FAIR - User contributions [en]

Official doctrine in the Church

2015-12-27T20:57:01Z

BSiebert:

Official doctrine in the Church

2015-12-20T01:58:32Z

BSiebert:

Official doctrine in the Church

2015-12-20T01:53:38Z

BSiebert:

Question: What were the causes of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's martyrdom?

2015-12-16T16:48:38Z

BSiebert:

Jesus Christ/Atonement/The garden and the cross

2015-12-15T13:52:51Z

BSiebert:

Template:Resource Title

2015-12-15T07:45:14Z

BSiebert:

Jesus Christ/Atonement

2015-12-15T07:00:48Z

BSiebert:

Question: How is the atonement of Jesus Christ portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns

2015-12-15T06:58:04Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|The centrality of the atonement as portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns}}

==The Song of the Righteous==

From the earliest times Christians have "sung hymns to Christ as to a God."<ref>Pliny (ca. 115 AD), epistle 10:96, in Pliny. Letters, Vol. 2, translated by William Melmoth, Loeb Classical Library (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1958), 403. Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan can be found online at http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html. See now, Margaret Daly-Denton, "Singing Hymns to Christ as to a God (cf. Pliny Ep. X, 96)," The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, edited by Corey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1999), 277–292. She points out that there are two types of hymns in the New Testament: hymnic and liturgical. The liturgical hymns are about Christ, not to him.</ref> The singing of those hymns was a method of instructing the congregation in the doctrines of the Church. Paul wrote to the Colossians that at their religious gatherings they were to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." ({{s||Colossians|3|16}}) He taught the same concept to the members in Ephesus: "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." ({{s||Ephesians|5|19}}) Most frequently those hymns are meant simply as a means of expressing devotion to the Savior, or to His Father. But at times they have been polemical, a means of inculcating new doctrine, as in the period following Nicaea.<ref>Daniel Liderbach recently wrote that prior to Nicaea the hymns appeared to embody expressions that had their origins in response to the Spirit moving the congregation. "However after the Council of Nicaea and again after that of Chalcedon /451 AD/, the tone of the hymns used by the community shifted to polemical, theological insistence upon the doctrine that the church at Nicaea and Chalcedon had approved," Daniel Liderbach, ''Christ in the Early Christian Hymns'' (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1999), 79–80.</ref> The hymns penned by John and Charles Wesley "were more than specimens of devotion. They were tools for doctrinal instruction."<ref>Alan C. Clifford, ''Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640–1790. An Evaluation'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 99. Estimates for the number of hymns composed by John and Charles Wesley vary between 6500 and 8000. They published at least 57 hymn collections during their lifetime. The most significant one was in 1780, and was based in part on eight previous collections. In the preface to the 1780 edition John Wesley wrote, "It is large enough to contain all the important truths of our most holy Religion, whether speculative or practical; yea, to illustrate them all, and to prove them by Scripture and Reason." He also wrote that "the hymns are not carelessly jumbled together, but carefully ranged under proper heads, according to the experience of real Christians. So that this book is, in effect, a little body of experimental and practical divinity." Quoted in Ken Bible, "The Wesley's Hymns on Full Redemption and Pentecost: a Brief Comparison," ''Wesleyan Theological Journal'' 17:2 (1982).</ref>
The hymns of the Latter-day Saints have also been an effective means of instructing the membership of the Church about their relationship to the Savior. It has been so from the earliest hymnal, published in 1835, to the present. A look at some of those hymns will indicate the centrality of the Savior's atonement, and the elements of it that were taught to the membership.

==The 1835 hymnal==
The 1835 edition of the hymnal was a collection of ninety hymns, over one-third written by members of the young church, and put together by Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet.<Ref>See {{s||D&C|25|11–12}} for Emma's call to edit the volume. The Preface to the 1835 edition states: "In order to sing by the Spirit, and with the understanding, it is necessary that the church of the Latter-day Saints should have a collection of 'Sacred Hymns,' adapted to their faith and belief in the gospel, and, as far as can be, holding forth the promises made to the fathers who died in the precious faith of a glorious resurrection, and a thousand years' reign on earth with the Son of Man in his glory. Notwithstanding the church, as it were, is still in its infancy, yet, as the song of the righteous is a prayer unto God, it is sincerely hoped that the following collection, selected with an eye single to his glory, may answer every purpose till more are composed, or till we are blessed with a copious variety of the songs of Zion," quoted in {{Book:Smith:Church History and Modern Revelation|pages=93}}</ref> Twenty-six of those hymns are still in the current hymnal, which includes many written by non-LDS authors. The 1835 edition (which is not available to me) includes hymns with the following thoughts expressed: "Blest inhabitants of Zion, purchased by the Savior's blood; Jesus, whom their souls rely on, makes them kings and priests to God."<Ref>John Newton, "Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken," hymn 46 in the 1998 version. Newton, an Anglican clergyman, was also the author of the hymn "Amazing Grace."</ref> Another hymn, by Isaac Watts, stated, "The Lord of Glory died for men. But lo! What sudden joys were heard! The Lord, though dead, revived again."<ref>Isaac Watts, "He Died! The Great Redeemer Died," hymn 192 in the current hymnal. It is hymn 56 in the 1906 (1889) edition.</ref> Another hymn, by LDS writer William W. Phelps, indicated that Christ "died for us."<Ref>W.W. Phelps, "Come, All Ye Saints Who Dwell on Earth," hymn 65 in the current hymnal; 114 in the 1906 edition.</ref> One of the more popular hymns in the current edition, also written by W.W. Phelps, is "O God, the Eternal Father," and appeared in the 1835 edition. It included the phrases "Jesus, the Anointed…gave himself a ransom to win our souls with love… And die, or all was lost."<ref>W.W. Phelps, "O God, the Eternal Father," hymn 175 in the current edition, 255 in the 1906.</ref>

==The 1889 hymnal==
In 1889 another edition of the LDS hymnal appeared. A third reprint of this particular edition was published in 1906. Many of the current hymns also appeared in it, but it also included hymns no longer in the current hymnbook. Among this latter group of hymns, for which no authors are listed, are several which declare the importance of the Atonement of the Savior. "Spirit of faith, come down, reveal the things of God, and make to us the Godhead known, and witness with the blood. 'Tis thine the blood to apply, and give us eyes to see; who did for every sinner die, did surely die for me."<Ref name="hymn1906">The Latter-day Saints Psalmody, Third Edition (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1906). Citations are to hymn number, not page number.</ref>{{Rp|173}} Another hymn includes the phrase "remembering God's incarnate Son, who suffered death on Calvary to set the contrite sinner free."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|20}} Another taught the Saints "when He our Savior did the same, without a place to lay his head, a pilgrim on the earth he came, until for us his blood was shed."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|31}} Another hymn records that "they follow their General, the great Eternal lamb—His garments stained in his own blood—King Jesus is his name."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|105}} Another, applicable to participation in the Eucharistic celebration (Sacrament of the Lord's Supper), reads: "O Lord of Hosts, we now invoke Thy spirit most divine, to cleanse our hearts while we partake the broken bread and wine. May we forever think of thee, and of thy sufferings sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee evermore. Prepare our minds, that we may see the beauties of thy grace; salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|109}} Another tells the family not to weep for their dead child, for "your child is saved through Jesus Christ [for they have] washed their robes and made them white in Christ's atoning blood."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|135}} Another hymn, penned by LDS poet Eliza R. Snow, first appeared in an LDS hymnal in 1871, and continues today. It reads, as per 1906: "How great the wisdom and the love, that filled the courts on high, and sent the Savior from above to suffer, bleed and die! His precious blood He freely spilt, his life He freely gave; a sinless sacrifice for guilt, a dying world to save."<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "How Great the Wisdom and the Love," hymn 136; number 195 in the current hymnal.</ref> Another hymn indicates that Christ "died that we might live."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|42}} Yet another refers to "him who died, that we might live."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|198}} Another hymn refers to him "who died to save."<Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|224}} One proclaims the activities of the missionaries who go out in order to teach "that divine and glorious conquest once obtained on Calvary." <Ref name="hymn1906"></ref>{{Rp|239}} Another hymn, written by LDS author William W. Phelps, found in the 1835 hymnal and still very popular today, refers to "that sacred, holy offering, by man least understood… when Jesus the Anointed, descended from above, and gave himself a ransom to win our souls with love… He was the promised Savior." The recent edition includes a fourth verse that concludes "and die or all was lost."<ref>William W. Phelps, "O God, the Eternal Father," hymn 255. It is hymn 175 in the 1998 edition. The 1835 edition contained eight verses; the fifth verses included "He is the true Messiah, that died and lives again; we look not for another, He is the Lamb 'twas slain."</ref> Another hymn, still in the modern edition, tells that "Jesus, our Lord and God, bore sin's tremendous load."<ref>James Allen, "Glory to God on High,"., hymn 262. Hymn 67 in the current edition</ref>

==The current Latter-day Saint hymnal (1986 to present)==
There are simply too many hymns in the current hymnal to recount all of them satisfactorily. But there are several which need some attention. First though, it should be remembered that there are several hymns in the current book which were written by non-LDS authors, and which bear on our theme. Many of these have already been mentioned above. The current hymnal contains many sentiments relative to our theme.
*"I am the sacrifice offered for thee."<ref name="Current">{{Book:Church:Hymns:1986}}</ref>{{Rp|120}}
*"…thou Son of God, who lived for us, then died on Calvary."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|169}}
*"Thou gavest thy life on Calvary, that I might live forever more."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|171}}
*"Let me not forget, O Savior, thou didst bleed and die for me when thy heart was stilled and broken on the cross at Calvary."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|172}}
*"For us the blood of Christ was shed; for us on Calvary's cross he bled… Jesus died that justice might be satisfied."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|174}} <ref>Also in the 1906 edition, hymn 50.</ref>
*"Oh, wondrous plan—to suffer, bleed, and die for man!… For Jesus died on Calvary! That all thru him might ransomed be."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|176}}
*"May we forever think of thee and of thy sufferings sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee evermore… Salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|178}}
*"Leaving thy Father's throne, on earth to live, thy work to do alone, thy life to give… Bruised, broken, torn for us on Calvary's hill—thy suffering borne for us lives with us still."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|181}}
*"…praise and honor give to him who bled on Calvary's hill and died that we might live… The bread and water represent His sacrifice for sin; ye Saints, partake and testify ye do remember him."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|182}} <ref>Richard Alldridge, "We' Sing all Hail to Jesus' Name," hymn 182. It was first published as a poem in the Millennial Star, 1871, with music in Juvenile Instructor, 1883 (both LDS publications). It originally had a sixth verse which read, in part: "Then hail, all hail, to such a Prince who saves us by his blood!", in Karen Lynn Davidson, Our Latter-day Hymns: The Stories and the Messages (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1988), 199. That a verse is occasionally dropped from an earlier hymn book to a more recent one should not be interpreted as necessarily significant; John Wesley also did the same during his lifetime; see Bible, "The Wesley's Hymns on Full Redemption and Pentecost: a Brief Comparison," in the section headed "Overlap of the Two Collections." </ref>
*"When thy self thou gavest an offering, dying for the sinner's sake."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|183}}
*Vilate Raile wrote: "Upon the cross of Calvary they crucified our Lord and sealed with blood the sacrifice that sanctified his word. Upon the cross he meekly died for all mankind to see that death unlocks the passageway into eternity. Upon the cross our Savior died, but, dying, brought new birth through resurrection's miracle to all the sons of earth."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|184}}
*"Again we meet around the board of Jesus, our redeeming Lord, with faith in his atoning blood, our only access unto God. He left his Father's courts on high, with man to live, for man to die… Help us, O God, to realize the great atoning sacrifice, the gift of thy beloved Son, the Prince of Life, the Holy One." Additional verses included: "Jesus, the great facsimile of the Eternal Deity, has stooped to conquer, died to save from sin and sorrow and the grave."<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "Again We Meet Around the Board," hymn 186; first published in the Millennial Star, 1871, later in Utah Musical Times, 1877. It was included in the 1906 hymnal, hymn 13. The additional verse was included in the hymnals from 1950 until the 1985 edition; Davidson, Our Latter-day Hymns, 201–202.</ref>
*"Thyself the Lamb forever slain… View thee bleeding on the tree: My Lord, my God, who dies for me."<ref>William H. Turton, "O Thou, Before the World Began," hymn 189; in LDS hymnals since 1927.</ref>
*"Our Savior, in Gethsemane, shrank not to drink the bitter cup, and then, for us, on Calvary, upon the cross was lifted up. We reverence with the broken bread, together with the cup we take, the body bruised, the lifeblood shed, a sinless ransom for our sake."<ref>Frank Kooyman, "In Memory of the Crucified," hymn 190. Notice that both the Garden and the cross come into play here, with the strongest emphasis being on the cross, where the sacrifice took place.</ref>
*"…sent the Savior from above to suffer, bleed, and die! His precious blood he freely spilt, his life he freely gave, a sinless sacrifice for guilt, a dying world to save."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|195}}
*"O Savior…upon the cross they nail thee to die, O King of all. No creature is so lowly, no sinner so depraved, but feels thy presence holy and thru thy love is saved. Tho craven friends betray thee, they feel thy love's embrace; the very foes who slay thee have access to thy grace. Thy sacrifice transcended the mortal law's demand, thy mercy is extended to every time and land… What praises can be offer to thank thee, Lord most high? In our place thou didst suffer; in our place thou didst die, by heaven's plan appointed, to ransom us, our King. O Jesus, the anointed, to thee our love we bring."<ref name="Current"></ref>{{Rp|197}}

Clearly, there is much in the hymns that the Latter-day Saints sing regularly which teaches that the Savior, Jesus Christ, came to earth for the specific purpose of "being lifted up upon the cross" to save the world. Through the sacrifice of His life, the spilling of His blood, he has redeemed all mortals who will come to Him.

== ==
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Jesus Christ/Atonement/Portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns]]

Template:Book:LDS:True to the Faith

2015-12-15T03:49:35Z

BSiebert: Undo revision 140921 by BSiebert (talk)

{{#if:{{{article|}}}|"{{{article}}}," in |}}''True to the Faith'' (Intellectual Reserve, 2004){{#if:{{{end|}}}|, {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}.|{{#if:{{{start|}}}|, {{{start}}}.|{{#if:{{{pages|}}}|, {{{pages}}}.|.}}}}}} {{ldslink|http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b7723f4adab435807398f2f6e44916a0/?vgnextoid=67852ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=aa8b991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____}}

Template:Book:LDS:True to the Faith

2015-12-15T03:36:16Z

BSiebert:

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories

2015-12-13T19:09:36Z

BSiebert:

Moroni's promise of the Book of Mormon

2015-12-11T13:20:36Z

BSiebert:

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories

2015-12-11T13:11:02Z

BSiebert:

Old Question: Are Latter-day Saints are not true Christians because they do not use the cross and believe that the atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane?

2015-12-11T10:48:44Z

BSiebert: /* The garden and the cross */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: Are Latter-day Saints are not true Christians because they do not use the cross and believe that the atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane?
|category=Jesus Christ/Atonement
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Are Latter-day Saints are not true Christians because they do not use the cross and believe that the atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane?==
===Latter-day Saints include Christ's suffering and death on the cross as part of his atonement for all humanity===

Latter-day Saints teach that the atonement of Christ was carried out in Gethsemane, rather than on the cross. However, these statements from a variety of LDS sources are sufficient to show that the LDS include Christ's suffering and death on the cross as part of his atonement for all humanity. His suffering on the cross was preceded by suffering at Gethsemane.

Even Jesus' life had a part in His atonement, since only God, a perfect being, could perform this service. His mission thus also included being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" ({{B||Hebrews|4|15}}). It is therefore arbitrary and misleading to draw some type of "line" during Jesus' mortal life or death when He was not working for our salvation. This includes Gethsemane and the cross.

[[Image:Message of cross foolishness.jpg|left|thumb|An anti-Mormon protester claims—falsely—that Latter-day Saints do not value the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for all humanity.]]

There is a spectrum of belief in the Church, among both the leaders and the people in the pew, as in all religions. It is true that members of the Church have historically included the garden of Gethsemane as playing a role in Jesus' saving act. Some have emphasized it, perhaps in reaction to the emphasis on the cross alone in other Christian denominations.

===The garden ''and'' the cross===

However, even that emphasis, were it the sole message of the Church (and it is not) does not ''exclude'' the cross. Note, for example, this excerpt from the Christmas message of Gordon B. Hinckley, past President of the Church:

<blockquote>
We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane ''and upon the cross of Calvary'' which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. His was a great Atonement for the sins of all mankind. He was the resurrection and the life, "the firstfruits of them that slept" ({{b|1|Corinthians|15|20}}). Because of Him all men will be raised from the grave. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=A Season for Gratitude|date=December 1997|start=2}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Other statements by Elder Bruce McConkie, who is sometimes used as evidence for this criticism, show he was not as one-sided as critics imply:

<blockquote>
And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane ''and at Golgotha,'' and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King." <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Bruce R. McConkie|article=The Purifying Power of Gethsemane|date=May 1995|start=9}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The official training booklet sent out with missionaries includes this statement:

<blockquote>
The Atonement included His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane ''as well as His suffering and death on the cross.'' <ref>{{PreachMyGospel1|start=32}} {{ia}} {{pdflink|url=http://broadcast.lds.org/Missionary/PreachMyGospel___06_03-1_TheRestoration__36617_eng_006.pdf}}</ref>
</blockquote>

As a fourth example, consider something that recently came from the Church press:

<blockquote>
Jesus' atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane ''and on the cross at Calvary''. In Gethsemane, He began to take upon himself the sins of the world…. The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified. <ref>{{TTTF1|article=Atonement of Jesus Christ|start=17}} {{link1|url=https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===The importance of Gethsemane in the scriptures===

Gethsemane does present some interesting problems. Other Christians reject the Latter-day Saint view of the importance of Gethsemane in part because it is only mentioned twice in the New Testament ({{b||Matthew|26|36}} and {{b||Mark|14|32}}). While this may be so, the events that transpired there are mentioned also in the other two gospels. In other words, all four gospel writers felt it important enough to include it in their 'memoirs.' In {{b||John|18|1}} it is reported that Christ and His disciples "often resorted thither." {{b||Luke|22|39}} tells us that He went there, "as he was wont" (compare {{b||Luke|19|29}} and {{b||Luke|21|37}}, the latter of which says He spent the 'nights' on Mount Olive). This was apparently a special place for them to seek solitude, a private place to seek their Father in prayer. It is evident from the commentaries written on the various gospels that the exact purpose of the experience is not well understood. We don't need to go into the events verse by verse, but there are some things that need to be noted. Despite the importance the Lord places on prayer in general, there are only a few places where He is actually depicted as doing so; this prayer in Gethsemane is one of them. Furthermore, there are few places in the New Testament where He is depicted as being 'strengthened' by an angel ({{b||Matthew|4|11}}). The experience in the Garden is one of them ({{b||Luke|22|43}}, in which an angel is sent to strengthen Him during His prayer). There are others who have also commented on the singularity of this experience, and attributed it, at least in part, to the atonement.

===Gethsemane as viewed by non-Latter-day Saint Christians===

Christian theologian Leon Morris is quoted frequently by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, the authors of the book ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' (a book critical of Mormonism). It is not without significance, therefore, that Morris quotes Lesslie Newbigin as follows:
<blockquote>
The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, kneels in the garden of Gethsemane. He wrestles in prayer. His sweat falls like great drops of blood. He cries out in an agony: "not my will, but thine be done." That is what it costs God to deal with man's sin. To create the heavens and the earth costs Him no labor, no anguish; to take away the sin of the world costs Him His own life-blood. <ref>Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, 28, note 30, quoting Newbigin, Sin and Salvation (London: SCM, 1946), 32. As mentioned earlier, Morris is designated by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, the authors of ''Mormonism 101'', as a Christian theologian from whom they elicit support.</ref>
</blockquote>
Elsewhere, Leon Morris himself admits that, at least for Matthew, "what took place in the Garden was very important." <ref>Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1985), 134.</ref>

In a recent commentary, Donald A. Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary writes:
<blockquote>
The thought of what he will have to undergo in the near future fills Jesus with dread and anguish. A real struggle within the soul of Jesus takes place in Gethsemane, and he craves the support of those who have been closest to him during his ministry. The mystery of the agony of God's unique Son cannot be fully penetrated. That it has to do with bearing the penalty of sin for the world to make salvation possible seems clear. <ref>Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28: Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33b (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1995), 785. Notice that Professor Hagner mentions the 'dread and anguish' which Jesus felt as He looked ahead to His death on the Cross; this is precisely what several of the LDS Church leaders have said.</ref>
</blockquote>
In a commentary on Matthew 26, first published in 1864, German scholar John Peter Lange refers to several interpretations offered by earlier commentators. He quotes a scholar named Ebrard: "His trembling in Gethsemane was not dread of His sufferings, but was part of His passion itself; it was not a transcendental and external assumption of a foreign guilt, but a concrete experience of the full and concentrated power of the world's sin." <ref>Ebrard, quoted in John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical, Vol. 1, Matthew, translated by Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, 1899), 481. No further details are given about this 'Ebrard.' However, it is probable that it could be Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard (1818–1888), who, about 1860, wrote a work translated in English as Apologetics; or the Scientific Vindication of Christianity. He was also the author of a Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1853); and another on the Epistles of St. John (1860). In 1858 was published the American version of his Biblical Commentary on the New Testament.</ref> At the same place Lange refers to the reformer Melanchthon as teaching that in the Garden Christ "suffered the wrath of God in our stead and our behalf."

Another recent commentary quotes favorably a statement to the effect that Matthew 26:37 ("And he took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy") indicates that "at this point the Passion, in its full sense, began." <ref>W. D. Davies, Dale C. Allison, Jr., The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Volume III: Matthew 19–28 (Edinburgh, T and T Clark Publisher 1997): 494, note 27, quoting A.H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew. The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (Grand Rapids 1980): 389. "Magisterial" is a word way overused with reference to others' studies, but it is used with reference to Davies and Allison's commentary by John Jefferson Davis, "'Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.' The History of the Interpretation of the 'Great Commission' and Implications for Marketplace Ministries," Evangelical Review of Theology 25.1 (2001): 77.</ref>

J.M. Ford writes, "the theological importance, however, is that for Luke the blood that redeems humankind begins to flow in the garden." <ref>J. Massyngberde /Allen, this name is spelled 'Massyngbearde'; I checked it in the library; I have found her name spelt with and without the last 'a' in online discussions; she apparently has the 'a' in; her name is J. Massyngbearde Ford/Ford, My Enemy is my Guest. Jesus and Violence in Luke (Maryknoll, New York Orbis Books 1984): 118. Dr. Ford is a professor at the University of Notre Dame. She cites A. Feuillet, L'Agonie de Gethsemani (Paris 1977): 147–50.</ref> Popular evangelical scholar Thomas C. Oden paraphrases Catherine of Siena this way:
<blockquote>
[Christ] was not externally compelled to be baptized with the baptism of sinners, to set his face steadfastly toward Jerusalem or go to Gethsemane, or drink the cup of suffering. Rather he received and drank that cup not because he liked to suffer—the very thought cause him to sweat profusely—but rather because it was an intrinsic part of the purpose of his mission to humanity. <ref>Oden, The Word of Life, Vol. 2, 323, citing The Prayers of Catherine of Siena (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 17–18, 174.</ref>
</blockquote>

B.H. Roberts quotes the following from the International Commentary on Matthew:
<blockquote>
This conflict presents our Lord in the reality of His manhood, in weakness and humiliation, but it is impossible to account for it unless we admit His Divine nature. Had He been a mere man, His knowledge of the sufferings before Him could not have been sufficient to cause such sorrow. The human fear of death will not explain it. As a real man, He was capable of such a conflict. But it took place after the serenity of the Last Supper and sacerdotal prayers, and before the sublime submission in the palace and judgment hall. The conflict, therefore, was a specific agony of itself. He felt the whole burden and mystery of the world's sin, and encountered the fiercest assaults of Satan. Otherwise, in this hour this Person, so powerful, so holy, seems to fall below the heroism of martyrs in His own cause. His sorrow did not spring from His own life, His memory of His fears, but from the vicarious nature of the conflict. The agony was a bearing of the weight and sorrow of our sins, in loneliness, in anguish of soul threatening to crush His body, yet borne triumphantly, because in submission to His Father's will. Three times our Lord appeals to that will, as purposing His anguish; that purpose of God in regard to the loveliest, best of men, can be reconciled with justice and goodness in God in but one way; that it was necessary for our redemption. Mercy forced its way through justice to the sinner. Our Lord suffered anguish of soul for sin, that it might never rest on us. To deny this is in effect not only to charge our Lord with undue weakness, but to charge God with needless cruelty. "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows…. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" [Isaiah 53.4-5]" <ref>B.H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, 2:127–128, quoting International Commentary, Matthew, page 359. </ref>
</blockquote>
David B. Haight, of the Quorum of the Twelve, quotes the following from the Reverend Frederic Farrar:
<blockquote>
They then rose from the table, united their voices in a hymn, and left the room together to walk to the Garden of Gethsemane and all that awaited them there "The awful hour of His deepest [suffering] had arrived…. Nothing remained…but the torture of physical pain and the poignancy of mental anguish…. He…[calmed] His spirit by prayer and solitude to meet that hour in which all that is evil in the Power of [Satan] should wreak its worst upon the Innocent and Holy [One]. And He must face that hour alone…. 'My soul,' He said, 'is full of anguish, even unto death.'" It was not the anguish and fear of pain and death but 'the burden…of the world's sin which lay heavy on His heart. <ref>David B. Haight, A Light Unto the World (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1997), 16, quoting Frederick W. Farrar, Life of Christ (Hartford, Connecticut: S. S. Scranton Company, 1918), 575–576, 579.</ref>
</blockquote>
Evangelical scholar Klaas Runia has recently drawn our attention to a prayer which was formerly read at the beginning of the Lord's Supper service in the Reformed Churches in Holland. The prayer said in part: "We remember that all the time he lived on earth he was burdened by our sin and God's judgment upon it; that in his agony in the garden he sweated drops of blood under the weight of our sins." <ref>Klaas Runia, "The Preaching of the Cross Today," Evangelical Review of Theology 25:1 (2001), 57.</ref>

Alfred Edersheim referred to the Garden as "the other Eden, in which the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, bore the penalty of the first, and in obeying gained life.'" <ref>Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1953), 534, partially quoted in Lewis Johnson, Jr., "The Agony of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (October 1967), 306.</ref> Adam Clarke is quoted as having once said that "Jesus paid more in the Garden than on the Cross." <ref>Quoted in Johnson, "The Agony of Christ," 307. Clarke was a Methodist theologian and died in 1832.</ref> S. Lewis Johnson, from whose article these previous two quotations derive, concluded, "Gethsemane sets forth for us the passion of our Lord for the souls of men. The voice of Gethsemane sounds forth, 'I am willing,' while the voice from Calvary cries, 'It is finished.' Both illustrate how much He cared." <ref>Johnson, Ibid., 313.</ref>

This is the one thing which seemingly all commentators, LDS or otherwise, agree: He loved us and He manifested that love by His life and by His death. As the above quotations indicate, there is a fair amount of non-LDS support for the idea that the experience of our Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane is also related to the atoning sacrifice which He made for us. There is also enough material by non-LDS scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of the Atonement are not known.

===Latter-day Saint scripture contains some clear references to the cross===

Further, uniquely LDS scripture contains some clear references:

;{{s|1|Nephi|11|33}}:Jesus was "was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world."
;{{s|3|Nephi|27|14}}: "My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross"

===Latter-day Saint Sacrament hymns refer to the cross===

[[Image:Enemies of the cross.jpg|right|thumb|An anti-Mormon protester at October 2004 LDS General Conference claims that members of the Church are "enemies" of the cross. He apparently knows little of LDS scripture, doctrine, hymns, or belief.]]

It is worthwhile to note that Latter-day Saints make frequent reference to Christ's sacrifice on the cross in their Sacrament hymns:

*Hymn 171, ''With Humble Heart'': "Help me remember, I implore, Thou '''gavst thy life on Calvary'''."
*Hymn 172, ''In Humility Our Savior'': "Let me not forget, O Savior, Thou didst bleed and die for me when Thy heart was stilled and broken '''on the cross''' at Calvary."
*Hymn 174, ''While of these Emblems We Partake'': "For us the blood of Christ was shed; For us '''on Calvary's cross''' He bled..."
*Hymn 177, ''Tis Sweet To Sing the Matchless Love'': "For Jesus '''died on Calvary''', that all through him might ransomed be."
*Hymn 178, ''O Lord of Hosts'': "'''salvation purchased on that tree''' for all who seek thy face."
*Hymn 181, ''Jesus of Nazareth, Savior and King'': "Jesus of Nazareth, Savior and King, Our thoughts to thee are led, in reverence sweet. '''Bruised, broken, torn for us, on Calvary's hill.'''"
*Hymn 182, ''We'll Sing All Hail to Jesus' Name'': "We'll sing all hail to Jesus name...to him that '''bled on Calvary's hill''', And died that we might live."
*Hymn 184, ''Upon the Cross at Calvary'': "'''Upon the cross''' at Calvary, they crucified our Lord, and sealed with blood the sacrifice that sanctified his word. Upon the cross he meekly died, for all mankind to see that death unlocks the passageway into eternity. '''Upon the cross''' our Savior died, but, dying brought new birth through resurrection's miracle to all the sons of earth."
*Hymn 185, ''Reverently and Meekly Now'': "With my blood that dripped like rain, sweat in agony of pain, with my body on the tree, I have ransomed even thee...Oh remember what was done, that the sinner might be won. '''On the cross''' of Calvary, I have suffered death for thee."
*Hymn 190, ''In Memory of the Crucified'': "Our Savior in Gethsemane shrank not to drink the bitter cup. And then, for us, on Calvary, '''upon the cross''' was lifted up."
*Hymn 191, ''Behold the Great Redeemer Die'': "Behold the great Redeemer die... They pierce his hands and feet and side; And with insulting scoffs and scorns, they crown his head with plaited thorns. Although '''in agony he hung'''... his high commission to fulfill, He magnified his Father's will."
*Hymn 193, ''I Stand All Amazed'': "I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me, confused at the grace that so fully he proffers me. I tremble to know that for me '''he was crucified''', that for me, a sinner, he suffered he bled and died...I think of his hands pierced and bleeding to pay the debt! Such mercy, such love, and devotion can I forget? No, no, I will praise and adore at the mercy seat, until at the glorified throne I kneel at his feet...Oh it is wonderful that he should care for me, enough to die for me. Oh it is wonderful... wonderful to me."
*Hymn 196, ''Jesus, Once of Humble Birth'': "Jesus once of humble birth, now in glory comes to earth...Once '''upon the cross''' he bowed, Now his chariot is the cloud. Once he groaned in blood and tears, now in glory he appears."
*Hymn 197, ''O Savior, Thou Wearest a Crown.'': "O Savior, thou who wearest a crown of piercing thorn, the pain thou meekly bearest, weighed down by grief and scorn. The soldiers mock and flail thee; for drink they give thee gall; '''Upon the cross''' they nail thee to die, O king of all."

These hymns are sung every Sunday as the Sacrament is being prepared. It is clear that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is a central focus of Latter-day Saint worship services.

===Statements regarding the atonement===

These statements are not cited in order to devalue in any way the importance of the cross. It is important to realize however that the cross is not necessarily as significant a concept in the scriptures as some might think. Leon Morris agrees with Murphy-O'Connor that aside from the writings of Paul, there are not many references in the New Testament to the 'death' of Jesus; indeed: "We would imagine that there are many New Testament references to the death of Christ. But, outside of Paul, there are not." <ref>Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, 217.</ref> And in this context it is important to remember that Paul's writings comprise less than one-fourth of the New Testament writings. Father Murphy-O'Connor also writes "during the first Christian centuries, the cross was a thing accursed. No one professed allegiance to Christ by wearing a cross." He indicates that it was only after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity in general, and forbade crucifixion in particular, that a "new, more pleasant meaning for the cross was facilitated." But, he concludes, "even after the cross had been widely accepted as a symbol, there was a consistent refusal to accept its reality. Only two crucifixion scenes survive from the fifth century… The situation remains unchanged until the twelfth century." <ref>Murphy-O'Connor, "Even Death On a Cross," 21-22. H.E.W. Turner wrote 50 years ago that "it still remains true that the monumental genius of St. Paul had little permanent influence on the theology of the early Church." [H.E.W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the Fist Five Centuries (London: A.R. Mobray, 1952), 24.] After his exhaustive study of 'grace' in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, Thomas Torrance had to conclude that Paul had had almost no influence on them: "The most astonishing feature was the failure to grasp the significance of the death of Christ." He further concludes that "failure to apprehend the meaning of the Cross and to make it a saving article of faith is surely the clearest indication that a genuine doctrine of grace is absent" in the Apostolic Fathers. [Thomas Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1948), 137–138.]</ref> These comments are not intended to devalue the cross or the blood shed there, only to place these events in their proper context within sacred scripture. Despite the fact that Gethsemane is mentioned only twice in the scriptures, it has nevertheless engendered an enormous amount of secondary literature. A study on the study of the passion narratives published in 1989 identified seven books dealing specifically with Gethsemane during the previous 100 years and more than 100 articles. That represents a significant amount of discussion on something seemingly of no account! <ref>David D. Garland, One Hundred Years of Study on the Passion Narratives, National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Bibliographic Series, Vol. 3 (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1989), 73–79. More recent commentaries on the relevant verses add significantly to that total.</ref>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Becoming Gods]]

Similarities between ancient and modern temple rituals

2015-12-09T12:54:37Z

BSiebert:

Temple sealings and exaltation

2015-12-09T03:59:48Z

BSiebert:

Mormon ordinances/Marriage/Eternal marriage

2015-12-09T03:45:45Z

BSiebert:

Temple sealings and exaltation

2015-12-09T03:44:56Z

BSiebert:

Mormon ordinances/Marriage/Eternal marriage

2015-12-09T03:32:48Z

BSiebert:

Apostasy/Not complete

2015-12-07T13:19:25Z

BSiebert: /* Other writers and thinkers */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Was the apostasy not universal?}}
{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Some Christians charge that although the apostasy is [[Prediction of the apostasy|predicted]] in scripture, that this would not be a universal apostasy. They insist that a band of faithful Christian believers who kept the "true faith" were always present on the earth. The presence of these believers means, for the critic, that there was no need of a Restoration as taught by Joseph Smith. From the Evangelical perspective, Mormons "were the ones to initially separate their church from, in their view, ''apostate'' Christendom."

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

For millenia, a variety of observers and religious thinkers have argued that the Church organized by Christ did not persist to their day. The Latter-day Saints are not unique in this belief, nor can they be excluded from "Christianity" for teaching this doctrine.

Indeed, much of Christian history has revolved around the belief that no true expression of Christ's Church was on the earth, which resulted in efforts to establish just such a church.

== ==
{{Response label}}

The realization that no Christian church has continuity with the church established by Jesus in divine authority or doctrine is ''not'' an idea that originated with the LDS Christians. Many Protestant clergymen and others have long realized that if the Catholic Church's claims to be the proper continuation of Christ's church are false, then a universal apostasy ''must'' have occurred.

Indeed, were it not for a belief in the complete apostasy of all current churches, there would have been no motivation for the founders of various denominations to start their own churches—they would have simply joined the denomination which they believed had continuity with the original church of Jesus and the apostles. This is, of course, why churches which separated from Catholicism are called ''Protestant'' churches. Therefore, it defies reason for a non-Catholic to claim that Mormons were the "first" to separate themselves from what they considered "apostate" Christianity.

===Catholicism===

The Catholic Church takes a slightly different tack on this issue. Rather than arguing that an apostasy of other churches occurred (necessitating the formation of a new denomination), the Catholics claim unbroken apostolic authority and teachings down to the present day.

====Catholics and non-Christians====
About non-Christian belief systems, the Roman Church said:

:The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”...

:As a remedy for [a] relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ...

:[T]he theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith...

:[T]heological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is [in fact merely] religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself...

:Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section I. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Catholics and non-Catholics====

Protestants would likely not quarrel with much of the above. But, the Catholic Church is crystal clear on how they view all other Christian denominations (italics present in the original):

:The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a ''salvific mystery'': he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him...

:Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be ''firmly believed'' as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”...

:The Catholic faithful are ''required to profess'' that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession—between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church...

:“outside of her [i.e., the Catholic Church's] structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches...

:On the other hand, the ecclesial communities [i.e., other denomination "churches," though the Catholics do not so designate them, as will be seen] which have not preserved the valid Episcopate [succession of bishops] and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

:“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”...

:Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...

:If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that ''objectively speaking'' they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section IV, italics in original. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Reiterated in 2007====

Pope Benedict XVI approved the release of another statement which cited the above document (which he helped prepare in 2000) making clear the Catholic Church's attitude toward non-Catholic Christians:

:"Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century [i.e., "Protestants"]?

:Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.<ref>William Cardinal Levada, Angelo Amato, S.D.B.; ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, ''Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church'' (29 June 2007). {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html}}</ref>

===Reformers===

Early Anabaptist Thomas Muntzer believed that

:the Christian church lost its virginity and became an adulteress soon after the death of the disciples of the apostles because of corrupt leadership, manifested in the predominance of a clergy who cared more for the amassing of property and power than for the acquiring of spiritual virtues.<ref>Muntzer, “Sermon before the Princes” (Allstedt, 13 July 1524), in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957): 51 (103-4).</ref>

Reformer Sebastian Franck believed that the

:outward church of Christ was wasted immediately after the apostles because the early Fathers, whom he calls ‘wolves’ and ‘anti-christs’, justified war, power of magistracy, tithes, the priesthood, etc.<ref>Franck, Letter to Campanus, in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams, (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957), 51:151-152.</ref> [That they are wolves] is “proved by their works, especially [those] of Clement [of Alexandria], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Origen, and others which are merely child’s play and quite unlike the spirit of the apostles, that is, filled with commandments, laws, sacramental elements and all kinds of human inventions.”<ref>Frank cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 148–149 (103-104).</ref>

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, lamented that the Christian had apostatized from the gospel that Christ and the apostles had taught, had lost the spiritual gifts that they once enjoyed, and had returned to heathenism, having on a dead form remaining:

:It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not as has been supposed because there was no more occasion for them because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had earth a dead form left.<ref>John Wesley, cited in ''Wesley's Works'', Vol. 7, 89:26, 27.</ref>

===Church of England===
In the Church of England Homily Against Peril of Idolatry we read:

:So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom—an horrible and most dreadful thing to think—have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry; of all other vices most detested by God, and most damnable to man; and that by the space of eight hundred years and more.<ref>Church of England, ''Homily Against Peril of Idolatry'' (Date). {{link|url=http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/homilies/bk2hom2.html}}</ref>

The Book of Homilies dates from about the middle of the sixteenth century; and in it is thus officially affirmed that the so-called Church and the whole religious world had been utterly apostate for eight centuries or more prior to the establishment of the Church of England.

===American Protestants===

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read:
:...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments....<ref>Dr. William Smith, ''Smith's Dictionary of the Bible'' (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896).{{an|Note: Dr. Smith is not connected with Joseph Smith or the Church.}}</ref>

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

:A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.'<ref>Fosdick cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.</ref>

==Other writers and thinkers==

{{ApostasyScholars}}
{{CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[es:Apostasía/Incompleto]]
[[fr:Apostasy/Not complete]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man

2015-12-07T10:05:57Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man/Unbiblical, false, and arrogant

2015-12-07T10:02:17Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Is the doctrine of human deification unbiblical, false, and arrogant?}}
{{GodPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{QA label}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Becoming Like God:Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:10:Preexistent Jesus and a divinized humanity‎}}
{{:Questions: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will one day "supplant God?}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:21:Joseph Smith's theosis does not supplant God or veer into polytheism}}
{{:Question: What were the views of early Christians on the deification of man?}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:15:Christian beliefs do not need to have Neo-Platonic influence to be true‎}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:6:Mormons retrieved early Christian beliefs rejected by creeds}}
{{:Question: Was the Latter-day Saint concept of deification derived from Greek philosophy?}}
{{:Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?}}
<videoflash>ECtHwKpUD-U</videoflash>
</onlyinclude>
{{CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}



{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[es:Deificación de los Seres Humanos]]
[[de:Mormonismus und die Natur Gottes/Theosis]]
[[fr:Nature of God/Deification of man]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man

2015-12-07T10:01:34Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Corporeality of God

2015-12-07T08:58:56Z

BSiebert:

Question: Does what Joseph Smith taught about the creation of spirits contradict the scriptures?

2015-12-07T08:03:58Z

BSiebert:

Template:CreationPortal

2015-12-07T08:02:47Z

BSiebert:

{| style="float:right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;" align="right" cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%" | Answers portal
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 5px 0 5px" | [[Template:CreationPortal|Creation]]
|-
| style="text-align: center; padding: 7px 0 7px 0;" | [[Image:Creation1.jpg]]
|-
! style="background:#90AF3E; font-size: 95%; color:#ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;text-align: left;" |[[File:Resources.icon.tiny.1.png]]    RESOURCES
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #ffffff; text-align:left;" | Adam and Eve:
*[[Adam-God]]
**[[Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22|"Lecture at the Veil"]]
*[[Original sin]]
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #ffffff; text-align:left;" | Creation:
*[[Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth|Age of the Earth]]
*[[Creatio ex nihilo]]
*[[Creation in Colossians 1:16|Creation in Col. 1:16]]
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #ffffff; text-align:left;" | Evolution:
*[[Evolution|Official statements]]
*[[Evolution:Primary sources|Unofficial statements]]
*[[Global_or_local_Flood|Noah's flood: global vs. local]]
*[[Global_or_local_Flood#Doesn.27t_the_Bible_say_that_the_continents_were_divided_during_the_Flood.3F|Peleg]]
*[[Pre-Adamites]]
*[[Death before the Fall|Death before Fall]]
*[[Procreation before the Fall|Procreation before Fall]]
*[[Dinosaurs]]
|-
! style="background:#EF5A28; font-size: 95%; color:#ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;text-align: left;" |[[File:Perspectives.icon.tiny.1.png]]    PERSPECTIVES
|-
! style="background:#EFB813; font-size: 95%; color:#ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;text-align: left;" |[[File:Media.icon.tiny.1.png]]    MEDIA
|-
! style="background:#90AF3E; font-size: 95%; color:#ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;text-align: left;" |[[File:Resources.icon.tiny.1.png]]    OTHER PORTALS
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
*[[Template:AdamPortal|Adam]]
*[[Template:BiblePortal|Holy Bible]]
*[[Template:PrimarySourcesPortal|Primary Sources]]
*[[Template:SciencePortal|Science]]
|}
[[Category:Creation]]<noinclude>
[[de:Vorlage:CreationPortal]]
[[fr:Modèle:CreationPortal]]
</noinclude>

Mormon view of the creation

2015-12-07T07:47:12Z

BSiebert:

Question: What were the causes of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's martyrdom?

2015-12-07T00:37:42Z

BSiebert:

Question: How do Mormons view miracles in other faiths?

2015-12-06T08:21:48Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and doctrine/Changing

2015-12-06T08:17:13Z

BSiebert:

Apostasy/Evidence of in the Bible

2015-12-04T14:49:20Z

BSiebert:

Apostasy/Not complete

2015-12-04T14:19:05Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Was the apostasy not universal?}}
{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Some Christians charge that although the apostasy is [[Prediction of the apostasy|predicted]] in scripture, that this would not be a universal apostasy. They insist that a band of faithful Christian believers who kept the "true faith" were always present on the earth. The presence of these believers means, for the critic, that there was no need of a Restoration as taught by Joseph Smith. From the Evangelical perspective, Mormons "were the ones to initially separate their church from, in their view, ''apostate'' Christendom."

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

For millenia, a variety of observers and religious thinkers have argued that the Church organized by Christ did not persist to their day. The Latter-day Saints are not unique in this belief, nor can they be excluded from "Christianity" for teaching this doctrine.

Indeed, much of Christian history has revolved around the belief that no true expression of Christ's Church was on the earth, which resulted in efforts to establish just such a church.

== ==
{{Response label}}

The realization that no Christian church has continuity with the church established by Jesus in divine authority or doctrine is ''not'' an idea that originated with the LDS Christians. Many Protestant clergymen and others have long realized that if the Catholic Church's claims to be the proper continuation of Christ's church are false, then a universal apostasy ''must'' have occurred.

Indeed, were it not for a belief in the complete apostasy of all current churches, there would have been no motivation for the founders of various denominations to start their own churches—they would have simply joined the denomination which they believed had continuity with the original church of Jesus and the apostles. This is, of course, why churches which separated from Catholicism are called ''Protestant'' churches. Therefore, it defies reason for a non-Catholic to claim that Mormons were the "first" to separate themselves from what they considered "apostate" Christianity.

===Catholicism===

The Catholic Church takes a slightly different tack on this issue. Rather than arguing that an apostasy of other churches occurred (necessitating the formation of a new denomination), the Catholics claim unbroken apostolic authority and teachings down to the present day.

====Catholics and non-Christians====
About non-Christian belief systems, the Roman Church said:

:The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”...

:As a remedy for [a] relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ...

:[T]he theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith...

:[T]heological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is [in fact merely] religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself...

:Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section I. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Catholics and non-Catholics====

Protestants would likely not quarrel with much of the above. But, the Catholic Church is crystal clear on how they view all other Christian denominations (italics present in the original):

:The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a ''salvific mystery'': he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him...

:Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be ''firmly believed'' as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”...

:The Catholic faithful are ''required to profess'' that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession—between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church...

:“outside of her [i.e., the Catholic Church's] structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches...

:On the other hand, the ecclesial communities [i.e., other denomination "churches," though the Catholics do not so designate them, as will be seen] which have not preserved the valid Episcopate [succession of bishops] and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

:“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”...

:Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...

:If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that ''objectively speaking'' they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section IV, italics in original. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Reiterated in 2007====

Pope Benedict XVI approved the release of another statement which cited the above document (which he helped prepare in 2000) making clear the Catholic Church's attitude toward non-Catholic Christians:

:"Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century [i.e., "Protestants"]?

:Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.<ref>William Cardinal Levada, Angelo Amato, S.D.B.; ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, ''Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church'' (29 June 2007). {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html}}</ref>

===Reformers===

Early Anabaptist Thomas Muntzer believed that

:the Christian church lost its virginity and became an adulteress soon after the death of the disciples of the apostles because of corrupt leadership, manifested in the predominance of a clergy who cared more for the amassing of property and power than for the acquiring of spiritual virtues.<ref>Muntzer, “Sermon before the Princes” (Allstedt, 13 July 1524), in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957): 51 (103-4).</ref>

Reformer Sebastian Franck believed that the

:outward church of Christ was wasted immediately after the apostles because the early Fathers, whom he calls ‘wolves’ and ‘anti-christs’, justified war, power of magistracy, tithes, the priesthood, etc.<ref>Franck, Letter to Campanus, in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams, (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957), 51:151-152.</ref> [That they are wolves] is “proved by their works, especially [those] of Clement [of Alexandria], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Origen, and others which are merely child’s play and quite unlike the spirit of the apostles, that is, filled with commandments, laws, sacramental elements and all kinds of human inventions.”<ref>Frank cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 148–149 (103-104).</ref>

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, lamented that the Christian had apostatized from the gospel that Christ and the apostles had taught, had lost the spiritual gifts that they once enjoyed, and had returned to heathenism, having on a dead form remaining:

:It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not as has been supposed because there was no more occasion for them because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had earth a dead form left.<ref>John Wesley, cited in ''Wesley's Works'', Vol. 7, 89:26, 27.</ref>

===Church of England===
In the Church of England Homily Against Peril of Idolatry we read:

:So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom—an horrible and most dreadful thing to think—have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry; of all other vices most detested by God, and most damnable to man; and that by the space of eight hundred years and more.<ref>Church of England, ''Homily Against Peril of Idolatry'' (Date). {{link|url=http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/homilies/bk2hom2.html}}</ref>

The Book of Homilies dates from about the middle of the sixteenth century; and in it is thus officially affirmed that the so-called Church and the whole religious world had been utterly apostate for eight centuries or more prior to the establishment of the Church of England.

===American Protestants===

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read:
:...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments....<ref>Dr. William Smith, ''Smith's Dictionary of the Bible'' (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896).{{an|Note: Dr. Smith is not connected with Joseph Smith or the Church.}}</ref>

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

:A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.'<ref>Fosdick cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.</ref>

==Other writers and thinkers==

{{ApostasyScholars}}

</onlyinclude>
{{CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[es:Apostasía/Incompleto]]
[[fr:Apostasy/Not complete]]

Apostasy/Not complete

2015-12-04T13:35:57Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Was the apostasy not universal?}}
{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Some Christians charge that although the apostasy is [[Prediction of the apostasy|predicted]] in scripture, that this would not be a universal apostasy. They insist that a band of faithful Christian believers who kept the "true faith" were always present on the earth. The presence of these believers means, for the critic, that there was no need of a Restoration as taught by Joseph Smith. From the Evangelical perspective, Mormons "were the ones to initially separate their church from, in their view, ''apostate'' Christendom."

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

For millenia, a variety of observers and religious thinkers have argued that the Church organized by Christ did not persist to their day. The Latter-day Saints are not unique in this belief, nor can they be excluded from "Christianity" for teaching this doctrine.

Indeed, much of Christian history has revolved around the belief that no true expression of Christ's Church was on the earth, which resulted in efforts to establish just such a church.

== ==
{{Response label}}

The realization that no Christian church has continuity with the church established by Jesus in divine authority or doctrine is ''not'' an idea that originated with the LDS Christians. Many Protestant clergymen and others have long realized that if the Catholic Church's claims to be the proper continuation of Christ's church are false, then a universal apostasy ''must'' have occurred.

Indeed, were it not for a belief in the complete apostasy of all current churches, there would have been no motivation for the founders of various denominations to start their own churches—they would have simply joined the denomination which they believed had continuity with the original church of Jesus and the apostles. This is, of course, why churches which separated from Catholicism are called ''Protestant'' churches. Therefore, it defies reason for a non-Catholic to claim that Mormons were the "first" to separate themselves from what they considered "apostate" Christianity.

===Catholicism===

The Catholic Church takes a slightly different tack on this issue. Rather than arguing that an apostasy of other churches occurred (necessitating the formation of a new denomination), the Catholics claim unbroken apostolic authority and teachings down to the present day.

====Catholics and non-Christians====
About non-Christian belief systems, the Roman Church said:

:The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”...

:As a remedy for [a] relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ...

:[T]he theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith...

:[T]heological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is [in fact merely] religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself...

:Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section I. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Catholics and non-Catholics====

Protestants would likely not quarrel with much of the above. But, the Catholic Church is crystal clear on how they view all other Christian denominations (italics present in the original):

:The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a ''salvific mystery'': he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him...

:Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be ''firmly believed'' as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”...

:The Catholic faithful are ''required to profess'' that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession—between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church...

:“outside of her [i.e., the Catholic Church's] structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches...

:On the other hand, the ecclesial communities [i.e., other denomination "churches," though the Catholics do not so designate them, as will be seen] which have not preserved the valid Episcopate [succession of bishops] and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

:“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”...

:Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”...

:If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that ''objectively speaking'' they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation...<ref>Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration '''''Dominus Ieusus''''', On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," (2000-II), Section IV, italics in original. {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html}}</ref>

====Reiterated in 2007====

Pope Benedict XVI approved the release of another statement which cited the above document (which he helped prepare in 2000) making clear the Catholic Church's attitude toward non-Catholic Christians:

:"Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century [i.e., "Protestants"]?

:Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.<ref>William Cardinal Levada, Angelo Amato, S.D.B.; ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, ''Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church'' (29 June 2007). {{link|url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html}}</ref>

===Reformers===

Early Anabaptist Thomas Muntzer believed that

:the Christian church lost its virginity and became an adulteress soon after the death of the disciples of the apostles because of corrupt leadership, manifested in the predominance of a clergy who cared more for the amassing of property and power than for the acquiring of spiritual virtues.<ref>Muntzer, “Sermon before the Princes” (Allstedt, 13 July 1524), in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957): 51 (103-4).</ref>

Reformer Sebastian Franck believed that the

:outward church of Christ was wasted immediately after the apostles because the early Fathers, whom he calls ‘wolves’ and ‘anti-christs’, justified war, power of magistracy, tithes, the priesthood, etc.<ref>Franck, Letter to Campanus, in ''Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers'', ed. G.H. Williams, (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957), 51:151-152.</ref> [That they are wolves] is “proved by their works, especially [those] of Clement [of Alexandria], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Origen, and others which are merely child’s play and quite unlike the spirit of the apostles, that is, filled with commandments, laws, sacramental elements and all kinds of human inventions.”<ref>Frank cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 148–149 (103-104).</ref>

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, lamented that the Christian had apostatized from the gospel that Christ and the apostles had taught, had lost the spiritual gifts that they once enjoyed, and had returned to heathenism, having on a dead form remaining:

:It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not as has been supposed because there was no more occasion for them because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had earth a dead form left.<ref>John Wesley, cited in ''Wesley's Works'', Vol. 7, 89:26, 27.</ref>

===Church of England===
In the Church of England Homily Against Peril of Idolatry we read:

:So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom—an horrible and most dreadful thing to think—have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry; of all other vices most detested by God, and most damnable to man; and that by the space of eight hundred years and more.<ref>Church of England, ''Homily Against Peril of Idolatry'' (Date). {{link|url=http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/homilies/bk2hom2.html}}</ref>

The Book of Homilies dates from about the middle of the sixteenth century; and in it is thus officially affirmed that the so-called Church and the whole religious world had been utterly apostate for eight centuries or more prior to the establishment of the Church of England.

===American Protestants===

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read:
:...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments....<ref>Dr. William Smith, ''Smith's Dictionary of the Bible'' (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896).{{an|Note: Dr. Smith is not connected with Joseph Smith or the Church.}}</ref>

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

:A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.'<ref>Fosdick cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, ''Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism'' (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.</ref>

==Other writers and thinkers==

{{ApostasyScholars}}

</onlyinclude>
{{CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Glaubensabfall/Nicht vollständig?]]
[[es:Apostasía/Incompleto]]
[[fr:Apostasy/Not complete]]

Apostasy/Prediction of

2015-12-04T13:35:32Z

BSiebert:

Apostasy/Prediction of

2015-12-04T12:30:05Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah

2015-12-03T02:47:06Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Are Elohim and Jehovah the same deity?}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{GodPortal}}
|-
|
{{JesusChristPortal}}
|}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

It is claimed that ''Elohim'', ''Jehovah'', ''Adonai'' and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [''Jehovah''] thy God [''Elohim'']" (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/35#35 4:35]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/6/4#4 6:4]) as proof that these are different titles for the same God.

<noinclude>{{CriticalSources}}</noinclude>

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

The conviction that ''Elohim'' was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and ''Jehovah'' was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/1-4#1 D&C 110:1–4]) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, "Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors." <ref>''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):940–41 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/940/mode/2up}}; also quoted in ''1990 Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide'', p. 39. See also Talmage, pp. 36–38; Joseph Fielding McConkie and Donald W. Parry, ''A Guide to Scriptural Symbols'', parts 2 & 3).</ref>

The LDS use of the name titles ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively is not meant to insist that this is how these titles were always used anciently, including in the Holy Bible. Rather, these titles are a naming convention used in the modern Church for clarity and precision. Since Christ may be spoken of as "the Father" in a great many senses, the modern Saints use these name-titles to avoid ambiguity, regardless of which 'role' of a divine Personage is being discussed.

Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

== ==
{{Response label}}

<ref> This article was originally derived from an answer given in {{Book:Hickenbotham:Answering Challenging Mormon Questions|pages=104-07}} Because of a nature of a wiki project, this base material may have been edited, added to, or modified.</ref>
Although ''Elohim'' is understood and used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the name-title of God the Eternal Father and the name ''Jehovah'' is reserved for His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, <ref>{{JtC1|start=38}}</ref> this has not always been the case. Nineteenth-century Mormons—including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—generally used ''Jehovah'' as the name of God the Father. Latter-day Saints also recognize that the Hebrew word ''Elohim'' was used anciently as a generic word for "god." <ref>{{TPJS1|start=371}} ; Eugene Seaich, ''Ancient Texts and Mormonism'', p. 20.</ref>

===Use of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Old Testament===
The separation of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Hebrew Old Testament is not as clear as critics would have us believe.

The following scriptures illustrate the confusion of divine names in the Old Testament:

*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/34/23#23 Exodus 34:23] combines the Hebrew words ''Adon'' (Lord), ''Jehovah'' (LORD) and ''Elohim'' (God [of Israel]) into one title which is translated "Lord God, the God of Israel" or "Lord Jehovah, God of Israel."
*The Hebrew version of [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82/1#1 Psalm 82:1] reads: "God [''Elohim''] stands in the assembly of God [''El'']; he judges in the midst of the gods [''Elohim'']."
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/110/1#1 Psalm 110:1] reads: "The LORD [''Jehovah''] said unto my Lord [''Adonai''], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1-3#1 Hebrews 1:1–3] indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22/44#44 Matthew 22:44]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/12/36#36 Mark 12:36]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/20/42#42 Luke 20:42].)
*In one instance ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/8/5#5 Psalm 8:5]), the Hebrew ''Elohim'' is even rendered "angels." The Hebrew text states that Jehovah made the son of man "a little less than ''Elohim''" [KJV "angels"]. Though most literal translations render ''Elohim'' as "God" in this verse, there is justification for translating it "angels": [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/2/7#7 Hebrews 2:7] quotes this verse, using the Greek word ''aggelos'' ("angels") in place of ''Elohim''.
*We also find that ''Elohim'' is translated in four instances as "judges" ({{b||Exodus|21|6}}, {{b||Exodus|22|8-9}}), though "God's representative" is probably the intended meaning. This nevertheless shows that divine names were used by inspired writers with different meanings.

===Development of name-titles in Israelite history===
In the Old Testament, the title ''Elohim'' often emphasizes the strong, covenant-keeping qualities of God while the name ''Jehovah'', the self-existent and eternal attributes; and ''Adonai'', the characteristics of a sovereign lord; they have not always been applied to just one God.

A study of the various Hebrew words used for deity in the Old Testament reveals that the same name-titles were often used for both true and false gods as well as for human leaders. Thus, the Hebrew for ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' were often used in a generic sense. Such usage could especially cause confusion if the text were later modified.

Eugene Seaich has indicated that many scholars have found that early Canaanite and Israelite theology recognized two separate and distinct sets of divine traits: one for a "Father of gods" and "Father of men" and the other for a son of the former who was a "dying-and-resurrecting god, who gave life to all creatures" and "managed the cosmos for his Father." Seaich explains that the High God was called "El and his son was called Ba'al at least through the time of the Israelite monarchy." The Israelites who returned from the desert with the Mosaic religion referred to El's son as ''Yahweh''. Some evidence of this distinction still survives in our Old Testament scriptures (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/32/8-9#8 Deuteronomy 32:8–9]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82 Psalm 82]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4]). He also notes that [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1 Genesis chapter 1] speaks of ''Elohim'' (the longer form of ''El'') as the creator while [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/2 chapter 2] speaks of ''Yahweh-Elohim''. Seaich writes:

:...the Mosaic reform, which only began as an attempt to root out the licentious excesses to which the old polytheism had sunk (Ex. 32), took at least a half-dozen centuries to establish itself as Israel's "true" religion, eliminating in the process many former truths, before emerging as the "ethical monotheism" of late Judaism.... In the new monotheism...the earlier Elohim and Yahweh became the single "YHWH-Elohim" of Deut. 6:4.... The complete assimilation of two gods into one probably took as long as the "Monotheistic Reform" itself, i.e. from ca. 1500 to 500 <small>B.C.</small>.... Finally, the Old Testament itself was thoroughly subjected to a corresponding revision (known as the "Deuteronomic Revision"). <ref>Seaich, pp.15–21; see text for complete listing of references.</ref>

===Divine investiture===
Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus often spoke for the Father by right of divine investiture. Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

:"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." <ref>{{MD|start=130|end=131}}</ref>

There are numerous examples of divine investiture in scripture. The clearest biblical examples involve angels speaking in behalf of God or Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/22/11-12#11 Genesis 22:11—12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/3/2,6#2 Exodus 3:2, 6]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/23/20-21#20 23:20–21]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/1#1 Revelation 1:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/19/9-13#9 19:9–13]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/22/8-16#8 22:8–16]), though Christ also spoke "as though he were the Father" on many occasions throughout the Old Testament ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/17/1#1 Genesis 17:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/35/11#11 35:11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/6/3#3 Exodus 6:3]). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/8,18#8 Revelation 1:8, 18]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/4/8#8 4:8]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/11/17#17 11:17]). It is for this reason that many other Christians identify Elohim and Jehovah as the same person.

===The LDS view===
The concept of Christ as the Father is clearly set forth in a 1916 statement entitled, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." <ref>"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Twelve," 30 June 1916. First published in ''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):934–42 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/934/mode/2up}}; available more recently in an condensed format in ''Ensign'' 32 (April 2002):13–18 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng}}.</ref>

Additional support for the LDS differentiation in the use of divine titles is found in New and Old Testament scriptures. Matthew and Mark reported that Jesus while on the cross cried out to his Father using the name ''Eli'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/27/46#46 Matthew 27:46]) or ''Eloi'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/15/34#34 Mark 15:34]). Both of these names are regarded by scholars as the Aramaic equivalents of ''El'' or ''Elohim''. <ref>''Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament'', p. 35; see entries for "Elah" and "Eloah."</ref>

Although references to Christ's sonship are somewhat rare in the Old Testament, they nevertheless exist. [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/3/25#25 Daniel 3:25] describes a fourth individual in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace whose form was like a "Son of God [''Elah'']." [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4] speaks of the "son" of the creator and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/7/13#13 Daniel 7:13] refers to the glorious coming of the "Son of man" (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/13#13 John 3:13] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/57#57 Moses 6:57]). [http://scriptures.lds.org/hosea/11/1#1 Hosea 11:1] was quoted by Matthew ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/2/15#15 2:15]) as a prophecy that God's "son" would be called out of Egypt and we should not forget that Isaiah's famous messianic prophecy foretold the birth of a son who would also be known by the titles "everlasting Father" and "mighty God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/7/14#14 Isaiah 7:14]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/9/16#16 9:16]). All of these scriptures provide evidence that, as Nephi stated, many do now "stumble exceedingly" because of the "plain and precious thing which have been taken away" from the scriptures ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/26-30,34,40#26 1 Nephi 13:26–30, 34, 40]).

===''Elohim'' versus ''Eloheim''===

Some LDS works (especially from the nineteenth century) may refer to "Eloheim," instead of the more familiar (especially to those outside the Church) "Elohim."

Both of these words represent the Hebrew word אלהים—they are transliterations (that is simply converting the Hebrew into English letters). During the 19th century, there were two styles of Hebrew transliteration and pronouncing systems:

#Ashkenazic (from Jewish communities in Northern Europe - starting in Germany); and
#Sephardic (from Jewish communities in southern Europe, mostly coming from Spain and Portugal).

Joseph Smith's Hebrew instructor at the School of the Prophets in Kirtland was Joshua/James Seixas—he also taught many other LDS members to read Biblical Hebrew in Kirtland. Seixas's family came from Portugal, and so he taight Sephardic Hebrew (he was one of the best—if not the best—American Hebraicist of his day). Sephardic Hebrew pronounces this word for God a bit differently than does Ashkenazic Hebrew (which is the Hebrew that is most commonly used and taught today).

Joseph's instructor spelled this word ''eloheem'', and this pronunciation became the ''eloheim'' that is sometimes used in LDS writings. Essentially though, both versions represent exactly the same word. The change from ''eloheim'' or ''eloheem'' to ''elohim'' occurred as later LDS writing (in particular Elder James E. Talmage) who engaged later Hebrew scholarship that followed the Ashkenazic pronunciation style. This led to a shift in usage among the leadership of the church, which now matches the broader world of non-LDS scholarship. They are, however, essentially the same word.
== ==
{{Endnotes label}

<references/>

</onlyinclude>
{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Mormonismus und die Natur Gottes/Elohim und Jehova]]
[[fr:Nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah

2015-12-03T02:44:22Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Are Elohim and Jehovah the same deity?}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{GodPortal}}
|-
|
{{JesusChristPortal}}
|}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

It is claimed that ''Elohim'', ''Jehovah'', ''Adonai'' and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [''Jehovah''] thy God [''Elohim'']" (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/35#35 4:35]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/6/4#4 6:4]) as proof that these are different titles for the same God.

<noinclude>{{CriticalSources}}</noinclude>

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

The conviction that ''Elohim'' was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and ''Jehovah'' was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/1-4#1 D&C 110:1–4]) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, "Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors." <ref>''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):940–41 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/940/mode/2up}}; also quoted in ''1990 Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide'', p. 39. See also Talmage, pp. 36–38; Joseph Fielding McConkie and Donald W. Parry, ''A Guide to Scriptural Symbols'', parts 2 & 3).</ref>

The LDS use of the name titles ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively is not meant to insist that this is how these titles were always used anciently, including in the Holy Bible. Rather, these titles are a naming convention used in the modern Church for clarity and precision. Since Christ may be spoken of as "the Father" in a great many senses, the modern Saints use these name-titles to avoid ambiguity, regardless of which 'role' of a divine Personage is being discussed.

Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

== ==
{{Response label}}

<ref> This article was originally derived from an answer given in {{Book:Hickenbotham:Answering Challenging Mormon Questions|pages=104-07}} Because of a nature of a wiki project, this base material may have been edited, added to, or modified.</ref>
Although ''Elohim'' is understood and used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the name-title of God the Eternal Father and the name ''Jehovah'' is reserved for His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, <ref>{{JtC1|start=38}}</ref> this has not always been the case. Nineteenth-century Mormons—including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—generally used ''Jehovah'' as the name of God the Father. Latter-day Saints also recognize that the Hebrew word ''Elohim'' was used anciently as a generic word for "god." <ref>{{TPJS1|start=371}} ; Eugene Seaich, ''Ancient Texts and Mormonism'', p. 20.</ref>

===Use of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Old Testament===
The separation of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Hebrew Old Testament is not as clear as critics would have us believe.

The following scriptures illustrate the confusion of divine names in the Old Testament:

*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/34/23#23 Exodus 34:23] combines the Hebrew words ''Adon'' (Lord), ''Jehovah'' (LORD) and ''Elohim'' (God [of Israel]) into one title which is translated "Lord God, the God of Israel" or "Lord Jehovah, God of Israel."
*The Hebrew version of [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82/1#1 Psalm 82:1] reads: "God [''Elohim''] stands in the assembly of God [''El'']; he judges in the midst of the gods [''Elohim'']."
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/110/1#1 Psalm 110:1] reads: "The LORD [''Jehovah''] said unto my Lord [''Adonai''], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1-3#1 Hebrews 1:1–3] indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22/44#44 Matthew 22:44]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/12/36#36 Mark 12:36]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/20/42#42 Luke 20:42].)
*In one instance ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/8/5#5 Psalm 8:5]), the Hebrew ''Elohim'' is even rendered "angels." The Hebrew text states that Jehovah made the son of man "a little less than ''Elohim''" [KJV "angels"]. Though most literal translations render ''Elohim'' as "God" in this verse, there is justification for translating it "angels": [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/2/7#7 Hebrews 2:7] quotes this verse, using the Greek word ''aggelos'' ("angels") in place of ''Elohim''.
*We also find that ''Elohim'' is translated in four instances as "judges" ({{b||Exodus|21|6}}, {{b||Exodus|22|8-9}}), though "God's representative" is probably the intended meaning. This nevertheless shows that divine names were used by inspired writers with different meanings.

===Development of name-titles in Israelite history===
In the Old Testament, the title ''Elohim'' often emphasizes the strong, covenant-keeping qualities of God while the name ''Jehovah'', the self-existent and eternal attributes; and ''Adonai'', the characteristics of a sovereign lord; they have not always been applied to just one God.

A study of the various Hebrew words used for deity in the Old Testament reveals that the same name-titles were often used for both true and false gods as well as for human leaders. Thus, the Hebrew for ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' were often used in a generic sense. Such usage could especially cause confusion if the text were later modified.

Eugene Seaich has indicated that many scholars have found that early Canaanite and Israelite theology recognized two separate and distinct sets of divine traits: one for a "Father of gods" and "Father of men" and the other for a son of the former who was a "dying-and-resurrecting god, who gave life to all creatures" and "managed the cosmos for his Father." Seaich explains that the High God was called "El and his son was called Ba'al at least through the time of the Israelite monarchy." The Israelites who returned from the desert with the Mosaic religion referred to El's son as ''Yahweh''. Some evidence of this distinction still survives in our Old Testament scriptures (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/32/8-9#8 Deuteronomy 32:8–9]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82 Psalm 82]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4]). He also notes that [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1 Genesis chapter 1] speaks of ''Elohim'' (the longer form of ''El'') as the creator while [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/2 chapter 2] speaks of ''Yahweh-Elohim''. Seaich writes:

:...the Mosaic reform, which only began as an attempt to root out the licentious excesses to which the old polytheism had sunk (Ex. 32), took at least a half-dozen centuries to establish itself as Israel's "true" religion, eliminating in the process many former truths, before emerging as the "ethical monotheism" of late Judaism.... In the new monotheism...the earlier Elohim and Yahweh became the single "YHWH-Elohim" of Deut. 6:4.... The complete assimilation of two gods into one probably took as long as the "Monotheistic Reform" itself, i.e. from ca. 1500 to 500 <small>B.C.</small>.... Finally, the Old Testament itself was thoroughly subjected to a corresponding revision (known as the "Deuteronomic Revision"). <ref>Seaich, pp.15–21; see text for complete listing of references.</ref>

===Divine investiture===
Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus often spoke for the Father by right of divine investiture. Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

:"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." <ref>{{MD|start=130|end=131}}</ref>

There are numerous examples of divine investiture in scripture. The clearest biblical examples involve angels speaking in behalf of God or Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/22/11-12#11 Genesis 22:11—12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/3/2,6#2 Exodus 3:2, 6]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/23/20-21#20 23:20–21]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/1#1 Revelation 1:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/19/9-13#9 19:9–13]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/22/8-16#8 22:8–16]), though Christ also spoke "as though he were the Father" on many occasions throughout the Old Testament ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/17/1#1 Genesis 17:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/35/11#11 35:11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/6/3#3 Exodus 6:3]). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/8,18#8 Revelation 1:8, 18]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/4/8#8 4:8]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/11/17#17 11:17]). It is for this reason that many other Christians identify Elohim and Jehovah as the same person.

===The LDS view===
The concept of Christ as the Father is clearly set forth in a 1916 statement entitled, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." <ref>"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Twelve," 30 June 1916. First published in ''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):934–42 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/934/mode/2up}}; available more recently in an condensed format in ''Ensign'' 32 (April 2002):13–18 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng}}.</ref>

Additional support for the LDS differentiation in the use of divine titles is found in New and Old Testament scriptures. Matthew and Mark reported that Jesus while on the cross cried out to his Father using the name ''Eli'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/27/46#46 Matthew 27:46]) or ''Eloi'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/15/34#34 Mark 15:34]). Both of these names are regarded by scholars as the Aramaic equivalents of ''El'' or ''Elohim''. <ref>''Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament'', p. 35; see entries for "Elah" and "Eloah."</ref>

Although references to Christ's sonship are somewhat rare in the Old Testament, they nevertheless exist. [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/3/25#25 Daniel 3:25] describes a fourth individual in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace whose form was like a "Son of God [''Elah'']." [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4] speaks of the "son" of the creator and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/7/13#13 Daniel 7:13] refers to the glorious coming of the "Son of man" (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/13#13 John 3:13] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/57#57 Moses 6:57]). [http://scriptures.lds.org/hosea/11/1#1 Hosea 11:1] was quoted by Matthew ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/2/15#15 2:15]) as a prophecy that God's "son" would be called out of Egypt and we should not forget that Isaiah's famous messianic prophecy foretold the birth of a son who would also be known by the titles "everlasting Father" and "mighty God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/7/14#14 Isaiah 7:14]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/9/16#16 9:16]). All of these scriptures provide evidence that, as Nephi stated, many do now "stumble exceedingly" because of the "plain and precious thing which have been taken away" from the scriptures ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/26-30,34,40#26 1 Nephi 13:26–30, 34, 40]).

===''Elohim'' versus ''Eloheim''===

Some LDS works (especially from the nineteenth century) may refer to "Eloheim," instead of the more familiar (especially to those outside the Church) "Elohim."

Both of these words represent the Hebrew word אלהים—they are transliterations (that is simply converting the Hebrew into English letters). During the 19th century, there were two styles of Hebrew transliteration and pronouncing systems:

#Ashkenazic (from Jewish communities in Northern Europe - starting in Germany); and
#Sephardic (from Jewish communities in southern Europe, mostly coming from Spain and Portugal).

Joseph Smith's Hebrew instructor at the School of the Prophets in Kirtland was Joshua/James Seixas—he also taught many other LDS members to read Biblical Hebrew in Kirtland. Seixas's family came from Portugal, and so he taight Sephardic Hebrew (he was one of the best—if not the best—American Hebraicist of his day). Sephardic Hebrew pronounces this word for God a bit differently than does Ashkenazic Hebrew (which is the Hebrew that is most commonly used and taught today).

Josephs Lehrer schrieb das Wort ''eloheem'', und diese Aussprache wurde zu ''eloheim'', was manchmal in HLT-Schriften verwendet wird. Besonders da beide Versionen exakt die gleiche Bedeutung haben. Der Wechsel von eloheim oder eloheem zu elohim liegt darin begründet, dass spätere LDS-Autoren (besonders Elder James E. Talmage) von jüngeren Hebräischgelehrten, die der aschkenasischen Aussprache den Vorzug gaben, beeinflusst wurden. Dies führte zu einem Wechsel im Gebrauch unter den Führern der Kirche, was jetzt zur weltweiten Gelehrsamkeit passt. Beides jedoch ist eigentlich das gleiche Wort.
== ==
{{Endnotes label}

<references/>

</onlyinclude>
{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Mormonismus und die Natur Gottes/Elohim und Jehova]]
[[fr:Nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah]]

Question: Did Joseph Smith prophesy that he couldn't be killed within 5 years of August 1843?

2015-12-01T12:23:29Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2015-11-30T21:50:03Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2015-11-30T21:49:24Z

BSiebert:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Essays

2015-11-29T06:21:40Z

BSiebert:

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Overview

2015-11-29T05:30:46Z

BSiebert:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah

2015-11-27T21:22:49Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Are Elohim and Jehovah the same deity?}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{GodPortal}}
|-
|
{{JesusChristPortal}}
|}
<onlyinclude>
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

It is claimed that ''Elohim'', ''Jehovah'', ''Adonai'' and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [''Jehovah''] thy God [''Elohim'']" (e.g., [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/35#35 4:35]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/6/4#4 6:4]) as proof that these are different titles for the same God.

<noinclude>{{CriticalSources}}</noinclude>

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

The conviction that ''Elohim'' was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and ''Jehovah'' was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/1-4#1 D&C 110:1–4]) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, "Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors." <ref>''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):940–41 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/940/mode/2up}}; also quoted in ''1990 Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide'', p. 39. See also Talmage, pp. 36–38; Joseph Fielding McConkie and Donald W. Parry, ''A Guide to Scriptural Symbols'', parts 2 & 3).</ref>

The LDS use of the name titles ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively is not meant to insist that this is how these titles were always used anciently, including in the Holy Bible. Rather, these titles are a naming convention used in the modern Church for clarity and precision. Since Christ may be spoken of as "the Father" in a great many senses, the modern Saints use these name-titles to avoid ambiguity, regardless of which 'role' of a divine Personage is being discussed.

Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

== ==
{{Response label}}

<ref> This article was originally derived from an answer given in {{Book:Hickenbotham:Answering Challenging Mormon Questions|pages=104-07}} Because of a nature of a wiki project, this base material may have been edited, added to, or modified.</ref>
Although ''Elohim'' is understood and used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the name-title of God the Eternal Father and the name ''Jehovah'' is reserved for His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, <ref>{{JtC1|start=38}}</ref> this has not always been the case. Nineteenth-century Mormons—including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—generally used ''Jehovah'' as the name of God the Father. Latter-day Saints also recognize that the Hebrew word ''Elohim'' was used anciently as a generic word for "god." <ref>{{TPJS1|start=371}} ; Eugene Seaich, ''Ancient Texts and Mormonism'', p. 20.</ref>

===Use of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Old Testament===
The separation of ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' in the Hebrew Old Testament is not as clear as critics would have us believe.

