Steve said "My Mormon friends generally say that the Book of Mormon itself is the evidence. However, it takes no inspiration to write a book—especially such a book as the Book of Mormon. I find it to be unimpressive as a literary work, and unconvincing as a piece of alleged historical writing."
I would also say that the Book of Mormon is a power evidence of his calling but I agree that it isn’t all that impressive for someone to write a Book. Joseph Smith however didn’t write the Book of Mormon. The book was written anciently by the hands of numerous prophets covering over 1000 years of history that an ancient Prophet named Mormon compiled by commandment selecting what he felt would strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that would help us understand the pure doctrines of the gospel. Joseph Smith dictated the translation line by line as he translated it by the power of God with his head buried in a dark hat looking at a stone in front of witnesses both faithful to, and hostile to the cause of the church. Critics like to bring up the hat and stone as a reason to doubt his calling, but of course it only makes the Book of Mormon more impressive realizing that he had no access to notes or the ability to do any serious revisions.
There are many evidences of his calling but the Book of Mormon is a fruit of his prophetic calling anyone can test individually. Many signs and wonders followed Joseph Smith but few are as accessible to be witnessed firsthand as the Book of Mormon is.
You listed 2 scriptures that explain how one can judge a true prophet from a false one, and you listed numerous scriptures exhorting us to be sure to test the prophets. I accept these verses as sacred inspired scripture and think they should be applied to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon coincidentally pass each of the scriptural tests you list with ease. You then go on to state that you reject him because you “find it (the book of Mormon) to be unimpressive as a literary work, and unconvincing as a piece of alleged historical writing.”
I would point out first that the impressiveness of the literature produced, and the outside historical evidence backing up a prophets work are not, anywhere that I recall, listed in scripture as the means by which one is encouraged to determine a true prophet from a false prophet.
Second as far as literary significance is concerned, I would encourage you to read it again. The Book of Mormon has some very clunky passages (Alma the younger has some very strangely worded sermons), and I full heartedly agree that Joseph Smith really wasn’t great at elegantly translating into KJV english. For some reason he felt it was appropriate to do his best at it regardless. I have to assume that he felt the KJV was more beautiful and respectable then was his own native dialect and tried to use it for that reason. (Check out the intro to the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon. It’s laughably bad) However, a true close reading (please click hear to learn what I mean when I say close reading, http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/a/s ... seread.htm ) of the book I think will leave even the greatest of skeptics impressed with the complexity of the text and a profound understanding that it was closely written despite the fact that Joseph Smith somehow dictated it line by line. For this reason I do find it very impressive as evidence.
More importantly, if you attempt to apply the doctrines taught in the book to your life you will find yourself closer to Christ than you previously had been. Anything that can do that is worth it’s weight in Gold, (no pun intended) no matter how awkward the language might be. This by the way is how Jesus encouraged us to determine truth from error. John 7:17
“What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
The historicity of the Book of Mormon is also an interesting subject. I think that if you were to gather 100 archeologists and anthropologists into a room and ask them to determine if it was a hoax or not, most, if not all, would come out saying that it probably is. This however is due I think mostly to the fact that it came to us by supernatural means. A mind that is highly skeptical of any supernatural claims, will always search for an alternate explanation. However if a document (perhaps of less religious significant than the BOM) was found through conventional means that seemed to be authentic and seemed to date to the correct time period according to current accepted dating methods, but that also presented the same supposed anachronisms that the Book of Mormon does, I don’t think an archeologist would have any real difficulty reconciling the claims of the text with the archeological records.
The Smithsonian made a long list of anachronisms they found in the Book of Mormon, many of which have been resolved by either a closer reading of the Book of Mormon, or by new discoveries in the new world. Archeologists are familiar with the fact that finding an ancient text will teach you things about a civilization that you would never learn by physical artifacts alone. The archeologists are still catching up to what we Latter-Day Saints know about a portion of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and on the flip side, we are still examining to Book of Mormon and discovering that we had many false assumptions about what it truly says about the ancient Americas as well. It may take us all a while before we see eye to eye but that’s ok, in the mean time we learn a lot about faith.
The Smithsonian made a long list of anachronisms they found in the Book of Mormon, many of which have been resolved by either a closer reading of the Book of Mormon, or by new discoveries in the new world. Archeologists are familiar with the fact that finding an ancient text will teach you things about a civilization that you would never learn by physical artifacts alone. The archeologists are still catching up to what we Latter-Day Saints know about a portion of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and on the flip side, we are still examining to Book of Mormon and discovering that we had many false assumptions about what it truly says about the ancient Americas as well. It may take us all a while before we see eye to eye but that’s ok, in the mean time we learn a lot about faith.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
Mkprr you wrote; "The book was written anciently by the hands of numerous prophets covering over 1000 years of history"
There is nothing to back up this statement. In fact there are numerous problems with just this statement; Nothing in 'history' can back up anything any Book of Mormon 'prophet' has ever said, there is nothing in existence on earth that can back up the stories in the BOM. I do not recall any of the 'prophets' in the BOM prophesying anything that could ever be tested or confirmed by 'any' history. The Israelites are a living testimony to their prophets truth and empirical history. There is nothing about the native Americans that resemble or hint at anything Christian or Hebrew. What prophecy did any BOM 'prophet' predict that would make them a prophet?
'…that an ancient Prophet named Mormon compiled by commandment selecting what he felt would strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that would help us understand the pure doctrines of the gospel'
What part of Mormonism could possibly strengthen your faith? I don’t get how having no evidence strengthens any faith (?). Faith is based on something, and something that strengthens faith is 'something' that 'verifies' your belief.
The Jewish and Christian 'faith' is based on 'tons' of empirical and logical proofs, just as the existence of God is based on a world full of evidence and reason. The 'faith' God calls us to have is a trust that He can do what He said. God provided many proofs to the Israelites, and many proofs later concerning His Son. That’s what prophecies are all about; 'evidence' and 'proof' for our faith. Jesus rose from the grave as a proof of His power. I am afraid Mormons are thinking that 'faith' means believing despite no substantial evidence, and all the while a mound of 'evidence to the contrary' lays right in front of us. No other book 'in the world' has so much evidence against it, where as the Bible contains verifiable ancient history.
I cannot imagine any other book in the world has 'so much' evidence of plagiarism than does the BOM. A few noted and famous examples have taken place in recent history*, but none take the cake like the Book of Mormon, under the guise of 'being from God'. The Mormon 'apologists' always revert to the defense that Joseph translated the words into the words he was most familiar with - which then contradicts the very idea that it was dictated by God Himself - and a clear contradiction of Josephs own statement; that he received the words letter by letter, word by word and dictated to Harris and Cowdery just so. This does not leave any room for complete sentences and phrases being weaved all through out, unless of course Harris and Cowdery were the worst listeners and scribes in the world.
(*See Wikipedia; The list of plagiarism incidents, plagiarism, etc..)
There is nothing to back up this statement. In fact there are numerous problems with just this statement; Nothing in 'history' can back up anything any Book of Mormon 'prophet' has ever said, there is nothing in existence on earth that can back up the stories in the BOM. I do not recall any of the 'prophets' in the BOM prophesying anything that could ever be tested or confirmed by 'any' history. The Israelites are a living testimony to their prophets truth and empirical history. There is nothing about the native Americans that resemble or hint at anything Christian or Hebrew. What prophecy did any BOM 'prophet' predict that would make them a prophet?
'…that an ancient Prophet named Mormon compiled by commandment selecting what he felt would strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that would help us understand the pure doctrines of the gospel'
What part of Mormonism could possibly strengthen your faith? I don’t get how having no evidence strengthens any faith (?). Faith is based on something, and something that strengthens faith is 'something' that 'verifies' your belief.
