    I an not going to comment on anything you said, and for this reason. It is a diversion. You are attempting to steer the conversation away from the point at hand.

    The point is that we all have a Biblical perspective on the Gospel, for the simple fact that the Bible, as it stands, is not as clear as people want to believe.

  31. February 17, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Shem said: “God created the first man of this Earth, and the first man of every Earth that He has populated with His children. He did not created[sic] Himself; or any other person who lived before Him. There is no problem here.”

    LDS teachings claim that man progresses to become a God. That means, in the very beginning, not the beginning of this world, but the very beginning of the first world, man existed before God existed because he had to progress to become a God.

    LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”

    I would challenge Mormons to think about the question: who then created the very first man that progressed to become a God whether in this world or another world?

  32. February 17, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Shem said: “As to Isaiah 57, I know that you can explain this as meaning He has always been God, because you have a different interpretation. This again only goes to prove my point. You are arguing interpretation and claiming you are arguing fact.”

    We worship a “GOD” that has always existed.
    Mormons worship a “MAN” who progressed to become a god.

    Clearly the one true God, our God, is bigger and greater.

    Warning in scripture against worshiping a god made to look like a mortal man such as in Mormonism rather than worshiping the immortal God who has always been immortal…

    Romans 1:22-23 “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man”

    Isaiah 29:15-16 prophecies but the prophecy fits Mormonism also because we know from the Bible that history repeats itself…

    “15 Woe to those who go to great depths
    to hide their plans from the LORD,
    who do their work in darkness and think,
    “Who sees us? Who will know?”
    16 You turn things upside down,
    as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
    Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
    “He did not make me”?”

    Mormonism says God was once a man, here in the above verse they are told they turn things upside down “AS IF THE POTTER WERE THOUGHT TO BE LIKE THE CLAY!” )caps for emphasis)

    In other words, we know that God is the potter and we are the clay. So to say that God was once a man is to say that the potter were thought to be like the clay.

  33. 34 Kent
    February 17, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Shem said, “The point is that we all have a Biblical perspective on the Gospel, for the simple fact that the Bible, as it stands, is not as clear as people want to believe.”

    But your church’s official doctrine is “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” not that it is the word of God and as you said, “is not as clear as people want to believe.” Again, in practice, that may be how Mormons use the Bible as needing addtional clarification of the Mormon scriptures but your church brings into question that the Bible in our vernacular languages is even the word of God at all as it is either the word of God completely or it isn’t the word of God.

    But by you saying the Bible “is not as clear as some people think” you have proved our point that we can’t come to the conclusions that Mormons come up with on key issues, such as, for example, that God was a man first before He became God, by just using the Bible.

    The reason we can’t show from the Bible that God was a man first before He became God is because the Bible flat out doesn’t say or imply this, even vaugely, anywhere. It is the extra biblical teachings of the Mormon Church that says this.

    It is not a diversion to bring into question the reliability of, for example, the translation of the Book of Abraham from the Pearl of Great Price because if it is in fact just some ancient Egyptian funeral text and not writings of Abraham as the Mormon Church says it is, then how do we know that any of the other extra biblical Mormon teachings are truly from God?

  34. 35 shematwater
    February 17, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    KENT

    It is a diversion, because the discussion was not concerning the other scriptures of the LDS church. It was concerning the difference in interpretation of the bible that has lead to the difference in doctrine between our religions. To bring in your doubts of other writings is an attempt to discredit an interpretation that you disagree with rather than actually discussing it.

    In other words, I gave an interpretation, and instead of discussing it you said “Well, since you believe in such and such and I don’t I can discount your interpretation.” It is an avoidance of the topic and a diversion away from actually discussing it.
    Now, if I had used these scriptures to support what I said than your comments would have been logical to the discussion and would have had a place. As I never did your mentioning of them is exactly what I said it is.

    Now, to comment on one more illogical argument that you have made; one can say that the Bible was not perfectly preserved and still believe it to be the word of God. Your insistence that “it is either the word of God completely or it isn’t the word of God.” has no reason to it. Just because some errors have crept in over the years does not mean that it is not inspired by God and useful for us today as scripture. All that means is that we cannot rely on our ability to learn the truths of God from it, but must rely on His spirit to Guide us through and teach us the meaning of the words.

    ECHO

    “I would challenge Mormons to think about the question: who then created the very first man that progressed to become a God whether in this world or another world?”

    No one. Man is just as eternal as God in the sense that his essence is not created. There never was a Son without a Father, or a Father without a Son. There never was a man who did not have a Heavenly Father that he worshiped, and there never was a Heavenly Father who did not have children.
    I do not understand it, but it makes a whole lot more sense than an “uncaused caused” or your God that was always God. For every effect there is a cause. This is the understanding of the eternal regression of Gods that we will fully comprehend when the veil is lifted from our minds.

    “Clearly the one true God, our God, is bigger and greater.”

    I have to disagree. In comparing the two understandings of God I see a grander, more glorious, and greater God worshiped by the LDS than I see in the doctrine you profess.

  35. February 17, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    For the record. Shem hasn’t provided any scriptural support for his doctrine that God was once a man. We believe that doctrine cannot be found in the Bible. I am thinking the real reason Shem won’t give us that scriptural support is because there isn’t any scriptural support.

