Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chloroform in Print Does the Book of Mormon get a bad rap?
Slate.com ^ | May 17, 2010 | Alan Wolfe

Posted on 05/18/2010 7:40:38 AM PDT by Colofornian

To a nonbeliever, all religions perplex, but Mormonism perplexes absolutely. Let me immediately qualify that remark. To the non-Mormon faithful, and especially those conservative Protestants who consider it an anti-Christian sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hardly a religion at all.

Hostility toward Mormonism has many sources. A religion established in the 19th century has not had the time to establish its teachings as timeless. A religion founded in the United States lacks the exoticism of those more directly connected to the mysterious Middle East. A religion that once allowed randy elders to possess child brides and consigned its young males to oblivion makes the Catholic Church's problems with wayward priests seem like a mere episode of, well, waywardness. A religion whose followers show a pronounced tendency to become CEOs of some of America's largest corporations is bound to arouse envy.

Not least, there is the Book of Mormon itself. This text, depending on where one stands on the Mormon question, was either discovered by the 17-year-old Joseph Smith in upstate New York after the Angel Moroni directed him to golden plates written in reformed Egyptian, or it was the product of a budding confidence man who copied and pasted other pieces of scripture into a totally improbable tale in which ancient Israelites found their way to the New World. Whatever one's views on the authenticity of the text, it has been widely regarded as a rather inferior work of literature, especially when compared to the King James Bible. "Chloroform in print," is Mark Twain's famous dismissal of it.

SNIP

...I simply cannot imagine anyone setting those words to music the way Handel did with the Bible in his oratorios. The Book of Mormon has a structure. It does not sing.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: History; Other Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: beck; bookofmormon; glennbeck; lds; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
From the article: Mormonism's success suggests that a religion can flourish in spite of rather than because of its founding texts. I do not doubt that Mormons are inspired by the words associated with Joseph Smith. But if another reference to music is permitted, I simply cannot imagine anyone setting those words to music the way Handel did with the Bible in his oratorios. The Book of Mormon has a structure. It does not sing.

This author should review the 1830 Book of Mormon in its purely raw form. Grammar problems galore. If published as is today, would need [sic] placed everywhere. Except, of course, where Smith copied from the Bible...12 chapters from the book of Isaiah, word-for-word. Phrases copied from the Bible all over.

Those graphs read majestically. And then when you compare 1830 Smith beyond his Bible copying, the contrast is sharp. So sharp that Mormonism's leaders have employed editors through the generations to make thousands of changes. Most of them slight changes.

But they prevent the average reader, when challenged by a Mormon or Mormon missionary to read it, from doing a careful examination. They see fewer of the contrasts mentioned above. They are being asked to pray about a book of Mormon version that is not authentic. Characters have been changed to cover up Smith mistakes (he mistook kings, putting a dead king in a place where he should have put another king; he also failed in a few Nephite passages to insert the word "Son of" so that it originally read that God had a mother -- vs. a few references to Mary; skin color changes have been made -- from "white and delightsome" to now "pure and delightsome")...and those mountainous contrasts have been whittled down to hide the obvious comparison of the writing of a Smith vs. his Bible language imports...

1 posted on 05/18/2010 7:40:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

They do have a great choir. ;-)


2 posted on 05/18/2010 7:44:46 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Mormonism's success suggests that a religion can flourish in spite of rather than because of its founding texts.

Yep.

3 posted on 05/18/2010 7:47:49 AM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I HUGE clue about Mormonisms falsity should have been Joseph's Smith's advocation of polygamy. Only a false prophet, that is well, ***ney one is his teens, would dream that up. The Bible states otherwise:

I Cor. 7:2

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yes, polygamy still goes on in Utah ... among other places and Orin Hatch WINKS at it ... but it is ILLEGAL and considered un Christian - this is Biblically correct. Still people wish to excuse a false prophet ... .

4 posted on 05/18/2010 7:48:48 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The book of mormon is chloroform in print (Mark Twain, Roughing It)


5 posted on 05/18/2010 7:51:35 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

People probably thought this way about Jesus or Muhammad once, as they do about Joseph Smith today. A thousand years on, mebbe we’ll ALL be mormons.


6 posted on 05/18/2010 7:51:38 AM PDT by ketelone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Years ago I opined here that the biggest problem with Mormonism and all newer religions is that they haven’t been around long enough to acquire the aura of widespread legitimacy.

Their roots are too well documented compared to those of religions in earlier ages, which had the advantage of great antiquity. Also, they long predated the advent of such information technology as printing and the internet.

A Freeper assured me that, for that statement, I would burn in Hell.


