Dear Sharon,
Some critics say that Mormons believe that when they become gods they will have glory equal with Father. But that is simply a lie. I know that our Father will be always our GOD and we will worship Him for whole eternity, becoming gods is not to rob Father’s glory, but to give Him more glory. If my children [have] success in their life, it will not rob anything from me it will only give me more honor. God wants us to be like Him, He wants us to have what He has, like every good parent wishes to his children. If my kids become like me or even better I still will be their mother and they still will honor and respect me, if they are good children, of course. I am not dreaming that one day when I become god I will take away something from MY Father in heaven. That is what Lucifer wanted, he wanted glory of the Father and he wanted everybody to worship him. That is why he is devil now, he did not keep his first estate…
I believe that Jesus is creating many more worlds, and he will do it for eternity, because it will be always infinity more space beyond each new world he will create. The more worlds he creates the more glory it brings to his Father. I believe that if I overcome like Jesus overcame I will inherit what he inherited and as joint heir with him will be given this opportunity to create more worlds like he does, and by doing it I will glorify my Father in heaven. The same like earthly children when they prosper in their lives they bring more honor to their earthly parents and not taking away from them something. And when their grandchildren follow their parents those already grandparents are even more proud of their children. And people say what a wonderful parents they are, they have not only great children but even great grandchildren.
Hi Anna,
…I read all the same Bible passages as you, but I understand them quite differently (as I have demonstrated in past emails). I would just like to comment that, as I understand things, “inheriting” all that God has is not the same as becoming a God like Him. What He has and what He is are two different things altogether. A silly analogy is this: I can prepare a will and leave all that I have to my new puppy; this makes him my heir. When I die he will inherit everything I have — but he will not inherit what I am. That is, he will not become human — he will remain a dog.
Anyway, you wrote:
And again, I really would like to point out, that I want to do it NOT to convince you but ONLY to show what it really means from the point of view of latter-day saints and NOT what critics say it means.
In that spirit, I wonder if you can help me understand this a bit better. Here is one place I have a lot of trouble with this whole idea of “many Gods but one for us.” You have said many times (for emphasis, I think) that though you believe there are many true Gods, you only worship one. You say that you (and others) becoming a God will not take anything away from Heavenly Father, but it will instead increase His glory.
Here’s what I’m struggling to understand. Let’s back up a world/generation. According to Mormonism, at one time Heavenly Father was a human being on another planet. Of all the true Gods in existence, he worshiped only his Heavenly Father (and perhaps his Savior). When he (our God) achieved exaltation, he became a God and created and peopled another world (separate from the one he’d lived on in mortality). But the people of this other world (us) have nothing whatsoever to do with Heavenly Father’s Father — our Heavenly Grandfather, if you will. Our Heavenly Father says he is the only God that matters to us; we are to have nothing to do with our Heavenly Grandfather (and other heavenly ancestors). Heavenly Father is so intent on keeping his children (us) from his own Father, he pretends (says) he doesn’t even know his Heavenly Father exists. [See Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:8]
(From a human standpoint, there is not much we could do that would dishonor our grandfathers more than to totally ignore them and pretend they don’t exist — or think they don’t matter.)
So as the cycle continues, for you, when you become exalted, your husband will tell your children that he is the only God for them. As for your Heavenly Father, the God you worship, your children will not know or acknowledge him. When they are around you, you will pretend that your Heavenly Father doesn’t even exist.
I honestly cannot understand how this seems good to you and others of your faith… For me, I could never comfortably deny my God; I could never comfortably instruct my children to love and worship me and ignore my God. He is everything to me and I want nothing more than for others to know Him and His love, too. The day that my children gave their hearts to Him (though this put me in second place) was one of the best days of my life — and it continues to bring me great joy and comfort…
Dear Sharon,
[Some]thing that you can not accept and makes no sense for you is why God doesn’t want to teach us about His God or as we can call Him our grandfather God. Sharon, you probably know that Mormons believe that we have our Heavenly Mother. And still Father did not reveal to us anything about her or revealed very little. Even through the Bible I personally see that God does not reveal to us MANY MANY other things. Why? There are many reasons that God only knows…why God does not reveal to us about other worlds and His Gods ancestors, let’s call them this way, it is because God reveals to us ONLY things that IMPORTANT for our SALVATION!!! What is not important for our salvation can wait for a time when ALL things will be revealed to us.
