jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (144 posts)

LDS: Worthy Mormon men will become a God

  1. profile image61
    passingthewordposted 5 years ago

    The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER
    INTO POLYGAMY."
    ..
    (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269 2nd LDS President(prophet) Brigham Young)

    D&C 76:94 They who dwell in his apresence are the church of the Firstborn(the Church of jesus of latter day saints) ; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his dgrace;

    95 And he (God) makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.

    1. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is "Blasphemy"

      1. profile image61
        passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are right. Allot of what the LDS church saids is Blasphemy.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Basically everything any church says is blasphemy according to other churches. Give it up passingtheword, Mormons are good people and there's no reason for your campaign against them.

          1. profile image61
            passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            yes they are good people. but the doctrine is what i am talking about not the people.
            I will not stop, In the past year and a half 30 people that we have meet with have left the LDS church and became Christians. Plus i always get emails from people on this hub that have questions. 7 so far on this hub have told me that they are wanting to leave the LDS church. So jaxson I wont stop.

            I am just sharing what the LDS church Teach believe and what they were founded on. I have not made anything up.

            1. Shanna11 profile image91
              Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, this is one Mormon who isn't going to leave and become "Christian". If you're what the world calls a Christian, then count me out.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Careful Shanna. The 'bad' Mormon doctrine makes Mormons good people. Get out before you become a good person!

                Or are you already? I guess it's too late for you!

                1. Shanna11 profile image91
                  Shanna11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh crap... gotta stop taking in homeless animals and donating my grocery money to charitable causes!

                  1. profile image61
                    passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Shanna i never said that people who believe in the LDS faith are bad people. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking about the words that the LDS church provide. That is all. and if that makes me a bad person look at Joseph Smith he said that all other churches are an abomination. Does this make Joseph Smith a bad person.

                    shanna you and the lds church are not the only ones giving in charity.....

      2. twosheds1 profile image61
        twosheds1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I had another word starting with B in mind.

    2. undermyhat profile image58
      undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, that is it?!?!  I was expecting some bloody awful and horrid things about torturing and killing and mayhem.  Ordinary religious sectarian disagreement with what I believe and my church teaches - I am disappointed in the Mormons.  They could have put a little more effort in to their religion.  At least the Koran teaches apostates, Jews and Infidels are to be killed if not brought to(or back to) Islam.

      No killing or mayhem in LDS teaching?  Are you sure?  I am disappointed.

      There is no religious litmus test for the White House.  I couldn't care less what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they fight to preserve the Constitution.  I would gladly accept a Muslim as President, if he was a Constitutionalist, capitalist, conservative. 

      Dr.Zudhi Jasser for President - more qualified and faithful to the country's ideals than the current occupant was when he ran.

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    And the main Mormon church has outlawed polygamy...only certain sects still believe that.

  3. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I've always wanted to be a God...

    1. paradigmsearch profile image86
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yet another thread I don't want to be notified about. Not HP's fault. I just unfollowed.

  4. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
    Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

    It's old doctrine and even if it wasn't, who cares.  Other people believe other things.  That's diversity.

  5. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Anyone who belongs to the LDS is unfit for the presidency, because their church is ruled by a prophet who gives the orders, and the members obey, so in fact, Romney wouldn't be president, but the prophet would be. Romney would only be a puppet of a pretender.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LDS prophets give orders? Proof please.

      How is it any different than, say, any other religious group? Most churches have someone at the 'top'. Are Catholics similarly unfit for the presidency?

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        JFK didn't pay much attention to the pope, and the other churches don't have a 'prophet' at their head. The dynamics of the LDS is way different than that of any other church. The LDS is ruled by their prophets. Prophet says 'poligamy rules' then poligamy rules, if the prophet says it doesn't, then it doesn't. It could be construed as a violation of church/state separation to be a member and hold the Oval office. It is certainly a conflict of interest, and no, I don't think it is acceptable risk to put an LDS member in the big chair. You can consider this a liberal opinion...but I don't. I consider it a constitutional one.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think anyone should be president if there is a possibility that his church could determine foreign OR domestic policy. I think that was a problem with the Cater admin, so it isn't because Romney is GOP...but that doesn't help.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Any religious group, heck, any organization *could* influence a nominee. So the president shouldn't be a member of any group at all. No book clubs, no rewards clubs, no bowling clubs, no religious group, no discussion groups.

            Maybe presidents shouldn't have friends or family either, they could influence their decisions...