7 posted on 05/18/2010 7:52:49 AM PDT by Erasmus (Looks like we're between a lithic outcropping and a region of low compressibility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>This text, depending on where one stands on the Mormon question, was either discovered by the 17-year-old Joseph Smith in upstate New York after the Angel Moroni directed him to golden plates written in reformed Egyptian, or it was the product of a budding confidence man who copied and pasted other pieces of scripture into a totally improbable tale in which ancient Israelites found their way to the New World.<<

There is actually a third theory - that it was stolen in whole from a small publishing house where it was intended by its author to be a work of fiction. I’d google it to get the details, but I leave it to the curious.

When one compare the history of the bible to the BOM and the Koran, One finds that the BOM and Koran have the most in common. They are both examples of men attempting, in one form or another, to build on the real thing. And neither is really very good at it.

It is a pretty


8 posted on 05/18/2010 7:56:52 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketelone
we’ll ALL be mormons.

Been there, done that! And one HUGE LOL.

9 posted on 05/18/2010 8:02:43 AM PDT by Utah Binger (Mount Carmel Utah, 20 Miles North of Fredonia Arizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: svcw

What most people don’t realize is that you don’t even need a god to have a religion. The only reason any religion succeeds is through the acquisition and maintenance of great wealth and political power. God or no god, Remove the money and the politics and you don’t have a religion.


10 posted on 05/18/2010 8:04:06 AM PDT by updoc1011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nmh

So were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also hugley false prophets? (two of the three confirmed polygamists).


11 posted on 05/18/2010 8:04:44 AM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: updoc1011

Interesting. I disagree but interesting none the less.


12 posted on 05/18/2010 8:07:00 AM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I offer you Chiasmus ... an ancient poetic structure of the Hebrews, Rediscovered in the 1960s(?).

....and yet the book of Mormon has multiple examples of this literary antiquity!

Hmmmm .... not bad for being authored by an uneducated 22 year-old living on the frontier!


13 posted on 05/18/2010 8:10:36 AM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: updoc1011

So how did Christianity survive the first 400 years not only without money and political power of its own but with intense opposition by those that did have money and political power?


14 posted on 05/18/2010 8:13:33 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (END THE WAR ON LIBERTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ketelone

That doesn’t mean there is actually any real similarity between the religions. Jesus’ terachings were not designed to serve his own desires and ambitions unlike the teachings of mormonism and muhammedanism.

Take the issue of polyganism. How many wives did Jesus have? meanwhile mormon leaders were allowed to satisfy their lust by picking and choosing multiple wives while more lowly mormon men went single. And Muhammad declared that any woman he wanted belonged to him.

There is one religion that is based on truth, justice and doing right for your fellow man. And then there are all those non-Christian religions which justify the lust and greed of their adherents...


15 posted on 05/18/2010 8:17:40 AM PDT by LastNorwegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
They do have a great choir. ;-)

The Mormon Babblenackle Choir can be seen regularly right here on F.R.

16 posted on 05/18/2010 8:18:12 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (No Romney,No Mark Kirk (Illinois), not now, not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: updoc1011

Interesting take. Completely lacking in historical context but still interesting. It must have escaped your notice that Christianity sprang out of a repeatedly subjugated province of the Roman Empire. Its followers were beaten, ridiculed and cruelly killed. Its Founder and His followers lived simple, unassuming and certainly not materially rich lives. Its most holy city was destroyed within forty years of its Founder’s Execution and subsequent Ascension into Heaven... and yet, it became the dominant religion of the waning Roman Empire and went on to preserve and rebuild civilization through the Dark Ages.

You are referring to the template for most modern cults, not true religion. Religion is the expression of man’s relationship to God. You can not have religion without a god to worship.


17 posted on 05/18/2010 8:20:09 AM PDT by pgyanke (You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nmh

and let every woman have her own husband. 1Corinthians 7:2
_______________________________________________

Well that there makes a lie of the excuse “it was God’s idea. God thought it up because rthere were many more women than men in Utah Territory, Kirkland, OH, Nauvoo, IL in those days”

Solution would have been Mail Order Grooms


18 posted on 05/18/2010 8:21:40 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LastNorwegian

Jesus’ terachings were not designed to serve his own desires and ambitions unlike the teachings of mormonism and muhammedanism.
________________________________________

And Jesus’ terachings were not designed to get him a date and cheat on his wife with immunity or lots of ill gotten gain and control over others..


19 posted on 05/18/2010 8:24:32 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: teppe
“So were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also hugley false prophets? (two of the three confirmed polygamists).”

No. They were disobendient to God.

God created ONE Eve for Adam.

Later in incest was ruled out once the earth was populated.

No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible.

Lev. 20:11-12, “If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

Lev. 20:19-21, “You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. 20 If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. 21 If there is a man who takes his brother's wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.”