The Jewish and Christian 'faith' is based on 'tons' of empirical and logical proofs, just as the existence of God is based on a world full of evidence and reason. The 'faith' God calls us to have is a trust that He can do what He said. God provided many proofs to the Israelites, and many proofs later concerning His Son. That’s what prophecies are all about; 'evidence' and 'proof' for our faith. Jesus rose from the grave as a proof of His power. I am afraid Mormons are thinking that 'faith' means believing despite no substantial evidence, and all the while a mound of 'evidence to the contrary' lays right in front of us. No other book 'in the world' has so much evidence against it, where as the Bible contains verifiable ancient history.
I cannot imagine any other book in the world has 'so much' evidence of plagiarism than does the BOM. A few noted and famous examples have taken place in recent history*, but none take the cake like the Book of Mormon, under the guise of 'being from God'. The Mormon 'apologists' always revert to the defense that Joseph translated the words into the words he was most familiar with - which then contradicts the very idea that it was dictated by God Himself - and a clear contradiction of Josephs own statement; that he received the words letter by letter, word by word and dictated to Harris and Cowdery just so. This does not leave any room for complete sentences and phrases being weaved all through out, unless of course Harris and Cowdery were the worst listeners and scribes in the world.
(*See Wikipedia; The list of plagiarism incidents, plagiarism, etc..)
Last edited by jriccitelli on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
The Bible and belief in God does 'not' have evidence to the contrary, the Bible has literally tons of real evidence in its support, archeological - prophetic - historical - reasonable - evidential - empirical, every biblical area excavated reveals more and more artifacts and history. How can the BOM (having no evidence) add strength to the Bible (which has tons of 'real' evidence)?
All the 'spiritual' truths 'supposedly' verified by the BOM (are in the Bible already) and could easily be gleaned from the tons of commentary, books and studies written on the Bible since the beginning, 'long' before Joseph Smith came around. Every doctrine of scripture has been hashed out, gone over, and defined for centuries. Something Mormons are not commonly aware of is the thousands of biblical materials, sermons, writings and commentaries on scripture studies from outside the LDS materials that have been around for century's. Further more; the BOM and the Bible do not contain the many 'additions' Joseph later gave, that contradict both books.
Mkprr, you wrote; 'Joseph Smith dictated the translation line by line as he translated it by the power of God with his head buried in a dark hat looking at a stone…'
(Exactly, a seer stone, this is so obviously wrong. Would it make a difference if Joseph Smith used a crystal ball, tea leaves, or a seance? No, this is condemned by God, God strictly warns us not to have anything to do with divination because this is all witchcraft - and a medium that Satan uses - so God would 'not' dictate this way)
' …in front of witnesses both faithful to, and hostile to the cause of the church'
(All the witnesses are credulous, you know it. There are problems with all the witnesses to the BOM, these are not the Disciples of Jesus who went to death because of their testimony)
'Critics like to bring up the hat and stone as a reason to doubt his calling, but of course it only makes the Book of Mormon more impressive realizing that he had no access to notes or the ability to do any serious revisions'
(A crystal ball makes it 'more' impressive (!?), the only word we have are Josephs, Olivers and Harris. Joseph called both Oliver and Harris enemies and deceived, and Joseph himself was officially prosecuted as a money digger, much more could be said in this regard. Is this the kind of witness the God of Creation uses to prove that we should not trust the Bible, and reject Christianity?)
Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164).
The following appeared in a poem that was published in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p. 482):
Or does it prove there is no time, because some watches will not go?
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord, because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word, because denied, by Oliver?
'To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive,... Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain "revelations" ... all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, ... the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter ... (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp. 109-10).
The Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 instructs Joseph Smith to have Oliver Cowdery tell Hiram Page that "those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him."
Apostle George A. Smith related the following: "After the organization of the Twelve Apostles, the spirit of apostacy became more general.... One of the First Presidency, several of the Twelve Apostles, High Council, Presidents of Seventies, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, Presidents of Far West, and a number of others standing high in the Church were all carried away in this apostacy ..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 114-15).
The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. Martin Harris accused Joseph Smith of "lying and licentiousness." The Mormon leaders in turn published an attack on the character of Martin Harris. The Elders' Journal—Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith—said that Harris and others were guilty of "swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery ..." (Elders' Journal, August, 1838, p. 59)
Above cited from; http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm#94
From the 'Changing world of Mormonism'
Should I abandon my trust in Gods Word alone (my life and salvation also) and exchange it for trust in Mormonism, based on this kind of witness and evidence? Should you?
All the 'spiritual' truths 'supposedly' verified by the BOM (are in the Bible already) and could easily be gleaned from the tons of commentary, books and studies written on the Bible since the beginning, 'long' before Joseph Smith came around. Every doctrine of scripture has been hashed out, gone over, and defined for centuries. Something Mormons are not commonly aware of is the thousands of biblical materials, sermons, writings and commentaries on scripture studies from outside the LDS materials that have been around for century's. Further more; the BOM and the Bible do not contain the many 'additions' Joseph later gave, that contradict both books.
Mkprr, you wrote; 'Joseph Smith dictated the translation line by line as he translated it by the power of God with his head buried in a dark hat looking at a stone…'
(Exactly, a seer stone, this is so obviously wrong. Would it make a difference if Joseph Smith used a crystal ball, tea leaves, or a seance? No, this is condemned by God, God strictly warns us not to have anything to do with divination because this is all witchcraft - and a medium that Satan uses - so God would 'not' dictate this way)
' …in front of witnesses both faithful to, and hostile to the cause of the church'
(All the witnesses are credulous, you know it. There are problems with all the witnesses to the BOM, these are not the Disciples of Jesus who went to death because of their testimony)
'Critics like to bring up the hat and stone as a reason to doubt his calling, but of course it only makes the Book of Mormon more impressive realizing that he had no access to notes or the ability to do any serious revisions'
(A crystal ball makes it 'more' impressive (!?), the only word we have are Josephs, Olivers and Harris. Joseph called both Oliver and Harris enemies and deceived, and Joseph himself was officially prosecuted as a money digger, much more could be said in this regard. Is this the kind of witness the God of Creation uses to prove that we should not trust the Bible, and reject Christianity?)
Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164).
The following appeared in a poem that was published in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p. 482):
Or does it prove there is no time, because some watches will not go?
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord, because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word, because denied, by Oliver?
'To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive,... Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain "revelations" ... all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, ... the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter ... (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp. 109-10).
The Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 instructs Joseph Smith to have Oliver Cowdery tell Hiram Page that "those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him."
Apostle George A. Smith related the following: "After the organization of the Twelve Apostles, the spirit of apostacy became more general.... One of the First Presidency, several of the Twelve Apostles, High Council, Presidents of Seventies, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, Presidents of Far West, and a number of others standing high in the Church were all carried away in this apostacy ..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 114-15).
The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. Martin Harris accused Joseph Smith of "lying and licentiousness." The Mormon leaders in turn published an attack on the character of Martin Harris. The Elders' Journal—Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith—said that Harris and others were guilty of "swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery ..." (Elders' Journal, August, 1838, p. 59)
Above cited from; http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm#94
From the 'Changing world of Mormonism'
Should I abandon my trust in Gods Word alone (my life and salvation also) and exchange it for trust in Mormonism, based on this kind of witness and evidence? Should you?
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
Jriccitelli, You brought up some great points that well deserve discussion. You also said:
“All witnesses are credulous, you know it.”
If I 'knew' the witnesses were credulous, but I used their witnesses as evidence anyway that would be deceitful and dishonest. The reason I point to the witnesses is that I do think they are very credible. If I am wrong about that it is because I am mistaken, not because I am trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I would be interested in putting forth some evidence to show the credibility of the witnesses if you are interested in examining some of the evidence out there, but if you are simply going to dismiss anything I have to say on the subject as being intentionally deceitful it sounds like any time I spend posting on the subject would be in vain.
Let me know if you or others are willing, at least for a moment, to assume that I am not just lying about the things I say and then I would be happy to continue the discussion. I understand that you don’t know me, and that even if you did, it is never really possible to know the inner workings of another person’s heart, but in my opinion, if we are all simply going to assume that those who have a different point of view are lying about their convictions, it makes discussion rather pointless wouldn’t you agree?
“All witnesses are credulous, you know it.”
If I 'knew' the witnesses were credulous, but I used their witnesses as evidence anyway that would be deceitful and dishonest. The reason I point to the witnesses is that I do think they are very credible. If I am wrong about that it is because I am mistaken, not because I am trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I would be interested in putting forth some evidence to show the credibility of the witnesses if you are interested in examining some of the evidence out there, but if you are simply going to dismiss anything I have to say on the subject as being intentionally deceitful it sounds like any time I spend posting on the subject would be in vain.
Let me know if you or others are willing, at least for a moment, to assume that I am not just lying about the things I say and then I would be happy to continue the discussion. I understand that you don’t know me, and that even if you did, it is never really possible to know the inner workings of another person’s heart, but in my opinion, if we are all simply going to assume that those who have a different point of view are lying about their convictions, it makes discussion rather pointless wouldn’t you agree?
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
I've always been somewhat confounded by the acceptance by the Mormon church of Joseph Smith's translation of the "Book of Abraham". In my opinion, any objective look at the facts would disqualify it as an accurate translation, and Mr Smith as a prophet of God. I won't rehash the story, you can read a good article about it here: http://20truths.info/mormon/abraham.html
So that's basically my question to Mormon missionaries when they come to my door. "Do you think that Joseph Smith's translation of the book of Abraham is true?" For me, it's a deal breaker.
I hope I'm not coming across as harsh, that's not my intention. I'm just answering your post topic directly.
All religious beliefs, Islam, Hinduism, etc., have their devout followers. but that doesn't make them true.
Thanks
Phil
So that's basically my question to Mormon missionaries when they come to my door. "Do you think that Joseph Smith's translation of the book of Abraham is true?" For me, it's a deal breaker.
I hope I'm not coming across as harsh, that's not my intention. I'm just answering your post topic directly.
All religious beliefs, Islam, Hinduism, etc., have their devout followers. but that doesn't make them true.
Thanks
Phil
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
I am sorry; '…you know this' sounds sarcastic, and that’s not what how I meant to come across. I am thinking you have studied more LDS than most people, so I thought you may have come upon this before. If you haven’t well, now you have, the quotes above are from LDS sources and there are many more. Josephs trial and conviction on money digging is verifiable and says a lot about the roots of the Book of Mormon itself.
I would add that yes, the book of Abraham is a 'very' good question, and quite a glaring example of perpetrating a hoax.
About 20 years ago I sat in my LDS pew and a man (a visiting bishop) told us (I cannot remember the exact wording) said "you may have heard controversy over the book of Abraham, I am telling you not to bother looking into it and avoid this controversy" I looked around and was astonished that no one seemed much bothered by this clearly tactical attempt to suppress the freedom for truth. This kind of statement is rare among church leadership but none the less you would, or should never hear such a statement in church - God challenges us to seek after truth, and pursue knowledge and wisdom, so that we are not ashamed and fully confident in our faith.
This was the last time I officially went to the LDS church, I visit still but just as a friend of friends.
(I do think Romney is a great guy, and I am voting for him)
I would add that yes, the book of Abraham is a 'very' good question, and quite a glaring example of perpetrating a hoax.
About 20 years ago I sat in my LDS pew and a man (a visiting bishop) told us (I cannot remember the exact wording) said "you may have heard controversy over the book of Abraham, I am telling you not to bother looking into it and avoid this controversy" I looked around and was astonished that no one seemed much bothered by this clearly tactical attempt to suppress the freedom for truth. This kind of statement is rare among church leadership but none the less you would, or should never hear such a statement in church - God challenges us to seek after truth, and pursue knowledge and wisdom, so that we are not ashamed and fully confident in our faith.
This was the last time I officially went to the LDS church, I visit still but just as a friend of friends.
(I do think Romney is a great guy, and I am voting for him)
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
For those wondering, Joseph Smith was approached by a man who had heard of Joseph, and wanted to sell some papyrus taken from tombs in Egypt. Joseph proclaimed the papyrus was actually the autograph of Abraham himself, and was a story of Abraham himself which Abraham also recites Moses words* (before Moses wrote them, in King James English no less!) Joseph proceeded to supposedly translate the ancient papyrus Egyptian hieroglyphics. But it turns out that what Joseph had was another copy of a very popular and numerous Egyptian burial instructions (included in hundreds of Egyptian coffins) called the 'Book of breathings' or 'The book of the dead'. Although these texts are interesting they are very occul-tic and have nothing to do with either Judaism (or Christianity) in fact they are very Egyptian, the exact same religion that God punished and judged Egypt for as we read in Exodus. So hardly something Abraham would write or depict (or draw pictures of Egyptian gods!).
(*Abraham 4:1-etc, along with the book of Moses known as 'The Pearl of great price')
(*Abraham 4:1-etc, along with the book of Moses known as 'The Pearl of great price')
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
Very good Jriccitilli, liked what you said about leaving the pew 20 years ago, it makes my point on the last paragraph, sorrow you have to go through 7 pages to get to it.
Hey Mormon Kid prr, it’s been interesting reading your post and the reply from others. Most likely you are preparing a reply to J Riccitilli who will take his stand on attacking the BOM and I’m sure you will have something good to say, so I will allow him to chase you down that trail. I’m an old guy like Steve lol with as many years in the Lord and we are much alike in some ways, even though we agree on rejecting the two most popular Christian perspectives, we have agreed to disagree on a few other things. Both Steve and I see the importance of following the Historic Christian Faith, but approach it from different perspectives, points argued by leaders of early Christianity. The point was made clear when Jesus taught His disciples that the servants wanted to separate the wheat from the tares, Matthew 13: 42-30. Jesus said, no they both must grow up together and then they would be separated by the reapers at some point during their life and then they would be judged. Since Jesus made that point it implies there would be a few following the truth on the narrow path and many doing their own thing with little or no ability to find the truth. The clear teaching is that the wheat and the tare, a unique weed looking very much like the wheat, accept there would be no grain in the head to produce its valuable fruit. The fact is all man made organizations will corrupt eventually as evidenced in history with denominations splitting from the source, not sparing the original church started by Joseph Smith.
I would agree with others that Mr. Smith was not a prophet, no matter how strongly the BOM speaks to you. I’m no authority on your cherished book, but I have read parts of it to know that Spalding or Smith selected passages from the Gospels, the passages one of them valued more than the rest of the Gospels. So think of it this way, if much of the BOM is selected passages from the Gospels, it should speak to the mind of religious people. Now we know there are other passages and books that have no Biblical witness and those passages and books would not receive the witness of the Holy Spirit to true believers. This would be no difference than what we see between the Catholics and non-Catholics concerning the Apocrypha. The reason I’m saying Mr. Smith was not a prophet is from his own testimony that all the churches were corrupt and had fallen away from the truth. Mr. Smith’s testimony was false or Jesus was mistaken when He said, “I will build My church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus also said, “I will give unto (His men) the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Then Jesus charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Anointed One,” Matthew 16:18, 19. This means from the time of Jesus resurrection until His return there would always be true Christian Assemblies somewhere in the world proclaiming the true Gospel or Jesus was not who He claimed to Be, Immanuel, God with us. It is this claim from the Jesus of the Bible “no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man;” here Jesus separates Himself from all other beings coming before Him and those who would be glorified in the future, John 3:13.
Just like Jesus parable dealing with the weeds and the wheat there have always been professing, imitation and genuine Christians. History testifies to this fact down through the ages with the imitation silencing the genuine. Jesus said, “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake,” Matthew 24:9. Jesus also said, “many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many,” Matthew 24:11. Various men down through the ages have debated or have gone to war against those who had the Truth. You and the others here sharing their views at the Narrow Path will not agree on what that Truth is, but the correct view of history will.
Sorry this is the reason for writing the next 6 pages.
When we have an accurate view of history and the insight of the Holy Spirit that comes with maturity and a right relationship with God, the truth will not be that hard to see. First to receive a little bit of persecution does not prove anything. I’ve seen all kinds of religious persecution when a majority group feels threatened by a minority group and a hundred years ago the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7thDay Adventist and a few others were all branded as being Cults, but so were the followers of Jesus, by the Jews. The same for ‘Historic Christianity’ in America, the majority religionist: Catholics dominate in many areas, Dispensationalist strong in the Bible Belt and the West, with Islam becoming the fastest growing culture in America, will in time attack the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ and others having minority views. The fact is they are already threatening Christian evangelism in Dearborn, MI; just as they have done in other countries.
I’m sure you have heard of the Great Awakening or the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings in America. The 1st revival awakening period was just before our nation declared its independence; it was an evangelistic revival period that produced the leaders who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence. One John Witherspoon evangelized and discipled many of the leaders of our nation as a pastor and president of a college that eventually became Princeton University. The faith of John Witherspoon that influenced the founding of this nation is referred to by some as a Calvinistic or Augustinian Faith. Actually Augustine was the bridge who brought the faith of the ‘Church Fathers’ confirmed by Athanasius of Alexandria who contended with the Arians. Another leader in the ‘Early Church’ was tainted by the Arians until God led him to the writings of Athanasius and other ‘Church Fathers’ and that was Ambrose who became a leader in the Church of Milan stopping Arianism in Milan. Ambrose was not a theologian but he was a master of preaching and debate; he had the greatest influence over Augustine, who was also tainted by another Ism of the day Manichaeism.
The founder of the Manicheans was Mani, himself much like Joseph Smith thinking the teachings of Jesus and other holy men movements before him were incomplete and like Mr. Smith he received revelations in his youth and mid 20’s that led him to write the Mani-Codex, which could have been a ‘Book of Mormon’ in his day if the printing press had been invented. His teachings were stopped in the West by men like Ambrose, but thrived in the east for another thousand years. As far as we know Augustine was no Mani-Missionary, but his lifestyle was typical of one until he met the Lord Jesus who started changing his life. After Augustine’s conversion with help from Ambrose and all of the Scriptures at his side to read and study he wrote many papers to defend the true Christian faith, over a millions words which survived the corruption of the Popes through the ‘Dark Ages’ to light a fire in the thinking of the men who started the Reformation Period almost a thousand years later.
I guess I should narrow this down to saying I have no idea what the LDS teaches in contrast to what other Mormon groups believe concerning Joseph Smith’s idea that all Christian denominations were corrupt, to say they were restoring the ‘True Christian Faith’ that died out almost 2,000 years ago. I know there was a time when the Mormons took pride thinking they were not like any of the other denominations and now in contrast the LDS claim to be just another ‘Christian’ denomination; it is either stupidly or a ploy to deceptively use 19 and 20-yr old boys to entice ignorant and professing Christians to follow a false prophet using the lure of being apart of a highly successful benevolent organization. I mean if I was not a knowledgeable committed believer, if I did not believe the Bible was true by itself and it needed more to make it better, then I would be a fool not to be LDS, since it offers everything else to make this life on earth better, but as a Spirit led believer, I’m not of this world and I’m not to find my security in this world or in any man made organization.
Now we come to the 2nd Great Awakening, which was actually an alternative to the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ and its doctrines to follow men who had a new way to evangelize America with a revised Gospel. I’m really being nice to say it was an alternative; the Reformed leaders in the 1830’s were crying heresy to the teachings and its leaders.
Charles Finney was homegrown coming out of the Presbyterian Church in the early 1800’s, who as a teenager gave his spiritual mentor grief over the teachings within the Westminster Confession. In his mid twenties he prepared for the ministry with others in their late teens, to be ordained in his late twenties. When his mentor heard that Charles was ordained a Presbyterian minister he was in shock, thinking he must have been converted. Charles had great success after a few years preaching in Upper New York, then he was asked to come to minister in New York city where opposition arose from older Presbyterian ministers who found Finney teaching doctrines contrary to the Westminster Confession. Leaders in the denomination would not listen to the ministers opposing Finney, since Finney had led thousands of converts to join the Church. In Finney’s later years he wrote in his memoirs that he had never read the Confession, but rejected much of what he heard, to answer the charge that he was an apostate. Charles answer to the charge of being an apostate was “how could I have fallen away from teachings I never believed.” The legacy of Finney’s preaching was that all the churches he most frequently preached in eventually aligned their churches with the Unitarian Church movement. This is a confirmation between Finney’s memoirs of never believing the confession he was ordained under and the direction of the churches he frequently preached in. The Original Unitarian movement in England was opposed to the Westminster Confession back when the Confession was formed and the teachings of Socinianism goes back to the Polish Brethren who rejected the Calvinistic teachings in the Reformed Church of Poland in 1556.
The greatest influence of Finney was not his revival converts, but his influence over younger Presbyterian ministers, those he went to school with and other young men preparing for the ministry when Finney was being lifted up as a great evangelist. It was during this period that more Presbyterian ministers were preaching in Congregational Churches than ministers trained by the Congregational leadership. The Congregational Churches were known for and named for their congregational church government; most of these churches had no ‘Confession of Faith’ for their leaders to follow, if they liked the way you preached they had you come back. Doctrine was not a major concern for them, so it was easy for them to accept renegade Presbyterian preachers who had theological training, but with an open mind to new ideas being preached in America. It is easy for anyone to do the research, just go to any Congregational Church in New York, like the 1st Congregational Church of Buffalo who eventually ordained Lewis Sperry Chafer. You will see in their history how they called Presbyterians to be their preachers in the mid 1800’s. Ask yourself the question why would Presbyterian preachers who had to confess the Westminster Confession in order to be ordained, preach in churches who dismissed their sworn confession?
Then we had those coming to Pennsylvania from Scotland via Ireland with a new theology; father and son Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Thomas came first to America while his son Alex finished his education in England. Thomas was greatly influenced by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and John Locke. Men who believed morality was a good thing and if your religion made you a better person then it was good, but they rejected the Historic Christian Faith, since it depended upon God to do the work; these men had no hope that God would do any kind of miracle to change you. These men did not believe in the God of the Bible, but they believed a religion producing morality was absolutely necessary for a civilization to exist. This would justify a society to invent a god with moral standards to maintain their civilization. It means these Atheistic Empiricists would have applauded Joseph Smith for what he has accomplished through the LDS movement. This means the theology of Thomas Campbell rejected the idea that God would call people to salvation through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that revealed their sin to them. They would reject the idea that God was personally transforming lives through the power of His Spirit. They would say the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ that taught a sovereign God would actually call some to salvation was a religion of the ‘HEART’ saying it was emotionalism connected with enthusiasm, void of rationalism. In contrast the theology of Thomas and Alexander Campbell was a religion of the ‘MIND’ which came from rational thought as a result of man’s ‘Free Will’ to obey and follow a moral system that would make them better people. The testimony of the Campbell’s and Finney is that they were opposed to the Calvinism within the Presbyterian Church that opposed the teachings of man’s ‘Free Will’ teaching it was God’s sovereign call, saying that man could not come to God unless the Spirit of God convicted you of sin first. In truth the Campbell’s were teaching what Finney was preaching that man needed to make a decision in his ‘MIND’ to repent and believe. The Campbell’s went a little farther to say you needed to accept the whole package and through mans ‘Free Will’ they had to believe and be baptized by THEM into their Church, which would eventually become the Churches of Christ.
It is more than coincidental that the Campbell’s were preaching their new ideas and debating Presbyterians in Pennsylvania many miles west of New York where and when Finney was being prepared for ministry. Prior to Finney’s preparation for ministry he testified to having a Holy Ghost experience in Adams, New York after 1812. This type of experience was common with Methodist preaching throughout New York at this time. Philip Embury came to America years after hearing John Wesley preach in Ireland. Embury started preaching before 1769 in New York City, moving north to Camden and Albany, New York. In 1771’ Wesley sent Francis Asbury to preach in America, starting in Philadelphia and moving toward New York Asbury preached in 25 different settlements in his first 17 days. By the time of Finney’s Holy Ghost experience the Methodist movement in the northern colonies had grown to over 200,000 members with over 600 ordained gospel preachers, which appeared to be the foundational beginning of a new awakening in America.
Officially the beginning of the 2nd Great Awakening was around 1820’ when the steady growth of Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Congregational & Presbyterian churches coming from earlier revivals taking place during the 1st Great Awakening through Historic Christian Churches between 1730 and 1760. This means there was no period of churches being backslidden, but there was an introduction of new churches, alternative doctrines and mass evangelism noticed around 1780 with Methodism, but no noticeable transferred church growth before or after the explosion of growth in the 1820’s.
The 1st Great Awakening began with the Historic Augustinian message of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, which had an effect on Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Congregational & Presbyterian churches throughout the colonies between 1730 and 1760. There was no transferred church growth during this period since these churches represented the 13-Colonies and most of the divisions were made by the Colony or State where these churches resided. Actually there was a steady growth in all these churches from 1760 to 1820 only being affected by the Revolutionary War. The fact is there was no noticeable period of backsliding between the 1st and 2nd Awakening, the steady growth in church attendance indicated the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ was being effective not dying out. The noticeable change was an explosion of growth in the 1820’s that increased the attendance in all churches; with many churches being influenced by the Methodist Revivalist, the Campbellites and Charles Finney. The main difference between the two Great Awakenings was an ancient false gospel being repackaged, which caused many new churches to start; the Methodist Church was at the forefront, which eventually split into almost 30-new denominations.
These are the facts about the Churches in America to be affected by the 1st Great Awakening: they were all confessional churches proclaiming the same Historic Christian Faith and Gospel. The biggest division between these Church traditions was language and the countries they came from and yes these churches with different traditions had slightly different teachings. For the most part the churches that settled in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island were Congregational with some Presbyterian and Baptist sprinkled about. The churches in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware were mostly Anglican / Episcopal (Church of England) with a good percentage of Presbyterians in each area. Delaware and New Jersey also had a good number of Dutch speaking Reformed and German speaking Lutheran churches. New York was mostly Dutch speaking Reformed churches. Then you had Pennsylvania with a few Lutheran and Presbyterians and the rest were Baptist and Ana-Baptist who rejected infant baptism. The Ana-Baptist groups coming from other countries, speaking other languages were Amish, Brethren, Mennonites, Moravians and Quaker. Again accept for the Catholics in Europe, none of these church traditions were anti-Calvinistic, but with various doctrinal differences they all proclaimed the same Gospel.
In contrast the new churches coming out of the 2nd Great Awakening were anti-Calvinistic and the movement was predominately proclaiming the ‘Free Will’ message of Wesley, Finney & the Campbell’s. As I stated after the 4th paragraph, the testimony of ‘Historic Christian Churches’ there was a struggle for the truth to prevail over Arians and the views of Pelagianism picked up centuries later by those who argued with the disciples of Calvin, those we call Arminian’s, which was refined by the Wesleyans, who were being called Methodist. With exception of the European Catholics (Protestant Hunters) none of the churches represented in the 1st Great Awakening embraced the Arminian / Wesleyan presentation of the Gospel. This is the reason the Historic Churches of the 1st Great Awakening refused membership for the converts of Wesleyan style Revivalism. This is the reason why the Wesleyans were called Methodist, being they had an un-Orthodox method of presenting the Gospel with the purpose of talking people into making decisions the Holy Spirit might not have initiated. Many Presbyterian Churches opposing the Wesleyan style evangelism of Finney would not allow his converts to join their churches. This gave rise to newly ordained Presbyterian ministers to fill the pulpits of Congregational churches who were accepting Finney’s converts being refused Presbyterian membership. Most Baptist Churches sympathized with the renegade Presbyterian minsters, allowing Finney and Wesleyan converts to join their churches.
Now we get to the worst part of the 2nd Great Awakening, another more deceptive Gospel was being proclaimed, the warning given by Jesus to “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves,” Matthew 7:15. Remember the point being made earlier that Thomas Campbell rejected the enthusiastic message of the Presbyterians in Scotland. He also was anti-Calvinist and pushed the ‘Free Will’ message of Atheistic Empiricists who rejected the ‘Historic Christian Faith.’ Again John Locke thought any religion was good if it produced moral citizens; so he was not against Christians whose life had been transformed, just the selective message that God only saved some, the few on the narrow path, because wide was the path leading to destruction. This new twist in the message of Alexander Campbell put the emphasis on a rational decision to believe and be baptized by the right church. Alexander seized the opportunity to make issue with the ‘Historic Churches’ refusing membership to Finney and Wesleyan converts. At this point Alexander started playing the name game saying if you were Baptist you were following John, and if you were Methodist you were following Wesley, the same for Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, they were following the Pope, Calvin or Luther. According to Alexander if you were not being baptized and joining a ‘Church of Christ’ you were not true Christians.
Therefore it should be of no shock that the families of Joseph Smith and Charles Finney moved from Vermont and Connecticut to north/west New York. Neither should it surprise you that Thomas Campbell started out in 1807’ as a Presbyterian (wolf in sheep’s clothing) until Thomas published a paper promoting ‘Simple Evangelical Christianity’ in Pennsylvania; in 1809 his Presbyterian Synod read the paper and had him dismissed, then he relocated and hooked up with some Baptist to become apart of their association. A few years later the Campbell’s instigated debates with the Presbyterian ministers to challenge their authority, church government, saying they were followers of Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. These debates went on for several years between the late teens and early twenties when Charles Finney went to college preparing for ministry. I’m sure any such public debate against a large organization would catch the attention of the students of that organization. It is also interesting that when Finney was starting his evangelistic ministry in New York, Joseph Smith was publishing the Book of Mormon. Later when Mr. Smith organized his first church, he called it the same name proposed by Campbell in the debates saying it’s the Church of Christ, later that would change to Mormons, then dividing into the Latter Day Saints.
So if we analyze the position held by the Campbell’s that Christianity is a religion of the ‘MIND’ well it is obvious that its not what the Bible teaches, since the view appears to have originated with John Locke who was a practical atheist. This approach to Christianity is saying that religion is good since it produces morality, which would be salvation for any civilization. This is the opposite approach we see in the Scriptures, Jesus was done with religion; it was corrupt and blind. I’m sure the message I see is that God was personally involved in the lives of people to deliver them from religion and themselves. The idea of a religion of the ‘MIND’ puts everything back on man, saying he has to decide or believe instead of God being the one who actually saves us. The message of the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ is that God reached down to each and every man of faith to do for him what he could not do for himself. Ultimately the idea of a religion of the ‘MIND’ is that you have to believe the right thing, the right doctrine, the right authority, and the right name. This is exactly what the Catholics, Church of Christ, Jehovah Witnesses and to my understanding what the Mormons believe: a person has to join the right group, be baptized with the right authority, believe the right doctrine in order to experience this transformation.
I have made it clear to my disciples that they can believe everything I believe and do everything I do and still not be in a right relationship with God. God is not looking for Parrots who can mimic Christianity. The idea that I did something to merit salvation, say a prayer, repent = change the direction of my life or make an empty profession is all in vain if God is not doing it through me. The error in the evangelism of Finney and Wesley is in a paper I wrote in my 2nd year of Bible School back in 1973’ that I titled ‘Spiritual Abortion’. I realized back then that our responsibility is to proclaim the Gospel, not to force people to pray prayers of repentance when the Spirit of God has not done the work of preparing the heart. Our job is to tell sinners that their sin will put them under the judgment of God and the Good New is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins, then wait and watch to see what effect that message has on that sinner. It is not our job to know who is and who is not chosen by God unto salvation, I assume everyone is and if not today, then one day coming. The Bible talks about corporate election, God did not select a certain group to be saved before the earth was made, but He had a plan to save some, not all. We will know when God is working in our life; there will be that quickening when something is different, since that point in time we will acquire desires we never had before. If it has happened in your life you will know it. The truth in salvation is that God is not looking for a profession of faith, but the evidence that there is a walk of faith. As a person walks in faith they should be able to turn around and see how far they have come.
The truth is God can save anyone, Mormon, JW, Baptist, Presbyterian and there is nothing we can do to merit salvation, it is according to His calling, not according to our will; we are either born of His Spirit, according to His will or we are trying to take the kingdom by force, Jesus said, “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” John 1:13. We see the same in the way God operates in 2 Peter 1:21 saying, “prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” If God calls some to be Prophets and others to be teachers, evangelist (missionaries) elders, deacons then God does not call all 19 and 20-year olds to be missionaries, then promote them to be elders, then promote the cream of the crop to be Prophets. The Prophets in the OT did not go through this kind of organized promotional method; he took some Prophets from the mother’s womb and another from the sheep fold to be His voice. As you can see if I was not a born of the Spirit child of God, I might be tempted to be a Mormon, but not LDS, the church is too much like the big business’ owned by successful LDS members. It is not that God has blessed your church above all the other churches, if you understood anything about the Abrahamic blessing (and I think you do more than others posting at ‘narrow path’) you would know that the blessing on the LDS is upon all descendants of Israel and Jews, like it is most successful American’s, Mormon or not.
The main point I want to leave with you is that you are culturally a Mormon and it would do you no good for me to talk you into leaving your culture for mine unless the Spirit of God speaks to your heart about your sin. I run into X-Mormons and X-LDS all the time, God spoke to them while in the church or on mission and at a point in time they realized something was different, then as they grew in faith they started to question LDS doctrine and usually between 3 – 5 years the LDS is putting them out of their organization. So I will pray that God will extend His call to you, open your eyes to see your need for a Savior; for I know I have no ability to convert you to my faith.
Will pray for your journey, Papa J.
Hey Mormon Kid prr, it’s been interesting reading your post and the reply from others. Most likely you are preparing a reply to J Riccitilli who will take his stand on attacking the BOM and I’m sure you will have something good to say, so I will allow him to chase you down that trail. I’m an old guy like Steve lol with as many years in the Lord and we are much alike in some ways, even though we agree on rejecting the two most popular Christian perspectives, we have agreed to disagree on a few other things. Both Steve and I see the importance of following the Historic Christian Faith, but approach it from different perspectives, points argued by leaders of early Christianity. The point was made clear when Jesus taught His disciples that the servants wanted to separate the wheat from the tares, Matthew 13: 42-30. Jesus said, no they both must grow up together and then they would be separated by the reapers at some point during their life and then they would be judged. Since Jesus made that point it implies there would be a few following the truth on the narrow path and many doing their own thing with little or no ability to find the truth. The clear teaching is that the wheat and the tare, a unique weed looking very much like the wheat, accept there would be no grain in the head to produce its valuable fruit. The fact is all man made organizations will corrupt eventually as evidenced in history with denominations splitting from the source, not sparing the original church started by Joseph Smith.
I would agree with others that Mr. Smith was not a prophet, no matter how strongly the BOM speaks to you. I’m no authority on your cherished book, but I have read parts of it to know that Spalding or Smith selected passages from the Gospels, the passages one of them valued more than the rest of the Gospels. So think of it this way, if much of the BOM is selected passages from the Gospels, it should speak to the mind of religious people. Now we know there are other passages and books that have no Biblical witness and those passages and books would not receive the witness of the Holy Spirit to true believers. This would be no difference than what we see between the Catholics and non-Catholics concerning the Apocrypha. The reason I’m saying Mr. Smith was not a prophet is from his own testimony that all the churches were corrupt and had fallen away from the truth. Mr. Smith’s testimony was false or Jesus was mistaken when He said, “I will build My church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus also said, “I will give unto (His men) the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Then Jesus charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Anointed One,” Matthew 16:18, 19. This means from the time of Jesus resurrection until His return there would always be true Christian Assemblies somewhere in the world proclaiming the true Gospel or Jesus was not who He claimed to Be, Immanuel, God with us. It is this claim from the Jesus of the Bible “no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man;” here Jesus separates Himself from all other beings coming before Him and those who would be glorified in the future, John 3:13.
Just like Jesus parable dealing with the weeds and the wheat there have always been professing, imitation and genuine Christians. History testifies to this fact down through the ages with the imitation silencing the genuine. Jesus said, “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake,” Matthew 24:9. Jesus also said, “many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many,” Matthew 24:11. Various men down through the ages have debated or have gone to war against those who had the Truth. You and the others here sharing their views at the Narrow Path will not agree on what that Truth is, but the correct view of history will.
Sorry this is the reason for writing the next 6 pages.
When we have an accurate view of history and the insight of the Holy Spirit that comes with maturity and a right relationship with God, the truth will not be that hard to see. First to receive a little bit of persecution does not prove anything. I’ve seen all kinds of religious persecution when a majority group feels threatened by a minority group and a hundred years ago the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7thDay Adventist and a few others were all branded as being Cults, but so were the followers of Jesus, by the Jews. The same for ‘Historic Christianity’ in America, the majority religionist: Catholics dominate in many areas, Dispensationalist strong in the Bible Belt and the West, with Islam becoming the fastest growing culture in America, will in time attack the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ and others having minority views. The fact is they are already threatening Christian evangelism in Dearborn, MI; just as they have done in other countries.
I’m sure you have heard of the Great Awakening or the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings in America. The 1st revival awakening period was just before our nation declared its independence; it was an evangelistic revival period that produced the leaders who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence. One John Witherspoon evangelized and discipled many of the leaders of our nation as a pastor and president of a college that eventually became Princeton University. The faith of John Witherspoon that influenced the founding of this nation is referred to by some as a Calvinistic or Augustinian Faith. Actually Augustine was the bridge who brought the faith of the ‘Church Fathers’ confirmed by Athanasius of Alexandria who contended with the Arians. Another leader in the ‘Early Church’ was tainted by the Arians until God led him to the writings of Athanasius and other ‘Church Fathers’ and that was Ambrose who became a leader in the Church of Milan stopping Arianism in Milan. Ambrose was not a theologian but he was a master of preaching and debate; he had the greatest influence over Augustine, who was also tainted by another Ism of the day Manichaeism.
The founder of the Manicheans was Mani, himself much like Joseph Smith thinking the teachings of Jesus and other holy men movements before him were incomplete and like Mr. Smith he received revelations in his youth and mid 20’s that led him to write the Mani-Codex, which could have been a ‘Book of Mormon’ in his day if the printing press had been invented. His teachings were stopped in the West by men like Ambrose, but thrived in the east for another thousand years. As far as we know Augustine was no Mani-Missionary, but his lifestyle was typical of one until he met the Lord Jesus who started changing his life. After Augustine’s conversion with help from Ambrose and all of the Scriptures at his side to read and study he wrote many papers to defend the true Christian faith, over a millions words which survived the corruption of the Popes through the ‘Dark Ages’ to light a fire in the thinking of the men who started the Reformation Period almost a thousand years later.
I guess I should narrow this down to saying I have no idea what the LDS teaches in contrast to what other Mormon groups believe concerning Joseph Smith’s idea that all Christian denominations were corrupt, to say they were restoring the ‘True Christian Faith’ that died out almost 2,000 years ago. I know there was a time when the Mormons took pride thinking they were not like any of the other denominations and now in contrast the LDS claim to be just another ‘Christian’ denomination; it is either stupidly or a ploy to deceptively use 19 and 20-yr old boys to entice ignorant and professing Christians to follow a false prophet using the lure of being apart of a highly successful benevolent organization. I mean if I was not a knowledgeable committed believer, if I did not believe the Bible was true by itself and it needed more to make it better, then I would be a fool not to be LDS, since it offers everything else to make this life on earth better, but as a Spirit led believer, I’m not of this world and I’m not to find my security in this world or in any man made organization.
Now we come to the 2nd Great Awakening, which was actually an alternative to the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ and its doctrines to follow men who had a new way to evangelize America with a revised Gospel. I’m really being nice to say it was an alternative; the Reformed leaders in the 1830’s were crying heresy to the teachings and its leaders.
Charles Finney was homegrown coming out of the Presbyterian Church in the early 1800’s, who as a teenager gave his spiritual mentor grief over the teachings within the Westminster Confession. In his mid twenties he prepared for the ministry with others in their late teens, to be ordained in his late twenties. When his mentor heard that Charles was ordained a Presbyterian minister he was in shock, thinking he must have been converted. Charles had great success after a few years preaching in Upper New York, then he was asked to come to minister in New York city where opposition arose from older Presbyterian ministers who found Finney teaching doctrines contrary to the Westminster Confession. Leaders in the denomination would not listen to the ministers opposing Finney, since Finney had led thousands of converts to join the Church. In Finney’s later years he wrote in his memoirs that he had never read the Confession, but rejected much of what he heard, to answer the charge that he was an apostate. Charles answer to the charge of being an apostate was “how could I have fallen away from teachings I never believed.” The legacy of Finney’s preaching was that all the churches he most frequently preached in eventually aligned their churches with the Unitarian Church movement. This is a confirmation between Finney’s memoirs of never believing the confession he was ordained under and the direction of the churches he frequently preached in. The Original Unitarian movement in England was opposed to the Westminster Confession back when the Confession was formed and the teachings of Socinianism goes back to the Polish Brethren who rejected the Calvinistic teachings in the Reformed Church of Poland in 1556.
The greatest influence of Finney was not his revival converts, but his influence over younger Presbyterian ministers, those he went to school with and other young men preparing for the ministry when Finney was being lifted up as a great evangelist. It was during this period that more Presbyterian ministers were preaching in Congregational Churches than ministers trained by the Congregational leadership. The Congregational Churches were known for and named for their congregational church government; most of these churches had no ‘Confession of Faith’ for their leaders to follow, if they liked the way you preached they had you come back. Doctrine was not a major concern for them, so it was easy for them to accept renegade Presbyterian preachers who had theological training, but with an open mind to new ideas being preached in America. It is easy for anyone to do the research, just go to any Congregational Church in New York, like the 1st Congregational Church of Buffalo who eventually ordained Lewis Sperry Chafer. You will see in their history how they called Presbyterians to be their preachers in the mid 1800’s. Ask yourself the question why would Presbyterian preachers who had to confess the Westminster Confession in order to be ordained, preach in churches who dismissed their sworn confession?
Then we had those coming to Pennsylvania from Scotland via Ireland with a new theology; father and son Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Thomas came first to America while his son Alex finished his education in England. Thomas was greatly influenced by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and John Locke. Men who believed morality was a good thing and if your religion made you a better person then it was good, but they rejected the Historic Christian Faith, since it depended upon God to do the work; these men had no hope that God would do any kind of miracle to change you. These men did not believe in the God of the Bible, but they believed a religion producing morality was absolutely necessary for a civilization to exist. This would justify a society to invent a god with moral standards to maintain their civilization. It means these Atheistic Empiricists would have applauded Joseph Smith for what he has accomplished through the LDS movement. This means the theology of Thomas Campbell rejected the idea that God would call people to salvation through the conviction of the Holy Spirit that revealed their sin to them. They would reject the idea that God was personally transforming lives through the power of His Spirit. They would say the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ that taught a sovereign God would actually call some to salvation was a religion of the ‘HEART’ saying it was emotionalism connected with enthusiasm, void of rationalism. In contrast the theology of Thomas and Alexander Campbell was a religion of the ‘MIND’ which came from rational thought as a result of man’s ‘Free Will’ to obey and follow a moral system that would make them better people. The testimony of the Campbell’s and Finney is that they were opposed to the Calvinism within the Presbyterian Church that opposed the teachings of man’s ‘Free Will’ teaching it was God’s sovereign call, saying that man could not come to God unless the Spirit of God convicted you of sin first. In truth the Campbell’s were teaching what Finney was preaching that man needed to make a decision in his ‘MIND’ to repent and believe. The Campbell’s went a little farther to say you needed to accept the whole package and through mans ‘Free Will’ they had to believe and be baptized by THEM into their Church, which would eventually become the Churches of Christ.
It is more than coincidental that the Campbell’s were preaching their new ideas and debating Presbyterians in Pennsylvania many miles west of New York where and when Finney was being prepared for ministry. Prior to Finney’s preparation for ministry he testified to having a Holy Ghost experience in Adams, New York after 1812. This type of experience was common with Methodist preaching throughout New York at this time. Philip Embury came to America years after hearing John Wesley preach in Ireland. Embury started preaching before 1769 in New York City, moving north to Camden and Albany, New York. In 1771’ Wesley sent Francis Asbury to preach in America, starting in Philadelphia and moving toward New York Asbury preached in 25 different settlements in his first 17 days. By the time of Finney’s Holy Ghost experience the Methodist movement in the northern colonies had grown to over 200,000 members with over 600 ordained gospel preachers, which appeared to be the foundational beginning of a new awakening in America.
Officially the beginning of the 2nd Great Awakening was around 1820’ when the steady growth of Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Congregational & Presbyterian churches coming from earlier revivals taking place during the 1st Great Awakening through Historic Christian Churches between 1730 and 1760. This means there was no period of churches being backslidden, but there was an introduction of new churches, alternative doctrines and mass evangelism noticed around 1780 with Methodism, but no noticeable transferred church growth before or after the explosion of growth in the 1820’s.
The 1st Great Awakening began with the Historic Augustinian message of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, which had an effect on Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Congregational & Presbyterian churches throughout the colonies between 1730 and 1760. There was no transferred church growth during this period since these churches represented the 13-Colonies and most of the divisions were made by the Colony or State where these churches resided. Actually there was a steady growth in all these churches from 1760 to 1820 only being affected by the Revolutionary War. The fact is there was no noticeable period of backsliding between the 1st and 2nd Awakening, the steady growth in church attendance indicated the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ was being effective not dying out. The noticeable change was an explosion of growth in the 1820’s that increased the attendance in all churches; with many churches being influenced by the Methodist Revivalist, the Campbellites and Charles Finney. The main difference between the two Great Awakenings was an ancient false gospel being repackaged, which caused many new churches to start; the Methodist Church was at the forefront, which eventually split into almost 30-new denominations.
These are the facts about the Churches in America to be affected by the 1st Great Awakening: they were all confessional churches proclaiming the same Historic Christian Faith and Gospel. The biggest division between these Church traditions was language and the countries they came from and yes these churches with different traditions had slightly different teachings. For the most part the churches that settled in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island were Congregational with some Presbyterian and Baptist sprinkled about. The churches in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware were mostly Anglican / Episcopal (Church of England) with a good percentage of Presbyterians in each area. Delaware and New Jersey also had a good number of Dutch speaking Reformed and German speaking Lutheran churches. New York was mostly Dutch speaking Reformed churches. Then you had Pennsylvania with a few Lutheran and Presbyterians and the rest were Baptist and Ana-Baptist who rejected infant baptism. The Ana-Baptist groups coming from other countries, speaking other languages were Amish, Brethren, Mennonites, Moravians and Quaker. Again accept for the Catholics in Europe, none of these church traditions were anti-Calvinistic, but with various doctrinal differences they all proclaimed the same Gospel.
In contrast the new churches coming out of the 2nd Great Awakening were anti-Calvinistic and the movement was predominately proclaiming the ‘Free Will’ message of Wesley, Finney & the Campbell’s. As I stated after the 4th paragraph, the testimony of ‘Historic Christian Churches’ there was a struggle for the truth to prevail over Arians and the views of Pelagianism picked up centuries later by those who argued with the disciples of Calvin, those we call Arminian’s, which was refined by the Wesleyans, who were being called Methodist. With exception of the European Catholics (Protestant Hunters) none of the churches represented in the 1st Great Awakening embraced the Arminian / Wesleyan presentation of the Gospel. This is the reason the Historic Churches of the 1st Great Awakening refused membership for the converts of Wesleyan style Revivalism. This is the reason why the Wesleyans were called Methodist, being they had an un-Orthodox method of presenting the Gospel with the purpose of talking people into making decisions the Holy Spirit might not have initiated. Many Presbyterian Churches opposing the Wesleyan style evangelism of Finney would not allow his converts to join their churches. This gave rise to newly ordained Presbyterian ministers to fill the pulpits of Congregational churches who were accepting Finney’s converts being refused Presbyterian membership. Most Baptist Churches sympathized with the renegade Presbyterian minsters, allowing Finney and Wesleyan converts to join their churches.
Now we get to the worst part of the 2nd Great Awakening, another more deceptive Gospel was being proclaimed, the warning given by Jesus to “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves,” Matthew 7:15. Remember the point being made earlier that Thomas Campbell rejected the enthusiastic message of the Presbyterians in Scotland. He also was anti-Calvinist and pushed the ‘Free Will’ message of Atheistic Empiricists who rejected the ‘Historic Christian Faith.’ Again John Locke thought any religion was good if it produced moral citizens; so he was not against Christians whose life had been transformed, just the selective message that God only saved some, the few on the narrow path, because wide was the path leading to destruction. This new twist in the message of Alexander Campbell put the emphasis on a rational decision to believe and be baptized by the right church. Alexander seized the opportunity to make issue with the ‘Historic Churches’ refusing membership to Finney and Wesleyan converts. At this point Alexander started playing the name game saying if you were Baptist you were following John, and if you were Methodist you were following Wesley, the same for Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, they were following the Pope, Calvin or Luther. According to Alexander if you were not being baptized and joining a ‘Church of Christ’ you were not true Christians.
Therefore it should be of no shock that the families of Joseph Smith and Charles Finney moved from Vermont and Connecticut to north/west New York. Neither should it surprise you that Thomas Campbell started out in 1807’ as a Presbyterian (wolf in sheep’s clothing) until Thomas published a paper promoting ‘Simple Evangelical Christianity’ in Pennsylvania; in 1809 his Presbyterian Synod read the paper and had him dismissed, then he relocated and hooked up with some Baptist to become apart of their association. A few years later the Campbell’s instigated debates with the Presbyterian ministers to challenge their authority, church government, saying they were followers of Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. These debates went on for several years between the late teens and early twenties when Charles Finney went to college preparing for ministry. I’m sure any such public debate against a large organization would catch the attention of the students of that organization. It is also interesting that when Finney was starting his evangelistic ministry in New York, Joseph Smith was publishing the Book of Mormon. Later when Mr. Smith organized his first church, he called it the same name proposed by Campbell in the debates saying it’s the Church of Christ, later that would change to Mormons, then dividing into the Latter Day Saints.
So if we analyze the position held by the Campbell’s that Christianity is a religion of the ‘MIND’ well it is obvious that its not what the Bible teaches, since the view appears to have originated with John Locke who was a practical atheist. This approach to Christianity is saying that religion is good since it produces morality, which would be salvation for any civilization. This is the opposite approach we see in the Scriptures, Jesus was done with religion; it was corrupt and blind. I’m sure the message I see is that God was personally involved in the lives of people to deliver them from religion and themselves. The idea of a religion of the ‘MIND’ puts everything back on man, saying he has to decide or believe instead of God being the one who actually saves us. The message of the ‘Historic Christian Faith’ is that God reached down to each and every man of faith to do for him what he could not do for himself. Ultimately the idea of a religion of the ‘MIND’ is that you have to believe the right thing, the right doctrine, the right authority, and the right name. This is exactly what the Catholics, Church of Christ, Jehovah Witnesses and to my understanding what the Mormons believe: a person has to join the right group, be baptized with the right authority, believe the right doctrine in order to experience this transformation.
I have made it clear to my disciples that they can believe everything I believe and do everything I do and still not be in a right relationship with God. God is not looking for Parrots who can mimic Christianity. The idea that I did something to merit salvation, say a prayer, repent = change the direction of my life or make an empty profession is all in vain if God is not doing it through me. The error in the evangelism of Finney and Wesley is in a paper I wrote in my 2nd year of Bible School back in 1973’ that I titled ‘Spiritual Abortion’. I realized back then that our responsibility is to proclaim the Gospel, not to force people to pray prayers of repentance when the Spirit of God has not done the work of preparing the heart. Our job is to tell sinners that their sin will put them under the judgment of God and the Good New is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins, then wait and watch to see what effect that message has on that sinner. It is not our job to know who is and who is not chosen by God unto salvation, I assume everyone is and if not today, then one day coming. The Bible talks about corporate election, God did not select a certain group to be saved before the earth was made, but He had a plan to save some, not all. We will know when God is working in our life; there will be that quickening when something is different, since that point in time we will acquire desires we never had before. If it has happened in your life you will know it. The truth in salvation is that God is not looking for a profession of faith, but the evidence that there is a walk of faith. As a person walks in faith they should be able to turn around and see how far they have come.
The truth is God can save anyone, Mormon, JW, Baptist, Presbyterian and there is nothing we can do to merit salvation, it is according to His calling, not according to our will; we are either born of His Spirit, according to His will or we are trying to take the kingdom by force, Jesus said, “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” John 1:13. We see the same in the way God operates in 2 Peter 1:21 saying, “prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” If God calls some to be Prophets and others to be teachers, evangelist (missionaries) elders, deacons then God does not call all 19 and 20-year olds to be missionaries, then promote them to be elders, then promote the cream of the crop to be Prophets. The Prophets in the OT did not go through this kind of organized promotional method; he took some Prophets from the mother’s womb and another from the sheep fold to be His voice. As you can see if I was not a born of the Spirit child of God, I might be tempted to be a Mormon, but not LDS, the church is too much like the big business’ owned by successful LDS members. It is not that God has blessed your church above all the other churches, if you understood anything about the Abrahamic blessing (and I think you do more than others posting at ‘narrow path’) you would know that the blessing on the LDS is upon all descendants of Israel and Jews, like it is most successful American’s, Mormon or not.
The main point I want to leave with you is that you are culturally a Mormon and it would do you no good for me to talk you into leaving your culture for mine unless the Spirit of God speaks to your heart about your sin. I run into X-Mormons and X-LDS all the time, God spoke to them while in the church or on mission and at a point in time they realized something was different, then as they grew in faith they started to question LDS doctrine and usually between 3 – 5 years the LDS is putting them out of their organization. So I will pray that God will extend His call to you, open your eyes to see your need for a Savior; for I know I have no ability to convert you to my faith.
Will pray for your journey, Papa J.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: “What is a good question to ask a Mormon?” by a mormon.
PapaJ, I read through your entire post and noted a 'few' things that seemed somewhat pertinent to the topic, and in the end I could not see how this long post on recent church history was necessary. You could have made a point and expounded on it, without the long post.
Joseph Smith had a teaching about the 'intelligences' that could be misconceived as being 'a religion of the mind', or mind science, or theosophy, or etc. but it is not the same thing. I do not want to discuss the subject now, although it is interesting, because quote;
'No formal pronouncements have been made by the leading councils of the Church to clarify what additional meanings and attributes may be assigned to the word "intelligences," beyond that which identifies intelligences as spirit children of God'
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intelligences
(Mkprr can say so for himself, he not a 'kid'.
You wrote; "... I will allow him to chase you down that trail".
This is not a rabbit trail, this is the topic, just as the Bible is all to Christianity, Joseph Smith and the BOM is rather central to the LDS Church, and this thread)
Joseph Smith had a teaching about the 'intelligences' that could be misconceived as being 'a religion of the mind', or mind science, or theosophy, or etc. but it is not the same thing. I do not want to discuss the subject now, although it is interesting, because quote;
'No formal pronouncements have been made by the leading councils of the Church to clarify what additional meanings and attributes may be assigned to the word "intelligences," beyond that which identifies intelligences as spirit children of God'
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intelligences
(Mkprr can say so for himself, he not a 'kid'.
You wrote; "... I will allow him to chase you down that trail".
This is not a rabbit trail, this is the topic, just as the Bible is all to Christianity, Joseph Smith and the BOM is rather central to the LDS Church, and this thread)