LDS: Worthy Mormon men will become a God
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.You are right. Allot of what the LDS church saids is Blasphemy.
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.
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.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.
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!Oh crap... gotta stop taking in homeless animals and donating my grocery money to charitable causes!
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.....
I had another word starting with B in mind.
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.
And the main Mormon church has outlawed polygamy...only certain sects still believe that.
Yet another thread I don't want to be notified about. Not HP's fault. I just unfollowed.
It's old doctrine and even if it wasn't, who cares. Other people believe other things. That's diversity.
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.
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?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.
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.
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...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.
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?That's probably because you've never actually read the constitution.
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.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 typicalWell, 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.
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.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.They are penalized in a free market in that slavery is a foolish practice that creates and reinforces inefficiencies because there is always raw man-power on which to depend. Ultimately it is far less efficient to use slavery to making advances in automation, work conditions, tooling, etc....
Obviously it has serious drawbacks. If not, I think the practice would be more prevalent. People can justify a lot of atrocities in their minds if they know they will profit from them. But, it's a grand way to cut expenses when housing large numbers of political prisoners.
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.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.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.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?
I believe that God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever; whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.
Are you suggesting that God does not have the ability to make his elect, chosen people equal in power and might if he so chooses?I believe
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
So according to this scripture He will never choose to make anyone equal to him and has never made anyone equal to him.
God saids that we can be gods Hebrew for judges who interpret God's Laws and justice. You can INTERPRET God. NOT BE GOD.....
Do you think that you will be equal to our mighty God (EL) and have children that will worship you?There is no LDS doctrine that says our children will worship us. As usual your brash assertions against Mormonism rely heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and other less worthy human emotions. You purposefully disrupt the climate of good will and harmony which currently exists between neighbors of differing faiths when you untruthfully distort what Mormons really believe and practice.
Distort? the Book of Mormon is full of distortions. And you continue to act dumb.
So you don't think that you are going to be a god over another planet or universe, what ever you believe this year?You opened the whole account just to say negative things about Mormonism. So, yeah, I think we know who is pushing an agenda.
According to Onusonus this is not negative, it's the truth. he believes he is going to be a god.
My purpose is to share with people the truth about the LDS faith.You keep saying he said things that he didn't say. Also every word made by this account is on the same topic, cherry-picks info, does not compare fairly to other religions, and does not make the historical context clear.
This = agenda. perhaps you would like to explain why denigrating LDS is so important to you?That is a good question. Other than being the subject of brutality in the 19th centruy, LDS has been rather quiet and a decent civil citizen - once that whole polygamy/pedophilia thing got settled. The biggest problem still with polygamist cults is that they victimize minor girls.
Nouveau what have i said that is negative? I am sharing what what the LDS doctrine teaches. Nouveau, In order for a Mormon to be a Mormon you have to believe in certain things. If you don't believe it then you are not a Mormon. How do i know? I grew up Mormon everyone in my family is Mormon. My grandfather holds a High position in the church. and my father is on the same track.
Onusonus i like the way you are dancing around the subject. But i am used to it.
I came to that conclusion because of what you posted. Aren't you an LDS? Can't I simply repeat exactly what you said?
So when I wrote that Mormons believe the purpose of the Constitution is for "preserving the rights and protection of all flesh", it means that we are impartial, unfair, and incapable of upholding the rights of all other faiths? Clearly that conclusion is contradictory to the rule of law, and the constitution its self which guarantees the free exercise of any religion.
Please tell me how that statement undermines the first amendment.Your exact words were 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.
Believing that the god you believe in through your church is responsible for the constitution means you think this government belongs to your god. Which reinforces the belief in the fact that the government should reflect the values you believe your god to have. It negates the value of other religious beliefs and disenfranchises them in many ways.
God didn't have a hand in our constitution.It does no such thing, but even if it did belong only to "my god", through my church you still can't argue with the fact that "my god" holds sacred the rule of law that every other Christian in the world holds to, and parallels the inherent rights of liberty that all men and women have been granted by that God, and the governmental powers which lie therein are granted through the will of the people.