But some may point out that Adam and Eve had children and since there were no other people around, their children would have had to commit incest in order to produce more children. At the time of creation, the genetic line was pure. It wasn't until later, at the time of Moses, that incest was then forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD,” (Lev. 18:6).

http://www.carm.org/incest

No back to pologamy!

It NEVER PLEASED GOD. It was man being disobedient. By NOW, you should realize that! When you KNOW your Bible and what is written you are not “tossed to and fro” and believing that disobedience is okay for you too!

Many leaders in the Old Testament are described as having multiple wives. Does that mean that polygamy is acceptable to God?

No. God did not say polygamy was acceptable to Him, although for a while—like divorce—it was allowed in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 7:2 makes it very clear that marriage is one man and one woman:

“each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

But, let's look at polygamy and the Bible in more detail. To do this there are several questions we need to answer:

Why does the Old Testament tell us about important people who had many wives?

http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy.html

Why did some people in the Old Testament have many wives?

http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy-examples.html

Are the examples of polygamy in the Old Testament examples we should follow?

NO!

http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/old-testament-polygamy-examples.html

What does the New Testament say about polygamy?

“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of “wife” (singular) and “husband” (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word “wives” would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy.

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural “wives” used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

“Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,” - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

When Paul speaks to individuals, it is husband and wife. ONE man and ONE woman. That is marriage. But there is something even more important here. The relationship of husband and wife in marriage is the same as the relationship between Christ and His church.

“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself ready.” - Revelation 19:7 NASB

Marriage is a reflection of Christ's relationship with the church—one groom (Christ) and one bride (the church).

Not two Christs marrying (two homosexual men).

Not two churches marrying (two homosexual women).

Not Christ and many churches (polygamy).

Marriage is ONE man and ONE woman.

http://www.evangelical.us/polygamy/polygamy-new-testament.html

There are many instances in which the church has promoted wrong doctrines, which God has had to correct. God using Martin Luther to straighten out doctrinal errors in the church immediately comes to mind. There have also been questions and issues that took hundreds of years to resolve—and there are still questions about Scripture we have not yet resolved (for example, concerning the end times). However, the question of polygamy is not one of these open questions. Historically it is not even an issue that has generated debate—Christian marriage has always been ONE man and ONE woman.

You may be as disobedient as the pagans. That is your choice to do as you wish, however this is NOT the will of God and never has been. Polygamy even in the Bible, doesn't have good outcomes.

Back in the 18th century the U.S.S.C. OUTLAWED or made polgamy by Mormons ILLEGAL because it VIOLATED Judeo Christian teachings.

20 posted on 05/18/2010 8:24:44 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All; svcw; TSgt; nmh; Tennessee Nana; ketelone; Erasmus; RobRoy; teppe; updoc1011; HerrBlucher; ...
From the article: A religion that once allowed randy elders to possess child brides and consigned its young males to oblivion makes the Catholic Church's problems with wayward priests seem like a mere episode of, well, waywardness.

Note how young the 19th century Mormon wives were!

The book, Changing World, p. 226: The early Mormon leaders certainly did allow their young people to marry at an early age. Mosiah Hancock was only 11 years old when he was "sealed" to a "young girl." According to his journal, he was "born in Kirtland, Ohio, on April the 9th, 1834." ("The Mosiah Hancock Journal," typed copy, p.1). On pages 20 and 21 of the same journal, he recorded: On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple and receive my washings and annointings. I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple.

According to Stanley P. Hirshon, who wrote a biography of Brigham Young: "Make haste and get married," Remy heard Young preach. "Let me see no boys above sixteen and girls above fourteen unmarried." ... In 1857 The New York Times, reporting the sealings to old men of two girls aged ten and eleven, estimated that most girls married before they were fourteen.... Troskolawsski knew one bishop who was sealed to four of his nieces, the youngest thirteen years old....On August 1, 1856, he put on the stagecoach for Ohio twelve-year-old Emma Wheat, who was being forced into a marriage she detested." (The Lion of the Lord, pp.126-27).

Changing World, p. 225: The shortage of women was so great that some of the men were marrying girls who were very young. Fanny Stenhouse stated:

"That same year, a bill was brought into the Territorial Legislature, providing that boys of fifteen years of age and girls of twelve might legally contract marriage, with the consent of their parents or guardians!" (Tell It All, 1875, p.607).