Hello Anna,
Thank you for speaking to my concerns about the continuing cycle of Gods and the denial of their existence by our Heavenly Father. I appreciate your effort to explain, but you really didn’t help me understand. You talked about how God doesn’t reveal everything to us, and this for His good purposes. I agree with you. But that wasn’t my question. I did not ask why God doesn’t tell us about His God (and our Heavenly Grandfather), but how our Heavenly Grandfather is honored and glorified when His own son (Heavenly Father) denies His very existence. As I wrote,
So as the cycle continues, for you, when you become exalted, your husband will tell your children that he is the only God for them. As for your Heavenly Father, the God you worship, your children will not know or acknowledge him. When they are around you, you will pretend that your Heavenly Father doesn’t even exist.
Anna, this is a big problem for me. I cannot reconcile this with other things you have told me (e.g., that this system brings glory and honor to Heavenly Father). And I certainly cannot reconcile it with the teachings of the Bible as I understand them…
Mormons claim that the Son is coequal with the Father because of divine investiture, but it goes farther than that, because they also worship the Son and put him on equal par with the Father. Russell Ballard does not deny this, but claims that worship of Jesus is “central” to Mormonism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUs407sadoY
Notice though, that Ballard does not specifically say that Mormons worship Christ. This is the kind of avoidance classic to modern Mormonites. But others have,
Why would the Mormons worship a LOWER god than the Father, when they are NOT his “spirit children”? Do they worship Jesus LESS than the Father? This invalidates OC’s whole argument. This was the whole reason for why the Edict of Thessalonica was given, because the Arians believed that Jesus was a “lower god” than the Father, just as Mormons do.
O.C. Said
What Truth? Your a lair and I proved it, lets see, you said
I pointed out many things you could not answer and you have ran away from this like you run away from the truth. So let me ask you again, What truth?
Then you O.C. said
Since when has, Doctrine, and Scripture been changed to Opinion? Why is it BY said Adam God is DOCTRINE, and Scripture and we MUST HEAR IT, and you come along and simply blow it off as Opinion, Sounds like your opinion.
Shem said
I sometimes think you dont read whats written or you dont care.
I never said Bruce’s book was Scripture or Doctrine. I said, He claimed to use Doctrinal authorities.
Now I find it funny you claim it had 1000 corrections. Yet you never gave evidence of that. I also would add that, we like to call the newer one the Sanitized Version.
Give me evidence that if it was not printed under the “authority” of the Church as you claim and it was simply printed by man. If you claim these things, then either it is your opinion, your you read this someplace and can support it with facts.
Also if it had all these problems, that raises the question of, Everyone that he listed as sources that were alive at the times and helped him and endorsed it, Must really have no clue what they believe if all these problems escaped them up until it was published. Wow, thats unheard of, Mormons not seeing problems until after the fact. Kind of reminds me the prophets not knowing they were endorsing fake and fictional stories until after believing them then being exposed as frauds, can you say, Salamander?
It’s truly sad what you guys believe and the lengths you go to, to believe these Stories.
Oh what impeccable logic OC shows. The great and abominable church is not the Catholic church but only ANY AND ALL that AREN’T the church of God. Since Mormons claim that they are the ONLY church of God, that would make the Catholics the great and abominable church, right? (But not according to OC’s perfect logic.) But that’s not what your “PROPHETS” say OC:
And I didn’t even quote McConkie. But he’s as bad as the rest. There are plenty more, but you get the idea.
Grindael
Off topic I know but it’s interesting that you should give a couple of quotes from John Taylor. What a fine example of a prophet he turned out to be. If memory serves me correctly when he was asked about polygamy being a practice of the church he denied absolutely that it occurred. At the time of asking he had 11 wives.
If I were ever invited to join the LDS I would have to ask, Which LDS, the present one? The one that President Hinckley was seer prophet & revelator for? Or should I just choose to join the original, Joseph Smiths LDS if it still exists that is?
Oh dear, it’s all very confusing so I think I’ll go to bed.
Oceancoast,
<"Apostolic succession, yes, but that too is largely based upon a subjective tradition, which was handed down from Peter not Paul…"
Apostolic succession comes from ALL the apostles. There are Orthodox Bishops that can trace themselves to Paul. Are you thinking of Roman Catholicism where the Pope traces back to Peter?
<"The conflict with LDS beliefs comes when you assert those “Subjective” Traditions are objective truth and thus certain LDS Beliefs cannot be true because the conflict with those traditions."
Go see an Orthodox priest and tell him he is believing "subjective truth." I would love to hear the result of the conversation. I believe that when the Holy Spirit came to the Church at Pentecost the Spirit stayed with the Church. It has been guiding the Church all this time. For some reason you think that the Church has apostatized and that this LDS setup is going to preserve everything perfectly and that these LDS men are being led by the Holy Spirit. Why do you think that the original Church was prone to so much error and not the LDS Church?
You still have given me no reason to believe Joseph Smith. All you do is try to cast doubt on Christianity so that people might consider the LDS faith as an option.
djstamps, welcome . Thanks for sharing your story .
