Social con group to McCain: Just say no to Mitt

posted at 9:51 pm on April 3, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Utterly unacceptable”? Even I wouldn’t go that far, and I’ve been cool to the idea of putting him on the ticket for months. Quote:

“If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and will either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur,” concludes the text of the ad.

Click the first link above to see the full text of the ad, which zeroes in predictably on abortion and gay marriage. Here’s the background as regards the latter; if Mitt did the Log Cabin Republicans some big favor, it’s obviously been lost on them. Meanwhile, the My Man Mitt site is in high dudgeon, flinging links aplenty claiming that the ad is misleading. The curious part is why any of this should be troubling to Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Romney for president as recently as four months ago, long after his positions on these issues had shaken out. This makes him the anti-Dobson, I guess.

Exit question: What’s this really about? After 18 months of Romney running for president, suddenly these guys have a problem with his record?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Cold steel,

It’s funny how you mention how you(mormons)prophecy in Jesus name….

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven”.

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works”?

“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”.

Idolatry is iniquity folks….face it you’re not Christians.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Just for you Olaf:

More Mormon theology:

D&C 18: 21-23, 33, 41, 47
21 Take upon you the aname of Christ, and speak the truth in soberness.
22 And as many as repent and are abaptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and bendure to the end, the same shall be saved.
23 Behold, Jesus Christ is the aname which is given of the Father, and there is none other name given whereby man can be bsaved;
• • •
33 And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it.
• • •
41 And you must preach unto the world, saying: You must repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ;
• • •
47 Behold, I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, and your Redeemer, by the power of my Spirit have spoken it. Amen.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Again the Jesus you talk about is not the same Jesus that Christians know.

Our Jesus is NOT the brother of Satan!

Our Jesus is not the son of a false god who grew up on another planet and had other gods above him.

Our God does not have a goddess wife.

You’re talking about a different and false Jesus.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Cold Steel:
You know the saying: Pearls before swine.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM

We’re talking about Christ the Son of God, the Creator of the earth, the Redeemer. We know of whom we speak. This isn’t something intellectualized on my part. My faith emanates from scripture study, fasting, prayer, and applying precepts built on that faith. I’ve received confirmation on this. This is not blind idolatry. LDS tenets advise all to find out for themselves. It is a personal witness.

Moroni 10:4
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having faith in Christ, he will fmanifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may aknow that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Okay, this has gone on for a long time, and I still haven’t gotten an answer to a simple question.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Neither have I. You’re slipping and sliding like a boxer. What I think you’re (maybe) trying to avoid recognizing is that for almost two millennia Christians have used the Holy Bible as their template in order to establish the definition of Christian. Christians believe the Holy Bible (ie, God’s Word) determines who Christ is. NO OTHER TEXT CAN DO THIS. If you want to use other books to establish God’s truth, leave me out. Jesus Christ, in the parable of the sower and the seed, said, “The SEED is the word of God… then cometh THE DEVIL, and TAKETH AWAY the word…”. (Luke 8:11-12) Satan has been trying to corrupt God’s Word since the beginning and you won’t see me having any part of it. How do you think we got all these different religions in the world? Proof positive Satan has been hard at work.

I ask you to tell me which Christians you approve of (as genuine Christians) and which you don’t; you won’t answer that, but just say basically “well, not the Mormons!”

Okay. I’m glad you brought this example up. This is a good place to start. Since we have our good friends the Mormons reading let us determine whether or not Mormons are Christians using the Bible. And this will work fine because one of the books Mormons rely upon is the Bible. As for those other “religions” on your list, it is not my responsibility to go through each one and show whether they are Christians or not. If you want to ask me about any particular one compared to Christianity I will try to answer, but for the sake of brevity let’s leave it at that. Besides, all you need to know is “what a Christian is” as defined by the Holy Bible and you will be able to answer this question yourself.

I’ll come back late tonight…

I might not be around tonight, but let’s start with are Mormons Christians, using the King James Bible as our template. Sound good? Ciao.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM

I know…. it’s more for others. Many here try to define what they don’t know or want to smear.

It’s a habit that I need to work past, but 5 pages of vomiting push me a little.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Cold Steel: I agree with you.
It just seems that no matter what we say, we are told what we are and what we are not. Aren’t you glad they are not the final judge?

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Cold Steel – Good on ya mate, just don’t get to lose any sleep over it. I’ve worked this before with Apacalyps and he’s doing the same thing with Tzetzes at 7:25 he did with me – changing the subject, etc.

He needs to answer the question from Tzetzes since he’s anointed himself as the arbiter of Christian vs. Non-Christian…

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Bambi,
that’s what it truly comes down to. They talked about the dual nature of the church today: having a prophet and leadership within the church, and then the individual’s responsibility concerning testimony. I’m grateful for that understanding.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Cold steel,

You believe the king james Bible?

When God says

“I am the Lord, I do not change”

do you think He’s lying or that He will tell you something different later?

Do you really expect me to believe the same God who says

“I am the Lord, I do not change”

is going to later tell me that he used to be a man with other gods above Him.

What is He going to say “oops I lied to you earlier”.

God does not lie. Only God is good.

The god you are talking about is not the True God who created the universe, the eternal and never changing God, but a false god, a demonic influence that leads people away from the True Christ.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:50 PM

You mormons are NOT CHRISTIANS because:

A. You believe in a different god who used to be a man on another planet and had other gods above him and a goddess wife with whom he produces children.

B. You believe in a different jesus who is the BROTHER OF SATAN, was conceived in heaven by your false god and goddess wife.

C. You believe in a false extra Biblical doctrine that CONTRADICTS the Holy Bible and is therefore ANTI BIBLICAL.
Your false doctrine also compels you BREAK GOD”S LAW with polygamy and idolatry.

Therefore mormonism is not Christian AT ALL. Nothing like it at all actually.

Your faith in the false jesus, is faith misplaced, as your false jesus has NO SAVING POWER because he does not exist!

Do you want to talk about what you really believe or continue to mislead people(lie).

Do you want to talk about the SEER STONES?

Do you want to talk about the magical mormon underwear?

Do you want to talk about the angel demon moroni who “told Joseph Smith about mormonism?

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM

We-hell, guess what, boys. I’M NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN, but you’re damn right that I am your ally when it comes to winning this war, voting GOP, and a host of other things!

Why should it matter what gods I worship, if in many things I agree with you politically? If you wait until your allies are perfectly allied with you in all things from religion to taste in ties, you will be waiting a very, very long time on the outside looking in.

What you need to ask yourselves is: Given that short of cloning yourselves with some kind of memory dump, there will be nobody who will agree with you on all things—–which things will you regard as being the most important and which differences can you live with in your allies?

Sekhmet on April 5, 2008 at 8:36 PM

For me, listening to the LDS worldwide general conference this weekend, the question is easily answered. if these mormons follow a “different God,” then Different is Good.

if you have satellite or cable, tune in to byu-tv and judge for yourselves. see what the mormons are hearing and learning from the new Prophet.

it’s nothing secret. no converting, just mormons talking to mormons in their native habitat.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 8:48 PM

sekhmet – well said.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM

tzetzes – I picked the name Sulla in 1998 when … well, marching on washington to hose down the white house was at least a fond daydream. :) a fascinating and horrifying man, sulla. 2000 years on, he still resonates, if less famous than caesar.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Sekhmet: Gee, I guess you are safe then. It’s only the Mormons who worship the wrong Jesus, not those who don’t worship him at all who are going to hell. I bet you are relieved.
What any of this has to do with politics is beyond me.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Sekhmet: Gee, I guess you are safe then. It’s only the Mormons who worship the wrong Jesus, not those who don’t worship him at all who are going to hell. I bet you are relieved.

Hey, when I die, I’m going where the beer is!

What any of this has to do with politics is beyond me.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM

You wanna know something? I’m equally confused on that point. If they love this country and want to protect Her, I could give a toot whether their doctrine is correct by my sights. Jimmy Carter was the best Baptist among the Presidents in recent history, and that didn’t make him a good President.

Sekhmet on April 5, 2008 at 10:17 PM

St. Olaf,
Per your original question: yes I do believe in KJV. I just don’t subscribe to your interpretation of it.

Sulla,
thank you for your outside perspective on the LDS General Conference session. Many like to throw out “secret cult” and all that jazz. They fail to realize that Mormon theology is readily available. The lds.org site has all the scriptures and publications cross-referenced and indexed for the whole world to see. BYU TV is on DishNetwork and DirectTV. It’s all out in the open for honest and reasoned discussion. We’re not out their downloading secret plans to stamp out the SocialCons starting with Huckabee and the Baptists.

St. Olaf…. please don’t hate us for calling ourselves saints. You don’t have the Saint Market cornered.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 10:48 PM

I’m worried that allapundit (?) will close this site down. I bet he/she had no idea it would produce so many comments, even though I get the impression that he/she doesn’t like Mitt anyway.
So for Sulla, Cold Steel, Skinnervic, Roger Waters, Vanceone, Lugnutmegger, Edaglesdontflock, and especially Tzetzes thanks for all your posts (If I’ve missed any please forgive, I haven’t trolled through all the pages). I would like to read you on other posts, and hope I don’t loose you all.
As for st olaf – what can I say – I think your Bible says the same thing as mine does about judging, but you skip that part.
Apocalyps – I think there’s hope for you.
Anyway God Bless, I’ll be praying for you all.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Allah is alot easier going with people going AWOL on a thread than say, Bryan. Bryan would 86′ people for being “stuck on stupid” pretty quickly. I’m looking forward to logging on Monday and seeing what Tzetzes does if Apacalyps ever gets around to staying on point by answering his question… Night all.

SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Bambi,

Oh no don’t think I skipped that part, go back through the comments.

Jesus said:

“Judge not according to appearances, but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT!

I quoted that in relation to some of the “good mormons” you just commended, when they openly sinned and in the same breath claimed to be saved.

Don’t think I’m singling out mormons here..all sinners will have their place in the lake of fire whether idolaters like mormons or adulterers or liars or blasphemers etc.

I don’t have to condemn you…you’re condemned already!

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”.

Sekhmet will be in hell with you also unless he repents, turns from sin and believes in Jesus Christ,the lamb of God.

This is no joking matter Sekhmet and there is no beer in hell!

It is a place far worse than anything you can imagine..imagine your soul burning for eternity in 2000 degree flames. Well it’s worse than that.

I don’t want ANY of you to go there.

You think I like having you people dishonor me.

The easier route is for me to say nothing at all.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM

StOlaf you sound just like the Muslims. One of my students assured me that she would burn if she didn’t pray 5 or 6 times a day but I had no idea what they believed would happen to me. I guess it would be worse.
You know what Sekhmet God judges and not man. Your soul will not burn. Please understand that God is just and knows the hearts of man.
StOlaf – what has happened to all those wonderful souls who lived before Jesus, or those who never heard of him? Are they all relegated to your burning hell?
I’m sad your God and Jesus are so vengeful. My God is a God of Love. Yes, I believe you must believe that Jesus is the way, but the people you are talking about and to – their live is not over yet.

Bambi on April 6, 2008 at 12:11 AM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Does KJV specifically mention 2000° flames? What portion of the Beatitudes tell you to condemn idolatrous posters to hell? You are projecting your inadequacies (in your relationship with your beliefs). I agree with Bambi on this, you have a fundamentalist intolerance about you. You’re real quick with condemnation and vitriol. Think of what your projecting on Christ. Think of how you’re compartmentalizing Christ. Christ exists as He is, not as you define Him. Christ and His scripture define themselves. It’s an individual relationship between Christ and mankind(womankind too Bambi). He does not need you or other recruits to flame others into your belief system. His sheep hear His voice and they come to Him.

P.S. Thank you for grouping me with liars, blasphemers, and adulterers. This will all be news to my wife and kids. I foresee added counseling costs and lawyer fees. You truly are a Saint.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 12:52 AM

what happened to the old testament saints you mean?

They were saved by Jesus!

Everyone who has ever been saved has been saved by Jesus.

You see the old testament saints believed in the shadow of a Christ they could not see and were therefore saved by Jesus.

Now that Jesus has come man’s basic damning sin is not believing in him.

All shadow faith is now useless, now that the Messiah has come. And to not believe in Him is man’s damning sin and a huge insult to God.

I’m sad your God and Jesus are so vengeful. My God is a God of Love

You can have all the false impressions of God that you want and think that God is not a just God..it won’t change anything….because your god is not real.

Do you know what that is that you’re doing?

You’re committing idolatry and idolatry is a very serious sin AGAINST God(like all sin). Idolatry is when you construct a false image of God in your mind that is pleasing to you and justifies your sins!

It’s a sin and all sinners will be tossed into the lake of fire.

The True God is a perfect and just God.

If a guilty murderer asks the judge to forgive him because he apologizes for his crime and the judge released him…would he be a just judge?

No! He would be a corrupt judge and he would be disbarred!

He is BOUND by the Law to give a judgement or else he would be a corrupt judge!

God is perfect and holy and just if He wasn’t, He wouldn’t be God.

But God does love us.

That is why He sent His righteous Son Jesus Christ as a blood sacrifice to die for our sins on the cross!

If we repent, turn from our sins and believe whole heartedly in Him, we will be filled with his Holy Spirit and take on His righteousness before God on judgement day!

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosover believeth in Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life!”

He will give you a NEW HEART that wants to please Him and keep His commandments!

Without Jesus no one would be saved!

Praise God that He does love us so much that He would send His Son to die for us!

SaintOlaf on April 6, 2008 at 12:59 AM

I truly appreciate that you are so worried about me/us. I believe that you are wrong. I have a testimony of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that an uneducated young man could not write the Book of Mormon (another witness for Christ). I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I also believe that we have a prophet who leads our Church today.
Good Heavens you must be down on your knees by now or having the vapors.

I did not mean the prophets of the Old Testament when I asked you if the people who did not know Jesus are relegated to your fire in Hell. But I thought you tried to avoid the subject. I mean all those people (ordinary people) who lived before Christ and never heard of him. What is their fate? Even today – those people who are Muslim or whatever and never have had a chance to hear about Christ. Do they have a chance? If so how?
I know some of you know.
And don’t take so much room with your answer. Paragraphs are OK.
I know, I know where you think I’m going. I’ll still let God do the judging.

Bambi on April 6, 2008 at 1:41 AM

Actually when I said the old testament saints I did not just mean the prophets of the old testament. But regardless it is the same process and all men are saved by Jesus.

As for your question about native american/other isolated groups here is the answer: God says many times “I have written my Law in man’s hearts. And this goes back to what I was saying about the shadow also.

The fact is that the world is not as old as the non scientific state religion of evolution tells us.

If you study ancient cultures you see that every single one has the flood story etc.

The toltec in particular say this: “The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends, with their wives, who understood the same language, came to these parts, having first passed great land and seas, having lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach this land; . . . they wandered 104 years through different parts of the world before they reached Hue Hue Tlapalan, which was in Ce Tecpatl, 520 years after the Flood”.

The fact is that is not a huge amount of time.
Just like every other culture they had every opportunity to follow God, they knew their origins, but they chose not to follow God and they followed false gods instead.

The native Americans were descendants of Shem and some possibly of Japheth.

The people of india, even in some of their ancient books date their ancestory back to Shem. They had every opportunity to follow God, but chose to follow false gods instead bambi.

There is no other witness of Christ necessary for Native Americans or anyone else. Especially one that contradicts The Holy Bible, is ANTI BIBLICAL and leads it’s followers to sin. How could Joseph Smith an uneducated man come up with mormonism with seer stones and an “angel” transcribing it to him? The same way mohammed did. Mohammed claimed to receive islam from an angel of light.

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”

This world is completely corrupted Bambi and satan tries to corrupt God’s seed where it is planted.

He makes religions very similar to the Truth in order to deceive honest seeking people away from the Truth.

There is prophecy about mormonism in the Holy Bible.

Read Matthew 7:15-23 and pray about it. You will get an answer.

SaintOlaf on April 6, 2008 at 3:02 AM

Idolatry is iniquity folks….face it you’re not Christians.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:12 PM

You’re talking about a different and false Jesus.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM

SaintOlaf & Apacalyps, let me ask you something now with no reference to the Mormons.

You say that to be a (real) Christian one has to believe in the “right” Jesus. You’re certainly not alone in this and there have been great controversies over the years as to his nature, so much so that people who say they worship Christ have, over the matter, refused communion with others who also say they worship Christ.

Now, I don’t claim to know much about Christology: I think it’s quite literally a mystery (as in, something that one has to be initiated into) and it seems silly to me to squabble about it. Plus, except when something exciting happens, like monks and bishops at fisticuffs, it always makes my eyes glaze over when I hear about it (the person to ask here is my Byzantinist fiancée; I’m a Byzantinist too, but my specialty is the much more interesting secular, classical tradition). However, a lot of people take these things really seriously. You can say the following doesn’t matter, but it matters enough to some people who will use it to say that you (yes, you!) are not the real Christian.

At the Council of Chalcedon, called by the political leader Marcian nearly forty-two decades after Christ’s resurrection, majority vote ruled that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. (We’ll get to that in a minute.) It also upheld another council of non-apostles called by a political authority, him who had founded Constantinople on the old Megarian colony of Byzantium (and whose name, by the way, rhymes with alkaline, not quarantine) a mere thirty decades after Christ.

That earlier council, at Nicaea, had denounced Arianism. Now, I don’t know much about Arius except that everybody seems to hate him and that one of his disciples, a Goth or half-Goth named Ulfilas, who had studied at Constantinople, translated the New Testament into Gothic (making this the oldest Germanic book, the only East Germanic book, required reading for anybody doing Germanistik, and a damn lot of fun for the philologist). But apparently he believed that Christ, while divine, was not co-eternal with the Father, but apparently had at one point in the preexistence been created by him; that he was, in other words, the Father’s only-begotten in the spirit as well as the flesh.

Related to the “temporal” aspect of the question (if one can speak of time in the eternities) was that of essence (being, οὐσία). Were the Father and the Son ὁμοούσιοι (same-essence) or ὁμοιούσιοι (similar-essence)? Majority vote ruled again, in favor of the former. (As others have pointed out, the matter was over an iota, a single jot.)

There were also a lot of other items of business there, such as the calendar and dates of feasts (which, if you don’t think is important, talk to an Old Calendar Russian!), some other various heretics, and matters involving bishops and elders and priests (which implies that the “Nicaean” church, to term it so, had such). Also self-emasculation was condemned: some, such as Origen another century plus back, had put Jesus’ words into literal practice, where the Lord said “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

To skip back up to Chalcedon, it (besides declaring the New Rome at Byzantium equal to the Old Rome in Italy) said that the three members of the Trinity were of a single being (essence) but of three separate substances (hypostases), the heretic Origen’s position, in fact. How being and substance are different, I’ll let each man decide as he will.

Even more importantly though as far as ecclesiastical unity goes, the folks at Chalcedon looked further into the question not only of the Messiah’s relationship to the (unbegotten) Father, but to himself, his divine part with his human part. Some, considering matter evil, had said he was not human at all, but purely divine: only seeming, for our sakes, to be human. The Nestorians, on the other hand, said that there were in fact both a divine personality and a human personality in Jesus, but separate. (Nestorians are still around, most notably the Assyrian church.) Others said that Jesus did indeed (contra Gnosticos) have a human body, but that his nature was divine and only divine. This is known as the monophysite (μονοφυσιτής “believer in a single nature”) position, and is that of the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac and Ethiopian churches, among others. The council however, being in its way democratic, put the matter up once again for a vote and rejected each of the above, affirming that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Not half and half (if I understand aright), but each part superimposed (as it were) over the other.

And so, I’ve given a very brief and simplified overview of a dizzingly “nuanced” and complicated set of debates, debates which I honestly barely understand, but which resulted in a schism between the “Chalcedonians” and “non-Chalcedonians” which is at least as great as that later one between Constantinople and Old Rome.

And now, Apacalyps (with your “intellectual integrity” and “philosophical tenets”) and SaintOlaf (thou saint who decidest who is and who is not a Christian), if either of you is still reading, bear this in mind when you talk about authentic and inauthentic Christs: if you affirm the christology of the Council of Chalcedon, you’ll have to look in the eyes of a Copt (whose Christianity goes back to Saint Mark) or a Syriac (a native-speaker of Jesus’ own tongue) and tell him he follows the “wrong” Jesus and so can’t be saved. If on the other hand you deny the Council’s pronouncements, then expect the Greeks (whom Paul taught in their own language) and the Italians (heirs of Peter) to call you the heretic.

So, which one is it?

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM

So, which one is it?

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM

That is an interesting question for those two: which group of men do you follow? Each group is a group or council who met with their own politicking and interpretations. What was their divine authority in making these determinations? What was the basis? The 12 apostles, those ordained of Christ, having authority directly from Christ, had been dissolved through death or banishment. There was no direct authoritative line to these quasi-religious, but fully political groups. These things are foretold in scripture. Paul in Thesselonians writes on this dissolution and apostasy in chapter 2 verse 3. The early apostles wrote that before the Second Coming of Christ, there must be a “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (See Acts 3:21). After Christ’s death and resurrection, and after the deaths and banishment of the apostles, there was an apostasy. Scripture remained, but the authority was lost. Men arose in competing factions to determine divinity. They had bits and pieces, but lacked completeness, and lacked authority.

Jump to Joseph Smith’s time. He had questions on religion as a young boy. He was caught up in the religious revivalism which took place in upstate New York. He went from church to church looking for truth. He investigated several different Christian religions as a young boy.

Joseph Smith History 1:11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Joseph was looking for answers and direction, and he believed God would answer him. He took James 1:5 at face value and he applied it. He went to a secluded grove of trees and began to pray.

More from JSH 1

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick bdarkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to acall upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of clight exactly over my head, above the brightness of the dsun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the dopposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

For Mormons this answers questions on the God’s nature, the Godhead, the Apostasy of Christ’s early church, the eventual Restoration of Christ’s church in the latter days, and the necessity of prophets with authority and ordinances.

Exit questions for Saint Olaf:
1) Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible. Quit generalizing…give chapter and verse.
2) In what I’ve just shared, and with any other conceptions of Mormonism that you have, give me direct examples of idolatry.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

And so, I’ve given a very brief and simplified overview of a dizzingly “nuanced” and complicated set of debates, debates which I honestly barely understand, but

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM

Tzetzes, no offense, you seem like a really smart guy, but you’re making this way too complicated than it is. Look, I agree with you in part, what you just wrote was dizzying. Sadly, you’re using the same tactic the Mormons do. You’re attempting to redefine Christianity and quite frankly, it is an utter insult to fairness and to our intelligence.

The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been in agreement with this. It has been like this for almost two millennia. It is primarily only in more recent times that groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, and other non-Christian religions in the world have sprung up (see Matthew 24:24). They all claim special revelation and privilege, and those that use the Bible invariably interpret it in disharmony with standard biblical understanding.

It is equally important for you to know that Mormons redefine basic Christian terminology. Mormons use Christian terminology but completely redefine everything. For Christians the final written authority is the Bible. Mormons have their own “inspired” scriptures. Mormons claim “As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may become”. This is not Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing; they redefine Christian terms and have their own “Scriptures”.

Now you know why I started this debate by saying “Enter The Matrix/We Are Going Down A Rabbit Hole”. I’ve been down this road before. I know why you want to “redefine Christianity”. You, not unlike the Mormons, are unable to defend your position otherwise. What you argue does not line up with the Bible so you must twist Scripture or completely ignore so they fit your beliefs.

The definition of Christian is in the Bible. End of story. Period. If you want to ignore this, or redefine it, like the Mormons do, then I we might be wasting our time in this discussion.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

There you go Apacalyps you had to mention demon possessed vipers and out comes Roger Waters, the demon possessed mormon viper and blasphemer of the Holy Spirit.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 6:34 PM

The timing was perfect, was it not? LOL. The Bible says in Ephesians 4:29, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good.” Roger would do well to memorize this bit of Scripture and take it to heart.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Exit questions for Saint Olaf:

1) Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible. Quit generalizing…give chapter and verse.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I would like to answer this.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

You are the one re-defining Christ and His interactions with mankind. If He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why did revelation and prophecy cease after His ascension and death of the apostles? Why did He establish the form and government of His church, only to have it torn down, never to be re-established? Christ truly established form and government within His church. As such, which is the true church? The Catholics claim direct lineage back through Peter. What legs to other Christian churches stand on? To not follow order and priesthood is to fly in the face of Biblical teachings. Each prophet from the OT through the ministry of the apostles in the NT utilized priesthood authority acting in behalf of God on the earth. Why have prophets, priesthood, ordinances, and such in the OT and NT and not have that today? That flies in the face of God who is unchanging and loves us all the same. Christ and Heavenly Father are who They are, absent how you compartmentalize them and marginalize their interactions with man.

Just for you apacalyps:
Why did the Israelites receive prophets and we don’t? Do we need that interaction less? Is the OT only a good parable to keep us in line, or did these things actually take place? Were the prophets Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaiah all real men? Were they set apart by Jehovah to minister to his people? You can’t pick and choose passage, verse, and your favorite apostle, without taking the totality of God’s interactions.

Finally, yes please point out chapter and verse where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Don’t get hung up on generalizations and feelings.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

We all understand you don’t like Mormonism. Fine, we get it! I asked you a question specifically without reference to the Mormons, and you answered it by diving back into an attack on them. But before that, you say that

The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been in agreement with this. It has been like this for almost two millennia.
apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I don’t know what “main historic position” is supposed to mean (or why you, as a sola scriptura person, are even invoking extra-biblical tradition at all). I believe that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, and I entertain ideas about, but suspend judgement on, a lot of the details. If you mean to say that the position of “the Church” (for which read “churches”) is actually simply that “the requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible”, then you’re wrong: such is not the position, as shown by my abbreviated account above of some of the fierce doctrinal debates that have caused Christians to anathematize other Christians. And (let us pass over the highly problematic nature of what accepting “the whole teaching of the Bible”, or even the word Bible, means) you show by your own statements that you do not hold that believing in Christ is enough, but believing in the right kind of Christ:

Now, the question is do Mormons have the right Jesus? The right God? Since you want to defend Mormons Tzetzes, you can see the importance in this can’t you? Because the idea here is often in the discussion Christians are talking about Jesus Christ and it has become very apparent to me that the Jesus they are talking about and the jesus Mormons are talking about are completely two different people. Why is that important? Because the power of faith does not just rest in the act of believing. That is very much a core part of it, but more so what you’re putting your faith into. The greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the chasm between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. The real Jesus.

Would you agree Tzetzes?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

As an example Mormons believe in a different jesus a different god. They are not Christians as defined in the Bible. They have changed the nature of God.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

A Christian is any person, no matter what his colour, class or creed may have been, who believes the Record that God has given of His Son in the Word of God.

But, as I said before you need the right Jesus.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Now, if you want, we can establish what a Christian is — using the Bible.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM

relying solely on the Scriptures

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

…for almost two millennia Christians have used the Holy Bible as their template in order to establish the definition of Christian. Christians believe the Holy Bible (ie, God’s Word) determines who Christ is. NO OTHER TEXT CAN DO THIS. If you want to use other books to establish God’s truth, leave me out.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Which returns us to the importance for you of these oecumenical councils. (Not for me: as I say, I consider it a bunch of malarkey over intractable questions, and not useful.) They are important to anyone who says that salvation and life come not through believing that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s son and our redeemer, but that such come through believing in the right kind of Jesus.

The people in these councils took the nature of Christ extremely seriously, and they had access to the scriptures and used the scriptures to support their positions. They were (as you direct) working from the scriptures, yet came up with mutually contradictory positions! These positions still divide their spiritual heirs, with Chalcedonians and Monophysites each still saying that the other is not worshiping what you call “the right Jesus”.

You also call people heretics for not having “the right Jesus”, and yet with a wave of the hand you dismiss those discussions of what that correctitude entails, and point us (who have smaller intellects than them of old) instead to the scriptures, which have not for two millennia sufficed to resolve the matter.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM

That is an interesting question for those two: which group of men do you follow?

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Neither, because I have no idea. Please see my response to Apocalypse. (And thank you for always adding your own two cents’ worth, which is usually worth rather more.)

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Just for you apacalyps:

Why did the Israelites receive prophets and we don’t? Were the prophets Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaiah all real men? Were they set apart by Jehovah to minister to his people? You can’t pick and choose passage, verse, and your favorite apostle, without taking the totality of God’s interactions.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM

This appears to be an attempt to defend the prophets of the Mormon church, starting with Joseph Smith right down the line to the late Gordon B. Hinckley. Joseph Smith, often referred to as the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the founding prophet of the Mormon religion (ie, your argument is since the prophets of the Holy Bible were were real men, then why couldn’t we have prophets today?).

This is a good place to start. Let’s examine Mr. Smith and some of the other Mormon prophets since in 1830 when Mormonism was invented. Either Joseph Smith was the greatest prophet who ever lived, or he had a tremendous imagination and was a deceiver from the beginning. Read the next post.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM

That is an interesting question for those two: which group of men do you follow?

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Neither, because I have no idea. Please see my response to Apocalypse. (And thank you for always adding your own two cents’ worth, which is usually worth rather more.)

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Well I do appreciate your study on this, it shows more thought and searching. Sometimes we think we “arrive” at something and we miss out on spiritual and intellectual growth. If Christ truly is the Word, then He is the possessor of all truth. As such He imparts that to us and enables us to grow as intelligent beings. And thank you for inflating my ramblings over the 2¢ line. I’m not as well read on these issues as I should be, but it’s even blatantly transparent to me how these knee-jerk anti-Mormon-flamethrowers get off on squeezing their latent biases. Thank you for being one of the honest debaters genuinely interested in discerning others’ intentions and points of view and discussing merits over fears.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Don’t get caught in semantics and back handed positions. Joseph Smith never invented any religion. Christ re-established His church through Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith received all the keys and ordinances of the early church as constituted by Christ. Read the Doctrine and Covenants before you jump into such an assertion. Look at each prophet from Adam to Moses. They did not invent. They were trained, ordained, and set-apart by Christ (Jehovah) as prophets.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Finally, yes please point out chapter and verse where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Don’t get hung up on generalizations and feelings.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM

First off, how many people know Joseph Smith put a rock into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face, and then wrote the Book of Mormon that way? The fact is hardly anybody knows this. The Mormon Church have published many pictures of Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. They show Smith seated at a table looking at down at the gold plates examing them carefully and translating what he saw to write the Book of Mormon. But, this scenario does not square with the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. They include David Whitmer, who was one of the three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. The majority of the translation work took place in the Whitmer home.

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

Show me one picture where the Mormon church has published Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon like that?

Secondly, the book of Galatians clearly warns us about any man or angel bringing another gospel, while claiming that it is the same gospel. This is precisely what the Book of Mormon does. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English, thus making the Book of Mormon. Smith clearly violates Galatians 1:6-9 by writing the Book of Mormon. Dear friend, approach carefully when you tread upon areas that God forbids. How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians?

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 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 1:6-9

The only way you can get out of this is by twisting the meaning of this Scripture.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM

You’re not refuting the actual text of the Book of Mormon as discussed. Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? We consistently assert its companionship with the Bible. You misrepresent by speaking of the Book of Mormon and it’s translation.

And let me get this straight…. a prophet using a seer stone is hard for you to digest, but a basket of fish, a river of blood, a flooded earth….those are all in you’re wheel house? When John the Revelator saw our day, how do you think he felt? How could he comprehend all the advances brought about in our days? You really love compartmentalizing and limiting God. Open yourself to the all-knowing omniscient God, not one of your invention and bias.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM

apacalyps

from Joseph Smith history:
JS-H 1: 35
35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

He also utilized seer stones as you outlined in your previous post. These would be the same as those fastened in the Urim and Thummim. If you think this is so outlandish, please refer to the OT… Lev. 8:8, 1 Sam 28:6, Ezra 2:63, Ex. 28:30.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:05 PM

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 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 1:6-9

The only way you can get out of this is by twisting the meaning of this Scripture.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Thankfully this is the same Gospel instituted by Christ since the beginning. Christ restored His gospel through Joseph Smith. There is no change. Thank you for supporting my assertion. There is nothing within the Book of Mormon which contradicts Christ’s gospel. Please refer to 3Nephi 11 and you will read Christ’s direct interactions with the people of the Book of Mormon. If Christ is truly unchangeable, which I assert He is, then I take Him at His word and I have the same expectations and faith as the ancients.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. …I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,…

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, …and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; …you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,… from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

LDS President Brigham Young declared that God was once a finite being:

“It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being” (Deseret News, Nov. 16, 1859, p. 290).

LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said that God had a father, a grandfather, etc.:

Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47).

LDS President Joseph F. Smith taught that God was born as a mortal on some other earth:

“I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions…Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman” (Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2).

LDS President Brigham Young taught that faithful Mormons can achieve godhood:

“Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 245).

LDS President Joseph F. Smith said:

“We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 54).

As recently as 2007 both Apostle Boyd K. Packer and Dallen Oakes, during an interview for PBS, explained that God the father has a resurrected body. Apostle Packer stated:

“That vision [Joseph Smith's 1820 vision] taught us some things. We learned about the personality of God the Father, a resurrected Being, as part of our gospel.”

LDS Apostle James E. Talmage taught that God progressed from a mortal to a god:

We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be’” (Articles of Faith, Ch. 24, p. 430-431).

This clearly proves that the god of mormonism is a different god than the God of the Bible, the eternal and unchanging Creator of the universe “I AM THAT I AM”.

Our God never changes “I am the Lord,I do not change“.

God is eternal and perfect and never had to ATTAIN perfection.

This destroys mormonism.

If you worship a different god then therefore, the son of your god(even if you call him jesus) is not the true Jesus Christ.

So therefore your faith in the false jesus,is faith misplaced, as your jesus does not exist, he does not have any saving power.

SaintOlaf on April 6, 2008 at 7:40 PM

The people in these councils took the nature of Christ extremely seriously, and they had access to the scriptures and used the scriptures to support their positions. They were (as you direct) working from the scriptures, yet came up with mutually contradictory positions!

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM

We have in our hands today, in the 1611 King James Bible, the same Scriptures they used at the time of Christ. You can have all the Scholars in the world try to word crunch me all day long.. The King James 1611 is Safe!.. So if you want to use the Holy Bible (as I’ve been saying from the beginning to resolve the nature of Christ) I have no problem with that. This is what I have been saying from the beginning.

You also call people heretics for not having “the right Jesus”, and yet with a wave of the hand you dismiss those discussions of what that correctitude entails, and point us (who have smaller intellects than them of old) instead to the scriptures, which have not for two millennia sufficed to resolve the matter.

What seems to be going completely over your head is the fact that Scripture clearly explains the identity of Jesus Christ. Yes, I point people to the Scriptures. Of course! It appears to me you do not believe it to be sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine. That is, of course, a tactic used by the scoffers to undermine the nature of Christ and the Christian religion. They deny the inspiration of Scripture. However the Bible says God is unchangeable. God’s word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Psalms 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word
which by the gospel is preached unto you.” I Peter 1:25

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Is. 40:8

A few more verse showing God did preserve His Words for us.

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake (as they were) MOVED by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21

“All scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16

Think for a while about Christ’s words: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God… Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Mt 4:4; 24:35)

These verses above clearly tell us that the Scriptures are God-breathed and are not fables written by men, and we read “it was impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18). The KJV is perfect historically, geographically, scientifically, grammatically and numerically, and “every word of God is pure” (Pr 30:5).

My prayer is that the Lord helps you understand this in your studies.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Thankfully this is the same Gospel instituted by Christ since the beginning. Christ restored His gospel through Joseph Smith. There is no change.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Huh???

Typical.

Mormons have to change what the Bible says because it conflicts with their beliefs. You’re missing the whole point ColdSteel. Let’s break down Galatians 1:6-9, and show you where you’re wrong. The apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians about those who advocate teaching a different gospel (an different gospel than the Bible):

Galatians 1:6-9

“6 I marvel that ye (Galatians) are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 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.”

Here’s the passage again (split up with commentary between each verse):

Verse 1:6 another gospel – The word “another” in this verse is heteros, meaning “another of a different kind.” That is, any gospel that is not centered on “the grace of Christ” is an alternative gospel, it is a false gospel–no gospel at all.

Verse 1:7 not another – In verse 7, on the other hand, the word for “another” is allos, which means “another of the same kind.”

As you can see, Galatians 1:6-7 stresses that the so-called gospel that was misleading the Galatians was not really one with just minor variations from the true gospel, but was altogether opposite to it, a false gospel. This was written approx. 1700 years before Mormonism. You know that right? This was to warn Christians. It is very appropriate to apply this Scripture to Joseph Smith and Mormonism! The book of Galatians clearly warns us about any man or angel bringing another gospel, while claiming that it is the same gospel. This is precisely what Joey Smith did when he wrote the Book of Mormon. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English. This was supposed to be the “restoration” of the gospel, which assumes that the gospel needs to be restored. We are warned about false prophets like Smith and demonic angels like Moroni. How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians?? Think about it man, are you blind!!

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM

(Joseph Smith) also utilized seer stones as you outlined in your previous post.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Yes, he did. He wrote the Book of Mormon with a magic stone and and some golden plates. He did this around 1500 years after the Bible was written. You’re not a little supsicious? And we haven’t even scratched the surface yet! What if Joe went on Larry King Live and said that by placing a rock into a hat, and with his face in the hat, he got messages from God and needed to write the sequel to the Bible? Click here and scroll down page to learn about the 1826 court trial held in Brainbridge, New York where Joseph Smith was arrested, tried, and found guilty of using a magical stone for the purpose of finding hidden treasure buried in the earth.

But, as I wrote before, there are other clear warnings in the Bible about false prophets that you clearly ignore ColdSteel.

2 Peter 2:1 warns us,

“But there were false prophets (Joey Smith) also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (Mormonism), even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1

All throughout Scripture, the Lord unequivecally condemns consultations with spirit mediums, fortunetellers, astrologoers, witches, and all other occult sources of supposed knowledge and guidance.

Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

God has existed for eternity. He alone is the the Eternal, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipetent, Creator.

Amazingly, in the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” page 345, Mr. Smith tells us,

“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see… he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

For you to ignore God’s warnings just to follow a blaspheming, plagiarizing, lying, heretic with a magic rock and a hat, is… is…. it’s just mind-boggling.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 8:44 PM

And let me get this straight…. a prophet using a seer stone is hard for you to digest, …

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM

After finishing the Book, Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461).

This is the EXACT kind of person we were warned us about. Jesus Himself said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits”… from such turn away.” (Matthew 7:15-20 and 2 Timothy 3:5).

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409)

[Whole sermon click here] – Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If these Mormons would devote even 5% of their error-detecting attention to Mormonism like they do to Christianity, they would see the lies, wild exaggerations and distortions used to support the silly idea that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, was a prophet called by God to give mankind the truth about the plan of God.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 9:00 PM

If you’re a Mormon get out of this cult.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Verse 1:6 another gospel – The word “another” in this verse is heteros, meaning “another of a different kind.” That is, any gospel that is not centered on “the grace of Christ” is an alternative gospel, it is a false gospel–no gospel at all.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM

If the King James Version is perfect and completely sufficient, why are you referring to the Greek?

(Besides, if the writer had really wanted to emphasize difference in kind, he would’ve used something like ἀλλοῖος or perhaps ἀνόμοιος.)

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:15 PM

We have in our hands today, in the 1611 King James Bible, the same Scriptures they used at the time of Christ. You can have all the Scholars in the world try to word crunch me all day long.. The King James 1611 is Safe!.. So if you want to use the Holy Bible (as I’ve been saying from the beginning to resolve the nature of Christ) I have no problem with that. This is what I have been saying from the beginning.

What seems to be going completely over your head is the fact that Scripture clearly explains the identity of Jesus Christ.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Why not the Bishops’ Bible, or Wycliffe’s? But, more to the point is what I’ve already said and you haven’t addressed: we have these scriptures and yet people do in fact come up with different interpretations!

The Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians appealed to the same scriptures and came up with different positions. You and the Mormons both use the KJV and come up with different positions. Calvinists and the Orthodox both have access to the same Greek biblical texts, and yet come up with different positions (ἕτεραι γνῶμαι, if you like the word (h)eteros).

You may think that your interpretations of one translation of one recension of one set of books (which did not spring out of nothing) are obvious, and should be obvious to everybody, but the fact that there are in fact so many interpretations (whether you approve of them or not) demonstrates that an appeal to the Bible (any translation of any recension of any canon) does not by itself settle every question.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Sometimes we think we “arrive” at something and we miss out on spiritual and intellectual growth.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Bingo! Read the Bible and have a spiritual experience? Great! Think thereafter that you’ve got all the knowledge you ever need? Let’s make a word and call it noesclerosis: hardening of the mind.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM

You may think that your interpretations of one translation of one recension of one set of books (which did not spring out of nothing) are obvious, and should be obvious to everybody, but the fact that there are in fact so many interpretations (whether you approve of them or not) demonstrates that an appeal to the Bible (any translation of any recension of any canon) does not by itself settle every question.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM

It’s painfully obvious to me you do not understand the history of the Bible, either that, or you are being willfully ignorant (that means dumb on purpose, in the Greek). I tried to explain it is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Syria, and one coming from Egypt. This is where all the different Bible versions come from. The King James came from Syria. All the other versions came from Egypt. If you want to know the truth about something you have to search out it’s history.

Furthermore, over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn and a lot of these authors do not believe God perfectly preserved His Words. Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared!

Time Magazine writes “…there is an unprecedented CONFUSION of choices of the Bibles.”

