Getting Mormons to know the doctrine

BYU professor Robert L. Millet spoke at Education Week in Provo, Utah on Tuesday (August 19, 2008). According to a report on the Deseret News blog Mormon Times, “false ideas” about the LDS Church held by non-members come from “dumb Mormons” who don’t really know what the Church teaches.

Though said in jest, Dr. Millet’s words must sting Latter-day Saints who are trying to do as LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard directed: to use the internet and other forms of new media to engage public discussions about the LDS Church. Mr. Ballard said,

“We cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches.”

Yet, according to Dr. Millet, Church members are ill equipped to explain what the Church teaches. Mormon Times reported:

Church general authorities find the situation frustrating as well. Millet told how, after a question and answer session with non-Mormons, an apostle told him, ‘We have a lot of work to do.’

“That work is to help those who are not LDS to understand its doctrine. It also includes getting members of the LDS Church to know the doctrine. ‘We’ve got to get on the same page,’ Millet said.”

Getting on the same page sounds like a great idea, but I don’t know why there would be any optimism about actually accomplishing that goal. Throughout the history of Mormonism, even the leaders of the LDS Church have been unable to “get on the same page” doctrinally.

For example, in his Education Week lecture Dr. Millet told of an LDS apostle who was asked if Mormons believe they will become gods and “be in charge of universes and planets”:

“According to Millet, the apostle said he didn’t know anything about that planetary stuff, but that the point was for us to strive to become more like God and more like Christ. The apostle quoted several scriptures that indicated the possibility of becoming more like God, including 2 Pet. 1:4 which speaks of partaking of the divine nature. Details of the post mortal condition are sketchy, the apostle said according to Millet, but looking forward to living forever with his family, ‘That’s godhood as I understand it.'”

A student manual produced by the LDS Church for its Church Educational System provides the details of which this apostle seemed to be unaware:

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 132, 1976)

Some LDS leaders can’t even stay on the same page with their own teachings. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provides an example of this. In his book The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, Mr. McConkie wrote:

“Salvation is free. Justification is free. Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned.” (page 346)

In another book, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Mr. McConkie wrote,

“‘Salvation is free’ (2 Ne. 2:4), but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” (volume 3, page 426)

Dr. Millet himself has not always been on the same page as LDS leaders. In Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical, Dr. Millet explained that Christ’s Atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane, and was finished on the Cross:

“We believe that what began in Gethsemane was completed on the cross, and that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross are a vital part of His overall atoning mission.”(page 84)

This teaching is at variance with LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie who wrote:

“And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily into the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained yet the shame and the pain of his arrest, his trials, and his cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies and sufferings in Gethsemane. It was on the cross that he ‘suffered death in the flesh,’ even as many have suffered agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that ‘he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him’” (The Mortal Messiah, pages 127-128).

It seems unreasonable and unfair of Dr. Millet to chastise “dumb Mormons” for not having a firm understanding of LDS Church doctrine when those responsible for formulating and explaining that doctrine apparently don’t understand it either.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Getting Mormons to know the doctrine

  1. Millet of all people needs to get on the same page as his leaders on his interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23. For the past fifty or so years LDS leaders have consistently been teaching that the passage means precisely what Millet and Robinson say it doesn’t mean.

    As Robert D Hales said in the October 2007 Conference: “Each of us has been sent to earth by our Heavenly Father to merit eternal life”. Millet has deceptively convinced many evangelicals that Mormonism doesn’t teach this. He has tried to distract and neutralize many Christians but getting them to focus on an abstract, ideal Mormonism (ideal to Millet, of course) instead of a real-world, practical, functional Mormonism that the Salt Lake authorities breath life into in a top-down manner.

  2. DJBrown says:

    Of course we have work to do in teaching the doctrine to members. That is one reason we meet weekly, is it not? I don’t suppose other churches have the same challenge? Would those from other churches here be comfortable with picking a person randomly from your congregation to get up in front of news cameras to represent your church and its doctrine? Are evangelicals familiar with all the statements made by their ministers throughout the church’s history? Do you really think there have never been contradictions in all their statements? Really? I do not think this is unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But this article’s intent seems to be to make members of the LDS church appear ignorant of the doctrine, thereby separating the two. Do you think this will somehow aid you in undermining or discrediting the doctrine?

    I personally believe that active members of the church are on average very knowledgeable about the LDS doctrine. I once had a religion professor in college who told me he never had any problem finding LDS to give guest presentations on the LDS doctrine in his course. But he very often found it difficult to get lay members from other churches to do the same.

    Bottom line, we all have need for increasing our gospel knowledge and learning more about the Savior. I am always surprised at the things people choose to criticize about the LDS church. Somehow, a person can make any little difference in practice or believe into a monumental, controversial issue, ultimately adding to the justification in judging those of other faiths. Again, if that is your desire, so be it. “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Matt 5:9

  3. The problem is, DJBrown, that we’re dealing with very basic, core teachings of historic Mormonism, especially things that have to do with the nature of God, with forgiveness and a right standing before God. It would take two paragraphs of an absolutely official statement from SLC leaders to clear up much of Mormonism’s fog about God, grace, faith, and works. But Mormon leaders refuse to provide such clarity, even though they are the supposed beacons of doctrinal clarity that the world should look to.

    Are evangelicals familiar with all the statements made by their ministers throughout the church’s history?

    You can’t have it both ways. We believe in sola scriptura, and if generations of Christians fall wayward, we can go back to the scriptures as the “only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines”. Mormons have the validity of the succession of prophets and apostles to worry about. Protestants have teachers and preachers that don’t claim to be in a succession of apostles and prophets and “living oracles of God” of a “continuous stream of revelation”. Mormonism does, and its leaders should be held to a higher standard.

    What’s ironic is that Mormonism’s leaders are often held to a lower standard. Brigham Young can teach Adam-God from Conference, deem it as salvation-testing doctrine and revelation from God, and integrate it into the St. George temple lecture at the veil. But then later LDS apostle McConkie can deem Adam-God as deadly, damning heresy, and yet privately admit (never publicly, of course) that Brigham actually did teach Adam-God. In other words, in Mormonism, Brigham Young can teach false, deadly, damning heresy at a context like General Conference, integrate it into a temple ceremony, and yet still be considered a true prophet. When such leaders die, many Mormons feel like they can discard them like spoiled milk. Surely prophets and apostles should be more reliable than that?

    Mormonism prides itself in being a hierarchical institution. Such institutions, with top-down power, are fully capable of clearing up most fog and confusion with simple, short, authoritative, official, binding statements.

    But this article’s intent seems to be to make members of the LDS church appear ignorant of the doctrine

    I’m confused, are you referring to Sharon’s post or to Michael De Groote’s article on MormonTimes.com? Mormon professor Robert Millet is the one who called Mormons “dumb”. Why not first take issue with Millet?

  4. falcon says:

    Since delving into Mormon history, doctrine, teaching and practices I’ve concluded that Mormons must have the highest tolerance for ambiguity of any group I’ve ever encountered. It’s really hard to take them seriously. There precious prophets who speak for god in one generation, are treated like crazy uncles that live in the attic in the next generation. Take a bedrock principle like polygamy. A man can’t achieve the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom without practicing it up until 1890. Then when the prophets/leaders are pressured by the U.S. government, they dump it and call it new revelation. You telling me that the Mormon god who practices polygamy suddenly outlaws it? I don’t think so. But this is just one example of the bind Mormons are in and why they are told that once the prophets/leaders speak, the thinking is done. Heaven forbid, a Mormon might actually ask a thought provking question. So all this goofiness goes unchecked because no one will hold the prophets/leaders accountable for their prophetic utterences. It is a pretty low bar that a Mormon prophet has to vault in order to be considered a prophet.

  5. Jeffrey says:

    Yeah! I agree DJB. How dare Millet’s article say that members are ignorant of doctrine!

    I can’t blame lay members for having differences in doctrine. It really all comes back to their leaders. Because they have yet to step up to the plate and lay it out, they keep their mouth shut and let the average mormons have a theological fight night with Evangelicals.

    Maybe Monson should be a big man and use his revelatory abilities to just lay it out and put an end to contradictory beliefs among the faith?

    It is foolish for us on the blog to ask what the LDS people on here believe because they have no authority anyways. The sad thing is that they are the only ones talking. You would think they should be a little upset that they have to fend for themselves.

    Oh how I miss the days when the LDS prophets at least attempted to bring doctrine to light. Now all they do is sit in their paid for high rise condo in Salt Lake and tell its members to obey every 6 months. And every now and then tell us what the church is not (polygamous).

    Also DJB, I attended a ward for 5 years, all 3 meetings, and have even served the only calling a non member could have (activities committee), and I didn’t hear one ounce of any doctrine other than the general feel good stuff (pre-existence, families are forever, etc.)

  6. Missusslats says:

    After a 20 year stint in the LDS Church (temple married and calling-laden), with approximately 9 years out and 2 years as one of those “born-again types,” I’ve definitely noticed a phenom in Mormons with regard to doctrinal knowledge. I started to be aware of it a couple of years ago when 2 young LDS mishies were in my front room and the topic of becoming a god came up. One of the young men vehemently denied that this was a doctrine of the Church. His companion looked askance at him and said, “Yes, Elder, we do teach and believe that.” There was a little bit of “contention” btwn them in front of us; I’ve pondered about that incident ever since. My own kids had heard since age 0 that we go to the temple (and do all that other stuff) so that we could be a god someday. I wrote it off to Elder One simply not been paying attention in primary or FHE. More recently, I spoke to another young returning missionary who had become disillusioned with the church while he was out & came home early. His parents, although members, were inactive and had never taught the Mormon “gospel” in their homes. He had never heard the man-to-god doctrine, either. I asked him what he was taught to preach while in the MTC. His answer: Joseph Smith, the restoration, BOM, and baptism. That was it: the extent of his tutoring on Mormon doctrine. Suddenly the light went on. I connected the dots between Bob Millet, the LDS church’s 20-year effort to mainstream itself, and members’ lack of knowledge about basic LDS doctrine. Here’s the answer: children raised by devoted, temple attending, mormon treadmill-running, calling-fulfilling, food-storing Mormons were taught mostly athentic (with the exception of the weird stuff like adam/god) Mormon doctrine. Those taught only by the Church, were taught only what the “brethren” view as palatable to the world! If the LDS are ignorant of their own doctrine, its the Church’s fault. That and the fact that it changes frequently.

  7. DJBrown says:

    [Comment trimmed by moderator. Please discuss issues, not the other people here at Mormon Coffee.]

    Jeffrey- your disdain for the presidents of the church couln’t be more obvious. Very few people could objectively look at the lives of people like Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson and come away with the bitterness you demonstrate. You clearly know very little about them (“all they do is sit in their paid for high rise condo in SLC). In their 80s and 90s, they work harder and extend themselves to more people then most men ever do. You are the ultimate arm-chair quarterback.

    I don’t know what wards you attended, but your claim is very hard to believe. Five years without hearing “one ounce of any doctrine.” I have been in countless wards and have never found that to be the case. Our doctrine is laid out quite plainly- church web site, our scripture, class manuals, etc. But fault-finders will find fault- it is what they do.

    What if they tables were turned? Shall we discuss the evangelical faith a little? Do you doubt a person could bring up a laundry list of embarrasing scandals involving televangelists and ministers with their “god told me to get rich” revelations or their sex adventures. I have no interest in pursuing such a discussion because it does nobody any good.

  8. germit says:

    DJB: Honest post, per usual. You habitually have no hidden agenda, and like Ralph, are plain spoken about your views and thoughts. Without that appoach, there would be no dialogue here at Mormon Coffee, only darts and arrows (although we have our share of that). Maybe the answer to your ‘what motivates us’ question is not either/or it is both: maybe it really is a heartfelt concern for souls, but pettiness and insecurity still raise their ugly heads. I am not offering that up as some kind of excuse, but as a possible explanation. I know that winning at an argument was a big deal in our family growing up,and I’ve seen the futility of making that important as I spend time with siblings and parents. ‘Being right’ is not always the olympic medal it seems to be. Still, our goal is love (1stTim1:5) that is not at the expense of truth. Maybe the ‘truth’ part of that equation is easier than the ‘love’ part, just thinking. I hope you are able to separate the wheat from the chaff, here, and continue to share the LDS position, or at least the DJB position, it’s not a substitute for reading from the standard works, but much of what I know of your faith, I’ve learned from the LDS contributors. Thanks for listening to my ‘pre-weekend ramble’. I’m gatharing history books in prep for next weeks articles. Let the love of the brethren continue….GERMIT

  9. DJBrown, are you implying that you think your prophets and apostles should be held to an equal standard as normal teachers and preachers? I can discard a false teacher, but doesn’t a false prophet call your priesthood succession into question?

    It sounds like you’re turning to personal attacks instead of dealing with the meat of the issues.

    Our doctrine is laid out quite plainly- church web site, our scripture, class manuals, etc.

    How do you explain the conduct of Hinckley in saying, “I don’t know that we teach that”?

  10. jackg says:

    DJB,

    Paul spent oodles of energy correcting heresy in his day. Why should it be different for us? Maybe you sense contempt in the pages of the new testament against groups who tried to teach another gospel, such as the Mormon church does. But, hey, if you want to be on the team that teaches false doctrine, it’s your prerogative. But, since you voice your opinions and defend a non-Christian religion on this blog, it’s the duty of every Christian to point out the heresies and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible. We expose your leaders because they are false prophets, and the evidence is manifest in the things they say and then later recanted by another church leader. Also, I have noticed how you have stopped responding to me. It’s okay. I know I’m preaching God’s word to the Mormons, and praying that each of you will see the error of JS ways. It’s the work of the Spirit to convict Mormons of the heresies they espouse. Our responsibility is to present Christian apologetics in the best way we can. As for giving us motives, you only reveal your heart. BTW, what are your motives for being on this blog?

  11. Brian says:

    Hello DJBrown,

    Welcome to the forum. I think the main purpose of the forum is to look at the teachings of the LDS religion, and the teachings of the Bible. Hopefully, this is done as respectfully as we can. But there are times we fall short in this.

    Anyway, thanks for your participation in this forum.

    One of the quotations Sharon wrote of is by Bruce R. McConkie, in which he spoke of the following:

    “Salvation is free” (2 Ne. 2:4), but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

    For me, this is a difficult statement to understand. Perhaps I am slow, or am simply not understanding what the speaker is saying. Perhaps you could help me.

    Strictly speaking, I don’t have a difficulty with the (1) free and (2) purchase price appearing together, but I do have difficulty with the way they are combined. Consider this illustration:

    Let’s say that a friend of mine is visiting, and admiring a beautiful leather-bound classic book in my bookcase. “How much did you pay for that?” asks my friend. If I was the one responsible for the purchase price, I could not very well say “It was free” could I? On the other hand, what if someone else had paid for the book. Then I could say “It was free,” although this would not mean it did not have a purchase price. Does that make sense?

    In the same way, the Christian is righteous (justified). And this is free, because I did not pay the price for this (perfect obedience to the law). Rather, God has already made me right in His sight by the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9). So in this way, yes, salvation does have a price. It’s just that someone else paid it, so it is free for me.

  12. Andrea says:

    DJB said, Of course we have work to do in teaching the doctrine to members. That is one reason we meet weekly, is it not? I don’t suppose other churches have the same challenge? I go to church to hear God’s Word and how to apply it in my daily life.
    Would those from other churches here be comfortable with picking a person randomly from your congregation to get up in front of news cameras to represent your church and its doctrine? Yes, I would. Like Aaron said, my congregation believes in sola scriptura.
    Are evangelicals familiar with all the statements made by their ministers throughout the church’s history? Do you really think there have never been contradictions in all their statements? Really? Speaking for myself, I know my pastor is a man speaking as a man and does NOT claim to be the mouthpiece of God, so this doesn’t really apply the way you want it to. If he contradicts another pastor, I go to the Bible.
    But this article’s intent seems to be to make members of the LDS church appear ignorant of the doctrine, thereby separating the two. I don’t believe Sharon’s intent is to say that the LDS are ignorant. My interpretation is that there is so much to sift through, so many different teachings, so many contradictory statements, so much that isn’t learned until after years of being in the church, that it’s no surprise the LDS aren’t all “on the same page”. The leadership lies about what Mormons are taught. The point is that no one should be confused about doctrine but the LDS church makes that impossible. If I want to know what I should believe about something, I go to the Bible. If I’m confused, I ask another Christian who’s more learned/been in the faith longer than I and we discuss it, using further bible study. I don’t need to go to some other “authority” to tell me definitively what I’m supposed to believe.

    (cont)

  13. Andrea says:

    (cont’d)

    What if they tables were turned? Shall we discuss the evangelical faith a little? Do you doubt a person could bring up a laundry list of embarrasing scandals involving televangelists and ministers with their “god told me to get rich” revelations or their sex adventures.
    What does that have to do with doctrine? That has more to do with the wisdom of men, which is what Mormons put their faith in (JS and so on).

    Christians don’t claim to be uniform. Obviously there are many different denominations and teachings, even within my church one may believe that we must be baptized while another doesn’t believe the same. But the Mormon Church does claim uniformity because they say they are the “restored gospel” and receive direct and continuing revelation from God. If that were really so, there would be no confusion, there wouldn’t be different teachings no matter what ward you attend. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow -He doesn’t change His mind to leave His children confused. He very simply told us what we need to do to receive salvation and return to His presence- Gal 2:16; Gal 3:11-14,19-22; Acts 15: 10-11; John 20:31

  14. Berean says:

    One issue I have experienced over and over again when talking with the LDS people is that they disagree on what is and what is not doctrine. The usual line of “that is/was only his [name the prophet or apostle] opinion…it’s not authoritative.” I recently had this come up in a dialogue I was having with a Mormon. We were talking about Spencer Kimball’s book “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine” and the “Journal of Discourses” which he said all of these sources were not authoritative. ( I kept waiting for this issue to come up on the other thread and surprisingly it did not).

    This LDS man referenced an article on the LDS website in the “Newsroom” entitled “Approaching Mormon Doctrine”. It says this:

    “With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works’ of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

    My point to him was this: When I read “official Church publications” (institute and seminary manuals) and they reference continually Spencer Kimball and what he said in the “Miracle of Forgiveness”, continual references to McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” and the “Journal of Discourses” with conference addresses today by the prophet and the apostles referencing all of these works, then wouldn’t that make these works authoritative? How can endless quotes from these works be in the official church publications, but somehow not authoritative?

    In the end, I lumped it into LDS “double speak” and “Vegas buffet” Mormonism – picking and choosing what doctrines and statements they want at a given time and rejecting the others that don’t fit the need.

  15. GRCluff says:

    Lets see if one of these “dumb Mormons” can sort all this out for us.

    Here goes:

    We introduced 3 points of conflict:

    1. Will Mormons be in charge of planets?
    2. Can salvation be purchased?
    3. Did the atonement happen on the cross or in Gesthsamane.

    1. Yes we WILL be in charge of planets. I have to go with the Celestial Marriage book on this one. The poor apostle must have been a little confused and OBVIOUSLY didn’t want to talk about his future planets at the moment. His comments were probably taken out of context. Maybe if we were to review ALL the Bible verses he quoted, we could get a better picture of what he was trying to say.

    2. Salvation is indeed purchased. I have to go with his NT Comentary on this one. If I am not mistaken, that was his later book. I can give him room to learn and grow. We all make mistakes.

    Just to be clear, our salvation is purchased by Christ first, so he owns us. Then all we have to do to purchase it from him is any thing he demands. (Everyone want to put words in his mouth on this one) What does he demand? All we can do. Nothing more nothing less. A high price for our own salvation? Maybe, but too much for many.

    3. It was Gethsemane. That is when he paid the price for our sin. It did not kill him. His death was also important, because he needed to rise from the dead to complete his work on earth. That is why we like to mention both. But the act most relevant was the act of atonement. If that was the question, it didn’t happen on the cross.

    Do we really have to focus on conflict? And why does every article have to mention my plan to become a God. I am so very far away for that condition at the moment all that does is make me depressed. Oh well, to reach the treetops we have to shoot for the stars.

  16. BornagainMormon says:

    I suppose my username will automatically relegate me to the confines of a “contemporary” Mormon trying to water down the doctrines of the past, but I’ll leave that for another day.
    This is my first post, so I’ll introduce myself a little. This site is exactly what I have been looking for, because the divide between “Born Again” Christians and Mormons is a subject that is very personal to me.
    I am a life long Mormon. I was born and raised in small town rural Utah where I regularly associated with one of the recently deceased Apostles of the Mormon church. I served a two year mission for the church, am a temple attending member and have four children.
    I would like to take a little different approach to these “worn out” arguments. Let me start by saying that I am not going to argue about the fact that there are problems with my church. I openly admit there are- some of them have been very bluntly discussed here.
    Let me just tell you a little bit about my experiences. I was converted to Christianity shortly out of high school by a very personal “born again” experience where I came to know that Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world. Following this experience, I began studying the scriptures extensively. Because I was raised Mormon,this included the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.
    I came to love the New Testament because it reinforced the knowledge I had gained from my born again experience. I also found the Book of Mormon to be a very spiritual book.
    About this time, I chose to serve a two year LDS mission. In the mission field I gained some first hand experience with some of the problems which have been mentioned here. Because of some of these problems within my church, at times I felt drawn to some of the “Born Again” churches. This was a very difficult situation, because I was a missionary for the Mormon church.
    Although I felt a certain amount of kinship with the “Born Again” faiths, I felt (cont)

  17. BornagainMormon says:

    (cont) a certain amount of doubt there as well. Much of this doubt about the “born again” doctrine was centered around another very spiritual experience where the concept of baptism as taught by the Savior in the New Testament became important to me. The casualness by which many of the “born again” people treated baptism was disturbing to me. It is very clear in the New Testament that Christ taught the importance of baptism. I just couldn’t understand how people who claimed to be “born again” and claimed the Bible (and particularly the New Testament) to be the one true source of doctrine could be so casual about the need for baptism. But for me it wasn’t only the teaching of the Bible, but my own spiritual experience that emphasized baptism as part of the Lord’s teachings.
    It was at this point that I delved deeper into the teachings of my own church and found (underneath all the rubbish) a very sound foundation of Christianity.
    This is where I think most people who have problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are wrong. They get caught up in the very real and undeniably true problems with the Mormon Church, and this prevents them from getting to the underlying truths.
    I have to admit that every time someone in Sunday school begins their comments with “Bruce R. McConke said” I cringe, but I get over it. To find the gems of Mormonism you have to dig through the rubbish, but they are there.

  18. DJBrown says:

    Aaron and to all who say President Hinckley is a liar for saying “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” What he is saying is actually quite accurate. What you need to understand is that these “deep” doctrines are really not given time or taught in church. There have been statesments made by prophets including Joseph Smith about these doctrines, but like President Hinckley said, nobody really knows a lot about them. Several here have said that these things are taught to our young children- that is really not true.

    I am not saying we don’t believe such things, I am saying we don’t know a lot about them. We understand that our commission is to preach the basics of the gospel, those things upon which salvation is dependent. These teachings are extremely consistent from ward to ward.

    Please understand, much of what is talked about here and by those critical of the church are doctrines that are “far out”- meaning things we just don’t know a lot about, yet can be easily sensationalized by those who present them in a different light. Again, this is not satisfying to the detail-hungry brain that wants to “make all the connections.”

  19. DJBrown says:

    Again on the faith-works issue that keeps coming up. Anybody see the movie “The Ultimate Gift?” Very good movie. In it is a great story that mirrors our belief on this topic. A billionaire oil tycoon is dying and does not trust his greedy sons and daughters with his fortune and businesses. He has a grandson who has fallen from the family and is living a riotous lifestyle. The grandfather knows the grandson has the potential to be a great person and one he could possibly trust with his fortunes. He sets up a list of 10 things the young man must do in order to receive “the ultimate gift.” These include service to others, learning to work hard on a ranch, giving up all his earthly possession, etc. Basically, he is tortured through a series of lessons that in the end make him a better person.

    This young man initially believes he will receive a million dollars or something equivalent. Through his experiences completing his grandfather’s list of requirements, he eventually forgets about himself and starts loving other people. Then, in the end he receives the “ultimate gift”-being an honest, loving, hard-working person, and the one upon which his grandfather bestows his entire fortune (tens of billions of dollars).

    Back to the issue- the grandson does not earn the fortune in any respect. It is given to him. But he had to do certain things before receiving it. Very much like our belief on faith and works. I am not saying we have a list of things to check off. We must follow Christ and become what he wants us to become THROUGH HIS ATONEMENT. His grace lifts and helps us through this process and of course in giving us “the gift.” Hope this helps for those of you genuinely interested in knowing what we believe.

  20. falcon says:

    CLUFF,
    Your last paragraph was very revealing. Of course you’re depressed because you recognize the hopelessness of your condition. You can never do enough to become a god. You’re never going to make it in the Mormon system. But you’re hooked on this gerbal wheel never getting any where despite all of your efforts. You try and try and always fall short. In Biblical Christianiy, we don’t work to become gods. We let God be God. We accept the free gift of salvation He is offering us.
    I want to congratulate you for clearly laying out the Mormon system. I’m not going to argue about it because it is the Mormon system. It has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Now the question is, which (Mormonism or Biblical Christianity) is a true representation of reality.
    Remember what the foundation of Mormonism is. From what did Joseph Smith draw his spiritual experiences, insights and revelations? Once you can answer honestly that question, then you know the source of the Mormon religion and why the doctrine is what it is.

  21. mobaby says:

    DJB & Cluff,

    What are your thoughts on the contradictions pointed out in the article? The way there seems to be no clearly authoritative voice coming from the prophet and apostles of Mormonism? It seems the basic idea presented in this article that if Mormon authorities have contradictory messages (let alone consistent), how could they ever expect more of their followers? I’m sure you have heard of cafeteria-style Catholics – it seems Mormonism has cafeteria-style leaders. Pick and chose, alter a doctrine here and there, leave off the controversial parts and out-right delete the controversy when necessary, i.e. “I don’t know that we teach it.” Don’t know that we teach it – that’s a big statement. As the prophet of the Mormon church, Hinckley seemingly would be aware of what is Mormon doctrine – and by saying “don’t know that we teach it” he implies that Mormons do not believe this. One leader says he doesn’t know if Mormons will be in charge of planets in the afterlife, another official document states unequivocally that Mormons will be in charge of planets. I guess if “I don’t know” is the rule then Mormons are free to say “personally I don’t think we will rule planets, there is only one creator god who rules the planets, we will be lesser gods” while another Mormon would be free to emphatically state that Mormons “will rule planets.” Neither should be called dumb or said to be not following Mormon doctrine since both could site teachings. That’s hardly the clarity I would expect from Prophets and Apostles of God. I would not follow such prophets.

  22. JessicaJoy says:

    Okay, I read the article in the Mormon Times and was very surprised by Millet’s definition of the Godhead! It’s sounding surprisingly similar to explanations of the Trinity that I’ve read from some Christians. Now, no one I know has a perfect explanation of or understanding of the Trinity and I don’t think Millet’s is complete either but it sure sounded closer to what I believe than any Mormon definition of the Godhead I’ve ever seen before and it made me wonder if this is what other Mormons believe or if this is just Millet’s own personal belief.

    Cluff, you’ve been very adamant throughout your posts that the “Trinity” concept seems like it makes God seem unknowable. What do you think of Millet’s definition?

    Millet said: “the Godhead is ‘infinitely more one than separate.’ Millet also addressed some passages in the Book of Mormon that seem to endorse the trinity concept. He said there were three steps to understanding these verses. First, he said Mormons believe there are three personages in the Godhead: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Second, those three possess equally all attributes and qualities in perfection. Third, the love and unity that exists among them is of such a magnitude that they “constitute a divine community that is in some scriptures just called ‘God.'”

    Now, if Mormons can come to embrace this view of God and can also come to believe that there was never a God formed prior to this, nor will there ever be (Isaiah 43:10), and this is the only God, and he does not have a physical body or engage in sexual relations, we will be getting a lot closer together in our understanding of the nature of God…

  23. JessicaJoy says:

    cont…

    I just can’t get over this line of what Millet said:

    Second, those three possess equally all attributes and qualities in perfection.

    Equal in attributes and qualities…

    This is exactly what I believe and is why Jesus and the Holy Spirit are worthy of my worship, the same as my Heavenly Father…

  24. Berean says:

    Cluff:

    That was good of you to honor Article 13 “in being honest and true” on the three points of doctrine that are factual. Just a few questions though:

    1. You said, “Yes we WILL be in charge of planets. I have to go with the Celestial Marriage book on this one.” I’d be overjoyed if you could show me the reference for that in the book that really counts – the Bible. If not, then the Book of Mormon since it’s “the most correct book on earth” and “a man would get closer to God abiding by its precepts than any other book.” A teaching as fundamental as that would have to be there, right? After all it is eternity. That couldn’t be a minor teaching.

    2. You said, “Salvation is indeed purchased.” Still don’t want to accept the GIFT that has already been purchased for you? Read all about it (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9). If you have to purchase it, then it is not a gift and it’s not from God because He says it’s a gift. What could you ever do to purchase it anyway? I thought Mormons push the Atonement? Oh, obeying ALL the commandments? Have you done that? Have you done “after all you can do”? Please scroll up and give this thread another read through. After all, it is eternity we are talking about.

    3. Still think it was Gethsemane? Why not when he was flogged and his skin and flesh were ripped open with every swipe of the whip? There was probably more bleeding there than the other. Doesn’t matter – 1 Pet 2:24 said he bore our sins on the cross – not in the Garden.

    I feel for you in your depressed state that is why I am here to talk with you. Why must we remind you constantly that you aren’t going to become a god? Well, because you will not and cannot become one. God wrote Isaiah 43:10-12 just for people like you. Notice the key words in that text: “that ye KNOW and BELIEVE me, and UNDERSTAND”. Is that clear enough? Please don’t make this any harder than it has to be. Life is too short to be depressed. Have joy like the Christians who have eternal life!

  25. Berean says:

    I thought our LDS friends were supposed to have all the answers to those questions that the Christians can’t answer since they have a prophet today who is the mouthpiece of God along with a religion that focuses on continuing revelation. Yet, all I keep hearing is “that hasn’t been revealed yet” or “I don’t know” or “we don’t know a lot about them [doctrines].”

    I watched the video of the German reporter interviewing Hinckley. He asked Hinckley why the blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978. Hinckley’s answer: “I don’t know!” I’m looking at the August 4, 1997 article in Time magazine where Hinckley is asked if God the Father was once a man. Hinckley’s answer: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it…I understand philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”

    What happened to Amos 3:7? Are you kidding me? Joseph Smith said that this was the FIRST PRINCIPLE of the gospel was to know that God was once a man like us. This is the starting point. This isn’t talked about? This teaching is in “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” pages 345-346; The King Follet Discourse; “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church – Joseph Smith” on page 40. This book is used at priesthood meetings. It was at the wards I visited. The Gospel Essentials teacher told me right from the beginning that the Mormon god was an exalted man unlike the missionaries who either denied it or wouldn’t give me straight answers.

    Jessica,

    Millet is a spin doctor for BYU and the LDS General Authorities. His task is to make Mormonism sound Christian. What he is not telling about the Mormon godhead is that they believe they are three separate gods – two have a physical body and the other is a spirit man who was one of his spirit children in the preexistence. Oh, and they are not omnipresent either. The list could go on. That wouldn’t get Millet the Christian approval so he won’t say that.

  26. Rick B says:

    Now we read J Smith saying in the book History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it’s precepts, than any other book.”

    Then over in the book, Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on pg 71 we read, ” Take away the book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? we have none.”

    Now lets look at what the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith said. Notice Joseph Smith was the first “prophet” Joseph F Smith was the 10th “prophet/president” of the Church. So as not to confuse with the close names.

    We read in the book,

    Doctrines of Salvation vol 3, pg 198-199 J.F.S. teaches, ” In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.

    I am going to tell you why. When I say that, do not for a moment think I do not value the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, just as much as any man that lives; I think I do. I do not know of anybody who has read them more, and I appreciate them; they are wonderful; they contain doctrine and revelation and commandments that we should heed; but the Bible is a history containing the doctrine and commandments given to the people anciently. that applies also to the Book of Mormon. It is the doctrine and history and commandments of the people who dwelt upon this continent anciently.

    But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.

    So we find here two prophets disagree on just how important the BoM really is?
    Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 1

  27. Rick B says:

    Cont:
    Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

    So now we have 3 people, all prophets teaching different things. This leads to another question, if D and C is over the book of Mormon, why do the Mormon missionary’s not pass that out? And if the Prophet is over all the 4 standard works, why bother passing them out at all? Why not pass out books of the prophets teachings?

    I will post more of these types of problems later. Rick b

  28. JessicaJoy says:

    Thanks for the clarification on the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, Berean. I can’t figure it out at all from the conflicting info I’m getting from LDS sources.

    Why, if they have the “restored gospel,” are they trying so hard to mirror Biblical Christianity? I just can’t figure it out. They used to have so many doctrinal distinctives that set them apart. Why do they need a “spin doctor” for their doctrine? And why, if they like Millet’s spin on things, don’t they consider him to be one of their authorities on doctrine? Or do they?

    This is sure confusing and complicated for someone trying to understand this religion…

  29. DJBrown says:

    RickB: I am sure you have heard this explained before, but here it goes. All scriptures are inspired by God. They all testify of Christ. The Bible is one testiment (or 2 old/new), the Book of Mormon is another testiment of Christ. I think what Joseph Fielding Smith was saying is that the Doctrine and Covenants was revelation specifically for modern day- instructions for this generation. This is very much in keeping with the idea that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

    I don’t think anybody among the leadership of the church would argue against the idea that the Book of Mormon will truly get a person nearer to God than any other book. But the point is to follow the living prophet as he guides us through the specific challenges of our day. The Book of Mormon doesn’t expound much on elicit drugs, pornography, and other modern issues- just as the bible doesn’t specifically.

    The great model for this is Moses. The children of Israel had to follow him day to day as he received instruction from the Lord. They had their history with prophets, but salvation depended on current revelation. And that is the great challenge of every era- accepting and following the living prophet. It is easier to believe in a dead prophet than one who is living.

  30. falcon says:

    Oh I get this now. The living prophet is better than the dead prophet, because there are lots of issues a living prophet faces that a dead prophet didn’t. A couple of thoughts. Everything is contained in the ten commandments. Doesn’t matter that it was given to a now dead prophet, Moses. It’s all there. Moses committed murder so he really can’t be that highly esteemed by Mormons anyway. This is all so cool this living prophet, dead prophet thing. That’s why everything before the current prophet doesn’t count. Man, don’t you just love this religion? It can never be questioned regarding past teachings, doctrines or practices. I’m just laughing and smirking sitting here. Why do we even have discussions with Mormons. They can turn on a dime and never be wrong because it’s all situational. What a joke!

  31. GRCluff says:

    Berean:

    Since when has the teaching that Mormons with be in charge of planets been a fundamental one? I don’t remember focusing on that one EVER. Perhaps because it is not worth focus? You were the one bringing it up, and I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

    For the record- the 4 article of faith:

    We believe the fundemental principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
    1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
    2. Repentance
    3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins
    4. Laying on of hands for the Gift of the HG.

    THAT is what we focus on at Chruch. No planning for future planets. Not quite relevant at this point.

    If you bother to look, I think you could find volumes about those things in the BoM.

    Still straining at gnats I see– AND you have swallowed a pretty big camel when you bought the Nicean Creed. A 3 in 1 God, one in substance. Do you really believe that?

  32. jer1414 says:

    Cluff, are you trying to minimize exaltation? Do you not believe becoming a god (or as you call it, “being in charge of planets”) is a fundamental teaching in Mormonism? My 6/3/2000 copy of Church News has an article on the back that emphasizes “the greatest thing–exaltation–can and will occur to those who master those small and simple things.” Please refer to “Gospel Principles”, where my 1997 copy in Ch. 7 entitled “Exaltation” on pg. 302 states “Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7)”. Yes, a fundamental teaching and goal.

    Jessica, you asked why Mormonism is trying to mirror Biblical Christianity and it’s because Christianity is the “hook”. Then little by little the message is changed bits at a time until sometimes, it’s too late and the unsuspecting person has become indoctrinated or is in too deep. If Mormonism were honest and upfront with the unbiblical doctrines, people would run like mad. After all, a false religion needs to look like the real thing on the outside to get people to join. Remember the disguise of an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14-15) and wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) examples. Modern day false religions follow suit.

    You are right it’s confusing trying to understand this religion of Mormonism- it’s like climbing a mountain of Jello. Sometimes even long time members don’t have a thorough understanding of the doctrines. I think the powers-that-be like it that way and even model it for their members (“I don’t know that we teach that” denials, see GBH example above by Berean posted on 8/23). Many excuses are given for changing and contradicting doctrines/history. What was proclaimed as everlasting doctrines becomes “that was then, this is now” & “follow the living prophet”. This is ingrained beginning in infancy. Those caught in the fishbowl of Mormonism accept them. From the outside, and by God’s grace, we can see this religion for what it truly is.

  33. DJBrown says:

    Falcon- I can all but promise you that you will never understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And it is not because it is not an understandable religion. Will you never concede anything in any discussion? Doubtful.

    Al Jazeera can spew out lots of facts about America, but really doesn’t know a thing about her. “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:7

  34. GRCluff says:

    jer1414 said:
    “Cluff, are you trying to minimize exaltation? Do you not believe becoming a god (or as you call it, “being in charge of planets”) is a fundamental teaching in Mormonism?”

    Having a long term goal is sometimes not as relevant as the first step.

    If you are going to climb Mount Everest, you have to focus on preparation at some point. The lack of preparation is a sure way to fail. Lets talk about boots and oxygen first.

    This life is a preparation step, many steps removed from the end result. Lets not fail by failing to prepare. Lets start by understanding the purpose of this life. I think you’ll find that topic clearly defined in the teachings of current prophets and the BoM both.

    Sure I believe in eternal progression, just because the alternative is eternal stagnation. I am open minded enough to consider some of the eventual consequences of success. Managing planets is not really mentioned anywhere, but why not?

    How is it that the mainstream Christian concept of heaven is so stagnant? No continuing growth, identical activity from day to day. For eternity?

    What are you going to do if God asks you to do something, become more that you are when you get to heaven? Are you going to say: Sorry, I made it to heaven, I am done now.

    The ironic thing is — that is exactly what you will get. Not because more is not possible, but because you lived your life with no vision. Failed to seek the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    Those who DO open their heart to the Holy Spirit, become Mormon. That is where the truth is now. That is the path to eternal progression.

  35. falcon says:

    Don’t you just love this Alice in Wonderland religion known as Mormonism? Dead prophets, with their stupid, innane utterances can be ignored and put in the “it doesn’t count” or “do over” pile. Walter Martin was right when he said that Mormons could think rationally in all areas of their lives except when it comes to their religion. Every day is a new day with new and woderful revelations. Because, things change! What was true on Wednesday might not be true on Thursday. The good thing about this from a Mormon perspective is they can’t be pinned down on anything. Jon Krakauer in his book “Under the Banner of Heaven” captures the legacy of Mormnon revelation in a very insightful way. The Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism has made a virtue out of being unsystematic. At least the FLDS has a clue as to what they believe and the integrity to stick with it.

  36. jackg says:

    It’s a bit humorous when a Mormon asks a Christian if the Christian will ever concede anything. Mormons can’t concede any point because then the house of cards that is built on a testimony of a false prophet will come tumbling down with a loud crash. Then, they would have to make tough decisions like leave the Church in order to follow Jesus Christ. There’s a lot of humble pie to eat when a Mormon concedes to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know because I have had my fill. But, that’s the key right there–humility. It’s hard for a Mormon to recant a testimony that have shared over the years.

  37. Berean says:

    Part 1

    I have an event that I would like to share with our readers that I think will coincide with the topic of this thread, some of the earlier comments I have made about one of Mormonism’s doctrine (god is an exalted man), Hinckley’s not knowing about it and Mormons not agreeing over it or being dishonest about it.

    I had been having meetings with Mormon missionaries over the course of several weeks. We talked about forgiveness, repentance and perfection in their beliefs as compared to the Bible. They were disturbed, got teary-eyed and promised to come back with some explanations. They didn’t until I “narked” on them at the ward for abondoning me in my quest for answers. The pressure was put on them and then they finally called me up saying that they were going to be having a special guest come and see me along with another missionary I had met at another ward and asked if I would be open for a 3 hour meeting. I agreed.

    A week later they called to confirm the time and I asked them again if we were going to talk about the issue we left off with (perfection). They said we were. They showed up and the other missionary bailed out so the lead missionary brought his companion who could barely speak English. The special guest introduced himself as a 76 year old man. He quickly let me know that he was a former member and preacher of the Christian denomination that I currently attend. He also let me know what nationality his wife was which happened to be the same as mine. What a coincidence! Ironic? Not hardly. This comes right out of the “Preach My Gospel” handbook.

    He proceeds to tell me that he saw Jesus Christ two times in 2006. I asked him if this was a vision to which he denied. He said that he literally saw him. I talked to him about this some more. I began to think he was suffering from dimentia or Alzheimer’s so I left it alone out of respect for his age.

    The missionaries turned over the meeting to him and he went straight to Moroni 10:3-5.

  38. Berean says:

    Part 2

    I patiently waited for him to make his points. I told him that the missionaries and I had already talked about this and I stated again the reasons why I was not nor would I ever pray to find out if the Book of Mormon was true. He didn’t like it and that led into an interchange where I had to rebuke him for ignoring what the Bible says about this issue not to mention the LDS history problem behind it. My rebuke mainly focused on him saying that he was a former Christian preacher (if it was even true to begin with) and his ignoring the biblical mandate in testing.

    I told the lead missionary, Mike, wht the meeting was supposed to be about that we left off with from last time that they had agreed to. He didn’t like the reminder and wanted the elderly man to have the floor which let me know that I had been set up on the reason for the meeting. I engaged the elderly man in some questions about eternal life and whether he had it or not to which he replied as all Mormons do that he did not know. I told him that I did and gave scripture. He agreed that I did have eternal life after all. I then asked, “If I have eternal life in Jesus Christ right now, what do I need the LDS Church for?” He replied, “You don’t”. I was shocked.

    The conversation continued and I pointed out to him that the teachings of Mormonism are contradictory to that of Christianity as laid out in the Bible. He didn’t agree. I mentioned the LDS teaching of god being an exalted man. HE DENIED THAT THE CHURCH TAUGHT THIS! I said, “Are you kidding me? It’s written in many of your books” as I pointed to my bookcase of LDS books. When I tried to reach for one of the books the old man became enraged and stood up to announce they were leaving.

    I asked, “Why? Why don’t you want to hear the words of your prophet in the King Follet Discourse or all these other references to this teaching? These are the words of Joseph Smith.” I asked Mike why they were being intellectually dishonest with me?

  39. Berean says:

    Part 3

    Mike replied to me, “It doesn’t matter what is written in those books: the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, the manuals, etc. It’s all about revelation today.” I couldn’t believe it. My response was, “If that is the case what are we using for the guidelines and documentaion of faith? If this is the case with Mormonism why do you even print these books? Why even have the scriptures? Why don’t we just take the four standard works, all the books and everything else and throw them in the garbage. What will we use? The last issue of the Ensign from the latest LDS conference?”

    They said nothing. I looked back at the old man and asked again, “Isn’t it true that your faith teaches that your god is an exalted man?” He became even more angry and wanted to leave. I leaned over to Mike and said, “Mike, let’s be honest here. Isn’t this teaching true?” Mike bowed his head and whispered under his breath, “Yes, it’s true. God is an exalted man.” I thanked him for his honesty.

    The old man gave the order that they were leaving. He announced to me that he was going to be happy to see my whisked away to hell someday. I said nothing. They flung open the security door and stormed out not even closing the door behind them and drove off in their cars.

    Now, Joseph Smith said that this teaching was “the first principle of the gospel”. I want to know why Mormons are so clueless about it including the former prophet Hinckley? Why the embarrassment? Why the blatant dishonesty? What are Mormons so ashamed about that they can’t just spit it out?

    There is not one thing in Christian doctrine that I am ashamed about nor ashamed to attempt to answer. This interlude was very revealing. It showed that the old Mormon didn’t agree with the young missionary, Mormons don’t know what the Church teaches, they are blatantly dishonest with investigators, they have no regard for the scriptures obviously and that when all else fails just give an unproven testimony.

  40. jer1414 says:

    Cluff, my last post was in a direct response to your apparent claim that exaltation was not “fundamental” to Mormonism. We can talk about steps and preparation, but the main goal is always in mind and it’s the motivation. In the case of Mount Everest, to summit would be the goal and the very reason for putting on boots and a mask.
    I am sorry to hear that you are not informed regarding the biblical teachings of eternal life and heaven. Your suggestions of eternal stagnation, no continuing growth, identical activity from day to day, as well as your charges of my living my life with no vision and failing to seek the the gifts of the Holy Spirit have no basis and are rediculous. The suggestion that “those who DO open their heart to the Holy Spirit, become Mormon” is blindfully arrogant. May God have mercy on you, as He has on me.

  41. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Berean,
    I am surprised that the missionaries even conceeded to this discussion. I will give you a couple of good reasons.

    The Lord has said:

    19:31 And of tenets (doctrine) thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

    Why would the Lord say this? Because this is the devil’s territory. (Debating doctrine). The Lord condemn it and has has this to say.

    3Nephi 11:
    “And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
    29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
    30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

    So what’s the big deal? When we try to preach the gospel by debate, the Spirit leaves. I don’t care where or with whom (some old guy who may be senile, or the most righteous of prophets), if tenets or debate ensue, the Spirit is gone. Without the Spirit, your testimony shakes, your knowledge fleas, you are left to yourself. I experienced this a few times as a missionary. Now I believe the Lord.

    D&C50:17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
    18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

    Whoever talked the elders into this should be ones to repent (What stake/ward do you live in?)

  42. LDSSTITANIC says:

    DoF…is that Jesus supposedly speaking in 3 Nephi? Gosh…it sounds so much different in Matthew…

    34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

  43. germit says:

    DOF and othes: I’ve said before on this blog that the LDS seem to have a ‘love-hate’ relationship with scholarship and evidence gathering, love it, love it, love it, UNTIL…. things go against us. Now I think I’m seeing precisely the same aganda played out with theology and explanation of scripture, EVEN YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES!! How covenient of JS to warn against NOT CONTENTION or being ARGUMENTATIVE, but against the discussion of TENETS and DOCTRINE. This is heading off two problems at the pass: anyone bold enough to question his OZ-I-NESS, the prophet-seer-revelator; and anyone who would want to get too in depth with the missionaries. What a shrewd move: instead of engaging honest questions (which I’ll admit YOU, DOF and others have been somewhat willing to do), the LDS in question can beg off and say that to go further with the discussion would be disobeying the prophet and his word. Convenient. Let the reader take note: there are no “out of bounds” areas for the orthodox: perhaps out of bounds attitudes and disrespect that sometimes does not merit a response, but no topic that is in and of itself forbiden. JS knew how to keep the sheep in line and was ‘pre-emptive’ in keeping all kinds of questioners at bay. How unlike a true prophet who fears no man and has no hidden agenda. And what’s with Rob Millet being your up front mouth piece ?? His views don’t seem to remotely resemble the GA’s ?? Why is he allowed to go on and on in this ‘unofficial’ capacity if what you are after is CLARITY?? Something is not quite right here….. GERMIT

  44. Missusslats says:

    Titanic and Defender,
    Jude 3 tells us TO contend earnestly–contend for the faith given once for all. To not be willing to contend for the faith is not of God and leads to just the type of shenanigans germit lays out, above. Also, the Holy Spirit is not some will-o-the-wisp that has to shrink away at the least little uncomfortable situation–He is GOD! If He is in you, you have One more powerful in you than any spirit that is outside of you (1Jn4:4)! He doesn’t flea over a little back and forth conversation, even if it is heated. He never wearies and does not faint!

  45. Andrea says:

    DOF said, “Without the Spirit, your testimony shakes, your knowledge fleas (sic)” This is BS. Even if I am not living very Christlike and don’t quite feel the Spirit with me, I still have knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and I have eternal life with God. I know that God will forgive me when I confess and my salvation is still guaranteed.
    “I experienced this a few times as a missionary.” I believe (strictly my opinion of course) that what you experienced was the true Alpha and Omega trying to work on your heart.

    When I was 15 I heard an analogy of the Church that has stood out in my mind ever since that night. We were at Girl’s Camp. We were sitting in a circle with our leaders, one of them had a battery-operated lantern. I (with my love for astronomy) was staring up at the sky, waiting for my eyes to adjust and looking at the stars. I was staring around everywhere looking at the trees, the mountains, the stars, the sky, thinking how beautiful it all was and I wish we could turn down, or off, the lantern because it was making it difficult to see all this beauty God made. At that moment, one of girls said how the lantern was like the Church. ‘As long as you stay focused on it, it’s all you can see and nothing else affects you or matters. But when you take your eyes away for a while, things in the darkness become normal and acceptable.’ Obviously, she wasn’t saying that trees and grass are evil, but it was as though God was answering the sincere desire in my heart and telling me to “turn off the light” (Mormonism) so that I could see the wonderful things He had wrought for me. They weren’t “bad” but the Mormon faith was keeping me from truly seeing it.
    Anyway, I also think it’s a good example of how Mormons shut everything else out, especially truth -if it doesn’t come from the Church, it’s not worth listening to because it’s from the devil. That is why our Mormon friends here are not interested in learning from us, but want us to learn from them. (tbcontd)

  46. Andrea says:

    (cont’d)
    If you’re offended by my last statements, I make no apologies -I am VERY offended by Cluff’s presumption of Christians in heaven.

    Mormons, why do we think that the church teaches more regarding JS than Jesus? Consider this: On the cover of Church News dated
    December 24, 2005 is a picture of Joseph and
    Mary holding the baby Jesus. Under
    the picture it says “Focus on Prophet
    Joseph Smith.”

    That’s a great message for Christmas. Not “fall on your knees and give praise to God for sending His Son Jesus so that all who believe in Him will have eternal life”. No, it’s “focus on Joe Smith” after all, he had “more to boast of than ever any man had…no man ever did such a work as I…Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus” (Hist of the Church, v.6) If you don’t see anything wrong with that statement, please read Eph 2:8-9. JS life/work more important than Christ’s atonement?? This is where the heart of Mormonism TRULY lies.

  47. DJBrown says:

    Andrea and all,

    “That is why our Mormon friends here are not interested in learning from us, but want us to learn from them.” The arrogance is truly stunning- when do the LDS posters here try to teach you about your religion? But for some reason we are supposed to meekly and humbly listen to you explain our religion? Do you see a problem here?

    It is that arrogance and the general condescending judgementalism that drives people from this site. I have noticed that several LDS who seemed like reasonable and open-minded people stopped posting over the past week. I think I will follow!

  48. Rick B says:

    [Comment trimmed by moderator.]

    Now here are more problems I said I would post.

    I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out.

    “Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. Also we read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said and I quote, “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.

    Let us add to this

    D and C 132 1-3 2. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. So here we find it is “supposedly” of God. 3. Therefore ,prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you,

  49. Rick B says:

    Cont,
    FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4. for behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned;for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.

    Their, You read it and heard it, so this applies to you, not only to a select few as Mormons claim, otherwise God lied.
    Also Since when is new and everlasting only 50 or so years. Everlasting means forever, without end. Again did God lie? It was reveled unto all who hear and read, yet all who hear and read reject this, by saying everlasting means a limited time and limited people. This defies logic.

    Read verse 5-6. it is a LAW that you MUST obey. Verse 8 says, Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. I’m sorry but everlasting only lasting about 50 years, and God said this is for all but Mormons claim it was only for some, is confusion.

    Who gave this new and everlasting covenant? The lord did. The lord said for all who have this law revealed unto them MUST obey it. Well if you read D and C or just read what I wrote, you fall under all who have it reveled unto them. Now you must obey it. Not only are Mormons not following D and C 1:14 but the concept of on going revelation now shows it’s flaws. Ezra Taft Benson taught the prophet does not need to say thus saith the lord to give us scripture. But the lord was clear he gave us that scripture. But the counsel backed it up as I stated above.

    Then Ezra Taft Benson also taught the prophet cannot lead the church astray. so which prophet is leading us astray? The prophets of old followed and taught it, but now deny it.

    Hebrews 6:16 say it is impossible for God to lie, Titus 1:2 Enos 6, Ether 3:12 and D and C 62:6 all teach God cannot lie.

    So did God lie? More Tommorow

  50. Andrea says:

    DJBrown,
    Condescending judgementalism is your perception. I in no way meant to be arrogant and condescending with that statement. I recalled earlier that someone here (I believe it was Cluff, but it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong on that) stated to another LDS poster that no Christian here is interested in learning what the LDS believe from their own viewpoint. My point was that the LDS are not interested in learning what Christians believe either. It seems (my perception) that the majority of LDS posters are here to refute what Aaron and Sharon post.

    You said “when do the LDS posters here try to teach you about your religion?” How about when Cluff said that we will sit on clouds playing harps becoming stagnant in our growth? How about when LDS say the Bible is fallible and was corrupted by men?

Comments are closed.