According to http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm, Stenhouse was "at one time had been a firm believer in Mormonism and had even allowed her husband to take another wife. She wrote: "It would be quite impossible, with any regard to propriety, to relate all the horrible results of this disgraceful system.... Marriages have been contracted between the nearest of relatives; and old men tottering on the brink of the grave have been united to little girls scarcely in their teens; while unnatural alliances of every description, which in any other community would be regarded with disgust and abhorrence, are here entered into in the name of God...It is quite a common thing in Utah for a man to marry two or even three sisters.... I know also another man who married a widow with several children; and when one of the girls had grown into her teens he insisted on marrying her also... and to this very day the daughter bears children to her step-father, living as wife in the same house with her mother!" (Tell It All, 1874, pages 468-69)

Per researcher George D. Smith (Source: "Nauvoo Polygamists", George D. Smith, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1994, p. ix, as found at http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm) discovered that of "a list of 153 men who took plural wives in the early years of the Mormon Church. When we examined this list, we noted that two of the young girls were only thirteen years old when they were lured into polygamy. Thirteen girls were only fourteen years old. Twenty-one were fifteen years old, and fifty-three were sixteen years old when they were secretly enticed into this degrading lifestyle."

"I shall not seal the people as I have done. Old Father Alread brought three young girls 12 & 13 years old. I would not seal them to him. They would not be equally yoked together...Many get their endowments who are not worthy and this is the way that devils are made." (Source: Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:58.)

Examples of real young girls being married off in 19th century Mormon families: Judson Tolman, 19, married first wife Sarah Holbrook, 13, in 1846 before adding 4 more wives; James Francis Johnson married Rozina Richmond,13 (perhaps 14) in 1876...then J.F. Johnson took on another wife in 1894 after the so-called "manifesto" supposedly "ending" polygamy--to Clara Barber who was 16--maybe 17. J.F. Johnson was in his late 30s at that time he married Barber.

24 yo Arthur Clark married 14 yo Mary Rasmussen as the second of four wives; Charles Richardson married 14 yo first wife Sarah Adams in 1882--his third wife (Carolina Jacobson) was probably 16 & he was 30. (He had 4 wives overall)

Thomas Chamberlain II actually double-married two 17 yo on the same date in 1873!...and then added on a 15 yo (Ann Carling) in 1875 followed by her sister--also 15--three years later.

Notice how the initial LDS leaders set the terrible example for fLDS leaders by being in their 40s or late 30s (or beyond re: later LDS "prophets"):

Just look at the compulsory "wifehood" of underaged teens: Brigham Young, when he was in his 40s, wedded 15-year-old Clarissa Decker, 16-year-old Ellen Rockwood (when Young was 44); and 16-year-old Lucy Bigelow (when Young was 45).

Its initial "prophet"--Joseph Smith--promised salvation to the household of the Kimball Klan, and what do you know? 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, who initially hated polygamy, was part of Smith's harem. Smith also added to his long list of wives 16-year-old Presendia Huntington. Abel Hardy married a 15 yo (Maria Cooley) in 1896 and then post-manifesto, married Cynthia Porter (16) in 1901. (Hundreds of 16 yo LDS girls were married off as plural wives in the 19th century and early 20th century).

21 posted on 05/18/2010 8:26:19 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Christianity doesn’t allow you to be a god of your own planet and have a celestial family with celestial children, but Mormonism does!!!! I bet if I baptize enough non-Mormon dead people I’ll get at least 10 planets to lord over! LOL!


22 posted on 05/18/2010 8:26:40 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (DOH!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: updoc1011

Welcome to FRee Republic, noob...

Did you sign up TODAY just to say that ???


23 posted on 05/18/2010 8:27:14 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: teppe
BTW, you won't get a PLANET when you dies as a Mormon either and have all these virgins service you sexually for eternity. That too is unBiblical. See how EASY it s to expose the false prophets and charlatans in the “spiritual world€ of misleading others? A piece of cake!
24 posted on 05/18/2010 8:27:19 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teppe

I don’t think the Hebrews ever used 16th century English.

However, I’ve heard tell that the apostle Paul only used Nobel Fir’s for Christmas trees.


25 posted on 05/18/2010 8:28:17 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple.
_________________________________________

And to think God just married Adam and Eve out under the trees...

Didnt God know He had to wait for a mormon temple to be built ???


26 posted on 05/18/2010 8:29:57 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: teppe
LOL!

Did they ever find the “gold plates”?

Truly you can't believe Joseph Smith is legitimate?

What boy in his teens wouldn't want to screw any female that came his way and then rationalize is through an “angel” that this is legitimate? LOL!!! It's ridiculously false and SELF SERVING.

But ow wait, if you adhere to Mormonism, when you die, you'll get a PLANET with VIGINS to service you sexually and otherwise for eternity? Doesn't that sound eerily similar to another FALSE religion called Islam? A Muslim believes they too will have female SEX SLAVES but no planet as of yet.