    Shem states: “Man is just as eternal as God in the sense that his essence is not created”

    Do you mean that both man and God have always existed? Can you explain that more clearly? I don’t want to misinterpret what you mean.

  36. 37 shematwater
    February 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    ECHO

    Just a few more comments.

    Romans 1: 22-23 is speaking of idol worship. The term Image refers to a man made image. This is an allusion to Exodus, when Israel created the golden calf.

    Isaiah 29: 15-16 is part of a prophecy regarding the last days in which God would do a marvelous work among the people. The chapter prophecies of the coming forth of a new book by the power of God, and these verses speak about those who seek to deny this great work.
    The turning of things upside down refers to those who seek to deny God, as does the analogy of the potters clay. More specifically it refers to those who deny the creation (“he made me not”). We do not deny the creation, and so these verses do not apply to us.

    Now, I watched the video about the thief, and it doesn’t answer the dilema, only gives another explanation that contradicts the Bible. He spend a lot of time lecturing on how we need to accept what the Bible says concerning baptism, and then explains the episcode with the thief in a way that contradicts this.
    According to him the thief was saved because Christ promised it, and thus he did not need to be baptized. Yet, we read that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 5) Fisk says to let the scripture keep its obvious meaning, and the obvious meaning of this verse is that no one will be saved in God’s kingdom if they are not baptized. However, Fisk also says that the thief was saved without baptism, and thus contradicts this verse from John.
    It was a nice attempt, but it still fails.

  37. February 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Shem said: “Romans 1: 22-23 is speaking of idol worship. The term Image refers to a man made image. This is an allusion to Exodus, when Israel created the golden calf.”

    Idol worship is anything or anyone that takes first place in our hearts over and above the one true God. And in your case, God was once a man therefore that verse shows the idolatry of your position. Romans 1:22-23 “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man” Notice that God is “immortal” period. God was never “mortal”. To say he was a mortal is to make God into: “images made to look like mortal man.”

    Shem said: “Isaiah 29: 15-16 is part of a prophecy regarding the last days in which God would do a marvelous work among the people. The chapter prophecies of the coming forth of a new book by the power of God, and these verses speak about those who seek to deny this great work.”

    Can you show me the verse that prophecies of the “coming forth of a new book”?

    Shem said: “The turning of things upside down refers to those who seek to deny God, as does the analogy of the potters clay. More specifically it refers to those who deny the creation (“he made me not”). We do not deny the creation, and so these verses do not apply to us.”

    You denied that God made you when you said this: “Man is just as eternal as God in the sense that his essence is not created”

    Can you answer this question I asked previously…

    Echo asked: “Do you mean that both man and God have always existed? Can you explain that more clearly?”

    Shem said: “Now, I watched the video about the thief, and it doesn’t answer the dilema[sic], only gives another explanation that contradicts the Bible. He spend a lot of time lecturing on how we need to accept what the Bible says concerning baptism, and then explains the episcode[sic] with the thief in a way that contradicts this. According to him the thief was saved because Christ promised it, and thus he did not need to be baptized. Yet, we read that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 5) Fisk says to let the scripture keep its obvious meaning, and the obvious meaning of this verse is that no one will be saved in God’s kingdom if they are not baptized. However, Fisk also says that the thief was saved without baptism, and thus contradicts this verse from John. It was a nice attempt, but it still fails.”

    Nothing he said contradicts scripture. You take one scripture passage and ignore the rest of scripture. When the devil tempted Jesus, he took one scripture passage and ignored the rest of scripture…

    Mathew 4:5-6 “Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

    The devil is quoting Psalm 91

    Jesus refuted that temptation by saying “it is also written”…

    Mathew 4:7 “7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

    Clearly Pastor Fisk is doing what Jesus did and you are doing what the devil did. (Whether unintentionally or intentionally) Pastor Fisk takes two passages of scripture and sees them both being true. Pastor Fisk used the lifegaurd analogy to explain how both can be true.

  38. 39 shematwater
    February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    ECHO

    “Idol worship is anything or anyone that takes first place in our hearts over and above the one true God.”

    That is very true, and since there is nothing in our hearts that has a place before God we are not idolaters. Your argument that our belief that he was once a man automatically makes him take a back seat is so illogical that it is hard to respond to.

    “Notice that God is “immortal” period.”

    Yes. Also notice that I am an “Adult” period. And yet I was once a child. A statement of present condition proves nothing concerning past condition. For those three days that Christ lay in the tomb he was “dead” period. But he still rose and conquered death, and is no “alive” period.
    Again, your arguments have no logic.

    “To say he was a mortal is to make God into: “images made to look like mortal man.”

    Wrong. This statement refers to actually physical idols that were common among the ancient people. Which was my point. It refers back to the Israelites and the Golden Calf, and speaks more directly to the Romans and Greeks idols that they fashioned in their temples and homes to pray to their Gods. The term image has direct meaning to this kind of idol worship.

    Isaiah 29: 11-12, 18 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
    And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
    And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”

    Notice that a sealed book is to be delivered, and that through that book the blind will see and the deaf hear.

