An Ugly Attack on Mormons

article.nationalreview.com ^ | December 3, 2008 | Jonah Goldberg

[Publius804]

An Ugly Attack on Mormons

The easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

By Jonah Goldberg

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife’s purse and then the man’s wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter’s piggy bank and pinch every penny. “We need it for the Wall Street bailout!” they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. “Hi, we’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!” says the blond one with a toothy smile. “We’re here to take away your rights.” The Mormon zealots yank the couple’s wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, “That was too easy.” His smirking comrade replies, “Yeah, what should we ban next?” The voice-over implores viewers: “Say no to a church taking over your government.”

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the “hard-hitting commercial” was too little, too late.

[Elsie]

The Question: The GODHEAD with TWO physical bodies?

You seemed to have ANSWERED a different one.

[Elsie]

No problem. I try to admit when I’m wrong.

(Slithering away doesn’t seem to become me.)

[netmilsmom]

>>(Slithering away doesn’t seem to become me.)<<

Somehow, I’ve learned to do it well. XD

When Our Lord wants me humble, he humiliates me. I think I need to learn quicker!

[Zakeet]

I am not a mormon, but I do speak Hebrew, and don’t believe what you posted [HERE] is accurate.

Presumably, you were talking about, "Praising Satan by chanting Hebrew words in the ceremony whose translation is Marvelous Lucifer."

In fact, Mormons have changed their chant over time from "Pay Ale Ale" to "Pale Hale Hale!" to "Pay Lay Ale." This LDS SOURCE explains that, According to Joseph Smith, the phrase "Pay Hale Hale" is supposed to be from the pure Adamic language and means "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth!"

In his book 1984 The God Makers, Ed Decker explained to some length how the term coincidentally also means oh marvelous Lucifer in Hebrew. The chant was eliminated in 1990, in the opinion of many, in response to Decker's criticism.

[greyfoxx39]

“Actually, all the pieces are in the scriptures, they are just not put together for the same reason Jesus spoke in parables.”

[Reno232]

Of course Delphiuser has already addressed this issue very succinctly recently as you well know. You also fail to cite the scriptures speaking of the prophets & their multiple wifes. Why is that Elsie? Are you ignoring those scriptures just to try & win the argument?

[Zakeet]

As to your post(s) Utah Lighthouse ministry is an anti site. ... Their purpose is to destroy our religion, and you want to use them in a debate as a source to be debated? are you serious?

I have found Utah Lighthouse Ministry far more credible than the LDS Church

For example, on the matter of the First Vision, the Tanner's have documented with annotations direct from Mormon historical documents the nine different versions of the vision. You can review them at your convenience HERE, where you will see rather profound differences. You will also note the first account did not appear until 1830-31 – and the official account did not appear until 1838 – a full eighteen years after it purportedly happened and at the exact moment when Joseph Smith greatly needed a magnificent event to shore up his authority and silence critics.

Mark Hofmann was a documents forger who foisted several dozen fake documents onto Mormon Church Leadership. Hofmann's amazing discoveries were purchased by devout Mormons and the donated to the Church. Writings favorable to Mormonism were placed on prominent display – writings deemed damaging to the cause were secreted away.

Hofmann's most famous fabrication was the Salamander Letter. In this writing, supposedly by Book of Mormon Witness Martin Harris, a tenth version of the First Vision surfaced. Fortunately for the Mormon Church, the first account of the visitation was extended back in time a full five years to the mid-1820's. Unfortunately for the Church, in this telling Joseph was visited by an elf who took the form of a salamander.

Mormon leadership verified the authenticity of the letter, apparently relying in large part on the opinion of forensic documents examiners. Based on his vast knowledge of Mormonism, Gerald Tanner on the other hand immediately denounced the document as a fraud. Tanner was proven right.

The effects of the Salamander Letter haunt the Mormon Church to this day.

As can be seen in the photograph above, two Mormon Prophets, Spencer Kimball and Gordon Hinckley, were among the duped.

President Hinckley would later candidly admit:

I accepted [Hofmann] to come into my office on a basis of trust … I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however … I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens. – Dew, S. (1996). Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, p. 432.

But according to LDS doctrine at the time, this was impossible.

In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual ," was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time," and "would never lead the Church astray".

Following the Hofmann debacle, less than a decade after President Benson's pronouncement, an embarrassed Mormon Church was forced to proclaim:

Prophets are mortal men who have been ordained and chosen by God to be a mouthpiece for revelation and guidance, but that revelation only comes when God wills it, making it somewhat sporadic in both ancient and modern times. There is no expectation that every act, every decision, and every purchase by a prophet will be divinely and infallibly guided. As Joseph Smith said, "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." – Jeff Lindsay, The Salamander Letter and Mark Hofmann

The incident also led to the founding and naming of the Salamander Society, an organization founded by disgruntled Mormons for the purpose of Lampooning the LDS faith.

If you desire, I would be pleased to provide additional examples where the Tanner's were more truthful and/or accurate than LDS church leaders.

[Reno232]

I wonder what you would have said to the Lord in regards to what he had to say to His people, the Jews, that belonged to different churches as He was setting up His? Seems there is a lot of precedent for what the Lord told Joseph Smith.

You are a funny one Elsie. I wonder if the Lord finds you as amusing as we do?

[Jibaholic]

If you are truly interested in seeking the truth I would suggest you read through websites like this. I am not interested in investing the time that it takes to have a scriptural debate on Mormonism. Heretical sects like Mormonism and Seventh Day Adventists are simply too numerous and too small to be worth worrying about. Atheism and Islam are more pressing threats.

[MeanWestTexan]

The devil/accuser in Hebrew is variously “Satan’el” “Satarie” “Baal Davar” “Mastema,” “mastemah” (literally “hatred”) and similar phrasings.

I just don’t see it. There are legitimate theological beefs to be had without injecting nonsense.

[Zakeet]

The devil/accuser in Hebrew is variously “Satan’el” “Satarie” “Baal Davar” “Mastema,” “mastemah” (literally “hatred”) and similar phrasings. ... I just don’t see it.

Try looking here:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! Isaiah 14:12 (NKV)

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)

O Lucifer and O morning star are assigned Strong's Reference Number 1966 -- whose English pronunciation is given as heylel or hay-lale -- and whose English translation is given as the morning-star -- lucifer.

[Old Mountain man]

I LOVE IT! I’m gonna borrow a set of machinist letter stamps and put that on the business end of my 1911.

Be careful of them plastic pistols, they will break.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***We consider the Nicene Creed to be the prime example of this Apostasy.
Then give us a MORMON, point-by-point analysis of the NC to SHOW us just WHAT is so heretical about it.****

I wonder what these “churches” would do if they did not have the emperor CONSTANTINE to kick around.

There was a church built about 250 years before Constantine and the Nicene Creed. In the mosaics on the floor is a dedication to “the God Jesus”.

[Elsie]

Of course Delphiuser has already addressed this issue very succinctly recently as you well know.

Of COURSE it was 'succinct'!!

What ELSE could it be to try to muddy the water concerning the FACT that these 'leaders' IGNORED the WORD of GOD as well as the Restorative powers of the BoM!!

[Elsie]

As to your post(s) Utah Lighthouse ministry is an anti site.

HELLO!

The BIBLE is an ANTI-Mormon site!!

[Elsie]

I wonder if the Lord finds you as amusing as we do?

I wonder if the Lord finds you as deceived as I do?

[Elsie]

Be careful of them plastic pistols, they will break.

Paint the tip ORANGE and then folks'll think it's a TOY!

[Elsie]

Then give us a MORMON, point-by-point analysis of the NC to SHOW us just WHAT is so heretical about it.****

Well; we ARE still waiting for this.

[Reno232]

Actually, I have been to that website as well as many others of that ilk. I have found them to be malinformed, disingenuous, & at worst, sometimes very dishonest in their reports of what we believe. It's too bad that your info has come from this kind of source.

You seem to be a bright, cordial individual. It's far better to get info on a church from the source & then match it to your own studies. Part of the reason why many in the Mideast hate Christians so much is because of where they get their info. When they finally speak to a Christian, they get a far different perspective, & more importantly, the truth.

Wouldn't it be sad if the only account we had of Jesus Christ was that of Judas Iscariot? These sites are often a kin to that. Perhaps you & others here can ask yourself this, do theses sites match what you see in Mormons that you may associate with? There is usually a disconnect there. Mormons aren't perfect, but things just don't match.

That was one of the issues for me. I am a convert & had been to most of the conventional Christian churches in search for the truth. Things just never made sense in many areas. When I started investigating the LDS church, the anti’s came out of the woodwork. At first, some of what they said shook me, but then as I investigated more, I found that the anti’s weren't quite up front & honest in their dealings w/ the LDS church.

Ultimately, after months of research & pondering, & coming to certain conclusions, I took the matter before the Lord as He has instructed all to do in the Bible. I received that answer that could never come solely from my personal studies, or studies w/ well intentioned, albeit imperfect mortals here on earth. I received an answer to prayer from the author of all this. The answer was so profound that I could never deny it regardless of the persecution that may come from those well intentioned & not so well intentioned souls here on earth.

That's really the point here. Why rely solely on yourself or what others may think. Why not ask the Lord? He was the One who invited us to do so. I will be eternally grateful for the answer I received.

[brytlea]

Sadly, yes.

[brytlea]

I would very much like more information on that, as it has been my understanding that Mormon’s see Jesus as a man and a brother to man, but not the same as God.

[Old Mountain man]

Yeah, a SWAT guy told me that just yesterday, that he would never, never shoot anyone with an orange painted pistol in his hand.

[Jibaholic]

I will be eternally grateful for the answer I received.

I fear you will not be, although I suspect God is more tolerant of heresies than we are here on earth.

I have not become a Christian through my own efforts and work - quite the contrary. It was God who drew me in. I do not mean that theologically, I mean that literally. I was an atheist who hated God with all my heart. But one day the spirit descended upon me. I knew I was either on drugs or God existed. Shortly after that some substantial sexual depravities that I'd had since I was 5 or 6 went away. Then shortly after that I met a wonderful woman who was an evangelical Christian. She led me to the Lord and we married. Today is our 4th anniversary. I know where the Holy Spirit has led me.

[Reno232]

Your little digs not withstanding, that’s a great story & I appreciate you sharing it. It’s a different story when Christ is in your life. It sounds like you’re on a good track. My best wishes to you & your wife.

[Jibaholic]

Thanks. :) Best wishes to you as well!

[DelphiUser]

DU: Please explain to me why men need to settle Theological disputes and not God.

Jibaholic: Because otherwise wolves in sheeps' clothing will lead people astray. That is what Paul fought against.

Paul was defending his church against threats from the inside, anti's on the other hand attack my church from the outside.

To me you are an ill disguised wolf.

DU: Please explain to me how men, without God's assistance settle these disputes.

Jibaholic: Of course we need God to be in control. It is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that equips believers to fight against heresies.

Perhaps then you are not aware that I am following the Holy Ghost, it is what lead me to be a Mormon. You should read my testimony, please also understand the I am not attacking anyone else's religion, merely offering to share my own faith and defending against attacks on my own. If I were to attack, even under the strictures of this forum, i would have many more enemies here and create much more of a commotion, I know where too many of the "bodies are buried" for too many religions.

DU: Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a different understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?

Jibaholic: They believe in something that is false - that does not come from God.

Yes, those who follow the Nicene Creed are indeed following something that is not from God. The "Creed" was created by a council of men presided over by a sun worshiping emperor who wanted to make Christianity more palatable to his people, please don't believe me on this, Go and read the account in the Catholic encyclopedia on line

Since that is too much for some, here is an excerpt from my page:

Mormons believe that one of the places that we can most easily see the apostasy happening is the first council at Nicea which was convened to reconcile the Arian controversy So Constantine could use this new "Christian" religion to unify his fractured Roman Empire The Trinity was the creation of a pagan emperor named Constantine, who called the first council at Nicea and with a combination of bribes, and threats got the church to agree on a creed that all of Rome could unite behind. This was his expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event.

Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius depreciating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay.

And

The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established.

And

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations.

Lastly

St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence.

Now let's put all this in the context of the day. Constantine had just finally put down the other military leaders of a fractured empire. In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference, moreover, he puts "Public transportation" at their disposal to get to the conference with. (Public transportation means military horses and Chariots, there was no bus)

Now on top of all this he tells them that one of the topics of the conference will be making the Catholic church the sate church of Rome.

Carrot and Stick are now clearly (I hope) visible to all who read this.

The bishops meet and Constantine tells them to come to a consensus on the nature of God (the Arian Controversy) and when they do, he makes them the state church. However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed.

Mormons believe that this is the single biggest step into apostasy that can be documented as happening at an exact point in time.

Jibaholic: Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will go to heaven.

That is precisely whey I fear so much for those who fight against God's church on these forums.

Just a quote to ponder: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson.

[DelphiUser]

DU: So stating that Jews are not people is not bashing Jews?

Arguendo: What a ridiculous analogy.

What a ridiculous response.

DU: Mormons believe in Jesus Christ

Arguendo: So do Muslims, but they are obviously not Christians. Christianity requires more than a belief in Jesus--it requires a true belief in his divinity, with everything that entails (such as salvation by faith).

Mormons believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and in being salved by grace, however, we also realize that mercy cannot rob justice, the bible says so. please read James 2:14-26, it sets forth our position far better than I can.

[DelphiUser]

The question being responded to was if anyone had actually seen any persecution. I have. I was not and am not trying to play the victim, neither did I ask you for help. your posting of that “graphic” is a great example, thanks for illustrating.

[MeanWestTexan]

Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12-17
Translation and Ideology
Dennis Bratcher

The name Lucifer has often been understood to be another name for the devil or the satan. This identification has a long history in the church, going back to at least the fourth century. Its origin is actually from a passage in the Old Testament from the book of Isaiah that, to some, speaks of a being cast out of heaven because of pride. Since some people see a reference to the devil being cast out of heaven in the New Testament (Rev 12:9-12; cf. Lk 10:18), they assumed that the Isaiah passage referred to the same thing.

The passage (NRSV): 14:12

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. 16 Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?’