27 posted on 05/18/2010 8:30:56 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I don’t think the Hebrews ever used 16th century English.
__________________________________________________

Nor did “Reformed Egyptians”

:)


28 posted on 05/18/2010 8:31:09 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Disgusting.
And people wonder why LDS (Joseph Smith and his merry band) were despised and driven out of towns and villages.
29 posted on 05/18/2010 8:31:18 AM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: teppe

This was not rediscovered in the 1960s, but was a known literary tradition in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as in classical Greek and Latin literature, and on up to Shakespear, and then used in the Mormon text. No basis for belief here.


30 posted on 05/18/2010 8:31:21 AM PDT by Liberty Tree Surgeon (Mow your own lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Ah but some built the Tower of Babble and really pissed Him off.

You know, I don't know what it takes for people to UNDERSTAND what He wants from us. We won't ever be perfect but multiple wives and the other nonsense are CCLEARLY not what He wanted. They don't bother to READ and take to HEART what He wants for us. It's typically THEIR WILL that must prevail; not HIS will.

31 posted on 05/18/2010 8:33:23 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nmh

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated.

Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer.

Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “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 its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“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.”[4]

In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
________________________________________

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.


32 posted on 05/18/2010 8:37:02 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher; updoc1011

And why is Christianity declining where it had reached the historic heights of power and wealth (e.g. the dazzling former Byzantine empire, now known as “the Middle East”; all of Europe (both “formerly Ctholic” and “formerly “Protestant” Europe, and North America) but growing where it has no political power whatsoever (e.g. China)?


33 posted on 05/18/2010 8:37:38 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Allah Fubar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: teppe; nmh
So were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also hugley false prophets? (two of the three confirmed polygamists).

Teppe, I dealt this with you before on another thread, a shorter version. And you still perpetrate this twisting. Since I already concede Jacob was a polygamist, but that this was born in deception, and God is not the author of deception, then let's look at Abraham in-depth and "call the Biblical witnesses to the stand":

(1) God never told Abraham to sleep with Hagar for a night. The Angel of the Lord--whom most commentators think is the pre-incarnated Son of God, told Hagar post sleepover to return to her mistress (master Sarai) and to submit to mistress Sarai. (He never said to return to "your husband, Abram"...see Genesis 16).

(2) Hagar, even after sleeping with Abram once (that's all that's mentioned) continues to be labeled as a servant/slave by none other than…
…Abram,
…Sarai,
…the Angel of the Lord (who some say is the pre-incarnated Son of God),
…Moses (Gen. 25),
…even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31),
…and Hagar herself.

Sarai labels Hagar as a gift as a "wife" to Abram, but I question if a woman has the authority to "consent" on behalf of a slave.

Hagar was considered a slave both "before" and "after" sleeping with Abram. Why does the "before" matter? Just as a minor cannot "consent" to sex, a slave is in no better situation to "consent" to--or deny--her master's commands for sex. And in this case, the command didn't come from Abram; it came from her mistress (female word for "master"), Sarai (Sarai is twice referenced as "mistress"--Gen. 16:4,8).

Why does the "after" matter?

Because it shows she didn't become a "transformed" person--from slave to wifely status! Gen. 16:6,8,9; 21:11; 25:12; and Gal. 4:21-31 all are still referencing her as either a "slave" (twice in 21:11), "servant," or one who was told by the Angel to submit to her mistress (female word for "master"). By Gen. 25, Abraham is married to Keturah with no mention of Hagar (25:1) and is then buried with Sarah (25:10).

So, if we were to call all the key witnesses to the stand, and hear what they have to say:

Q Hagar, after Sarai gave you to Abram and Ishmael was conceived, did you still acknowledge Sarai as your "mistress" in your conversation with the Angel of the Lord? [female master]
A Yes. (Gen. 16:8)

Q Sarai, when you were in your early nineties when Isaac was a toddler, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Abraham, Get rid of thatslave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac. (Gen. 21:10)

Q Abraham, after Sarah gave you Hagar and you slept with her, how did you characterize Hagar?

A I told Sarah, as mistress (master) of her servant, Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best. (Gen. 16:6)

Q When Sarah began to mistreat her servant, Hagar, did you intervene like what we might expect a husband to do?
A No. Hagar was Sarah's servant.

Q Angel of the Lord, when you called to Hagar after she conceived Ishmael, how did you reference her?
A Servant of Sarai (Gen. 16:8)

Q And when you conversed with Hagar, did you, Angel of the Lord, acknowledge that she was released from her servant role to Sarai?
A No. In fact, I told her Go back to your mistress and submit to her. (Gen. 16:9)

Q Moses, since you wrote Genesis, how did you identify Hagar in her last reference of that book? Did you link her to Abraham?
A No. I identified her as "Sarah's maidservant" (Gen. 25:12).

Q So in that same passage, you link Ishmael to Abraham, but you link Hagar only to Sarah?
A Yes.

