What Do You Mean by Cult?

[the_last_gunslinger]

I know you probably don't think I do, but I love you. I love you for your zeal. If didn't I wouldn't take the time to talk truth with you. To paraphrase the old hymm - I want to see you in that number. I truly do.

Actually, it might surprise you to know that I believe you, and know that your intents and goals are genuine. I am well aware of the feelings you have regarding this issue. You clearly cherish your faith and it is your ardent wish that all men everywhere could see it as you do. Trust me, I am overcome with sadness and grief whenever I see another individual suffering somehow, knowing that the gospel of Jesus Christ would prove to be the healing balm of whatever ails them. I become deeply frustrated and saddened at my own inadequacies when I attempt to teach others the things I know, and they reject them.

That being said, when I make claims to knowing the LDS church and its tenets are true, I am not just blowing smoke. Accepting the church was not something I took lightly, and I have sought the guidance and counsel of God every step of the way until He bestowed upon me, through revelation and other sacred and personal experiences a knowledge of the truth. That is the reason for my zeal, because I have experienced these things. I don't know if I'll ever be able to convince anyone of the truthfulness of my church (and I definitely don't expect to convert anyone on a message forum such as this). I still feel duty bound to share what I have learned and can do nothing other than simply bear testimony of these things. All the debating and word games, all the finer points of philosophy and theology aside, I can simply say that I know. I know God is my Father in Heaven. I know that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God, my Savior and the only means by which we may be saved from death, both physical and spiritual. And yes, I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true.

I mean no offense in the things I say, but I nevertheless feel compelled to say them. I only hope that my beliefs may be respected, and that we can all come to the realization that Christianity is a broad umbrella that encompasses many faiths and traditions, yours and mine included. When all is said and done, regardless of our religious affiliations, you and I are both beloved sons of God, and I find that to be a most profound and overwhelming notion.

[raggthyme13]

Why would God purposefully give the world an incomplete message... one He knew would be relied upon for the faith of the saints for centuries prior to these "additional scriptures" you attest to?

The best reason I can think of is that God affords all men their agency, and if they choose of their own volition to reject God's Word, God won't force them through compulsive means to accept Him. Alma 29:8 (from the Book of Mormon) sheds some light on this as well. It reads as such:

"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."

From this, we see that the Lord gives His truth in just large enough portions to propel people towards him without forcing them to receive His truth, only as people are prepared to receive it. Evidently, during the period known as the Great Apostasy, the people rebelled against God in such mass quantities that He saw fit to withdraw His Priesthood authority, allowing a lesser portion of the truth to persist, just enough for the people to come unto Him fitting their desires and according to that which they are prepared to receive.

Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?

All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.

You ask why God would give some people an incomplete message. To that, I will turn the question towards you. At that time, there were many other peoples, other races, other nations that had not any of the gospel, and didn't even know who Jesus Christ is. Why would God leave them with NONE of His word? Did not God have the power to bestow the gospel upon second century Australian Aborigines? Clearly, He does, but in His wisdom, He dispenses His truth in whatever quantities He knows is best for a particular people.

True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a half-truth out there as the only published witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I believe the temple endowment speaks of Adam building an altar to God and praying for further light and knowledge, when Lucifer answers. He asks him who he is. Lucifer says that he is the god of this world. Is this accurate?

you said:
This sounds kind of familiar, and I don't think there is an issue with it. I believe the scriptures do speak of Satan attempting to 'intercept' prayers with subtle conniving. It is also true that Lucifer is the god of this world, which means in essence, that the world is so wicked that Lucifer has essentially become "god" to all those who reject the true God of Israel because they pay veneration to Lucifer through their evil acts. The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as such in 2nd Corinthians 4:4, indicating that Satan is currently shaping the goals, ideals and ambitions of Man at this current time.




Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying to God for light and knowledge (and Adam did not know who he was).. how is it that you are able to tell who is answering when you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:

That being said, when I make claims to knowing the LDS church and its tenets are true, I am not just blowing smoke. Accepting the church was not something I took lightly, and I have sought the guidance and counsel of God every step of the way until He bestowed upon me, through revelation and other sacred and personal experiences a knowledge of the truth. That is the reason for my zeal, because I have experienced these things.

If Adam received word from Lucifer when it should have come from God alone, and he had to ask, "Who are you?" it is evident that he had not the ability to distinguish between the voice of truth and the propagator of the lie. What makes you (or any other man open to new revelations) different in this regard?

Regarding your final statement, I again am curious as to how you've come to the idea that the Holy Bible is all that is ever intended or all that God has given us. Such a doctrine, ironically, is not even found in the Bible.

God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.

On another note, regarding personal revelation, how do you believe this process works and have you ever experienced it before?

Just ask, with a heart to receive. Give attention to His word (the Bible) and do not look to other sources outside of it. No personal revelation is new revelation.. just confirmation of the truth already written from Genesis to Revelation. :) Yes, God has revealed truth to me at times.. things I did not understand before when reading.. but not as often as I'd like because I do not always position myself to receive of Him.. busyness of life and all. But He is always ready and willing, and faithful to do what He says. Proverbs 2:4

[the_last_gunslinger]

Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?

I think you are partly misunderstanding me. Mormons believe that the Holy Bible, as originally penned by ancient prophets according to the spirit of revelation, was perfect and complete. It was only through the interpolations of men that the Bible became confusing, where truths were lost. Think back to the very beginning of Holy Scriptures, envisioning the original writers of that Holy Bible. It started perfect and undefiled. Now consider the wickedness of man. Imagine a scenario where nearly everyone (at least those in positions of power) altered or changed true Christianity to suit their own agendas. The only way for God to stop this would be to revoke their free will, to make it so they couldn't do that. This, of course, would not be in accordance with God's laws. He will not make us do something we do not want to. God merely allowed the apostasy to happen so as to allow Man their freedom to act and choose wrong.

All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.

One minor correction again, God did not intentionally keep truth from them. God gave them truth unfiltered, and it was rejected, altered or otherwise perverted. The people of the 1st and 2nd centuries were not ready or willing to embrace the fulness of the gospel at that time.

That aside for a moment, why is it so hard to believe in a universal falling away? The Bible predicts it. 2nd Thessalonians, 2:1-3 speaks of Christ's second coming, but that this day wouldn't happen unless there was first a 'falling away,' or apostasy. Amos 8:11 speaks very plainly about this when it is declared that a day comes when the Lord will send a famine throughout the land, not a famine of bread and water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. People will seek to and fro, and will not be able to find it.

Not only was an apostasy predicted in the Bible, but the New Testament is evidence that the apostasy was already taking place during the days of the Apostles. Consider the epistles written by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. They were not written to non-members, but to the church and its adherents, correcting them on matters of doctrine and practice. Why else do you think Paul spent so much time writing to answer question and persuade local church leaders to change the way they were doing things? The apostasy was something the apostles struggled with for the entirety of their ministry, combating false teachings, false prophets and those claiming to have authority falsely. The apostles were tasked with keeping the church true and error free, to be the keepers of pure, undefiled doctrine. Problem is, the world rejected the testimony of the apostles and killed them off one by one. Now if the apostasy was already taking hold amongst the church while the apostles were yet alive and able to safeguard it somewhat, how much worse would it have gotten once the apostles were no more?

True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a half-truth out there as the only published witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think your response here is something I would agree with and must be based off of the erroneous way I described the apostasy earlier. Again, I reiterate. God did not willingly and purposefully give Man half-truths and incorrect doctrines to guide them. God, for reasons only He knows, merely allowed Man to make a mistake regarding His church, and being all-knowing, he warned his followers of this departure from truth and provided a way by which the fulness of the gospel may be restored for the benefit and blessing of all mankind.

Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying to God for light and knowledge (and Adam did not know who he was).. how is it that you are able to tell who is answering when you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:

Offhand, I can't remember exactly the Adam account, so I can't address that directly, only to say that one need not take it as Adam literally not knowing or recognizing Satan. (After all, he did partake of the forbidden fruit, so he did gain a knowledge of good and evil, giving him the power to discern between the two). The message that can be learned from this is that one must always strive to recognize God's voice, and that one may be deceived by the wicked one if he is not living in such a way as to invite the Spirit of the Lord into his live to help guide and direct his actions.

You raise a good point about knowing from which source we are receiving answers. But the challenge is somewhat flawed in that I can just as easily reflect it back upon you. How do you know that God actually led you to your current faith system? Maybe God wants you to be a Mormon but Satan has attempted to make sure that does not happen. To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer.

God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.

But who determines that the Holy Bible is the fullness of his truth to man and the final authority. The Bible, again, never makes such a claim, and does, in fact, contain strong evidence that this is not the case (such as referencing books not found in the Bible.) I disagree also that Satan is confounded when one limits his authority to one book, especially one as ambiguous as the Bible. Satan will then seek to confuse those as to what the Bible says, and he's done a rather good job of that, judging by the lack of consensus amongst Christians.

There is one final authority, and it's not the Bible, it's not the Book of Mormon, it's not just one single volume of scripture. God is that final authority, and he reveals his will through scriptures, through revelation and through the teachings of living prophets and apostles, whom he has anointed, as in ancient days, to defend, to propagate and to proclaim His glorious gospel.

[raggthyme13]

Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?

I think you are partly misunderstanding me. Mormons believe that the Holy Bible, as originally penned by ancient prophets according to the spirit of revelation, was perfect and complete. It was only through the interpolations of men that the Bible became confusing, where truths were lost. Think back to the very beginning of Holy Scriptures, envisioning the original writers of that Holy Bible. It started perfect and undefiled. Now consider the wickedness of man. Imagine a scenario where nearly everyone (at least those in positions of power) altered or changed true Christianity to suit their own agendas. The only way for God to stop this would be to revoke their free will, to make it so they couldn't do that. This, of course, would not be in accordance with God's laws. He will not make us do something we do not want to. God merely allowed the apostasy to happen so as to allow Man their freedom to act and choose wrong.

All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.

One minor correction again, God did not intentionally keep truth from them. God gave them truth unfiltered, and it was rejected, altered or otherwise perverted. The people of the 1st and 2nd centuries were not ready or willing to embrace the fulness of the gospel at that time.

That aside for a moment, why is it so hard to believe in a universal falling away? The Bible predicts it. 2nd Thessalonians, 2:1-3 speaks of Christ's second coming, but that this day wouldn't happen unless there was first a 'falling away,' or apostasy. Amos 8:11 speaks very plainly about this when it is declared that a day comes when the Lord will send a famine throughout the land, not a famine of bread and water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. People will seek to and fro, and will not be able to find it.

Not only was an apostasy predicted in the Bible, but the New Testament is evidence that the apostasy was already taking place during the days of the Apostles. Consider the epistles written by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. They were not written to non-members, but to the church and its adherents, correcting them on matters of doctrine and practice. Why else do you think Paul spent so much time writing to answer question and persuade local church leaders to change the way they were doing things? The apostasy was something the apostles struggled with for the entirety of their ministry, combating false teachings, false prophets and those claiming to have authority falsely. The apostles were tasked with keeping the church true and error free, to be the keepers of pure, undefiled doctrine. Problem is, the world rejected the testimony of the apostles and killed them off one by one. Now if the apostasy was already taking hold amongst the church while the apostles were yet alive and able to safeguard it somewhat, how much worse would it have gotten once the apostles were no more?

True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a half-truth out there as the only published witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think your response here is something I would agree with and must be based off of the erroneous way I described the apostasy earlier. Again, I reiterate. God did not willingly and purposefully give Man half-truths and incorrect doctrines to guide them. God, for reasons only He knows, merely allowed Man to make a mistake regarding His church, and being all-knowing, he warned his followers of this departure from truth and provided a way by which the fulness of the gospel may be restored for the benefit and blessing of all mankind.

Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying to God for light and knowledge (and Adam did not know who he was).. how is it that you are able to tell who is answering when you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:

Offhand, I can't remember exactly the Adam account, so I can't address that directly, only to say that one need not take it as Adam literally not knowing or recognizing Satan. (After all, he did partake of the forbidden fruit, so he did gain a knowledge of good and evil, giving him the power to discern between the two). The message that can be learned from this is that one must always strive to recognize God's voice, and that one may be deceived by the wicked one if he is not living in such a way as to invite the Spirit of the Lord into his live to help guide and direct his actions.

You raise a good point about knowing from which source we are receiving answers. But the challenge is somewhat flawed in that I can just as easily reflect it back upon you. How do you know that God actually led you to your current faith system? Maybe God wants you to be a Mormon but Satan has attempted to make sure that does not happen. To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer.

God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.

But who determines that the Holy Bible is the fullness of his truth to man and the final authority. The Bible, again, never makes such a claim, and does, in fact, contain strong evidence that this is not the case (such as referencing books not found in the Bible.) I disagree also that Satan is confounded when one limits his authority to one book, especially one as ambiguous as the Bible. Satan will then seek to confuse those as to what the Bible says, and he's done a rather good job of that, judging by the lack of consensus amongst Christians.

There is one final authority, and it's not the Bible, it's not the Book of Mormon, it's not just one single volume of scripture. God is that final authority, and he reveals his will through scriptures, through revelation and through the teachings of living prophets and apostles, whom he has anointed, as in ancient days, to defend, to propagate and to proclaim His glorious gospel.

First, I want to thank you for such a thoughtful reply. I can tell you took some time to think and write.. it's much appreciated. I do, however, have to disagree with you still.

I do not see any evidence that indicates the Bible has been corrupted.. or why you would say it is ambiguous. The message of it is quite clear to me. As far as people misinterpreting the scriptures.. men either allow them to say exactly what they say, or their reading of them is swayed by some outside influence. Unfortunately, outside influence is almost impossible to avoid. But one should seek to set all preconceived ideas aside and let the word speak for and interpret itself. That should be the aim of every Bible student.

As to the apostasy, I believe Hebrews speaks to it as well, and it had to do with those who were turning away from faith in Christ back to seeking righteousness by the Mosaic Law. Paul dealt with the same in his epistle to the Galatians.

The Bible says that God magnifies His word above His name. Surely He is able to preserve a single book, as a testimony of His sovereign hand in the midst of the schemes of men. And surely He is able to lead the humble heart to understand the Bible accurately. Factions are abundant because men follow men rather than God's word. I am not in a fellowship right now, haven't been for several years. Once I began reading the Bible on my own, I began seeing how much I actually disagreed with the things my pastor had taught me over the years. I had once just accepted them because I trusted he had all the answers. Being a new believer, I was fascinated with his Bible knowledge... but later I saw that the scriptures actually contradicted what I had been taught.

you said:
"To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer."

It comes down to faith for me as well, trusting that God will not let me be led astray, so long as I abide in His word (the Bible) and do not seek outside revelations. 


I maintain that the Bible is completely sufficient, in and of itself. I suppose this is just something that we will not see eye to eye on.


But may God bless you in your pursuit of Him. :)

-ragg-