    “You denied that God made you when you said this: “Man is just as eternal as God in the sense that his essence is not created”

    No, I did not. I denied that he made me out of nothing, as you would believe. I also denied that he made my spirit (at least not in the sense that you believe; but my spirit is the offspring of deity, and in that sense it was created). But I do not deny the creation that is outlined in the book of Genesis, or the creating of the physical world, the forming of my body by the power of God, and the sustaining of it through his grace. I acknowledge his divine hand in creating this world, and have no wish to deny it.

    “Do you mean that both man and God have always existed? Can you explain that more clearly?”

    Yes, that is what I mean. No, I cannot explain it more clearly. That understanding will only come when the veil is removed from our minds are we can actually behold the eternal worlds.

    “Clearly Pastor Fisk is doing what Jesus did and you are doing what the devil did.”

    Am I? It actually seems to be the other way around. Pastor Fisk has held up to scriptures, and said both are true (which I agree with) and then gave an explanation on how that works.
    Then I said “It is also written…” and quoted scripture.
    It seems to me your analogy is a little backwards, for it was he who ignored the passage that I sited, and it was I who pointed it out.
    What you are attempting to do here is to make a claim that I have ignored the scriptures that he sited, which is a false claim. I have ignored nothing, and the true gospel acknowledges all these verses and is able to show how they are all in harmony. The same cannot be said for Pastor Fisk.

  39. February 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Shem said: “That is very true, and since there is nothing in our hearts that has a place before God we are not idolaters.”

    Two idols that you worship are…

    1) The god of human logic

    2) The Mormon god that was once a mortal man

    You place those two things in your heart as of more importance than God’s own word. God’s own word takes a back seat to these idols of yours.

    Shem said: “Yes. Also notice that I am an “Adult” period. And yet I was once a child. A statement of present condition proves nothing concerning past condition. For those three days that Christ lay in the tomb he was “dead” period. But he still rose and conquered death, and is no “alive” period.
    Again, your arguments have no logic.”

    The Bible nowhere teaches that God was once a man who progressed to become a God. The Bible teaches that God has always been God and has always existed.

    Romans 1:22-23 “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man”

    Fools exchange the “immortal” God for a god made to look like “mortal” man. God has never been a mortal man. Ever. Period.

    Yes, you are and adult and once were a child. But both as a child and as an adult, you were “mortal”. Period.
    Therefore contrary to your faulty logic, a statement of present condition proves the same thing as the past condition. For those three days that Christ lay in the tomb and also when he then conquered death, he was “immortal” through it all. Period. You see? Logic is not a bad thing unless one uses faulty human logic in the way that you do. Your faulty human logic is going to end up costing you your soul unless you let it go in exchange for knowledge and logic from on high.

    Shem said: “Wrong. This statement refers to actually physical idols that were common among the ancient people.”

    Idols are Idols whether physical or not.

    Shem said: “Isaiah 29: 11-12, 18 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
    And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
    And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”
    Notice that a sealed book is to be delivered, and that through that book the blind will see and the deaf hear.” (Shem is claiming this is a prophecy about the coming of the BOM)

    The book being referred to here is the Old Testament not the Book of Mormon.

    This prophecy was about the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. The Old Testament was a sealed book to them so that they could not understand what was written in it. In Isaiah 29: 13 (the portion of scripture you skipped) it says this: “The Lord says: “these people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men”

    Jesus talks about out Isaiah 29:13 directly and said that this prophecy was about the Pharisees in his day…

    Mathew 15:7-9 “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”

    And verse 18 which you used to promote your position that the BOM would open the eyes of the blind and the deaf will hear is equally absurd. JESUS came to open up eyes that were blind and to make the deaf hear. So Shem, you replace JESUS with the BOM. Period.

    That is idolatry. This makes the BOM, Joseph Smith and Mormonism a type of anti-Christ. That makes Joseph Smith and his BOM as of more importance in your heart (idolatry) than Jesus and the word of God. That makes Joseph Smith and his BOM and Mormonism the very person and thing and group that sets himself/itself up in God’s church proclaiming himself to be God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”

    Mormonism, by Shem’s teaching here, is saying that the BOM (Mormonism-Joseph Smith etc.) is proclaiming itself to be the god that delivers people from their blindness and deafness. The fact is that God (Jesus) would deliver us from blindness and deafness. So in this way, Mormonism proclaims themselves to be God.

    Jesus was the one who did these things….Mathew 11:5 “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”

    As the readers can see, Shem is as blind as the Pharisees. Don’t let his blindness keep you blind.

    Shem said: “I denied that he made me… I also denied that he made my…”

    Compare that with Isaiah 29:16 “…Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”?”

    Shem said: “Yes, that is what I mean.[ both man and God have always existed].”

    Compare that with Isaiah 29:16 “…Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”?”

    Shem said: “Am I? It actually seems to be the other way around. Pastor Fisk has held up to scriptures, and said both are true (which I agree with) and then gave an explanation on how that works.
    Then I said “It is also written…” and quoted scripture.”

    Shem said: “Am I? It actually seems to be the other way around”

    You ignore the fact that Jesus said to the thief: “Today you will be with me in paradise” Why would you deny that the thief went to eternal life?
    What is the water welling up to eternal life? Nothing other than the forgiveness of sins won for us by Jesus on the cross.
    The Spirit gives life. Jesus said: “today you will be with me in paradise” thus giving the thief life and forgiveness and acknowledging the thief’s faith. The thief believed: “no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3)
    Thus fulfilling the scripture you say I ignored…” “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 5)”

    Mormons are not born of water and the Spirit. They do not have the Spirit that believes in the free forgiveness given to us by Jesus.