          2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
            Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Every single recent President has been influenced, sometimes heavily, by a church denomination of some sort. Reagan was influenced by psychics.  It seems to me that the only thing that rules one out of the race entirely is being an atheist (or possibly having a vagina). A Mormon should fit right in.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          1 - What is the LDS prophet going to tell Romney to do?

          2 - Why do you think Romney would pay more attention than JFK? Mormons aren't ruled by their prophets at all, you don't seem to have a very good understanding of how the church operates. They actually specifically tell people not to do something just because a church leader says to, that's in their teachings.

          I consider it an ignorant view. Why don't you ask Shanna if she thinks the prophet rules Mormons?

        3. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's probably because you've never actually read the constitution.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As prejudicial as it may sound, I feel very uncomfortable with the prospect of a Mormon in the White House.

            Christianity is one thing. You've got a book telling stories of what  may have happened thousands of years ago. You've got a guy, you believe to be the messiah. We can't completely disprove all elements of the story, so I can see why some would believe all elements of the story.

            But these break away sects are something totally different. They begin with a prophet making fantastic claims. The prophet gathers a following and even after the prophet is shown to be a snake oil charlatan the sect lumbers on. Making excuses and turning a collective blind eye to the lies the religion was built on.

            People should be free to believe what they want to believe. But I can't, in good conscience, vote anyone into public office who chooses to turn a blind eye to lies in one part of their life. It makes me very uneasy.

            1. undermyhat profile image58
              undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wiccan POTUS?

              Scientology Potus?

              Hindu, Buddhist, Baha-i, Shinto, Animist?

              How about patriotic, constitution loving, free market oriented - that would be a departure from the typical

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I think most people are patriotic and love the constitution. They just  may define it all differently from me. But free market sounds great if it is truly free, across all borders. When you have countries such as China who have the power to manipulate the yen to make their products more affordable in a world market, you have to adjust policy accordingly. I'm all for our government putting the interests of the working person first. And I would have no qualms putting stiff tariffs on incoming products that we know are produced with slave labor.

                1. undermyhat profile image58
                  undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The Chinese currency is the Yuan.  Tariffs harm the market they are supposed to protect.  China's currency manipulations are about to bite that economy hard right on the rump.  China's centrally directed economy is still going strong and it is sliding to a halt - with the sole exception of the I-phonepadpod sector.

                  Protectionism is disastrous.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry I misspelled the currency. I still harbor some resentment from stories I've heard on NPR about political prisoners working for slave wages in factories. You can't compete with prices possible through slave labor.

                    It isn't just China. I personally think any country that is found to allow sweat shops to flourish should be penalized in a free market.

            2. Onusonus profile image85
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are right, it is prejudicial. When I hear Larry O'Donnell belting out a bunch of unchallenged lies about the LDS faith on MSNBC, it makes it very clear to me which group accepts bigotry and ignorance. The so called tolerance of liberalism is a one way street.
              So tell me, do you think I should not be allowed to do my job because I'm a Mormon? After all I work on nuclear submarines, and the prophet just might come knocking on my door asking me to do something to compromise the lives of those two hundred men who go out to sea.
              It seems to me that by your logic Mormons can't be trusted with any kind of responsibility, how about the Mormons who are in office already?
              What about Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Wally Herger (R-Cali.), John Doolittle (R-Cali.), Howard McKeon (R-Cali.), Michael Simpson (R-Idaho), Dean Heller (R- Nevada), Tom Udall (D- New Mexico), Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), or Chris Cannon (R-Utah) Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
              Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada)? Are you sure they are qualified to lead as well? After all they have state militias at their disposal. And those guys all make laws based on whatever the prophet tells them.
              Never mind the fact that patriotism and love of the United States constitution is embedded in their culture to the point that it is specifically written in their official church doctrine.

              I can't find in the Bible where God said he established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom he raised up for very purpose of  preserving the rights and protection of all flesh, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. But I can find it in the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS church.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think anyone should be prohibited from being hired to do a job because of their beliefs, unless their beliefs would prohibit them from fulfilling the obligations of their job. But hiring someone to perform a function within a corporation and electing someone to make decisions on the direction this country will go are different and I will take a person's professed faith into account when selecting a candidate to vote for.

                And your comments about LDS literature that implies God chose men to implement his plan for our constitution is even more troubling. It shows a failure to be able to represent all people of all faiths.  I would never vote for someone I didn't think would be impartial and fair across the board. Thanks for bringing that up. I'll make sure I share it.

                1. Onusonus profile image85
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I think you certainly have an active imagination.
                  Spin it up however you want, the fact remains that it is part of the LDS faith to uphold the United States constitution, and the individual liberties of all of God's children.
                  If that somehow is supposed to apply only to Mormons then it flys over the heads of every member of the LDS church that I've ever had a conversation with. I think you had better step into an LDS church and talk to some actual Mormons before you make that assumption.

                  1. profile image61
                    passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Onsusonus.... Do you think you will be a God one day. The Lord of your own planet. Having many wives and have your children worshiping and glorifying you?

                  2. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I came to that conclusion because of what you posted. Aren't you an LDS? Can't I simply repeat exactly what you said?

              2. profile image61
                passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What did Larry O'Donnell Lie about?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this
                  1. profile image61
                    passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    that s the first time i heard that.

                    this one sound accurate.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aWjIpkxcak

      2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
        Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Quite.  I would say this accusation fits other religions (e.g. the one with the Pope) much better than LDS.

        Not that running for presidency was really the topic of this thread.

        I see no evidence at all that individual Mormons do or must obey the various prophets.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How do you think they got from Hill Cumorah, N.Y. to Salt Lake? And how about that massacre? American catholics habitually ignore the pope. Most of the groups you name don't violate church/state separation. The LDS could. The possibility constitutes too high of a risk for me...sorry...isn't America wonderful? I can vote for whoever I wish, and so can you.

          1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
            Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Historical Mormons have a similar relationship with their leaders as historical Catholics. Modern Mormons have a similar relationship with their leaders as modern Catholics.  I see no distinction.

          2. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, their houses and temples were burned. They were shot, killed, tarred and feathered, beaten, and illegally jailed. They were driven out of states by government order.

            You really don't seem to have a very good understanding of LDS, which is too bad. Usually ignorance and fear/suspicion go hand in hand.

    2. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      John Kennedy was the first Catholic President of the United States. Opponents claimed the Vatican would be running the country and that the President would have a direct line with the Pope for approval of his decisions.

      That never happened.

  6. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Just the Mormon men become Gods. How convenient for the Mormon men. Do the women get to shine their shoes?

    1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
      Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The quote does not reflect current doctrine.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, they change with the wind. Also, not good. American catholics have always been at odds with the pope. It is different in other countries. Then there is that massacre...I don't care much for christians. And, you should know that I have native loyalties which make me take the stand that the LDS, from it's foundation, is in violation of the Native Antiquities Act, in that, one Joseph Smith, excavated and removed native antiquities from their resting place, in what was traditionally Onondaga Territory, and that the antiquities have subsequently and under mysterious circumstances, disappeared. In short, the Act demands the return of the plates which Smith dug up.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And there are no Indian Andels, named Moroni or otherwise.

          1. Druid Dude profile image61
            Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's 'angels'smile

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          1 - The mountain meadow massacre wasn't ordered by the prophet.

          2 - Do you believe that Joseph Smith actually found gold plates inscribed in a hybrid Hebraic-Egyptian?

        3. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
          Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Every major religion has gone through changes.  But as most people in the world belong to one, what can ya do. Live and let live, I say.

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      According to Mormon doctrine, man and woman are one, so they achieve that together.

      Seriously, you wouldn't worry so much if you just learned about their beliefs. Mormons have more respect for women than most people, and their doctrine heavily teaches that women should be respected, loved... almost worshipped big_smile

    3. profile image0
      Kathryn LJposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      smile) at least they'd get a few days off.  I need a wife, I think most women do, not in a weird kinky kind of way but so that so that all the crappy jobs get done by someone else.  Next life, I'm coming back as a man.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The language of the plates is irelevant. Whether they actually existed is also irelevant. The claim is where they were found. That makes them native antiquities under the law. JR...you mean like how native americans are red as a punishment? Is that one of those beliefs I don't know?  Maybe Mormons are white as a punishment, mark of Cain...after all, most people got some color. But, I'm not being nice.smile

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          1 - Does the antiquties act apply to things found before it was enacted? Does it apply to found artifacts that are not Native American? If plates were written in Hebraic-Egyptian, they clearly wouldn't be original Native American artifacts.

          2 - I wasn't aware that Native Americans were red. I've never seen a red person, beside myself after too much sun.

          I'm talking about core Mormon doctrine which you repeatedly show your ignorance on.

        2. profile image61
          passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Druid dude i think you would like to know that one of the definitions for the Name Adam is Reddish skin.......

  7. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Here's a stupid question (it's Saturday afternoon and I'm bored, so give me a break or at least a genuine laugh). Do mormons still think that the moon and sun is inhabited?

    According to a Mormon-friendly and official Church-published source, Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited by people that dressed like Quakers. With Philo Dibble, a close associate with Joseph Smith, as his source, Oliver B. Huntington wrote with significant detail:

    "The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could 'See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see"

    Brigham Young expanded on the teaching that the Sun was inhabited.

    "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fathers. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized".

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, that is not, nor has it ever been, an official church doctrine. There used to be a common belief that people did live on the moon, but that wasn't unique to Mormons in the area.

      The whole issue has been blown out of proportion as well. The account you are probably speaking of was a man over age 50 recalling a blessing he was given by Joseph Smith's father when he was 10 or 12, but records show that it wasn't Joseph Smith's father who gave the blessing.

      Also, Joseph Smith was something of a jokester, so it's hard to know for certain if some of his words we have recorded were serious or in jest.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image77
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I read a mini biography about Smith and his brother. They remind me a lot of these modern socalled "prophets" that spread their BS and see how many people believe them.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's hard to know the truth about Joseph Smith... there have been a lot of lies written about him, both contemporary to his time and afterward. Not very many religious groups were persecuted the way the Mormons were. I have the utmost respect for them. The Mormon religion never had anything to do with power or riches, unlike some faiths.

        2. undermyhat profile image58
          undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh not just modern prophets but ancient ones, too.  Mohamed received the Koran from and angel and lost it - just like the Book of Morman.  At least Christians and Jews kept their books safe.  Where the heck do you lose a book if you aren't on a city bus anyway???

          The only place I ever lost a book was forgetting it on the bus - EVER!! let alone one handed to me by an angel.  I keep all of those with my copy of "DIANETICS"

  8. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
    Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

    No they don't.

    And Catholics used to think you could "buy" the virtue of clergy from the church and use it to get into heaven even if you were a terrible sinner. Like monasteries were some kind of "virtue bank" and they could pay out interest.

    Every religion has some weird stuff in it's past.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes that was very true. In France. the church would con the lower class to give up their valuable possessions in exchange for a "ticket" to get in heaven. This went on untill 1790's when these people started to go hungary and the church and the King ingnored them. The clergy were the first ones to be rounded up and executed when revolution finally go underway. Catholics still pray to their saints. Jesus is #6 on the totem pole when it comes to the list of people to pray to. My mom and dad were both raised Catholic and I heard all the crazy stories.

  9. secularist10 profile image90
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    No crazier than saying a piece of bread and a glass of wine can transform into the body and blood of someone who died 2,000 years ago.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's a methaphoric, traditional thing to promote faith, not historical fact. Kinda like the customs and traditions that go with holidays.

  10. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
    Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

    A lot of things bother me about Romney, but being Mormon is not one of them. I've known a lot of Mormons and they are no different to any other people following a mainstream religion.

  11. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    I am amazed at the number of times that a statement that is obviously false, has been rebuked by the source to which it is attributed and then used as a campaign tactic.

    Mr. Romney is a Mormon. Mormons do not support or allow polygamy. The Mormons are Christians. They do some outstanding missionary work. If you do not like Mr. Romney, that is fine. If you do not like him because is a Mormon that is all right, but not a great reasons. To bring up some statement that has been disputed and is not accepted by the Mormon church just does not make any sense.

    1. undermyhat profile image58
      undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have known many Mormons and have found that they are people.  I was looking for horns and a tail but alas, none were visible.  I suspect however that the child eating takes place during the full moon - that is Mormons, right?  This all reminds me of the garbage the Muslims, Nazis and Czarists used to spout about Jews.

      We don't have to change the name of the infamous anti-semitic creation of the Okhrana - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  Since the LDS has some teachings about Zion - the anti-Mormon hysterics can just use the same title and switch up the villains.

    2. profile image61
      passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have not put down the People who believe in the LDS faith. I do challenge the doctrine and speak about the falseness of the LDS Doctrine.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You challenge old and/or unofficial 'doctrine'. If you are so concerned with truth, why aren't you talking about all the old/unofficial/wrong doctrine of other churches?

        There are a lot more Catholics in the world, why aren't you spreading the word about the Catholic church?

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes he has to use the things that were never doctrine in the first place to continue with his smear campaign. Just because something was said by someone who was LDS does not make it doctrine, just as several parts that were added to the bible, such as the apocrypha, book of Enoch, and other writings were taken out.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My favorite is the claim that Joseph Smith said in a blessing that this guy would be a missionary to the men on the moon.