Q Apostle, Paul How did the Holy Spirit lead you to interpret the Old Covenant as expressed through Abraham?
A For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother...Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)

34 posted on 05/18/2010 8:39:47 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: svcw

And people wonder why LDS (Joseph Smith and his merry band) were despised and driven out of towns and villages.
__________________________________________

Even Joey Smith himself said that is why the mormon god drove them out...

D&C 98:18-19: “Behold... Iam not well pleased with many who are in the church at Kirtland; For they do not forsake their sins, and their wicked ways, the pride of their hearts, and their covetousness, and all their detestable things...”

D&C 50:4 — what Smith told the LDS church at Kirtland in May, 1831: “Behold...have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name...”
“...the inhabitants of Zion are terrible...” (D&C 45:70)

Also, Smith said that the affliction, persecution and being cast out of the land of inheritance (D&C 101:1)

was because God “suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions...” (D&C 101:2)


35 posted on 05/18/2010 8:41:46 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Christianity doesn’t allow you to be a god of your own planet and have a celestial family with celestial children, but Mormonism does!!!!

And surprisingly to many, even that "celestial family" for Mormons today will include polygamy and polyandry!!! (So much for contemporary disavowing that mainstream Mormons won't be embracing polygamy!!!)

What do I mean? Well, a hard to get at "Church Handbook of Instructions" (intended for Lds church bishops) says:

“A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime and later: A DECEASED woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life.” (p.73) LDS Church, Church Handbook of Instructions, (LDS Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1998), page 72-73, “Sealing Policies”)

Therefore, the fact is that from here until Jesus comes, LDS say that a woman is "monogamous." She may be serially monogamous (for earthly time), but she is still monogamous. But...But...we have this little "Catch-22" polity right over here in the handbook for all Mormon women in good standing who have had more than one husband in their life: "A DECEASED woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life."

So a serial monogamous woman on earth has two Mormon forks in the road for celestial eternity according to church practice...why she can either be...
(a) ...Celestial Polyandry Polly...
(b) ...Or, Multiple-Choice Michelle (choosing one husband over another in Kolob Heights)...

36 posted on 05/18/2010 8:48:15 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: svcw
And people wonder why LDS (Joseph Smith and his merry band) were despised and driven out of towns and villages.

Well, it may partially explain what happened in Nauvoo. It doesn't "let off" the Missourians re: what happened over several months' time in 1834 and 1838, as they would not have known about Smith's early escapades at that time. Some of those Missourians are the same families who caused trouble in Kansas in promoting slavery in the 1850s.

37 posted on 05/18/2010 8:51:01 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ketelone
A thousand years on, mebbe we’ll ALL be mormons.

Why, even you! (After they dead dunk you & all)

I've got a great "proselytizing" idea for Mormons.

Lds, INc. could use its billions to buy up all the mortuaries around the earth. Then, under the guise of "washing" the dead bodies in tanks, why, they could just "baptize" them (since they already believe in baptizing the dead).

Instead of by proxy, they just do it direct! Lds Necro-dunk, Inc.!

That way, their genealogical work, as dead-dunking is what motivates that $ billion enterprise, would only need to focus on people who lived up through the 20th century!

38 posted on 05/18/2010 9:00:19 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Do celestial Mothers-In-Laws get included with those celestial marriages? Do I have to put up with all that celestial whining, complaining, and kevetching for an eternity?

Maybe the Mormons need to re-think their doctrines.


39 posted on 05/18/2010 9:01:39 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (DOH!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus

Good points. Imagine, for example, if the Arians had won the theological war back in the fourth century. How different so many sermons would be today! And the Mormon/Protestant debate about the nature of God would be rebuilt almost from the bottom up.


40 posted on 05/18/2010 9:10:19 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Do celestial Mothers-In-Laws get included with those celestial marriages? Do I have to put up with all that celestial whining, complaining, and kevetching for an eternity?

(Yes, per Mormonism. That's supposedly what "family sealings" in the Mormon temple is to be all about...to keep families together on the same planet)

What they don't manage to explain is that if many of your family members are temple Mormons (you gotta understand that only about up to 20% of Mormons on the rolls are temple Mormons), and they "earn" their way to the highest degree of glory (Celestialville) -- the one that qualifies you to be a "god"...

...Well, how does son Jack, who became a "Jack Mormon," get to stay with you in Celestialville if he was unworthy?

What takes precedence? The sealing or his unworthy life?

And if it was his unworthy life, then what good was the sealing? If the worthiness of the lives is what got them all to Celestialville, anyway, why bother with the sealings at all?

41 posted on 05/18/2010 9:13:41 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: teppe

not bad for being authored by an uneducated 22 year-old living on the frontier!
_____________________________________

AH Joey Smith wasnt living on the frontier...