  40. 41 shematwater
    February 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    ECHO

    Please shut up and stop twisting my words into lies that you want people to believe. Yes, this is a personal attack, and you have earned it, for you have blatantly altered my meaning into a grotesque parody of everything I have said. Of course, this is natural for one who has no real argument when faced with truth. You have to twist it make your point sound even remotely credible.

    TO OTHERS READING THIS

    Please note that when I referenced Isaiah 29 I made no mention of the Book of Mormon, but merely identified what the verses were saying. It is Echo who chose to bring in this interpretation, and then twist its meaning so that he could slander me and my faith.

    You will also note the He says I skipped a portion, and thus tries to imply deception on my part. However, he asked what verses prophecy of a book of Scripture, and I provided those verses. As such, I have no deception, even though he tries to claim such, as I was merely answering his question.

    Concerning the interpretation he gives, it does not fit. Even if the Old Testament was sealed to them, as suggested, they never would have known it, and so the learned would not have said he could couldn’t read it because it was sealed. It makes no sense.
    Also, when was the Old Testament delivered to the unlearned to be read?

    Of course, Echo uses this to try and paint the absurdity that we place the Book of Mormon before Christ, which is just another outright lie.

    Notice also the two attempts to claim idols in our doctrine, which are again false claims, made with no reasoning behind them.
    The second one basically says that we put our God before our God, as it describes what we believe about God. Of course, I think that Echo meant we put our understanding of God before his understanding of God, and I am all for admitting that, as he worships a false God.
    The first on the list is also illogical, first because Echo has yet to actually follow my reasoning, and thus he can’t say whether it is from god or not. Second, because it assumes that it isn’t from God. Now, this is an assumption that I understanding, but it is out of place in a setting like this. After all, as far as I am concerned Echo is following thousands of years of human logic that has lead to the conglomerate mess that is present day Christianity.

    Now, let us discuss the whole “Always Immortal” argument. First, you may notice that the Romans reference never actually says God was always immortal. It says he is now immortal, and that people are trying to make Gods out of what is not immortal. Thus does not necessarily mean he was never mortal.
    Of course, Echo tries to turn my reasoning on me, saying that while I was a child I was still mortal. This is true, but before I was mortal I was spirit, and after I die and am resurrected I will no longer be mortal. Thus, even the state of mortality is not descriptive of every phase of my existence. As such, Echo’s logic is once again illogical.

    Speaking of the Pastor Fisk video and the discussion on baptism and the thief on the cross, Echo once again tries to claim that I am ignoring scripture. Again, this is a lie, as I have ignored nothing. It is true that I have offered no interpretations on the story of the thief, but that is far from ignoring it.
    Simply put, I believe all these verses, and thus I must conclude that the Bible, as it stands, does not hold a complete enough account for us to understand how they are all possible. This is just one of the many dilemmas that cannot be settled through the Bible alone, for every attempt to do so ends up contradicting the Bible.

    For those interested: The thief is promised paradise, not eternal life. This is a reference to a dwelling place of spirits (as indicated in the literal meaning of the Greek). It is a place for spirits to await the resurrection.

  41. February 21, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    TO THE READERS

    Shem said: “Please note that when I referenced Isaiah 29 I made no mention of the Book of Mormon, but merely identified what the verses were saying. It is Echo who chose to bring in this interpretation, and then twist its meaning so that he could slander me and my faith.”

    Shem is willfully trying to deceive you and is the one lying to you. Shem is well aware that Mormonism teaches that Isaiah 29 is prophesying about the Book of Mormon and here is the evidence from the official LDS website LDS.org….

    “Isaiah 29 A people (the Nephites) will speak as a voice from the dust—The Apostasy, restoration of the gospel, and coming forth of a sealed book (the Book of Mormon) are foretold”

    This is the link for the quote above…

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/29?lang=eng

    “Isaiah 29:11–12, 18–24—What Is “the Book” Referred to in This Chapter?
    Those familiar with the restored gospel will probably see that Isaiah 29 refers to the Book of Mormon and the role it plays in the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days.”

    “Sometimes people who are familiar with the Bible and are not members of the Church will ask us something like “If the Book of Mormon is such an important part of the work of God, why is it not mentioned in the Bible?” There are several answers to that question, and one of them is “It is!” Isaiah 29 is one place in the Bible where the Book of Mormon is referred to, even though it is not mentioned by name. As you read this chapter, look for prophecies of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the impact this book will have on the world.”

    This is the link for the two quotes above…

    http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-student-study-guide/isaiah-29?lang=eng&query=prophecy+book+mormon+isaiah+29

    ………………………………..

    It has been made clear in this thread that the book (scroll) Isaiah 29 is talking about is the Old Testament and NOT the Book of Mormon. Jesus himself referred to this prophecy as a prophecy about the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. For those Pharisees, the Old Testament was a sealed book (as Isaiah prophecies and Jesus confirms).

    Jesus talks about out Isaiah 29:13 directly and said that this prophecy was about the Pharisees in his day…

    Mathew 15:7-9 “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”

    Shem himself said this…

    Shem said: “Isaiah 29: 15-16 is part of a prophecy regarding the last days in which God would do a marvelous work among the people. The chapter prophecies of the coming forth of a new book by the power of God, and these verses speak about those who seek to deny this great work.” (post 37)

    Shem said: “1. The Bible prophecies the coming forth of a new book of Scripture (Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37)” (post 11)

    “A new book of Scripture” very obviously Shem is referring to the Book of Mormon.

    Shem said: “However, he asked what verses prophecy of a book of Scripture” (post 41)

    “a book of Scripture” pointing again to the Book of Mormon.

    Now that Jesus himself condemns both Shem’s idea of what this prophecy means as well as Mormonism’s idea of what this prophecy means, it is clear Shem wants to wiggle his way out of it now by not only pretending he didn’t mean the Book of Mormon, but also in pretending that I want to slander him and his faith. Obviously his faith actually claims what I said it does and Shem is the one now denying it or attempting to hide that from YOU THE READER. And while Shem attempts to deceive you in this way, he is the one who is guilty of slander and he has proven himself there as well.

    Just as the Pharisees slandered and crucified Jesus in order to shut him up. So too Shem slanders me and attempts to crucify me through his words by telling me to shut up. Mormons, don’t be deceived by Shem, listen to Jesus, he will protect you from deceivers like Shem.

    Shem has now resorted to giving false testimony about what Mormonism teaches in order to deceive people who do not know the truth about what Jesus said about this prophecy and about what Mormonism teaches about the Isaiah 29 prophecy.

    Don’t be surprised when Shem now writes another comment attempting to wiggle his way out of all of this so that he might deceive you some more. Shem here thinks you are stupid enough to believe his personal attacks are factual arguments. He uses that to distract you away from the actual facts and the truth found in the Bible. I urge you to examine the facts and ignore his personal attacks which really are just an expression of his anger at having been painted into a corner by Jesus himself.

    Shem, I have always wanted to be your friend, but you have resisted. I still want to be your friend. As a friend, I tell you that you are storing up for yourself the wrath of God. You are on the road headed straight to outer darkness and you are going there rather quickly. A Man reaps what he sows. You are a slave to sin. But it’s not too late to turn to the truth. You can be forgiven right now, today, without having to lift a finger to gain that forgiveness. Jesus lifted up his body and shed his blood on the cross to give you that certainty. God wants you to be his son and so do I.

    John 8:34 “Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.”

  42. 43 RLO
    February 21, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Shem;

    “…shut up…” ? Seriously Shem? And you claim to be a Christian? I know of no Christian who speaks to another Christian the way you have just spoken to Echo. Perhaps you really need to step away from posting here for awhile, at least until you can get some control over your emotional outbursts. I’m praying for you, Shem.

    Respectfully,
    RLO

  43. February 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    TO THE READER

    Shem said: “Concerning the interpretation he gives, it does not fit. Even if the Old Testament was sealed to them, as suggested, they never would have known it, and so the learned would not have said he could couldn’t read it because it was sealed. It makes no sense. Also, when was the Old Testament delivered to the unlearned to be read?”

    Shem himself also fulfills the prophecy of one whose eyes are sealed from reading the scroll just like the Pharisees fulfilled this prophecy…

    ” If you give this scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, “read this please” he will answer ” I can’t; it is sealed” Isaiah 29:11

    How did Shem prove this to us without his knowing it, that the scroll is sealed for him? Shem is someone who can read so I gave him quotes from Isaiah and Mathew.

    When Shem states that the prophecy is a prophecy about the Book of Mormon, he is in fact unknowingly and through his own words, showing us his answer of : “I can’t; it is sealed”

    Shem is right when he says they never would have known that the book was sealed to them. And I say to you now, Shem didn’t know the book was sealed to him(Shem) either which is why Shem wouldn’t directly come out and say: “I can’t; it is sealed”.

    Jesus considered the Pharisees “blind guides” The Pharisees for whom this prophecy is about would never directly say “I can’t; It is sealed” because they didn’t know the Old Testament was sealed to them. However, the Pharisees did show the fact that the Old Testament was sealed to them by other words that they said just like Shem has done and is doing now.

    Shem has proven himself to be a “blind guide”

  44. February 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    TO THE READER

    Shem said: “Of course, Echo uses this to try and paint the absurdity that we place the Book of Mormon before Christ, which is just another outright lie.”

    When Mormonism claims that the BOM fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 29 in complete contradiction to what Jesus himself said in that Isaiah 29 was prophesying about the Pharisees in his day, then Mormonism is asking you to believe them rather than Christ. So yes, Mormonism and Shem place their teachings before Christ.

  45. February 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    TO THE READERS

    Shem said: “Notice also the two attempts to claim idols in our doctrine, which are again false claims, made with no reasoning behind them.
    The second one basically says that we put our God before our God, as it describes what we believe about God. Of course, I think that Echo meant we put our understanding of God before his understanding of God, and I am all for admitting that, as he worships a false God.
    The first on the list is also illogical, first because Echo has yet to actually follow my reasoning, and thus he can’t say whether it is from god or not. Second, because it assumes that it isn’t from God. Now, this is an assumption that I understanding, but it is out of place in a setting like this. After all, as far as I am concerned Echo is following thousands of years of human logic that has lead to the conglomerate mess that is present day Christianity.”