1 Corinthians 14:33, clearly says, “God is not the author of CONFUSION.”

Watch a few minutes of this for an idea of what I’m talking about. Gail Riplinger – New Age Bible Versions

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM

PS — Oh, yeah, the other thing: Tzetzes, you come across as everyone and everything is equal and that to decide that something is wrong is, well, is wrong! That is how you sound. The idea of ’right and wrong’ and ’truth and falsehood’ is getting thrown out the window in the process of perpetuating your idea of ’all things equal’. Somewhere along the line the historical definition of equality (ie, all men are equal in the eyes of God and no man has any right over another man and his life) has been replaced by your belief that all ideas have identical value. Everybody has an opinion so no one is right! Everyone’s different interpretation is right! This thinking is deeply flawed. This reminds me of the liberals trying to hijack Christianity by doing things like allowing actively gay people to be ministers, writing Bibles that remove any gender from God, and generally ignoring as much Scripture as possible to make sure they don’t have to change the way they live.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Tzetzes,

Just wanted to let you know I’m not the enemy bro, I really hope you get saved and are in heaven with the rest of us worshipping the LORD. No sickness there. You can eat as much as you want and not get overweight. You can play with lions and tigers and bears oh, my. And your knowledge will grow beyond imagination. etecetera, etcetera. Just off the top off my head those are some of the things we’ll be able to do. Oh, yeah, and live for eternity. Almost forgot that. It’s going to be a great. I’m praying for you that your eyes will open to God’s truth and you will receive His reward, before it’s too late.

“Eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Sometimes we think we “arrive” at something and we miss out on spiritual and intellectual growth.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Bingo! Read the Bible and have a spiritual experience? Great! Think thereafter that you’ve got all the knowledge you ever need? Let’s make a word and call it noesclerosis: hardening of the mind.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Here’s to soft minds! Thank you Tzetzes for the back and forth with all parties. I should have dropped the threads with apocalypto and his fellow Saint O. Me not being perfect and all, I engage a little too much. Keep searching out truth. We must constantly search out truth, and this brings us closer to God from Whom this truth emanates. An honest seeker of truth can see that this is a process and not a singular event. We cannot pay lip service and expect salvation. Christ reminded the scribes of this when He stated

Matt 3:9
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham ato our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

This is the “chosen” mentality of those who feel they’ve arrived and don’t understand the Christ’s nature and mission. Our responsibilities are to first, find and follow, and then to share that message with others. It’s not something we hoard and segregate from others. It’s God’s gift to mankind. Hopefully I run into more of your discussions in the future. Godspeed your studies and pursuits.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Fine, let’s say for the sake of argument that critical apparatuses are of no importance, that any textual deviation from Erasmus’ New Testament or the Masoretes’ Old Testament are unimportant, that other witnesses such as the Peshitto and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint are to be dismissed. And that the only acceptable Christian canon is the Western one (either with or without the KJV Apocrypha).

Let’s say further that any differences between the Erasmian and Masoretic texts and the Authorized Translation are inspired corrections. (I still don’t see why it can’t be the Coverdale or Tyndale version, or that delightful one by Wycliffe.)

Let’s say further that we declare the KJV to be the perfect Bible for the English-speaking world. It’s so perfect, in fact, that it’s inerrable, and so clear that any appeal thereto will resolve any question.

How then is it that people using the exact same translation of the exact same recensions of the exact same selections of texts can, while all referring to the 1611 KJV, differ in opinion on matters ranging from whether the plague-choices offered to David are those of 1Chronicles 21.12 or 2Samuel 24.13, to why God uses the plural when he says “form man in our image”, to the christological questions you’ve refused to address.

I’m not asking you to answer those questions; I’m asking why such questions even arise. I’m sure you can posit explanations, but I’m asking why explanations are even necessary. I’m asking you, if everything in the King James (or any other version) is as self-evident and clear as you make it out to be, how such puzzlements and disagreements and need for exegesis and context can come about at all. You haven’t answered my other questions; will you answer this one?

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 11:33 PM

I’m not sure how I found you again. All of a sudden it flipped and here you are.
Thanks for your explanation, I think I’ll have to print it and read it again.
Hope you had a pleasant evening.
I’m afraid to log off, because I’m not sure how I got in.
Is there some why when they take the article off of the front page?

Bambi on April 6, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Hopefully I run into more of your discussions in the future. Godspeed your studies and pursuits.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Likewise, on both counts. I’m sure you and I, if we sat down, would also see biblical passages (some at least) in different, perhaps contradictory ways. (I can’t think of anybody I wouldn’t disagree with on something!) But I wouldn’t say you’re not a Christian over the matter, and I don’t think you’d do that either. Nor do I think it a Christian approach to say “we both look to Jesus for our salvation, but since we disagree about [any of the matters I've mentioned], you’re not a Christian.” I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word, as I take you at yours. For any of the details, I’ll note your opinion down and either give a preliminary judgement, or just file it away for later.

But this sola scriptura position is on the one hand staggering, but on the other hand not so surprising. I mean that one tends to want some sort of absolute whereby to judge. Catholics & Orthodox have scripture, tradition and reason. The Jews likewise, though they have lost their temple, their priesthood and their prophets, have scripture, tradition(s) and reason. But folks like Apocalypse and St. Olaf claim to reject tradition (though they actually do use it in accusing others) and not to need reason (and admittedly neither is and Aquinas or Maimonides!).

And so, leaving themselves with, well, sola scriptura, they cling to that with the greatest of ferocity. As it’s the only thing they recognize, it has to be perfect and firm, and can brook no variation (say, in the selection of works, or the editions of those works). They do not take scriptural books as works written down by inspired men yet transmitted by ordinary men and copied out with scribal lapsus oculorum or with interpolations or omissions either cultural or dogmatic.

That is, they don’t take them as I do, as important treasures and as imperfect witnesses of a perfect God, but as themselves perfect, the direct dictation from God’s mouth (through some unimportant centuries-old transmission that had no effect on that dictation) to their own printing-presses. They and I both believe that God is perfect, and that his word (when proceeding from his mouth) is perfect, but they believe that the records they have, as they have them and to the exclusion of other records or of other versions of their own records, are that exact divine dictation (and that to question that process of transmission shows a lack of faith and brings damnation). In fact, such a position reminds me less of anything recognizable as Christian than of the Mahometan attitude towards their book, which the latter revere as perfect and inerrable and unquestionable.

…And yet these people here call us idolaters!

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Bambi on April 6, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Hello again! You can always go to the vault for old posts. This one was in the “Top Picks” section (on the left of the main page), so look under there, under April.

Or, just bookmark this page on your browser.

I hope you had a great Sunday. I certainly did: besides taking my toddler nephew out for some lovely Michigan sunshine (no kidding–it’s been gorgeous here), I spent some nice time reading Genesis. Granted, I didn’t read the KJV (but the Diodoti’s version, in order to learn Italian, and Olivétan’s, in order to learn French, and both for comparison with Jerome’s) and I read it certainly with a lot of salt, but I did read it! (Question is, does that make Olaf & Apocalypse happy or upset…?)

Best till next time.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:18 AM

P.S. I’ll be back tomorrow (Monday) evening, to see if anybody’s said anything interesting or enlightening.

(And saying “check yourself before you wreck yourself” doesn’t count.)

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Yes Tzetzes it is idolatry.

You don’t trust God when He promises to keep His word pure!

Since you don’t trust God as much as you trust your own “discerning wisdom”, you change the nature of God’s Word,invalidate His promises and construct a false graven image of God in your mind.

That is the definition of idolatry.

God will ALWAYS keep His promises.

You need to trust God, turn from your sin and be born again.

Idolatry is a powerful tool of the enemy for this generation…it allows the sinner to feel justified(and therefore not seek salvation) and fools the sinner into committing sin on a habitual basis, without even realizing they are sinning!

This habitual sin is a path to destruction Tzetzes!

Repent, turn from your sin and be born again!

The kingdom of God is at hand!

There is not much time for sinners…..repent while you still can!

SaintOlaf on April 7, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Thanks, I will book mark the page – good to find you all again. I’m a recent convert from Captain’s Quarters. You know we just had a conference – Saturday and Sunday and I’m sure stolaf and apocalyse were there with their signs telling us what awful people we are. Some time they even used bull horns to call us worse names than they used above. At weddings when the bride and groom and family come out of the Temple to have pictures taken they refuse to move and call the young brides “whores”. Mothers begged them to move so they could have a picture taken on the steps and they refused. When they are shouting these lovely invectives, the ACLU lawyer is standing beside them so that no one can interfere with them. They drag our B of M on a string in the dirt and taunt anyone to try and grab it. We have been asked by our Prophet to pass and show Christian love and not confront them. I must admit it’s difficult. There are many families with young children passing. Some of the churches (not LDS) have even come down and stood and sang hymns to try and drown out their fellow evangelicals. They show up every night at our pageants in Palmyra, NY and Nauvoo, Ill and do the same thing.
I don’t see them doing that a synagogues or Muslim places of worship.
Anyway, I’m off to work as well. See you all on the other side. By the way, it’s snowing here. We are supposed to get another 16″ in mountains today, so have fun in your good weather.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM

As I anticipated, both informative and educational from the obvious postings here this wonderful Monday. One snippet that caught my eye based on my prior roundy-round…

That is, they don’t take them as I do, as important treasures and as imperfect witnesses of a perfect God, but as themselves perfect, the direct dictation from God’s mouth (through some unimportant centuries-old transmission that had no effect on that dictation) to their own printing-presses. They and I both believe that God is perfect, and that his word (when proceeding from his mouth) is perfect, but they believe that the records they have, as they have them and to the exclusion of other records or of other versions of their own records, are that exact divine dictation (and that to question that process of transmission shows a lack of faith and brings damnation). In fact, such a position reminds me less of anything recognizable as Christian than of the Mahometan attitude towards their book, which the latter revere as perfect and inerrable and unquestionable.

…And yet these people here call us idolaters!

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

When I was trying to have my discussion with Apacalyps here, I knew I hit that exact “trip wire” if you will about the inerrant nature of the KJV. I proceeded to see that the mere questioning the nature of translational error, such as the well known Trinitarian Formula, unleashed a significant hot mess at me as how dare I suggest something is amiss – then tried to redirect the talk in the very next post.

Alas, I’m reminded of my tinkering with Hare Krishna folks many years ago in my agnostic days about how they dealt with mutation of doctrine over time, regarding Vedas and how oral tradition was maintained. After we were done, I conceded possibility of correctness given a well disciplined circumstance; however I don’t think it was followed given the same nature of dispute exists in their realm about Vedas (Hindus, etc).

The whole notion of Apacalpys and StOlaf holding the KJV somehow being sacrosanct is hilarious to me. Sacred, yes – unquestionable as to correctness of translation, no. Hence the reason I think LDS Article of Faith 8 is elegant and honest about the nature of Bible (read: KJV).

Great work Tzetzes! I appreciate a good read.

SkinnerVic on April 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Good work, Tzetzes! I note that Apocalyps and Saint Olaf had absolutely no answer for you. Their position crumbles further once they have to realize that their conception of Christ, the Creedal theology, is not what the early saints believed. In reality, current “Sola Scriptura” theology is the KJV + the creeds. LDS faith is amply rooted in the bible; including the KJV. What it contradicts is the creeds. Protestants of Apocalpys and St. Olaf’s ilk have not realized that the creeds are not the same as the Bible. Once they realize this simple fact, they have to realize that the LDS faith is quite Biblical.

Again, are Catholics Christian, are Greek or Russian or Romanian Orthodox believers Christian? They cannot be, under the Apocalyps position.

Vanceone on April 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM

You know we just had a conference – Saturday and Sunday and I’m sure stolaf and apocalyse were there with their signs telling us what awful people we are.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Excuse me, but please don’t paint this dishonest picture of me. I’ve said repeatedly, I disagree with Mormons on about nearly everything, ….but, they are generally nice people. We could probably learn from them about family values because of their strong devotion to the family. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean that the rest of them is bad (ok, that’s true in most cases). So I having nothing personal against you Bambi.

However, that said, there’s not a doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith was a lying cheating sod with a magic stone and and some golden plates and some books he wrote for Satan. And I feel sorry for you and your Mormon friends because your caught up in his lies.

A couple quick questions for you Bambi:

1. Do you believe that after you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god? Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-47. And if so, please show me where it says that in the Bible?

2. And where does it say in the Bible that after Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and ascent to heaven, that He came back for another visit and witnessed to the American Indians?

Thanks.

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Nor do I think it a Christian approach to say “we both look to Jesus for our salvation, but since we disagree about [any of the matters I’ve mentioned], you’re not a Christian.” I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word, as I take you at yours.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Tzetzes, you’re misrepresenting the facts. I’ve never said what you imply here. What I’ve said from the beginning is the greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the gap between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. The real Jesus.

You say, “I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word.” Well, we’re finally getting somewhere. This, it seems, is your philosophy in a nutshell. Anyone can be a Christian by using their own standards. Even when it contradicts the Bible. If they believe it it’s done.

Let me ask you.

1. Why not the other way around? Why not use God’s Word to determine who a Christian is? (ie, Why not use the Bible?)

2. Do you think homosexuals are Christians?

3. Is homosexual sodomy permitted for Christians?

Please answer those for me. Thanks.

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 9:07 PM

That is, they don’t take them as I do, as important treasures and as imperfect witnesses of a perfect God, but as themselves perfect, the direct dictation from God’s mouth

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

When I was trying to have my discussion with Apacalyps here, I knew I hit that exact “trip wire” if you will about the inerrant nature of the KJV. I proceeded to see that the mere questioning the nature of translational error..

SkinnerVic on April 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM

This is a general comment. YES, there is a significant difference between us on this issue. Having researched the subject quite thoroughly, I believe and can say with all certainty that the KJV Bible is infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God.

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin).

Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.

Ninety-five percent of all the ancient manuscript evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.

Psalms 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”

As God promised in Psalms 12:6-7, I believe the King James Bible is the “preserved” word of God for the English-speaking people.

Scriptural references concerning God preserving His Word are numerous!

However, you essentially call God a liar because you don’t believe Him when He tells you He perfectly preserved His Words. On the very last page of the Bible look what it says in Revelation 22:18-19:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

Anyone who has omitted key verses and changed certain important words and names according to Revelation 22 is in a lot of trouble. This is what alot of the new Bible versions do today and what Joseph Smith did. Look what we find at the LDS website:

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to RESTORE TRUTHS to the Bible text that had become LOST OR CHANGED since the original words were written. THESE RESTORED TRUTHS CLARIFIED DOCTRINE AND IMPROVED SCRIPTURAL UNDERSTANDING. Article here.

This is a huge mistake in your thinking. To mess with God’s Word is asking for trouble.

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 9:39 PM

1. Why not the other way around? Why not use God’s Word to determine who a Christian is? (ie, Why not use the Bible?)

I already answered this when I said “The Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians appealed to the same scriptures and came up with different positions. You and the Mormons both use the KJV and come up with different positions. Calvinists and the Orthodox both have access to the same Greek biblical texts, and yet come up with different positions.”

2. Do you think homosexuals are Christians?

I think imperfect people can be Christians. I don’t think any Christian is perfect (else what were the point of looking towards a redeemer?) and that one can desire to do well but be conflicted.

St. Paul (whom the Greeks claim as their own) once confessed,

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Was Paul a homosexual? I don’t imagine so. Can people engaged in sexual sin feel what he describes? I think so.

By the way, you brought the matter of homosexuality up before, protesting that you are “into women“. Is this a touchstone issue for you?

3. Is homosexual sodomy permitted for Christians?

No

Please answer those for me. Thanks.
apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Voilà. See, it’s not that hard to answer direct questions. If you go back through this thread, you’ll see that there are several I put to you which you haven’t answered.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Cold Steel
Bambi
SkinnerVic
Vanceone

Thanks to all of you. I thought at first that St.O & A might be able to give reasoned responses to reasonable questions. That obviously didn’t happen, but I kept going for whoever might still be following along. That seems to have ended up being just Mormons and anti-Mormons. Let each decide who’s been more reasonable (and who even allows a place for reason with their faith), though in fairness to your opponents those two street-preachers are weaker strawmen than a fictional writer could ever get away with making. (If I may humbly submit a criticism of you though, it’s that you let them get away with their self-contradictions. You know they hate your credo and won’t be convinced; I admire your wanting to bear witness of what you believe, but force them to defend theirs!)

Let me mention parenthetically that I have no serious problems with Mormons, except that they tend to use the Old Testament more than I do! During the main Mitt brouhaha one writer (I think it was at National Review) said that he’d known good and bad people from every religion, except for the Mormons, where they’d been uniformly good. My experiences have been good as well, which to me says something about the tree whose fruit you are. (There are quite a few Mormons at Oxford; they’re open, honest and reasonable people, not to mention ten times smarter than me.)

Our resident saint quotes Paul’s “for the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”, and then makes “word” the hinge whereon Christian identity turns, but without explaining why his version of the word is in fact complete. I don’t remember any mention of a canon in those books now considered canonical; meaning that the idea of a canon is, ironically, uncanonical!

He and our resident Revelation (ἀποκαλύπτω means to uncover; revelare to pull a veil back) say that, while heretics have “have changed the nature of God”, one has to have the correct Jesus (which they presumably recognize); yet they refuse to comment on the great debates on God the Son’s nature, referring us instead to scriptures which have not sufficed to settle those debates.

They deny the existence of denominations and say there is only one church of Christ (wherewith they are presumably familiar), yet refuse to say explicitly whether the Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, Armenians, Assyrians or Copts (with mutually contradictory christologies, as well as different canons) belong to that church. (Apparently having a different canon is all right by Olaf, but not Apocalypse.)

They haven’t convinced nor are they open to convincing, but they’ve served the rest of us as good foils for our conversation. Let’s continue to seek the Father through the Son, and not worry if they call us heretics. Think of Paul, if you like, who said

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers…

(They seem to think that I’m going to hell because, even though I try in my imperfect way to follow Christ, I don’t think Noah (for whose story I turn to the Septuagint) actually put a pair of every unclean beast on earth, and seven of every unclean, into a gopher-wood boat measured not in tens of miles but in cubits. But what can y’ do?)

Shall we end on a laugh?

The native Americans were descendants of Shem and some possibly of Japheth.

The people of india, even in some of their ancient books date their ancestory back to Shem.

SaintOlaf on April 6, 2008 at 3:02 AM

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Their position crumbles further once they have to realize that their conception of Christ, the Creedal theology, is not what the early saints believed.

Vanceone on April 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Folks clap when they read your posts… but they clap their hands over their eyes.

Again, are Catholics Christian, are Greek or Russian or Romanian Orthodox believers Christian? They cannot be, under the Apocalyps position.

Are they Christians under my definition? Um. Sorry. A Christian uses the Holy Bible to determine this. It’s not up to me, man. I don’t decide who is a Christian or not. This is determined by God’s Word ONLY, which is readily available to all people. Find a Bible and read what it says it’s quite clear.

Since you brought it up Vance, if a Roman Catholic believes that their parish priest, Mary, or even the Pope will stand up and intercede for them to God, does it matter to you if the Bible says they can’t because there is only ONE mediator between God and man?

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5

Please do not think that I am being disrespectful toward Mary, for I hope and pray I will meet her on Resurrection Day, when the saints come forth from the grave. The Bible says Mary was “highly favored” and “blessed among women,” because she had been given the priviledge of fulfilling the ancient promise made by God to mother Eve (Genesis 3:15) She was indeed a wonderful Christian lady. That is why God chose her to be the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. So when Satan uses her image as his means of deceiving souls, I must blow the trumpet. Mary cannot do ANYTHING to help save you!

One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5

What say you Vance? Is God lying? Can Mary hear our prayers?

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 10:03 PM

I already answered this when I said “The Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians appealed to the same scriptures and came up with different positions. You and the Mormons both use the KJV and come up with different positions.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM

This is wrong. Mormons believe the KJV Bible is in error and that God sent them more complete and accurate scripture. The Mormons have four books as their scriptures:

* The Bible, King James Version
* The Book of Mormon
* The Doctrine and Covenants
* The Pearl of Great Price.

The Mormons consider The Book of Mormon to be the most important of these books. In addition, the president of the Church is considered to be a living prophet. This snippet regarding the KJV Bible comes from the LDS website:

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding. Link here.

If Mormons use The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, and believe the KJV Bible is in error, then you cannot say that “You (Christians) and the Mormons both use the KJV and come up with different positions.” This is not an honest statement.

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 10:19 PM

2. Do you think homosexuals are Christians?

I think imperfect people can be Christians. I don’t think any Christian is perfect (else what were the point of looking towards a redeemer?) and that one can desire to do well but be conflicted.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM

With all due respect, that really wasn’t answering the question. Maybe I phrased it wrong. Let me try again. You said before, “I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word.” What I am wondering here Tzetzes, is can a practicing homosexual… an openly gay person… someone who is proud to be gay who will say, “I am gay and a Christian”. Do you believe these people to be Christians? Thanks.

apacalyps on April 7, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Let me ask you, apacalyps, if a person is saved and commits adultery is he still a Christian?
Even though adultery is a terrible sin – can he still repent and be saved again?
There was only one man who was perfect. You guessed it – Christ.
I agree with Tzetzes, if the churches only allowed into their flock perfect people or those who have never sinned, I think the churches would be empty.
Would I think a homosexual is a Christian? I guess it’s not up to me to decide. The Lord is the judge, and thank heavens it’s not you or even me.