This is of course in diametrical opposition to other forms of religion like Islam which invoke political laws through the powers granted to the top tiers of society that are administered to the masses.
Hence we have natural law in American society, which are simply laws that are evident in nature, eg.; "We hold these truths to be self evident..."
And they have political laws in Islam which dictate when and where a man should pray, if he can cut his beard, when to bathe, and a whole book of rules of conduct that if applied in American culture would cause the largest possible regression of individual rights for men and especially for women that this country could ever possibly experience.
So you see Mormons share the same values as the framers of the constitution of the United states in that we recognize natural law, but also uphold the idea that what ever country we live in, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Hence Utah never seceded from the union even when the laws that were being applied by the governing administration were against their beliefs.Islam does nothing more than Christianity has attempted to do when they held power. As Christianity is attempting to do, on some levels, in America today. As all religions attempt to do. Which is why a wall of separation must be maintained to ensure the common good.
As I stated previously, I have no problem with, and fully support, everyone's right to believe whatever they want to. But, leave the reasons for those beliefs where they belong. In your head. When you verbalize your reasons and use them as justification for your actions I have the right to analyze your faith and comment.I don't have to acquiesce to your beliefs. I don't have to ignore them when choosng a candidate to vote for.
Since you use your belief as justification for accepting truths the rest of us consider to be self evident, what would happen if another 'prophet' rose in your ranks? If that 'prophet' told you other things should be considered self evident? Who would you follow? Your God or your conscience? Using religious dogma for your reasoning leaves me to wonder. Following a religion that has historically considered other races and women on a lesser footing than white men leaves me to wonder.
Religions who make excuses and turn a blind eye to previous missteps by their religion always leave me to wonder."Wall of separation" is not in the constitution and you might be surprised to know that the majority of the founding fathers were indeed Christians. Not power hungry Christians. Just God fearing, Jesus loving, freedom fighting, Christians.
I think it is interesting that you are so openly opposed to the religion that Romney follows which breeds men and women of high integrity and true character, yet makes him exempt for presidential aspirations, yet you have no problem with having a guy in office that listened to this guy for over twenty years.
I find it interesting that you assume I don't have a problem with Obama's affiliation with Rev. Wright. I have observed that the religious prefer to feel persecuted as opposed to honestly listening.
Of course, that lack of honesty leads the religious to insist that the founding fathers didn't know their intent. Hadn't learned from history.
Those who turn a blind eye to history are destined to repeat it; unless those of us who do stand firm in our resolve continue to demand the wall of separation within our government. It is a hard row to hoe in this environment, what with so many politicians wearing their faith on their shirt sleeves and the religious whining that their god wants to run our government.I am wondering if anyone worth taking seriously actually proposes a theocratic state - at least as far as Americans go - even Muslim Americans. Islam insists that the only legitimate civil authority is religious authority but many very vocal American Muslims are actively working to reform that idea. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is an important one.
Well, it isn't a simple question of democracy vs. theocracy. The religious right wants their idea of right and wrong to trample on the liberties of everyone else. When you insist that your idea of what God wants should outweigh personal liberties of others you overstep your bounds, by my way of thinking. Your conscience is not my conscience; and was never meant to be.
So murder is okay? Theft? Rape?Spousal abuse?Infanticide?
There is a moral underpnning to a civil social order that comports with religious understandings of morality. If you wish to strip society of religious moral ideas and religate all to secualr law than rounding up and executing Jews or Kulacks is legal but no one would call them moral.Murder is not a religious moral idea, it is just a moral idea, full stop. Atheists don't think assault and murder is just dandy--they oppose it just like everyone else. Just because you need God to tell you hurting and killing is bad doesn't mean that is the only basis for arriving at the idea. Some people just understand that hurting and killing violates the natural rights of other people and undermines civil society... and means that others can hurt and kill them and their loved ones without repercussions. Moral law is easily arrived at purely through self-interest if nothing else.
I'm not sure I follow you there. Your first paragraph appears to be an indictment against religious morality...then you appear to imply you can't have morals without religion. I've obviously misunderstood you somewhere in that post.
But, to answer by my understanding of your second paragraph. We don't need religion in order to be moral. Man has obviously risen in his understanding of human interaction and what constitutes a civil society. Self evident truths. Remember? If you look upon those agreed upon truths, you can develop all the laws necessary to give the populace the tools they need to live in peace and the room to pursue prosperity. Society can, of course, devolve into something else but they must first decide they do not agree on these simple building blocks of their law.
You don't need to believe in God to believe in the rights of others.
i suppose there will always be people who will repeat history, especially if they read the ever popular revisionist history implemented by modern day liberals. The fact that there seems to be no comparative difference between the motives of the LDS church and Reverend Wright's church in your mind is quite astonishing.
I think it's hilarious how you insist on ignoring the history that led to the constitution. But I'm not surprised you need to believe I equate the motives of the LDS to Rev. Wright. It's to be expected.
that s the first time i heard that.
this one sound accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aWjIpkxcakWhy do they put this Larry O'Donnell on tv. This guy is crazy...
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Just the Mormon men become Gods. How convenient for the Mormon men. Do the women get to shine their shoes?
The quote does not reflect current doctrine.
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.
And there are no Indian Andels, named Moroni or otherwise.
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?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.
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
) 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.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.
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.Druid dude i think you would like to know that one of the definitions for the Name Adam is Reddish skin.......
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".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.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.
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.
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"
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.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.
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.
That's a methaphoric, traditional thing to promote faith, not historical fact. Kinda like the customs and traditions that go with holidays.
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.
- Larry Wallposted 12 years ago
0I 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.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.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.
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?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.
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.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.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.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.
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?It is a social psychological phenomanon. Cult leaders are able to tap a deep seeded need of the individual to belong,. to be loved, to be safe, etc.... This is a vulnerable state and once joining the cult one has that connection continually reinforced by subtle and gross means. Just ask Katie Holmes.
Ok. I get the desire to belong. But, how does wanting to belong make you decide that stepping away from reality is a good thing? And then, broadcasting this break from reality as if it is a perfectly normal thing people should accept?
The human psyche is very complex - billions of professional man hours are dedicated to its understanding, testing, examination and treatment.
As someone with a background in Sociology - I would say everyone is clueless. Any effort to remove absurdity from humanity fruitless.
From my point of view all religion is a break from reality, but statistically speaking it is normal and I do accept it. Mainly because I don't really care what people believe beyond how it affects what they do. And the Mormons I have know have lead very positive lives and done no harm to anyone.
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.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.
As do you selectively support the things you can find that do not support it, and ignore the things that do.
I don't think so. I know it might seem that way to you, but I swear if I saw a miracle or heard a prophesy that came true I honestly think I'd admit it. I've just had too many people in my life introduce me to what they considered to be the end all religion; but when you break it down and look at it from front to back it becomes obvious what it is. And it isn't a God. It isn't a message from God. It's just people controlling other people who desperately want something they can believe in.
Well that's your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. I myself have experienced many miracles, and felt the presence of what can only be described as the divine.
Considering the fraction of knowledge which mankind has of the physical world I always smile at those who rule out the possibility of a creator as if they instinctively know things that cannot yet be explained by modern science. It is quite a remarkable sense of intuition, almost supernatural.I'd have to agree with you that ruling a creator out is jumping the gun. But, I see religion as little different from atheism. Both philosophies are driven by the same needs. The need to feel as if you know something that cannot yet be known. And you are right that all we possess thus far in our study of our environment is a miniscule fraction of the information we are destined to obtain.
I honestly believe ego causes both sides to jump to conclusions. But, the religious tend to dogmatically hold to the conclusions others claim they've come to. Refusing to honestly evaluate all data. And I believe they should be better than that. If God exists he is bigger than that.
You all tend to take the idea and package it into a tidy little exclusive box that allows some to lord themselves over others. I see this to be in direct conflict with observations of the way reality works. So, if a creator exists, you are all working against the design. You are all standing in the way of progress. And almost all of you refuse to see this. You all talk about how loving your religion is and then immediately tick off a litany of reasons why you exclude some groups, why some will fair better than others, why some won't make the cut and why your gods are offended by the sensibilities of others.
I've had some dealings with sects that stand apart from main stream Christianity. Mennonites, JW and Seventh Day Adventists. They are all wonderful people who attempt to build a community based on brotherly love. And it looks utopian, until someone rocks the boat. There is no compassion or love in the collective response that attempts to clamp down on, and stamp out, independent thought. Everyone has to toe the party line. Sometimes against their conscience; or else the love of the community is withheld. It is wrong, by my standards. It is wrong by the bar I have determined would be the cosmic bar.
I honestly believe that if the universe began as the result of creation, the force behind it holds all creation equally dear. There could be no heaven for some and not others. There could be no 'levels' that placed some above others. There can be no cosmic rewards for thinking you are better than another person within this life. Nothing could be smiling down on the conflict religion causes and the need religion has to separate one individual from another.
I believe the teachings of Jesus attest to this as do the philosophies of other great spiritual thinkers. As does observation of the way reality functions.
think of this. What religion did Jesus belong to? he was not apart of any religion. He followed what the Lord said. a true man of God follows the bible, the words of God (Jesus).
I'm afraid those of you following the Bible are following a book. Nothing more, in most cases. Looking to separate yourself when that does not appear to be what we were meant to do.
It is your contention that most Christians seek only to separate themselves from others? That would be a surprise to over 2000 years of missionaries martyred for not staying separate.
I wouldn't say 100% of Christians seek to be separate, maybe just 99.9%. Religion is usually an attempt to create a personal cosmic pedestal. That is what the religious appear to use their books for.
lol. Depending on your point of view (which is difficult to ascertain at this juncture) that could be sincerity or sarcasm.
It is always valuable to reflect on what one says.
Jesus was a Jew. He said he was not here to undo the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. He was circumcised, taught in temple, obeyed the spirit of the law, was baptised in the old fashion, taught rabbinical lessons using all the techniques that a rabbi would use, he was called rabbi by his disciples, he observed Passover - Jesus was a Jew.
Christianity is a Jewish reform movement and not the first but certainly the most successful.did he not criticizes the way the rabbis taught and acted? Did he not say that he is the new covanet?
Just something to think about.Wow, sounds like a reformer to me. He used rabbinical formulea to teach lessons about the relationship between God and Man. This is part of the rabbinical tradition. He used bread and wine as the Pascle Sacrifice - like Melchezedek. he then replaced that sacrifice with himself establishing a new relationship between God and Man. Moses had established a new relationship that was revolutionary but fulfilled Gods promise to Abraham. Jesus' new relationship fulfills the promises made by God through the prophets. These all point to Jewish reform movement.
Jesus was often welcomed by rabbis, just not all those in the Temple in Jerusalem. Even there the opinion of his legitimacy was split. I think it is funny that Christians still reject their Jewish roots.
who is dening anything?
I am just confused where you are coming from. are you saying jewish is a religon? that christianity is a sect of this jewish?
how are you using this word reform. please explain so I can understand where you are coming from.
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.You obviously do not understand the concept of playing devils advocate. I am stressing the point that people, though chosen by God, are none the less just as fallible as anyone else. Not only that but one could criticize biblical prophets in the like manner that you criticize LDS prophets when not regarding facts or context.
Any sane person who walks into an LDS church could not possibly walk out of that building thinking that those people put down the bible. I believe in the bible just as much as I believe in the book of Mormon.Do you believe that there are mistakes in the bible? Do you believe that the book of mormon has mistakes? Which one is the most correct? which is completely translated correctly. Does the LDS church teach that the bible causes people to stumble? if so, why would you us it?
as a former LDS believer, yes i finally said it. (name removed and family and old LDS friends turned their backs on me, but that is ok) I know that the lds church believe that the bible is second rate to the Bof M.
In my opinion, the LDS church us the bible as a gateway, a pitch. People know the bible and that how the get their hooks in people. us what they know then slowly ver them toward the LDS side..Just my opinion.The Book of Mormon is a companion to the bible, and acts as a second witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is what the church teaches about the bible. We read the Bible in our meeting houses just as much as we read the Book of Mormon. We study out of both books as they are both meant to increase our faith, knowledge, and understanding of Gods plan for his children.
As I said before what you are presenting is a myriad of half truths designed to sensationalize people into dismissing the validity of the LDS religion.
I dare anybody here to ask any faithful member of the LDS church if they do not believe in the bible, because I guarantee the response will be quite contrary to what you are presenting.Onus... This is what the leaders of the Church feel about the Bible
Journal of Discourses Vol.2p75...The Bible is not a sufficient guide; the words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by;
the bible is Corrupted—
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (8th article of faith)
Insufficient—
Joseph Smith taught that "many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled " (History of the Church, v. 1, p. 245)
Need additional revelation—
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (9th article of faith)
Orson Pratt's lack of confidence in the Bible is obvious: "...and who, in his right mind, could for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).
"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).
This dosen't sound good.If you believe then that the bible is perfect the way that it is, that is fine for you to say. There are some translations out there of the bible which I do not agree with, such as the Jefferson bible, or the Jehovah's witness' bible. Are they worth reading to every christian?
And there are many different translations of the bible, some which might be more accurate than others and some that are egregiously mistranslated. For instance the wicked bible had an error which left out the word "not", making it ok to commit adultery in Exodus 20:14 Is that a good bible? one might call that a "careless transcription"
I would say no.
And then there are the early catholic bibles which include the Apocrypha. Those bibles I do not agree with, and some might go so far as to say that the apocrypha was added to sacred texts by corrupt priests.
Contextually those statements are based on common sense. Now let me ask you do you think any of those bibles would cause people to error?
ous..... I told you along time ago that i us the King James version. I don't know about the other translation. I us the King james because I us the strongs to helps me take some of the words back to it original meanings. Thats why i us the king james.
Do you share the same views about the bible as your leads shared above?
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.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
*Ding*
Alright, each party must now retire to their corners for a break. "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!
Related Discussions
- 60
LDS say they have 14 million members
by passingtheword 12 years ago
Salt Lake City TribuneGraphing activity: When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey...
- 18
Can the LDS Church accidently become Christian?
by passingtheword 12 years ago
With Lds church change their views every so often (Modern day revelation). Can they change all of the cultish views and become Christian?
- 25
Are Christians Mormons? what about spiritual gifts, view of the Godhead, deifica
by Demas W Jasper 4 years ago
Are Christians Mormons? what about spiritual gifts, view of the Godhead, deification,new revelation?Spiritual gifts, a social view of the Godhead, deification, post-mortal evangelization, divine embodiment, and continuing revelation,have more and more Christian thinkers thinking.
- 18
Why is Mitt Romney doing more harm than good on his tour of Europe?
by Xenonlit 12 years ago
Why is Mitt Romney doing more harm than good on his tour of Europe?Mitt Romney clearly is incapable of dealing with foreign relations. He is making us ask if America can afford to let him do more damage when he lands in Israel and Poland.
- 90
What is the single biggest accomplishment of the Obama Presidency?
by Brad Masters 12 years ago
Remember, an accomplishment is something that actually results in something good happening for the US. Something that is being used and taken advantage by the people. It is not just passing bills, or starting plans that won't take effect for several years. Something that is beneficial and solves a...
- 19
If we have a new administration in November, will it really make a difference?
by Patricia Scott 12 years ago
If we have a new administration in November, will it really make a difference?Every four years, we look for new changes, a new breath of fresh air, and new hope. Do you think that it will happen if we have a new administration?