Mitt Romney’s second campaign for President is, predictably, generating a lot of talk about Mormonism. And, again predictably, Mormons are stepping up their online efforts to set the record straight. Latter-day Saint Dinah Chance from Freeport, Florida wrote a letter to the editor of The Northwest Florida Daily News in which she stated,
“If Christians would put aside their petty doctrinal differences and love one another in the name of Jesus Christ, great changes would occur in our beloved country. Baptist, Evangelical, Methodist, Catholic and a host of other Christian religions are founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly, it seems they just can’t love one another because of too much pride in their doctrinal differences.
“How Christian is that? What does Jesus think? Did He die for this?
“My point: Mitt Romney is a Christian! Mormons are Christians! Anyone who says differently is an uneducated person.
“…Christians need to love and band together for the sake of this country.”
As is obvious from her stated “point,” Ms. Chance was not talking about the “petty doctrinal differences” between “Baptist, Evangelical, [and] Methodist” denominations (etc.); she was talking about the differences between Christian faiths and Mormonism.
We’ve talked about many of these doctrinal differences before. They include things like: the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of salvation, the nature of the Atonement, the nature of grace, the nature of prophets, the nature of Scripture, etc. (there is virtually no end to these doctrinal differences). By no means “petty” issues.
Frankly, it’s surprising to hear Mormons suggest that the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Mormonism are of little importance or trivial. Didn’t Joseph Smith say false doctrine was one reason God needed him to remain separate from Christian churches in 1820 and restore the true church? Smith wrote:
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” (Joseph Smith—History 1:18-19)
If these abominable creeds reflected mere petty differences, if what was taught for doctrine was really of little importance, why bother with the whole Restoration? Did Joseph Smith have “too much pride in [his] doctrinal differences” to love Christians and work with them for the greater good?
I invite Mormons everywhere to set aside whatever petty (as you say) doctrinal differences you have with biblical Christianity to band together with Christians in love and worship of the One True God – not for the sake of the country, but for the sake of your souls, and to fulfill the higher call of Christ for His glory.
Just popping in here for a minute to add that Kate, you forgot to mention the BoM scripture where God says polygamy is an abomination (Jacob 2:27-28 I think?). A direct contradiction to the revelation JS received.
Helen, I know most of the stuff SOUNDS sensationalized, but honestly? It’s just a condensed version of many valid mormon teachings. When you string them all together like that (without having someone try and explain them away as if it’s a heavenly principle), it sounds crazy. But funny enough, all of it is true. It just hasn’t been broken up with lectures on food storage and a hymn or two about going to the temple.
Kate you quoted this, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269)
Why did you not quote the full paragraph, who is the one that really did not research the Doctrine, you or I? If you really want to debate this, then be more upfront and quote BY correctly. 🙂
marriedamormon stated, “God says polygamy is an abomination (Jacob 2:27-28 I think?)”
It is very interesting that critics NEVER quote verse 30.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things.
Kate,
All I can say is ditto. I must say that the contrast between you and Helen is profound. You actually know something. You’re right, Helen is one of the “Polly wants a cracker” Mormons who don’t go much beyond the LDS mottos and slogans.
Helen,
I know it’s really tough for Mormons in your particular mind set to grasp what your leaders and “prophets” have taught and said so you have to find someway of rationalizing it. To recognize the Mormon church for what it really is rather than what you’d like it to be is a painful realization.
If you’re the least bit interested in attaining to eternal life you’ll come to realize that going through the LDS church works system in the hopes of becoming a goddess and procreating spirit children through out eternity is a fable of epic proportion.
The authentic Jesus is the only way to the Father. The Father isn’t a sinful man who became a god through religious rituals and clean living. Jesus said that He was the truth, the way and the life. You can’t plead ignorance on the day of judgement.
Helen,
In your charge of “parody” on my part, the problem is you and your ilk can’t face the truth. So we get the little swipe from Helen’s hand as if to say that none of this is important. It’s a psychological device Helen so that you don’t have to face the reality of what Mormonism is all about. Let’s do some more.
I particularly like this quote as it came from a publication called “The Young Ladies Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion”.
“Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.
“As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do — that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
“He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
“In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.” (The Young Woman’s Journal, published by the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64)
Here’s another good one. It seems that before Joseph Smith became a prophet, he had a somewhat lucrative sideline.
“Prisoner [Joseph Smith] brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he …. had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground …. he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of !ate had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes making them sore;…
“And therefore the Court find[s] the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25½c. Seven witnesses, 87½ c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Suboena, 18c -$2.68.” (Frazer’s Magazine, February, 1873, pp. 229-30)
Well I know. None of this counts because, because, because……..oh I’m sure you’ll figure something out to make it all better.
Mormonism is a parody of itself. It must be tough to be a true believer and have to continually rationalize all of this stuff.
So petty differences between Mormonism and Christianity?
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the rest of the Mormon prophets were first rate crack-pots. In the case of Joseph Smith, not only was he a crack-pot but he was a real flim flam man. It’s tough for Mormons to face this because they have been given the cleaned-up version of Joseph Smith.
We emphasize this because Joseph Smith proved to be a man that couldn’t be trusted, especially when it came to other men’s wives and their adolescent daughters or with their money (see Kirtland Bank fiasco). Before I’d sign on-to a religion, I’d do a detailed examination of the founder to see what that (founder’s) character was all about. I wouldn’t put a whole lot of confidence in a guy who prior to becoming a self-appointed prophet went about the country side a night looking for buried treasure guided by a magic rock.
A part from Joseph Smith, there is no Mormonism. So digging into the guy’s life and character is fair game in testing the veracity of what he claims as spiritual experiences leading to a “restored gospel” (and a repudiation of the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ). If a guy is a convicted glass looker and has told folks tales about how he can find buried treasure with his magic rock, it doesn’t bode real well for accepting his other claims as to the appearances to him of certain spiritual entities.