Grindael, thanks for exposing Ocean’s hatchet job interpreting 1 Jn 3:2 ,and also his failing to
grasp the simple truth of Sharon’s example of ” heir ” .
This whole issue of Gandfather Gods is a classic example of why the claim by Mormon leaders
to be consistently reliable guides in dispensing spiritual truth about God should’nt be taken
seriously by those who embrace the Bible and serve Jesus . Mormon authorities claim that
a universal falling away from the faith once delivered to the saints [ a reference to Jude 3] , took
place soon after the last of Jesus’ original apostles were killed . Truths about God /Jesus were
altered and evil men spread these false teachings everywhere. This spiritual darkness about
the true identity of God/ Jesus, etc lasted until Mormon prophets arrived on the scene .
These latter days prophets make mention of their position that they believe in the Bible
( especially the N.T. ) , but are quick to their remind listeners of the importance to receive
the additional doctrinal revealments about God that have become available through them
because of ” the restoration ” . Here are some examples of these spiritual truths about God
that the modern day apostles of Mormonism have taught and dispensed to their flock :
Gods and Goddesses . Our God , the Almighty Creator we meet in the Bible is nothing more than
a human male who learned how to be the Lord God Almighty, in fact this man at one time did’nt
even know how to say ” Let there be light” , but a higher Deity one with more accumulated
dominion and glory had to teach him how to learn the ability to be a Almighty God and thus
say ” let there be light ” . This higher God was our Grandfather God according to “restoration”
truth. Now when our God , one among millions of sons of our Grandfather God , was allowed
to have His own earth/world to rule over He got married and proceeded to populate His home
in heaven thru celestial sex with His wives . This activity produced millions of children , and
the first son born went on to excel and progress better than his brothers and sisters , he did
so well that he was allowed to be called Jehovah , God Almighty, and permitted to join another
brother and together with their Father they became a council of three who together are the
Gods who rule this earth , and even though the Father has priority as the “head God” over this
earth /world , He along with His wives have also populated other worlds . Now when Jehovah
came to earth and became known as Jesus He passed all the tests and after His being
resurrected He took His place again in His Father’s ruling council of three in heaven . Now
eventually His progression will proceed and like His Father and Grandfather before Him ,
He will be a Father of a multitude of spirit children and His first born son will , if proven
worthy , become a part of a ruling council created and headed by Jesus/Jehovah , his father.
This supreme council, called a Godhead, will then rule over their own earth /world . This is
the “law of eternal progression ” it’s yet another product of ” the restoration ” .
All this is an example of why Jesus alerted all of us about false prophets who will come on the
scene in the latter days , we are in the latter days and these men have come . What a mess they
have made of the Bible’s testimony about God , our Creator . Reducing God down to such a
low view is nothing new —Rom 1:23 . May God help the Mormon people come to see that they
can choose which leaders to follow , either the ones God actually called in the New Testament
or the ones who have come on the scene in these latter days claiming God appointed them —
2Cor 11:4; 15 ; Rev 2:2 . Mark 13:22-23 .
Falcon,
Here is the Lutheran view of the Pope – taken from the Book of Concord (which is confessed as a faithful summary of what Scripture teaches): http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
As I said – does this mean Lutherans believe the Pope is all bad? No, it just means that no one should set themselves up as the Vicar of Christ. I have Catholic friends that are truly genuine Christian witnesses and encouragement to me. I value their friendship deeply – really, their positive impact on me is beyond measure. In addition, I look at the current Pope and love some of the things I have read about him standing against the atrocity of abortion and proclaiming Christ. However, I still hold that the office is not valid and AntiChrist; if I felt otherwise I would be Catholic. Now Monson and Joseph Smith certainly are more self-exalted and self-important than the Pope, but being the head of a non-Christian mystery religion where even a book titled “Mormon Doctrine” written by one of their religious leaders can become just some shabby piece of wrong-headed opinion, where prophetic (!) teaching that was incorporated into their “temple” can be proclaimed to be just Brigham Young’s “speculation” and thus discarded – overseeing this random nonsense is not the office of the AntiChrist – but rather just the leader of another random mystery religion. Anything or anyone who exalts himself or itself over God’s revelation of His grace and mercy in Gods Word is to be rejected. God speaks to us through His Word – it is truly His voice to us. This teaching on the Pope is tough but I cannot deny that I confess it as true.
Good job grindael.
Now the question is, “Will the Mormon posters even bother to read it?”
The folks in bygone eras were enthralled with Smith’s pronouncement that men lived on the moon and Young’s that men lived on the sun. Now the LDS church is shoveling as fast as they can to cover up, renovate and do a make-over of the mess.
These guys weren’t only rank amateurs playing at religion, they were liars and deceivers. It’s would be funny except for the fact that people unknowingly follow them until they come to the realization, as many of you former Mormons did, that it’s all a giant scam. It’s no wonder that the LDS church has had to do a major make-over of the founding of the religion and the person of Smith.
My question is, “What are they using to replace McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine?” Judging from what gets posted here by Mormons it’s a pretty much finding a comfort zone and living with it.
Mormonism needs an official systematic theology. It really does. But I can’t imagine that happening because I think LDS high leadership rather likes their theology on casters–easy to move around as needed. It is very convenient to live in the “is it is or is it ain’t?” world of doctrinal obfuscation. It really is. But as Aaron has said many times, “The LDS church has no official and binding position on what constitutes an official and binding position.” Thus, nearly every doctrinal and theological discussion with LDS members and apologists becomes circular in nature, and I think they like it that way. I really do.
Mormonism needs an official systematic theology. It really does. But I can’t imagine that happening because I think LDS high leadership rather likes their theology on casters–easy to move around as needed. It is very convenient to live in the “is it is or is it ain’t?” world of doctrinal obfuscation. It really is. But as Aaron has said many times, “The LDS church has no official and binding position on what constitutes an official and binding position.” Thus, nearly every doctrinal and theological discussion with LDS members and apologists becomes circular in nature, and I think they like it that way. I really do.
Tom said
“Mormonism needs an official systematic theology. It really does. But I can’t imagine that happening because I think LDS high leadership rather likes their theology on casters–easy to move around as needed”
Full marks on that comment Tom but I suppose in a way the Corporation is doing everyone a favour with their constantly changing theology. The fact that they lie about past doctrine is a major factor in the ever increasing loss of members. The fact is their theology has no firm foundation as it’s based on the false teachings of a deluded man rather than on Christ. Matthew 7:24-27
Old Man
“Nothing would be horrible about that statement if it wasn’t completely false.”
There is nothing false in it at all. We have worked closely with the Catholic Church on relief effects to areas of natural disasters. We have also worked closely with them on social issues here in the United States, like Gay rights and abortion laws. Here is a nice news article of us standing together for religious freedom (http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-039.shtml), and another on same sex marriage (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3689), and here is one in which we have assisted in the aid of war refugees together (http://www.lds.org/church/news/church-supplies-more-than-$1-million-in-aid-to-jordanian-charity?lang=eng).
The LDS and Catholic churches have very different doctrine, and in the past have had some troubles between us. But we have worked together in many ways, and so there is nothing false in the statement.
“Perhaps you’re not aware of this but Christ is currently here”
If Christ is here then we seem to have missed his second coming. If he never left then there can’t be a second coming, as he would be coming again. Maybe we should call it his second revealing of himself.
John 10: 28-29: Speaks figuratively, not literally. We have his protection, or, figuratively speaking, are in his hand.
John 14: 17-18: This speaks of the Holy Ghost, not of Christ.
John 14: 23: This is a rare blessings, granted only to the most faithful and obedience. Only when we have fully kept his words, thus proving our faith and love, will the Father and Son appear to us and abide with us. It does not say that all those who believe have this blessing, only those who keep his words.
Rick
I am not going to argue sources with you. I answered a question that was asked, and I answered honestly. I looked it up on Wikipedia, which quotes directly from a number of reports and letters written by those who were involved. Here http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon193.htm you can find Marion G. Romney’s report in full.
I will say nothing more on this subject.
grindael,
You no doubt don’t even understand the context of the scripture you cited.. D&C 121.. This is a promise that all will be manifest is to those who remain faithful and endure to the end..” A time to come ” i.e. in the afterlife. This is no different than what I stated in my post.
Yet you once again demonstrate that your criticisms against the LDS Faith or more Emotively based rather than substance based.
Jaxi,
The succession to the Pope was what I was thinking, but you are correct the Othrodox churchs claim succession too.. But who exactly claims apostolic succession from Paul? I tried finding this but couldn’t.
In any case all the succession claims are based upon subjective tradition and hearsay. There is no proof. That’s all I’m saying about all this.. It’s comes down to a subjective belief.
I’m am almost POSTIVE he will agree with my assessment regarding the subjectivity of the faith, if he doesn’t I can only imagine it’s because he lives a subjective reality full of denial but usually they are not that dumb.
Key words in your statement – “I believe”..
I didn’t say the LDS church is not prone to any error.. I think there is errors all the time because it’s run by errant humans. The key testimony that was given to Joseph Smith by God was that all the churches had lost the full truth, and that needed to be restored. This doesn’t mean that truth doesn’t still exist in other faiths, it does.. It doesn’t mean the LDS leaders are perfect in everyway, they’re not. They are human with human opinions.
