mormons are.......... how can i describe it............ forget it. let me make this clear. LDS is NOT God's favorite religeon.
shareI think you are possibly one of the most idiotic people alive.
share--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all the truth,
O God of truth, deliver us.
Hugh B. Brown
General conference Oct 6, 1962
Book of mormon truths
1. How about the truth the horses talked about in the book of mormon did not exist on the american continent until after the spanish brought them.
2. How about the truth that we have not found a single of the hundreds of thousands of metal swords used in the book of mormon battles.
3. How about the truth that there is no writing resembling egyptian or reformed egyptian found anywhere in the americas.
4. How about the truth that there is no evidence of wheels on the american continent before the spaniards let alone charriots.
5. How about the truth that the DNA of natives from top to bottom of the americas shows an ancestry from mongolia, not jerusalem.
6. How about the truth that there is no archeological evidence of the civilizations described in the book of mormon.
1. How about the truth the horses talked about in the book of mormon did not exist on the american continent until after the spanish brought them.
really!!! no way! Do you know someone who was there!!
2. How about the truth that we have not found a single of the hundreds of thousands of metal swords used in the book of mormon battles.
Actually...they weren't metal, infact there was just the one i believe "Labans Sword" which was brought from Isreal. The rest i think were made from rock and had metal points every few inches.
3. How about the truth that there is no writing resembling egyptian or reformed egyptian found anywhere in the americas.
Your right, it wasbrought from Isreal, once again...wow your didn't do much research on us before bringing your blade to bare did you?
4. How about the truth that there is no evidence of wheels on the american continent before the spaniards let alone charriots.
Wait...why do people keep bringing up wheels...
5. How about the truth that the DNA of natives from top to bottom of the americas shows an ancestry from mongolia, not jerusalem.
Wow...wat'd we do??? Take DNA from every single person around? including the hidden tribes in the amazon?
6. How about the truth that there is no archeological evidence of the civilizations described in the book of mormon
Hey smart guy, on the cover of national geographic, i'm not sure which...trying to remember what year was it...I think...it was 2002-early 2003 somewhere between there, they found carvings of a huge battle between two tribes one obviously lighter the other darker. And what the heck do you think the Incas were!!!! How about the Aztecs!!! your fricking "invisible" civilization is right in front of your nose!
Tigatron
To start if you don't have knowledge on a specific aspect of someone's argument "no way! Do you know someone who was there!!" is not a valid argument. And your response to the second argument
"Actually...they weren't metal, infact there was just the one i believe "Labans Sword" which was brought from Isreal. The rest i think were made from rock and had metal points every few inches"
You can't state something that isn't even remotely related to fact, and was probably a proposed hypothesis by some supposed mormon scholar, as fact.
I think the thing that needs to be understood by everyone on both sides of this argument is that there is not and probably will never be conclusive evidence proving or disproving Mormonism or most any religion for that matter.
Every religion makes bold claims requiring you to either believe it or not. For Catholics it’s whether or not Peter was the first pope. For Christians in general whether or not Christ was the son of God. The eastern religions are no different.
Every religion requires you to exercise faith.
The important thing to remember is that religion in general helps people to lead good lives. They teach good things. But it is something that should be left up to the individual.
I just don't see the point in searching out arguments either for or against any specific religion. If you believe, then believe, if you don't, then don't.
<<I think the thing that needs to be understood by everyone on both sides of this argument is that there is not and probably will never be conclusive evidence proving or disproving Mormonism or most any religion for that matter.>>
I understand what you're saying. However, when it comes to ARCHEOLOGICAL backup, the cities and people of the Bible have been substantiated over and over again by digs and discoveries. The Book of Mormon has not one shred of archaeological or DNA proof of its claims. When Joseph Smith wrote the book in the early 19th century he had no idea that his wild and imaginative story (mostly cobbled together from the King James Bible and a book called "A View of the Hebrews") could be easily disproven by technology and research.
Yes, it is true that certain small aspects of the bible have been proven. It is proven that people lived in the middle east thousands of years ago. It is true that some of the kings named in the bible were actual historical kings. Some of the towns still bear the same name. But beyond that what is there? Nothing that proves Christ was the son of God. And if you can't prove that Christ was the son of God than for all we know the bible is merely a historical fiction novel. A poorly written one at that.
With the book of Mormon there are supposed legends of Quetzalcoatl as well as certain other archeological artifacts found mostly in Central America that bolster certain Mormon beliefs. Just as there are many supposed proofs against Mormons and The Book of Mormon. The fact of the matter is that we don't know very much at all about the people that lived in the Americas' thousands of years ago. I will not pretend to be schooled on the topic at all. But I will say that there is still a lot that we don't know. There were large populations of people that suddenly vanished without a trace that we know very little if nothing about.
So why do we bother expending so much energy disproving a religion? Now I can understand attempting to sway people away from "suicide by kool-aid". But are Mormons such horrible people. Are they any different than Presbyterians, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims?
If you can give me a valid reason why individual Mormons are such horrible people I will gladly rescind my comments and opinions.
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/index.php?bn=exmobb_biography
Here is the testimony of a few hundred individuals who have been impacted negatively the the Mormon church. These are just the people that took the effort to write and share about it. Is this enough for you?
If you're really interested, you might try reading "More than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, or his more extensive "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Or "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. These might interest you especially, because both these men began their study of religion as atheists and ended up as thoroughly convinced Christians.
"Certain small aspects" of the Bible is the understatement of the year!
People who don't believe that there is anything beyond what they can see and touch, and believe that "truth" is a non-existent or relative concept, will never understand why people of faith take their beliefs so seriously. You consider religious preference to be as important a question as "what color shirt should I wear today?" We think it's a matter of life or death.
Well, at your recommendation I perused a few of those postings mentioned. And once again it was mostly opinion. Or "they weren't nice to me, the other church was nicer". Those I cannot accept as valid reasons as to the evilness of the Mormon religion or any religion for that matter. I do not honestly believe that most of the leadership of the Mormon Church is willfully trying to mislead and lie to their members. I am quite sure that most of them whole heartedly believe everything they preach. Just as I think most of the leaders of the Catholic Church fully believe the same thing. They all believe they are doing "the Lord's work". And honestly maybe they both are.
Each and everyone one of us is different and has different needs and can be reached in different ways. For some Buddhism speaks to you, for others Taoism, and yes believe it or not Mormonism does the same thing for others. Is Christianity the only way to heaven? I hope not. Is God the dictator he is so often made out to be in western religion? I doubt it. But each person will reach heaven or find their own form of peace in their own way and on their own time.
Back to LCShackley's comments. I respect your right to believe exactly as you want to. But can you also understand that while I am not a complete unbeliever I do not feel the need to be "saved" as most religions dictate. Just as you have such strong faith that your religion will be your salvation. I too have faith that my own way of life will provide for my salvation. I can appreciate that your faith defines your life and I hope that it continues to enrich it.
And I appreciate your recommendations of suggested readings. However, stating that they were atheists turned Christians doesn't do much to bolster the claims. There are just as many Christians turned atheists.
[deleted]
And just as you have faith that it is his favorite religion, I have faith that he has no favorite religion. And what proof do you seem to speak of? Unless I am mistaken it doesn't appear that anyone has yet found specific proof on either side of the religious debate. All we can do is spout off belief and conjecture.
shareI have to agree with you, Erik0003. Letters that are mostly just opinion are not credible sources for denouncing a religion. Especially letters from a site like this. Just for the record, I have a love-hate relationship with the church right now. But a site like this isn't a credible source for getting information on this matter. Especially since it seems to be only reflecting the negative opinion of the webmaster. It doesn't try to explain why the church might be doing these things, and allowing people to decide for themselves.
share"The important thing to remember is that religion in general helps people to lead good lives. They teach good things. But it is something that should be left up to the individual."
I have to say I disagree. 14% of Americans have no belief in a god or gods and yet only .4% (that's point four percent or two-fifths of a percent) of people in prison do not believe in god. I feel you don't need religion to lead good lives, just as long as you treat others the way they deserve to be treated and not out of fear of a higher being.
The reason people denigrate other religions is to bolster their own weak faith. Period.
When your faith is strong, you simply don't worry about what others believe. You realize that, to exercise influence of others, you simply practice your beliefs, and be the best example of the tenets of your faith.
But those with very weak faith, who are just really not at all sure what truth is, cling to what they have as a shipwrecked sailor does to a bit of flotsam, and ANYTHING that might threaten to swamp their makeshift raft must be attacked and destroyed if at all possible.
There are entire industries dedicated to attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for example. For the most part they exist as most such scams do, to provide a living for the "wise" purveyors. But their pray are the weak-minded and those of little faith who somehow think that their miniscule pin-pricks (mostly repetitions of the same oft-exposed lies and half-truths) will bolster what they believe - or THINK they believe.
Dude, mormonism is like scientology. Anyone not in the religion things it's all a laugh.
shareAbout number 5. There is also evidence that some native americans came from Europe. Arrow heads that have been found show clearly similar in type found in Europe.
They were found in New Mexico.
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all the truth,
O God of truth, deliver us.
Hugh B. Brown
General conference Oct 6, 1962
There seems today to be a tendency toward flippant thinking, a lack of thought. There seems to be a tendency to belittle what our fathers and mothers thought because we feel we have made some progress scientifically. We are too ready to conclude that everything from past generations is now folly and that our main duty today, as far as the past is concerned, is to get away from it. There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific -- that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in. Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one's self.