Now hard core naive Mormons will say all of the charges against Joseph Smith are false and it’s done to undermine the “prophet” and his glorious “restored gospel”. Other hard core Mormons, who finally figure out that these charges are not false, will say that it doesn’t matter. Why’s that? It’s because they want to believe Smith’s tale.
Desire is a strong emotion and it will cause folks in a cult to do what’s called a “mind snap”. After all the church does a lot of good and blah, blah blah….. In other words, don’t disrupt my fantasy.
Helen,
I’ve quoted a ton of stuff, and all you can come up with is why didn’t I put more into that particular quote by Brigham Young? I’ve also asked you numerous questions which you have failed to even remotely answer. You aren’t here to have a discussion Helen, you are here to bring contention. Please answer questions and defend your faith or go away. I would much rather discuss with Ralph and some of the other LDS who hang out here. At least they are trying to defend what they believe, not just throw out inane generic stuff they get at church.
falcon,
I agree! I think the character of Joseph Smith is important for all Mormons and potential converts to look into and investigate. The problem is, the LDS are so busy singing “praise to the man” that they don’t have time to investigate it. Or they have been so brainwashed since birth that they don’t know to investigate it. I think Joseph Fielding Smith said it best when he said:
“Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…”(“Doctrines of Salvation,” vol. 1 pp 188-189.)
I’ve quoted this before and it is true. After a little research it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Joseph Smith “was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, and he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false….”
This is exactly what is going on here at MC! Exposing the falseness of Joseph Smith’s teachings! It was nice to expose the lying by omission carried out by LDS missionaries too. I can’t imagine Helen’s bishop letting her off the hook for that one. At least it was honest.
Here is the whole quote by Brigham Young for all who are interested.
“It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses vol 11 page 269)
It doesn’t change the meaning of “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God , are those who enter into polygamy.” Brigham also says that “others attain unto A GLORY and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son: but they cannot reign as kings in glory (which is the ultimate goal of the LDS) because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
So does this mean that every latter day saint man who truly believes he is going to be a god with his own world is just out of luck??? They can’t enter the highest degree of glory only “a glory” which we all know means lower than the Celestial Kingdom. I don’t think that quoting the whole paragraph helps Helen’s argument.
My good friend says, “As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do — that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
“He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
Without all the extra descriptive labeling and taking my friend to task, little old “Poly Wants a Cracker”, must seriously reply, I love Falcons wit, I mean you got to love it, really seriously the man is over the top comically gifted.
Getting back to the “Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64) article written as a factual story given by a nameless male (Oliver B. Huntington in case your interested) who tells the story some 40 years after the event and retold 11 yrs. after that and even gets the Patriarch wrong since it was his own father. Stories like these just prove how good Falcon is at story telling, or should we say not really dumbing up to going beyond simple talking points and actually gleaning the truth before inserting foot. Oh well folks, not to worry, Falcon the joker will just continue in the same vain and we will just have to pleasure ourselves with great tabloid reporting. 🙂
So Joseph Smith goes to court? how about no testimony or verdict is recorded.
1. The date of the trial was July 1, 1830.
2. The charge was being a disorderly person.
3. Twelve witnesses were called.
4. Joseph Smith was held for one day and was fed three meals.
5. Ten subpoenas were issued.
Falcon for your reading perusal, AN ANALYSIS OF WESLEY WALTERS’
“JOSEPH SMITH’S
BAINBRIDGE, N.Y., COURT TRIALS”
BY
MALIN L. JACOBS
Suggestion, google it, for the other folks out there, you judge for yourself, I’m not here to do the homework for you, but if you feel Falcon has his fact right, then stop right now and go no further.
If you want to see another side to this supposed true representation of facts and evidence by Falcon, its easy to find on the internet.
Helen/Louis 🙂
Falcon misrepresents again, “If a guy is a convicted glass looker”. I will bet that Falcon can not come up with any Court Docs proving he was convicted of glass looking.
There exist at least two explanations for the term “glass looker” appearing in Hale’s statement and on Neely’s bill. The two that are diametrically opposed are:
The anti-Mormon accounts are true, and Smith really was involved with money digging and glass looking.
8
Smith’s account is true, and nonbelievers circulated rumors about his finding the plates of the Book of Mormon and the Urim and Thummim (and how they were to be used), which became stories of money digging, peepstones and glass looking.
If both explanations equally account for the term “glass looker,” then the presence of this term in Neely’s bill can’t be used to determine which explanation (or whether some combination of both) is the truth. Walters takes the view that the only way Smith could have a reputation as a glass looker is if he really was a glass looker.
From same source I gave in above post.
Kate,
You’re doing a great job here and I want to commend you for your scholarship and manner of presentation. You’ve figured Helen out. We’ve had other “Helens” here over the years and it’s the same old tired game. Whatever you present, it’s never enough. It doesn’t matter how well documented and sourced and how complete, they dismiss it. I remember one time giving this guy a list of why the BoM was a bogus tome and couldn’t stand-up to scrutiny. His reply was, “That’s the wisdom of men, not God.” I went nuts! I couldn’t believe it but I was new at this and soon realized that these poor dupes are so brainwashed that they can’t, for reason of their own sanity, admit the obvious. Mormonism is a fraud.
I found a program one time via the computer titled “Mormon Matters” with John Dehlin. John has a presentation called “Why People Leave the Mormon Church”. (http://mormonstories.org/?p=50)
Now at the time of this broadcast, John was a Mormon in good standing. Anyway John goes through the laundry list of information, generally withheld from Mormons but is readily available from many sources, which causes what’s known in Mormonism as “shaken faith syndrome”
So like I said, John goes through this factual list of indicting material and at the end says something like, “Now this doesn’t mean the church isn’t true.” My head hit the desk that holds my computer. I couldn’t believe the disconnect. Well within the last couple of weeks I learned that John has exited the Mormon church. I wondered how long it would take him. You can’t know what he knew, be as honest, sincere and humble as he was, stay in the Mormon church and maintain any sort of integrity.