    This is an interesting claim. He claims to not worship the idol of human reason and logic but look what he says and decide for yourselves if he worships the god of human reason and logic…

    “which are again false claims, made with no reasoning behind them.”

    “The first on the list is also illogical”

    “Echo has yet to actually follow my reasoning”

  46. February 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    TO THE READER

    Shem said: “Now, let us discuss the whole “Always Immortal” argument. First, you may notice that , and that people are trying to make Gods out of what is not immortal. Thus does not necessarily mean he was never mortal.
    Of course, Echo tries to turn my reasoning on me, saying that while I was a child I was still mortal. This is true, but before I was mortal I was spirit, and after I die and am resurrected I will no longer be mortal. Thus, even the state of mortality is not descriptive of every phase of my existence. As such, Echo’s logic is once again illogical.”

    Can you see how his logic changes when his logic fails to serve him? That’s what happens when logic is your god. That god fails to serve you.

    Shem said: “the Romans reference never actually says God was always immortal. It says he is now immortal”

    It does not say: “he is NOW immortal” Shem is twisting God’s word to fit his agenda. it says “the immortal God ”

    Shem said: “the Romans reference never actually says God was always immortal”

    No doubt implying that God was once a man. The following verse shows that God is eternal and immortal…

    1 Timothy 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

    Shem said: “before I was mortal I was spirit”

    Shem then believes that he is immortal but God alone is immortal…

    1 Timothy 6:16 ” who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”

  47. February 21, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    TO THE READER

    Shem said: “Speaking of the Pastor Fisk video and the discussion on baptism and the thief on the cross, Echo once again tries to claim that I am ignoring scripture. Again, this is a lie, as I have ignored nothing. It is true that I have offered no interpretations on the story of the thief, but that is far from ignoring it.”

    Note, Shem continually tells me I ignore scripture. How is it then that when he has offered no interpretations of certain scriptures that he is innocent but he holds me guilty of ignoring scripture when I have not addressed all his scriptures? Do you see the hypocrisy here? Do you see the extent to which this single man will go? He is ruthless in all of his endeavors.

  48. February 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    TO THE READER

    Shem said: “Simply put, I believe all these verses, and thus I must conclude that the Bible, as it stands, does not hold a complete enough account for us to understand how they are all possible. This is just one of the many dilemmas that cannot be settled through the Bible alone, for every attempt to do so ends up contradicting the Bible.”

    Readers, as you can see clearly, Shem concludes through his god of human logic that the Bible isn’t satisfactory because Shem can’t get the Bible to fit his personal human logic. Flawed logic I might add. Shem is unwilling to let go of his god of human logic so that God can teach him a higher logic.

    The fact is folks, Mormonism contradicts the Bible. Shem contradicts the Bible. Shem relies on his personal human logic. The Bible is a sealed book to Shem for this very reason. The fact is that you the reader can understand how everything is possible by reading and studying the Bible for yourself. Folks like Shem are here just to confuse the truth in hopes that you won’t see it. When you trust in God’s word alone, you can be certain God will protect you from folks like Shem who are out to deceive you.

    Shem said: “For those interested: The thief is promised paradise, not eternal life. This is a reference to a dwelling place of spirits (as indicated in the literal meaning of the Greek). It is a place for spirits to await the resurrection.”

    For those who are interested, the Bible speaks of TWO places we go after death. Eternal life and Hell. When reading the scriptures, you will find this out. Examine this carefully. For example there were those on Jesus’ left and those on his right, There are Sheep and goats, Wheat and tares. etc. etc. Paradise is Eternal life(celestial kingdom).

    Even the LDS admits that paradise is the celestial kingdom…

    “Paradise is also used in the scriptures to mean the world of spirits (Luke 23:43), the celestial kingdom (2 Cor. 12:4), and the glorified millennial condition of the earth (A of F 1:10).”

    That quote taken from this link…

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/paradise?lang=eng&query=paradise

  49. February 22, 2012 at 12:22 am

    TO THE READER:

    Shem said: “Shem said: “Please note that when I referenced Isaiah 29 I made no mention of the Book of Mormon, but merely identified what the verses were saying. It is Echo who chose to bring in this interpretation, and then twist its meaning so that he could slander me and my faith.”

    Shem made the above statement on February 21, 2012 in this thread. To show you the reader that Shem was lying to you and to me. The fact is that Shem is referring to the Book of Mormon and I have proof that he believed this before he made the above statement. Read what he says on another blog dated February 17, 2011…

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    shematwater permalink http://ilovemormons.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/my-mormon-dermatologist/#comment-6704

    February 17, 2011 8:54 pm

    Fifth: Prophecy of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, as given in 2 Nephi 27.

    The video makes the claim that this prophecy is not contained in any other writing. This, in itself is false. However, they do a very good job in concealing this fact with the distraction of the JST. Their claim is that the prophecy concerning the Book of Mormon was added by Joseph Smith. So let us compare Isaiah 29 to 2 Nephi 27.

    Isaiah 29: 11-12 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
    And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”

    Next, 2 Nephi 27: 6 (quoted in the video) “And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.
    Also verse 7, 9, 15-19 “And behold the book shall be sealed… But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto another; But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.
    And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God.
    And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed.
    Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it.
    Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned.”

    So compare the two: Both speak of a sealed book. Both deliver the book to the learned who refuses to read it. Both speak of the unlearned receiving the book. If you care to go back a few verses you will see the same prophecy in both concerning the “staggering but not with strong drink” and the hiding of the prophets from the people. More striking is the similarity of the people slumbering in Nephi and the people speaking form the dust in Isaiah, both of which are idioms for death.

    So, when speaking of the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon, and all that leads up to it, the KJV of the Bible agrees with what Joseph Smith translated in the Book of Mormon. Yes, he added a few more details, but the basics of this prophecy are contained in the KJV of the Bible.
    The video, not surprisingly, does not want to draw these parallels, and instead focuses on the other prophecies Joseph Smith restored.

    http://ilovemormons.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/my-mormon-dermatologist/

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Shem,

    The Bible prophecies about people just like you who continually reject his word. The prophecies state that God himself will harden the hearts of those who first have hardened their own hearts against his word. When God does that, when he hardens men’s hearts, they cannot change that fact any longer. Pharaoh was an example of this.

    You continually falsely judge me as a person. Examples: all of your personal attacks. You always put the worst possible construction on everything I say and do rather than putting on the best possible construction on all that I say and do. You don’t mind putting the best construction on all that you say and do but when I do the same things as you, you put the worst possible construction on what I do and say. This is your downfall. That is to say you think I am some wicked person who is pursuing you with only evil motives, but I am not the person you think I am or that you have painted me to be. You have done this to me for years now. You came to this blog with this loaded gun and have been holding this gun right in my face the whole time. And as your friend, I attempted many times to get you to put your gun down because I know that it is your false assumptions that are destroying any possibility for you to listen to what I say. I am sure if we met face to face you would have no problem nailing me to a cross. I have been here giving up my personal time for the past couple of years to chat with YOU. Why? Because I loved and cared for your soul that much and because I think you have that much value and worth.

    You see, in Mormonism, a person is valued for what they do. This is partly why Mormons become missionaries, why Mormons make themselves temple worthy etc. because in Mormonism, these people are valued more than the unworthy or those who do not do these things.

    In Christianity, a person is valued for who they are and not for what they do. God loves everyone equally even the most offensive, abrasive, contentious, lying, deceiving, and slandering sinners such as you.

    Pastor Jeske says it well…

    “Jesus loves the unworthy, the dirty, the broken, the failures. Jesus didn’t “fall” in love with us. He chose to love us. His love is unconditional, universal, and free. His love is not a reward for our worth. His love gives us worth.” ~Mark Jeske

    And that is why, even after all that you have said and done to me here in this blog, I still love and value you highly. I value you enough to continue to tell you the truth about God and about yourself. One of these days I am hoping to meet you in celestial glory Shem and we can be friends. That is my hearts desire. That’s a good thing in my opinion. But that will never happen unless you lay down your gun.

  50. 51 shematwater
    February 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    RLO

    I notice you take no offense to the countless personal attacks and accusations made by Echo against me and my faith, but when I try to defend myself you are all over it.
    I have been patient with Echo, trying my best to explain things. But there comes a time when outright abuse is no longer tolerable.

    READERS

    (refer to posts 42 and 44)
    First, I never denied that the LDS believe this is a prophecy concerning the Book of Mormon. I fully believe it to be, and Echo will one day acknowledge this fact when Christ returns and tells him personally that it is the case.

    That being said, I was not attempting to give the LDS interpretation of scripture. I was trying to, as I am so often asked to do, let the Bible interpret itself. Reading this chapter by itself, without the interpretation of the LDS church or any other church, it becomes clear that this is a prophecy concerning a new book of scripture, one that is sealed, and for this reason the learned reject it.

    Echo is the one that insisted on bringing the LDS interpretation into the conversation, and is now claiming that because I am LDS I have to have this interpretation in mind, and if I say anything else I am lying. This is false.

    Speaking of the clear meaning of the scripture, Echo claims that because it is referenced by Christ it can old apply to that time period. This is not the case, as many prophecies of the Old Testament have multiple fulfillments. The passage in Isaiah 29: 13 applies to all people who are living in apostate darkness. It applies to the pharisees, as well as the Romans, the Greeks, the Hindu’s, the Norse, the Aztecs, and everyone else who has replaced the true gospel of Christ with the ideas and doctrines of men.
    However, the book spoken of in Isaiah 29 cannot be the Old Testament. The Old Testament was still used by the Jews, but the book in Isaiah 29 was rejected by the learned, for it was sealed. Now, it can be said that the book refers to the New Testament, as it was rejected by the learned apostates of the day. However, even this does not fit, because it was not actually a book until several hundred years later, and at that time it was accepted.
    Echo’s explanation does not fit the specifications of the prophecy.

    However, this is not really the problem. I don’t really care that he has a different interpretation. In all truth, I wouldn’t have even cared that he brought up that we do believe this is talking about the Book of Mormon. It is when he claims that because we have a different interpretation we are worshiping the Book of Mormon that I take offense. That is an outright lie, having no support in any form of reasoning. In other words, he took our belief and twisted it so that he could accuse us of idolatry.

