Thursday, July 26, 2018

Did They Really Say That?!?

A false doctrine is a corrupt doctrine; a false religion is a corrupt religion; a false teacher is a corrupt teacher. Any man who teaches a false doctrine, who believers in and practices and teaches a false religion is a corrupt professor, because he teaches that which is impure and not true. That is the trouble with Christianity today. It is not true. Christianity is, perhaps, no truer or falser than any other religion, than Mohammedanism, Confucianism, Buddhism or any other ism or philosophy.
Apostle Hyrum M. Smith, Conference Reports, October 1916, p.43

Since whoever does not belong to “the church of the Lamb of God” belongs to “the church of the devil,” as Nephi announced, then all systems of worship outside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be classified as “the church of the devil” by Nephi’s definition.

BYU Professor Kent P. Jackson, “‘Watch and Remember’: The New Testament and the Great Apostasy,” By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 1:87

I keep finding snippets like these where Mormon leaders denigrate Christians all the while saying they never do.  They get upset if REAL Christians state the fact that Mormons are not Christian (witness Mitt Romney’s latest tirade against Robert Jeffress), but they pretend they’ve never spoken evil against Christianity. (Of course I’ve posted previous articles and links to others which prove differently).

It’s part of their whole game of pretending to being “persecuted” by Christians while they are “innocent” — just more lies from an organization founded on lies.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Was Jesus Married, and a Polygamist?

The official LDS stance is that they have no doctrine declaring that Jesus was married, but they do acknowledge many members have taught as much over the years.

Therefore, the easy answer is that no, Latter-day Saint doctrine does not teach that Jesus was married, polygamist or otherwise. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue. Members are free to believe as they wish concerning this matter.

This is really quite disingenuous.  Mormons consider Brigham Young to have been a prophet, and his teachings were doctrine when he taught them. Oh, but the LDS also seems to deny this fact when current ideology needs to distance itself from really, really weird teachings (e.g. Adam-God doctrine by Young]. So you either have a prophet who speaks for God, or you don’t. You can’t claim he spoke for God and then say sometimes he made a mistake - he’d be stoned in the O.T.!  

The link above gives some of the teachings by various people in the LDS, including Prophet/President Joseph Fielding Smith (oops, was he not a prophet when he believed it?).  The claim is also that it was only in the mid-1800s that this was taught by certain people.  Well, let me list some of the teachings I’ve come across (including one the link cites by Orson Hyde):

Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp.345-346: 
Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, “The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because he had so many wives.; there were Elizabeth, and May, and a host of others that followed him.” After Jesus went from stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master…. The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,… A belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers.  We might almost think they were “Mormons.” 

Apostle Orson Hyde:
When Mary of old cam to the sepulcher…she saw two angels in white, “And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord,” or husband, “and I know not where they have laid him…. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.” Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife.
Conference Message, 10/6/54, Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, pg.81

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.
Conference Message, 10/6/54, Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, pg.82

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.  All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this — they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father.  I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and import law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” 
3/18/55, Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, pg.210

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, … he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode not on an ass, but on a rail… At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! … Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ,… 
Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, pp. 259-260.

When the “gentiles” stated that polygamy was one of the “relics of barbarism,” Brigham Young replied: “Yes, one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, of Jesus, and of his apostles.”
Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, pg.328.

On another occasion Brigham Young stated: “The Scripture says that He, the LORD, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children;…” 
Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pg.309.

NOTICE!! These last to cite Brigham Young stating that Jesus was a polygamist.  So, as noted above, would that not be doctrine, whether or not it was in any “standard work”?!?  

… we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ’s incarnation—how and by whom he was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by that act; the number of wives and children he had….
Millennial Star, Vol.15, pg.825 (1853).

Apostle Orson Pratt
If none but Gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives.
The Seer, pg.158

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them — namely, Mary Magdalene.  Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives.
The Seer, p.159

It will be seen that the Great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a polygamist, … the Messiah chose…by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that He approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation in which His Polygamist ancestors lived.  We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom he began our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His first Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only begotten in this world. We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; … And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom how can you endure such a scene as this? … If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the New Earth; for polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom.
The Seer, pg.172. (notice this also claims the LDS god father Jesus literally with Mary)

Other Mormons
One of the wives of Brigham Young—Mrs. Augusta Cobb Young—a highly educated and intelligent Boston lady…requested of her Prophet husband a favor of a most extraordinary description.  She had forsaken her lawful husband and family…to join the Saints,… when the lady of whom I speak asked him to place her at the head of his household, he refused: …finding that she could not be Brigham’s “queen,” and having been taught by the highest Mormon authorities that our Savior had, and has, many wives, she requested to be “sealed” to Him!  Brigham Young told her (for what reason I do not know) that it really was out of his power to do that, but that he would do “the next best thing” for her—he would “seal” her to Joseph Smith.  So the was sealed to Joseph Smith,… in the resurrection she will leave him [Young] and go over to the original Prophet.
Fanny Stenhouse, Tell It All, pg.255

NOTICE!!!  Again Brigham Young is cited as teaching the polygamy of Jesus!

Next, these last three citations, all by John J. Stewart, prove that the teaching wasn’t relegated to the mid-1800s, since these were written in the 1960s!

Plural marriage was a common practice among God’s chosen people….Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene and many other women were beloved of Jesus. For a person to say that he believes the Bible but does not believe the doctrine of plural marriage is something akin to saying that he accepts the Constitution but not the Bill of Rights.
Brigham Young and His Wives, pg.26 (1961)

Now briefly, the reason that the Lord, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, introduced the doctrine of plural marriage, and the reason that the Church…has never and will never relinquish the doctrine of plural marriage, is simply this: The major purpose of the Church is to help man attain the great eternal destiny suggested in that couplet… Plural marriage is the patriarchal order of marriage lived by God and others who reign in the Celestial Kingdom.
Brigham Young and His Wives, pg.41 (1961)

Plural marriage, explained the Prophet, is the patriarchal order of marriage lived by God and others who reign in the Celestial Kingdom; therefore, both the eternity of the marriage covenant and the plurality of wives are contained in the revelation,…
Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, pg.69 (1966)

Notice that not only did the Prophet/President Brigham Young teach this, but we have teachings also from two APOSTLES.  These are men high in the church, who were considered to be authoritative teachers!

This is typical of the Latter-day Saint cult; they lie and obfuscate about old teachings which now embarrass them.  They’ve done this with polygamy, they’ve done it with the Adam-God doctrine, and they’ve done it with the whole racist teachings about why black people are black and why they couldn’t hold the priesthood!  These are just a few of the many things they lie about.  If you have to lie about your belief system, then perhaps you should re-evaluate whether you should be believing it!

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Requirements of Deacons

Question: “According to 1 Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 12-13, it refers to deacons as husbands of one wife, etc. Why is the office of a deacon in the Church today held by very young boys?”

Answer: It was the judgement of Paul that a deacon in that day should be a married man. That does not apply to our day. Conditions were different in the days of Paul. In that day a minister was not considered qualified to take part in the ministry until he was thirty years of age. Under those conditions deacons, teachers, and priests were mature men. This is not the requirement today. There are in all kinds of churches today ministers who are under that age, and there is no requirement in the Church in this dispensation that a person must be a matured man before he can take part in the ministry or hold the priesthood. Nor was it the rule in very ancient times, for we learn that Noah was only ten years of age when he was given the priesthood under the hands of Methuselah [footnote reference to D&C 107:52]. John the Baptist was ordained when only eight days old when he was ordained by an angel, “. . . to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people . . . ,” [footnote reference to D&C 84:28] but John did not enter this ministry until shortly before the coming of Christ to be baptized and enter his ministry. John was a few months older than our Savior.

So you see there is nothing wrong, nothing out of order, in what we are doing, for it is by revelation from the Lord.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol 1, Chapter 32.

Let’s unpack this teaching. First, Smith says it was “the judgement of Paul” but Paul was an apostle and what he taught was from Christ (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:11-12). 

Smith claims that this teaching was for Paul’s day and does not apply to our day, but that is just his assertion with no Biblical backing. His whole claim about qualifications for ministry in those days has no reference, but even if his claim is true that doesn’t negate the FACT that deacons are to be mature men, and no one in any Christian church of which I am aware would ever use young boys as deacons (and in the Christian church there is no such thing as “priests,” let alone the fraudulent nature of the LDS priesthood).

Nowhere in REAL Scripture (i.e. the Bible) do we find Noah ordained as a priest by Methuselah (especially since the priesthood of God did not exist). Nor could John the Baptist have ever been ordained a priest by an angel because nowhere in Scripture are we told angels have such authority, and nowhere in Scripture will you find a priest who isn’t a mature adult. The Doctrine & Covenants are all false claims of revelation from God, which is the only way the cult of the LDS can come up with such bizarre teachings.

The role of a Deacon in the Church is very specific; they are seen as “ministers of mercy” in Acts 6: 1-6. They were to be men “full of the Spirit and wisdom.” Deacons may be seen as support units for the Elders. 1 Timothy 3 explains the qualifications for being a Deacon, and these qualifications can not be met by a young boy.

So-called revelations from the Lord to Joseph Smith on this topic are false.