That’s why the Helens have to deny the obvious. Our friend Ralph does the same thing but at least he makes some attempt to defend Mormonism.
BTW Kate, a couple of years ago I asked Ralph if he would kill or steal if directed to do so by the prophet. He answered “Yes”! This is a level of deception that goes beyond any type of reason. Remember those 800 or so poor souls who drank poison for Jim Jones and the members of his cult who ran down Rep. Ryan on the jungle landing strip and killed them on orders from Jones? Or how about the Branch Dividians in Waco, Tx. who allowed themselves to be incinerated in a fiery inferno for David Koresh.
People will lie, steal, murder (Mountain Meadows) for false prophets and refuse to see the truth because they are under a spirit of deception.
Cult thinking isn’t normal. It’s demonic. It is indeed spiritual warfare that we are engaged in.
Kate,
The program John Dehlin did is called “Mormon Stories” not “Mormon Matters”. Don’t know where I got the Mormon Matters title. It’ll come to me!
It’s getting late and I haven’t practiced my bass guitar yet and because of family obligations I didn’t ride my bike or slam the weights around on my weight machine today. This is not good. I’m a creature of habit and I’ll lie awake all night wondering if I gained a half a pound today.
I’m really not that compulsive……………..yea I am!
Kate says, “I’ve quoted a ton of stuff, and all you can come up with is why didn’t I put more into that particular quote by Brigham Young? I’ve also asked you numerous questions which you have failed to even remotely answer. You aren’t here to have a discussion Helen, you are here to bring contention. Please answer questions and defend your faith or go away. ”
Well Kate this is important, you claim that BY stated on can not achieve the highest degree of Glory unless Mormons practice polygamy. I claim you partially quoted BY and left out what in reality is the rest which bring clarity to you misrepresentation. So you called me out as a contentious when I have stated that I’m a defender of bringing incorrect statements back into the light of truth.
Here is what you did not fully quote:
“If you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.” On other occasions he instructed: “A man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.” “If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” “If it is necessary to have two wives, take them. If it is right, reasonable and proper and the Lord permits a man to take half a dozen wives, take them; but if the Lord says let them alone, let them alone. How long? Until we go down to the grave, if the Lord demand it.” “If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives.” Apostle John Henry Smith recalled that “President Young once proposed that we marry but one wife.” “If you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.” On other occasions he instructed: “A man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.” “If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” “If it is necessary to have two wives, take them. If it is right, reasonable and proper and the Lord permits a man to take half a dozen wives, take them; but if the Lord says let them alone, let them alone. How long? Until we go down to the grave, if the Lord demand it.” “If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives.” Apostle John Henry Smith recalled that “President Young once proposed that we marry but one wife.”
Kate, do you want to now state the a Mormon has to live a Polygamous life to attain the celestial kingdom? All I ask is that you fully quote your source before going off with misrepresenting the Church you chose to leave.
Helen,
Please give the source. I did quote the entire paragraph as you demanded. Tell me, did you modge podge this quote from several different quotes? I didn’t read any of that in the paragraph that contained “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”
I am not required to use all of Brigham Young’s quotes when stating that he in fact said that “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” You demanded I quote the whole paragraph and I did. I’m not sure where you are getting all of the rest. Yes I still maintain that you have to become a polygamist in this life to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
D&C 132
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
So yes Helen, you have to practice polygamy to enter into his glory. This is in LDS canon. In black and white. You may read the entire section if you want, but it won’t change the fact that you have to practice it in this life or be damned.
Helen,
Here is a link to a video. It has NOTHING to DO with Mormonism.
Watch the Video, it is 11 minutes long. It’s a jewish kid who became a believer in Christ. He talks about the jewesh feasts and Jesus and the passover. Let me know that you watched it, then I will tell you how it releats to what were talking about. I think anyone else that wants to watch it will love it. They showed this video at church today because we are going through the book of acts and we just went through Chapter 2 today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVhQ7EmI7Pw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Kate says, I am not required to use all of Brigham Young’s quotes when stating that he in fact said that “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” You demanded I quote the whole paragraph and I did
BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF POLYGAMY Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866
Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the
blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc.” The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
Helen,
Give me a break! Yes I quoted from page 269 not 268. It does seem that I did miss a few lines. It doesn’t matter because NONE of the rest of the paragraph changes the meaning of “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” Let’s look at your quotes that you modge podged together. You obviously got them from several different places. Funny how it’s acceptable for you to quote just a line or two but then you demand others give the whole paragraph! There’s a name for someone like that. I’m sure I shouldn’t use it on here. According to Mormon leaders and apologist, it doesn’t really matter what you or I think about Brigham Young’s quotes and teachings, they throw it all under the bus as “just his opinion.” So that leaves us with Mormon canon to find the truth of Mormon teachings for a Mormon. I showed you in Mormon canon. End of discussion.
Rick,
Great link! I loved that!
Kate, I just show the corrections, I don’t judge anyone or make decisions for others. You believe as you wish. I showed the correction to your single sentence and in doing so you can either accept or reject what BY makes clear in the full paragraph. If you’re satisfied, then you will continue to maintain that polygamy is required to enter into the Celestial Heaven or to be Exalted. You most likely will also continue to use the single sentence in proving your point, I don’t have a problem with that since I know that to me and other Mormons the truth lies in the full context of what BY stated. You made a choice in dismissing Mormon doctrine and the more I get to know a little bit about you through your post it becomes more clear to me that you’re still on the road to Damascus. If you want to know more about what I mean then I will give you my email and explain. Some things are better said one on one then in a open forum where your peers are keeping a eye on you.