  51. 52 shematwater
    February 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    A FEW MORE COMMENTS TO THE READER

    I was planning on making a few more comments regarding what Echo claims, but I have come to the realization that it doesn’t matter. I do not want to get trap into a dialogue of attacks against someone else. It is pointless and ultimately will drag everyone down.

    I would apologize for losing my temper. It was uncalled for.

    I will not again post a comment directly to Echo, nor will I give any reply to him. However, I will extend the invitation to anyone else who cares to actually know what I mean and what I believe, or to have clarified any of the charges laid against me by Echo to ask me and I will answer.

  52. February 29, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Shem: This place is dark. It is like a black hole and void of “good”. There is no doubt in my mind that those running this blog and the ones like it are tools in Satan’s hands, whether they think it or not. They are terribly deceived and it’s really sad. I stayed away for a while until someone recently wrote to me about how they almost fell for their deception. (thankfully they didn’t). There is no light here at all and no matter what we say, our words are twisted, misinterpreted, or spat upon. It’s like the bottomless pit in here.

  53. February 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Kate

    Here is the truth we speak of here as Paul, inspired by God, wrote it:

    “8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    9Not of works, lest any man should boast.” 2 Ephesians 8-9.

    This is the lie as set forth in 2 Nephi 25:23

    ” . . . .for we know that it is by bgrace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

    And what is also very sad is this truth set forth in the Bible in Galatians 2:16, 21 has been contradicted as well by LDS teachings-

    “16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. ”
    . . . .

    “21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

    Yet this is what is in 2 Nephi 25:24

    “24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we akeep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.”

    Mormons do not believe the truth of these amazing Bible passages assuring you of the full and free forgiveness of sins through the redeeming work of Jesus.

    “23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:” Romans 3:23-24

    These Bible passages and others that the LDS church does not believe IS the truth and the true gospel. You don’t have to make yourself worthy. Jesus did that for you:

    “14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
    15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
    16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
    17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
    18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:14-18

    David

  54. February 29, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    “However, the book spoken of in Isaiah 29 cannot be the Old Testament. The Old Testament was still used by the Jews, but the book in Isaiah 29 was rejected by the learned, for it was sealed. Now, it can be said that the book refers to the New Testament, as it was rejected by the learned apostates of the day. However, even this does not fit, because it was not actually a book until several hundred years later, and at that time it was accepted.”

    Jesus quotes the Isaiah 29 prophecy and clearly states that the prophecy was referring to the Pharisees in Mark 7:6 when he says: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men”

    For the Pharisees (Jews), the Old Testament was a sealed book. They were learned, they could read, they were teachers of the law (Mathew 23:2) and they used the Old Testament.

    Mark 7:6 “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites”

    Jesus confirms that the Old Testament was sealed to them when he said things like:

    Mathew 23:16 “Woe to you, blind guides!”

    Mark 7:13 “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

    Mathew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

    Mathew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord….’”

    John 8:39 ““Abraham is our father,” they answered.” If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did.

    John 5:38-40 “…You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

    Shem said: “this is a prophecy concerning a new book of scripture, one that is sealed, and for this reason the learned reject it.”

    I Repeat what Shem said: “A new book of scripture”

    Clearly Jesus himself is referring to an old book not a new book. He is referring to the Old Testament. A book that they had, that they could study, that they could read and that they twisted, misinterpreted, added traditions and rules taught by men that nullified it. Clearly the Old Testament was a closed book to the Pharisees just as it is a closed book today to Mormons.

    Ironically, The Pharisees for whom the Old Testament was a sealed book taught that there were conditions to gaining eternal life.

    Ironically, Mormonism twists, misinterprets, adds traditions and rules taught by men that nullify the word of God.

  55. 56 RLO
    March 1, 2012 at 12:20 am

    Shem;

    I do not take pleasure in admonishing anyone, whether Christian or Mormon. When I do feel an admonishment is warranted, my preference is to do so privately rather than publicly. In fact, I have admonished Echo on a number of occasions, privately. In September 2011, I extended to you an offer to communicate with me privately. You chose not to avail yourself of that opportunity. And that’s okay. It’s your choice. But the offer still stands. I would welcome it.

    RLO

  56. March 1, 2012 at 12:22 am

    RLO said: “In fact, I have admonished Echo on a number of occasions, privately.”

    This is true and I have apologized on this blog.

  57. 59 shematwater
    March 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    RLO

    I don’t think you take pleasure in it. It just appeared to me that you were a little one sided. If I was wrong I apologize.

    I admit that I lost my temper, which is why I later wrote that I was not going to discuss directly with Echo on this thread, as I would likely do so again. I also apologized for it.

    DAVID

    How does 2 Nephi 25: 24 contradict Galatians? I am really not seeing this.

    As to Ephesians, it is once again a matter of interpretation. I see no contradiction. The problem is that you leave out Ephesians 2: 10 where Paul states that after we have received this grace we are to walk in good works. This is in perfect harmony with 2 Nephi 25: 23, for it also states that after grace we are to do what we can.


Comments are currently closed.

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

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: