In the Mormon Coffee discussion regarding recent changes to Gospel Principles, one commenter wrote,
” The Church started out and was against something, and in a few years, they were for the thing they were against, a few years later they were against it again, and now the are sort of, kind of, celestially for it – polygamy. Is God the author of confusion? 1 Cor 14:33.
The LDS Church has dealt with polygamy and other issues over the years somewhat capriciously. Church leaders teach one thing, and a few years later the tides turn and the teaching changes course. Sometimes the issues are important (like plural marriage being required/not required for exaltation), and sometimes they are relatively inconsequential. But the thread that runs through them all is the idea that God has his own hand on the rudder of the ship and directs Church leaders directly.
One fairly inconsequential issue that demonstrates the chameleon-like nature of LDS leadership is its attitude toward the word “Mormon.”
A few months ago the LDS Church launched a new, official radio station: Mormon Channel. The Mormon Channel web site includes links for other LDS sites, such as “Mormon Identity,” “Mormon Messages,” and “Mormon.org.”
It wasn’t that long ago that the LDS Church eschewed the use of the nickname “Mormon,” but apparently the nickname is now back in vogue.
“Mormon” was first used as a pejorative in reference to followers of Joseph Smith and his new religion. In 1830, “Mormon” was bad.
But in 1843 Joseph Smith stated,
“We say from the Saxon, ‘good’; the Dane, ‘god’; the Goth, ‘goda’; the German, ‘gut’; the Dutch, ‘goed’; the Latin, ‘bonus’; the Greek, ‘kalos’; the Hebrew, ‘tob’; that the Egyptian, ‘mon.’ Hence, with the addition of ‘more,’ or the contraction, ‘mor,’ we have the word ‘mormon’; which means, literally, ‘more good.'” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 300)
In 1843, “Mormon” was good.
Almost 140 years later LDS public relations pressured the media to stop using the word “Mormon” and replace it with “LDS Church” or “Latter-day Saints.” In 1982 “Mormon” was bad. Again.
At the April 1990 General Conference LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson upheld and reiterated the non-use of the word “Mormon,” but that position was soon softened. At the next General Conference Gordon B. Hinckley, then First Counselor in the First Presidency, taught:
“[Joseph Smith’s] statement intrigued me — Mormon means ‘more good.’ I knew, of course, that ‘more good’ was not a derivative of the word Mormon. I had studied both Latin and Greek, and I knew that English is derived in some measure from those two languages and that the words more good are not a cognate of the word Mormon. But this was a positive attitude based on an interesting perception.” (“Mormon Should Mean More Good,” Ensign, November 1990, 52)
So Joseph said “Mormon” means “more good.” Gordon B. Hinckley said “Mormon” should mean “more good,” but it doesn’t. Regardless, in 1990 “Mormon” was good, and though use of the nickname didn’t carry the blessing of the Church, it was at least okay that it was used by non-members.
It didn’t stay that way for long. Just over a decade later, as the Church took a public stance to move away from the nickname “Mormon Church” and “LDS Church” to the different nickname of “The Church of Jesus Christ,” LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks said,
“This decision [to change the nickname] is right-oriented, not result-oriented. We’re only trying to do what the Lord wants us to do.” (Gustav Niebuhr, “Adapting ‘Mormon’ to Emphasize Christianity,” February 19, 2001)
In 2001, use of the nickname “Mormon” was bad.
But in 2009 the use of “Mormon” is back in full swing and happily endorsed by the LDS Church.
Over the 179 years that the Mormon Church has been in existence, it has changed its position on this five times, with several of the about-faces articulated by leaders of the Church in their official capacities as apostles. To be fair, according to Dallin Oaks they are only trying to do what they understand the Lord wants them to do. The question is, where is all the confusion over this issue coming from?
Sharon,
I have been overseas for the past several weeks. Upon my return I see that nothing has changed here at MC. Your argument is making a mountain out of a molehill with little or no substance behind your snide remarks and excessive fault-finding. Really, there has never been any “confusion” as you put it concerning the use of the nickname “Mormon”. The official name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the LDS Church for short and members are properly known as Latter-day Saints. The term “Mormon” is a common nickname and nothing more. There is no notion of “Mormon” being either “bad” or “good” as you incorrectly assert but rather the use of the official name as opposed to a nickname.
It appears that in your effort to slight and denigrate the LDS Church that you are trying to stir up controversy were none exists. Then again, that is a commonly employed tactic here at MC.
Question?
Does the nickname of the church really matter?
First, I do not know of any time (including those mentioned) that the church has come out and stated that “Mormon” is a bad term and is to be avoided. They have simply counseled that for the sake of clarification, we should use names that more fully describe the church and its doctrine. The times in which this has been counseled seem to be times when the nature of teh church was not well known outside the membership (or misunderstood). The last time it was suggested was because of the accusation that we do not believe in the Bible, or in Christ. By switching the name used this misunderstanding was easily corected.
I see no confusion in what has been done.
(As to Joseph Smith, I really don’t think he was seriously translating the word to mean “more good.” Knowing his personallity this was more likely a kind of sarcastic remark to let people know that calling the church “mormons” was not taken as an insult, but as a compliment.)
Shematwater,
The nickname of the church really doesn’t matter, and if you rightly understood the post you would realize that Sharon, using the nickname, was actually touching on the deeper issue of the changing world of Mormonism. The nickname is merely an easy example to illustrate this point. Another example (from the beginning of the post) would be D&C 132 and Official Declaration 1. It is about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constantly changing its everlasting covenants kind of like how Mormon is considered kosher in one decade and heinous the next, or vice versa.
Lautensack
Lautensack writes:
“It is about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constantly changing its everlasting covenants”.
What utter rubbish!
The LDS Church practiced polygamy from the early 1840’s until 1890. That single change in practice brought about by severe persecution hardly constitutes the gross exaggeration of the LDS Church “constantly changing its everlasting covenants”.
Seriously, in comparison to the evangelical brand of Christianity which is in a perpetual state of flux with new sects or churches being created on an almost daily basis (how many evangelical sects or churches are there now? 20,000? 30,000? who knows?) the LDS Church is a veritable rock of constancy. Evangelical churches differ one with another on almost every conceivable doctrinal point – from the nature of God to what instruments you can play at a church service!
Inane and profoundly uniformed comments such as the LDS Church is “constantly changing its everlasting covenants” typifies the general ignorance of many mormon critics.
st. crispin wrote:
the LDS Church is a veritable rock of constancy
Crispin: are you serious about that statement? 😮
I’m on an authorized work break, so I can’t write anymore….more later.
I was just in shock when I read that
Free forever thanks to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He did so much for us.
Free:
He did, and still does, everything for us. 🙂
st.crispin
Are you then willing to assert that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still holds to and practices the everlasting covenant of D&C 132, especially as expounded upon by Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young? Or are do you take Heber J. Grant’s approach saying it is not necessary for exaltation? Perhaps you take Bruce McConkie approach that it will be necessary in eternity just not right now? A veritable rock of constancy… Not exactly.
As to the red herring you threw up, the charge that Evangelical Christians disagree on almost every doctrinal point, I can agree that we (Evangelical Christians) do disagree on a lot, but what all Christians agree upon is the Core of Christianity. You know things like the Nature of God, the Triunity of God, the Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, an Eminent Return.
As to the 30,000 different sects, most of these statistics include the 122 LDS sects and over 200 JW sects as well as other non-Christian groups (e.g. anti-trinitarian groups) in the number. However when you get down to meaningful differences in areas such as Theology Proper, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Bibliology, Hermeneutics, Sacrament, Pneumatology, Hermenutics, (sans non-trinitarian groups) you would get about 250 meaningful differences in these various denominations. Lets rememeber that every one of those 122 LDS sects have a different prophet and are in unaffiliated in any way. Much more meaningful than the difference between myself and a Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. on this site. Anyone who believes there are 30,000 meaningful differences in Evangelical Christianity simply is ignorant of the facts. Inane and profoundly uniformed comments such as Evangelical Christianity “how many evangelical sects or churches are there now? 20,000? 30,000? who knows?” typifies the general ignorance of many Mormons.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
Core of Christianity???
Evangelical can no more agree amongst themselves as to what constitutes the Core of Christianity than they can come to an agreement about what interpretation of the Bible to follow. You cite 250 meaningful theological differences in these various sects. Clearly there is no unity amongst these groups.
Is God the author of such a complete doctrinal Tower of Babel? I think not.
The number of 20,000 to 30,000 churches comes from statistics provided by the evangelical community. Granted that many of these churches (such as the Assemblies of God) are loose confederations of independent church groups sharing similar theologies but nevertheless the spectrum is vast.
BTW, I never claimed that “there are 30,000 meaningful differences in Evangelical Christianity” – Try to read my post more carefully before spouting off.
You cite 122 LDS sects – this is a gross error. Of those 122 groups only a few are still in existence and of those few ONLY 3 (the Salt Lake LDS Church, the Community of Christ [RLDS}, and the elusive FLDS have a membership greater than 10,0000). Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.
My point is that it sheer hypocrisy as well as being appallingly ignorant to suggest that the LDS Church is constantly changing its doctrines when you consider state of never ending doctrinal flux that exists amongst the evangelical community.
Your figure of 250 meaningful doctrinal differences existing among evangelical churches speaks volumes as to the disunity and confusion that pervades the evangelical community. Again, is God the author of such confusion? No, God is not the author of the theological Tower of Babel known as Protestantism. So where does all this confusion of evangelical doctrine come from? It is the working of men and their vain philosophies.
Free,
If you knew anything about the LDS Church (which you apparently do not), you would see that my assertion is accurate.
Crispin,
Shematwater over at the “Worth Fighting Over” thread just admitted to me that polygamy is still doctrine, though not practiced now. He differentiates practice from doctrine. Do you agree with that even though a doctrine is that which is taught in a group? You dismiss the assertion of polygamy as a changed doctrine, which it is (because the change in practice) as rubbish, but can you be so quick to do so because Smith said your salvation depends on the doctrine.
Second, you still overstate the differences between the various protestant churches, and the existence of the off shoots of Mormonism, regardless of membership, raises questions.
The differences in the various (mainstream) churches are really minimal. Lets take an example: pre-determination through Calvinists and commonly through Presbyterian vs. Free will. Significant? Maybe, but does the result of faith in him change? Nope, not an ounce. Whether God chose us, or whether we choose him, we still put our full faith in him and strive to live like he wants us to live. To be fair, if we want to get into the nitty gritty and discuss, we can, for the discussion leads to a better understanding of who God is and our relation to him (my personal opinion is that he can and does call people to him, but because of his love for us, he gives us the opportunity to accept).
Most every other disagreement is on something similar– baptism, communion, permanency of salvation, etc. The practicle effect of living out your faith does not change, though the discussion leads us to a better understanding of Christ.
But the doctrine of who God is and what he ultimately does for us remains the same. And whatever a church may belive about infant baptism, as long as these core doctrines are the same, I have no problem with the rest.
I believe the church is the body of believers united under these common beliefs in Christ.
Can you say the same about your offshoots?
MichaelP,
The LDS church believes in one and only one true church. The offshoots are different churches that have established themselves on the basis of our church but the originators had apostasised. All who beling to those offshoots are not members of the LDS church and thus are not ‘candidates’ for the CK unless they find true faith in Jesus, repent and be baptised into the one and only true church – the LDS church. Regardless of how close to our teachings they seem to be, this is the view of the LDS church.
In the history of the early Christian church the same thing applied. The Roman Catholic church had a standard of teaching/doctrine. Anyone who taught differently were classed as heretics/apostates and removed from the church. Tertullian and Novatian are 2 that come to mind. They left the RC church because they believed differently and joined other cults that were growing up around that time – and yes, the RC encyclopedia calles them sects and cults. If I remember correctly, Luther was excommunicated from the RC church because he disagreed with their teachings/doctrine. The subsequent Lutheran church was not considered by the RC as a true church. The same again with the Church of England (Anglican). When these and other denominations arose, they pointed to their parent church and said that it had become apostate/dead to God’s ways and the truth was no longer in it. While the RC church (or any other parent church) said that their offshoots were the ones that were apostate/dead. Now-a-days they have all decided to ‘join’ together and accept each other as being true and one possible way to get to heaven. What changed in the centuries to make this acceptable? Was it for financial gain? Political gain? Membership number gain? Acceptance in the general community gain? And before you say that the LDS church has spun a good story to feed me about the ‘history’, I got this information from a few friends of mine – one was Anglican, the other was Roman Catholic.
Ralph,
If you look closely in the Bible, I’ll bet you see that Jesus never set up an organized religion, nor did He baptize anyone.
And yet, He says His sheep hear His voice, and He knows them.
This is His church. They may be anywhere, in any denomination. They are the ones who truly believe Him and who He really is.
Belonging to a “church” doesn’t make anyone a true believer, saved, Christian, born again.
Being a true believer, being saved, being a Christian, being born again… these make the person belong to Christ’s “church”.
Michael P.
Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years and still is in much of the world. The LDS practice of polygamy was discontinued in 1890 due to the extreme persecution of the Church. While the policy has changed the doctrine has not.
You state: “The differences in the various (mainstream) churches are really minimal”
Are you joking!!!
The differences between various (mainstream) churches are vast and quite literally black and white:
1. In the American south Protestant churches are STILL racially segregated!!!
2. In the U.S. the Episcopalian Church (Anglican Church elsewhere) ordains openly gay ministers!!!
3. Many other “mainstream” churches sanction gay marriages!!!
4. Many Baptist Churches do not believe that baptism is necessary!!!
5. Some evangelical churches (such as Aaron’s) teach that God is neutered (i.e. God has no gender)!!!
6. Some evangelical churches preach that Jesus Christ is not the literal Son of God!!!
7. Some Protestant churches teach the junk science known as “creationism”.
8. Some Protestant churches preach that all Jews will burn forever in Hell.
I could easily go on and on. Clearly theses are NOT minimal differences. They conclusively and irrevocably demonstrate a complete lack of doctrinal harmony amongst the Protestants.
In contrast to this Protestant doctrinal Tower of Babel, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a veritable rock of constancy.
Again, is God the author of such confusion? Is the Lord’s church marked by a complete absence of unity of doctrine as displayed by Protestant churches? I think not.
So where does all this confusion over evangelical doctrine come from? Not from God, but rather it is the working of men and their vain philosophies.
Crispy,
This is why I usually don’t chase these rabbit trails. However now that you have made the claim that there are 20000-30000 churches twice. Moreover you claim these statistics are provided by the evangelical community. Please give me a citation. I think you may be borrowing from a few Choice Catholic apologists and perhaps their misunderstanding of the World Christian Encyclopedia. I am also guessing you mean denominations, since individual Mormon wards don’t count as individual churches.
Second you disregard smaller sects with perhaps only a few hundred members as not a big deal. If we remove the not a big deal doctrines we disagree one, music in church and the like, we come up with only a handful of actually disagreements among evangelicals, say perhaps a similar kind as among even the LDS on this blog.
Finally could you please answer my question relevant to the topic?
So, Please provide your source. Simply because a lot of people believe something does not indicate its truth, existence or lack there of. Could you please answer my question relevant to the original post?
Lautensack
P.S. If your source is the World Christian Encyclopedia then please read very carefully. That big 30,000 denominations number includes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is also where the 122 LDS Denominations statistic came from so again, read carefully.
Crispon,
1) Nope. Not really. If they are segregated, it is of their own accord, and not due to an official ban on another race.
2) And they are wrong for doing so. They openly disregard something that is clearly against Biblical teaching and thus reject the Bible as fully authoritative (usually the excuse is historial context). True Christians find them errant on this, and there was a split in the church from this decision.
3) Same thing as 2.
4) Its not, and this is within an area where folks can disagree on. Baptism is an important ritual, but does not provide salvation.
5) God has no gender. See other recent discussions to flush it out.
6) He’s not. He’s God in flesh.
7) Creationism is, from what I understand, a way to udnerstand creation. Truth be told, all we have is the creation story in Genesis, and a lot is left out. But this does not get to the core of Christian salvation.
8) Some may, and they are in error, but again, not core Christian doctrine.
What is funny about the trail you just started and I just kept going is that the many of the issues brought forth are important to Mormonism, but not to us. God’s gender, even, is not a high prioroty, because God is God is God. Christ is God himself, in human form, can I guess be considered a literal son, but given that they are the same being, then its hard to call him a son. Before you jump on the label of father and son, realize we must call them something.
What some churches do in error does not prove your point, because the sentiment is not universal and the beliefs are widely criticized, and they are criticized because they discount God’s word in favor of current cultural trends.
MichaelP,
Not subscribing to a set denomination for salvation is only a recent thing. That was my point in my previous post. Yes you believe that now, but go back a couple of centuries – even to the second century – and you will find it very different as I pointed out. Most denominations we have today came about because the founder decided that the church they worshiped in was errant and could not provide salvation from God. So they formed a new religion with what they had in mind was necessary for salvation. As I asked, what has changed in the past century or 2 that has made nondenominatinalism more prevalent?
Did Jesus set-up an organisation while on this earth? The Bible is ambiguous about this matter. It shows He ordained 12 apostles to help in running/organising things, hence the epistles in the NT and the people going to the 12 and no one else for answers, and the 12 ‘running the show’ after His death, etc. We see Him ordaining/calling 70 (or 72 depending on which translation you use) to assist the 12 apostles. Then further on in the NT it states that He called apostles, prophets, priests, teacher, etc (now these do not ultimately need to be references to priesthood offices so I am not arguing that point) to lead the church and to bring it to a unity of faith. It also states that God is not an author of confusion, and that a house that is divided against itself will fall. Lastly it says that no man can serve 2 masters (this would bring about confusion if the 2 don’t agree). Taking all this into consideration there seems to be evidence that He did organise a church with leaders and teachers to proclaim and teach His one true gospel. And under this organisation He can give direction to ONE person (ie not 2 masters but 1) to lead and direct His church on this earth.
Like I said, the Bible is ambiguous about His setting up an organised church, but here is the evidence I see of Him doing it. I have seen the evidence against it so you don’t need to show me
MichaelP,
For #2 and 3, these people are living their faith that all they need to do to be saved is believe in Jesus – isn’t that also what the Bible teaches? Isn’t that what you said you believe – that we are saved DESPITE our works? In this case, if you say that these people that are ordaining gay ministers and accepting/sanctioning gay marriages are wrong and cannot be considered Christian then you are saying that works does have a role in salvation. This totally contradicts your stance which you told me in an earlier blog of salvation DESPITE works.
I find your answer to #6 interesting. Are you more of a modalist than Trinitarian? I know the Trinity says that Jesus is God, but it does define Him as The Son and then another person is The Father and these are 2 seperate beings/persons in one with seperate functions. etc. It does not say that Jesus is The Father which is how I am reading what you are saying here. But that is not what St Crispin is saying. He is saying that there are some who do not believe that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father (God), while there are others that do believe that He is. This is a major division in doctrine as it comes down to Jesus’ and The Father’s relationship and being – a core tennant in doctrine.
St. Crispin,
Jesus said “my sheep know my voice” – it’s pretty simple. I am a true believer in Jesus Christ. There are true believers trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross in all Protestant denominations that affirm the Biblical truths as laid out in the Bible and summarized in the creeds and confessions. There are aberrant Churches also that basically deny Christian truth. Often these same heretical Churches will take on morally relativistic stances – basically because they have no Biblical foundation, denying that the Bible is trustworthy eventually expresses itself in theological apostasy and denial of moral law (such as the Episcopal Church you cite). You know that Jesus predicted this!!! He said that the wheat and the tares would grow together, both false and true believers would claim to be his followers. He said that many will come in the last day and say “did we not PROPHESY in your name, and cast out demons in your name and he will say ‘depart from me, I never knew you.'”
Any Church that denies full membership and participation in all area to all races I would call an apostate Church. I don’t think that’s what you mean by segregated, but I also don’t think you have been to a protestant Church in the south for awhile. Here in Houston, most of the Churches are integrated to varying degrees. I don’t know of any that strive for ethnic purity. The Churches tend to be no more or no less segregated than the neighborhoods in which they exist. You are right, segregation has been a sin, and some of the separations between Christians have been based on sinful behaviors and pride rather than theological distinctives. I pray regularly about the state of the Church and that God would bring unity without compromise.
There is not much confusion over protestant doctrine – you either believe it, or you don’t – and this works its way out in doctrine and practice.
Lautensack,
Let me formally introduce you to Stuart Crispin in case the two of you haven’t officially met. He’s got quite an LDS resume with a claim of being a Mormon teacher for over 30 years in various offices in the church. We are happy to have him here – really. Unfortunately, Crispin lost all credibility here a little over a month ago. Matter of fact, the date was July 2nd.
I posed to him and any other Mormon a couple of questions on what it would take for me to become a Mormon – nothing hard – simple “first principle of the gospel” questions. Let me now copy and paste his response here:
st.crispin on July 1st, 2009
“Andy/Berean,
I will address your questions tomorrow. In the meantime you can start packing your bags and I will fill up the baptismal fount for you.”
So, it’s now August 5th. I’ve already unpacked my bag and cancelled my trip to Salt Lake City. The baptismal fount has flooded out the building and there are no answers from him. Crispin went AWOL after this post. He’s back now after a month. Crispin is angry and I would be too if I couldn’t even define the Mormon god in the Bible as they say he is (an exalted man who became a god). We, as Christians, have God that can be defined and shown from the Scriptures. The LDS people cannot, but they do have a picture of him in the Book of Abraham, Facsimile No.2, Figure 7 (upside down in the picture) and he’s sitting in a chair with an erection giving the sign of the Mormon holy ghost at his residence on/near Kolob (Figure 1). That’s real classy and holy – not!
Mormon parents: Please use discretion when leaving your children alone with the Book of Abraham. Parental guidance is suggested with the drawings. It’s worse than the nude pictures in the National Geographic.
Olsen and Shem gave it their best shot to but bailed out. Since Mormons can’t give biblical sources to back up Joseph Smith’s “first principle of the gospel”, then their rants past this point are “smokescreens”.
G’day!
I like the full context better, just a thought as to why not quote the full paragraph in question. Nice article about keeping up with the Mormons, but I see some manipulation to make a poor point.
“It has been stated that this word [mormon] was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. On the 523d page, of the fourth edition, it reads: And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters which are called among us the Reformed Egyptian … none other people knoweth our language; therefore [God] hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.” … [The] Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, “I am the good shepherd;” and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word MOR-MON; which means, literally, more good”.
Ralph, you missed the rest of my discussion on being saved despite our works. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should do whatever we want. Flaunting God’s work is evidence of a lack of faith. Further, I have never said what we do does not matter in life, only that our salvation is not dependant on it. If you take seriously what God has outlined, you should follow it, and not discount what you don’t like.
The trinity: I actually fully believe it, but God as three separate beings still remains fully and completely one God. The doctrine is complicated, but God certainly shows himself through the Father, Son, and Spirit, and he is fully each of those entities, separately, but they are one and only one God.
God’s church, well, Christ says that all who believe are his church…
I think the Salt Lake City Mormons need to get in line, or in this case back-in-line, with the banner they put over the Kirtland Temple in 1834 in which they called themselves: “CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS”. I really like that. They had the courtesy to leave out the name of Christ and not bear His Name with their heretical teachings. By the way, the banner is still over the Kirtland Temple today, but they don’t own it anymore.
So much for D&C 109 – Joseph Smith gives a long-winded prayer (80 verses) in which “this prayer was given to him by revelation”. This was in 1836. Two years later the Mormons left it in 1838. I guess the Mormon god didn’t see that coming. The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) took control of the property in 1874.
I’m sure Joseph Smith wished he never built the Kirtland Temple after Martin Harris made his declaration in 1838 that caused a massive LDS exodus. March 25, 1838: Martin Harris, in the Kirtland Temple, states that none of the witnesses had physically seen or handled the plates, that they had not seen the plates with their “natural eyes” but rather their “spiritual eyes”. (Joseph Smith Letterbook, Vol.2, pages 64-66, LDS archives, Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol.2, page 291)
Hank,
If you’re going to quote somebody you need to give the source for those quotations – thanks. Also, sorry I missed out on the discussion in which you stated you didn’t believe in “mother in heaven”. The implications of that are very severe. You’re writing that one off has serious blowback for other doctrines. It appears that you have gone mainstream with creating your own brand of hybrid Mormonism. Shall we call it “Hankonism”? Sounds kind of kinky.
Anyway, I guess you forgot or haven’t read yet that Smith didn’t translate the Book of Mormon from the plates. The list of people that say so is rather long, but we could start with Mormon apostle Russell Nelson (Ensign, July 1993), Mormon historian Richard Bushman, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Emma Smith and many more. The BoM came about via the seer stone.
“The Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 818)
“In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some through peep stones or crystal balls.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 565-566)
“This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, page 225)
You may find it troubling that in the Satanic Bible one of the deities worshipped is called “Mormo”. It has an unsettling ring to it, eh? The Satanists also believe that god is an exalted man, plurality of gods, eternal progression, proxy work for the dead, seer stones and much more! Shall I apply Moroni 10:3-5 by praying and ask God if this book is true too? If not, why not? Would this book qualify as one to “seek ye out of the best books words of widom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118)? With so many similarities to Mormonism it would seem to be a recommendation by Joseph Smith the “seer”.
MichaelP,
Despite our works means that we are saved regardless of what we do, including doing things that are against what the Bible teaches. If you are saying that there are things written in the Bible that if we do not follow we are not ‘saved’ then you cannot say that it is despite our works. That is being saved without our works.
Yes, I understand the Trinity, but that still does not answer the question why you say that Jesus is not literally the Son of God as the Bible claims Him to be, whether it be because of difference in purpose or different being/person in the God ‘conglomerate’. What you are saying is tha Jesus is God the Father as well as God the Son.
About Jesus church, I believe in Him…
Ralph,
We are saved despite our works, even as you described it. Put very simply you nor I have ever kept the 1st and Greatest Commandment Perfectly, nor the second, nor any point of the Law. You want to say we are saved, at least in part, by keeping these rules. Okay… you failed. What now? Your only hope cannot be in your ability to keep the Law, even with the Help of Jesus, rather your only hope must be that he propitiated God’s wrath against you and your sin on the Cross. Here is where “works” come in, not as though they have any meritorious value but through the vehicle of faith in Christ alone, God begins to conform you into the image of His Son, Jesus. Or as Luther put it salvation is by faith alone, but never a faith that remains alone.
On the Trinity, where does the Bible claim that God literally Sired Jesus? Because Christians believe Jesus is literally the son of God, however our understanding is the same as that of 1st Century Jews, it does not always mean a physical son, rather one’s character and how they acted. See also John 8:44.
Lautensack
Let’s face it, Utah Mormonism is a mess. The LDS Utah bunch can’t even figure out what to call themselves. If there was ever an apostate group within the “family” of Mormonism, I would say it’s headquartered in Utah. Take a look at the Community of Christ or Temple Lot and you’ll get a better picture of what Mormonism was originally before Joseph Smith went nuts in Nauvoo.
The Utah LDS has no integrity, it’s prophets and apostles past and present are little more than religious politicians who have the distinct advantage of never being held accountable by the membership for anything, including the “basic” doctrines of the Utah sect. They are the Mormon religious rock-stars that the rank-and-file mistakenly put their faith, hope and trust in. I don’t know how anyone gets a gig like this one. A built in fail-safe system that allows the big boys to say any goofy thing they want, and it’s considered laudable. Dare we explore the Journal of Discourses…..which of course doesn’t count anymore.
Flip-flopping, herky-jerking, running hither and yon with any new wave of doctrine is a feature that the Utah Mormon sect sells as a benefit under the banner of “progressive revelation”. The Mormon definition of “prophet” could be………be creative and come up with one.
St. Crispin,
You really do not understand, what most Christians here believe and to fill in the gaps of your ignorance you make up straw men. The very thing you personally, as well as many Mormons, do is accuse others (the ones you are attacking) of the very thing you are guilty of. You have distorted and misrepresented the faith of many in this country and around the world.
1. In the American south Protestant churches are STILL racially segregated!!!
Why stop at the south? Most churches, nay, most religions in America (and even to some extent abroad) are racially segregated, and have always been. Some of this is legit. In certain parts of America there exists on one racial/ethnic group. However, there is a problem but it is not relegated to only the south or even Protestant churches
2. In the U.S. the Episcopalian Church (Anglican Church elsewhere) ordains openly gay ministers!!!
3. Many other “mainstream” churches sanction gay marriages!!!
And guess what. We don’t call them “Christian” either! You are not the only cult. I would kindly direct you over to http://www.aomin.com (James White’s website). He has debated not only you guys, but liberals, homosexuals, Roman Catholics, and a whole host of other groups. Those who are in Christ are of Christ and are the ones that truly deserve the title “Christian”; group affiliation in-and-of-itself means nothing.
4. Many Baptist Churches do not believe that baptism is necessary!!!
Define “necessary“. If by “necessary” you mean necessary for salvation then many churches believe that it is not “necessary”, not just Baptist churches. However, Baptists most certainly do believe Baptism is part of the Christian life, and hence “necessary”, and as such they perform Baptisms.
continued
5. Some evangelical churches (such as Aaron’s) teach that God is neutered (i.e. God has no gender)!!!
If by neutered you mean that apart from the incarnation – God does not have physical parts, is not a man or a woman, that He created gender itself, and that the principle Biblical descriptions/metaphors of Him are male (father, brother, warrior, etc.) but not all are so – then I would state that most if not all evangelical churches teach that.
6. Some evangelical churches preach that Jesus Christ is not the literal Son of God!!!
See above. If by “literal” you mean God used a male part and impregnated Mary then no. If you mean that Jesus shares the Father’s DNA then no. If you mean that there was a time when the father existed, and existed as God – and The Son did not – then no. But again we are not particular in that. Show me what Christian churches teach that God is a glorified man that has male genitalia and that this God physically sired one like himself – The Son. Where are these churches and what are their names? If they do believe these things we would call them a “cult” or at the least “counterfeit Christianity” like we do with you.
7. Some Protestant churches teach the junk science known as “creationism”.
And prior to The Enlightenment everybody who held to the “Christian” or even “Protestant” believed in that. And not just Christians. Before The Enlightenment every Jew, Christian, and Muslim believed in “creationism”. Even after the enlightenment Orthodox Jews, most if not all Muslims, and the majority of Christians believed in it. In fact I challenge you to show me that 1st generation Mormon leaders did not believe in creationism.
8. Some Protestant churches preach that all Jews will burn forever in Hell.
Why stop with Jews? Look at what the leaders of the Protestant Reformation taught. He who has the Son has life (I John 5:12 & John 3:36), and those that don’t go where goats go – hell. Any Protestant church that does not teach that is courting heresy and could get the same label you guys sometimes get – cult
St. Crispin, I do not want to ever see you gripe about misrepresentation and Mormonism as you just misrepresented the faith of millions.
It’s pretty obvious that Mormonism can’t stand on its own merits. Judging from what our Mormon posters write here, their best defense of Mormonism is to attack Christian denominationalism. What they don’t understand, and quite frankly will never understand, is that Christianity doesn’t rise or fall on denoninational distinctives. All those who have come to the Biblical Jesus (not the Mormon Jesus)in faith are part of the mystical body of Christ. What church building a person worships in has nothing to do with Christ’s Church nor do the various ancillary doctrines (beyond the nine basic tenents of Christianity)have anything to do with the Faith.
Utah Mormons are stuck with defending a guy in Joseph Smith who some in Mormonism even identify as a “fallen” prophet. When a “prophet” decides that he wants to have sex with any woman in town he deems disirable regardless of her age or marital status and calls it “marrage” as a necessity for the highest heavenly reward, a religion has more than a little problem right from the get go. Utah Mormonism has never condemed Joseph Smith’s behavior because the whole program rises or falls on the veracity of this self-proclaimed prophet.
So Mormonism is left trying to find some reasonable argument for the fact that this “true” faith is so disjointed and disfunctional. It takes a sizeable amount of brainwashing to get folks to overlook the obvious lack of institutional integrity of Morman Inc. and it’s poor excuse for prophets and apostles who can never seem to get it right or make up their minds about what the Mormon god is telling them.
Andy,
Aw Andy, sorry about the quotes, I keep forgetting to be so accurate as to also source the WHOLE PARAGRAPH instead of the usual out of context lame quoting Evangelicals do in promoting their agenda’s of manipulation to make a false point. Shame on me for posting such accuracy, yet not revealing the source.
Lets see, now your stating I don’t believe in a Heavenly Mother, that is interesting manipulation of my stated position wherein I was pretty plain about some doctrine being small aberrations of the pure doctrine we teach every Sunday, using our Standard Works.
Lets see, now if I claim that this is our doctrine, A Heavenly Mother, your next question would be for me to prove it. Bingo, guess what Andy, it’s not in any of our teaching Manuals, or Scriptures, etc. Now, do I believe it to be true or false? Common sense, and personal study and prayer make me think that the possibilities are pretty good that I do have a Heavenly Mother. If you ever care to quote me correctly, I also stated that, “God was once a man”, and ” we can create our own planets”, were also snippets and nuggets of doctrine we know little about and to speculate is wrong and could lead some to apostasy for misunderstanding doctrine that no one can explain in any detail or fashion since the fulness of these principles have not yet been revealed.
You would do yourself a great service by actually stating what I stated correctly. Methinks your misunderstanding of Mormonism is mainly due to your lack of knowing a subject from actual study of it versus stating borrowed talking points that most often have already been accurately refuted. It seems to me, this would be embarrassing to be called out on your many mistakes and blunders. Just a thought good buddy.
I also am not one of those who ever stated that Joseph translated directly from the plates, stuyding Chruch History makes it plain how this was accomplished.
r.
Hank,
I’m kind of puzzeled at your statement where you
seem to be not fully convinced that you have a
Heavenly Mother[HM]. “….the possibilites are
pretty good…” you say.
Are you then fully convinced you have a Heavenly
Father? I’m trying to find out exactly where
you’re coming from concerning these doctrines.
Lastly, Do you consider the doctrine of HM to
be an offical doctrine of your Church, but not
for you personally? When you use words like
“snippet” or “aberration” it seems to imply
that this (and other) doctrines are not that
important.IF I had a Mother that had nurtured
me in our home in Heaven, I would consider this
to be a major belief in my life,and I would be
proudly telling others about her.
Can you just plainly tell me how important this
is to you?
HankSaint wrote: I also am not one of those who ever stated that Joseph translated directly from the plates, studying Church History makes it plain how this was accomplished.
Hank, you must have found that out in studying on your own, that this was how Smith translated the book. Because in all my years as a member, this was never taught to me in church. There are no pictures that the church displays outright, that show him with the hat, quite the opposite. They push for the version of translation like a “normal” person. So by omission, that is THE method the Mormon Church endorses. And by omission, so many other things about Smith and the early prophets, are also ignored. I’m just saying…….
Ralph,
As Lautensack stated, and I earlier, we are saved despite our works, even as you present it. This does not mean what we do is not important, but iut means we are indeed saved despite what we do. And I do mean to say that there are things written in the Bible that if we do not follow we will still be saved, and so it is despite our work, because even if we mess up a little, we have fallen short of the Biblical standard. This is the despite, referring to our mistakes rather than omissions.
Christ as literal son. Others have very much addressed this issue, and I will only say we do not believe in a physical definition of literal. No sex was had between celestial parents to create Christ, and thus is not a literal son.
Are you a Christian? Nope. Believing in the Biblcial Christ are saved, and you do not believe in him. Yours is a creation of Joseph Smith, and your doctrines fall far outside of the core doctrines of Christianity. Calling on Christ is not necessarilly sufficient, because it matters on who that Christ is. You know the verse that states not all who call…
Hank,
You continually use the phase “common sense”. Quite frankly, if you were using common sense you wouldn’t be a Mormon. Common sense would tell you that God wasn’t a man who progressed to being “a god”. And as far as your “heavenly mother” goes, how do you know this based on “common sense”, prayer and study. What, my friend, are you studying and who are you praying to?
When you start with a wrong premise and a desire to believe that premise, what else are you going to conclude? This sounds pretty impressive, I’m sure, in Mormonland; that you study, and pray and use common sense to determine the truthfullness of what you desire to believe. Where did you get the idea that there’s a heavenly mother, for example. So your premise is faulty to begin with and than a series of questions lead you to a false conclusion.
Here’s the deal, once you accepted Joseph Smith’s lie as the truth, from that point on the chances that you were going to be led to conclude anything other than what you have concluded are zero. Here’s the other danger of your approach, there’s nothing you can point to in any form of scripture Biblical or Mormon that will point you in the direction of what you believe.
But, Hank, what this home-made process does for you, is get you into the revelation business. You are now Smith-like. You are super duper spiritual. You are among the Mormon elite. You’ve got status! It’s the pull of Joseph Smith’s claim that you could have your own personal revelation that entangles you.
And that’s why there are religious Mormon crackpots all up and down the Idaho, Utah, Arizona corridor. And that’s why the Utah Mormon church has to continually disavow, hide or gloss over the nutty stuff that their prophets, past and present have uttered.
You Hank, are not on solid ground, but it is ego fullfilling.
Andy, Orson Pratt wrote in the “The Seer”, page 37, “Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited” This does not come across as a “nugget” or “snippett” of doctrine to me. Sounds like he was teaching exactly what happens when man becomes exalted and why there are so many gods. This should shock you to the core!
^^^^^Not Andy (sorry Andy), that was directed at Hank and his argument about “nuggets and snippets” of doctrine. Mia culpa.
Reflection on Revelation
I spent several posts on the previous thread discussing revelation. I specifically looked at the NT and talked about revelation in light of what is written in the Book of Acts, Galatians, First Corinthians and Ephesians. My point was/is that there are different types of revelation but it’s incumbent that revelation be tested-at least as far as Biblical, orthodox Christianity is concerned.
Hank tells us that he uses “common sense”, which I’d like to have operationally defined, prayer and study. And yet, he comes to the wrong conclusions as far as Christianity is concerned. Now in the wonderful ever changing world of Mormonism with it’s rather low threshold for confirming “truth”, Hank’s system will work just fine. That’s because he’s affirming Mormonism.
I would suggest that Hank and our other Mormon revelators, pick-up a copy of Jon Krakauer’s book “Under the Banner of Heaven”.
Summary: “At the core of Krakauer’s book are brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty, who insist they received a commandment from God to kill a blameless woman and her baby girl. Beginning with a meticulously researched account of this appalling double murder, Krakauer constructs a multilayered, bone-chilling narrative of messianic delusion, polygamy, savage violence, and unyielding faith….”
p. 72-“But perhaps the greatest attraction of Mormonism was the promise that each follower would be granted an extraordinarily intmate relationship with God. Joseph taught and encouraged his adherents to receive personal communiques straight from the Lord. Divine revelation formed the bedrock of the religion.”
The problem of course is that the “revelations” that Hank receives, reinforce the false doctrines they embrace. The revelations are consistent with the errors that Joseph Smith proclaimed.
I have a standard, the revealed Word of God-the Bible-by which I test everything. Mormons don’t use the Bible because it doesn’t teach the doctrine they want to believe or have “revealed” to them.
Hank,
This is the last comment I have on your “little
snippets” (and “aberrations”) reasoning.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune April 8,1996
[referenced in Sunstone Mag. Dec. 2005 p.73 ]
“….President Gordon B. Hinckley referred to
Mormonism’s earlier racist policies as, ” those
little tricks of history…”
Was his reasoning similiar to yours? It appears
so. Was he reducing an important LDS doctrine
into a little snippet in order to excuse it?
I’d like to direct your attention to God’s
Word and incourage you to hold on to “good
doctrine”[1 Tim.4:6]. This is safe ground for
all of us.
God bless you in seeking Him.
When I engage Mormons on the street—especially when I’m talking to crowds—I often have to deal with the criticism that I have used the term “Mormon Church” instead of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. They act offended. It’s petty, but usually after asking the name of the Tabernacle Choir we’re able to move on to something more substantive.
My, My, My,
Ev’s habitually spout off a veritable avalanche slanderous lies and gross misrepresentations against the LDS Church but as soon as I point out the absurdities of their arguments they go wah wah wah!
The theme of Sharon’s post falsely and inaccurately accuses the LDS Church of changing its stance on the term “Mormon”. As I said her “argument is making a mountain out of a molehill with little or no substance behind her snide remarks and excessive fault-finding”.
Luatensack wrote “It is about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constantly changing its everlasting covenants”.
This is of course complete rubbish.
One only has to look at the utter doctrinal confusion and innumerable contradictions (250 major differences by Lautensack’s estimate) of the various sects of Protestantism to see that by comparison the LDS Church is a veritable rock of constancy.
Andy/Berean,
Again, what is with your personal insults? If you had any sincerity I might feel inclined to answer your questions but all you do is insult me so why should I respond to your continued rudeness.
David Whitsell,
The truth cuts to the bone doesn’t it. You think you can indiscriminately spout off all sorts of lies against my religion but when I point out some uncomfortable facts and blatant contradictions about your own sect you turn into a cry baby.
Why is it that evangelicals are so mean-spirited to everyone else? Are evangelicals that insecure in their own religion that they feel compelled to seek validation by attacking every other religion? Evangelicals profess to be Christian but they certainly lack the spirit of Christ.
Falcon,
You have a habit of talking past me, why not just address me personally in your post and not pretend I’m not there by just giving a lecture to the choir. I will just say this, you’re preaching to those who you claim already know the truth, in a sense seeking there applause by trying to make your adversary appear the fool. It is easy to gain the laughter of an appreciative crowd who delight to see the truth defended with boldness and strength, but you must remembered that the heart you wish to touch may hear derision in that laughter and so turn away.
Revelation seems something we both agree on, but I see a hint of a lack of self confidence since you’re still studying it. There is no mistaking revelation that comes from God, of course Falcon that is my opinion and I can not back it up with any scripture except the Burning in the bosom as one example. Lets see what Joseph Smith actually says about revelation:
“Salvation cannot come without revelation [and I am not now speaking about the revelation that gave the dispensation in which we live—I am speaking of personal revelation to individuals]; it is vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has a testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this.” (Teachings, p. 160.)
I have to one hundred percent agree with this principle, do you?
r.
Hank said: “Lets see, now if I claim that this is our doctrine, A Heavenly Mother, your next question would be for me to prove it. Bingo, guess what Andy, it’s not in any of our teaching Manuals, or Scriptures, etc.”
No problem, Hank. Let me help you out with that “good buddy” from some of your Church manuals. Here is a short list:
“All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. These spirit beings, the offspring of exalted parents, were men and women, appearing in all respects as mortal persons do, excepting only that their spirit bodies were made of a more pure and refined substance than the elements from which mortal bodies are made.” (Doctrines of the Gospel, p.14)
“…and it is through sorrow and suffering, toil and tribulation, that we gain the education that we come here to acquire and which will make us more like our Father and Mother in heaven” (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, p. 29)
“Our Heavenly Father and Mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.1)
“No matter to what heights God has attained or may attain, he does not stand alone; for side by side with him, in all her glory, a glory like unto his, stands a companion, the Mother of his children. For as we have a Father in heaven, so also we have a Mother there, a glorified, exalted, ennobled Mother.” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.129)
There’s no embarrassment on my part, “good buddy”. I’ve done my homework and studying. I’d suggest you do the same. Institute – it does a Mormon (and non-Mormon too) good! Take care “good buddy…catch you on the flip-flop…you shake the trees and I’ll rake the leaves”. Guess what I do for a living? “Good buddy” isn’t a nice word on the road.
[email protected]
Now Andy the question is, have I received revelation that confirms these principles, no I have not as of yet. I realize that the same nuggets are preached and taught in our Priesthood manuals, that is good. But as far as knowing anything other then the few words of Doctrine, what else could I tell you about Eternal Progression, not much, not enough to to give a Sacrament talk on, or discourse it in a teaching setting. So again friend, I know little about it, and my testimony is directed at Knowing that Jesus is the Christ, other then that I will wait for further revelation from the Lord to his prophets or wait until I pass beyond the veil to gain more knowledge, so what you think is a gotcha, is just your hope and desire to trip up someone who knows better then to go into doctrine I know very little about. Your turn to shake the tree, I just raked the leaves and found them dead and dried out, just like your points of stating that which we do not state. I take it your a ex-mormon trying to justify why you quit.
r.
r.
Andy, I still consider it a small aberration of our doctrine, yes it was stated, but never taught as something in it’s fullness.
Do I believe there is a Heavenly Mother, yes, do I have a testimony as of this, no. If is stated otherwise, I could possibly be opening up my opinions that could lead someone else in to apostasy. Why would I want to do that? I am the kind of TBM that stays on solid ground, and if it not in the Standard Works, I won’t preach it.
r.
OK Hank,
So you spend a whole paragraph evaluating me, my personality, and my writing style. And the point is what? Do you really want to get into a discussion of style or do you want to discuss substance. You sound like a whinner. Unfortunately that’s what I’ve noticed about Mormonism and what it produces in it’s members. OK, did you like that? We can keep going back and forth on a personal level and make this blog sound like a bunch of middle school girls in the counselor’s office if you want or we can discuss issues. You pick.
And save the Mormon arrogance regarding your superiority in the realm of revelation. The type of revelation you practice is fly by the seat of your pants and hope for an emotional buzz. By your own admission, you have nothing by which to test your revelation against.
What spirit guides Mormonism? You have a founding prophet who was an occultist. You have a god that used to be a man and became a god. You have a jesus that is the spirit off spring of a man/god and a woman goddess and finally you split between the Mormon holy spirit and holy ghost one of which is the third child of heavenly father and mother after Lucifer and the Mormon jesus.
So your revelation comes from where? And what do you test it against? By your own admission nothing. You’re just in a free flow stream of consciousness, getting some thoughts that satisfy you and provide a nice emotional lift. What you’re tapping into is spiritism as was your founder prophet Joseph Smith.
The revelation I’m talking about comes from the One, everlasting, eternal God. It can be tested against His Word the Bible. The guidelines for revelation are plainly laid out in First Corinthians chapter 14.
Hank you’ve chosen to believe a lie and therefore cannot receive the knowledge of the truth. Your mind is seared.
Hank,
You said: “A Heavenly Mother, your next question would be for me to prove it. Bingo, guess what Andy, it’s not in any of our teaching Manuals”.
Okay, I showed you that this teaching is in the Church manuals and in the latest one entitled “Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Religion 430 & 431 Second Edition”. Now you’re back-tracking. You are in error. No, there is no “gotcha”. I’m just backing up what I am saying as I do everything on here. The list of quotes I gave you was a short list. I’ll be happy to supply you with more if you’d like them. This is a “small aberration of our doctrine”? You must be kidding. You’re not in line with the First Presidency in the 1995 Proclamation to the World in which “heavenly parents” is stated. This isn’t nuclear fusion. It’s easy to figure out what this means: Mormon god and his wife – your mother in heaven who played a part in your supposed preexistence.
No, I’m not an ex-Mormon. Thanks for the compliment – I guess – if you’re referring to my education in Mormonism. After all these years this the first time I’ve heard this. I was wondering how long it would take. I figured if I wanted to learn about Mormonism I needed to go where Mormonism is taught so I did and then did studying and research on my own for years. Why? I love the Mormon people enough to do what it takes to understand them fully and accurately to reach them and tell them the truth even if they hate me for it initially. It’s paying off now as God is bringing those Mormons in my life who I am able to share with by understanding where they are coming from and show them the way to the real Jesus Christ – not the “jesus” of the Mormons. To God be the glory!
P.S. You told me, “You shake the tree”. Okay, I will. That means I will take the “front door” (lead position out in front on the road). You will take the “back door” (“rake the leaves”) and follow me where I go. Will you follow me to the real Jesus Christ?
Crispin/”merryjane”.
That’s right…the gig is up. Glad to have you back and posting under your original name. I did enjoy reading your mock posts with Jason Rae while you were over in the UK, right Crispin/merryjane? Where was that last post sent on July 31st? Was it at LaGuardia or Reagan National waiting on your connecting flight to Salt Lake?
Look, don’t be too embarrassed about it. Others on here have done the same thing in the past. We forgive you already. You’ll just need to square that up with the bishop at the next temple recommend for violating LDS Articles of Faith #13 for not being honest.
“Insults” you say? For calling you out for not following through on your post to answer the questions while you instructed me to “pack my bags” while you “filled the baptismal fount”? Those were you words! You didn’t seem insulted on July 1st. On July 2nd you went AWOL. I guess it was to the UK. No, they aren’t insults. You are embarrassed because you can’t answer the simple question that I asked on Joseph Smith’s “first principle of the gospel”.
You have no problem with your flaming rhetoric and insults of others on here (yellow cards), but when called out to back up what you committed to do, I guess that is another thing, right? Don’t confuse embarrassment with insults. The people on this board are smart enough to see through this “spin”. I’ll tell you what I told Shem and Olsen: You’re apologetics, research, scholarly references and ability to answer simple LDS questions are pathetic.
Welcome back to America.
Andy,
I have two questions for you:
What are you smoking and where can I get some?
I am not the “merryjane” you make reference to. FYI, I have been vacationing in the south Pacific for the past number of weeks swimming with manta rays and avoiding tiger sharks and hiking around some incredible volcanoes.
It seems all you are capable of doing is making personal insults. It is clear that you are not interested in an adult discussion. Your juvenile insults really lowers the tone of this discussion board. I suggest that you clean up your act.
Crispin,
I’m not buying your story, but it doesn’t really matter.
Personal insults? It appears that you are the one with the “yellow card” warnings on your posts, right? Why don’t you quit blowing smoke and man-up to the questions that you committed to answering? Fact is, you can’t follow through on your commitment of July 1st. I call that being a “blowhard” – hot air. You have no credibility with me – none. I will remind you of that constantly on here. You want the world to buy into Joseph Smith’s god, but yet you can’t show the good people on this board where in the Bible you get your “god is an exalted man who became a god”. You “clicked your heels” on July 1st promising to have the answers the next day. A month later you have nothing. That’s why I used the word “pathetic” and will continue to do so.
I call it the way that I see it. You’re not adding anything to this discussion board other than yellow warning cards from Aaron. Who is the one who needs to clean up their act? I think it’s obvious. Quit wasting space complaining about other people and add something meaningful to the discussion by answering the question or saying like Shem and Olsen that you can’t and we’ll just forget it and move on.
I tried to clean up my posting about your god showing the world his erection in the Book of Abraham, Facsimile No.2, Figure 7, but it’s hard to clean up. In my church we call that pornography. That is juvenile in my opinion and it takes an adult to say it on here and bring it to people’s attention who don’t know about it. It is beyond me why this doesn’t embarrass Mormons. No, instead you are worried about spinning this into the person who is bringing forth the information.
Establish some credibility and follow through on your statements. You claim to have the LDS education and teaching experience. Instruct the lost on here from the Bible who your god is and define him. If not, then be prepared to be called out for your “hot air”. I’m movin’ on.
Part 1 (back on topic: “Mormon”)
It’s not fair! Boo hoo hoo..waaah..sniff sniff.
That could have been my reaction this morning over breakfast as I read this week’s issue of the [LDS] Church News (August 1st), but it wasn’t as I read the headline on page 12: “SPECIAL PRIVILEGES: Church, team share benefits”. On August 6th in Los Angeles at the Dodger Stadium it’s “Mormon Nights”. Wow, go figure! The Dodgers are playing the Atlanta Braves – my hometown team.
The article says because of this special night at Dodger stadium “That means special perks including, this year, a nationwide search for an LDS member to sing the national anthem prior to the game…a second winner will sing ‘God Bless America’ during the seventh-inning stretch”. Mormons, where is your persecution “card” that is normally played as of late when it comes to the state of California? I thought they hated you because of your position on Prop 8? I guess they are over it now and I think it’s great. It appears that being a Mormon in California isn’t a bad deal. I don’t see the Dodgers giving any special night like this to any other religion. One would almost think there was a religious slant in favor of Mormonism in California instead of against it.
The article says, “Having Mormon Night at Dodger Stadium is helpful to the people of Los Angeles to see that we enjoy the Dodgers, we enjoy fun, that we’re normal people.”
I couldn’t agree more! I’m just wondering how much this kind of publicity from a professional sports team this far from Salt Lake City costs the LDS Church? I better not hear the Mormons ever complain again about their “persecution”. Mormons today don’t have a clue about persecution. A tough question comes their way and they call it persecution. That is an insult to your ancestors who may have really experienced persecution.
It appears that there are no hard feelings in Southern CA. and Mormons have “perks” that other people of faith won’t have that night.