Sincerely, Helen/Louis.
It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
The command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
To obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be “polygamists at least in your faith”: i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
It was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
Source: See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 11:269 to see how this quote was mined.
Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive “all that the Father has” if they willfully disobey God. When the people have “had blessings offered unto them,” and if they refuse to obey, God will withhold blessings later because of that disobedience now.
Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis here for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as we now do not.
Helen,
Yes indeed you are an expert at the Mormon two-step, a dance that all Mormons who think they can defend Mormonism are required to learn. It’s the same old story that I’ve pointed out countless times as have others. It’s the attempt to misdirect and claim a lack of information or any other excuse when things are plainly presented.
You’re stuck with a bad product here Helen. But you’re like an alcoholic who won’t admit he’s got a problem. I remember reading about a guy who put his whiskey in milk trying to convince himself that he was having a healthy drink.
Mormonism is toxic and spiritually disabling. But it does give you a sort of a religious high but it won’t provide for you eternal life.
Pick your Jesus Helen. The Jesus of Christianity is God incarnate come to save men from their sins. The god of Mormonism is a sort of a god just like millions and billions of other gods in the universe, the offspring of a sinful man who became a god and one of his many goddess wives. The Mormon Jesus didn’t atone for the sin of mankind on the cross. The Mormon Jesus doesn’t even impact believers in Mormonism in the same way as the authentic Jesus does. The Mormon Jesus just provides a little help when necessary to assist the works driven Mormon man on a path that he thinks will make him a god.
Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible, the writings of the Church Fathers or even the early heretics. Mormonism can’t even be found in the BoM.
As a side note, if Joseph Smith were alive today, he wouldn’t even belong to the Salt Lake City version of Mormonism. He’d belong to the FLDS who at least practice what Smith preached. According to your own D&C, the FLDS are the only ones who qualify for the CK and god status anyway.
You’ve made a bad choice either way Helen.
Insightful lucubration my friend 🙂 I often get criticized by some for not answering the questions.
I admit that the question is really not the issue with me, you see I look for misplaced criticisms, misrepresentations, untruths, manipulations, fudging and wrangling. So far we have NOT been able to debate what BY really stated about Polygamy, Joseph Smith convicted Glass Looker, man in the moon, and Joseph’s Banking conviction of Fraud. Since my response to these were not accepted as valid issues at least not valid enough for anyone to really address in a rebuttal I feel that being arguseyed with my direct observations of factually and historical quoted responses will be archived as a honest attempt by me to correct the playing field and show the bankrupt criticisms and misrepresentation for what they are.
Labeling me as poly want a Cracker, mormon two stepper, like a alcoholic, brainwashed and especially “the contrast between me and Kate is profound”. All interesting labels which makes me wonder why? Could it be for lack of data, verification, confirmed sources, or even the use of some very old talking points that most Christian Scholars who write serious books on Mormonism have even rejected as faulty and immaterial to a deeper and more scholarly look at Doctrine and how to provide evidence that the Mormon Keystone (Book of Mormon) is the problem not the other peripheral issues. Major Scholars will go after the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and even the D&C in their research of what’s wrong with a New Religion, who claim a restoration took place and restored lost ordinances, covenants, authority, and the Key of the Kingdom that Peter once held.
Helen, Did you watch the Video?
Helen also said
Funny how you can say that about BY, and you even quote him trying to use him as a defense to prove your point, but when I mentioned Adam God, you said their is no point in talking about BY, since we dont know if he really said any of this stuff or even wrote it down.
Funny how it is ok to quote him when it is to prove your point.
Helen,
I mentioned that you should just drop Brigham Young since your leaders , Mormon apologists and Mormon scholars openly admit that nothing he said matters. He was a past prophet with his own opinions and apparently his opinion doesn’t matter today. Follow the current prophet. What exactly are you correcting about what Brigham Young said? All you have done is show that he was all over the place with his teachings, even his teachings about polygamy. He wasn’t consistant. I see you haven’t even touched on the problem you have with your theory. D&C132! This is REVELATION given to your founding prophet Joseph Smith! I would say that those of us here should believe that this is truly what is taught in Mormonism because it IS in LDS canon. Mormon scriptures Helen, scriptures that I would dare say you carry to church with you. I’ve also said that all Mormons that I know believe in polygamy and that it will be practiced again one day (just as the law of consecration) and polygamy IS practiced every day in LDS temples. All Mormons I know say (and I’ve heard all of my life) that Mormons would be practicing polygamy today if it weren’t “against the laws of the land.” You think you know me, but you don’t. I on the other hand can see right through you. It’s sad when a person has to do mental gymnastics to try and prove the LDS religion is true. There is such simplicity in the true Gospel of Christ. The true and Living Christ of the Bible. I just have one scripture for you Helen, I’ve already given it to you , but I think maybe you need to read it again:
King James Version 2 Timothy 4:3,4
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
falcon,
I have heard of Mormon Stories and John Dehlin. I’ve watched a few of his podcasts. I read somewhere that he has left the LDS church now. Do you know if that is true? I can’t see how he could possibly stay after seeing all of the evidence and interviewing all of those people over the years. I’ve seen his little video on Youtube of why Mormons leave the church. I’ve also read his page called Stay LDS . Appalled is the only word that comes to mind. I just can’t live a lie no matter how long it’s been in my family.
helen, I honestly hate to say this, just because I’m sure you’ve heard it before. But your response to the Jacob 2:27-29 vs D&C 132 contradiction (not to mention the other countless teachings on polygamy) was kind of expected. You see, Mormons like to pick apart scriptures and twist them into supporting whatever crazy doctrine they’ve cooked up. They typically take one tiny scripture (such as the “baptism for the dead” one in the NT) and base an entire doctrine around it, even though it’s never mentioned before or after that one time. In your case, you took Jacob 2:30 and basically said, “Look! God can change his mind about it if he wants. Says so right here!” I’m assuming that’s what you’re thinking that verse means. It’s all poorly constructed jibber-jabber to me. But funny enough, you didn’t finish the rest of the chapter where the Mormon god says he’s heard the cries of the daughters of Jerusalem. Their crying was directly related to the practice of polygamy.
