Last week The Associated Press reported,
Defense asks for no Mormons on murder trial jury
OGDEN, Utah — An attorney for a man charged with aggravated murder have filed a motion to keep off the jury any members of the Mormon church who might believe that the only way for him to be forgiven by God is to be executed.
Sharon Sipes, a public defender for Riqo Perea, filed the motion in 2nd District Court. She says a belief among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the only way to receive true forgiveness from God after committing a serious offense is to shed one’s own blood.
Sipes says that although the church has indicated blood atonement isn’t part of official doctrine, members widely believe it.
Perea, 21, is charged with two counts of aggravated murder in a gang-related 2007 shooting. Perea could face the death penalty. (Wednesday, 11 February 2009)
Mormon leaders unapologetically taught the doctrine of individual blood atonement from the early years of the LDS Church into the twentieth century.
Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith said,
“I am opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground and let the smoke ascend thereof up to God…” (March 1843, Documentary History of the Church 5:296).
LDS Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, second counselor to Brigham Young, taught,
“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to got to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their bloodshed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye … I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood … Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid” (September 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:49-51).
Mormonism’s second prophet Brigham Young told the Latter-day Saints:
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world … Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is taken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin he knows will deprive him of the exaltation he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but would say, `shed my blood that I might be saved and exalted with the Gods?’ All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?” (February 1857, Journal of Discourses 4:219).
Joseph Fielding Smith, the man who became Mormonism’s tenth prophet, wrote,
“Man may commit certain grievous sins–according to his light and knowledge–that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone–so far as the power lies–for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail… Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf” (circa 1904, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:134-135).
Then LDS Seventy (later LDS Apostle) Bruce R. McConkie wrote,
“But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins” (1966, Mormon Doctrine, 92).
BYU professor Robert Millet was once asked about the early LDS teachings on blood atonement. As he tells the story, statements made by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Jedediah Grant prompted the inquiry. Dr. Millet replied,
“I’m aware of those statements. Yes, they were taught, but they do not represent the doctrine of our Church” (2003, “What is Our Doctrine,” The Religious Educator, Volume 4, Number 3, 18).
It’s no wonder at all that many Mormons believe in individual blood atonement and mistakenly suppose it to be an official doctrine of the LDS Church. If it’s true that many Mormons believe this teaching, it’s wise for any defense attorney representing someone charged with a capital crime to choose a jury devoid of Latter-day Saints. While these folks would probably be smart, honest and thoughtful jurors, it could be risky if they agree with Jedediah Grant who said, “We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him…” (Deseret News, July 27, 1854).
If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins,
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7-9)
—
For further reading:
Blood Atonement – If It Was Never Taught, Why Do So Many Mormons Believe It?
Ashley, welcome to Mormon Coffee…..if we had a fridge here, I’d offer you a “newcomers drink’ on me….that is, I’d pay for it….you don’t get to spill something on me…..that’s as funny as I get on a Thurs. morning.
You say you’ve never heard of blood atonement….well, at 15, I’d say maybe you could consider studying the history of your church, using sources that your parents trust. maybe ask them about Richard Bushman, he’s my favorite, and find a voice you can depend on. Better to find these things out yourself, than to have an “outsider” like me or AARON or Sharon tell you something that you should arlready know.
Sometimes our personal and church histories are not very pretty, but knowing who we are and where we came from is , to me , always worth it.
Hope you enjory, and benefit from, your stop at MC.
GERmIT
Welcome, Ashley. You are only 15 years old, but you have the right to think for yourself and search out what you believe and why you believe it. My daughter is only 3 1/2, but one of my dearest wishes for her is that she explore our faith with an open heart and mind. I want her to know what her father and I believe, why we believe it, and the reasons we have for adhering to our beliefs. I take it you have never heard about blood atonement. There are probably other things that you have never heard of in LDS doctrine and history either. I have LDS friends who are in their late 20’s and never knew about Joseph Smith’s numerous wives until a year or so ago.
You don’t have to study so-called “anti-mormon” books or sources. Read some of your own historians—Bushman and Todd Compton are practicing, actice Mormons in good standing who are honest about your Church history and doctrine. Again, I want to encourage you to seek out truth. Feelings are good, but truth is better.
Take care,
Megan
Ashley, there is a certain term I am not allowed to use on here (it was filtered out, I should have known better), but the term we are supposed to use in its place on Mormon Coffee is, I believe, “hyper-critic”. Just wanted to explain why the term wouldn’t come through. Anyway, it’s a common, perjorative word Mormons use for those who question aspects of the LDS faith.
TO ALL WHO ARE DEBATING THIS TOPIC
Joseph Smith and many other prophets of the Lord taught this doctrine. This makes it true. When speaking of their personal thoughts, or musings, and not intending to teach doctrine they generally (by my experience) preface such with I believe, or I think (such as Brigham Young saying there was life on the sun). In the cases of the Blood Atonement they never made such prefaces, therefore I except them as doctrine.
Now, many doctrines are not taught at this time. Among them are Blood Atonement, Polygamy, and the Law of Consecration. This is not because they are incorrect doctrine, but because the church, as a whole, cannot comprehend them, and teaching them may prove the damnation of the main body of the church. I say this because it is understood in the church that we will each be judged of our works, according to the knowledge we have. We do not live polygamy, not because it is an evil practice, but because we are unable to. We do not teach blood atonement because there are many who cannot understand its true meaning and it will cause them spiritual harm.
As concerns the courts. This is one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard. As FoF said, are we going to ban everyone who believes in capital punishment from jury duty? The questions even sounds rediculous, as the Juror cannot assign any penalty. That is the duty of the Judge. So whether you have LDS on the jury or not is really going to make no difference if the Judge is simpathetic.
On a final note, if you read all the quotes given you should see a come idea that holds the true meaning and intent of the Blood Atonement doctrine. In everyone the guilty person is told it is better for them, but it must be their discission. They must agree to the act of shedding their blood, it cannot be forced on them, unless it is permitted by law (as in capital punishment). The statements that you should be willing to kill the person are not saying that you have the right to, but that you should be willing to if they ask it of you.
Also notice the phrase “as far as possible” in two of these quotes. This would suggest that if it is not possible for them to have their bleed shed (for legal reasons, or otherwise) they are not held to this requirement.
Thank you.
I was thinking about the LDS who claim us non-LDS keep looking back to LDS Prophets from the 1800’s and how they dont like us doing that. So I just thought I would share with you How Bruce Mc Did just that.
In the Original 1958 Edition to the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R.McConkie (Lucky for me, I happen to own a copy) He states In the Preface:
Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities.
So could an LDS member or two PLEASE EXPLAIN, Why LDS can quote from the Prophets of old and Go back to the teachings of the 1800’s, But Us not LDS cannot? Rick b
to all who responded to me earlier. thank you for your views on my comment. even though i am only 15 you would be surprised about how much i do know about my religion. i have studied it to the best of my ability for many years now and am still doing so including polygamy and the issue with blacks. it is my belief that at one point god ordained these things appropriate. he has a plan in all things and in in the end everything will come to be as he wants it. in this day and age he has declared that certain things that were ok in the past are no longer appropriate today it is not an issue of trying to avoid those topics today. we are not just picking the teachings of old that we like, but those that are ordained of God. if our prophet today were to declare that god has decided that polygamy is to be practiced again then the entire church would stand up with him and start the practice again me along with them. no i do not fancy the prospect of sharing my husband, but i know that if God were to tell me he needed me to i would do it without a doubt. i have considered these topics with an open heart and mind, i have talked to people i trust, i have asked the lord himself about these things. My search is over, I do not need to seek for truth i already have.
Ashley,
As a fifteen year old, and a new poster here, welcome. I commend your interest and love of the gospel.
May I point out one strength of your position and approach. Many people who criticize the church do so because they have asked what I believe are the wrong questions first. They often will ask “why would God do that” and conclude that if something doesn’t make sense to them, God would never do such a thing and that the Book of Mormon and the church must be false.
You have taken the more wise approach in asking first “Did this come from God” and leave the “why” type questions for later. And then following the outlined path for finding the answer to that first question through study and prayer. Once a person has those fundamental answers, the context of so many other things can be seen. It is AFTER that first question that the “why” type questions are answered.
God grants us understanding, wisdom, and perspective AFTER we show faith and a willingness to trust Him. I have followed almost all of these controversial questions out to the furthest extent possible, and have found that in every instance, there are reasonable and sensible answers.
Again, welcome.
fof
I love how the authors consistently take a snapshot of ignorance, then present it as “widely” accepted. *sigh*
Truth is, Mormons would probably be the most compassionate jurors.
My cousin was murdered 6 years ago…by a fellow mormon. Of course he wasn’t active (some here might find that a virtue), neither of them were. Well, my uncle reached out to the young boy’s family- developed deep relationships, and even though the young boy was not interested in taking responsibility, my uncle still forgives him, and did not push for the maximum sentence…My grandfather, when asked, stated he would be perfectly comfortable with that young man, upon being released from jail, moving in next door.
Yeah, that blood atonement is WIDELY believed and practice. This piece is more fiction than fact.
Ashley: just wondering, you wrote
if our prophet today were to declare that god has decided that polygamy is to be practiced again then the entire church would stand up with him and start the practice again me along with them. no i do not fancy the prospect of sharing my husband, but i know that if God were to tell me he needed me to i would do it without a doubt.
my question is, roughly speaking, how many of your practicing LDS friends and relatives have the same outlook ?? I know this is a ‘guess’, and I am NOT going to quote you in some book I’m working on…..just wondering….
thanks, and you are to be commended for taking spiritual matters so seriously
GERMIT
Rick B, (it’s been awhile, how are you?)
Rick B,
You said, “So could an LDS member or two PLEASE EXPLAIN, Why LDS can quote from the Prophets of old and Go back to the teachings of the 1800’s, But Us not LDS cannot?”
You can, and often do- you’re making a comment on an article that is BASED on teachings of that era. I believe the rejection by members, and I’m really only speaking for myself, is that you CHERRY pick these teachings and use them in your desired context: misleading others and yourself about our beliefs. This post is an excellent example of the dynamic I speak of.
LDS typically study ALL of the prophets’ teachings- not just dissecting certain passages that are hard to understand without the bigger picture of what any given prophet taught the saints of a certain era.
I wonder if you would really ‘do the same’ as LDS, by reading ALL of their (leaders in the church) teachings- including modern day teachings–conference talks, etc. I’m sure you will find more that you emphatically agree with, than disagree with (or misunderstand). I recommend the manual that the church has put out this year for Relief Society, and Priesthood–Joseph Smith’s teachings.
I know you are not shy about studying LDS history, as you informed me awhile back–but only the controversial teachings are brought to light in this forum—what of the vast majority of beautiful teachings? Why not talk about those? The approach of many on here who claim to be ministering truth, are really just over-salting the meat of the gospel with peculiar and obscure quotes–making it difficult for people to taste the meat. That is what we find objectionable.
Hey guys, it has been a long time—I see ya’ll are up to the same tricks!
I wonder if jury selection based on religion is a violation of church and state? Any takers?
Sure, Amanda…I’ll be a “taker”. It’s obvious that the Mormons want to “cherry pick” what questions they want to answer on here so I don’t want to be part of that grouping. Is it a violation? I’d say so, but you’d have to ask the judge up in Ogden, Utah who is presiding over this case who I bet is probably LDS. All the judges on the bench where I live are LDS.
Continuing on your request, and it’s off topic so maybe it could be discussed at a later time, I have the manual “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith” and brought that with me to the ward. When I asked if what is said on page 40 where Joseph Smith states, “God is an exalted man” is true, I had Mormons giving me that “deer in the headlights” look as if they didn’t know what I was talking about. Why is that? Why have so many Mormons today denied to me this fundamental teaching of the LDS Church? It’s either ignorance, embarrassment, dishonesty or all of the above. Why don’t the missionaries tell those new converts and investigators in the Gospel Essentials class the truth instead of having them believe that God is spirit as taught in Christianity (John 4:24) and in Alma chapters 18 & 22? It appears that the Mormon Church hasn’t done a good job of educating their people on “the first principle of the gospel” (Joseph Smith – King Follet Discourse).
hey amanda: welcome back to where the skies are not cloudy all day…..
no, I don’t think juries work that way, I think both sides are allowed a number of deletes, and from what I know , it could be the way you dress or smell…….the lawyers are trying to get a take on how you would vote if given a chance….so don’t think “fairness” here…..at least that’s the way I remember it
Amanda, on the question separation of church and state. I doubt it, though some might try to make the connection.
As germit says, there is typically wide discretion on who they can eliminate from the jury.
On to the bigger subject, I agree with Berean in that it seems none of these comments are taken seriously by Mormons, and there are many (far too many to dismiss as mere opinion of the leaders) that suggest they believed something far different from what you do now.
I am not sure BY would recognize the Mormon church today, nor would Smith.
But why is it that so much of your past is dismissed? I am not an expert, and never held myself out to be, but from what I do know, present Mormons really do seem to hide (or white wash, at best) the thoughts of the early leaders on these topics.
Kind of like our newest guest, Ashley, stating that she is appalled about blood atonement and has never heard the church talk about it.
Linda,
I am sorry I didn’t make it more clear, I’m not affilated with the LDS church. I was just trying to answer your question as to what has been said reguarding plural marriage and blood atonement. I found conflicting information that is for sure! I don’t expect the LDS body to own up to ever practicing such things.
Berean, Thanks for responding…
” When I asked if what is said on page 40 where Joseph Smith states, “God is an exalted man” is true, I had Mormons giving me that “deer in the headlights” look as if they didn’t know what I was talking about.”
It’s not typically addressed because it is not an ESSENTIAL doctrine -meaning that it is not necessary to have a testimony of this statement to receive the blessings of the gospel. The concept of men progressing (line upon line, Isaiah 28:13) is a common theme in the church. And in light of this concept, one must have a testimony of the ESSENTIAL doctrines before anything else is either understood or accepted. Which might explain the hesitance members felt in that meeting in answering the question. First and foremost, one must establish whether or not the gospel has been restored. Focusing on things you don’t understand…goes beyond the mark. I have a hunch that this is why you got the deer in headlights. And perhaps they may have erroneously judged your intentions for being there, and got defensive.
” Why don’t the missionaries tell those new converts and investigators in the Gospel Essentials class the truth instead of having them believe that God is spirit as taught in Christianity (John 4:24) and in Alma chapters 18 & 22?”
Well, ESSENTIALS are the basics. We can get ahead of ourselves chasing misunderstood teachings down a rabbit hole. The model that missionaries follow now is based on the promptings of the Holy Ghost, tailored to those they teach.
I know that the simple account of Joseph Smith’s first vision says quite clearly that God the Father and Jesus Christ had bodies of flesh and bone. But the most important message of the gospel is faith in Christ. One Faith, One Baptism. Not a coalition of faiths. I don’t mean that to sound disrespectful, I believe it is relevant to what Paul taught in Corinthians. We must be baptized in His name, with the proper authority…and that authority is again on the earth. That is a powerful statement, one that should be tested through hope, then faith.
” It appears that the Mormon Church hasn’t done a good job of educating their people on “the first principle of the gospel” (Joseph Smith – King Follet Discourse). ”
I don’t think this is a fair assessment of the general education of LDS in their own religion. I do know one thing, they are the most educated about their own religion than the average mainstream ‘christian’ is of theirs- especially since there are so many varieties of Christianity outside the restored gospel. The church has impressive resources that are made available to it’s members, which would disprove this notion that anything is being kept a secret…didn’t you get that manual FROM the church? These things are widely available to everyone, especially members–but members control their own education. The church provides NUMEROUS educational opportunities from Nursery, to Primary, Seminary, Institute, Sunday school AND relief society/priesthood meetings, callings in the church, and those who serve missions- on top of all the literature and records they publish of church history and teachings of prophets, church magazines, classroom manuals–it’s really quite impressive in terms of education…so I’m not sure why you feel this way. Does that mean every member will know every answer? Of course not! That is unrealistic. But the answers are readily available to them if they seek them.
ALMA 18 & 22
King Lamoni uses the term Great Spirit to share with Alma what he believes at that time–and Alma validates this belief of Lamoni’s and continues to teach him more of the fullness, which comprises the rest of chapter 22. Think of it as a conversation, much like the one we are having (question, answer) Also, it is important to note that the Holy Spirit (AKA Holy Ghost) is often used interchangeably with God’s spirit. The Holy Ghost is a blessing given to those who accept the ordinance of baptism. There are many blessings of the Holy Ghost..you can email me for further questions/comments : [email protected]
Okay, it is way past my bedtime. Have a good one!
Ok, it appears I am not done yet, I’m going to pay for this in the morning 🙂
Germit, how are you? Long time no see,
You said, “But why is it that so much of your past is dismissed? I am not an expert, and never held myself out to be…”
And remember, not every Mormon is an expert either, so you can’t judge an entire religion based on the knowledge or ignorance of any given member, that includes myself and Ashley. The failings of people are not a litmus test for discerning truth.
My testimony comes through faith, an experiment upon the word as it is revealed to me through the Holy Ghost. The red herring discussion of the blood atonement is inconsequential to those who have a witness of the gospel. Let’s say that a member reads these ‘teachings’- and allows it to be a stumbling block to everything that is real about their testimony? How does that accomplish the errand of faith? It doesn’t, it plants seeds of doubt. It is easy to get caught up in a dialogue of mysterious mormon teachings, but unfortunately that exercise ignores the essential teachings that are so powerful, and promise REAL blessings.
“, but from what I do know, present Mormons really do seem to hide (or white wash, at best) the thoughts of the early leaders on these topics.”
SEEM to hide. This SEEMS to be your characterization- you readily fill in the blanks and seem to be content with your conclusions. To me, the goal is to teach- you might want answers to certain questions, but the answers you NEED are entirely different.
Early leaders where just that, EARLY leaders- they were called for a certain time, serving members with different challenges, and different needs. That doesn’t mean they are irrelevant, but context is key. Members pay far more attention to the LIVING prophet for guidance. Focusing too much on the past would be making the same mistake the Jews made- they were so focused on the law of Moses, that they didn’t even know the Savior when he came to them in the present. They were looking beyond the mark- fancying themselves REAL scholars of their religion yet puffed up in pride they had not the humility to accept the Son of God. Believing the Savior and following Him takes humility and submission. It takes a lot of humility to say, “you know what, I don’t have all the answers, but I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true, so I’m going to put one foot in front of the other and have Faith”…and this process blesses us with further witness, understanding, and greater faith for the next step. So the key is to humbly seek a simple witness from the Holy Ghost. And when you receive it, ACT! Continue the process, and eventually you will find your heart filled with a knowledge and love for the gospel!
Alma 32: 28, 33, 36 (read this)
Okay, I’m REALLY signing off now, CIAO!
Amanda,
What bothers me about the whole thing is when I ask Mormons if God is an exalted man some have said, “No”. Others have gotten red in the face, started chuckling and acted embarrassed. Joseph Smith said himself that “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for certainty the character of God…and that he was once a man like us.” That seems like essentials to me. Also, if the Gospel Essentials class is just the basics for newbies, why does lesson one out of Gospel Priniples that is used for the new convert/investigator class teach exaltation:
“All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him – a god.” (Gospel Principles, page 9)
Somehow we have this teaching, but not the teaching of the Mormon god being an exalted man in the same book. I don’t know how a Mormon can have a testimony about a restored gospel if they don’t understand who God is. If one has the wrong God, then the rest of it doesn’t matter. The Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that God is an exalted man. This is “the most correct book on earth”. That teaching should be there. Alma 18 & 22 doesn’t support it and isn’t talking about the Holy Ghost.
I’m way off topic so I’ll just wait for another day to get into this.
Fof,
way to teach a 15 year old to immerse herself in a cult. This is precisely why Christians can’t just sit and do nothing. Because if polygamy returns as your god’s command, then what next? LDS will isolate themselves from outside scrutiny even further. Then what? Then you’ll be instructed to harm yourself and your families even further to protect your leaders. There’s no end to what they can get you to do. Don’t you see how you’re giving up your own independent thought to follow what some man is saying?
Amanda said: The model that missionaries follow now is based on the promptings of the Holy Ghost, tailored to those they teach.
So you’re admitting that missionaries are not completely honest when they come into our communities and into our homes. Deceptive recruitment practices is a cult tactic, one of many LDS practices.
Good morning Amanda: acually, it was MichaelP who you were quoting , but I don’t mind the attribution….maybe I’ll get some of his brains, or looks as a trickle down effect
you wrote:
– …..fancying themselves REAL scholars of their religion yet puffed up in pride they had not the humility to accept the Son of God. Believing the Savior and following Him takes humility and submission. It takes a lot of humility to say, “you know what, I don’t have all the answers, but I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true, so I’m going to put one foot in front of the other and have Faith”…and this process blesses us with further witness, understanding, and greater faith for the next step. So the key is to humbly seek a simple witness from the Holy Ghost. And when you receive it, ACT!
what of those who have looked, prayed, sought the LORD, read the BofM, read the bible, prayed again………and decided, carefully, thoughtfully, PRAYERFULLY, that JS was a fraud….that the BofM was not sent from GOD….that the LDS church didn’t restore anything except some 1800’s religious artifacts…..
are ANY of these folks humble or sincere ??? or do they, of necessity, have to be stiff necked, not responsive to the Holy Spirit, much like the Pharisees…..you get the idea..
thanks for your thoughtful posts…….blessings on you, your kids, and a husband married to a wildcat like you……short chuckle
GERMIT
TO RICK B
I have no problem with you quoting and referencing the early leaders from the 1800’s. My problem is that, in general, Non-Members do not understand the words of these great men, and thus twist their meaning. Then, claiming authority to know what was meant, they use this esckewed understanding to attack the doctrine of the church. And finally, when a member who actually has read, and studied these saying, and understands them, tries to explain their real meaning they are ignored. This is problem with using the words of the early prophets. We use them because we understand them. We have no problem with you using them, if you come to understand them first.
TO MRGERMIT
Speaking for myself, and most of my family and other members I know, a great majority of the church would live polygamy if called to. Partly because it is understood doctrine that we will be called to in the future, and not the distant future either. However, I think we have a different understanding of why this will be, and how it will work, than most outside the church do.
TO ASH193
Nice to hear from one so young (though I am not that much older). It is encouraging to know that there are youth in the church with such strong conviction. We need them.
Germit,
“what of those who have looked, prayed, sought the LORD, read the BofM, read the bible, prayed again………and decided, carefully, thoughtfully, PRAYERFULLY, that JS was a fraud….that the BofM was not sent from GOD….that the LDS church didn’t restore anything except some 1800’s religious artifacts…..”
This is a process for the individual, because as you know, we will not be punished for Adam’s transgression- therefore, we are responsible for our own decisions. Testifying of my experience will not mandate YOUR testimony, the converse is also true: Your unbelief does not mandate my rejection of the testimony that I do in fact have.
I cannot judge your hypothetical…if the hypothetical is portraying your personal experience, I cannot judge you. All I can do is testify to what I know to be true, because that is my responsibility. It is your choice to do what you want with it.
We do know that the dynamic of pride will keep us from knowing the truth. When a person is sufficiently humble, they are teachable, and the Lord is able to give them a portion of His words…we must approach the matter HIS way, not our way. This is also a process and does not indicate that everyone who is humble will accept the same things. My husband, is a very lucky man 😉 But he is also a very humble man- and as a convert to the church, he does not accept all that I do- and that doesn’t matter. Because his journey is a personal journey with His Savior, and I have confidence that he is on the right path.
Thanks for the kind words 🙂
Berean,
I see that this is frustrating for you. But part of that frustration is based on your own personal judgments of those members you came in contact with that day, and perhaps other circumstances. I never stated that the principle you pointed to was not indeed the truth- I’m not apologizing for it- nor do I deny it- and I believe it…but when dealing with investigators, it is crucial that you start at the basics. Believing that doctrine outlined in principles of the gospel, is not necessary to entering into the temple! You can go throughout life participating in all the blessings of the gospel, and not believe that teaching- and some members don’t! I don’t see how this is in any way controversial because the church cannot control the individual faith of all its’ members!
When you are dealing with human beings, you’re going to get all kinds of flavors- the LDS community is not a homogeneous community- we come from all over the world and have our biases, our problems, our weaknesses and strengths- even the prophets come with a plethora of imperfections. Thus the importance of teaching about the basic principle of repentance and baptism on the name of Christ! Any other teachings are unnecessary to receiving salvation. First, gain a knowledge and testimony of repentance, baptism and Christ (which I suspect you already have), and deal with the claim that these truths taught in the NT are now restored in their fullness. And address the teachings in the Book of Mormon and pray for a witness that they are indeed from God. Start there, because THAT is the foundation.
Linda,
Don’t take this personal but I found your analysis amusing.
I said, “The model that missionaries follow now is based on the promptings of the Holy Ghost, tailored to those they teach.”
And you got THIS from that:
“So you’re admitting that missionaries are not completely honest when they come into our communities and into our homes. Deceptive recruitment practices is a cult tactic, one of many LDS practices. ”
What? Are you saying that if someone employs the Holy Ghost when they teach, that they are being dishonest? I thought the Holy Ghost (spirit of God) was the litmus test for truth. And what is deceptive about testifying of repentance and baptism in the name of Christ? I mean, if believing in Christ is cult-like behavior- then I’ll readily drink the Kool-aid. You can call it a pickle-fart- doesn’t much matter to me.
TO BEREAN
Many members do not understand all the doctrines of the gospel. The fact that we can become exalted beings – gods – ourselves should be enough for people to come to the conclusion that God is an exalted man, thus making it unneccessary to say it directly. In this manner, those who are cappable of comprehending this doctrine can find the truth of it, but those who are not will not be held accountable for it.
Also, you make a common error in your assumption that since the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” it should contain all the doctrine of the church. This is a rediculous claim. It is the most correct, meaning that all the doctrine that it teaches is correct, not that it teaches all doctrine. Considering all the works of God, you would need more space than this Earth has to cover it all in writing.
Then you mention Alma 18 and 22 as evidence that the Book of Mormon teaches that God is a spirit, when it teaches no such thing, and anyone with a knowledge of education should be able to see that. Ammon asks Lamoni if he believes in God. The term is unknown to Lamoni, so Ammon asks if he believes in the Great Spirit. When Lamoni says yes Ammon tells him that this is God. Now, Ammon is not saying that God is a spirit, but that Lamoni’s belief in the Great Spirit is a belief in a god. Ammon than continues to teach the entire gospel from the creation to the present day, and than the prophecies concerning Christ. In this discourse I have full confidence that he corrected Lamoni’s false understanding of God, explaining the physical nature of God. The only part we have of this episode is the initial opening of Lamoni’s mind to understanding the truth. Aaron does the same with Lamoni’s father. Neither one says that God is a spirit, simply that the belief in the Great Spirit is similar to the belief in God, or a corruption of that belief.
TO MRGERMIT
I have heard many people say they humble pray about the Book of Mormon and the church. I have also heard most of them speaking with great hostility towards the church. The two attitutes are not compatible, and with the hostility God is not going to answer them. Other, however, only ask once and do not pursue it further, believing that if they do not get an answer the first time they never will. Again, with this attitude it is unlikely that God will answer (see the parable of the unjust just). While others go, not wanting to the truth, but wanting their own oppinions verified. They ask not, what is true, but ask to be told they are right. Again, this attitude is not likely to receive an answer from God. All these people are sincere, and most are humble, but one must also have the right attitude towards others,and towards the power of prayer.
I know many who do not know the doctrine of blood atonement, and many who are disgusted by it when they first hear about it (especially if it is from a non-member who doesn’t understand it in the first place). However, when fully understood I do not think there would be many who would reject it (though they still may not like it).
(If anybody want to learn how I have come to understand it, I would not be against discussing it in detail [email protected]).
last, it would be a violation of church and state for the Judge to deny LDS members a seat on the jury, but not for the Lawyers to select a jury without LDS members. From what I read in the article they were trying to get the Judge to make the ruling, so in this case it would violate the constitution.
TO ALL
I apologize for sounding Judgemental in what I said. Amanda said it better than I could.
Amanda: thanks for the response ; you wrote
We do know that the dynamic of pride will keep us from knowing the truth. When a person is sufficiently humble, they are teachable, and the Lord is able to give them a portion of His words…we must approach the matter HIS way, not our way. This is also a process and does not indicate that everyone who is humble will accept the same things
well, GERMIT is on board with all of that……we agree with how pride and humility operate, in theory at least…..and we still come to two very radically different conclusions…
partially for FoF”s benefit, if he’s snooping…..I’ll admit that I have not YET finished reading the BofM, but am making slow progress…..am I praying as I go and seeking GOD about it ???….really not that much , because for me , the whole LDS thing just does not square with the bible in general, and the NT in particular: we’re talking about the priesthood (ours and yours) over at Markcares…..any idea how many verses in both testaments mention “pries” “priesthood” “high priest” etx…..HUNDREDS of verses, 3 or 4 pages worth in my large NASB concordance……not much in there about the LDS variety of priesthood……so what was that I was supposed to be praying about ???? oh yeah, “truth of the gospel…”
I digress: my point to my first post to you, and this fits Mr Shem as well, is that THERE IS ONLY ONE OUTCOME , FOR YOU, THAT WILL VALIDATE HUMILITY , SINCERETY, RIGHT MOTIVES, and on…..and that outcome is accept JS and the BofM as being from GOD, the truth of GOD come to earth…..any other outcome, and soon we’re talking about the pharisees, pride, contentiousness, the religion of man, yada yada yada
you are in a tough spot (I think) because not EVERYONE you meet will fit that grid….sooner or late you will go bump into a non-mormon who has more humility in their little toe than you do in your whole body….. I went through the same thing in growing up Roman Catholic….they’re a ONE TRUE Church, also……
God’s help and mercy in figuring this all out……for you and GERMIT both. .
Hello Amanda,
I,m Doing good, as matter of fact, I am spreading Happiness around the world, and I mean that literally. I make my own hot Dry spice, I sent some to Falcon, it took first place and on my food blog I sell it and ask people to send me photos of them holding it in front of a sign of famous landmark.
I just shipped some way over to finland. I have photos from Canada, Israel, Australia, and around the states, I,m waiting for a Picture from Africa and Finland. I love It, I am spreading happiness around the world. Rick b
MRGERMIT
The only place that true humility and prayerful study can lead is to the truth, for God will never mislead his children.
Second, you be very humble, and still be hardheaded. Or, you can seem humble to everyone, including yourself, but in truth not be. A person who is humble, but is refusing to ask God if his beliefs just might be wrong and some one else right, is not truly humble. Even in the Bible we are told to ask God about everything, not just what we want.
Every time I have come to some conclusion I have asked not am I right, but am I wrong. I have been forced to discard some ideas and theories I have had because the Lord told that I was wrong. I am willing to except this. But I came to a conclusion first, presented it to the Lord, and asked is this wrong. When a person truly wants to know something, they must search the words of God given through all his prophets, ponder it, study, question everything they read and come to their own conclusion. After all this they must go before God and ask if what they have concluded is wrong or not.
In my previous post the examples of attitudes I gave show people skipping one of the three steps. There are those who don’t really want to study words of God, so they simple ask to be told that they are write. There are those who don’t really want to ask, so they may pray once, but give up if the answer doesn’t come within minutes of asking. Then there are those who read everything they can, but do not take the time to ponder what is being said. They form a snap judgement of what they read, and then ask God to verify when they have done nothing to really learn. You cannot skip any part in the learning process or you will never come to the truth.
Shemewater tells us, “I have no problem with you quoting and referencing the early leaders from the 1800’s. My problem is that, in general, Non-Members do not understand the words of these great men, and thus twist their meaning. Then, claiming authority to know what was meant, they use this esckewed understanding to attack the doctrine of the church.”
Might I suggest that the Mormons need to come to a better understanding of their own doctrine before they choose to lecture about misunderstandings. In this single post there are at least 4 if not 5 differing Mormon positions on blood atonement presented by Mormons.
First we have SteveH, “It seems to me that Mormon “critics” are forever mired in the 1800’s. The concept of Blood Atonement is not official LDS doctrine (as Dr. Millet clearly states)…” But alas he refers to a Mormon who is not a prophet to undermine a prophet.
Second Ralph tells us that blood atonement is not “official” but it is fine by him, “As far as blood atonement goes, I do not believe that it is ‘official’ doctrine to perform capitol punishment especially if it is not the common law at the time. But it is taught in church that the past leaders have preached this principle and from the response of my friends and family, most agree with it.”
Then Ralph decides that SteveH must be right, “In D&C 1:30 it says that the LDS church is “…the only true and LIVING church upon the face of the whole earth…” For something to be living it needs to grow and progress forward, otherwise it either atrophies or stagnates. We believe in modern/current revelation as you know, this is what keeps the church progressing forward in the path of God.”
The third position comes from ash193, “i have not once heard of anything like blood atonement. it is NOT something we preach.”
The fourth position comes from Shematwater, “Joseph Smith and many other prophets of the Lord taught this doctrine. This makes it true.” He explains the absence of blood atonement in today’s teaching, “This is not because they are incorrect doctrine, but because the church, as a whole, cannot comprehend them, and teaching them may prove the damnation of the main body of the church. I say this because it is understood in the church that we will each be judged of our works, according to the knowledge we have.” I am not sure how this justification works since clearly most Mormons have a knowledge of blood atonement and thus according to Shematwater will be judged accordingly.
I am not sure if Amanda is presenting a 5th position by claiming that Mormon Coffee, “CHERRY pick these teachings and use them in your desired context…” and that we ignore the whole council of the prophets. I am also not sure how one can ignore the controversial teachings of the Mormons, I am not personally aware of an orthodox doctrine held by the Mormons. She does not bother to explain how blood atonement is taken out of context in this post but has no problem making the assertion.
I only make these observations because this post has descended into testimonies on the truthfulness of the BoM, and lectures about how we are just not quite humble enough to believe, and nobody has answered any of the questions regarding the changing doctrine of blood atonement by citing a modern Mormon Leader, who in the words of SteveH, has the authority to change doctrine.
Ash 193 claims the LDS church never taught/teaches Blood Atonement and Amanda says, We/I cherry pick teachings.
Let me Start with you Ash, Your PROPHET BRIGHAM YOUNG, taught this,
And he said
Ash, Your prophet Taught these as truth, not his mere opinion, So either he taught Fact and people believed it, or he taught Lies and led people Astray. Which is it?
Amanda, Gal teaches their is another Gospel, The Bible teaches there are wolves in Sheeps clothing and false Prophets/teachers.
Were not cherry picking things, Ash claims she never heard these teachings taught, it is our Job and calling for some to expouse these things and allow people like Ash to see these teachings.
As I said before, we can agree on certain things, but Just because we agree on certain things does not make LDS truth.
As I pointed out to Ash, either this was truth and BY believed it and taught it, or He lead people astray, it cannot be both. rick b
Yes, Amanda, I do get all that. When missionaries came to my door and I met with them for 6 months, they did not come out and tell me that your god was exalted from a man, that Jesus is not our Eternal Father, merely our older spiritual brother, that I needed to profess Joseph Smith as a prophet in order to be baptized, that LDS men inherit their own planet to populate. They didn’t tell me that black men were not allowed to be in the priesthood until 1978, that I can never repeat a sin, or it is not forgiven. If they had, I would not have let them in to begin with. So that is deceptive recruiting practices.
TO GUNDECK
I have seen no discepency between what has been said by the various members here, except Ash193. The term “official doctrine” means the Doctrine that is appoved for class discussion and public settings. If something is not official it does not mean it is not true, it simply means that we do not need to teach it. However, we are still free to learn it.
Now, Ash193, as I understand, is only 15. It is very logical that she has not yet come across the doctrine of Blood Atonement, but would in later years, when she was ready to receive it.
No where else has anyone stated that the doctrine was false, simply that it is unneccessary to teach it, and those outside the church teach it with misunderstandings, so we wish they would stop.
TO RICK B
It seems rather arrogant for you to presume to know concerning our doctrine when you are not a part of the Faith. I agree that you, like us, have the right to teach and spread your faith. However, you do not have the right to teach the faith of another, nor do you have the knowledge and understanding of that faith to even make it possible.
It is perfectly logical that Ash193 should not have a knowledge of this doctrine at this time. As Paul said, one must have milk before they can have the meat. This doctrine is very much the meat of the gospel, hard to chew, hard to shallow, and hard to digest. I do discuss it in gerneral, or in detail, with most for this reason. No one can handle all the truth at one time. It would destroy them.
TO ASH193
This is a litteral doctrine taught by the early leaders. However, I have yet to hear a nonmember actually get the meaning of their words right. If you want to know more I am willing to discuss it with you.
Oh, also Amanda, I forgot to mention how the missionaries never told me about your temples, and how they are not holy and set apart for your god, but instead they are for secret ceremonies where you learn your secret passwords into heaven as you’re wearing your protective underwear. And don’t try to give me that milk before meat line. You will never see the true nature of LDS as long as you keep letting them feed you those lines. I just hope this is a seed planted in your knowledge now that will wake you up as LDS asks more and more of you, to the point where it hurts you and your family. In my dealings with LDS, I met an elderly retired couple in their 70’s who were here in NY on a mission away from their kids and grand kids back in Utah. You can’t tell me that they were not pressured and that this mission is good for their family.
I’m sure you can tell that I’m angry. I’m angry because I let LDS into my home for 6 months because I thought they were Christian. It’s all a huge lie and I consider this spiritual warfare. I’m not going to sugar coat it and be polite about it. I’m going to fight will all my might to keep LDS out of my neighborhood and surrounding communities.
Shem said
So Shem, LDS Call themselves Christian, I call my self a Christian, I claim we are not both Christian and we have a different Gospel, LDS really hate that. Now it seems your saying were not both Christian.
Plus JS and BY wrote much of what we quote from, Did the vast majority of people back in the day reading it understand it? I doubt it, because so many LDS claim it was not Doctrine or they claim it was said by the prophets but yet it was their mere opinion. So someone does not understand your faith, and that is you. Rick b
Shematwater
SteveH claims that we are mired in the 1850’s and Mormons do “not practice or preach concepts such as Blood Atonement”. He goes on to explain that Mormons, “accept that prophets of God are human and just like the rest of us are capable of personal weaknesses, foibles and errors in judgment.” Ralph asserts blood atonement is fine by him but that a true living Church grows and progresses. ASH193 tells us that you don’t teach blood atonement. You have claimed blood atonement is true but not taught “officially” so that your church is not held accountable to its teachings. Amanda claims that this is all just “cherry picking”. Now you are presenting an undocumented, but presumably “authorized”, definition of “official doctrine” that you allege brings these mutually exclusive explanations into continuity.
Where does one find your definition of “official doctrine” given by an authority of the Mormon Church? I would be interested in learning what the official authorized unofficial doctrines of your Church are. It seems odd that any Church would not want to teach the whole council of God and would officially remove true principals from the teachings of the Church.
While you continue to claim that material presented by Sharon misrepresents or misunderstands the doctrine of blood atonement you have not shown us how she has done this. It seems to me that she has quoted directly from your prophets, allowing their words to speak for themselves, with no personal commentary. She has also provided her sources for each quote. Unfortunately, because our Mormon posters have not produced any references from an “authority” of the Mormon Church “authorized” to speak on matters of doctrine, we can only assume that all of the arguments they present are incorrect.
I am not particularly interested in the doctrine of blood atonement, simply because it is so far from any biblical truth, but my original question remains unanswered. How does this work? How can a doctrine, delivered from a prophet, inspired by God, change like you propose? How does a doctrine make the unofficial list? How, is a good Mormon to know what teachings from past prophets are official, unofficial, true, or false? What doctrines taught by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament are now in the unofficial doctrine list?
If we have blood atonement so wrong, why don’t you just explain to us the “unofficial doctrinal” position of your Church? Apparently you understand blood atonement well enough to claim that the quotes from your past prophets misrepresent the meaning of the doctrine. Why don’t you enlighten us?
I should say that I believe you are honestly presenting your views as you believe them. I just cannot see the logic in the various positions presented by the Mormons in this thread. I think that this thread is proof that despite claims to the contrary, having a prophet does not create doctrinal purity or unity and there are just as many positions on Mormon doctrine as there are Mormons.
This could be a T-shirt, or maybe a very long tattoo…
. I think that this thread is proof that despite claims to the contrary, having a prophet does not create doctrinal purity or unity and there are just as many positions on Mormon doctrine as there are Mormons.
Gundeck, stop reading my mind….for your own benefit…..I can’t tell you how often your point made above has jumped out at me….the idea that one main prophet makes things so much more uniform sells well…..to an uneducated audience. Hang around MC or Markcares, or I Love Mormons or any one of thousand different sites, and the truth of what Gundeck noticed will jump right out and bite you on the moneymaker….
well said, Gunny
GERMIT
To my LDs friends:
during a slow vacation day or two, I am going to make a long, long list of the things that ,in GERMIT’s opinion, the LDS big boys have thoroughly avoided…prior to making the list “final” I will ask FoF, or someone who should know, what the GA’s have to say about x, y, and z….I will check with several zealous and intelligent Mormons…..
the credjibility of your “one true church” takes it on the chin, the throat, and every vital organ, when the big boys dodge and weave….. all in the guise of “focusing on the basics of the gospel” I understand that thought…. I also understand “pearls before swine”, but the VACCUUM and VOID of intelligent answers of simple , but challenging, questions leaves you LDS internet apologists flapping in the wind….left to do what they will not.
Gundeck, as usual, hits the nail so squarely on the head with this:
, and nobody has answered any of the questions regarding the changing doctrine of blood atonement by citing a modern Mormon Leader, who in the words of SteveH, has the authority to change doctrine.
Good luck citing a MODERN MORMON LEADER…..check the newest mall going up in Utah……or some ‘for the troops only” rah-rah session.
I don’t normally “rant’ like this, but your leaders…….I mean seriously, THESE are the shepherds that GOD has handpicked to lead us to the purity of the gospel ??
PS; shut me up by giving me THEIR straightforward answers to straightforward questions…..and I’ll apologize, even if I don’t agree with their position.
As usual: nice work Gundeck
Here is a thought for the LDS To go along with Gundeck and germit.
I just so happen to own the entire set of JoD, so I can post from it and check it out if LDS claim I am wrong. Here are some thoughts,
LDS claim Adam God is not Doctrine, yet BY said it was scripture and from God. LDS claim Blood Atonement is not from God, Yet many pages in the JoD speak about it.
Now JS Taught King Follet Discourse and JS never said, this is Doctrine from God that MUST BE OBEYED, Yet LDS deny Adam God and Blood Atonement yet Believe the KFD And Praise JS for setting the Church straight on Doctrine that is taught to this day.
Why is it that LDS use the KFD As Scripture and Doctrine, when JS was not so clear as to say, This is Doctrine, truth or word for word from the Mouth of the Lord, Yet BY was so clear about the Adam God, that He clearly said, our salvation hangs upon believing it, And Both BY and JS clearly taught Blood Atonement as truth and fact.
Yet LDS bury their head in the sand, tell us were wrong, we need milk before meat, yet refuse to tell us exactly how we are wrong or why, And as I pointed out many times, LDS teach a different Gospel, and are not Christians, but then Shem seems to imply we both are Christian and yet it is me that is Clueless.
Help me to understand, I clearly ask straight forward honest questions, I give quotes word for word exactly how they are, and all I get is, Rick your cherry picking, or Rick, I wish you had a clue, tell me, How is that an honest answer that helps me to understand?
If your God gives currant Revelation, and speaks to your Prophets, and your god really cares for us and wants us to come to the light and not walk in darkness, I would think your god could speak to your prophet and clear up this mess, but we both know that has never, and will never happen, so your left to make excuses as to why.
Maybe the Prophet is to busy to hear from god, or maybe your god is to busy to speak to your prophet. Rick b
I hear Crickets, Chirp, Chirp. LOL, Rick b
MrGermit,
” THERE IS ONLY ONE OUTCOME , FOR YOU, THAT WILL VALIDATE HUMILITY , SINCERETY, RIGHT MOTIVES, and on…..and that outcome is accept JS and the BofM as being from GOD, the truth of GOD come to earth”
It would be disingenuous for me to say, “not everyone has to submit their will to God in order to have humility”–that sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? I don’t think you would disagree with that–which is why it is disingenuous for you to mandate that I either reject this or call you prideful and devoid of any virtues–and I’m not falling into that trap! It’s an emotionally charged conclusion that isn’t logical. When someone says, unequivocally, that the gospel has been restored, does not mean the direct consequence is also having to say, unequivocally, that those who do not get baptized are bad people.
Why should I apologize for the truth? It is what it is. I don’t apologize for the restored gospel, because I am not ashamed of it! That’s it, no more- no less!
“sooner or late you will go bump into a non-mormon who has more humility in their little toe than you do in your whole body”
I already have!
Linda,
“You can’t tell me that they were not pressured and that this mission is good for their family.”
Linda, how would you or I be able to say what is good for them and their family, or whether they felt pressured?? You can’t honestly believe you are capable of making that judgment!
My grandparents served TWO missions while I was still living at home–I still knew them, and loved them- and now as an adult, their experiences in the mission field have blessed my life in many ways- they have a greater knowledge of the gospel, and I call on them for guidance. Whatever the Lord asks of us, He returns our sacrifice with a GREATER blessing on our heads 🙂
“It’s all a huge lie and I consider this spiritual warfare. I’m not going to sugar coat it and be polite about it. I’m going to fight will all my might to keep LDS out of my neighborhood and surrounding communities. ”
Wow. I think this statement of yours speaks for itself. I’m very sorry you have chosen to feel this way. I wonder if you would thank a local LDS member who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign? I think you are misunderstanding the battleground for spiritual warfare.
By the way, your feelings were similar to those in Missouri whose governor issued an extermination order against LDS that wasn’t lifted until the 70’s. I mean, if you are simply advocating the use of toilet paper on their properties–then that is an entirely different matter. I don’t know if that will drive them from their communities, though.
Here’s an idea..why don’t you send a warning letter to property owners that you are planning on painting your house “construction yellow”, or you’re having a Michael Jackson statue erected in your front yard—-then maybe you might drive all the reasonable people (LDS) away.
🙂 I got nothin’ but love for ya Linda- even when you are a little paranoid.
RICK B—
I NEEEED that spice..how can i get my hands on it? I don’t plan on travelling outside of the US anytime soon (because I told my life insurance agent that I wasn’t going to)
Ok, so i’ll have to talk about the topic or else I’ll get deleted (they are so patient with me, I’m surprised they don’t delete more of my comments)
Regarding your most recent post:
I can understand why you choose to feel this way. I can liken it to my own experiences in the gospel. I don’t have all knowledge–I’m ALWAYS learning something- just today I was reading a book about symbolism, and learned a bucket-load of cool stuff I had no concept of before. But my interest in these topics didn’t really come until I was ready for it. Why was I ready for it? Well, for years I have attempted to understand the language in the bible. It has always been difficult for me. My recent desire to learn about symbolism in the bible brought me to the point I am now, where confusing scriptures are now speaking clearly to me. Does that mean until this point I should deny the truthfulness of the bible because I don’t understand all of it at any given time?
Many might not want to answer what you think are fair questions because THEY don’t know, or they acknowledge the wisdom taught in the D&C:
D&C10:
63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.
I know this has been answered, the best way we know how–that might not be the answer you are looking for- which might be the problem…you assume you already know the answer…so why ask the questions? Even better, why ask US those questions? You already know there is a God, ask Him! We can never replace the wisdom of a loving and All-knowing God.
Amanda: you wrote
“sooner or late you will go bump into a non-mormon who has more humility in their little toe than you do in your whole body”
I already have!
I appreciate the honesty……..this being the case , I wish you, and maybe others moreso, would tone down the “pray with humility, pray with right intention……yada yada…..” because this points to the OPPOSITE of what you readily admit. that’s my point.
Peace on you and your household
GERMIT
Amanda,
What country do you live in? Click on my name, it will bring you to my food blog with info on getting the spice.
Amanda said
A few problems with what you said, The majority of LDS either try and answer, but as One guy showed, the LDS cannot agree, so we cannot get a straight answer. Or the LDS, If they do not know, never say, Sorry I dont know, they either try and answer or remain Silent, And the Silence does not look good.
Then your quote from D and C contradicts the Bible. The reason why I say that is because, The Bible says, Be ready in season or out of season and give every man an answer thats asks. Then as far as the Spirit of Contention goes, I can give many quotes from Jesus or the Prophets or the Apostles and disaples that can be taken as Contention, So Contention is not of the Devil.
And the Bible tells us to search the Scriptures, and to Knock, ask and seek. I asked, knocked and seeked out these things, God tells me they are false, you say they are true, so where at square one again. Rick b
FoF said “God grants us understanding, wisdom, and perspective AFTER we show faith and a willingness to trust Him.”
Actually, FoF, I tend to agree with you. Or I would if I didn’t think that you were intermingling the will of God with the will of the LDS leadership.
I can’t bring myself to “show faith and a willingness to trust…” in LDS prophets, for reasons that have been discussed at length here. Does Ashley know of Joseph Smith’s serial adulteries? What about the fraudulent claims that the Book of Abraham is a translation? What evidence is there that the Book of Mormon is anything but a 19th Century fantasy?
Its a classic misdirection. Its like the card trick when you’re sure you pulled the Queen of Hearts only to find that the magician has substituted it for the three of clubs. My concern is that the LDS starts out by presenting “faith in God”, but at some point the cards get switched and you actually find you’re holding “faith in religion”, or “faith in the organisation” which, in this case, is the LDS leadership.
Its a really subtle, but profound switch. It is actually the reason why most of the New Testament was written in the first place, so I’d say its a really important question for you guys to get your teeth into.
Amanda,
I believe they were pressured because the wife was practically catatonic. And when I tried to make conversation with them about where they were from, the missionaries gave me the “ahem” to shut my mouth.
Martin makes an excellent point: LDS mixes the will of God with the will of LDS leadership. I keep saying this: David Koresh and Jim Jones were self-proclaimed men of God too. Don’t you see how you keep trusting man after man after man over the Bible?
D&C10:
63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.
Joseph did not turn to the Bible for answers; he just wrote his own. Maybe Satan inspired Joseph Smith to write these words to lock in his followers. So if you’re going to go ahead and “drink the kool-aid”, you have the right to do so.
Read the Book of Mormon. Read the Book of Mormon. Read the Book of Mormon. You all say the scriptures are the standard, the basis for your faith, the source of knowledge. I agree with this. Why not study everything written by detractors about Paul, James, Mark, John instead of the New Testament? Your faith has resulted, among other things, from reading the actual texts, not criticisms or commentaries.
Germit, you said to Amanda- “I wish you, and maybe others moreso, would tone down the “pray with humility, pray with right intention……yada yada.” I must say I do not doubt your intentions at this point- I think I know you well enough to say you sincerely desire truth. My point in hammering the whole idea so often that you allude to is that the fundamental step is left out for so many here in determining if the Book of Mormon is true.
The most obvious difference between those who believe in the BOM and those who do not is the amount of time reading the book- by a huge, enormous, gigantic margin. I find this interesting and shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly. I must say that it is sometimes hard to discuss the BOM with folks so prejudiced against it yet who have so little first hand experience with it. How does a person ever allow themselves a chance if they never jump into it whole-heartedly? They don’t.
Martin- you ask “What evidence is there that the Book of Mormon is anything but a 19th Century fantasy?” The answer is the book itself.
Keep the faith
fof
Fof,
You read the BoM to give you faith in LDS leaders. I read the Bible precisely so I don’t have to trust my church leaders. The Bible hasn’t steered me wrong yet.
FoF,
You say over and over, read the BoM. I read the BoM, The D and C and the pearl plus other LDS books. I read the Satanic Bible also, and the Quron, Does simply reading these books make them true?
The fact of the matter is, we read them and prayed about them and hear God say, they are false, LDS THEN SAY, WELL YOU MUST NOT BE SINCERE, Or your simply looking for flaws, Why is it were not sincere or were looking for flaws if we dont believe it, and add to the fact that we read the books, Ask you guys questions to which we either get no answers or we get LDS who cannot agree on the answers.
I say with Sarcasm, and some truth, I sell Happiness in a bottle, does it mean you will have real Happiness if you buy my Spice? Come on and get real, The truth is you guys cannot or will not give us honest answers. Rick b