In the King James translation, verse 12 reads:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer was popularized in English from this King James translation. However, the name does not come from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century AD Latin translation of this verse:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

But this is not quite as obvious as it sounds even in Latin. The term Lucifer in fourth century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star. The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning “light”) and ferre, which means “to bear” or “to bring.” So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light. The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean “bright,” especially associated with the sky:

Job 11:17: And your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like the morning.

2 Peter 1:19: You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

This reflects how the Latin word Lucifer was used in classic Roman poetry, such as this passage from Virgil (Georgics, III, 324-325):

Luciferi primo cum sidere frigida rura
carpamus, dum mane novum, dum gramina canent”

Let us hasten, when first the Morning Star appears,
To the cool pastures, while the day is new, while the grass is dewy.

The term also occurs in the plural (luciferum) in Job 38:32 to refer to an astral constellation. Other forms of the word are used in similar ways to refer to light or the stars. And this reflects the Greek (Septuagint) translation’s use of heosphoros, “morning star” to translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12.

There is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 (helel). The strongest possibility is that it comes from a verbal root that means “to shine brightly,” as well as “to offer praise” (where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both the second century BC Greek translation in the Septuagint, and the fourth century AD Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the meaning of the Hebrew word helel.

So, how did we get from Venus, the morning star, to Lucifer being associated with the devil, especially since that term is used in positive ways even in the New Testament? Well, if we begin with some New Testament passages and incorrectly assume that using the New Testament along with a lot of accumulated tradition is the best way to interpret the Old Testament, then add some of our assumptions, it is not a long trip at all.

In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes about false apostles:

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

And in Luke 10:18-19, at the return of the 70 as they comment on their success, Jesus says:

And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.”

So, without ever stopping to examine either of those passages to see what was being said in them, and what was meant by the references, we could conclude that the devil/the satan is somehow associated with light and the sky.

If we then add the passage from Revelation 12 about the devil/satan/red dragon/serpent, the symbols begin to run together, again before we have done any real study on any of these passages separately to see what each of them are saying. In Revelation 12 the red dragon with seven heads appears in the sky, and his tail sweeps down a third of the stars to earth, and is then later cast down to the earth along with his angels. Of course, at this point, a great many assumptions are introduced into the reading even of the Revelation passage, even though this is obviously extremely figurative language; we just assume what it means.

By adding these three passages together without regard to context, and read them as if they were all speaking in the same way about the same thing to make the same point, we can conclude that we have here a jigsaw picture of a long ago historical event described in great detail (but of course we have to put the pieces together from various bits scattered through literature written 800 years apart!).

Then, if we take that assumption about the meaning of all these texts, and the assumption that adding texts together is the way to understand them (a drastic perversion of the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle!), and bring that back to the Isaiah text, then it is very easy to reach the conclusion that Isaiah is also describing the same event. There are similar metaphors of light, stars, conflict, and being cast down. Earlier translations (KJV) mistakenly took the Hebrew term sheol in verse 15 as “hell” (in Hebrew it is simply the place where the dead go, a metaphor for death, specifically burial; see Sheol, Hell, and the Dead), which is another piece of the puzzle. So of course, since there is no mention of the “devil” or the “satan” in Isaiah, “Lucifer” must be the name Isaiah uses for him! So, Isaiah is talking about the devil being cast out of heaven!

This is the position that prevailed throughout much of the history of the church until the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, when we began asking more direct questions of the biblical text. We also gained more information in new archaeological discoveries of ancient civilizations, including thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia giving us a great deal of information about ancient Mesopotamian and Babylonian religion.

We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).

Now, if we look at the text of Isaiah 14 in context, and without the assumptions we brought to it from the New Testament, the meaning of the passage becomes more obvious and goes a radically different direction. The book of Isaiah has spent the first chapters denouncing the sins of Israel and its failure to be God’s people. There have also been expectations that God will work in new ways in the life of the nation to help them recover their mission as God’s people. One of those ways would be through a new king to replace the corrupt Ahaz. Because of his pro-Assyrian policies, the nation was teetering upon the brink of catastrophe as Assyria expanded to the West (see Assyrian Dominance).

Isaiah 13 begins a long section of the book known as “Oracles Against Foreign Nations.” This is a standardized format in the prophets for universalizing responsibility to God. Not only Israel, but all nations, were accountable to God and would fall under the same judgment Israel would. As is typical in other prophetic books (Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) not all of these oracles come from the same time period as Isaiah of Jerusalem, but they do follow a similar pattern and serve the same function in the book.

Isaiah 13 is part of the oracle directed against Babylon, probably from a time after the Exile. In very flowery, poetic, and highly figurative language, Babylon is denounced for her arrogance and lack of concern for other nations as she built her empire. It is interesting that in 13:10, specific mention is made of the failure of the Babylonian gods (constellations, sun, moon) to help them when God calls then to accountability.

Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, a theme that dominates the middle section of Isaiah (40-55). Part of that return would involve the downfall of the tyrant king of Babylon (v. 4; probably Nebuchadrezzer; for the same language used of a later Babylonian ruler, Belshazzar, see Dan 5:20). In that context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall. Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, then, are references to the Babylonian gods who could not save the king, and are themselves to be cast down. In fact, there is probably a reference here to the habit of ancient Near Eastern kings proclaiming themselves incarnations of the gods; with the fall of the kings, the gods also fell, often physically as the images that represented them were pulled down and destroyed (recall the symbolism of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad).

So, the Isaiah passage does not connect, either historically or theologically, with the New Testament passages about the devil or the satan. By listening to the Old Testament passage on its own terms within its own context, we discover that Lucifer is not an Old Testament name for the devil or the satan. The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed at the downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly misreading Isaiah.

[greyfoxx39]

I was not and am not trying to play the victim

Oh yeah? Here's your whine:" I have been attacked on this forum, had my morals, intent parentage, intelligence etc. not just questioned, but been called a liar about what I believe, damned to hell, called a demon from the pit and been condemned in every way imaginable." BOO Hoo Hoo!

Neither did I ask you for help.

I'm ALWAYS happy to point out your prevarications, regardless of any invitation to do so.

Anyone that has followed your comments on this thread will see through your facade to the "mormon superiority attitude". You are extraordinarily full of it, today.

[colorcountry]

That is precisely whey I fear so much for those who fight against God's church on these forums.

...Delphi, - you forgot the barf alert

[colorcountry]

I asked Delphi yesterday what he thought constituted “persecution.” I guess to him it means when you hurt his stupid feelings.

[DelphiUser]

DU: Please explain to me why men need to settle Theological disputes and not God. Please explain to me how men, without God's assistance settle these disputes.

Colofornian: (This coming from somebody who belongs to an organization where the stress is on men's revelations? ...

Please show me where the church teaches to follow the relations of men and not revelations from God...(you can't)

Colofornian: from an organization where the stress is that 100% of everything God does is revealed to prophets? ... Based upon a literal, wooden interpretation of Amos 3:7: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.)

I assure you it's not My fault the Bible says that. Since it does, I have to ask do you believe the bible? or just the parts that agree with you? Or is it that you have a more liberal view of the Bible as a "living document" that c an be changed to fit the times?

DU: Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a different understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?

Colofornian: Believing in the "wrong" Jesus is no light matter. The apostle Paul asked the Corinthians: Suppose someone comes to you and preaches about a Jesus different from the Jesus we preached about? (2 Cor. 11:4)

Which is exactly what happened with the Trinity! (Ya think he was prophesying?) Colofornian: Likewise Jesus made it clear that it wasn't simply just knowing any old god. He prayed to His Father: "And THIS is eternal life -- that you KNOW the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." (John 17:3)

Yeah, execpt that with the trinity, you only have to know Jesus, because he's his own father This is how this sounds to people not raised with the trinity <-- funny video!

With an Arian view you need to know god the ?father and his Son Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

Ya know, what's funny about all this is that Mormons can understand Evangelicals and Protestants and Born agains, none of them truly understand us, or they join us. This phenomenon of "Orthodox Christians" who have their eyes opened and gain a testimony and become Mormons is why Anti's fight so hard against people Getting a Book of Mormon, and praying about it. there is no other reasonable explanation for the opposition to those simple, Godly steps.

[colorcountry]

Courtesy ping to #532...

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

That is precisely whey I fear so much for those who fight against God's church on these forums.

Hmmm....so what are all the other Churches in this country and throughout the Christian world if they are not God's church, as you imply here? Just curious.

[Colofornian]

...so what are all the other Churches in this country and throughout the Christian world if they are not God's church, as you imply here? Just curious. [Virginia Ridgerunner]

Book of MORMON: And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

Yes, Virginia, there really are supposedly only two churches, say the Mormons. And since we wouldn't really expect them to call their own church the "church of the devil" in their own contrived "sacred" scriptures...guess who they really reserve the not-so-sacred title of "the whore of all the earth" for...?

[Colofornian]

Mormons believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ... [DU]

Well, just to show you that this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, folks/lurkers need to understand that Mormons also believe in the Divinity of men everywhere -- at least temple-worthy Mormon men, anyway.

From LDS "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball:

"Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose that 225,000 of you may become gods" (from speech published in the official LDS publication, The Ensign, November 1975, 1980).

[Colofornian]

Just a quote to ponder: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson. [DU]

So, now T.J. is your latest spiritual giant, Delf? Tell, you what...if you're goin' to use your quote above everytime you want to continue the grand Mormon tradition of labeling us apostates (one & all), corrupt (one & all), and abominable (one creed & all)...then why don't you also keep the following T.J. quote handy as well. Then, everytime you meet a theist (vs. the polytheists that Mormons are), you can just whack them o'er the head with T.J.:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. - Thomas Jefferson

[Reno232]

I guess he's got good company w/ Saint Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, C. S. Lewis, Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology, William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury to name a few.