“For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and aabominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
Why would God decide that an abominable act, worth cursing a nation for, is suddenly okay and actually required to become a god??
marriedamormon says: Jacob 2:27-29 vs D&C 132 contradiction?
First of all it would suit others to know that verse 30 follows 27, 28, and 29. If you google Jacob and and try to follow the many topics regarding polygamy it’s always interesting that Evangelicals in almost every case skip posting verse 30, wonder why? Not my problem since I posted verse 30 and it pretty much clears up the misrepresentation.
D&C 132.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Abraham kept “the law”—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they “did the works of Abraham”—they did “none other things than that which they were commanded.”
The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:
49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.
Jacob 2:30
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
The only possible answer if one really reads these verses is Gods Law,
1). Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law;
2). For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Rick B says: June 27, 2011 at 8:46 am —- Helen, Did you watch the Video?
How is this relevant? I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
Instructions concerning the covenant people, Israel, of whom the
Nephites were a part, and of the relation they would bear to the Gentile nations in the
future development of the divine purpose. Jesus declared Himself to be that Prophet
whose coming Moses had foretold, and the Christ of whom all the prophets had
testified. The temporary supremacy of the Gentiles, whereby the further scattering of
Israel would be accomplished, and the eventual gathering of the covenant people, were
predicted, with frequent reference to the inspired utterances of Isaiah bearing
thereon.[1482] The future of Lehi’s descendants was pictured as a dwindling in unbelief
through iniquity; in consequence of which the Gentiles would grow to be a mighty
people on the western continent, even though that land had been given as an ultimate
inheritance to the house of Israel. The establishment of the then future but now existent
American nation, characterized as “a free people,” was thus foretold and God’s purpose
therein explained: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in
this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things
might come forth from them unto a remnant of your seed, that the covenant of the
Father may be fulfilled which he hath covenanted with his people, O house of
Israel.”
The prophecies so reiterated by Him who had inspired Malachi to utterance, were at
that time obviously of the future, and are even yet unfulfilled in their entirety. The
advent of the Lord, to which these scriptures testify, is yet future; but that the time is
now near—that “great and dreadful day of the Lord”—is attested by the fact that Elijah
who was to come before that day, has appeared in the discharge of his particular
commission—that of turning the hearts of the living children to their dead progenitors,
and the hearts of the departed fathers to their still mortal posterity.
By JAMES E. TALMAGE
Helen,
Two things. First, why haven’t you addressed my comments about the D&C132 and second, the nephites were not part of Israel. They are a fictional group of people that Joseph Smith made up in his fictional book. So this entire post made up of teachings by James E Talmage is moot. If you can prove that the nephites were in the Bible and recorded as a real people by any other ancient texts other than Joseph Smiths golden plates (that we have no way to study or examine) then we may have a discussion. What was in the video that Rick linked to was about the Christ of the Bible. Prophecies of the Bible. Nothing to do with the BoM.
Oh and sorry, but God did not command Abraham or any other man in the Bible to take wives and concubines. If you will read it you will see that Sarah gave him Hagar. The son of promise was not Ishamael! It was Issac. Who was to be born to Sarah. God did not give Hagar to Abraham. That was the foolishness of men. God did not give Joseph Smith many wives either. That was Joseph’s foolishness.
7Kate, my bad, the part about the Nehites was in regard to Rick B. post, nothing in it
pertains to your criticisms.
Kate, I was also mentioning Jacob and D&C 132 in reply to issues by some here that
they contradict and I just proved they are quite compatible, both deal with Gods Law.
So, please review with me your other concern with D&C 132.
So Abraham was a foolish man, is that a opinion or scriptural?
Helen,
Since when did new rules appear on this blog about who can reply to who? You basically told Kate to stay out of the question I asked you. I dont recall that their were rules about who could reply to who.
Now since you told Kate to mind her own business, I guess I will ask the question then, where is evidence that the Nehites ever existed? And let me remind you that it was you who said their is no evidence for the BoM other than shear simple faith.
The point of that video in relationship to the BoM is this. That video goes through the Bible and shows how Jesus is the passover lamb and shows how the O.T feats apply to Him. It was Jesus who said, you search the scriptures for they testify of Me.
You cannot find such great detail like that in the BoM. It’s nothing more than fictional stories, Like a barge with holes in it and plugs in the holes. Or a bow of fine steel breaking.
Also on the issue of polygamy, Show me from the Bible, chapter and verse where GOD COMMANDS anyone to take more than one wife, it’s not there. If men take more than one wife, it is because they choose to, not because God commanded them.
I am also willing to bet you watched the newest video by Bill Mc, and you staying out of it because in your words your here simply to correct error and their is none for you to correct in that video.
You know JS married women that were already married, and that MM’s lie by leaving out lots of facts and only mention them when they are brought up by people who know mormon History.
So like I said in the topic above, How can you willingly defend a church that purposely lies to people and needs to lie about their prophet to make him look good.
Helen,
My comment to you about you not addressing my question on D&C132 has nothing to do with anyone else’s comment on this thread. We were talking about Mormons having to practice polygamy in this life or not “enter into his glory.” You know, exaltation. You are simply trying to sneak by that one. I showed you from your own scriptures where it says ” For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
So you see, it doesn’t matter how many conflicting quotes Brigham Young or any LDS leader for that matter has made, it’s right there in LDS canon. You (according to LDS canon) can not enter into his glory and will be damned because you have heard of polygamy right? You know it is in your scriptures right? And you aren’t practicing it right? So what do you say Helen? Can you enter into his glory without practicing the new and everlasting covenant? As far as thinking Abraham was foolish, he was a man and did foolish things like taking many concubines and wives. I would bet that sometimes it was a pain for him LOL! In no way did God command him to be a polygamist. Joseph Smith just used that as an excuse so he could fulfill his lusts of the flesh. Sorry, but true!
I need to correct your misunderstanding Rick B. I was not telling Kate anything other then I had make a mistake in posting a reply to you without posting your name. It was my bad I stated. That is the same as saying I sorry, my mistake. Of course she can post a reply to me.
Just a clarification friend.
If I remember correctly, this is a old video and I saw it already. There are no corrections that I feel necessary to make, Bill is more then entitled to his opinion and criticisms. To me this is just another peripheral talking point, nothing here that really gets to the meat of what, how and why of the COJCOLDS.
I guess I’m not use to the word lie or liar, the word seems to be used quite a bit here at
MC, I have yet to call anyone a liar since I believe very strongly that what you post you really feel is accurate even though I have offered some correction for everyone to review.
I find it suspicious that nobody has been able to refute my corrections as of yet.
1). NO body has shown any conviction of fraud by J.S.
2). Polygamy is not something that has to be practiced to qualify for exaltation.
3). A conviction of Glass Looker is not documented.
4). Man in the moon theory was dropped like a hot brick.
Sincerely, Helen 🙂
Sorry Helen, but I have shown you in LDS canon where you do have to practice the new and everlasting covenant or you will not enter into his glory and you are damned. You just choose to look the other way. This scripture is exactly why the FLDS broke away. They know it to be true. Joseph Smith did use a seer stone put into his hat, it’s in the history of your church. It’s true. Joseph did say that there were men on the moon. Joseph Smith did commit fraud, I’m sure the man who brought the complaint against him felt it was fraud and he was charged with fraud. Whether or not he was convicted is not the point. He had charges brought against him for fraud and that goes to his character. You are just choosing to play the semantics game, choosing to split hairs and you choose to look the other way. I know the truth hurts, I’ve been there.
Sorry, Helen, I should’ve been more specific as to which verses in D&C I was referring to. Either way, God does not change his character. He doesn’t just say “do not commit adultery. this is my law” and then later decides “I command you to commit adultery. this is my new law”.
So here you have God in the Jacob verses saying he’s heard the cries of the daughters of Jerusalem, because their husbands are taking on many wives and concubines. He says this is an abomination. Then in D&C 132, Smith gets a revelation stating that the new law is plural marriage and has to be practiced.
Starting at verse 1-4: “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
Before he starts in on all details of the plural marriage command, he makes sure his current wife doesn’t have any room to argue. Something tells me this was not the first time they’d had this polygamy discussion (especially since the heading says that although written in 1843, he already knew this was a principle in 1831… nice cover to say “we knew he’d been practicing it before, but because he was the prophet, he knew it was a command already…”). She obviously needed a little extra convincing. So not only does “God” mention her specifically… he refers to her THREE times to obey this particular command.
verses 51-54: “Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.”
Pretty intense punishment for refusing to follow a command that God had originally said was abominable in his sight.
But this “or I will destroy her” stuff doesn’t just apply to Emma. It applies to all of “God’s daughters”.
verses 62-66: “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah (??), who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.” (as Kate pointed out was not a command… Sarah undermined God and handed him a concubine, which she later resented)
You know what’s even weirder is that if this was an eternal concept and God was willing to destroy all the women that didn’t like it, why didn’t he just destroy the lawmakers who banned polygamy?? That would’ve been much easier.
Bigger question: How is it that an act that God saw as abominable in the OT (an act he wanted to rescue his daughters from) is suddenly a commandment that he’s willing to destroy the upset daughters to protect?
marriedamormon, sorry but you are flat out wrong.
The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage
“We understand that we are to be made kings and priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.
“In this way we can become king of kings, and lord of lords, or father of fathers, or prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you” (in Discourses of Brigham Young, 195).
“The whole subject of the marriage relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of Salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity” (in Discourses of Brigham Young, 195).
President Boyd K. Packer
“The ultimate purpose of all we teach is to unite parents and children in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that they are happy at home, sealed in an eternal marriage, linked to their generations, and assured of exaltation in the presence of our Heavenly Father” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1995, 8; or Ensign, May 1995, 8 ).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie
“If righteous men have power through the gospel and its crowning ordinance of celestial marriage to become kings and priests to rule in exaltation forever, it follows that the women by their side (without whom they cannot attain exaltation) will be queens and priestesses. ( Rev. 1:6 ; 5:10 .) Exaltation grows out of the eternal union of a man and his wife. Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, ‘Then shall they be gods’ ( D&C 132:20 ); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever” ( Mormon Doctrine, 613).
“Marriages performed in the temples for time and eternity, by virtue of the sealing keys restored by Elijah, are called celestial marriages. The participating parties become husband and wife in this mortal life, and if after their marriage they keep all the terms and conditions of this order of the priesthood, they continue on as husband and wife in the celestial kingdom of God.
“If the family unit continues, then by virtue of that fact the members of the family have gained eternal life (exaltation), the greatest of all the gifts of God, for by definition exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Those so inheriting are the sons and daughters of God, the members of his family, those who have made their callings and elections sure. They are joint-heirs with Christ to all that the Father hath, and they receive the fulness of the glory of the Father, becoming gods in their own right. ( D&C 132 ; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 58–99.)” ( Mormon Doctrine, 117).
6And as pertaining to the new and aeverlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my bglory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
Kate says:
June 27, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Sorry Helen, but I have shown you in LDS canon where you do have to practice the new and everlasting covenant or you will not enter into his glory and you are damned. You just choose to look the other way. This scripture is exactly why the FLDS broke away. They know it to be true. Joseph Smith did use a seer stone put into his hat, it’s in the history of your church. It’s true. Joseph did say that there were men on the moon. Joseph Smith did commit fraud, I’m sure the man who brought the complaint against him felt it was fraud and he was charged with fraud.
So Kate, you want to believe so shall it be. You have a new religion or in reality a old religion.
I not going to deny that this is a truth to you, since you have studied it carefully and I imagine prayed also to know for sure. This is your testimony and I respect that. I can only guess by glimpsing a little into your posts that most likely you never received any kind of subjective spiritual experience and found your self caught up in a lot of research produced by those who found many things about Mormonism that you just felt God could never approve of or contrived to be Doctrine.
I believe that you believe God is a personal being but invisible. Christ is also God, a separate being but one God in personage. You also believe that your spirit and body came into existence as a soul, never had a preexistence. Spirit created from nothing, but can have eternal existence. Christ was born into this world through Mary and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, making God incarnate in Jesus.
Angels and devils once all resided with God, until God kicked Satan and his followers out of Heaven, but Lucifer was a crated spirit. So evil which was once nonexistent was now created in Lucifer.
You also might believe that Earth was created in six days. Do you agree with most of these principles? because in LDS doctrine they completely have been given new meaning, and more light and knowledge then ever before was understood.
Kate you say your a ex-Mormon so then you should be well versed in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Please expound on what you were taught.
Helen said
Well then Helen, seeing as how you said that, maybe you can be the first Mormon ever to take this challenge and provide and answer. I have asked it many times over the course of maybe 3 years, and not one single LDS has ever been able to answer it, they tend to avoid it like a hot potato. Will you avoid it or answer it?
IMO you wont read it and wont answer it, but that is on my Opinion.
In the Original 1958 Edition to the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R.McConkie He states In the Preface:
This Work on Mormon Doctrine Is unique–the first book of it’s kind ever published.
It is the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom.
It is the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel–the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.
True, there are many Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias; but they all abound in apostate, sectarian notions. Also, there are many sound gospel texts on special subjects.
But never before has a comprehensive attempt been made to define and outline, in a brief manner, all of the basic principles of salvation–and to do it from the perspective of all revelation, both ancient and modern.
This work on Mormon Doctrine is designed to help persons seeking salvation to gain that knowledge of God and his laws without which they cannot hope for an inheritance in the celestial city.
Since it is impossible foe a man to be saved in ignorance of God and his laws and since a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, it follows that men are obligated at their peril to learn and apply the true doctrines of the gospel.
this gospel compendium will enable men, more effectively, to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom”; to “be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel,in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient” for them “to understand.” (D and C 88:77-7
For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Observant students, however, will note that the four standard works of the Church are the chief sources of authority quoted and that literally tens of thousands of scriptural quotations and citations are woven into the text material.
Where added explanations and interpretations were deemed essential, they have been taken from such recognized doctrinal authorities as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and Joseph Fielding Smith.
Two persons have been particularly helpful in the actual preparation of the work: 1. Velma Harvey, my very able and competent secretary, who with unbounded devotion and insight has typed manuscripts, checked references, proofread, and worked out many technical details; and 2. Joseph Fielding Smith , Jr., my brother in law, who both set the type and made many valuable suggestions as to content and construction.
Abundant needed and important counsel has also come from Milton R. Hunter, my colleague on the First Council of the Seventy; Marvin Wallin, of Bookcraft; and Thomas S. Moson, of the deseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah June 1, 1958 –Bruce R. McConkie.
Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities. So with that in mind, Is a Challenge as it were, Issued By Bruce R.McConkie.
I have read all 4 standard works. I find nothing at all in the Book of Mormon to prove it is inspired by God as LDS claim. Bruce states we can find hundreds of topics, I would like to issue a Challenge to all my Latter-day saint friends to bring forth just 10 topics of your choice, compare them to the Bible and show me how they are a more accurate display of the Gospel. Please keep in mind, I am following Acts 17:11 and 1st peter 3:15. Then after you read Bruce’s Challenge, I lovingly added a list of things That LDS feel are core doctrine yet cannot be found in the BoM. This matter has everlasting eternal consequences. sincerely Rick b.
In the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R. McConkie, under the title Book of Mormon.
bruce says the Purpose of the book of mormon is this.
1. To bear record of Christ, certifying in plainness and with clarity of his divine sonship and mission, proving irrefutably that he is the Redeemer and Saviour.
2. To teach the doctrines of the gospel in such a pure and perfect way that the plan of salvation will be clearly revealed; and
3. To stand as a witness to all the world that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed through whom the foundation was laid for the great latter-day work of restoration. Almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Book of Mormon with much greater clarity and perfection than those same doctrines are revealed in the Bible. Anyone who will place in parallel columns the teachings of these two great books on such subjects as the atonement, plan of salvation, gathering of Israel, baptism, gifts of the spirit, miracles, revelation, faith, Charity, ( or ANY of a HUNDRED OTHER SUBJECTS), will find conclusive proof of the superiority of the Book of Mormon teachings.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that Elohim (God the Father in Mormonism) was once a mortal man and that he was not always God?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God has a body of flesh and bones?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God is married in heaven?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that men can become Gods?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that temple participation is necessary to become exalted?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach the blood of Christ does not cleanse certain sins?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it say there is more than one God?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it say males must hold either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood?
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that there are “three degrees of glory”?
Well Helen, I know that the new and everlasting covenant also includes baptism and eternal marriage, here is a description of it from LDS.org:
“THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, SECTION 132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth. ”
Notice how 1-6 says ” Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant” We all know what 1-6 talks about, yep, polygamy.
Now as to what I was actually taught. I was taught that the new and everlasting covenant was eternal marriage. I was also taught that we would be practicing polygamy if it wasn’t “against the laws of the land.” I was taught that I would be a polygamist wife in eternity. I was never however taught that my husband would be a god of his own universe and that my job for eternity would be “somehow” procreating spirit children with him( along with many, many other spirit wives) to populate his own world. I was taught that being a polygamist wife would be an honor for me because that means I was just so darn righteous. I was taught that if my husband didn’t take me to the temple and I was righteous, I could be sealed to another man so I could have the eternal blessings of the new and everlasting covenant. I was taught that I can’t enter the Celestial Kingdom without a man. Seriously, where is Jesus in any of this??? Let’s look at what God’s Word says:
John 3:17
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I don’t need a man to get to Heaven. All I need is the true and living Christ of the Bible. That’s all you need too Helen.
I know that it has been stated here many times that one must know of Whom they speak when they claim a saving faith in Jesus. It’s too important, however, not to state again!
In Matthew 16:13, NKJV, Jesus asked the Disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” The disciples’ response, in verse 14, was “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Jesus then asked, in verse 15, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, in verse 16, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” To which Jesus replied, in verse 17, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Could those who simply believed that Jesus was one of the prophets returning to Earth (in other words, a man – a very special man, but a man, not God) claim a saving faith just because they said that they believed in Jesus as their Savior?
Only to Simon Peter’s response, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, did Jesus state that this answer was a revelation from God.
John 1: 1-3, NKJV, says, 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. [Jesus was in the beginning.] 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. [Nothing was made without Jesus; He was the Creator, not a created one.]
Kate, I respectfully disagree with your take on Plural Marriage as necessary for exaltation.
What takes place after we exist this world and continue with or progression will always be under Gods Law. For some one who is now a ex-mormon, I have to be completely honest with you that your knowledge and memory of LDS doctrine is very faulty and wanting.
Of course I’m sure that it seems valid to you, but I notice that you struggle with really coming to terms with obvious corrections put forth by me. 🙂
Helen/Louis
Helen,
Yes I agree that what I was taught for 40 years in my LDS meetinghouse was very faulty and wanting. I’ve found the truth of Mormonism through the LDS church’s own publications. I have to laugh at your claim of “corrections,” I have yet to see you correct anything. You may however look the other way and believe that D&C132 doesn’t say what it actually says. You have to try and insult me by using the ex-mormon bit because you have nowhere else to go with this discussion. The truth of what I say is in LDS canon. You see, the LDS church has backed itself into a corner with all the lies and cover ups. They have tried so hard to bury all of this stuff and now with the internet, it’s coming back to haunt them. They should have just been honest from the beginning.
Helen, You said as I already pointed out
So are you going to take up my little challange or not. I am guessing as of yet you have not replied becasue you know deep down inside you cannot. You want to believe what you said about the BoM, but you know that you cannot honestly bring forth any doctrine that the Bible teaches, and use the BoM to show futher clarity of that doctrine.
Rick B. my defense is still to peruse the comments, criticisms, bad quotes, and misrepresentations and make corrections. The Book of Mormon does not contain all the doctrine and principles of the New and Everlasting Covenants, at the same time the Book of Mormon clearly states what it is.
“ ‘THE BOOK OF MORMON.
“ ‘An account written by the hand of Mormon, upon Plates, taken from the Plates of Nephi.
“ ‘Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
“ ‘An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.’
Kate, I’m not your enemy, but its very transparent by your comments that you clearly are at odds with the truth. The teaching you present here and claim are some 40 years of doctrinal study show that you obviously read into our doctrine theories and concepts that are truly foreign to reality. Laugh, but it only covers up some agenda that you secretly carry around that helps you justify your apostate feelings towards the Plan of Salvation and the Church in general. Your take on being insulted is also a red flag of being overly sensitive to my pointing out over and over obvious mistakes you make about Doctrine.
A good example is D&C 132:
“Many suppose that we do not have the fulness of the law because we don’t practice plural marriage. Indeed, the remaining verses of section 132 (verses 29-66) deal with the plural marriage application of this law. But we would be wise to remember that this law is administered through the living prophet and the Lord directs him as to its current application. On 6 October 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto declaring the revealed end of the practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since that time, the law of celestial marriage has been applied to the marriage of one man and one living woman at a time. Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated:
“Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D&C 132:7, 29-66.)” (Leon R. Hartshorn, Dennis A. Wright, and Craig J. Ostler, eds., The Doctrine and Covenants, a Book of Answers: The 25th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1996], 166)
DC 132:6 he… shall abide the law, or he shall be damned
LeGrand Richards
When the Lord said, referring to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, ‘and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned,’ he did not use the term ‘damned,’ in the sense that it is usually understood by the modern Christian world, for it will be noted that he indicated they ‘shall be appointed angels in heaven; which angels are ministering servants; to minister for those who are worthy of a far more and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.’ In verse 17 of the above quotation, the Lord stated that they shall ‘remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition.’ Thus even they will be saved, but not exalted. The use of the word ‘damned,’ therefore, means that one’s progress is stopped (see D&C 131:4); ‘they cannot be enlarged’ (see D&C 132:17). (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1950], 303)
Joseph Fielding Smith
What is damnation? It is being barred, or denied privileges of progression, because of failure to comply with law. All who fail to enter into the celestial kingdom, are damned, or stopped, in their progression, but they will enter into some other glory which they are entitled to receive. (Improvement Era, 1916, Vol. Xix. March, 1916 No. 5)
Helen,
Lets simply be honest here. You could not answer my question and you dodged it.
Let me remind you, it was YOU, Not Me that said,