I should like to awaken in everyone a desire to investigate, to make an independent study of religion, and to know for themselves whether or not the teachings of the Mormon church are true. I should like to see everyone prepared to defend the religion of his or her parents, not because it was the religion of our fathers and mothers but because they have found it to be the true religion. If one approaches it with an open mind, with a desire to know the truth, and if one questions with a sincere heart what one hears from time to time, he or she will be on the road to growth and service. There are altogether too many people in the world who are willing to accept as true whatever is printed in a book or delivered from a pulpit. Their faith never goes below the surface soil of authority. I plead with everyone I meet that they may drive their faith down through that soil and get hold of the solid truth, that they may be able to withstand the winds and storm of indecision and of doubt, of opposition and persecution. Then, and only then, will we be able to defend our religion successfully. When I speak of defending our religion, I do not mean such defense as an army makes on the battlefield but the defense of a clean and upright and virtuous life lived in harmony with an intelligent belief and understanding of the gospel.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this practical view of religion: that religion should help us here and now; that we should not have to wait until after we are dead to get any benefits; that religion as understood and applied makes men and women more successful, happier, more contented, gives them aspiration and hope; that religion is the vitalizing force, religion is that which gives men and women an ideal, an ideal so high that it may be seen from both sides of the valley of life.
The religion of the Latter-day Saints teaches youth that as children of God, they are expected to acquire experience as they go through life and that experience will ripen into knowledge, that knowledge will ripen into wisdom and intelligence, and that their greatness will be in proportion to their intelligence. So the religion of the Latter-day Saints is not just theory from a book or taught in church. The gospel is a plan of which God is the author, a plan of which we are all necessary parts. My religion sweetens my life. My religion, if properly lived, helps me to be a better friend to my associates, a better neighbor, a better citizen, a better father, a better man. If I am sincere in it, my religion forbids me to do to my neighbors what I would not want them to do to me, either in word or act. My religion, in other words, is that which is the greatest part of me.
I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.
As we all proceed to make our individual "declarations of independence," I hope we can distinguish between liberty and license, that we can realize that freedom is only a blessing if it is accompanied by wisdom and intelligence. At the same time, we all need to resist the down-drag of mental laziness which sometimes leads to the premature hardening of the intellectual arteries. And I would especially urge all of us to avoid sluggishness of spirit, which is the worst kind of lethargy. Some people are phlegmatic to a degree that would make a turtle seem intolerably vivacious. I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.
Both science and religion beget humility. Scientists and teachers of religion disagree among themselves on theological and other subjects. Even in our own church men and women take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.
We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity. No one would have us become mere tape recorders of other people's thoughts. We should be modest and teachable and seek to know the truth by study and faith. There have been times when progress was halted by thought control. Tolerance and truth demand that all be heard and that competing ideas be tested against each other so that the best, which might not always be our own, can prevail.
Knowledge is the most complete and dependable when all points of view are heard. We are in a world of restlessness and skepticism, where old things are not only challenged but often disappear, but also a world of miraculous achievement, undreamed of accomplishment, and terrifying power. Science offers wonderful tools for helping to create the brotherhood of humanity on earth, but the cement of brotherhood does not come from any laboratory. It must come from the heart and mind and spirit of men and women.
We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion... One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking. More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings.
We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.
And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within...
[deleted]
One of the final threads that held me to my faith was the feelings of the spirit. I knew that those were real. I knew that I had really had those feelings. Over time, my anthropology background and my basic understanding of humans took over. We are spiritual beings hard-wired to have spiritual experiences, but we have them in culturally appropriate ways. There are not too many Laotians seeing visions of the Virgin Mary just as there are no Australian aborigines receiving Buddhist enlightenment or Norwegian Lutherans going on vision quests. I also read a helpful article by a professional hypnotist about auto-suggestion. Finally, that last thread was cut. We feel the Spirit because we want to feel the Spirit and because we have been taught that we should feel the Spirit and that means that we are hearing truth. Unfortunately, I have felt that same feeling in so many non-religious settings that I have to conclude that it's not a reliable indicator of truth.
shareOne of the final threads that held me to my faith was the feelings of the spirit. I knew that those were real. I knew that I had really had those feelings. Over time, my anthropology background and my basic understanding of humans took over. We are spiritual beings hard-wired to have spiritual experiences, but we have them in culturally appropriate ways. There are not too many Laotians seeing visions of the Virgin Mary just as there are no Australian aborigines receiving Buddhist enlightenment or Norwegian Lutherans going on vision quests. I also read a helpful article by a professional hypnotist about auto-suggestion. Finally, that last thread was cut. We feel the Spirit because we want to feel the Spirit and because we have been taught that we should feel the Spirit and that means that we are hearing truth. Unfortunately, I have felt that same feeling in so many non-religious settings that I have to conclude that it's not a reliable indicator of truth.
Had you never had any spiritual experiences which cannot be explained? Not just good feelings, but specific phone numbers, information, etc. which you've never heard before? Haven't you ever woke up just knowing someone had died, and called them instantly to find out they really had? I don't know, but no hardwiring or hypnotism answer can explain what I've seen...
www.colinandbethany.com/phpBB2
Haven't you ever woke up just knowing someone had died, and called them instantly to find out they really had?No, I can't say that I have ever had this experience. I have never talked with a person who has just died, or even one that has been dead for a longe period of time. I am now pondering how a phone line can connect to the beyond so that this is possible.
Soooo...
What teaching of the present-day leadership do you "reject" because you "investigated" and found it to be false?
And if you have found such an important thing, why do you remain in the Church?
wow i just think its so great when ignorant *beep* like to tear down other peoples religions and beliefs. you know, if you dont want to hear about lds faith or that then dont, but you dont have the right to try and disprove and shoot down other peoples beliefs. true christians, no matter what denomination, would never do such a thing because christ wouldnt. we all have agency to choose our beliefs. if your not a christian and choose to argue with people over religion then you are just sad.
share[deleted]
Before starting, I'd like to greet all of you, my IMDB mates, specially my old pal, iknowthischurchistrue (we've been arguing in other threads).
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka mormons), but please don't scroll thw page down just because I'm from the Church, I'll try to be impartial.
Erik0003, thanks for being impartial (or at least that's what I noticed), the World NEEDS more people like you; and, yes, you're right about Tigatron1's replies, they are kind of opinions, but they were really nice, and the best of all, might be true!
Hello, iknowthischurchistrue, it's nice to meet you again. I'll have to ask you to stop talking bad thingd the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Why? Simple:
First of all, I think that a Movie-related forum isn't the right place for religion-related arguments.
second of all, (very related to the next one) there's something called Religion Freedom, and that includes respecting other churches. Not me, nor you, nor anybody can go against ANY church.
Third and last, I'm a memeber of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I believe that this church is true, but I RESPECT other people believes. I live in a most-Catholic place, and I can talk normally with my catholic and other religion friends about the Bible, our churches, and those without arguments. I hope and pray for you to find the same. Have a nice day.
Your brother in spirit
LDS_Leinad
[deleted]
So lastly I think it is critical that we discuss our faiths. Your faith tells all of us that you are right and the Christian faith (and all other faiths are wrong)
"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).
So it seems that what you respect and what your LDS god(s) respect are much different.
Brigham Young wrote this,
"The religion of God embraces every fact that exists in all the wide arena of nature, while the religions of men consist of theory devoid of fact, or of any true principle of guidance; hence the professing Christian world are like a ship upon a boisterous ocean without rudder, compass, or pilot, and are tossed hither and thither by every wind of doctrine" (Journal of Discourses 10:265).
Yet it is the Christian faith that seems to have more facts in line, the LDS faith is consistently changing this or that to try to cover up errors.
[deleted]
Nooma you need relax pal. It appears from your account history that you spend all your time on this website bashing mormons. I've read alot of your posts because it fascinates me where people who seem as intelligent as you are can find time to rip apart someone else as much as you do here.
The last thread you were on was the JOhn Heder page and since you ran out of things to say, you COME HERE and start it all over again!
Now I'm not a Mormon or a Baptist. I don't know what I am really. But I do know that it's people like you that turn me and many others away from organized religion. I thought being a Christian meant being happy and talking about Jesus and all you wanna do is argue. How do you expect to be a "fisher of men"?
I'll tell you that just cause Mormons aren't perfect doesn't make you perfect! You can go on trying to find something that Brigham Young said in his sleep one time, but maybe you shoud look into your own history. You should look up some of the things wicked popes and priests did and said through out history. You should look at all the problems in Mainstream Christianity today! There was a Baptist church in my neighborhood recently that just split up because the congregation couldn't agree on wether Gay marriages were right or not! Half of my friends who went to Christian Schools growing up could tell you some stories. They still are working up the stamina to forgive their parents. Most the people who go to church in my community only go because their wife drags them out of bed every Sunday morning and they honestly have no faith. I just read a recent world study that out out of all the members of all the christian churches in the world, only 2 percent of them actually are active. Perhaps this is why God told Joseph Smith that "they are all wrong".
These are a few and as you can see I am not a religious expert. But perhaps you should check out the "beam in your own eye" or whatever it says. I tell if I ever did become a Christian, I would be a mormon. They're doctrine actually makes somewhat of sense.
[deleted]
Firstly I'll respond to your lastly Geode... so from the "official LDS Church" position which is Brigham Young? Is he a false prophet or a misunderstood one or a corrected one... the last of which puts him in the first category?
And I'd love to see you show the "official position" of the LDS church as far as whether or not they agree the basic doctrinal positions on who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us (salvation) and what the future holds for believers and non-believers that is put forward by lets say, the Southern Baptists or Presbyterian USA or my own denomination the Baptist General Conference... Here's a portion of the BGC affirmation of faith, what would the "official position" be on these?
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
1 WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and aordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of btongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 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.
10 We believe in the literal agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be erenewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to gendure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
1. The Word of God
We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
2. The Trinity
We believe that there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons, that these are equal in every divine perfection, and that they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence and redemption.
3. God the Father
We believe in God, the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. We believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of each person, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus Christ
We believe in Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in His virgin birth, sinless life, miracles and teachings. We believe in His substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for His people, and personal visible return to earth.
5. The Holy Spirit
We believe in the Holy Spirit who came forth from the Father and Son to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and to regenerate, sanctify, and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Christ, and that He is an abiding helper, teacher and guide.
6. Regeneration
We believe that all people are sinners by nature and by choice and are, therefore, under condemnation. We believe that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Those are pretty basic examples of orthodox Christian theology... which of these will your current prophet affirm as true? Now remember, the doctrine of the Trinity is inherent in each of the descriptions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And also remember, unless you are one of the three you don't get to determine any "official position."
[deleted]
_______________________________________________________________________________
A few of discussions on the Heder board were pretty cool. I don't think you'll find that I had many rude things to say
_______________________________________________________________________________
Well I did a little homework but I found some stuff. Funny, I find myself doing exactly what YOU do with old, dead Mormon Prophets... =)
Here are some comments from the Heder page...
* Your end time understanding sure sounds like another cult I've heard about, the Jehovah's
Witnesses... is that true?
-Well thats not very nice!
* Keep Working, You'd better be knocking when the trumpet sounds!
-How Christian is that??
* Keep working, it's all you can do, grace has no place for a JW.
-I think Jesus will decide that. "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
* Check out Highlandscc, Nooma, and some of what I've written. there are a lot of bad posts up there,
-This was posted by you as Amarantos, when you pretended to be 3
different people on your thread! How deceitful! That's almost
as confusing as the Trinity doctrine! Does any Christian really
even understand that? Actually...please don't respond to that
because I just get more confused when you try to explain it.
Like I said it's only a few but hey it's late at night! The mormons are the only church that believes in living scripture(prophets, apostles etc.) instead of relying on ancient creeds passed down by wicked popes. The whole Bible is God talking to apostles and prophets. I think if we understood the bible we would see a need for them today. But yes, even those bible prophets had their skeletons in the closet. That peter...Boy he stuck his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion. Maybe thats why it makes sense. But who can you trust. Maybe one day we'll know!
Nooma have you seen this "Book of Mormon Movie" yet? I thought it was only released in Utah? You don't live in Utah do you? If so, there is a movie playing in Utah and in California and in selective states called "States of Grace" That's a Mormon movie that I believe would intrigue you. Check it out, it's here on IMDB.
Adios.
Nice try Scooba. You're a seeker, huh? You don't know what you believe? But you'd sure like to give that Mormon church a try. Come on man, you're a mormon. Hey, that's cool. But don't try to paint yourself as something different because you want "credibility" with the lurkers.
Nooma has simply demonstrated that there are differences between Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. It is Mormonism that divides itself from Christians when they altered doctrine to change the person of Christ. This is the fundamental and defining characteristic of Christianity. If it is different, it is not Christianity. Pretty common sense.
And all that other stuff about "people like you are the reason other people don't come to church......blah blah blah". If intellectual debate is not Christ-like, then you might want to check on Christ's own bio. He blasts a whole category of people, calls them brood of vipers, etc. He also, more than any other person, talks about the fact that there is a hell and that He is the only way to Heaven. He is the one who claimed to be God, the same being as the Father. If you reject His claims then you reject Him. And if you reject Christ then salvation is impossible. He said it Scooba. Next, let's look at Paul's life. His first several years of ministry were spent going to Jewish synagogues where he would debate with the Jewish faithful. He would walk them through the Old Testament and demonstrate as fact that Christ was the Messiah, the Prophet that Moses spoke of. He argued with people! He frustrated them so much that they tried to kill him over and over again. And yet He is a Christian. It's unfortunate that our postmodern generation is so afraid of conflict that they would rather remain at peace than, by understanding, live.
-Shaun
Nooma has simply demonstrated that there are differences between Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. It is Mormonism that divides itself from Christians when they altered doctrine to change the person of Christ. This is the fundamental and defining characteristic of Christianity. If it is different, it is not Christianity. Pretty common sense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
_______________________________________________________________________________
To the LDSs out there, where in the Bible or the Book of Mormon do you find the concept of the plurality of gods? This is an 19th century teaching of an apostate church and their false prophets.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brainzero, I am a LDS. It's nice to meet you.
Mormonism is a monotheistic religion in that it worships one God. However, it is doctrinal that there are many Gods.
Joseph Smith taught,
Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; . . . I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, . . . (History of the Church, Vol.6, p.474).
While it is true that there are many gods we believe there is but one Godhead which rules and directs the affairs of this earth. It is comprised of God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Now before you burn me at a cyber stake for blasphemy, let me show you in the bible where you will find the concept of the plurality of gods.
References to false gods speak in a derogatory tone, condemning the practice of idolatry and the sexual excesses of the fertility rites often associated with the worship of those false gods. Those passages often called for repentance, for the renunciation of false-god worship, and for the destruction of the groves and other wicked places of abomination and idolatry. The LORD God of Israel had no association with those false and evil gods, and he called for their overthrow and destruction.
In contrast, there are many passages which speak of Gods who dwell in the presence of the LORD God of Israel, who associate with him, and who have his same objectives and characteristics. The LORD of Israel is depicted as associating with them, and as laboring with and among them. This type of passage is often found in instances of high praise and adoration for God, in situations of worship, in instances of extolling the greatness and goodness of God. They assert the supremacy of Jehovah in the Old Testament, and acknowledge and teach the role of the Godhead in the New Testament. The passages cited below are regarded as examples of Bible passages which teach of a plurality of Gods.
Consider, for instance, those intriguing passages early in Genesis when one God speaks to another God or Gods, using those intimate words us and our. In the creation account, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . ." (Gen. 1:26).
The account of the fall of Adam and Eve also contains evidences of more than one God. When the serpent tempted Eve, he told her, "Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). Though the serpent attempted to mix falsehood with truth in his comments to Eve, God's statement after the fall confirmed that this portion of the serpent's communication with Eve was correct. After their fall the LORD said, "Behold, the man is hecome as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).
Again, almost two millennia later, at the time of the tower of Babel, the LORD said, "Let us go down, and there confound their language..." (Gen. 11:7)
These passages all show that there was more than one God participating in the creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, and the confounding of tongues at the tower of Babel.
There are many passages which extol the LORD as a great God who dwells among other Gods. They portray him as being exalted above them and having power and dominion over them. When Moses and the children of Israel sang praises to the LORD they sang, "Who is like unto thee, 0 LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Ex. 15:11). Moses also spoke' of, "The LORD your God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great god, a mighty, . . ." (Deut. 10:17).
Joshua exclaimed, "The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, - . ."(Josh. 22:22; see 22:5). Solomon, as he built the great temple, wrote: "The house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods" (2 Chron. 2:5).
The psalmists repeatedly acknowledged that there are many Gods. Asaph wrote, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods" (Ps. 82:1; see Is. 14:13: congregation.") David wrote, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, 0 Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works" (Ps. 86:8). Another psalm says, "The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods" (Ps. 95:3). And another says, "I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods" (Ps. 135:5). The next psalm proclaims, "0 give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. 0 give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth forever" (Ps. 136:2). Another psalm of David promises, " will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name. . . "(Ps. 138:1-2).
There are still other passages that define who some of the other Gods are. In a psalm of Asaph we read: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6). Jesus quoted this psalm in a confrontation with the Pharisees of his day. They accused him, saying that "Thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? And then he identified those who would be gods as those "unto whom the word of God came" (John 10:33-38).
The Book of Mormon seems to be quite silent on the subject and I regret to say that I won't be able to locate any passages for you. The Book of Mormon is a book about the basic gospel of Jesus Christ. It's about faith, repentance, baptism and living a Christ-like life. It teaches true doctrine concerning the plan of salvation. It was introduced before the church was even published and if it taught about degrees of glory and plurality of gods, then everybody would get confused and run away. This is what Paul meant when he said "milk before meat". The Lord reveals things line upon line, precept upon precept.
Look in Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 132 for more scriptural sources.
Thanks for letting me research, it's been rather fun!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Um...
So from what I understand from your reply, you agree with me? Well that's great that we have something in common!
Have a great day!
[deleted]
Yes that is correct about the referances to idol gods. As you will notice, I pointed that out in my post earlier. However my main point was to show that there are "Gods who dwell in the presence of the LORD God of Israel, who associate with him, and who have his same objectives and characteristics. The LORD of Israel is depicted as associating with them, and as laboring with and among them. This type of passage is often found in instances of high praise and adoration for God, in situations of worship, in instances of extolling the greatness and goodness of God."
This is why I included Psalms 82. "God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods...I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High"...let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that there are other gods, and men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods,". These are quotes when the Lord speaks out of respect for other gods.
Also, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" And then he identified those who would be gods as those "unto whom the word of God came" (John 10:33-38).
I believe the Joseph Smith quote is referring to 1 Corinth 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the bFather, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one cLord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.
The concept of "other Gods" is one of those things that is never mentioned in LDS lessons or sermons and for most LDS people it seldom, if ever, crosses their minds. Just about the only place you'll ever find it mentioned or discussed is in anti-Mormon literature. To LDS members, it is generally considered a big unknown, a theological debating point that we know essentially nothing about. It would be like asking members of your church about how angels interact with electromagnetic fields--it's something that you know certainly happens, but it is entirely a mental exercise and is irrelevant to faith or salvation (except if someone "goes off the deep end" and starts speculating about spirit vs. matter and tries to fit a theology around it--we've all seen people do things like this and get side-tracked from the Gospel
It's wise to focus on the things we do know, rather than the things the Lord has felt the need to be silent on. This is why the Book of Mormon is so central to our faith. It contains those things that we DO need to know.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
[deleted]
First off, let me apologize. I don't believe I ever referred to you personally as an "Anti-Mormon". What I said was that Anti-Mormons are really the only ones who speak about the that[gods] doctrine. I just got done reading Websters definition of the word "Anti" and it reads:
1. (prefix) opposite or opposing or neutralizing;
2. Not in favor of (an action or proposal etc.).
Now, most critics of the LDS faith are definately opposed and not in favor of our theology. I would go so far to even say that you, Brainzero, are really not in favor of the mormon church. Therefore, by definition, I could call you an Anti of the mormon church. I'm not saying you are a wicked person trying to spread lies and destroy peoples faith. You are just here to say what you believe is true, and honestly there isn't anything wrong with that. But, you are on a mainly mormon message thread saying things oppose what we are taught. This may be why you are referred to as an Anti-Mormon.
Now for my reply,
Pslams 82 has been divided into a poetic makeup called chiasmus.
Section 1 Assembly / God rises-spt (judges)
Section 2 gods confronted
Section 3 chaos described
Section 4 gods confronted
Section 5 Assembly / God rises-spt (judges)
Each section is developed into a separate poetic unit by content, by parallelisms, and by discernable sound structures in the vocalized text.
Section 1
God stands up: Or, alternatively, God arises. The Hebrew used here for God is elohim. The same Hebrew word is translated at the end of the verse as 'gods.' Why is it singular here and plural later? The verbs (like that meaning to stand up or arise) associated with this term are singular in the Hebrew. This would require a singular subject. Thus "God arises." In the chiastic structure of the Psalm, this statement is paralleled by the phrase "Arise God!" in verse 8.
In the assembly of El: There are three general uses of the term El in the Bible and related literature. The first is that it is often used to mean God. The second is that it can refer to the name of the Canaanite deity, El, who was head of the Syro-Palestinian pantheon. Or, alternatively, it might represent a common phrase meaning 'divine' particularly when used in the combination here "divine assembly". The usage is completely ambiguous. There is no difference in usage between one meaning and the other. It is perhaps intentional that this range of meanings suits both the initial use of elohim as God and the later use of elohim as divinities at the end of this section.
"In the midst of the gods he judges" Here, elohim can only be plural. It would be nonsensical to have God (elohim) standing in the assembly of God (El) judging among the singular God (elohim). The word judges (spt) can also mean more generally to rule. It is repeated with this meaning in mind in verse 8 at the end of the Psalm. Here, God arises to judge those in the assembly. There, God arises to rule those in the assembly.
Section 2
"How long will you rule unjustly? And honor the wicked?": In this phrase, the word rule (spt) is used, when God addresses the gods. The same Hebrew word is used differently in each context in which it occurs. God (elohim) judges (spt) the gods (elohim) who rule (spt). Later in the Psalm, the meanings will be reversed. The gods (elohim) did not judge (spt) so God (elohim) will rule (spt).
"Judge the lowly and fatherless! Do justice for the needy and the poor! Rescue the lowly and oppressed! From the hand of the wicked!" Here God demands that these gods execute righteous judgment. The gods should judge (spt) the lowly and fatherless.
Section 3
"They do not know And they do not understand; In darkness they wander around; All the foundations of the earth totter!" This is the center of the Psalm. The "they" refers to the gods (elohim). Their rule has brought chaos. The phrasing is meant to show this. They do not know. They do not understand. They walk in darkness. The earth (eretz) is shaken from its foundation. This is exactly the end result that the divine rulers are supposed to prevent. The earth was created from chaos, and now these beings are returning it to a chaotic state. And it was specifically because of the actions of these elohim that the foundations of the earth are moved.
Section 4
"You (are) gods And sons of the Highest (are) all of you," Here the gods (elohim) are defined in terms of a singular deity (elyon) the Most High. It is also a statement that they are placed in their position by God-who acts as a supreme authority.
Nevertheless, you will die like a man: The word man (adam) means either the first man Adam, or the concept of mortal man in general. The significant aspects of this phrase are that they put the one concept in opposition to the other. Two references to gods are followed by two references to men. The reference here however is clearly antithetical. If these gods were men, they would not die "like men". Nor does their death occur immediately, but rather, like Adam, occurs eventually because of their actions. "You will die like Adam".
"And like one of the leaders you will fall!" Rather than the traditional "leaders", In many hebrew translations, you will find that this also translates "shining ones". This reading also creates a clear connection between Psalm 82 and two other Old Testament texts relating to the Divine Council: Isaiah 14:12-15 which relates the fall of Lucifer and Ezekiel 28:12-17. Both of these refer to divine beings, who lost their immortality and were cast out of heaven.
Section 5
"Arise God! Rule the earth!" In this section, the perspective has shifted from the divine assembly in heaven to a human assembly. Following parallels to Section I, God (elohim) arises to Rule (spt) and not to judge. What does He rule? The earth (eretz) referred to in Section III. The idea is that He will restore order where the gods caused chaos.
"For you possess All the nations!" The word 'all" is the same as that in Section III and Section IV ('all the foundations' and 'all of you'). Here, it suggests that now, all of the earth, and its peoples, and even the elohim, are under the rule of God.
Early Israelite theology pictured a heaven filled with divine beings, and ordered in a hierarchy. God stood at the top of this hierarchy. This host of divine beings has become collectively identified as the divine council. There are several instances of the divine council recognized in the Old Testament. The members of this divine council are called divinities (elohim), sons of God (bene elohim or bene elim), sons of the Most High (bene Elyon) and in the Greek, divine beings (huioi theoi) and angels of the divine (angeloi theoi). While a complete survey of these passages and their meaning is beyond the scope of this paper, three particular passages in Deuteronomy are worth mentioning: Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 10:17-18; 32:7-8, 34. All three of these bear a special relationship to Psalm 82. Deuteronomy 4:19-20 reads as follows:
"And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them. These the LORD your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven; but you the LORD took and brought out of Egypt, that iron blast furnace, to be His very own people, as is now the case."
It is for Israel to worship God alone. This reflects the idea that if God revealed Himself only to Israel, and not to the rest of the nations, then it must be God's will that only Israel worship the true God. This apparent acceptance of polytheism however did not appeal to later Israel. Jeremiah was the first prophet to discuss the punishment of the nations for idolatry, and the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) modified these verses to avoid the possible interpretation of polytheism. Deuteronomy 10:17-18 mentions these other divine beings:
"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment"
This language is highly reminiscent of Psalm 82. God (elohim) is God (eloah) of gods (elohim), who regardeth not persons (the same Hebrew word is translated 'regardeth' here, and 'honor'/'accept' in verse 2 of Psalm 82), who defends the fatherless. Here, God is declared to be God-not just of the Israelites, but also of the other divinities, the elohim, and it is through Him that justice is dispensed. Finally, in Deuteronomy 32:7-8 we read:
Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of ages past;
Ask your father, he will inform you,
Your elders, they will tell you:
When the Most High allotted the nations,
And set the divisions of man,
He fixed the boundaries [or territories] of peoples
Equal to the number of divine beings.
The literal translation, gods (plural), found in the Vulgate (ad deos) and Luther's version (voer die Götter) of the Bible is better suited to what appears to be the real meaning of the passage in light of newly discovered material. These versions will also show Psalms 8:5 To where the king James and many other translations read angels, to show gods. Thus showing that men "were placed a little lower than the Gods.
Within this context, the elohim of Psalm 82 represent those divine beings who were given the various nations of the earth to rule. Psalm 82 then represents a period when rulership of the earth is being returned solely to God. Examples of this particular belief persisted within Judaism, despite efforts to remove it until at least the eighth century A.D., when it appears in the work Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer. The Deuteronomy texts were later modified to reduce the impact of this polytheistic imagery-imagery that while compatible with the earlier theology of Israelite religion, was not as compatible with the later, stricter monotheistic theology.
Where in LDS theology does it say that we can have our own planets? I find that kindof offenseive. The celestial kingdom is about living with God.
In short, what I am saying is that you may insist that the elohim of Psalm 82 are simply mortal humans. But there seems no particular reason, other than theological squeamishness, to prefer such a translation. What these verses seem to describe is a divinatory practice where a case is brought before "God" or "the gods" for decision.
So I really do not know all about the universe and the other gods, and I really don't think you do either Brianzero. Perhaps when I get to heaven, I'll ask Moses, Jeremiah and all the translators of the bible what they think. But until then I will remain true to the One LORD that I am commanded to worsip.
OH yeah, I think the Book of Abraham is one of the greatest books ever written.
[deleted]
No I did not cut and paste. However I did borrow most of it from a written article that I have. If you are interested I may be able to look it up for you on the web.
And yes, I did know that, except much of the Abraham Papyri and the mummies were burnt in the great Chicago fire. All we really have left is a few of the facsimiles that turned up in New York in the 1960's.
And yes, I did know that, except much of the Abraham Papyri and the mummies were burnt in the great Chicago fire. All we really have left is a few of the facsimiles that turned up in New York in the 1960's.
_______________________________________________________________________________
they are not about Abraham or even from his time
_______________________________________________________________________________
That could be argued either way, and has been. Hugh Nibley focused much of his life to research of the Book of Abraham and illustrating parrallels between the facsimiles and the story of Abraham. There is much to the translation process that we really don't know. Many other sources on Abraham in Egypt have turned up since then [Smith's day] and the similarities that are shown make the chance of coincidence much less likely.
Joseph Smith never claimed the papyri was autotrophic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated to Abrahams time. it is common to refer to an author's works as "his" writings, wether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later.
The book of Abraham came forth when the study of Egyptian language and culture was just beginning. Scholars of 1800s had scarcely began to explore the field of egytology and Joseph Smith had no knowledge of egyptology other than his work on the Book of Mormon. The book of Abraham is not suppposed to be a history of ancient egypt. It reveals truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ that were previously unknown to church members of Joseph Smith's day. It casts a bright light upon difficult passages found in other scriptural texts. It tells us of Abrahams circumstances and sheds light on why he was called as the Father of the faithful. Isn't that really why we have scriptures?
That could be argued either way, and has been. Hugh Nibley focused much of his life to research of the Book of Abraham and illustrating parrallels between the facsimiles and the story of Abraham.
There is much to the translation process that we really don't know. Many other sources on Abraham in Egypt have turned up since then [Smith's day] and the similarities that are shown make the chance of coincidence much less likely.
Joseph Smith never claimed the papyri was autotrophic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated to Abrahams time. it is common to refer to an author's works as "his" writings, wether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later.
"A translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus"
He then took us down into his mother's chamber and showed us four Egyptian mummies stripped and then undertook to explain the contents of a chart or manuscript which he said had been taken from the bosom of one of them. The cool impudence of this imposture amused me very much. "This," said he, "was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it." Of course, we were too polite to prove the negative, against a man fortified by revelation. Diary of Charles Adams, entry of 15 May 1844, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 68 (1952):285.
The book of Abraham came forth when the study of Egyptian language and culture was just beginning. Scholars of 1800s had scarcely began to explore the field of egytology and Joseph Smith had no knowledge of egyptology other than his work on the Book of Mormon. The book of Abraham is not suppposed to be a history of ancient egypt. It reveals truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ that were previously unknown to church members of Joseph Smith's day. It casts a bright light upon difficult passages found in other scriptural texts. It tells us of Abrahams circumstances and sheds light on why he was called as the Father of the faithful. Isn't that really why we have scriptures?
The concept of "other Gods" is one of those things that is never mentioned in LDS lessons or sermons and for most LDS people it seldom, if ever, crosses their minds. Just about the only place you'll ever find it mentioned or discussed is in anti-Mormon literature. To LDS members, it is generally considered a big unknown, a theological debating point that we know essentially nothing about. It would be like asking members of your church about how angels interact with electromagnetic fields--it's something that you know certainly happens, but it is entirely a mental exercise and is irrelevant to faith or salvation (except if someone "goes off the deep end" and starts speculating about spirit vs. matter and tries to fit a theology around it--we've all seen people do things like this and get side-tracked from the Gospel.
Where in LDS theology does it say that we can have our own planets? I find that kindof offenseive. The celestial kingdom is about living with God.
I must say that the Egytology is not my expertise. I read the Book of Abraham and believe that it should be evaluated on what it claims to be-Abraham's own account of his life.
Joseph Smith said that certain information contained therin was not to be revealed to the world, "but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God." Studies of Egyptian temple rituals since the time of Joseph Smith have revealed parallels with LDS Temple celebrations and doctrine. These include such things shuch as the Fall, washings and annointings, sealings of husbands and wives, returning to God's presence, judgment, geneology, and living together in God's precense with ones family. There is much more that could be pointed out from study and in greater detail. Perhaps you can come to the celestial room with me sometime and we can talk more. :) For more, I would invite you to read "Abraham in Egypt" by Hugh Nibley. Oh yeah, and I cannot wait for the release of Hugh Nibleys book. Its about facsimile 2 and the deep meaning it gives to our journey through life.
A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Smith's day, such as "Apocolypse of Abraham" and "The Testament of Abraham". They both exhibit notable similarities with the Book of Abraham. One that I know of is in chapter 12 of the testament of Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matched in minute detail the scene depicted in facsimile 3 and incidentally chapter 123 of the Egyptian book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham. Like I said, I am not Hugh Nibley or Abraham or an Egyptologist. I would have to do some reading on those quotes you provided.
You've assaulted just about every mormon doctrine there is and I wish I had time to go through them all. Perhaps if I was Bill Mckeever and ran a website and a company completely devoted to destroying Mormonism and got payed alot of money for it, I could do a little bit better. You act as though I am not aware of most of our doctrine. Of course I know what President Hinckley said. I was there watching it! I agree with him and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Now my question for you Geode is what are you trying to accomplish here. You don't sound like a Christian, you definately aren't a mormon, yet I have seen you defending mormonism on several posts with your great knowledge. You just seem to lurk in the shadows and when there comes a time for you to speak you do. I don't know why you left the church or what your current affiliation is but it would be interesting to see where you're coming from.
What do you believe about God and what point do you want to make?
I must say that the Egytology is not my expertise. I read the Book of Abraham and believe that it should be evaluated on what it claims to be-Abraham's own account of his life.
Joseph Smith said that certain information contained therin was not to be revealed to the world, "but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God." Studies of Egyptian temple rituals since the time of Joseph Smith have revealed parallels with LDS Temple celebrations and doctrine. These include such things shuch as the Fall, washings and annointings, sealings of husbands and wives, returning to God's presence, judgment, geneology, and living together in God's precense with ones family. There is much more that could be pointed out from study and in greater detail. Perhaps you can come to the celestial room with me sometime and we can talk more. :) For more, I would invite you to read "Abraham in Egypt" by Hugh Nibley. Oh yeah, and I cannot wait for the release of Hugh Nibleys book. Its about facsimile 2 and the deep meaning it gives to our journey through life.
A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Smith's day, such as "Apocolypse of Abraham" and "The Testament of Abraham". They both exhibit notable similarities with the Book of Abraham. One that I know of is in chapter 12 of the testament of Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matched in minute detail the scene depicted in facsimile 3 and incidentally chapter 123 of the Egyptian book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham. Like I said, I am not Hugh Nibley or Abraham or an Egyptologist. I would have to do some reading on those quotes you provided.
XII. While he was yet saying these things to me, behold two angels, fiery in aspect, and pitiless in mind, and severe in look, and they drove on thousands of souls, pitilessly lashing them with fiery thongs. The angel laid hold of one soul, and they drove all the souls in at the broad gate to destruction. So we also went along with the angels, and came within that broad gate, and between the two gates stood a throne terrible of aspect, of terrible crystal, gleaming as fire, and upon it sat a wondrous man bright as the sun, like to the Son of God. Before him stood a table like crystal, all of gold and fine linen, and upon the table there was lying a book, the thickness of it six cubits, and the breadth of it ten cubits, and on the right and left of it stood two angels holding paper and ink and pen. Before the table sat an angel of light, holding in his hand a balance, and on his left sat an angel all fiery, pitiless, and severe, holding in his hand a trumpet, having within it lead to life and to destruction. This man that sits between them is Adam, the first man whom the Lord created, and set him in this place to see every soul that departs from the body, seeing that all are from him. When, therefore, thou seest him weeping, know that he has seen many souls being led to destruction, but when thou seest him laughing, he has seen many souls being led into life. Seest thou how his weeping exceeds his laughter? Since he sees the greater part of the world being led away through the broad gate to destruction, therefore his weeping exceeds his laughter seven-fold.
You've assaulted just about every mormon doctrine there is and I wish I had time to go through them all. Perhaps if I was Bill Mckeever and ran a website and a company completely devoted to destroying Mormonism and got payed alot of money for it, I could do a little bit better. You act as though I am not aware of most of our doctrine. Of course I know what President Hinckley said. I was there watching it! I agree with him and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Now my question for you Geode is what are you trying to accomplish here. You don't sound like a Christian, you definately aren't a mormon, yet I have seen you defending mormonism on several posts with your great knowledge. You just seem to lurk in the shadows and when there comes a time for you to speak you do. I don't know why you left the church or what your current affiliation is but it would be interesting to see where you're coming from.
What do you believe about God and what point do you want to make?
Um... I just asked you what you believe about God...
Thanks though...
______________________________________________________________________________
I know at least as much about the beliefs of the Mormon church than you either know, or are willing to admit
______________________________________________________________________________
Ooh yeah? Do you know what Nephi's horse's name is?
Um... I just asked you what you believe about God...
Thanks though...
I must say that the Egytology is not my expertise. I read the Book of Abraham and believe that it should be evaluated on what it claims to be-Abraham's own account of his life.
Joseph Smith said that certain information contained therin was not to be revealed to the world, "but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God." Studies of Egyptian temple rituals since the time of Joseph Smith have revealed parallels with LDS Temple celebrations and doctrine. These include such things shuch as the Fall, washings and annointings, sealings of husbands and wives, returning to God's presence, judgment, geneology, and living together in God's precense with ones family. There is much more that could be pointed out from study and in greater detail. Perhaps you can come to the celestial room with me sometime and we can talk more. :) For more, I would invite you to read "Abraham in Egypt" by Hugh Nibley. Oh yeah, and I cannot wait for the release of Hugh Nibleys book. Its about facsimile 2 and the deep meaning it gives to our journey through life.
A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Smith's day, such as "Apocolypse of Abraham" and "The Testament of Abraham". They both exhibit notable similarities with the Book of Abraham. One that I know of is in chapter 12 of the testament of
Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matched in minute detail the scene depicted in facsimile 3 and incidentally chapter 123 of the Egyptian book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham. Like I said, I am not Hugh Nibley or Abraham or an Egyptologist. I would have to do some reading on those quotes you provided.
You've assaulted just about every mormon doctrine there is and I wish I had time to go through them all. Perhaps if I was Bill Mckeever and ran a website and a company completely devoted to destroying Mormonism and got payed alot of money for it, I could do a little bit better. You act as though I am not aware of most of our doctrine. Of course I know what President Hinckley said. I was there watching it! I agree with him and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Now my question for you Geode is what are you trying to accomplish here. You don't sound like a Christian, you definately aren't a mormon, yet I have seen you defending mormonism on several posts with your great knowledge. You just seem to lurk in the shadows and when there comes a time for you to speak you do. I don't know why you left the church or what your current affiliation is but it would be interesting to see where you're coming from.
What do you believe about God and what point do you want to make?
You just seem to lurk in the shadows and when there comes a time for you to speak you do. I don't know why you left the church or what your current affiliation is but it would be interesting to see where you're coming from.
Your story is powerful. It is a reminder and an example to me to look at my self and search for improvement on how I live and treat others.
God bless you my friend, in whatever you do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, I think geode has been making some really good points as far as problems with Mormonism and I like you wonder what he actually does believe... but I do know Bill Mckeever and Eric Johnson, who wrote Mormonism 101, a great book on the differences in Christianity and the LDS faith. He is not getting rich doing what he is doing! In fact his ministry to Mormons has cost him quite a bit. Both Bill and Eric work very hard at second jobs etc. to make ends meet. They are not in it for power or money, just truth.
[deleted]
Sure they have a bias towards their perspective, we all do, even you, so that's not the best reason to dismiss a book. One thing they have done is set the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity side by side with the doctrines of the LDS faith. It is pretty honestly done. And yes they use the teachings of church leaders and prophets to determine what the LDS faith believes, wouldn't that be the best way? (though at because of the nature of continuing revelation it is hard to pin down exactly where the church is at any one time)Of course everyone has a bias, but there are people that take that bias to the point of ignoring some honest information that supports the opposing viewpoint. I have my doubts from the portion of the one book that I read, that the author of this book honestly knows LDS doctrine to the degree trhat he would have us believe that he doses. It appeared to me that he cobbled together some quotes from various Mormon leaders of the past without really understanding or integrating it all together into an analysis of the real LDS belief on the matter. Once again, I have usually found that authors who are trying to "sell" an alternative, tend to blind themselves to much of what Mormons really believe. Both this author, and those he opposes, are trying to sell something and I think this leaves their objectivity in considerable doubt.
Actually, these guys really know their stuff and are scholars of the LDS faith.
Throughout the book Millet expresses his anxiety over those who refuse to accept Mormons as Christians. Like most Mormons, he seems to be unaware that the LDS doctrine of a complete apostasy most certainly challenges any non-Mormons' claim to Christianity. That being the case, perhaps he can understand our anxiety when Brigham Young said, "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" ( Journal of Discourses , 10:230, July 8, 1863).
[deleted]
To be quick and simple, I do believe that it is all about grace. And in that is where my biggest issues are with Mormonism and other religions that might call themselves "Christians" yet depend upon works instead of upon the grace of God through Jesus Christ. In the grace of God through Jesus Christ we find the ability to have a real relationship with God, a transforming relationship. If you don't mind, check out these two books, "Divine Conspiracy" by Dallas Willard and "The Ragamuffin Gospel" by Brennan Manning. I think you might find both an interesting read.
I actually have studied Mormonism, read all it's holy books, in fact have them all and even marked them up... I am quite familiar with Mormon doctrine and have read some of Millet's stuff, but he's a bit on the fringe, though a great thinker, he has no authority to speak for the church. That's left to the first presidency if I am correct.
Your discussion of your life story is one that really does touch my heart... I despise, along with Jesus, those who speak for God yet only lay heavy burdens on the backs of the people they speak to. Grace is the doorway to relationship with God, it allows us to live as eternal human beings the moment we accept it.
As Brennan Manning would say, we will be surprised at who we find in heaven... and who won't be there. Our relationship with God is personal, it's not like everyone else's, it does change us, transform us, but in personal ways. The issue of singleness and the need for temple marriage etc. to achieve glory is very hard... and wrong. I think even an article in issue of the Ensign dealt with this issue in the last year or so. And though it attempted to provide comfort, still pointed more to the problem then to grace! I think that we need to focus on grace.
And I didn't realize that FARMS was limiting access... I got into a no where discussion with some of them a while back... what a waste of time. Well, it's good to get to know you a bit... if you'd like an off message board discussion, PM me. I noticed that you have posted on the Passion of the Christ board... I was there for a while but have given up. Way off topic and frustrating. Have a merry Christmas.
[deleted]
Additionally we have the Great Commission recorded both in Matthew and Acts, Jewish and Greek writers, speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, but in the context of one.
Paul most definitely believed that Jesus was God. The arguments that He was Son of God or sat at the right hand of God don't take into account the first century Jewish sense of those phrases, they did not denote seperatism, but equality. Paul in fact uses the concept of Son of God much less in his writings, probably because of the confusion the statement would cause in non-Jewish audiences.
So Mormonism's claim that the Trinity is an invention of third or fourth century apostates is utterly without merit. Iraneus puts forth a clear definition of the Trinity very early in the second century. Sure there were arguments concerning the concept, but to say that it was all an invention of the apostate church or that the three are simply one in purpose go against all teachings of the basic Biblical belief that there is but one God.
To the LDSs out there, where in the Bible or the Book of Mormon do you find the concept of the plurality of gods? This is an 19th century teaching of an apostate church and their false prophets.
Good Morning.
I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I actually attend a Church high school in New Zealand. Im only 17.
I guess you could say that I am biased.
As a church, we believe in the Godhead. We believe them to be seperate beings physically, but who are all 'one' in purpose.
In Acts 7:55 KJV we find:
"Bet he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God."
So if we were to say that the Godhead was one person, it would be God standing on God's right hand, that would be quite awkward.
In Mark 15:34 KJV we find:
"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, laa sabachthani?' which is being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Why would the Lord ask Himself such a question? This shows that Christ is praying to God. I don't know much but I know that God has to follow physical laws as well as us.
I believe in latter-day prophets. And I don't believe they are false.
Amos 3:7 KJV
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
We as a Church do not worship Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was a Prophet, but he was a man as well, imperfect and just as susceptible to temptation as any of us. We hold him higher than other prophets of this dispensation because he is a "dispensation head" like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
"The dispensation head becomes the means which the knowledge and power of God are channeled to men and women on earth. He becomes the means by which the gospel of Jesus Christ-- the plan of salvation and exaltation- is revealed anew, the means by which divine transforming powers, including saving covenants and ordinances, are extend to people during an age we call a dispensation. The dispensation head stands as the preeminent revealer and witness of Christ; he knows firsthand because of what he has witnessed and experienced... Indeed, and appropriately so, men and women of a particular dispensation stand to express the witness which burns in their bosoms find themselves bearing testimony of Christ and of the dispensation head-- the revealer of Christ-- in almost the same breath" - Christ Centered Living, Robert L. Millet, 1994 Bookcraft Inc.
This is why in your experience that many people would express their love for Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith basically simultaneously.
I'm only young, and what I have stated is probably somewhat irrelevant, but hopefully it was of some help to you.
Merry Christmas
[deleted]
Wow that was a fast reply.
Are you suggesting that there can only be one infinite and eternal being"? The scripture you quoted contradicts your point: The SON of God, not God himself.
Why wouldn't God follow laws. To suggest that God doesn't follow laws is to suggest that there is no order to heaven and the way God works.
And no of course not, we do not hold Joseph Smith at the same level as Christ, But we do praise him for being a mighty prophet of God,
D&C 135:3
"Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. ...He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord's anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood"
Why shouldn't we praise the man who "has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it"?
1. Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.
[Chorus]
Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.
2. Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.
3. Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.
4. Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know “Brother Joseph” again.
Text: William W. Phelps, 1792–1872
Music: Scottish folk song
As a life-long monotheist I started having trouble as I grew up when I was in a congregation singing "Praise to the Man" since it includes the line:
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.
Long shall his blood which was shed by assassins,So I guess Illinois gets to specifically pay for this murder ?
Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame.
This is Christianity at it's worst...
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/streetpreachers.html
click on the top movie
[deleted]
I know. Of course Mormons are imperfect. I just thought you would like to see my little movie. I thought it would entertain a person like you.
Oh well, sorry anyways!
i can't believe...well...yes I can actually...but your all still on here blah blahing??? My heck, do you have absolutely nothing better in your lives than to sit here and berate our religion???? And what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? Maybe you'll draw one of us away from the church? To what end??? Also couple things....1) you say we have no archaeological evidence that our church is true...do you really need scientists to tell you that its ok to join your church??? 2) So your going to believe ppl that are anti-mormons, over the mormons themselves. Thats like asking someone from Flordia if snow is cold when an Alaskan is next to you. And i'm done, see you again in a few more months b/c i know you'll still be complaining about something.
shareAlso couple things....1) you say we have no archaeological evidence that our church is true...do you really need scientists to tell you that its ok to join your church??? 2) So your going to believe ppl that are anti-mormons, over the mormons themselves. Thats like asking someone from Flordia if snow is cold when an Alaskan is next to you. And i'm done, see you again in a few more months b/c i know you'll still be complaining about something.
[deleted]
In another thread on this board I posted the following:
When I was a young Mormon lad
by - geode (Wed Nov 2 2005 02:59:05 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is to all the Mormons out there. Do you honestly believe that the native peoples of this country are actually descended from white (caucasian/ european) people who came from Jerusalem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was younger, all Mormon leaders claimed that all of the peoples in the Americas before the coming of Columbus were descended as you indicate. We were all taught this is Sunday School and Primary classes as well as in General Conference. Mormon lessons were sprinkled with archaeological claims to back up this idea. But as the evidence went against the Book of Mormon version through further study, we started to get the ideas such as those already posted, that these people from the Holy Land just mixed with people already present. This is quite an abrubt switch-around in only a few decades, and is not supported by the DNA evidence. The Book of Mormon itself does not claim that other peoples were involved, this is a very recent Mormon apologist concept. Combined with the "limited geography" it seems rather like "grasping at straws" to me snd lacking in credibility.
Re: When I was a young Mormon lad
by - ColJ (Mon Nov 7 2005 15:43:31 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always hear that. Stories that begin with "I was a member until I was 10, but this is what I understood then, and now this adult version seems different, so it must have changed." No, you just didn't understand more than a cartoon's caricature when you were 10 (or 14 or 16 for that matter.)
In the Book of Mormon, since it was written thousands of years ago, the central story has revolved around multiple groups of people. There are multiple groups of people in the Book of Mormon and therefore... no one has ever claimed that 100% of the native americans are descended from just one of the groups (the descendants of the guy who wrote the first page.) The jaredites, the mulekites, the nephites, lehites, ishmaelites, original zarahemla-ites... they all had differing gene pools.
The idea "that these people from the Holy Land just mixed with people already present" is not "an abrupt switch," it cannot be so, because it's in the book itself.
And regarding "limited geography," that's the idea that the North and South lands were not North and South America, just two locations. Now if the northland was a few days walk from the southland, it probably wasn't two continents, and that again reinforces that your suppositions are based more on childishness and hollywood than what it says in the book.
That should put an end to that discussion (but I know you'll not even read carefully enough to understand, and will respond with some speech you've already given thrice on this board...)
Colin
www.colinandbethany.com/phpBB2
Re: When I was a young Mormon lad
by - ExMormon (Fri Nov 18 2005 18:33:10)
That was a rude reply.
I've noticed the same tactics in the articles on FARMS when they talk about authors of books that do not show the church in a positive light. First paragraph attacks the author and their credibility (just like your post). Then they post fact without any references, and end with one final jab at the author.
[deleted]
you forgot to answer this part ^^
"And what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? Maybe you'll draw one of us away from the church? To what end???"
[deleted]
I think it's important to keep in mind that we're discussing FARMS, and not statements from the LDS church. I wish I had the reference to the paper that the LDS church released a few years ago stating there has been no official declaration of Book of Mormon lands.
Keep in mind that you are reading articles by FARMS and not by LDS prophets, where neither, however, are perfect.
[deleted]
That's what I find interesting in talking to LDS, there's an official story, and an unofficial one and people shift from one to the other depending on what they think they can get away with.
Quite frustrating.
I call all of your mormons to repentence (especially the "FARMS" boys) ... I beseech you all to worship the one true god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Be touched by his noodly appendage!
P.S. Do you guys know what the letters in the mormon apologetic organization, F.A.R.M.S., actually stands for?
FICTIONAL ANIMALS ROAMING MESO-AMERICAN SITES!
Betcha didn't know that, huh?
FARMS
A foundation that "supports study and research on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Old Testament and the New Testament, studies of the early formative period of the Christian tradition, ancient temples, and other related subjects. It also publishes a number of periodicals, books, and other related material on these subjects, of particular interest to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
That's what I find interesting in talking to LDS, there's an official story, and an unofficial one and people shift from one to the other depending on what they think they can get away with.
Quite frustrating.
[deleted]
When we understand that, and when we are using the theological terms in the same way, then we can have a discussion. (For instance, orthodox Christianity defines the atonement very differently from LDS theology.)
[deleted]
Both LDS and Christianity have views of the atonement. For the sake of this thread could you give your perspective of how each faith views the atonement, where it happened, what it did for us?
In a sense, for each group, what is salvation and how is it attained?
When we understand that, and when we are using the theological terms in the same way, then we can have a discussion. (For instance, orthodox Christianity defines the atonement very differently from LDS theology.
[deleted]
First of all, despite the "top down" leadership structure of the LDS church, and the appearance of rigidity in terms of belief, there is quite a bit of variation about what individual Mormons believe about some aspects of theology.
My understanding of the LDS view is that the Atonement primarily took place in the garden of gethsamane... Mosiah 3:7 describes more of what happened in the garden then at the cross. the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says that
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this spiritual anguish of plumbing the dpeths of human suffering and sorrow was experienced primarily in the Garden of Gethsamane. It was there that he was "in an agony" and "prayed more earnestly." It was there that his sweat was "as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44) for he bled "at every pore" (D&C 19:18)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding in talking with mormons that the atonement is for all mankind and all will be raised to judgement. The LDS will go to spirit heaven and all the others will go to spirit prison. The LDS will then be baptized for those in spirit prison and those who have done good works and accept the LDS message will be assigned to their proper kingdom.
The LDS religion does come from a Christian background but the doctrines of the LDS Church are not the same as the doctrines of the Orthodox Christianity. The LDS Church uses many of the same terms, but in different ways. Our major differences deal with the Nature of God, the Nature of Scripture, and the Nature of Salvation. All of these are incredibly critical points of difference.Yes, but much of this really is off the subject of the subject of the atonement.
Christians believe in one God manifested in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here’s a basic statement on that, it may sound confusing but… “We believe that there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons, that these are equal in every divine perfection, and that they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence and redemption.” LDS believe that there are many gods and that god the Father, Jesus Christ (who is the half brother of Lucifer), and the Holy Spirit are only one in purpose, not in being. In this they go against the basic Biblical concept that there is only one God.
Christians believe that “the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.” Mormon’s believe that “the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; they (we) also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” (Article 8 of the Articles of Faith) They also count as their Holy Books the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. They also believe in continuing revelation; that their leaders can change doctrine. Two of the major changes dealt with doing away with polygamy and with allowing people of color to enter the priesthood.
Christians believe “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Mormons believe that “… we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all that we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23b, the Book of Mormon). In a sense, grace works for all, but it only really works after you have done all that you can do.
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
They believe that the atonement occurred mostly in the Garden of Gethsemane and that it was for all people, that everyone will be raised and judged by what they have done. Christianity has always taught that mankind is destined to only one of two destinations after he/she dies: heaven or hell.Actually Christianity has not been unified on the concept you offer here, and there are many variations about heaven and hell. This Gethsemane part really seems to bother you, but to me it seems a sideline issue.
Mormonism, on the other hand, claims that what a person believes and does in this life will result in being placed in either the telestial, terrestrial, or celestial kingdoms. The truly wicked will be condemned to what is termed "outer darkness." This sorting out will be done after the atonement, and those whose actions in life deserve the lower level of heaven, the telestial, will go there, and so on up to the celestial kingdom. My understanding of Mormon doctrine, and this comes as a Christian, is that there are even three levels of the Celestial kingdom, and only the top level of that kingdom leads to full exaltation. For a Mormon to achieve this kingdom, their doctrine tells them that "One of the great purposes of this mortal probation is to test and try men, to see if they will keep the commandments and walk in the light no matter what environmental enticements beckon them away from the straight and narrow path" (Mormon Doctrine, pg.229). The purpose of this lifetime is for the Mormon to prove himself worthy of exaltation. To fail in that capacity will result in never reaching that celestial goal.
I know this is really much to long an answer for a forum like this and encourage the LDS that post to this site to correct me in places where they believe I have misrepresented their faith. The bottom line though, is that if two groups believe opposing things that are critical to both of their systems of faith, can they be considered of the same faith. Just because I call myself something doesn’t make me that thing.
"For instance, orthodox Christianity defines the atonement very differently from LDS theology.)
"The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the foreordained but voluntary act of the Only Begotten Son of God. He offered his life, including his innocent body, blood, and spiritual anguish as a redeeming ransom (1) for the effect of the Fall of Adam upon all mankind and (2) for the personal sins of all who repent, from Adam to the end of the world." Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
[deleted]
First, the atonement. In a sense, from the moment Christ was born the atonement began, He was born to die for our sins, so I won't argue the case of exactly when it happened, in some sense it still is happening. The difference is that in LDS theology the atonement is for everyone, and my understanding is that it even is for the sons of perdition, though outer darkness is their next stop.
But outer darkness is the stop for anyone who rejects the LDS gospel isn't it, especially those who have left the faith. That's my understanding in talking with mormons and ex-mormons... that was a threat given them if they left the church... as well as loosing ties to family etc. But again, I go off topic.
Mormons
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that not one, but three heavens exist:
The highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom are reserved for Mormon couples who have been married in a Mormon temple and thus have had their marriage sealed for eternity. The couples can eventually become a God and Goddess; the husband will then be in control of an entire universe. Christians who are non-Mormons and have led truly exceptional lives will also spend eternity in the Celestial Kingdom. The Terrestrial Kingdom, is the destination for most individuals.
The Telestial Kingdom is for "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers" (D&C 76:102).
Individuals will learn and progress within the Kingdom to which they are assigned at death. However, with the exception of those in Hell, they are not allowed to transfer to the next higher level. (D&C 76:70-107) Couples who are not sealed (married in a Mormon temple) will be automatically divorced at death and spend eternity as single individuals.
Hell exists, but very few people will stay there forever. Most will eventually "pass into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as 'sons of perdition', will be consigned to partake of endless wo [sic] with the devil and his [fallen] angels." (Doctrines and Covenants", 76:84). Sons of perdition have been defined as once devout Mormons who have become apostates by rejecting God's truth and have left the LDS church. This appears to be the official teaching of the church. Other Mormons have a broader definition and include persons who have knowingly committed a very serious sins and have not repented and sought God's forgiveness -- sins like murder and pre-marital sex.
All will be resurrected. Their belief in Universal Resurrection states that "the unbeliever, the heathen and the child who dies before reaching the years of discretion" will all be brought back to life. (Articles of Faith, Page 85). Additional benefits beyond simple resurrection will be gained by those who do good works.
So for LDS is my understanding is that the atonement is just one step in the process of judgement, all will be atoned for, then it will be determined who goes where based on their faith and works.
Christians believe in a more limited in one sense and a much more expansive in another sense view of the atonement. It is limited in that it is not for everyone, only those who have accepted God's answer for the problem of our sins. But it is expansive in the sense that at that one moment we enter into an eternal relationship with God, justified totally by what God did at the cross.
Second, salvation, the result of the atonement. Here I do think that LDS theology and Christian theology differ. Your brushing off of the statement "after all that we can do" is quite a brush off. When I tell my kids we can go to the beach "after we clean the house" I am really saying that cleaning the house comes before going to the beach. I think that is what 2 Nephi 25 is saying and how the LDS church has interpreted it.
Have you visited the temple? Earned the temple recommend? What do you have to do to even get in that place? There's quite a list to go through with the bishop before you can get that all important card, the one that gets checked at the door like my gym membership... are you all paid up? The gym though is nicer, they let me in even if I haven't been in a couple of months.
And then the works that happens inside the temple is even more important then what happens outside. From what I remember of your testimony you understand that as a single man you are in for a rough ride. Marriage is a thing that must be done and done is a specific way for you to achieve exhaltation. And what is exhaltation... it's getting the glory you deserve based on what you did. Though many LDS will say that it is all about grace, the whole system and the teachings of their prophets go against that... 2 Nephi should really read, like my kids hear the beach statement, after all that you do, grace will step in... and what you've done will determine if we go to a decent beach, a good beach or a great beach. The emphasis still is on works.Grace gets a person part of the way, to salvation, but yes, Mormons teach that there are other requirements for "exaltation" that seem to be based upon works to me as well. But this is beyond the original subject somewhat.
And the use of the James passage is important, but context is quite important in looking at it. James was writing to a mainly Jewish audience, one that in Christianity had thrown off the works oriented mind-set of the Pharisees. For them there was a need to remind them that faith is really "Trust + Obedience." For the Pharisees works proved faith, I think for James' audience he was dealing with the rejection of that concept and the easy-believism of the Epicurean flavor. Faith in Christ, truly trusting in Him as savior gives us a relationship, that relationship then transforms us, (you'll find that teaching in Paul's letters) and good life and works will result. James is calling people back to a transforming relationship with God, not preaching that works prove faith. He talks about the dead faith of the rich person who sees a starving person and wishes them well but does nothing... that's a pretty obvious example of dead faith... then he talks about the demons who believe that there is a Christ yet reject Him... then we get to Abraham and Rahab, the odd couple of faith...Quite a bit of conjecture here, and really not following what James wrote. It is as if you are reading Paul, buying more what he says, and putting words into James mouth. I have heard this argued from both sides, and find both sides wanting when they wish to adhere to a strict version of faith and works to the exclusion of the other side.
[deleted]
I believe that narrowing the atonement down to where and when it happened isn't the most important part. The importance of the atonement was WHAT happened and what it means to us.
From my own perspective, I don't believe the atonement happened in just ONE place. The entire life of Christ was part of the atonement. His sinless life and his ability to remain that way until his death constitutes the atonement.
The following is from Elder Bruce R Mckonkies final talk.
This sacred spot, like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from whence Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the Sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance.
We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.
We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.
We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible for man to suffer, except it be unto death.
We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name.
We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might not drink the bitter cup...
After this—his body then wrenched and drained of strength—he confronted Judas and the other incarnate devils, some from the very Sanhedrin itself; and he was led away with a rope around his neck, as a common criminal, to be judged by the arch-criminals who as Jews sat in Aaron’s seat and who as Romans wielded Caesar’s power.
They took him to Annas, to Caiaphas, to Pilate, to Herod, and back to Pilate. He was accused, cursed, and smitten. Their foul saliva ran down his face as vicious blows further weakened his pain-engulfed body.
With reeds of wrath they rained blows upon his back. Blood ran down his face as a crown of thorns pierced his trembling brow.
But above it all he was scourged, scourged with forty stripes save one, scourged with a multithonged whip into whose leather strands sharp bones and cutting metals were woven.
Many died from scourging alone, but he rose from the sufferings of the scourge that he might die an ignominious death upon the cruel cross of Calvary.
Then he carried his own cross until he collapsed from the weight and pain and mounting agony of it all.
Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.
With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.
Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 A.M. to noon.
Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.
And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.
And, finally, when the atoning agonies had taken their toll—when the victory had been won, when the Son of God had fulfilled the will of his Father in all things—then he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and he voluntarily gave up the ghost.
His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way incomprehensible to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men so that all shall rise from the grave.
As Adam brought death, so Christ brought life; as Adam is the father of mortality, so Christ is the father of immortality.
And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.
I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.
But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.
A merry Christmas to all, even though my posts appear to have become transparent.
The atonement didn't simply happen in a garden and it didn't simply happen on a cross. It lasted up until the time that he conquered death and appeared resurrected at the garden tomb.
As for your statement on spirit heaven and spirit prison, I don't find too many differences. Because Mormons try not to use foul language, we use spirit prison to mean "Hell" and spirit heaven to mean "Heaven" or "Paradise".Unless I have forgotten it for some subconscious reason, I still never recall ever hearing the term "spirit heaven" before.
You know I haven't ever heard of Spirit Heaven either. The term is usually Spirit Paradise or simply Paradise. I believe it comes from Christs statement to the theif on the cross and also the referemce in Alma 40: 12
And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
Merry Christmas to you as well. We sure could have enjoyed a bit more snow here...
[deleted]
the following is a summarization.
BrainZero: Mormons aren't christians! Their doctrines are unorthodox because they don't believe in the trinity and they believe the atonement took place in the garden rather than on the cross. They are relying on their own works rather than the grace of Christ.
geode: Actually the mormon's doctrine of trinity is more similar to orthodox christianity than you think. They believe the atonement took place in the garden AND ON THE CROSS. It's because of faith in Christ that mormon's do good works.
SotaJerk: yeah... what he said.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And then there's the issue of who God is... could you give me a definition of the LDS view of God and or Gods... do you agree with the famous couplet, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become"?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I believe that the "As God now is, Man may become" part of the couplet is a very important part of LDS theology. It is found all over the standard works of the church. (Romans 8:17, Rev 3:21, DC 76, 132) As early as 1832, Joseph Smith received the revelation, "For behold this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39.) Exaltation and Eternal progression is our goal in life.
What I do NOT think is a main point in LDS theology is the "As man is, God once was" part. Is it true? Maybe. But it's not taught much in the church. It's not found in any of the standard works. It's only found in old sermons and discourses. It could be alot of people's opinions which they choose to teach. It is not necessarily doctrine however. I think what contitutes doctrine is the main things such as faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the holy ghost ect. If you don't know what planet God came from, I think you can still get into heaven...
On a side note, I don't see why the world thinks that the idea is so foreign to them. Doesn't mainstream Christianity believe that God was once a man (Jesus) and lived on a planet (Earth) and became who he is today (the risen Lord and saviour of mankind)???
I believe that the "As God now is, Man may become" part of the couplet is a very important part of LDS theology. It is found all over the standard works of the church. (Romans 8:17, Rev 3:21, DC 76, 132) As early as 1832, Joseph Smith received the revelation, "For behold this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39.) Exaltation and Eternal progression is our goal in life.
What I do NOT think is a main point in LDS theology is the "As man is, God once was" part. Is it true? Maybe. But it's not taught much in the church. It's not found in any of the standard works. It's only found in old sermons and discourses. It could be alot of people's opinions which they choose to teach. It is not necessarily doctrine however. I think what contitutes doctrine is the main things such as faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the holy ghost ect. If you don't know what planet God came from, I think you can still get into heaven...
On a side note, I don't see why the world thinks that the idea is so foreign to them. Doesn't mainstream Christianity believe that God was once a man (Jesus) and lived on a planet (Earth) and became who he is today (the risen Lord and saviour of mankind)???
[deleted]
I am not sure exactly what your argument is. I don't see the relevance in Romans 8 unless you are trying to begin a trinity discussion. The quotation means that through Christ, the spirit will dwell in us? Christ also said "I am in the father and the father in me". If Christ is in us, does that make us the same person?
You quoted verse 11, "11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
I don't see how this takes away from the exaltation concept. I believe that our bodies can be quickened to a celestial glory in the ressurection. Because of this we can be "heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ".
Could you explain D&C 76:4 in light of the concept of exhaltation? "From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail."
[deleted]
Oh! I'm sorry! I was thinking you thought I referred you solely to verse 4.
God is our God forever. He always has been, he always will be. That's eternity.
I'll let Brother Brigham answer the rest of your question.
Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. There is an eternity of life, from which we were composed by the wisdom and skill of superior Beings. It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What, then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of the Gods - instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be, - instead of endeavoring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a superior Power for information, and by the careful study of the best books.share
- Brigham Young
[deleted]
Well let's use the same formula against your theology. We read the following in Hebrews:
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever. Hebrews 13:8
[deleted]
We're ALL equal. Remember that and this whole debate is pointless!
shareDamn you, God dosnt have a favorite religeon... some are just... not nececarily true... take all those religeons with memorized prayers... do you really think God likes hearing the same thing over and over again? really?
sharethanks,
and as far as favorites, i don't know. i do know that God can only be the author of one faith due to the fact that he is truth and if all the religions taught only complete truth than they would all become one faith. I do believe that he loves us all and wants us to do well.
[deleted]
Brianna,
Why do you need God to forgive you if you believe you are right?
It seems like such a waste of one's life to spend time being so passionately against something when there are countless other worthwhile things to support and enjoy. Life is too short to spend time getting worked up over something that really doesn't effect your personal happiness. I can be perfectly happy regardless of what someone else believes. I have respect for all members of all religions because it's just the civil thing to do, and it's in line with the principles that founded this country! You wouldn't go up to a complete stranger and tell them you hated the clothes they were wearing or the way their hair was cut (unless have a total disregard for other's feelings). So why go online to tear down something that is far more personal and precious for many of us (who are essentially strangers). Find something you can focus your positive energy on! You'll be much happier and might actually contribute something of value to this world.
shareYou might as well put a read mark on your forehead,smallville (if you know what im talking about) :p
shareHere I go, getting involved again.
I read earlier, I'm not sure who posted it, but someone said that the mormons made up their own version of christ. I have to say that I have been to other churches and the only difference between the mormons and most other christian organizations is the mormons' belief on the trinity and the fact that christ came to america. For those of you who don't believe that christ did not come to america, why would you want to believe that? Science has proven there were people already here in the states when Columbus arrived, what would make you think there weren't people here at the time of Jesus'life and why wouldn't he have visited them?
Also science has proven that we don't know jack about the afterlife, so for those of you who are so sure that the lds religion is wrong, take that piece of advise in to account.
And on a much darker note, if you still don't believe what the lds church has been saying all along, you need to look up their predictions for the end of the world. Some of it has been pretty accurate and has been starting to come to pass. Ones like the rising of the dead--in reference to all of the ghost hauntings that seemed to have increased enough to make lawmakers create laws demanding that such information be given out about the propert. Good will be evil and evil will be good--Take a look at what good George Bush is doing in iraq and afghanistan (giving all of those people freedom) and how he is being slammed on the homefront, because everyone is afraid that their brother/sister/child will get killed.
Just some food for thought.
What is God's favorite? I think the correct spelling is religion.....
share