See post 396.

[Colofornian]

I assure you it's not My fault the Bible says that. [Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."] Since it does, I have to ask do you believe the bible? or just the parts that agree with you?

No. (What part of 1 Cor. 13:9 is a mystery to you? For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.)

To hear you tell it, the LDS "prophets" have the complete divine "download"--even weather reports & all!
To hear you tell it, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing..." [Rain, snow, hail, tornado, huricane, Mark Hofmann falsified documents, terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers & India, etc.] "but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."]

So. Are you trying to tell us, Delf, that Hinckley knew about 911 ahead of time? Or that your current "proph" has God's next storm already relayed to him? Remember, now, that your wooden, literal interpretation mandates that the Lord can't do a thing minus telling your "prophet."

Please show me where the church teaches to follow the relations of men and not revelations from God...(you can't)

Give me a break, Delf. Your god is a man! (Joseph Smith repeatedly said so!)

Example: The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father DID, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 346)

Your god died! (Joseph said so!) He was physically mortal BEFORE he ever became divine! That's your revelatory god!

Besides that, look at how Joseph Smith as a mere man repeatedly contradicted God's revelations from the Bible:

Example 1: An angel of God never has wings. Some will say that they have seen a spirit; that he offered them his hand, but they did not touch it. This is a lie. First, it is contrary to the plan of God: a spirit cannot come but in glory; an angel has flesh and bones..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 162)

So, Smith called the prophet Isaiah a liar! Isaiah clearly talks about winged angels in Isaiah 6!

Example 2: Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael...Adam...the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 157, 167)

(Sorry, Joe. Adam is NOT Michael the Archangel! And, no, Adam is NOT the "ancient of days"...you'll need to study the Bible a bit more to unravel that, LDSaints)

Example 3: Now, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ's resurrection, PROBABLY all the Saints, but it seems that David did not. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 188)

[Hey wait a minute! Did the Lord raise ALL the saints or not? So now we have the "prophets" of God conjecturing on the "probability" of God's historical truth? Here, you've just lectured me, Delf, on supposedly believing only the parts of the Bible I want to, and/or having a more liberal view of the Bible as a "living document" that can be changed to fit the times? All that because I take issue with the way LDS interpret Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do NOTHING but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.]

Well, based upon Smith's teachings, I guess you can go on to interpret Amos 3:7 to read: surely the Lord Mormon God did nothing like raise all the saints, or maybe it was most of the saints, or perhaps it was some of the saints, or it could have even been multiple-choice lead pencil pick -- a few of the saints without revealething his secret unto his servant the prophet, Joey Smith? (I mean, surely you're not gonna want to back off your interpretation of Amos 3:7 now that you've walked out so far to defend it, right?)

Example 4: I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me, 'My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man...I prophesy in the name of the Lord god, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 286)

So, since Joe didn't live to be 85...I guess we can conclude that...
...(a) -- He DIDN'T see the face of the Son of Man; and...
...(b) that his accompanying Jesus-returning-in-the-clouds "prophesy" was either a false prophesy (Jesus DIDN'T come in the clouds of heaven when Smith was 85, 'cause He never reached that ripe ole age) OR that it was a totally worthless, meaningless statement -- that Jesus would return sometime after Smith turned 85...I mean, he might as well have said: "I prophesy in the name of the Lord god, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am one hundred and eighty-five years old." (That would have just been as meaningful!)

[Colofornian]

I guess he's got good company w/ Saint Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, C. S. Lewis, Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology, William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury.

They all believed in 225,000 gods? (Well, that's a new one!)

[Reno232]

Cute! They believed man could become a God. By inference, that probably means a lot more than 225,000.

BTW, it’s obviously not a new one at all.

[Birmingham Rain]

Place marker.

[Godzilla]

Jibaholic -

You will soon see that DU is very selective when ever he cites something. Especially when he takes liberty with history. Take the following for instance:

Constantine, who called the first council at Nicea and with a combination of bribes, and threats got the church to agree on a creed that all of Rome could unite behind. This was his expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event.

If you follow his link you will find the following:

"The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. .......In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. "

Try as one may, one will not see the term - bribed or threat used in any variant form. DUs continues the spin as follows:

In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference,

Is there truth in this statement? Not in the least. Following his coming to power, Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan, early in 313 - that is twelve (12) years before the Nicean conference. This is a an example of typical mormon amateur apologetics who expects that his statements will go unchallenged. Next he will try to present a little truth.

However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed.

Correct, Constantine wanted the strife to stop. But is this hellenistic influence? Arianism was at its core Platoism. The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. Platonism, in its various forms, postulated the existence of such a mediator because it could not accept a direct contact or union between the Transcendent Divine Reality and Creation. It was this intermediate that Arius developed his heresy upon. Jehovah's witnesses carry this heresy to its conclusion - a kindred spirit for DU.

But now for the rest of the story. DU would have you believe that Constantine instituted the Trinity doctrine into the church. History reveals that the opposite is true. Arius’ friend Eusibius was a friend of Constantine, Emperor of Rome. He persuaded Constantine defend Arius. Constantine was baptized as an Arian. The Arians were anti-Trinitarians. The change in the church was not as the result of the Council of Nicaea. At the council, the historic position of the church was affirmed and written into a creed. It was after this council that historic Christianity was exiled and replaced with the Arian heresy.

Also, the Nicean Creed that breeds such bile from DU wasn't formulated in its current form until Council of Constantinople (381) - some 56 years later. So jibaholic, and any other lurker present, it is clear that the history has been misrepresented by DU.

[Marysecretary]

New King James; but Mormons take most of their beliefs from Joseph Smith’s teachings. They consider Jesus satan’s brother.

[Colofornian]

Allow me to perhaps clarify your misunderstanding of our doctrine. First, we do believe it's imperative to live the commandments.

The “defense” would say, “Irrelevant, Your honor!” Not that living the commandments is an “irrelevant” issue in our lives...it's just we don't disagree on the need to do that. Living the commandments just isn't a 1:1 correlation of how God's grace interacts with us! In fact, your next statement of A key component of grace is that we don't always live the commandments. was closer to what I'm talking about than what your LDS teachngs zero in on...I have several examples, but here are two 1:1 correlation LDS teachings I vehemently disagree with:

Grace is granted to men proportionately as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness... (LDS apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 339)

No, it isn't, Bruce!! Men don't force God's gracious hand!!! (Can you imagine a Mormon leader saying, “An earthly father's Christmas gifts are granted to their children proportionately as they conform to the family standards of personal righteousness”? That would be an outrageous conclusion!) Yet LDSaints don't seem to bat an eyelash over this kind of misunderstanding as to what grace is!

And then the second LDS doctrinal reference:And when we obtain ANY blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:21)

Once again, instead of focusing on the inner nature of God's goodness as the motivating factors here, Mormons force God's hand of blessings by pointing to their obedience as the trigger of those blessings, NOT as God's lovingkindness or provision or mercy or grace! God is motivated more by His inner benificence more than any external motivators combined could collectively come up with!

We are all saved via the atonement & His grace....We believe all will be saved through that atonement (save the sons of perdition), however, not all will receive all that he has. Therein lies the rub.

OK, this is where your rather loose tossing around of the word “saved” confuses lurkers. They see these lines and think, “Oh, they're more biblical than I thought.” So, let me clear that up for them:

(1) When LDS talk about “all saved” -- they basically mean ALL – or close to it – minus the sons of perdition. It's a near-universalism where just about everybody will have their own kingdom.

But what did Jesus say? ...wide is the road that leads to destruction. Narrow is the way that leads to life... [I don't think “destruction” is a degree of salvation. Do you, Reno?]

(2) When LDS use “save” in this manner, they are talking about their article of faith which talks about how Christ died to save people from the effects of original sin. Imagine it's 1800 and you're on one side of the Grand Canyon and disabled due to an inherited disease and no way to get around it to the other side. The Mormon Jesus arrives where you are, takes away the effects of your inherited disease, and then announces, “I now pronounce you with free agency! (But you still need to get to the other side of the canyon minus any supernatural bridge). Of course I'll help you out. But NOT UNTIL you've done ALLYOU CAN DO.”

Even Reno says – to emphasize this above point – that Christ is the One that takes us the rest of the way through the atonement but not by us doing nothing... So, how did Reno – and how do Mormons retwist Jesus? Jesus said, I am the Way (John 14:6). Mormons say, “Jesus is the rest of the Way” (after ALL you can do). And what happens if you DON'T DO ALL you can do? Well, there's no promise of salvation there – at least not if it's not enough to “command” the attention of God's grace. Hence, why LDS constantly use the word “worthiness.”

Now, of course, men can make their way around the Grand Canyon. But Jesus never said, “I am the Way, but make your own way.” (And, now try to imagine you spanning the eternal gap of our filthy rags coming to live eternally with an all-holy perfect God who made Moses remove his profane sandals in his presence...what's worse, would be a filthy-ragged man appearing unto God claiming, “Yup, Heavenly Father. I've done all I can do. See my wonderful wardrobe? Isn't it lovely?”)

Heavenly Father would reply. “Did you not read my apostle's words? 'For all have fallen short of the glory of God.'”

Trying to bridge the gap of the canyon between our glory or His on the basis of our own righteousness is foolishness, when Jesus Himself offers to be our substitute righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30).

Why is your version & understanding of grace only the correct interpretation...

OK, maybe you're asking a question here that's meant differently than how I'm about to answer it, but what if I asked you, “Why is your version & understanding of joy only the correct interpretation?” You see, I just don't see many wildly vascillating definitions out there for joy. When people sing, “Joy to the World” @ Christmas, they are often joyous! We don't see them debate as to different interpretations of joy. Or maybe a better example would be peace. You might ask, “Why is your version & understanding of peace only the correct interpretation?” While, yes, there might be more definitions of “peace” out there than “joy,” still, I can come back to you with an answer of: “Well, Jesus said 'peace I give to you' – a 'peace not of this world' and Paul later added it was a 'peace that transcended all understanding.' So what's there to correctly or incorrectly interpret? Peace is from Jesus; not the world; it's beyond our human comprehension.”

Likewise, with grace, I can say: “Paul said grace saves; not works; if it were works, we could boast about how our own works saved us” -- a paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8-9. “Besides that, no Biblical scholars debate what “grace” means. It means “gift” (as in something rec'd for free) So my questions to you are:
“Why do you keep trying to pay for that which is given freely?
Why do you adhere to McConkie's proportionate tit-for-tat payback grace? (as if those 2 contradictory terms could even ever be used without totally distorting language).
Why do you believe in a religion that says only your obedience prompts God's blessings? -- D&C 130:21.

that of your Christian brethren that disagree wrong?

Hey, if people want to say “grace” doesn't mean “gift” -- I guess they can write their own new dictionary...be it English or Greek.

Many Christian churches believe in Grace & works which is contrary to your assertions. Who's correct & why?

Well, you've turned the order around. For the 2 Nephi 25:23 adhering Mormon, it's not grace & works, it's actually “works & maybe...well, I hope...we-certainly-are-trying-for-grace...if we can just nail that 'ALL' part.” Listen, for the Mormon, if you don't have the works down, you ain't gonna get the grace. It's that simple. Now, tell me. Which of your alleged “Many Christian churches” believe that? (I don't know of any) None of them embrace 2 Nephi 25:23 which all rests upon two key words of “ALL” and “AFTER.” (Clue: “ALL” means “ALL” and “AFTER” means “AFTER”)

So, the true Mormon formula is: Works According to Ability (ALL you can do) + a hoped-for God-govt. Bailout somewhere down the line – provided you're not on the verge of moral or spiritual bankruptcy like GM or Ford...and provided you're able to prove that every member in your company (body) did everything they could do...no time-wasting...no surfin' porn sites...no...well, you get the picture.

The Christian churches I know operate more on the following model: You're a young man. You're broke. You'd like to serve your community, but the boss you've talking to tells you that you need a car to do that. You need mobility. So you're dad gives you a car. He gives it to you. He doesn't say, “you need to be a worthy son” first...nor does he give you a gift proportionate to what you've done. Modeling himself after the father of the prodigal son, nor does He bless you only according to your level of obedience. He graces you with a free car. You are now empowered to carry out all those good acts within the community. In fact, your Father wants you to be so continually dependent upon His ongoing and freely available grace, that He gives you a credit card for gas purchases so that you fully realize that even your energy to get around is fully funded by Him. Now you don't just sit at home after he's equipped with you car & energy. You drive around and perform your good works. But who gets the glory for what's done? You? As Jesus said in one of his parables about servants, you only did what you were told to do. I mean that's what servants do. Our role isn't to glorify ourselves and make us look good as future gods. Grace empowers us to good works. Faith is the root; works are the fruit. Works are a by-product of our relationship with Heavenly Father & the Son – they are not the source of it!

[Marysecretary]

Mormons can believe what they want. I have no problem with any of it until they call themselves Christians. That they are not, in the traditional sense.

[Godzilla]

I guess he's got good company w/ Saint Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, C. S. Lewis, Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology, William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury to name a few.

Back to the mis-definition of theosis. None of the above would accept the mormon definition. Especially C.S. Lewis.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Mormons can believe what they want. I have no problem with any of it until they call themselves Christians. That they are not, in the traditional sense.

in your opinion. I doubt that God has given you the exclusive Franchise to decide who is or is not a Christian, therefore it is really just a matter of your word against theirs.

IMO it is wiser for you (and me) to decide that WE are Christian and leave it to God to decide who else is. One thing that we know for sure: we will be surprised by who else He has chosen.

[Scotswife]

“If you have read very many of these threads, you will see an outpouring of hate against the protestors that is astonishing.”

I am astonished by the outpouring of hate from the homosexuals.

I am astonished when they think they have the “right” to disrupt church services - scream “f you!” - and desecrate the eucharist at catholic masses.

They want the bible to be declared hate literature.
Catholic adoption agencies have closed doors because they won’t recognize so-called gay “marriage.”

Go ahead and have pity for the “f you!” crowd along with all their hatred, profanity, and vulgarity.

I will not be joining you.