            The guy got that blessing when he was 10 or 12. He was recalling it when he was 55 or 60. And, there was a record of him getting his blessing, not form Joseph Smith, but from his own father(Joseph Smith's father was in attendence)

            I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics(if you can't tell), but there are people who will use things like that, I'll never know why.

            1. Onusonus profile image85
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, it was a late third hand account from a man named Philo Dibble.
              Some of the scientific teachings of the day suggested that this was the case. And some people might have believed it, even church authorities. It's just the same as those biblical authors who thought the Earth was flat, and held up by four pillars.
              Like the authors of the Bible, prophets of any age are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts. This does not mean, however, that prophets of any era do not receive revelation about matters of eternal significance, they are simply products of their time.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If a prophet lies, he is proven to be a fake. Prophets can't lie, according to statements in the old testament.

                That is one major problem I have with almost every break away sect of the last few centuries. The prophets have proven to be liars on some level, which puts everything else they have to say under suspicion.

                1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image74
                  Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It seems to me that even a prophet is a person of his or her time, and has to interpret what they see in that context.  Thus they can be fallible without being false.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know. But, I've noticed these charismatic leaders who develop a following usually are shady, even during their lifetime. People understandably get snookered, when caught in the thick of it.

                    Later generations are a mystery to me. Why do they ignore glaring inconsistencies in 'the prophesies'? I don't begrudge anyone belief in God, but why such fantastical beliefs? Have you read the claims of this sect? They are going to be gods and goddesses. The gods get a harem so they can produce lots of little baby gods.

                    Why take a simple belief and wrap so much bizarre conjecture around it? What need drives this type of fantasy?

                2. Onusonus profile image85
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If you are going by the old testament then what about the prophecy that the people of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days? No loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. But God changed his mind after the people repented. Shouldn't Jonah be a false prophet as well?

                  How about Ezekiel who said the country of Tyre would be conquered, plundered and destroyed by the Babylonians. That didn't pan out, should we kick Ezekiel out of the bible too?

                  Jeremiah prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" but far from it, he watched his children die, was blinded and died in prison. I guess Jeremiah is out.

                  In 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.
                  Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally. Clearly, human sin or choice will affect whether God will choose to bless or punish them—this is implicit in all such prophecies.

                  And then there's Sampson's prophecy. An angel told his mother that he would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." 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 point is it is really up to the interpretation and faithfulness of the individual as to whether those things were satisfactorily fulfilled or not. Obviously if one refuses to believe in the LDS religion one might say that the things Joseph Smith predicted were false and make him out to be a charlatan, but then again those who refuse to believe in Christianity on the whole could just as easily paint up the mother of Jesus as a harlot who got caught cheating and made the whole thing up. it's all dependent on where your faith lies and how the holy spirit speaks to you should you choose to listen.

                  I for one choose to recognize the fallibility of the people who God has spoken to, and accept the fact that they were delegated the authority to speak in behalf of the creator.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, you have a point there. Which does explain how all of these sects keep lumbering on. Actually, it explains a lot about Christianity in general. You choose to believe it is so and selectively choose the facts that support it, ignoring everything else.

                  2. profile image61
                    passingthewordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Onu... you are always putting down the Bible. But I know that is what the church teaches you.
                    Let me comment on your Jonah statement. Why did't Jonah want to go to Nineveh? Because he knew the grace and saving power of the Lord. He didn't want  Nineveh to be saved, he wanted it to be destroyed. So if you have READ the book of Jonah you will see that Jonah was sent to Nineveh to warn them of the their sins and for them to be delivered. So with all this in mind did Jonah prophicy or did he give a warning? He gave a warning.
                    Don't you think that God knew in advance that they would change their minds and come to him. Come on Onu.... take the blind folds off and think for yourself. don't do what your church make you say.

  12. Jonathan Janco profile image81
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    I love how people seem to use the word blasphemy only when the discussion is about Mormons. It's so amusing. Last I checked, all attempts to rigidly define God are blasphemy. I remember hearing something about graven images or something like that. So, the Sistine Chapel, the painting of the Last Supper and so on are all examples of blasphemy. But since God is endlessly forgiving I guess there's not really anything to worry about.
    smile

  13. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    *Ding*

    Alright, each party must now retire to their corners for a break.

    big_smile

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile. If you are speaking to me and onusnus. Good advice. I don't see us making any headway in this exchange.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wink

        I love to argue... I really wish I didn't though.

  14. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God." Nothing there about lotsa wives. Have a nice day all you LSDers...I mean LDSers!

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't try to use the Bible to discredit polygamy Druid Dude. The Bible actually makes the case that it is OK, especially if God says so.

 
working