I could cite reasons, but they are all subjective and thus not immune to contrary opinion thus the oly real reason comes from God and a testimony of the Holy Spirit, I have received that and am fine with it, it’s the same type of answer I received about Christ.
The same question could be asked of anyone with regard to Jesus Christ.. Why believe ? If you are honest with yourself, the answer will be the same.
Not at all. If I’m casting doubt on anything, its doubt on the hypocritical criticisms levied by the antagonists here.
Perhaps a re-read of the verses themselves will help with your comprehension? (Probably not though, but I’ll give it a try for our viewing audience). Now let’s read this again…
“Not been revealed since the world was UNTIL NOW”.You do know what “NOW” means, don’t you OC? It doesn’t mean the “afterlife”, it means the present.
Jo is talking here, about knowledge that would be revealed NOW, “which our forefathers” awaited “with anxious expectation TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIMES”, “HELD IN RESERVE FOR THE FULNESS OF THEIR GLORY,” which means the last dispensation, the NOW that Jo is talking about, “a time to come” (for those “forefathers”) in the which “NOTHING SHALL BE WITHHELD”… about all those gods.
You do get the context, do you not OC? You do understand what Jo is saying don’t you? Your snide comment about “emotively based” perception is a tactic that old white men use against women because they can’t stand the fact that women are just as smart, savvy, and competitive and competent as men. (That’s what the Mormonite “priesthood is all about. Kudos to you for doing what they have been doing for years. Your Mormon programming is showing OC) But really, It’s just a diversion, which you are good at perpetuating. But it won’t work, because the FACTS show that you are only generalizing, as you always do, and doing it wrong and badly. Shall we go on? Yes, lets. Jo then says,
This is what Jo was talking about, in relation to those that “have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ”. And Jo says NOTHING about enduring to the END, you (of course) just made that up. Endured valiently for the gospel means those that went through (in the case of Mormons) supposed “trials” to get to the point where they were when Jo wrote this letter. The thing is, you always talk about context, but you don’t understand what the word means. Jo then goes on, (getting off of this train of thought) to this:
Do I really need to explain this? Yes, I guess I do because you can’t seem to comprehend anything you read from your modern day Mormon bubble. Jo says if there are “bounds to the heavens” or on earth, the sun, moon, stars, and all those other things he mentions, it “shall be revealed IN THE DAYS OF THE DISPENSATION OF THE FULNESS OF TIMES”. This is not the “after life”. This is NOW, according to Jo. But I’m sure you knew this, since your short comment didn’t go into anything other than diverting our constant readers from the FACTS. Instead you redirect your comments to ME, but as you see, that won’t work. Jo then gets to his big finish:
Jo here continues on about his council of the gods, and how all of this would be revealed from Jo’s NOW until they enter into their “immortal rest”. He then assures his “saints” that no “power shall stay the heavens” to “hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven” on the “heads of the saints”.
If he was going to do this in the afterlife, (in heaven) than why does Jo say that the knowledge would be poured down FROM HEAVEN on the heads of the saints? Because that is the context of what he was writing, that’s why. Your pitiful reply, which does nothing to refute the actual FACTS, once again shows that you are great at trying to divert the issues, but bad at doing it because you can’t comprehend what you are trying to refute.
This is an old summary of mine, that perhaps will help the lurkers out there understand the Mormon gods….
In the light of this discussion I must add that even though Jo Smith said that there would be nothing held back about all of this (D&C 121), nowadays the Mormon “prophets” will do no such thing, instead they claim that all of this is not necessary, and so all teaching about the gods has been cut off. All of the above is now classed as speculation and “folklore”, and must be thrown out with the rest of the former “prophets” doctrinal statements and only what the Church “approves” and “votes on” as “scripture” is acceptable. Still, they denigrate Christians for doing just this with the Bible, but still claim that they have continuing “revelation” (but not about anything of substance – only about keeping the commandments and expanding their earthly corporation) and that the Christians do not and hence are the great and abominable church of the devil. It is a great thing to be able to vote on what God reveals and have total control over those who vote and if they don’t vote the way you want shun them or tell them they don’t have “the spirit”, don’t you think? That way, you can build malls, live a lavish lifestyle, fleece the poor and claim that your God “revealed” this all to you. But don’t ask them to prophecy, give new doctrine, explain past “revelations” or reveal anything of substance because you are then labeled as a sign seeker and told that if they were to do this, you would probably apostatize anyway.