The following scriptures illustrate the confusion of divine names in the Old Testament:

*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/34/23#23 Exodus 34:23] combines the Hebrew words ''Adon'' (Lord), ''Jehovah'' (LORD) and ''Elohim'' (God [of Israel]) into one title which is translated "Lord God, the God of Israel" or "Lord Jehovah, God of Israel."
*The Hebrew version of [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82/1#1 Psalm 82:1] reads: "God [''Elohim''] stands in the assembly of God [''El'']; he judges in the midst of the gods [''Elohim'']."
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/110/1#1 Psalm 110:1] reads: "The LORD [''Jehovah''] said unto my Lord [''Adonai''], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1-3#1 Hebrews 1:1–3] indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22/44#44 Matthew 22:44]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/12/36#36 Mark 12:36]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/20/42#42 Luke 20:42].)
*In one instance ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/8/5#5 Psalm 8:5]), the Hebrew ''Elohim'' is even rendered "angels." The Hebrew text states that Jehovah made the son of man "a little less than ''Elohim''" [KJV "angels"]. Though most literal translations render ''Elohim'' as "God" in this verse, there is justification for translating it "angels": [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/2/7#7 Hebrews 2:7] quotes this verse, using the Greek word ''aggelos'' ("angels") in place of ''Elohim''.
*We also find that ''Elohim'' is translated in four instances as "judges" ({{b||Exodus|21|6}}, {{b||Exodus|22|8-9}}), though "God's representative" is probably the intended meaning. This nevertheless shows that divine names were used by inspired writers with different meanings.

===Development of name-titles in Israelite history===
In the Old Testament, the title ''Elohim'' often emphasizes the strong, covenant-keeping qualities of God while the name ''Jehovah'', the self-existent and eternal attributes; and ''Adonai'', the characteristics of a sovereign lord; they have not always been applied to just one God.

A study of the various Hebrew words used for deity in the Old Testament reveals that the same name-titles were often used for both true and false gods as well as for human leaders. Thus, the Hebrew for ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah'' were often used in a generic sense. Such usage could especially cause confusion if the text were later modified.

Eugene Seaich has indicated that many scholars have found that early Canaanite and Israelite theology recognized two separate and distinct sets of divine traits: one for a "Father of gods" and "Father of men" and the other for a son of the former who was a "dying-and-resurrecting god, who gave life to all creatures" and "managed the cosmos for his Father." Seaich explains that the High God was called "El and his son was called Ba'al at least through the time of the Israelite monarchy." The Israelites who returned from the desert with the Mosaic religion referred to El's son as ''Yahweh''. Some evidence of this distinction still survives in our Old Testament scriptures (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/32/8-9#8 Deuteronomy 32:8–9]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82 Psalm 82]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4]). He also notes that [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1 Genesis chapter 1] speaks of ''Elohim'' (the longer form of ''El'') as the creator while [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/2 chapter 2] speaks of ''Yahweh-Elohim''. Seaich writes:

:...the Mosaic reform, which only began as an attempt to root out the licentious excesses to which the old polytheism had sunk (Ex. 32), took at least a half-dozen centuries to establish itself as Israel's "true" religion, eliminating in the process many former truths, before emerging as the "ethical monotheism" of late Judaism.... In the new monotheism...the earlier Elohim and Yahweh became the single "YHWH-Elohim" of Deut. 6:4.... The complete assimilation of two gods into one probably took as long as the "Monotheistic Reform" itself, i.e. from ca. 1500 to 500 <small>B.C.</small>.... Finally, the Old Testament itself was thoroughly subjected to a corresponding revision (known as the "Deuteronomic Revision"). <ref>Seaich, pp.15–21; see text for complete listing of references.</ref>

===Divine investiture===
Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus often spoke for the Father by right of divine investiture. Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

:"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." <ref>{{MD|start=130|end=131}}</ref>

There are numerous examples of divine investiture in scripture. The clearest biblical examples involve angels speaking in behalf of God or Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/22/11-12#11 Genesis 22:11—12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/3/2,6#2 Exodus 3:2, 6]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/23/20-21#20 23:20–21]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/1#1 Revelation 1:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/19/9-13#9 19:9–13]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/22/8-16#8 22:8–16]), though Christ also spoke "as though he were the Father" on many occasions throughout the Old Testament ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/17/1#1 Genesis 17:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/35/11#11 35:11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/6/3#3 Exodus 6:3]). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/1/8,18#8 Revelation 1:8, 18]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/4/8#8 4:8]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/11/17#17 11:17]). It is for this reason that many other Christians identify Elohim and Jehovah as the same person.

===The LDS view===
The concept of Christ as the Father is clearly set forth in a 1916 statement entitled, "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." <ref>"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Twelve," 30 June 1916. First published in ''Improvement Era'' 19/10 (August 1916):934–42 {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera19010unse#page/934/mode/2up}}; available more recently in an condensed format in ''Ensign'' 32 (April 2002):13–18 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng}}.</ref>

Additional support for the LDS differentiation in the use of divine titles is found in New and Old Testament scriptures. Matthew and Mark reported that Jesus while on the cross cried out to his Father using the name ''Eli'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/27/46#46 Matthew 27:46]) or ''Eloi'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/15/34#34 Mark 15:34]). Both of these names are regarded by scholars as the Aramaic equivalents of ''El'' or ''Elohim''. <ref>''Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament'', p. 35; see entries for "Elah" and "Eloah."</ref>

Although references to Christ's sonship are somewhat rare in the Old Testament, they nevertheless exist. [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/3/25#25 Daniel 3:25] describes a fourth individual in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace whose form was like a "Son of God [''Elah'']." [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/4#4 Proverbs 30:4] speaks of the "son" of the creator and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/7/13#13 Daniel 7:13] refers to the glorious coming of the "Son of man" (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/13#13 John 3:13] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/57#57 Moses 6:57]). [http://scriptures.lds.org/hosea/11/1#1 Hosea 11:1] was quoted by Matthew ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/2/15#15 2:15]) as a prophecy that God's "son" would be called out of Egypt and we should not forget that Isaiah's famous messianic prophecy foretold the birth of a son who would also be known by the titles "everlasting Father" and "mighty God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/7/14#14 Isaiah 7:14]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/9/16#16 9:16]). All of these scriptures provide evidence that, as Nephi stated, many do now "stumble exceedingly" because of the "plain and precious thing which have been taken away" from the scriptures ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/26-30,34,40#26 1 Nephi 13:26–30, 34, 40]).

===''Elohim'' versus ''Eloheim''===

Some LDS works (especially from the nineteenth century) may refer to "Eloheim," instead of the more familiar (especially to those outside the Church) "Elohim."

Both of these words represent the Hebrew word אלהים—they are transliterations (that is simply converting the Hebrew into English letters). During the 19th century, there were two styles of Hebrew transliteration and pronouncing systems:

#Ashkenazic (from Jewish communities in Northern Europe - starting in Germany); and
#Sephardic (from Jewish communities in southern Europe, mostly coming from Spain and Portugal).

Joseph Smith's Hebrew instructor at the School of the Prophets in Kirtland was Joshua/James Seixas—he also taught many other LDS members to read Biblical Hebrew in Kirtland. Seixas's family came from Portugal, and so he taight Sephardic Hebrew (he was one of the best—if not the best—American Hebraicist of his day). Sephardic Hebrew pronounces this word for God a bit differently than does Ashkenazic Hebrew (which is the Hebrew that is most commonly used and taught today).

Joseph's instructor spelled this word ''eloheem'', and this pronunciation became the ''eloheim'' that is sometimes used in LDS writings. Essentially though, both versions represent exactly the same word. The change from ''eloheim'' or ''eloheem'' to ''elohim'' occurred as later LDS writing (in particular Elder James E. Talmage) who engaged later Hebrew scholarship that followed the Ashkenazic pronunciation style. This led to a shift in usage among the leadership of the church, which now matches the broader world of non-LDS scholarship. They are, however, essentially the same word.

== ==
{{Endnotes label}}

<references/>

</onlyinclude>
{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[de:Mormonismus und die Natur Gottes/Elohim und Jehova]]
[[fr:Nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Considering Joseph Smith/Preliminary test

2015-03-20T09:06:44Z

BSiebert:

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2015-03-19T13:01:06Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|Using Deuteronomy 18 as a "prophetic test"}}
{{JosephSmithPortal}}
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

Evangelicals point to {{s||Deuteronomy|18|20-22}} as a 'test' for a true prophet:

:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

It is claimed that Joseph Smith made [[Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies|failed prophecies]], and as such must be a "false prophet."

{{CriticalSources}}

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

{{SeeAlso|Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies#Fulfilled_prophecies|l1=Joseph Smith—fulfilled prophecies|Fallibility_of_prophets|l2=Prophetic infallibility?|Revelation_after_Joseph_Smith|l3=Prophecy after Joseph Smith}}

When critics charge Joseph Smith with uttering a "false prophecy" they are generally making one or more errors:

# they rely on an inaccurate account of Joseph actually wrote or said, or they misrepresent Joseph's words;
# they ignore or remain unaware of circumstances which fulfilled the prophecy;
# they ignore or deny the clear scriptural principle [{{s||Jeremiah|18|7-10}}] that prophecy is contingent upon the choices of mortals;

Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Nathan, an angel of God, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud. No reasonable or biblical application of Deuteronomy 18 condemns Joseph Smith. Like the prophets of the Bible, Joseph's prophetic claims cannot be tested by looking for a failure in "fore-telling"—we must, as with the biblical prophets, decide if Joseph "knew God in the immediacy of experience," by weighing "the moral and religious content" of his message as he "challeng[es] his hearers to respond to the divine standards of spirituality through acts of cleansing and renewal of life,"<ref>Harrison, 755.</ref> which may only be ultimately judged by the source of prophecy—God himself. Every prophet is an invitation to enter into a "prophetic" relationship with God for ourselves, to communicate with him, and obtain the testimony of Jesus for ourselves.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Confusion on this point arises from one or more errors:

# prophecy may be fulfilled in ways or at times that the hearers do not expect;
# most prophecies are contingent, even if this is not made explicit when the prophecy is given—that is, the free agent choices of mortals can impact whether a given prophecy comes to pass
# sectarian critics may apply a standard to modern LDS prophets whom they reject that they do not apply to biblical prophets. This double standard condemns Joseph unfairly.

This article discusses each of these errors.

==#1: Fulfillment in unexpected ways==

Deuteronomy doesn't exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet.<ref>This wiki article was originally based on Jeff Lindsay, "If any prophecy of a so-called prophet proves to be wrong, shouldn't we reject him? Isn't that the standard of Deut. 18:22?," {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/false_prophesies.htm}} Due to the nature of a wiki project, the text may have been modified, edited, and had additions made.</ref> James L. Mays, editor of ''Harper's Bible Commentary'' writes:

:Prophecy in the names of other gods is easily rejected, but false prophecy in God's name is a more serious matter. This dilemma requires the application of a pragmatic criterion that, although clearly useless for judgments on individual oracles, is certainly a way to evaluate a prophet's overall performance.<ref>James L. Mays (editor), ''Harper's Bible Commentary'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 226.</ref>

The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. As one conservative Bible commentator noted:

:As far as external considerations were involved, therefore, there would appear to have been [in Old Testament times] virtually no means of differentiating the true from the false prophet....While the popular view current in the seventh century B.C. distinguished a true prophet from a false one on the basis of whether their predictions were fulfilled or not, this attitude merely constituted an inversion of the situation as it ultimately emerged, and not an absolute criterion of truth or falsity as such. As Albright has pointed out, the fulfilment of prophecies was only one important element in the validation of a genuine prophet, and in some instances was not even considered to be an essential ingredient, as illustrated by the apparent failure of the utterances of Haggai [{{b||Haggai|2|21}}] against the Persian empire.{{Book:Harrsion:Introduction to the OT|pages=755–756}}

==#2: Most prophecies are contingent on human actions==

The Bible contains many examples of God choosing to reverse or revoke certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah:

:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.{{s||Jeremiah|18|7-10}}

This principle is also illustrated in {{s||1Sam|2|30}} where, because of the wickedness of the priests, the Lord revokes his promise that the house of Aaron will forever serve him:

:30 Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

==#3: Double standards==

Many Bible prophets would not survive the critics' hostile application of Deuteronomy 18 as Jewish and Christian commentators have long realized.

===Jewish readings===

The reading which the critics wish to apply to modern day prophets does not match how scholars of Judaism have understood Deuteronomy in its Old Testament context.

Wrote one author:

:"The true prophet, as intercessor, was ready to risk a confrontation with God, in contrast to his counterpart, the false prophet. The problem of distinguishing between them was indeed perplexing, as shown by two separate passages in Deuteronomy...The answer given is that if the 'oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord; the prophet uttered it presumptuously.' ''This, however, cannot serve as an infallible criterion, because there are several occasions when an oracle delivered by a true prophet did not materialize even in his own lifetime.'' Such unfulfilled prophecies include Jeremiah's prediction of the ignominious fate of Jehoiakim ({{b||Jeremiah|22|19}}), which was belied by {{b|2|Kings|24|6}}, and Ezekiel's foretelling the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar ({{b||Ezekiel|26|7-21}}), which was later admitted to have failed but was to be compensated by the Babylonian king's attack on Egypt ({{b||Ezekiel|29|17-20}})"<ref>Shalom M. Paul, "Prophecy and Prophets" a supplemental essay in ''Etz Hayim, a Torah/Commentary published by the Jewish Publication Society'', 1411, {{ea}}.</ref>

We will see examples in the next section of biblical prophets who would be labeled as "false prophets" if the critics were consistent in their application of Deuteronomy.

The ''Jewish Study Bible'' observed:

:Having established an Israelite model of prophecy, the law provides two criteria to distinguish true from false prophets. The first is that the prophet should speak exclusively on behalf of God, and report only God's words. Breach of that rule is a capital offense ({{b||Jeremiah|28|12-17}}.) The second criterion makes the fulfillment of a prophet's oracle the measure of its truth. That approach attempts to solve a critical problem: If two prophets each claim to speak on behalf of God yet make mutually exclusive claims- ({{b|1|Kings|22|6}} versus {{b|1|King|22|17}}; {{b||Jeremiah|27|8}} versus {{b||Jeremiah|28|2}})- how may one decide which prophet speaks the truth?

:The solution offered is not free of difficulty. If a false prophet is distinguished by the failure of his oracle to come true, then making a decision in the present about which prophet to obey is impossible. Nor can this criterion easily be reconciled with {{s||Deuteronomy|13|3}}, which concedes that the oracles of false prophets might come true. Finally, the prophets frequently threatened judgment, hoping to bring about repentance ({{b||Jeremiah|7||}}, {{b||Jeremiah|26|1-6}}). If the prophet succeeds and the people repent and thereby avert doom ({{b||Jonah|3-4||}}), one would assume the prophet to be authentic, since he has accomplished God's goal of repentance. Yet according to thee criteria here (but contrast {{b||Jeremiah|28|9}}), the prophet who accomplished repentance is nonetheless a false prophet, since the judgment oracle that was proclaimed remains unfulfilled. These texts, with their questions and differences of opinion on such issues, reflect the vigorous debate that took place in Israel about prophecy."<ref>''Jewish Study Bible'' (published by the Jewish Publication Society), commentary on Deu. 18:20-23.</ref>

===Specific biblical examples===
Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are several examples in the Bible where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated.
====Jonah====
Perhaps the clearest example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah eventually did what he was told and prophesied the simple clear prophecy that the people would be destroyed in 40 days ({{s||Jonah|3|4}}). The time frame was clear and no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. The scriptures state explicitly, however, that the people repented of their sins and that God changed his mind, sparing the city.

Jonah was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" ({{s||Jonah|4|1}}) about God's decision, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of what might look like an "incorrect" prophecy, and in spite of Jonah's obvious shortcomings, he was clearly a prophet of God, delivering the precise message that God had given him, but it was ultimately the conditional nature of prophecy that determined the outcome.

====Ezekiel====
The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may prophesy things that do not happen exactly as one might expect. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre, it was stated, would go to Babylon ({{s||Ezekiel|26|12}}). Nebuchadnezzar's army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, exactly as prophesied in {{s||Ezekiel|27|31}}. However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for ({{s||Ezekiel|29|17-20}}) reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29 ({{s||Ezekiel|29|17-20}}):

:17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: '''yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it''':
:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD. (emphasis added)

Tyre is no more, but its complete destruction did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure."<ref>This example comes from {{FR-7-2-5}}</ref>

The purpose in raising this example is not to question the wisdom of the Lord, nor the truthfulness of the Bible, but to point out that an overly critical attitude and a black-and-white application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed, but we must beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed.

====Jeremiah====
Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah—a great and inspired prophet—who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" ({{s||Jeremiah|34|4-5}}). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity—not in peace ({{s||Jeremiah|52|10-11}}). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes—albeit in prison—yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

====Nathan====

Other examples include Nathan:

:In {{s|2|Samuel|7|5-17}}, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.<ref>Michael T. Griffith, "Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid," in ''One Lord, One Faith'' (Horizon Publishers, 1996).</ref>

Yet this prophecy, interpreted literally, clearly did not prove successful. Again human sin or choice will affect whether God will choose to bless or punish a people. This is implicit in all such prophecies.

====Samson====

Finally, there are the words of the angel who spoke to Samson's mother:

:In {{s||Judges|13|5}}, it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), and while it is true that Samson at the end of his life did do some damage to the rulers of the Philistines, there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.
:Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.
:Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.
:Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.<ref>Michael T. Griffith, "Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid," in ''One Lord, One Faith'' (Horizon Publishers, 1996).</ref>

=="Foretelling" as prophecy==

{{Main|Prophets_don't_prophesy|l1=Claim that prophets don't prophecy}}

Foretelling the future is often what people mean when they speak of "prophecy." But, this is a relatively minor aspect of prophecy for biblical and modern prophets. More importantly, "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" ({{s||Revelation|19|10}}). Like biblical prophets, a modern prophet expends more time and energy bearing witness of Christ than foretelling the future. "Of vastly greater importance" than future-telling, noted conservative Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, "was the moral and religious content of the prophetic utterance, and its ability to recall to the minds of the hearers the obligations of the Covenant relationship. The truth belonged...to the content, where alone it could be tested and shown to be the veritable word of God."<ref>Harrison, 756.</ref>

In the minority of cases in which a prophet is engaged in "foretelling," rather than some other aspect of the prophetic mission, it may take one of at least three forms:

#As a sign to the unbelieving and comfort to the believers. One example from modern LDS history is the prophecy mentioned in the 1857 ''Deseret News'' editorial addressed to [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Stephen_A._Douglas_prophecy|Stephen A. Douglas]]—("That you may thoroughly understand that you have voluntarily, knowingly, and of choice sealed your damnation, and by your own chosen course have closed your chance for the presidential chair, through disobeying the counsel of Joseph which you formerly sought and prospered by following..."). These are probably the rarest type.
#As a timeline to the church or to individuals, to tell us where we are falling behind in preparation for things to come (signs of the times) or to help us not worry about something that is still a long ways off (e.g., "Be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled,...as that the day of Christ is at hand" [{{b|2|Thessalonians|2|2}}]). Such examples are likewise relatively rare in scripture.
#By far the most common example are prophecies given as part of a call to repentance, or included with instructions regarding behavior. Such prophecies are always conditional, whether explicitly or implicitly, since God offers them to encourage and spur us to obedience—there is little reason to send a prophet or cry repentance if the punishment for disobedience cannot be averted by improved behavior ({{s||Jeremiah|18||}}, discussed above).

== ==
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Joseph Smith/Angeblich falsche Prophezeiungen/Der Prophetentest in Deuteronomium 18]]
[[fr:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Considering Joseph Smith

2015-03-19T02:16:58Z

BSiebert:

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets/Fear as an Obstacle

2015-03-19T01:14:50Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|Bible arguments made to justify rejecting true prophets]]: Fear as an obstacle
|previous=[[../Desire as an Obstacle|Desire as an Obstacle]]
|next=
|notes=
}}
=Fear as an obstacle=
Those who reject true prophets based on faulty thinking (what they fear is so) do so by:
*Irrelevant measures—“Is this not the carpenter's son?” ({{s||Matthew|13|54-58}}) Or, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” ({{s||Mark|14|5}})
*Misinformation—“Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.” ({{s||Matthew|28|12-14}})
*Misinterpretation—“This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days.” ({{s||Matthew|26|61}})
*Tradition or mental inertia—”No man having drunk old wine straightway desireth the new: for he saith, the old is better,” ({{s||Luke|5|39}}), or “We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is...” ({{s||John|9|29}})
*Charges of blasphemy—“...because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” ({{s||John|10|33}})
*Incredulity—“And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not” ({{s||Luke|24|11}}) or “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” ({{s||John|6|60}})
*Appeals to authorities—“Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” ({{s||John|7|47}}) In this case, an appeal to authority circumvents direct consideration of the fruit that should be considered.
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Bibelschriftstellen, um wahre und falsche Propheten zu unterscheiden/Ablehnung wahrer Propheten/Furcht als ein Hindernis]]
[[fr:Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets/Fear as an Obstacle]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets/Desire as an Obstacle

2015-03-18T14:31:19Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|Bible arguments made to justify rejecting true prophets]]: Desire as an obstacle
|previous=
|next=[[../Fear as an Obstacle|Fear as an Obstacle]]
|notes=
}}
=Desire as an obstacle=
Those who reject true prophets based on rival desires argue on these kinds of bases:
*Distaste for the prophet's words or person, or both: For example, in {{s|1|Kings|22|8}} reports of a king who said, “There is yet one man, Micaiah... by whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”
*Unwillingness to sacrifice in order to follow: Recall the “certain ruler” who asked Jesus, “What lack I yet?” He was very sorrowful in hearing an answer that called for him to give up something he desired (see {{s||Luke|18|18-25}}). In other cases the sacrifice can be social position, sexual or other behavior, or political power.
*Rival desires and allegiances, whether political or personal -- “If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation.” ({{s||John|11|47-48}})
*Unconventional behavior by the prophet, “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” ({{s||Matthew|11|19}}) or “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day” ({{s||John|9|16}})
*Objectional behavior by their disciples, where the failures to meet an ideal replace the actual tests for a prophet. ({{s||Romans|2|21-24}})
*Economic issues -- “And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas...saying these men being Jews do exceedingly trouble our city.” ({{s||Acts|16|19-22}}) or the story of the silversmiths opposed to Paul in ({{s||Acts|19|24-29}}).
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Bibelschriftstellen, um wahre und falsche Propheten zu unterscheiden/Ablehnung wahrer Propheten/Wunsch als ein Hindernis]]
[[fr:Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets/Desire as an Obstacle]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets

2015-03-13T00:13:51Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../]]
|author=Kevin Christensen
|noauthor=
|section=Bible arguments made to justify rejecting true prophets
|previous=[[../Seeing the truth|Bible passages that describe what a person should do in order to see truth]]
|next=[[../Considering Joseph Smith|Considering Joseph Smith in light of these tests]]
|notes=
}}

=Bible arguments made to justify rejecting true prophets=
In practice the rejection arguments all boil down to people rejecting a prophet's claims on the basis of either fear or desire. That is, the prophets did not fit their preconceptions of what a prophet should be (that is, what they think or “fear” is so), or, the prophets say things that they did not want to hear (that is, contrary to their desire). There is a direct relationship between the failures to use appropriate tests, and the failure to inquire in the ways that lead to truth. Each failure leads to corresponding arguments against true prophets.
Taken together, all of the arguments given against prophets show that rather than looking at what a prophet is, people judge them against false standards or false information. That is, those failing to recognize a prophet either apply inappropriate tests, or they misapply appropriate tests. What a person thinks or fears inevitably becomes barrier to discovering the real. Hence, the call for a sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, a willingness to at least offer what a person wants and thinks as a necessary prerequisite to discover what is real.
*[[/Desire as an Obstacle|Desire as an Obstacle]]
*[[/Fear as an Obstacle|Fear as an Obstacle]]
Scholars of religion describe the process of religious conversion as one of reorientation and reconciliation. Reorientation is a change of thinking. And reconciliation is a change of feeling. So it fits that resistance to conversion derives from opposing fear and desire. And this is why “The Sacrifices of God are broken heart, and a contrite spirit” ({{b||Psalms|51|17}}).

== ==
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
]]de:Bibelschriftstellen, um wahre und falsche Propheten zu unterscheiden/Ablehnung wahrer Propheten]]
[[fr:Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Rejecting true prophets]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Seeing the truth/Persist

2015-03-12T19:14:37Z

BSiebert:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|A Biblical Approach to Seeing the Truth]]: Persist whatever the cost
|previous=[[../Pray|Pray]]
|next=
|notes=
}}
=Persist whatever the cost=
{{OfTrueOfFalseTable}}
|
*{{s|2|Timothy|3|14}}
<blockquote>
But continue in the things which thou hast learned and been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.
</blockquote>
||
*{{s||Matthew|13|19}}
<blockquote>
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart
</blockquote>
|-
|
*{{s||James|5|10}}
<blockquote>
Take, my brethren, the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
</blockquote>
||
*{{s||Matthew|13|20-21}}
<blockquote>
…stoney places…(he)…with joy receiveth it; Yet he hath not root in himself,… for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by, he is offended.
</blockquote>
|-
|
*{{s||Isaiah|28|9-10}}
<blockquote>
Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Precept must be upon precept; line upon line, line upon line…
</blockquote>
||
*{{s||Matthew|12|18-23}}
<blockquote>
…among thorns… the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
</blockquote>
|-
|
*{{s||Matthew|13|12}}
<blockquote>
Whoso hath [knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven] to him shall be given more abundantly…
</blockquote>
*See also {{s|1|John|2|20-27}}, {{s||Luke|8|18}} and {{s|2|Peter|1|}}
||
*{{s||Luke|8|18}}
<blockquote>
…whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
</blockquote>
|-
|
*{{s||Matthew|13|44-46}}
<blockquote>
Again, the Kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls, who when he had found one pearl of great price sold all he had, and bought it.
</blockquote>
||
*{{s||Isaiah|55|2}}
<blockquote>
wherefore do ye spend your money for that which is not bread? And labor for that which satisfieth not?
</blockquote>

|}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Seeing the truth/Persist]]
[[fr:Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Seeing the truth/Persist]]