Joey Smith was living in and near civilization when he and his cronies authored/plaguarized the ficticious “book of mormon”

New York and Eastern Pennsylvania were not exactly the frontier (In all his 38 years I doubt if Joey Smith ever saw a “hostile” Indian)

The book was a plaguarized mixture of the writings of Ethan Smith (a remote cousin of Joey Smith) and Samuel Spaulding and the Christian Bible and pagan myths....

It was written with a profit in mind...Joey Smith “prophecized” that if his buddies took the new book to Canada they would sell numerous copies and become rich and famous with lots of babes for groupies with their New York Times run away Best Seller (1830 style)

But Oh noez...(Home Alone hands-on-cheeks)

It did not sell...

The mormon god had lied to Joey Smith...


42 posted on 05/18/2010 9:13:57 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Do I have to put up with all that celestial whining, complaining, and kevetching for an eternity?

If you have been doomed to hell and the MIL's have been sent to heaven, this works out very well, a nice efficient use of resources.

43 posted on 05/18/2010 9:15:38 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (END THE WAR ON LIBERTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; svcw

Polygamy came rather late in the history of the LDS (up to the time of Smith’s death). The Mormons’ problems with their host communities before that time were far more likely to be political (Smith openly sought to take over local governments) than theological or moral.


44 posted on 05/18/2010 9:18:50 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The more you speak the worse it sounds!


45 posted on 05/18/2010 9:18:59 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (DOH!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: updoc1011; Tennessee Nana; svcw; Colofornian
The only reason any religion succeeds is through the acquisition and maintenance of great wealth and political power. God or no god, Remove the money and the politics and you don’t have a religion.

I wonder which one of the "atheist/agnostic" mormon defenders chose this as an additional FR handle in order to sign up and post their first reply to this thread. It is a slam at Christianity

46 posted on 05/18/2010 9:21:36 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I have discovered Campbell's Senior alphabet soup....it comes in large type.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Brilliant catch.


47 posted on 05/18/2010 9:29:01 AM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Polygamy came rather late in the history of the LDS (up to the time of Smith’s death).
____________________________________________

Actually Joey Smith was cheating on his wife Emma back in 1831, 13 years before he got himself killed in a gunfight, and just a year or two after he had founded his own new religion..


48 posted on 05/18/2010 9:30:15 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; svcw
The Mormons’ problems with their host communities before that time were far more likely to be political (Smith openly sought to take over local governments) than theological or moral.

I agree

Polygamy came rather late in the history of the LDS (up to the time of Smith’s death).

Yes and no. Yes, in that open polygamy came at that time. But "no" in the sense that as for polygamy itself, despite prohibitions against polygamy in the Book of Mormon, Smith immediately "partook."

Lds apologists met last August. One led a "Anything you ever wanted to ask about Polygamy" type of workshop. In that, he conceded the evidence shows Smith was already sleeping with his adopted 17 yo housemaid as early as 1831. (That's only a year after the Book of Mormon came out)

So even the Lds apologists are conceding this.

49 posted on 05/18/2010 9:45:09 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher; Jack Hydrazine; updoc1011
If you have been doomed to hell and the MIL's have been sent to heaven, this works out very well, a nice efficient use of resources.

Welll...the mormon version of "hell" is quite different from the Christian version...If the MIL was more "worthy" than you, she could come down and harass you but you couldn't go UP and respond.

Note, when mormons claim that "everyone is 'saved'", the non-mormons will be relegated to the lowest kingdom "The Telestial Kingdom"...read HOW unless you join up alive OR dead, with the mormon church you will be disposed of!

 

Messages from the Doctrine and Covenants:
The Three Degrees of Glory

B. Renato Maldonado, “Messages from the Doctrine and Covenants: The Three Degrees of Glory,” Ensign, Apr 2005, 62–65

More than any other book, the Doctrine and Covenants helps us understand the nature of life after death. The Savior taught, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that “mansions” may be understood to mean “kingdoms”—those kingdoms in which we will dwell in the life after this. He said: “It should be—‘In my Father’s kingdom are many kingdoms,’ in order that ye may be heirs of God and joint-heirs with me. … There are mansions for those who obey a celestial law, and there are other mansions for those who come short of the law, every man in his own order.” 1

As scientific knowledge increases, it will become more evident that there is order in the universe and that all things are governed by harmonious and immutable laws. Perfect order exists in everything in nature from the nucleus of the atom to the immensity of space. This is true in spiritual things as well as temporal; therefore, blessings that are spiritual are also governed by spiritual laws. “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven … , upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20–21).