Now, constant readers, contrast this with what Jo Smith said,
What Brig said,
And what “apostle” Maxwell affirmed:
Remember, (Mormon “prophets” say stuff like this all the time but according to experts like OC, you can’t believe them):
Makes you wonder if some Mormons will ever get out of the bubble.
grindael,
Tsk tsk tsk.. How you distort the scripture to suit your own parochial agenda of emotional antagonism against a faith that isn’t even your own… So let’s help you out with your comprehension skills.. Since you clearly are struggling with D&C 121..
First let’s take the phrase “Until now”.. this does not mean that “NOW” that which hasn’t happened until now is now going to happen.. It doesn’t mean that at all.. I can say until now north korea has not launched a nuclear strike against the US. This doesn’t mean that now as I write this they have, just until this moment in time they haven’t..
Jesus will return but until now he hasn’t.
Then you miss the phrase ” A time to come “.. which follows two verses after verse with the ‘until now’ phrase. Which again affirms that the manifestation is not NOW, but at a time in the future.
Furthermore the verse 26 with the ‘Until now” refers to unspecified knowledge given through the power of the Holy Spirit… It doesn’t necessarily follow that knowledge is the same information that is mentioned in verse 28.
That you don’t get that just demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding or you do understand, but refuse to acknowledge and instead devote your unchristian like energies to tearing down the faith of others..
This is simply gobbledegook. It’s becoming more and more obvious OC that you can’t even string together a coherent sentence let alone a coherent argument.
You have to read what he said BEFORE and AFTER what you quote. Please show me what you mean by quoting FULL SENTENCES in CONTEXT. I know that’s very, very hard for you, but try, OK?
LOL you are hilarious. You really don’t understand what CONTEXT is, do you? To you, people just place one sentence before another, but that one sentence has nothing to do with what comes after. Jo was connecting everything with his first sentence until he came to “And also”, where he went into another train of thought. But in the Mormon bubble the rules of sentence structure, thought, context and meaning all go out the window. Instead one must isolate sentences and NEVER connect them to the meaning of what the person was trying to say. That is what you did with John’s letter, and which you can’t respond to because it’s obvious what your tactics are. Here is what Jo said in verse 26:
God will give you knowlege by his Holy Spirit that has not been revealed UNTIL NOW.
That means it is being revealed NOW. Jo then tells us what WILL BE REVEALED. This is simple, and you need to get out of that bubble before you run out of air and suffocate from lack of intelligence.
Whoa boy! Who is tearing down the faith of others? Please reread those RABID quotes by your own leaders posted above. I’m DEFENDING the faith against False Apostles (Revelation 2:2-6) WHICH I HATE and God approves of. You are a hypocrite sir.
Man, you are strangling from LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Read THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH:
“a time to come” was in relation to the “forefathers” who awaited the TIME TO COME when the knowledge that Jo is speaking of would be revealed. I explained this above but you are obviously too intelligence starved to understand what I wrote, or for that matter what Jo wrote. Is this how you read OC? By just taking words out of their context and supplying your own meaning to them? Obviously so. OC…. please, please get out of the bubble.
Rick B said..
Rick you have done nothing of the sort.. But you have indeed prove that you can’t handle the truth and resort instead to name calling.. so Christian of you. I asked you a question a long time ago that you refused to answer and appear to conveniently ignore. So LDS aren’t cornered as you claim.. for me personally, I just don’t care to dialog with belligerent name callers, especially ones that don’t know their eyebrow from their elbow about what they are talking about.
You can say that, but let’s construct a sentence in the manner in which Jo intended it to be comprehended…
The father of Kim Jong Un threatened the US with an atomic missile. The North Korean people anxiously awaited the time when this would happen. Today, Kim Jong Un launched a missile at the US which blew up over the Pacific due to its poor construction. The North Koreans have not launched a missle at the US, UNTIL NOW.
Ocean said
First off Ocean, Their is a huge difference between calling people Names and telling people what they are. Saying your a Liar is not calling you a name, If I see a Drunk and say, he’s a drunk, thats not calling names, That just stating what they are. So how about you tell me what names I called you? Then we will see if they are names or if you are again Lying. But then also saying you wont talk to some one who calls names, So your saying now that your a hypocrite, Grindael has point out how nasty and Viscous you are towards Him, yet thats ok. Again, what a joke and as usual, avoid answering questions because you feel I missed on and they closed the thread, so how can I reply to a question I missed and the thread is closed. Please make more excuses since thats all you do and are full of them.
We have engaged in more than enough discussion of each other’s shortcomings. Let’s please get back to discussing the topic of the OP. Thanks.
Shem, It is hard to take you guys serious when you claim things like, Mormon doctrine had a 1000 changes and it was not published by the church, but yet you cannot provide sources for this, how do we know your not simply making this up? You quote wiki, big deal, that is not official and anyone can change or add to that.
The changes made to Mormon Doctrine weren’t really content oriented. The criticism was against his (McConkie’s) tone. The LDS Church leaders thought he was coming off too harsh. They wanted him to change his language but I believe that the content stayed the same. I am open to correction on this. I would be interested in a resource that shows any doctrinal changes that were made to the book. It also begs the question, if there were doctrinal changes pushed by the LDS Church, then why did they not correct all doctrinal errors? Why did they use it to teach students at BYU? Why did Church material quote from it, if it wasn’t doctrinally sound?
Also, if the standard works and the Proclamations of the LDS Church are the only things doctrinal, is anything that goes on in the temple doctrinal? I don’t believe there is any layout in scriptures on what needs to be done and said. I mean being “endowed with power on high” could mean anything. Could down the road someone say, “Joseph didn’t mean it the way you are doing it. This is the REAL way and the REAL doctrine. The Church leaders lost authority because they are teaching false doctrine. Everyone listen to me because God came to me and said the LDS Church is doing it all wrong.”? That’s basically what LDS have claimed about the Bible. They made up their own interpretation and said everyone else was reading and understanding it wrong. They reject the traditional understanding that everyone has kept over thousands of years. They point to leaders here and there in history that taught things wrong, like that never happened in LDS culture.
Rick
As I said, I am not discussing it anymore, so complain all you want.
Jaxi
I am not really in the mood to give a lengthy discourse on how to evaluate sources for official doctrine. If you really want a rundown on this read my blog here http://shematwater.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/authoritative-church-doctrine/ as it gives an in depth explanation of it.
Rick B said..
If that’s what you think then I guess you may need lesson in social etiquette.
“is drunk” versus “a Drunk”
Saying somene IS drunk is to describe the state of intoxication at given time. How they ARE at the time. To call someone “a Drunk” is to say that he’s/she’s someone that drinks habitually to excess and unless you were intimately familiar with the persons habits enough to render a qualified judgment you are simply calling them a name.
Lying..
To “lie” is to intentionally deceive. if someone says something that he believes to be true but is incorrect they are not lying. They maybe incorrect in their information, but they aren’t lying. Lying requires the INTENT to deceive. To say someone is a “Liar” is to again say that person habitually lies or habitually intends to deceive. Unless you are intimately aware enough to fully know the intent and habits of the individual enough to be qualified to make such a judgment, you are simply resorting to name calling.
In other apologetic forums like MRM, there is rules against calling people “liars”.. Typical treatment is suspension from the site. I saw a similar rule listed here but it appears it doesn’t get enforced.
I have done no such thing. I saw his ranting post, and if I would respond in kind by citing all the derogatory posts leveled against LDS and personal attack towards me .. the list would so long it would probably crash the server. Furthermore if anyone care to look carefully my comments are not towards him by expressing my opinion regarding either the argument or the antagonistic behavior that is being expressed against LDS. Never was it personal. Never did I call names.
So Rick B .this is the last I say on this matter, I would appreciate if you would cease with the name calling.. If you care to discuss fine then lets’ keep it civil. At least Jaxi seems to understand this.
Rick B and Oceancoast, you’ve now both had your say on the topic of name-calling. If you want to discuss it further, please take your discussion elsewhere. I’ll delete any future comments posted at Mormon Coffee related to such a discussion. Thanks.
Shem, Since when Is an LDS claiming problems dont really exist and were simply making a big deal out of nothing. Then when you state or LDS say, the problems we point out can be excused by you and other LDS as nothing, but when we ask for evidence and you claim your done talking about it really does not give us much hope you really know what your talking about.
You claim about 1000 mistakes were corrected and the book Mormon Doctrine was not published by the church, but by the men who wrote it. You claim that as if it is fact and you know what your talking about, but when pressed for evidence of this, all you can say is, Sorry, I’m done talking about this.
Now I am only pointing this out, not honestly expecting you to provide evidence, but for the lurkers who never reply and only read, I want the to see that YOU LDS claim things as fact but have and refuse any evidence to support what you say, so if thats all you can do, then how can we trust you to know what your talking about when it comes to the truth?
Rick
I gave evidence, if you had the honestly to actually acknowledge this. I provided links to the report by Marion G. Romney, as well as other documents. So, if you care to stop spreading false information maybe we can get on with the conversation. I am not going to discuss the book Mormon Doctrine any further than I have, and if want to complain about it, at least have the decency of being honest in your complaints.
Shem, Seriously it is hard to take you serious.
On your blog that you provided a link for you said
Some of your prophets have clearly stated things they taught were doctrine/scripture. Yet you guys still dont care and deny what they said was doctrine. Are you the prophet or a leader who can say with authority what is or is not Doctrine? No you are not, but a leader, later who went onto be a prophet said, only the prophet can speak for the Lord. So if thats the case, why are things the prophets saying blown off as mere opinion?
Then you said
Bruce as I showed used the standard works, quoted from former prophets and presidents, had currant living prophet/president, and people in authority and stated these were DOCTRINAL SOURCES, Yet you deny them. So it seems in one breath you agree with Bruce by saying some of the same things he did as far as sources for doctrine, then in another breath deny what he said. So you can call me dishonest and say what you want, but I know better and like Old man points out, you must resort to attacking what we say in order to make your case.
Rick
I love how you can change paces so fast. First you falsely accuse me of not providing evidence for what I said. Then, when you are called on this, you immediately turn to another false accusation. It seems all you can do is try to discredit me through false accusations. Honestly, it is nearly impossible to take you seriously.
Oh, and by the way, other churches quote from the Bible, and official source of doctrine, and yet I reject most of what they say as they are wrong. BYU professors quote from all the same sources as Bruce R. McConkie, and yet they are frequently wrong as well, as they contradict the appointed leaders of the church. Maybe you should seek to comprehend the fact that just because somebody uses good sources does not mean they are right in how they interpret them.
Shem, you accuse me of changing paces, yet Sharon calls you out on another topic for doing that.
I simply stated Your prophet taught something, Bruce said something similar, if you feel they are saying the same exact thing, then so be it, I dont agree it’s exactly the same, but close. Either way, you cannot answer it.
Then you said
Whats this have to do with what JS and Bruce said, believed and taught? I understand people dont agree. But the fact remains, both JS and Bruce feel the BoM is above the Bible and that the BoM clarifies and improves what was taught in the Bible, and I’m saying that is not true.
Rick
My last comment had nothing to do with your little word trap. I was addressing your comments regarding the credibility of the book Mormon Doctrine. You were claiming that because Bruce R. McConkie quotes from official sources of doctrine that his book must also be considered official doctrine. This is false, for the reasons I gave.
As to your questions, what is the difference? The difference is this: One asked for specific doctrines, the other for how the Book of Mormon gets you closer to Christ. Now a question for you? How is a person supposed to answer the second question without giving specific doctrines that the Book of Mormon teaches? It can’t be done. Thus, while the wording is different, both questions require the same answer, and thus are basically the same question.
Now, I agree that I could never answer the question to your satisfaction, for the simple reason that you will reject any answer I give; either as already being taught in the Bible, or as being false doctrine. As such, your attitude towards the Book of Mormon makes the question unanswerable when asked by you, which is why it is a trap. Now, if the question was asked by a member, or by one who did not have such a strong antagonism against the Book of Mormon, then it is more likely that the question could be answered, as such a person is not as likely to reject all answers before they are even given.
I love how you keep putting it on me and making excuses.
First off, over the years I have heard Mormons accuse us non Mormons of Judging them, But yet it seems you guys can judge us by saying, we wont listen or believe anyway. How do you know?
Also you seem to imply if it was anyone else you could give an answer, but since you feel I wont believe then you refuse to answer. Talk about judging my heart. Also I have said as well as others, we really dont hold out much hope you TBM will come to the truth, yet we still reply, not so much because we believe you will turn from your false god to the Truth of the real God. But we more so still answer for those lurking and wanting them to see the truth.
Also I dont recall saying Bruce taught Doctrine, But that Bruce claimed to use Doctrinal sources.
Rick
“we wont listen or believe anyway. How do you know?”
Because you never have listened, and have proven that you will never believe in your constant antagonism against us. If a person constantly lies to me than I can honestly say that I think he will lie again. If he consistently cheats I can honestly say I think he will cheat again. If he, like you have done over the past several years, constantly ignores what I say I can honestly say that I think he will ignore me again.
I do not judge people when comes to their eternal welfare. I do not know what the future holds, or what God’s justice and mercy will be. He is the only one who has that right to make that kind of judgment. I can, however, judge the character of a person based on my interaction with them, and then act accordingly.
“but since you feel I wont believe then you refuse to answer.”
See, when you constantly spout out false accusations you prove your determination to ignore me. I did answer the question, and you, as predicted, rejected the answer on one of the two basis that I gave. You have already proven me correct, and yet you are trying to discredit me through ignoring what I said and making false accusations.
“I dont recall saying Bruce taught Doctrine, But that Bruce claimed to use Doctrinal sources.”
Yes. Your point being that because he used Doctrinal Sources it was not logical for us to say that his book was not an official source of doctrine. If this wasn’t your point than your comment is meaningless and shouldn’t have been made. If this was your point you are wrong for the reasons I have given.