So, apparently, Mormon's also believe that Adam IS God:
Brigham Young wrote:Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Sant and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Micahel, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. (April 9, 1852, J.D. 1:50)
Further, Hosea Stout notes:
Hosea wrote:Friday 9th April 1852: Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc. More hereafter. (Hosea Stout Journal, Vol. 2:435)
Wilford Woodruff quotes Brigham as saying:
Woodruff wrote:Adam is Michael or God and all the God that we have anything to do with.
These and other quotes (more later) come from Ogden Kraut's Michael - Adam. We have it here at the library I work at. I'll be checking it out to list some more info. as I come on it . . .
It's pretty cool. He has copies of newspaper articles, quotes, journals, etc. here...
Was anyone else aware of this doctrine?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
oh yes my friend there is so much evidence aginst the mormon false prophets its incredible.
here is some more for you to consider; A VERY important part of mormon history is the book of Abraham in November 1967 the Metropolitan Museum of art in New York gave the LDS church some Egyptian papri.
among them was the original papyrus obtained by joseph smith in 1835, and from which he "translated" the book of Abraham now found in the pearl of great price.
Dee Jay Nelson, a member of the LDS churchat the time is also an internationally known Egyptologist, whose professional skills are highly acclaimed.
He was asked to translate this original document, and in January 1968 agreed to do so. to make a long story short he found that they were Egyptian funerary texts used to help the dead find there way to the next world. He tested them in every way he could to get them to conform to joseph smiths "translation" although reluctantly he finally declared the translation to be completely false. Nelson then resigned from the LDS church December 8,1975, in a letter to the church in which he stated "We (his family) do not wish to be associated with a religious organization which teaches lies" end quote. He also stated that the scientififc world finds the book of Abraham an insult to the intelligence. Some of the most brilliant and qualified Egyptologists of our time have labeled it fraudulent and they do not wish to be associated with a church that teaches lies, and racial bigotry.
Thought you'd find all this interesting, and there is SO much more I could tell you.
God Bless, Jerrod
I like the idea that they can change their beliefs . . . makes it aweful inconsistent, hehe.
Basically, what they are saying is that their prophet was dead wrong. Therefore, what he taught was, in fact, heresy. Therefore, their prophet was a heretic. Therefore, their prophets are not infallible.
Well, in that case, what reason do I have to believe Mr. Smith?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
I'm not sure my question belongs on this topic but I came across an article written by a Mormon, Kerry Shirts that I found distrubing. It is not about Momonism, but about the "corruption" of the NT Scriptures. You will find it here:
The article quotes Bart D. Ehrman (well known scholar of the NT) and some of his allegations are worrisome. Since you are on your way to becoming a theologist, I thought that perhaps you have encountered Ehrman's allegations and may have a rebuttal. If so, could you take the time to give me your thoughts.
My simple answer, though this certainly isn't a rebuttal, is that I was just really unimpressed with the article as a whole. I'll have to read the book for myself, but I don't expect much. Dr. Ehrman is, apparently, pretty liberal. The problem there is that liberals and conservatives approach the bible from entirely different perspectives. Without going into detail, that just means that, for the Ehrman, his conclusions are built into his presuppositions, so it is no surprise he comes to those that he does.
I will offer one quick example. Based on this review, it appears that Ehrman considers gnosticism an early heresy, and while I'd have to read his book to know, based on what I know from other liberal theologians, my bet would be that he is arguing that Paul (and others) wrote in response to that. Conservatives highly disagree. That would mean the majority of the NT would have to have been written in the second century BC, and, of course, that has massive ramifications of its own. But and however, that is a basic assumption of people like our esteemed Dr. Ehrman.
I'll read him in detail later this year, but for now, I wouldn't put too much stock in what he has to say. It's just the nature of the beast . . . in the meantime, I'd refer you to Metzger, the premier scholar on textual criticism. There is no doubt that what we have are, for all intents and purposes, the original manuscripts (that is, we have managed to restore them). That is just a matter of fact. What Ehrman is getting into is higher criticism, and while there is a place for that, SO MUCH of it has to do with a person's preconceptions it is beyond funny. There's a lot of conjecture and suggesting . . .
In fact, here's the bottom line on higher criticism of Dr. Ehrman's kind: even if we grant complete acceptability to his arguments (and we don't), the BEST he can offer is some sort of weak alternative to the orthodox position based on very, very, very different assumptions that have to be accepted a priori. In other words, while he MAY be justified in his beliefs, given his assumptions (though I don't think so), he certainly hasn't done anything negative to our own.
If you want some detailed study, again, check out Metzger, and start reading any of the Word Biblical Commentaries. They have outstanding articles on each book.
Hope that helps. God bless
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
That would mean the majority of the NT would have to have been written in the second century BC.
You meant to say second century AD? I have run into people who do say that the NT was written in the mid-to late 2 century, thus making them "forgeries." The basis for this assumption is that the book of Mark is not mentioned by any church father until 150AD. And they consider the Book of Mark as primary.
I do understand that certain scholars bring their presuppositions into their work. I have a friend who calls herself a Christian but she does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because she reads Dominique Crossan and believes as he does—that Jesus' body was thrown into a pit and eaten by dogs. I don't think that Crossan believes in miracles, but I haven't read his books. I did read the book "Will The Real Jesus Please Standup" which was a debate between Crossan and William Lane Craig.
I finally emailed Ehrman and asked him if he was misquoted in the article I cited. We corresponded four times. I wanted to know if his conclusions had affected his faith. I wanted to know if he still considered himself a Christian—a Trinitarian Christian. All that he would say is that his conclusions had drastically affected his faith. I brought up Bruce Metzger who has the same impressive credentials and whose faith was strengthened by his research. He said that Metzger was a perfect example that this "knowledge" did not have to affect one's faith.
I did find one scholar refuting Ehrman's conclusions on John 1:18 here:
BTW: I think a discussion of the Gospel of Thomas would work well on this site. I've been studying it because so many of my friends are excited about it. One mentioned that "Jesus" does not say that He is divine or mention the Trinity in the GOT, but I totally disagree. He claims to be "the All." I interpret that to be GOD! Also, in saying 44:
Jesus said: He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.
Mormons also believe that black people are the desendance of the devil and white people were desendance of jesus. This is when I politely kick them out. Believe it or not, they say that they don't believe in that doctrine anymore. Not since 1978. They even tried to express to me that GLADYS KNIGHT is a mormon. Oh well, just another person to pray for.
Don't the Mormons believe that they will inherit a planet and rule it? One Mormom told a friend of mine he'd go to heaven, but he wouldn't get a planet...my friend was saddenned to find that out *sarcasm*.
I have actually read Ehrman's work 'The Orthodox Corruptions Of Scripture', and it's not as radical as some people think. His basic argument is that certain textual corruptions occurred as a result of scribes rewording the Biblical texts in order to support 'orthodox' dogma. This is nothing new, and scholars such a Metzger acknowledge this took place.
He may go too far in some instances (as I believe he does), but textual and historical evidence supports his fundamental case.
This does not mean that the original text is unknown to us. The very fact that corruptions are discernable proves that we have a verifiably accurate textual tradition.
Poetic_Soul wrote:Mormons also believe that black people are the desendance of the devil and white people were desendance of jesus. This is when I politely kick them out. Believe it or not, they say that they don't believe in that doctrine anymore. Not since 1978. They even tried to express to me that GLADYS KNIGHT is a mormon. Oh well, just another person to pray for.
That's not exactly accurate. They believe that those who Help Jesus overcome his brother Lucifer were made angels or white men. Those who were on the side of Lucifer were made demons. Those who were neutral were sent to earth and given black skin.
Just as wierd.
There are many tough questions that you can ask a Mormon, such as why the Book of Mormon has so many Greek Words in it.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN
