Ex-LDS Christian on General Conference


Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.


This entry was posted in General Conference. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Ex-LDS Christian on General Conference

  1. Enki says:

    Front row seats? Boy was I ever a ‘d’ list mormon, I never even thought about or heard of front row seats, or the privilege of these seats. I would have still fallen asleep. I am glad you mentioned that. Every single conference I ever went to(at the stake center) I always fell asleep. Who couldn’t!

    I even fell asleep during Ezra Tafts visit to our ward so many years ago. This was just before he became president, that was a little bit ago. I saw Neal a Maxwell, and up close, shook his hand. I should have known then that something was up. Even as an active member, I just didn’t trust him, something about him really gave me the creeps. He just seemed ‘slick’. I couldn’t clearly identify what it was.

  2. falcon says:

    The reason Mormons can’t test everything by the Word of God is because their religion falls a part when it’s done. That is why the Bible has to be viewed as suspect by Mormons. Mormons can’t even test the current words of their prophet with those of the past prophets because it all changes all of the time. This is seen by Mormons as a great feature of their religion but it points up the fact that Mormonism is built on a foundation of shifting sand. Buying this concept of “continuous revelation” allows the church to dump certain doctrines, teachings and practices when they become too hot to handle and come-up with some new and improved ones.
    The funny thing is that Mormons brag about having a living prophet, revelation and a new written scripture as if other religions don’t make this same claim. It’s actually pretty standard stuff. Just about any religion is going to have a prophet, a revelation and “spiritual” “supernatural” events and most importantly “feelings”. Even someone who worships a statue of a frog can “claim” these things.
    The Word of God, the Bible, is God’s testimony to us about Himself. God’s revealed Word, Jesus Christ not only died for our sins but He revealed who God is. The Mormons have the gospel of Joseph Smith which is a false gospel and has no power to save. Mormons need to turn to the true and living God to find forgiveness of their sins and everlasting life. It is true that God loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever should believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life. Mormons need to go back to square one and discover who God is. Then they will have peace and respite from their fruitless works.

  3. Enki says:

    What are some examples of other religions which say they have a living prophet and new scripture? And religions that worship a frog? I have never heard of that, but it would be interesting to understand what its supposed to represent.

    “John 3:14-15 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

  4. I thought it was interesting of the parallels btwn the great and spacious building and the pride that exudes from the leaders. It’s appalling and shocking, seeing it on the outside…. But then, God opposes the Proud and gives grace to the humble. So may we glorify God by being humble and preaching His message in season and out of season, so that His Word can change hearts.

  5. Kevin says:

    I wonder just how much a person must pay (donate) to get the good seats.

    This reminds me of Tithing settlement. I knew they kept those records for some reason. I went to one, then never again.

    I have thought the same thing, and have even posted the analogy of the great and spacious building being a representation of the Mormon Organization.

    Lets call it what it is.

  6. Enki says:

    Kevin & Finally free,
    Any religious organization with a large ornate building could be criticized in this manner.

  7. Kevin says:


    I am not talking about just any organization and large ornate building, this blog is about Mormon’s, just in case you missed the title. Although I do not know of any organization that describes the great and spacious building in the manner that the BOM does.

    Now if you want to talk about “Any religious organization”, lets find a topic appropriate blog that is focused on “those” organisations.

    Obviously there are many correlations that a person could draw and delineate about any organization religious or not, and what this post is about. I don’t want to argue about semantics.

    What my point is, the apparent self proclaimed prophecy that is unique to the Mormon Organization in the lesson of the great and spacious building.

  8. Enki says:

    This ‘vision’ isn’t particularly of a religious building. It could be some building on wall street, or maybe the crysler building. Mormons don’t particularly have any problem with accumulating wealth, and in fact some see it as being blessed by god.

    Apparently, non-LDS christiand believe in wealth, and displaying it. One example
    The crystal cathedral cost $17million to build, thats $55million in 2007 dollars.

    The LDS church is ‘turning away from’ the practice of building mega temples, and instead building much, much smaller, plain temples. They realized that it would break the budget if every temple was a mega temple.

    If a comparision is being made to religious structures, than we are free to examine any religious structure and examine motives for building. If its a secular structure, we could do the same. Is there any rule in the christian faith against building large religious structures?

  9. subgenius says:

    well General Conference is here, which i am sure will generate new topics here and abroad. I invite everyone to participate and watch for themselves as much of the session as they can…especially since opinion will pletiful in its wake, and the best opinion is an informed one, and the best way to be informed is by first-hand experience…..don’t you agree?…;)

  10. falcon says:

    You wanted to know about “frogs”. Exodus 8:6 describes the plagues against the Egyptian frog goddess HEKT. The purpose of the plagues were to show Israel their true God and to show Egypt their false gods.
    Mormonism has substituted a false man/god for the living God. They may as well be worshiping the frog goddess HEKT for all the good their man/god can do in providing eternal life for them. Mormonism has a man/god, a jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible, and a Holy Spirit that is different from their own Holy Ghost and totally different from the Spirit that was given to the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost. Mormonism is seriously messed-up and it’s claims of restoration totally false.
    Mormons can build big grand buildings. The problem is they haven’t anything of substance to fill them with.

  11. Kevin says:

    Enki, I think you are missing my point.

    Mormons teach about a great and spacious building..yes?

    And they do build great and spacious buildings… yes?

    Seems like a self proclaiming prophecy… yes?

    It’s an observation, nothing more.

    I don’t care about the Chrysler Building because the Chrysler building or those who own the structure, don’t teach, as far as I know, about a great and spacious building.

    Examine all the religious structures you want, but man, you are looking way to deep into my statement.

    The whole thing is metaphorical anyways, heck you could look at your soul as a great and spacious building.

    SubG, I couldn’t agree more, but my ears bleed every time I hear one of the 12 apostates talk, let alone the second to none presidency. I’ll read about it in the next months ensign, but thanks for the offer.

  12. falcon says:

    Paul’s letter to the Galatians could rightly be titled “Paul’s Letter to the Mormons”. In this letter Paul chastises the Galatians (Mormons) for turning from the Gospel of Jesus Christ for “another gospel”. This is what Paul says in Galatians 1:6-9.
    “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received let him be accursed.”
    Paul, I think, in full prophet mode, glimpses the future when a false prophet would claim that an angel provided him (false prophet) with a “restored” gospel. That restored gospel would deny God and reduce Jesus from His rightful position as the incarnate God to a kind of subgod or super hero in status.
    Paul goes on to say that he (Paul) received the gospel, not from men, but from a revelation of Jesus Christ.
    Joseph Smith, like all false prophets, tried to piggy back on this concept of “revelation” by claiming one of his own. The problem is that Smith’s revelation runs contrary to the gospel as it was revealed to the apostles, particularly in this case the apostle Paul. Paul’s admonition that those who claim a revealed gospel other than the one he was preaching would be accursed applies to Joseph Smith. Smith’s behavior would in and of itself be enough to disqualify him as a prophet. But his preaching of a false gospel puts him in a special category of those who are accursed.

  13. falcon says:

    Christians, especially evangelical Christians, talk about having a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Well it means the opposite of having an impersonal relationship with Jesus Christ. We all see performers or athletes on TV. We know their names, what they look like and also what they do. But we don’t know them in the way that we know a friend. That’s what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is about. We not only know His name and what He did but we know him and are as familiar with Him as a friend. We’ve also accepted the gift of eternal life, through faith, that the Father has offered us in the Son, Jesus Christ.
    Mormons have a real infatuation with Joseph Smith to the point that Jesus becomes secondary in their lives. Grant Palmer, author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, bemoans this Mormon lack of focus on Jesus. Mormons, having reduced Jesus to the status of respected older brother, cannot know Him in the way that God requires in order to obtain eternal life. Jesus must be recognized, acknowledged and worshiped as fully God not the off spring of a god that used to be a man and his goddess wife.
    To know Jesus personally as the eternal God-Man is to know the One through Whom salvation is obtained. Any other gods are but idols who do not have the power to save but who will lead those who following him to their destruction.

  14. Enki says:

    I found the following about frogs in relation to egyptian belief.

    “Frog qrr – The frog goddess Heqet was often shown as a frog-headed woman or as a frog. Because the Egyptians saw that there were many frogs, all appearing from the Nile, they associated the frog with fertility and resurrection, and so Heqet was a goddess of childbirth. The four male primeval gods of the Ogdoad – Nun (water), Amen (invisibility), Heh (infinity) and Kek (darkness) – were all frog gods. ”

    Its interesting that a frog is symbolic of resurrection. I suppose by the rebirth an area recieved after the flooding of the nile.

    A snake is symbolic in many cultures for regeneration and ‘resurrection’, as symbolically represented in the christian faith in
    John 3: 14. See also Num. 21: 8-9. So they made statues of a snake.

  15. Mike R says:


    Great insight, the point on Galatians and
    how it could have been written to our LDS
    friends was interesting.

  16. Kevin says:

    Here is an interesting question that I was posed to me the other day.

    “When was the last time a member of the quorum of the 15 apostles or prophets, whatever you wanna call them (12 plus 3 in the 1st presidency) proclaimed that the church was true? When I was a member I don’t remember ever hearing those words, those exact words, come out of their mouths. It is so common to hear ” I know the church is true” from any member during their testimony, but you never hear that from the top tier. Maybe I just missed it.

  17. falcon says:

    I have a related thought. The Mormons say that Joseph Smith restored “real” first century Christianity. What I’m wondering is, what era of Mormon history starting in say 1830 until today, reflects first century Christianity? The Community of Christ and the Temple Lot sects of Mormonism more closely reflect original Mormonism. So is that the first century Christianity Mormonism speaks of? Does Nauvoo Mormonism reflect first century Christianity (in Mormon terms)? How about say 1890? If Mormonism is continually evolving, Salt Lake City style, then it doesn’t reflect first century Christianity and has gone into apostasy.
    See this is probably why the big boys don’t talk much about the SLC church being the real deal because they can’t even prove that the SLC sect is original Mormonism, which it isn’t.
    The problem is, if these folks want to believe something, they can make it all work. It’s all about being able to think Mormon.

  18. falcon says:

    So what is first century Christianity? Well I’d suggest that if someone wants to know, they should start with the Book of Acts and read through the Book of Revelation. It’s just full of polygamy and Free Mason rituals and teachings about men becoming gods and that there are millions perhaps billions of gods in the universe. You can’t find that stuff in those books of the Bible? Well I guess that’s because those things didn’t exist in the first century Christian church.
    Mormons have to twist themselves into human size pretzels to make Joseph Smith’s fantasy work for them. It is truly sad since I do sense that the SLC Mormons have a desire for god. Too bad they don’t seek after the One everlasting and eternal God who alone can bring salvation.

  19. Enki says:

    I think the following BOM scriptures would be more on target, rather than the great and specious building thing…
    Alma 32: 2-4, Alma 32: 2-4, mormon 8:37, 2 Ne. 26: 20-21

    “For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.”
    mormon 8:37
    and other passages about
    “… they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.”
    2 Ne. 26: 20-21

  20. Enki says:

    Falcon, kevin & mike…well it looks like you are all just preaching to the choir at this time! I wouldn’t expect many LDS members to continue blogging here, or perhaps elsewhere.

  21. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Long hiatus, but sounds like the same old stuff here. Just curious how one can watch this video and then compare it to Elder Holland’s address today and then say “yeah this is the true disciple”. Which one sounds like their ancient apostolic brethren? I guess I just don’t get it!

  22. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Got to hand it to Falcon for his consistency and persistence on this blog.

    If I follow your logic I would have a hay-day tracing OT and NT theology. So if I follow that thinking, which doctrine was correct? Adamism or Abrahamicism. Or which is correct Mosaic law or Moses’ command to slaughter a nation (we don’t even need to skip a generation there). Theologians have hashed through all of this stuff before struggling ways to reconcile difference in doctrines coming from the same God.

  23. falcon says:

    As per usual our Mormon friends can’t defend Mormonism on its merits. Here’s the facts, Mormonism can’t be found between the pages of the NT. It is nonexistent within the Word of God. That one fact ought to alert our Mormon friends that they are engaged in a religion that was created out of whole cloth from the creative mind of someone who wasn’t even astute enough to be considered a viable false prophet.
    Mormonism, while claiming to have a restored gospel, can’t even articulate clearly what that restored gospel is. Are we to believe the adherents to the Mormon restored gospel who make their home within the Community of Christ or the Temple Lot sects? After all, Joseph Smith’s son was the head of the COC and Smith’s wife Emma was a full member. Temple Lot sees Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet and reject his religious invention after about 1832. So who owns the restored gospel? The SLC sect changes the restored gospel every time social pressures come to bear either on its doctrines or practices (see polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the introduction to the BoM, temple ritual for examples).
    Joseph Smith couldn’t even get his first vision story straight and continually changed it to reflect his latest creative bent. In fact, upon examination, his ever changing versions sound very similar to those of other people of the time.
    The only way Mormons can attempt to justify Mormonism is with their favorite tactic, attack the Bible. That in and of itself ought to be enough to expose this fraud for what it is, a very cruel joke that has led countless people to reject God to their spiritual destruction.

  24. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Falcon, my comments are not an attack on the Bible but an attack on your philosophy. I suggest that you read Elder Hollands’ last two conference addresses on the Bible.

    We have no interest in attacking the bible. It’s just a smoke screen to divert and deceive the reader. My point is you don’t believe the Bible the way it stands. If you are going to accuse us of changing stances on doctrine and use that as the example that it is not true, then apply to same litmus test to your own prophets.

    The Bible is clear, the LIVING word of God reigns supreme, even if it contradicts itself. Your tactic is to throw out accusations and not explain your position.

  25. subgenius says:

    unfortunately your persistence on the character of JS is irrelevant to the truth of BoM. Though you try to discredit the BoM by constantly berating JS, it simply displays an elementary flaw of argument called Argumentum ad Hominem.

    The mundane and often regurgitated rants about JS or anecdotal slander of individual Mormons does not deny the “Providence Factor” in the BoM. This JS approach is the most glaring tactical error made by the modern day evangelical missionary…in my humble opinion and experience.
    So the statement that Mormons can’t defend Mormonism on its merits” may be erroneous…because i have seen no offense.

  26. liv4jc says:

    DOTF, where do you get the idea that the OT and NT contradict each other? Please give us some examples instead of just throwing out charges. This is the same argument that atheists use, and just like Muslims and Catholics, Smithians often find themselves in bed with their enemies, claiming the Bible is unreliable and full of contradictions, when the it clearly shows that JS revelations are anti-Christ.

    Sub, ad hominum argumentation is clearly in order when it comes to JS. His character is of great importance because he professes to be a prophet of God, speaking for God, who cannot lie. Do the words, “Thus saith the Lord” mean nothing? He has been shown to be less than honest in concocting the “an angel took the plates to heaven” story, which is a juvenile reason for not being able to provide proof of their existence, as is his excuse for not being able to re-translate the plates that Martin Harris’ wife hid or destroyed (D&C 2,3). If your kid gave you a story like that you wouldn’t believe it. “Where did you get that brand new bike with the price tag still attached, son?” “Uh, I found it in a ditch.” “Good answer boy. Carry on.” If he actually had the plates he would have been able to re-translate them.

    We can move on to the fact that he hid his polygomous relationships, which he was committing with the wives of his friends and having them do the same, denied that they were occurring, had the printing press destroyed, etc. Then, after his death, Wow! he had a revelation from God back in 1831 about polygamy (so says the heading of D&C 132) If God really gave Joseph the reveation in 1831, why lie about it until 1843? “LETS ALL SLEEP AROUND BOYS! God says it’s ok.” No, it’s not O.K. It’s a violation of the 7th commandment. Otherwise known as sin. God’s word is not contradictory. Once again, please read Deuteronomy 13 and 18, and Matthew 7. JS fits the bill as a false prophet boys. All the mental backflips do not change the evidence.

  27. subgenius says:

    “Sub, ad hominum argumentation is clearly in order when it comes to JS”
    i agree with you because ad hom is actually a “flaw” in argument not a tactic.
    Still the fascination with the character of JS – i believe there is a topic heading on this board for those so obsessed, nevertheless this is not a valid criticism of the BoM.
    If this were true then surely you would denounce the King James version of the Bible based on the controversy of Esme’ Stewart.

    Lest ye forget the “Providence Factor”!

  28. liv4jc says:

    Sub, I think trancendental ad hominum is in order based upon the fact that JS claimed to be speaking for God. So if we begin with the agreed upon assumption that God cannot lie, as God’s mouthpiece Smith must only speak truth whenever his writings are claimed to be scripture. If Smith’s revelations are contrary to previous revelations of God through other recognized prophets, then his revelations become self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. In Genesis 2:24 Moses records “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Jesus quotes this same text in Mathew 19:5 as grounds for telling the Pharisees that divorce is adultery because unless there is a case of sexual immorality, God sees the couple as still married.
    Even the BoM in Jacob 2:27 and 3:5 has a command from God that a man is only to have one wife. Then of course we have the 7th Commandent, “You shall not commit adultery.”

    If JS preached the above texts, but was himself an adulterer, and I called him on it, calling his preaching or profession of faith into question truly would be an ad hominem logical fallacy, because it would have no bearing on the truth that he preached. But JS claimed to have a revelation that adultery was the path to godhood that is now canonized as LDS scripture (D&C 132) that is completely contrary to the message of God’s prophets of the past. Somebody is lying, and it’s not God.

    So calling into question JS’s personal revelations about polygamy, the nature of man, the fall, the nature of God and Jesus Christ, etc., all of which contradict the Bible and the BoM, JS’s own first book, which your church claims to be greater than the Bible, is valid and disqualifies him to be a prophet of God. I’m sorry, but use of ad hominem is warranted in this case. I know you’ll disagree, but that’s the nature of our conversations. I can’t argue you into the Kingdom of God as much as I’d like to.

  29. subgenius says:

    “use of ad hominem is warranted”…in other words you claim that fallacy is the only way to make your argument, which is apparent. When you realize that ad hominem arguments are never successful is when you will see the essence of your own argument, until then you are seeing shadows on the wall (refer to Plato’s Allegory of the cave)

    God, int the OT or the NT never “commands” marital monogamy…no-out-of-marriage-sex yes, but not monogamous marriage (just ask Lemech, Solomon, or David, or the law of Moses with regards to surviving wife of a brother, which JC later supports)….and no, the scriptures do not directly blame their woes on polygamy.
    As many evangelicals insist on beating the drum of JS in an effort (a futile and fruitless effort) to discredit the BoM they forget one critical truth…….

    John 8:15 (and yes, i assume you will read its context)

  30. “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise. The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument.” (cited on Wikipedia, Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. pp. 190)

  31. subgenius says:

    with all due respect, Wikipedia citations are not the most reliable, and though Mr. Walton may be respectable gentleman, his intepretation of “ad hominem” is not applucable the context of argument and debate, especially since there is justification presented (its just because he says so?)

    The dictionary describes ad hominem as follows:
    1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
    2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    I would consider the definition and aplication of terms by their most common and predominate usage to be the standard, for the sake of communication and clarity.
    i believe “wikipedia” also provides more support for its use as a fallacy.
    Walton has a few writings where he argues the merits of ad hominem arguments and tactics to employ with that idea, though i dont believe that is the case here.
    The ad hominem argument is always revealed to be relevant to the “Arguer’s Position” – which is a book by Walton.
    Nevertheless, my position about the “futility” of this argument is the same – which is that no matter how much “scandal” an evangelical imposes on JS it will have no influence on the truth of the BoM.

  32. Kevin says:

    By this definition, “The dictionary describes ad hominem as follows:
    1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.”

    The Mormon corporation only deals in ad hominem, just listen to general conference, it is the most emotionally charged event I have ever seen. The LDS org is a special interest group with in itself, they never deal in intellect or reasoning.

    Just listen to Holland and Oalk’s talk, heck Holland even tried to muster a cry during his talk, that boy needs some acting lessons to pull that one off.

    Further more, “which is that no matter how much “scandal” an evangelical imposes on JS it will have no influence on the truth of the BoM.”

    So what about the truths that non evangelicals impose on JS, I suppose that does influence the truth of the BOM. or is it the horses, elephants, coins… etc. Did the EV’s sneak that into the BOM? EV’s don’t have to impose anything on JS, he imposed it on himself. Don’t take my word for it, take the hundreds of millions of people who do not believe in the BOM. Ask your self, why did JS marry and have sex with women who where already married to living men? Why, after the word of wisdom was issued, did JS smoke and drink?

    The point being, the best argument that Mormonites can come up with is, “Naa uh, just because you said it, doesn’t make it true.”

Leave a Reply