Tzetzes: Thanks for your kind words, I know I want to belong to your fan club. OK seriously, it’s kind of interesting to hear glen beck’s story and why he joined the Mormon Church. He thought that when he stepped into the waters of baptism that the water would boil, because of all his sins.
I know all of us, you named, would be interested in what you plan to do with your life after Oxford.
I know all of us would say, God Bless and good luck. However, I hope your not signing off.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Thank you again for your respectful and reasoned posts. I’ve had friends inside and outside the LDS church whose opinions in these matters I respect. I respect your positions as well. As you mentioned earlier, we might agree to disagree on different Biblical passages and events (I for one take many things literally, although I reserve the right to not divulge which.) You do an excellent job on reminding us to keep an open and receptive mind to truth. Some shut the door to the heavens, thinking that less than a hundred some odd collected works completely represent the thousands of manuscripts and works collected concerning man’s interaction with Christ. Truth frees you from fear of the unknown. Man gets closer in his relationship with God, as He embraces Christ’s light and knowledge. Satan, on the other hand, utilizes fear, prejudice, and bias to further wedge us away from Christ. If people truly understand Christ and His mission, then they will embrace the two laws which circumscribe every other: loving God and loving man. If we follow and comprehend these two laws, then we’ll be further along our spiritual journey than debating who is closer to hell than another.

Cold Steel on April 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Bambi, if you get a direct answer to your post from apacalypto, please re-post with bold italics. It will be a first for me to see it. I keep thinking I’m talking with reason, but he just shotguns venom unrelated to direct, asked questions. So again, I say good luck and please share if I happen to miss it. I’m starting to wish I’d taken your earlier advice on pearls.

As a side note: I alluded to this earlier in my post to Tzetzes…but did you get a chance to hear Elder Holland’s talk yesterday? It spoke directly to these last two days of posts (i.e. Mormons as Christians). It was a wonderful talk and I can’t wait for the text. You can get it in mp3 off lds.org. Much of it would be wasted on those not intent on learning more, but for those with honest questions, it is an excellent outline on Mormons as Christians.

Cold Steel on April 7, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Cold Steel: You know my brother called me at that time to wish me Happy Birthday, and I missed most of his talk. Several people at school mentioned it to me, so I plan to hear it. KBYU usually plays conference several times, if not the magazine shouldn’t be too long. But I will check on the internet.
I’m glad you didn’t take my advice and not respond. I’ve loved to read all your comments and I hope that you will tell your wife and children that you are not going to hell,(nor are you guilty of any of the other things you were called)and neither are they.
I just love Pres Monson. Doesn’t he just lift you up and ooze love. If I was the Lord and wanted to have a man represent me to my children (ie., us) I could not choose a more humble, loving man than Monson. People would be surprised that our leaders do not shout, do not scream, do not insult us, but talk calmly, quietly and lovingly.
Isn’t it nice to have someone who is not a member say nice things about us. I’m getting so used to being told how awful we are and that we are all going to hell, no matter how hard we try to live as Christ would have it,that I just can’t believe someone would say something nice. I was beginning to think that we would have to find another place to live(OK, just kidding, but you know what I mean). Sorry I seem to be jumping around, but it’s getting late.
Hope to see you all on the side of the morning.

Bambi on April 8, 2008 at 12:11 AM

By the way, Kansas just won. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the last 2 minutes of the game were exciting and then the overtime. Nothing to do with salvation, but fun.

Bambi on April 8, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I can’t bear to say a single thing more to these silly Puritans (who I fear, in their thumping of their Bibles and their keyboards, are in danger of bursting a blood-vessel). I was going to pass over the fact that, when I’d said “you and the LDS both have the KJV and yet interpret it differently” Apocalypse responded with “that’s wrong, because we both have the KJV, but they interpret it differently”. (As I said before, neither he nor his partner in all this–whom he perhaps should admonish for the latter’s making use of books from the Ethiopian canon–is an Aquinas or Maimonides.) But I’ll return for just a moment to answer your friendly question on my favorite topic… me!

I’m currently proofreading a catalogue of mediæval musical manuscripts from the National Library of Greece (and correcting the horrendously inaccurate English translations therein). But by far the most important thing in my future is my wedding this May (in picturesque and historic Leyden) to my beautiful Byzantinist girlfriend. We met while doing our MPhil’s in Mediæval Greek and were formally engaged at the summit of the island on Lake Pamvotis, outside Joannina, in front of a little church, which was locked, with no-one there but us.

Indulge me for a minute, please, to sing of my dear one’s virtues. I had despaired of ever finding a right girl for me, let alone the right girl. And I certainly never imagined that my friendship (which was instant and sincere) with this gorgeous Dutch girl (two inches taller than me, eight years younger and a hundred times better looking) would ever become romantic; but somehow Lachesis smiled upon me and brought us together. She (my girl, not Lachesis) is kind to every person; gentle and humorous; tremendously intelligent, but wears it lightly and is friend to all. She lights a room up (to use a trite, but apt, image) with her smile and eyes. Every old Greek woman who’s met her has praised her for her virtues and me for being wise enough not to let her go. She’s been speaking English since she was four, and speaks it more naturally and fluently than I do, plus German, French and Greek.

This Summer we’ll spend in Columbus, and then in the Fall we start our doctoral programs: she at Harvard in Mediæval Greek, concentrating on hagiography and editing; I at Ohio State, with MA in Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) and PhD in Hellenic Studies (Ancient-Mediæval-Modern Greek), with my dissertation on how the stories of Troy were read at Byzantium (especially in the twelfth century). We’ll have Summers together, and weekends here and there, and then in half a decade from now will take whatever academic jobs are available (in America, England, Europe or Australia), write and teach, and start producing beautiful bilingual children (English-Dutch, of course). (If we’re in America, we will under no circumstances, by the way, send them to a government school, like the awful ones I went to.) Please wish us luck, as we will need it, and I wish the same to you.

P.S. Happy Birthday! Was that on Sunday? That was my sister’s birthday too! (We made “Crème Brulée French Toast”. It was easy but super-yummy.)

P.P.S (since we’ve been discussing religion). I just finished watching–I keep terrible hours–a lovely film, God Is Great, And I’m Not (Dieu est grand, je suis toute petite), a comedy (but not an entirely frivolous one) about a young woman looking for religion, who starts dating a non-observant Jew and becomes (though will it be permanent?) more Jewish than he. (It stars the extremely sympathetic Audrey Tautou, and is quite different from that other charming, more well-known work she’s in.)

P.P.P.S. (The other night I saw The Kite Runner. What a beautiful film; I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The final scene, and the final six words, had me bawling the most cathartic weeping I’ve had in years.)

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:06 AM

Hmmm, maybe even slicing it didn’t work…

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:12 AM

The computer doesn’t like it when you have lots of links, so I’ll divide this, my last post here, into pieces.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I can’t bear to say a single thing more to these silly Puritans (who I fear, in their thumping of their Bibles and their keyboards, are in danger of bursting a blood-vessel). I was going to pass over the fact that, when I’d said “you and the LDS both have the KJV and yet interpret it differently” Apocalypse responded with “that’s wrong, because we both have the KJV, but they interpret it differently”. (As I said before, neither he nor his partner in all this–whom he perhaps should admonish for the latter’s making use of books from the Ethiopian canon–is an Aquinas or Maimonides.) But I’ll return for just a moment to answer your friendly question on my favorite topic… me!

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:15 AM

I’m currently proofreading a catalogue of mediæval musical manuscripts from the National Library of Greece (and correcting the horrendously inaccurate English translations therein). But by far the most important thing in my future is my wedding this May (in picturesque and historic Leyden) to my beautiful Byzantinist girlfriend. We met while doing our MPhil’s in Mediæval Greek and were formally engaged at the summit of the island on Lake Pamvotis, outside Joannina, in front of a little church, which was locked, with no-one there but us.

Indulge me for a minute, please, to sing of my dear one’s virtues. I had despaired of ever finding a right girl for me, let alone the right girl. And I certainly never imagined that my friendship (which was instant and sincere) with this gorgeous Dutch girl (two inches taller than me, eight years younger and a hundred times better looking) would ever become romantic; but somehow Lachesis smiled upon me and brought us together. She (my girl, not Lachesis) is kind to every person; gentle and humorous; tremendously intelligent, but wears it lightly and is friend to all. She lights a room up (to use a trite, but apt, image) with her smile and eyes. Every old Greek woman who’s met her has praised her for her virtues and me for being wise enough not to let her go. She’s been speaking English since she was four, and speaks it more naturally and fluently than I do, plus German, French and Greek.

This Summer we’ll spend in Columbus, and then in the Fall we start our doctoral programs: she at Harvard in Mediæval Greek, concentrating on hagiography and editing; I at Ohio State, with MA in Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) and PhD in Hellenic Studies (Ancient-Mediæval-Modern Greek), with my dissertation on how the stories of Troy were read at Byzantium (especially in the twelfth century). We’ll have Summers together, and weekends here and there, and then in half a decade from now will take whatever academic jobs are available (in America, England, Europe or Australia), write and teach, and start producing beautiful bilingual children (English-Dutch, of course). (If we’re in America, we will under no circumstances, by the way, send them to a government school, like the awful ones I went to.) Please wish us luck, as we will need it, and I wish the same to you.

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:16 AM

P.S. Happy Birthday! Was that on Sunday? That was my sister’s birthday too! (We made “Crème Brulée French Toast”. It was easy but super-yummy.)

P.P.S (since we’ve been discussing religion). I just finished watching–I keep terrible hours–a lovely film, God Is Great, And I’m Not (Dieu est grand, je suis toute petite), a comedy (but not an entirely frivolous one) about a young woman looking for religion, who starts dating a non-observant Jew and becomes (though will it be permanent?) more Jewish than he. (It stars the extremely sympathetic Audrey Tautou, and is quite different from that other charming, more well-known work she’s in.)

P.P.P.S. (The other night I saw The Kite Runner. What a beautiful film; I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The final scene, and the final six words, had me bawling the most cathartic weeping I’ve had in years.)

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:16 AM

Tzetzes on April 8, 2008 at 4:16 AM

Congratulations on your engagement and your intellectual blessings. It is a wonderful blessing to find one’s helpmeet and to make covenants with her. I wish you nothing but the best. I’m in a hurry now, so I will look at your provided links later.

Cold Steel on April 8, 2008 at 7:15 AM

Tszetzes: I wish you all the blessings and good luck in your future. It all sounds very magical.
My grandchildren (at least 7 in one family) are all home schooled and they are so sweet and loving. All musical – violin – cello -viola and all play the piano. Bright and beautiful and thrill this grandmother.
Yes, Sunday – happy birthday to your sister as well. April 6 is a very important date in LDS history.
I think your young lady got the best of the deal.
Thanks for all your postings, sorry you will not be around any more, and thanks for letting us have a glimpse of your personal life.
I wish you the best and God speed in all that you do.

Bambi on April 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM

You’re not refuting the actual text of the Book of Mormon as discussed. Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM

This is just for you Cold Steel. So I don’t have to hear you whining anymore that I didn’t answer your question (which I actually did here but whatever)

Read the next post underneath this for the answer:

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Bible and Book of Mormon Contradictions

If, as the Mormons often claim, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are completely compatible there should be no contradictions. Let us see if such is true.

Complete or Not?

* The Bible claims to be the complete (Jude 3) and all sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:3) Word of God. Paul even states that those who would dare to teach “another gospel” “pervert the gospel of Christ” and will be “accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9). For example:

Jude writes, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 3

earnestly contend. Used only once in the New Testament, “earnestly contend” is from the Greek epagonizomai. It was a term used of athletes intensely aganizing in the gruelling training for a coming contest. Jude thus graphically stresses the urgency of defending the faith. Note also Philipians 1:7 and 17; 1 Timothy 6:19-20; 2 Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 3:15.

once delivered. That is, the faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints (that is, to all tru believers) for guarding and keeping safe. As Paul wrote Timothy, “Keep (that is, guard) that which is commited to thy trust” 1 Timothy 6:20.

Note 1 Timothy 6:19-20, “Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

keep. the connotation of “keep” is guard. The Christian faith has been commited to us in all it’s purity and saving power. We must guard it against all attempts to distort it, dilute, or deny it, for these would destroy it.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 tells us: “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ… Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Preach the word. The charge is to “preach the Word,” not just preach.

be instant. simply means to “be there” when needed, to be “on call” when God calls.

turn away there ears. They cannot know the truth because they resist the truth and finally even turn away their “itching ears” from the truth.

from the truth. “The truth” clearly refers to the whole body of doctrine contained in the Scriptures and centered in the Lord Jesus Christ.

unto fables. They prefer fables over truth.

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:9

Holding fast. See also 2 Timothy 1:13. It is vital that pastors and teachers guard both the word and it’s owrds against opponents.

gainsayers. It is important to exhort those who believe the Word to act on it, and also to convince those who reject it, being ready always to give an appropriate answers to problems and objections (1 Peter 3:15).

* The Book of Mormon ridicules one who would make such a claim (2 Nephi 29:3) and denies that it contains all of God’s written revelation to man (2 Nephi 29:6,10).

2 Nephi 29:3: And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

2 Nephi 29:6,10: Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

More could be said about how the Book of Mormon does not agree with the Bible, but this is sufficient to show that one cannot take both as being the Word of God.

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Jump to Joseph Smith’s time. He investigated several different Christian religions as a young boy. He went to a secluded grove of trees and began to pray.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

You then go on to describe Joseph Smith’s, the founding prophet of the LDS Church, first vision in which he claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. With that vision began the Mormon faith. The official account of this first vision is found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20). However, for years before this, Joseph, and his friends talked about his visionary experiences and his story changed. The links below show these different accounts in chronological order.

Joseph Smith’s Changing First Vision Accounts

1827Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.

1827Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.

1830Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.

1832Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

1834-35Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3

1835Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.

1835Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.

1838This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.

1844Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.

1859Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.

Conclusion: One thing is clear, you’re not being told the whole story about his first vision as the only version of these events.

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM

And one more thing before finishing up here.

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Sorry. Two more things. Just a sec.

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Tzetzes wrote on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM:

Now, I don’t claim to know much about Christology: I think it’s quite literally a mystery (as in, something that one has to be initiated into) … Plus, except when something exciting happens, like monks and bishops at fisticuffs, it always makes my eyes glaze over when I hear about it … my specialty is the much more interesting secular, classical tradition.

Tzetzes’ own admission here is quite telling in that the subject of Christianity bores him… his eyes glaze upon hearing of it, unless of course something exciting stupid happens like people start fighting over it… this debate has also shown he has a “secret antipathy towards Christians who take the Bible literally.”

I point this out because I wanted to show the Mormons reaction to Mr. Tzetzes, the man who believes Christianity remains a “mystery” who’s eyes glaze over at the mention of it:

SkinnerVic, “Great work Tzetzes!”

Cold Steel, “You do an excellent job on reminding us to keep an open and receptive mind to truth. ”

Bambi says, “Tzetzes: Thanks for your kind words, I know I want to belong to your fan club.”

Now I have nothing personal against Tzetzes. Many here believe he is a nice man and remains calm in the face of criticism. Based on my brief experience with him I would agree, and these are great qualities to have, however, I would like to point out that being a nice man has nothing to do with having correct doctrine. Many “nice people” have founded cults and were reported to be humble, considerate and intelligent yet they had wrong doctrine. Many mean spirited people such as Elijah who slew the prophets of Baal had right doctrine. It is important to constantly keep in mind, “thus sayeth the Lord” in this debate and not be swayed by a person being “nice” or sounding “intellectual”.

You’ve sided with a person who’s doctrine does not match the Scriptures. Ring a bell??

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Last, but not least, Tzetzes conveniently left right before I was going to say Checkmate Tzetzes!

Here’s a quick recap:

Tzetzes said, “I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word.”

So I asked him: Can a practicing homosexual… an openly gay person… someonewho is proud to be gay who will say, “I am gay and a Christian”. Do you believe that person to be a Christian?

Tzetzes didn’t answer. He left.

Why? Well, no one can say for sure, but I think he knew he was getting cornered as he was contradicting Scripture which tells us:

“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21

The above passage points out, not all who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ are actually following Him. Tragically the above passage points out that one may even be deceiving self into believing they are right, when they are in reality following a false way.

Checkmate Tzetzes.

I’m outta here. Ciao.

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Typical shotgun blasts without substance. Declaring checkmate when you’re playing checkers is poor form. You’ve failed yet again to show any distinctions between the two books. My guess is that you’ve never read it. Don’t venture too far out, it might be too difficult on your preconceptions.

Cold Steel on April 8, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I hate to be the last one to post, but apacalyps – you didn’t win anything, you just cover the same old tired thing.
You know, we believe that we are all God’s children – even you, even me, even all the ones named above. God loves his children just as you love yours. He is always wanting us to love him and love our neighbor as ourselves. So in the spirit of Christian love I wish you nothing but good will. I’m sorry that you think we are going to hell, but I think you are wrong. I’m not telling you that you are going to hell. I’m not going to go back in your history and tell all the things that I think are wrong. I am not your judge.
Yes, I think all the people you keep going after are wonderful. I grew up the only Mormon in all my schools in Canada until I went to BYU. I guess what I’m saying is that I had many friends who were not LDS and they were great.
Anyway, have a happy life and tend to your own salvation and I will tend to mine.
Hosta la vista

Bambi on April 8, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Sorry. I didn’t mean to you give the impression I was being arrogant. That wasn’t my intention. The Bible says to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Whether you believe it or not, I care for all of you. The only problem I have is when Mormons call themselves Christians. Then I have to speak up. But, other than that it’s a free country and if you want to be a Mormon please go right ahead. I don’t recommend it, but you have every right to be one. I’ve said many times Mormons are usually nice people with good family values. Furthermore, I have not condemned anyone to hell as you claim Bambi. Wishing someone to hell is a scary thing to do. With all my many faults I wouldn’t want to do it. I do not make this statement lightly. Hell is much worse than anything any living human being can ever imagine. All I can hope and pray for is that all of you reading will believe the truth concerning the reality of Hell, and give your life to Jesus, the real Jesus of the Bible, while you are alive. Because it is only in this lifetime in which you can repent (turn away from sin and receive Jesus). My prayers are for you.

Best regards,
apacalyps

apacalyps on April 9, 2008 at 1:18 AM

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Like I said way earlier, you’re a legend in your own mind. I was saying great work to Tzetzes, not for his interpretation of scripture or otherwise, but for the sheer reason he did a splendid job in making a non-refuted point (of which you *still* haven’t answered, nor have any intention of doing because it demonstrates the err of your pious ways). You therefore are trying to so desperately change the subject to anything else, be it homosexuality and the term Christian, seer stones, some Mormon rant-de-jour, ANYTHING else than answering the question that would catch you in a blatant contradiction… Namely, Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

Some checkmate, heh. Keep those hands over your ears, singing la-la-la, “I can’t hear you, you’re all accursed, I have the only right interpretation of the Lord, etc.”

SkinnerVic on April 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM

… he did a splendid job in making a non-refuted point (of which you *still* haven’t answered, nor have any intention of doing because it demonstrates the err of your pious ways).

SkinnerVic on April 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM

The question you are referring to is a crooked one, and I adressed it in part here.

Namely, Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

Do you know what your doing or even saying for that matter? Look Skinner, this logic is so stupid! You’re arguing there is no truth or correct interpretation of Biblical Scripture because everyone has an opinion and so because everyone has an opinion nobody is right! Do you know how crazy that is? And dangerous!! Whatever they view Scripture as saying is valid irregardless of it’s true meaning. Yep! Line right up everybody. Get yer popcorn. Get yer popcorn. Pick and choose your own Jesus! You heard right. Pick your own Jesus! You’re all Christian’s!! EVERY ONE OF YOU!!!!!!! This guy must have heard about the deal. Listen to his interpretation:

666 This preacher says he’s Jesus. Now he’s the Antichrist

apacalyps on April 9, 2008 at 7:45 PM

Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

SkinnerVic on April 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Skinner, believers can debate nonessentials without dividing over them, but there has to be unity when it comes to essential Christian doctrine. The importance of essential Christian doctrine simply can’t be overstated. These are the doctrines that make the distinction between Christianity and the world of cults. The essential doctrines are,

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)

Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these. Oh, and you have a seventh doctrine that strikes me as a functional necessity, that is the ultimate authority of Scripture without which none of the other truths can be affirmed or asserted with confidence. As long as a person believes in these essential doctrines, it’s pretty safe to say they are Christian. Note: All Christian denominations agree on the essential core. And as I said, central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.

Watch: The Essentials Of The Christian Faith

apacalyps on April 9, 2008 at 7:59 PM

apacalyps on April 9, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Why not stick with scripture and understand your misconceptions. The Trinity is non-scriptural and trinity based. If you really want to understand the Godhead, then re-read the OT and NT. Who did Stephen see at his martyrdom? What did John the Baptist witness at Christ’s baptism? Did your trinitarian version of a god have a body before Christ’s birth? Your version flies in the face of reason. God had a body. Christ came to earth to receive His and then to die. He was then resurrected, receiving His perfect body. As He was resurrected, Who gave Whose body up to unite in your Trinity? Try and make sense with that. It flies in the face of logic. Sense Christ is truth and light, rely on Him instead of manmade political interpretations of His nature and divinity. If you’re all about the KJV, then solely rely on it like you purport to.

Cold Steel on April 11, 2008 at 7:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5