In other words, there is a relationship between obedience and blessings. The Lord has said that we will be blessed and will live in a degree of glory in the next life according to the eternal laws we obey in mortality. “For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory” (D&C 88:22). The same holds true for the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms (see D&C 88:23–24).

As the Prophet Joseph Smith was laboring on what we now call the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, he received a vision later recorded as Doctrine and Covenants section 76. Included in this revelation is a comparison of the three degrees of glory: the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Following is a brief description of each.

The Celestial Kingdom

The Lord compared celestial glory to that of the sun, “even the glory of God, the highest of all” (D&C 76:70; see also D&C 76:96). Those who will inherit this kingdom must do the following:

• Receive a testimony of Jesus and believe on His name (see D&C 76:51).

• Be baptized by immersion (see D&C 76:51).

• Receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see D&C 76:52).

• Obey the commandments and be washed and cleansed of all sins (see D&C 76:52).

• Overcome by faith (see D&C 76:53).

• Be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (see D&C 76:53).

Those who qualify for the celestial kingdom will receive, among other blessings:

• Be of a company of angels, of the general assembly and church of Enoch and of the Firstborn (see D&C 76:54, 67).

• Receive the fulness, glory, and grace of the Father (see D&C 76:55, 56, 94).

• Be priests and kings of the Most High God (see D&C 76:56–59).

• Overcome all things (see D&C 76:60).

• Dwell forever in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

• Be with Christ at the time of His Second Coming (see D&C 76:63).

• Come forth in the First Resurrection (see D&C 76:64–65).

• Go up unto Mount Zion and unto the heavenly city of God (see D&C 76:66).

• Minister to terrestrial and telestial beings (see D&C 76:87–88).

Be able to have offspring, or in other words, gain the right to become eternal parents (see D&C 131:4).

The Lord further revealed the important doctrines of salvation for the dead and salvation of little children in the celestial kingdom:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

“Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; …

“… All children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven” (D&C 137:7–8, 10). Except for those whose mental abilities prevent them from reaching the age of accountability (see D&C 29:50), the age of accountability is eight (see D&C 68:25).

We do not know much about who will inherit two of the three degrees within the celestial kingdom. However, much has been said about the highest level in the celestial kingdom, or exaltation, because that is where the Father wants all of His children to live (see Moses 1:39). The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that temple marriage is the key to obtaining exaltation:

“In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

“And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

“And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

“He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4).

“If a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; … and if [they] abide in my covenant …

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting … because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them” (D&C 132:19–20).

The Terrestrial Kingdom

The Lord compared terrestrial glory to that of the moon (see D&C 76:97). It exceeds the telestial in all things (see D&C 76:91). Those who will inherit this kingdom are those who experienced one or more of the following circumstances:

• Died without law (see D&C 76:72).

• Were in spirit prison and received a testimony there but rejected the testimony of Jesus while on the earth (see D&C 76:73–74; see also D&C 138:32).

• Were honorable people who allowed themselves to be blinded by the craftiness of men (see D&C 76:75).

• Were not valiant in their testimonies of Jesus (see D&C 76:79).

Among other blessings and limitations, those who qualify for the terrestrial kingdom will:

• Come forth in the First Resurrection after celestial beings are resurrected. 2

• Receive of God’s glory but not His fulness (see D&C 76:76).

• Enjoy the presence of the Son but not the fulness of the Father (see D&C 76:77).

• Not be able to obtain a crown in the kingdom of God (see D&C 76:79).

• Be ministered to by celestial beings (see D&C 76:87).

The Telestial Kingdom

The Lord compared telestial glory to that of the stars (see D&C 76:81). Those who shall inherit this kingdom are those who:

• Rejected the gospel, the testimony of Jesus, the prophets, and the everlasting covenant (see D&C 76:82, 101).

• Were liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers (see D&C 76:103).

• Loved “and [made] a lie” (D&C 76:103).

Among other blessings and limitations, those who inherit the telestial kingdom will:

• Suffer the wrath of God on earth (see D&C 76:104) and not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, which will take place after the Millennium (see D&C 76:85). 3

• Be denied the Savior’s fulness (see D&C 76:86).

• Be able to receive the Holy Ghost through the ministration of beings in higher glories (see D&C 76:86–88).

• Never be able to come where God and Christ dwell (see D&C 76:112).

I am grateful that the Lord revealed these eternal truths through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Such truths help us have a greater understanding of the plan of salvation and a stronger testimony of Jesus Christ. We are blessed to know what our eternal destiny will be if we will keep the commandments and endure to the end.

[Notes

1. History of the Church, 6:365.

2. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 2:296.

3. Doctrines of Salvation, 2:297.

From LDS.org

50 posted on 05/18/2010 9:53:50 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I have discovered Campbell's Senior alphabet soup....it comes in large type.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson