The LDS Church has issued a Q&A regarding China:
Can my friends be taught and baptized in China?
Not at present. Please contact the Church’s CAU Director for guidelines and further information.Are there any activities that I should pay attention to avoid?
Please do not distribute any Church literature or other religious materials; please do not seek to attend Church meetings with foreign Church members…
This is consistent with earlier sentiments I have heard expressed by Mormons: That the LDS Church “respects the law” so much that it won’t preach its message where it is illegal to do so.
But what does Jesus say?
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 18:18-20)
And what did Peter say?
“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:27-32)
Oceancoast,
Wow you have one great big imagination. I don’t have to do anything to Joseph Smith’s character, he did that all by himself. I am to hold up the claims of men claiming to be prophets of God and I am to weigh those claims against the Word of God. Joseph Smith fails the test not only in his teachings and doctrines but in his character.
As to your rant about what constitutes pedophilia, go back and read what I posted to Old man. We have a Mormon prophet accused, tried and convicted of the very thing Joseph Smith did. It’s illegal here in the Mormon state to have inappropriate relations with underage girls.
“Also, isn’t convenient that you don’t mention names? anonymous figures don’t prove a case.’
Almera and Delcena Johnson, their brother is Benjamin F. Johnson.
– Smith’s secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: “Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep.” Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera “as man and wife” and “occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.” Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: “I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.” (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also “The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
Not that any evidence showing Joseph as anything but wonderful will convince you. This information is also recorded in our family history books.
You aren’t getting what I am saying about the Bible. Nothing was hidden from me there. If I want to read about Moses, it’s in there. No whitewashing going on. I’d have more respect for Mormon leaders if they would just tell the truth about everything instead of leaving members such as yourself to defend the indefensible.
Let us just note that if they were married then there is nothing immoral in the relationship.
Now, I don’t know what lessons Kate is referring to, but I have been taught the truth since I was fairly young (if I was to pin point an age I would say ten years old). Of course, I have been taught the truth, not the distorted fabrications of false teachers that is so frequently passed off as the truth.
I have never denied that Joseph Smith had multiple wives, or that he had sexual relations with them. However, I have not yet seen one piece of evidence that proves he had any relations with women who were already married, or with those younger then 16, which is a perfectly acceptable age.
Speaking of age, the average age of marrying is not what would be important to the discussion. What would be important to the discussion is acceptable age, and in the 1800’s the acceptable age of marrying was lower than it is today.
Now, I have to point out that anyone who tries to equate Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs is deluded into believing the worst lies one can tell of a person. Joseph Smith never forced anyone to marry him, nor did he kick out any of the young men so as to make it easier to share the women around. He also never allowed incest. Honestly, anyone who makes such a claim as this has proven they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to Joseph Smith.
Kate,
as do you…
You opinion only based upon your own judgmental bias against him and your personal interpretation of the Bible. One can make such a subjective case against just about anyone.. Including biblical prophets.
If your speaking of Waren Jeffs, he’s not a Mormon prophet. Under age girls is any girl under the age of 18. It’s called statutory rape, not pedophilia. Yes, Waren Jeffs was found guilty of inappropriate relations with under age girls, by a trial and jury of his peers, with due process according to the law, Joseph Smith has not.
So if you claim to be a TRUE Christian why don’t you demonstrate by abolishing the use of the term pedophilia in your references to Joseph Smith.. to do otherwise demonstrate you’re not a true Christian as true Christians don’t bare false witness correct?
Yes, I have seen this before.. It too is hearsay, and the accusations is all on how you interpret these journals in their FULL context.
to the contrary, your not getting.. What is hidden is what’s NOT been preserved in the BIblical text. .The BIble tells you VERY Little about Moses or any Biblical Character. This is done I believe quite intentionally.. If you eliminate most of the persons humanity from the record, he will appear “Larger than Life”.. And that’s what YOU read in the BIble. There is no doubt in my mind that if you knew Moses like those who lived with him, he may not have seemed so special. How about Jacob, he had four wives, he was a polygamist. Do you think everything was just peachy in those relationships? Of course not.
We could do this with every Biblical Prophet, and Apostle of the NT..what do you know about Peter? really? We know he DENIED the Christ three times before the cock crowed once or is that twice? Gets kind of confusing there because the Bible contradicts itself on the cock crowing story. But besides what little is said of Peter in the Bible, there is NOTHING.. So he could be full of flaws and you wouldn’t know it, because it was not recorded.
So my point to you and your fellow critics is that Judge not.. You overly attack Joseph Smith for his human weakness and you only know about them because of the age he lived in.. Biblical prophets were just as human.. they just lived in an age before there was a recorded of every fault, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have just as many.
EVIDENCE that Jo married another man’s wife and had a child with her:
Sylvia Porter Sessions married Joseph Smith on Feb. 8, 1842. She was the daughter of David Sessions and Patty Bartlett Sessions, who became Joseph Smith’s tenth wife.
Patty Bartlett Sessions married Joseph Smith on Mar. 9, 1842. At the time of her marriage to Smith, she was already married to David Sessions, and their daughter Sylvia Porter Sessions was already the eighth wife of Joseph Smith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_S…
Patty Bartlett Sessions, the wife of David Sessions, made it clear in her private journal that she was married to Joseph Smith for both “time” and “eternity”:
“I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards Mar 9, 1842, in Newel K. Whitney’s chamber, Nauvoo, for time and all eternity…Sylvia my daughter was present when I was sealed to Joseph Smith.” (Journal of Patty Sessions, as quoted in Intimate Disciple, Portrait of Willard Richards, 1957, p. 611) http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/p…
Joseph Smith had at least one child with Sylvia.
“- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: “I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl’s grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl’s grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living.” (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
– Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: “She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.” (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
http://i4m.com/think/history/joseph_s…
You will notice here that Joseph Smith married Sylvia Porter Sessions/Lyon/Smith/Kimball/Clark and impregnated her with Joseph Rosetta Lyon while she was still married to Windsor Lyon. After bearing Joseph’s child she bore two more children for Windsor Lyon.
Sylvia Porter Sessions (Lyon) (Smith) (Kimball) (Clark), 1818-82, married Joseph Smith polyandrously on February 8, 1842, at age twenty-three, and bore him one child, Josephine Lyon (Fisher), on February 8, 1844. Sylvia had married Windsor Lyon in 1838 and stayed with him for eleven years, bearing him four children, all of whom died as infants. He was excommunicated in Nauvoo in November 1842, due to a financial/legal conflict with Nauvoo Stake President William Marks, but was rebaptized in January 1846. Sylvia married Heber C. Kimball for time, polyandrously, on January 26, 1846, but did not go west with him, staying with Lyon. After Lyon’s death in January 1849, she married a non-Mormon, Ezekiel Clark, in Iowa on January 1, 1850. She bore him three children (all of whom survived) but left him and came to Bountiful, Utah, in 1854.
Parents:David Sessions and Patty Bartlett
Born:July 31, 1818, Newry, Maine
Died:April 12, 1882, Bountiful, Utah
Marriage to Joseph Smith:about 1843
Other Marriages:Windsor Palmer Lyon, 1838, Far West, Missouri
Heber Chase Kimball, January 1846, Nauvoo, Illinois
Ezekiel Clark, January 1, 1850, Iowa City, Iowa
Children:
1. Marian Lyon, July 30, 1839, Nauvoo, Illinois
2. Philofreen Lyon, June 11, 1841, Nauvoo, Illinois
3. Asa Windsor Lyon, December 25, 1842, Nauvoo, Illinois
4. Josephine Rosetta Lyon, February 8, 1844, Nauvoo, Illinois
5. Byron Windsor Lyon, September 4, 1847, Iowa City, Iowa
6. David Carlos Lyon, August 8, 1848, Iowa City, Iowa
7. Perry Ezekiel Clark, February 8, 1851, Iowa City, Iowa
8. Phebe Jane Clark, September 1, 1852, Iowa City, Iowa
9. Martha Sylvia Clark, January 20, 1854, Iowa City, Iowa
<" Joseph Smith never forced anyone to marry him."
Oh, no. Joseph would never force anyone. How unprophet like that would be? Poor Joseph Smith. He was the one that was forced to marry those women. An angel with a sword was going to kill him if he didn't. He was forced to break his wife's heart. It's actually her fault that her heart was broken. Why couldn't she understand all the blessings of polygamy? Warren Jeff's and all these other Mormon imposters are abusing a beautiful fruit of the LDS Church. Oh, and those married women that married Joseph Smith? That was just to increase his and their priesthood. What a blessing to them to be forever a part of Joseph's Smith's future kingdom. Can't you all see that Joseph was doing good here? Not like that evil Warren Jeff's.
(hopefully everyone catches the sarcasm)
AFFIDAVIT OF ALMIRA W. JOHNSON SMITH BARTON.
Territory of Utah, )
> ss
County of Iron. j
Be it remembered on this first day of August, A. D. 1883,
personally appeared before me John W. Brown, a notary public
in and for said county, Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton, who
was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath says:
I am a citizen in the Territory of Utah, over the age of twenty-
one years, that I am the daughter of Ezekiel Johnson and
MORMON POLYGAMY 139
Julia Hills Johnson, his wife ; that I was born at Westford, in
the State of Vermont, on the 22nd day of October, A. D. 1813;
that I had nine brothers who were named respectfully Joel H.,
Seth, David, Benjamin R, Joseph E., Elmer, George W., William
D., and Amos ; and six sisters named respectfully Nancy,
Dulcena, Julia, Susan, Mary and Esther, all of whom, with my-
self, were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints with the exception of Elmer, who died in infancy.
Deponent further says, that in the years 1842 and 1843, I
resided most of the time at Macedonia, in the County of Han-
c*ck, State of Illinois, sometimes with my sister who was the
wife of Almon W. Babbitt, and sometimes with my brother
Benjamin F. Johnson. During that time the Prophet Joseph
Smith taught me the principle of celestial marriage including
plurality of wives and asked me to become his wife. He first
spoke to me on this subject at the house of my brother Benjamin
F. I also lived a portion of the time at Brother Joseph Smith’s,
in Nauvoo, when many conversations passed between him and
myself on this subject. On a certain occasion in the spring
of the year 1843, the exact date of which I do not now recollect,
I went from Macedonia to Nauvoo to visit another of my sisters,
the one who was the widow of Lyman R. Sherman, deceased, at
which time I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. At the
time this took place Hyrum Smith, Joseph’s brother, came to me
and said I need not be afraid. I had been fearing and doubting
about the principle and so had he, but he now knew it was true.
After this time I lived with the Prophet Joseph as his wife, and
he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F. at Mace-
donia.
Deponent further says that I had many conversations with
Eliza Beaman who was also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who
was present when I was sealed to him, on the subject of plurality
of wives, both before and after the performance of that cere-
mony. And also that since the death of the Prophet Joseph
Smith I was married for time to Reuben Barton of Nauvoo,
Hanc*ck Co., 111., by whom I have had five daughters, one only
of whom is now living. Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton.
Subscribed and sworn to by the said Almira W. Johnson
Smith Barton the day and year first above written.
(Seal.) John W. Brown, Notary Public.
Nah, he just sent them on missions and married their wives while they were gone. And with Smith, it was only a few years of doing this before he was murdered. Who knows what he would have done had he been at it longer, like Warren Jeffs?
Force:
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power:
Yep, that is exactly what Jaxi describes.
Jaxi
How right you are & sarcasm duly noted J
Shem
Apologies, I’ve only just noticed your posting, perhaps it was in mod jail. Anyway I will respond now.
Ok, Fightinglee & your good self have been on my back continuously on another topic, even thought I told you I would not argue anymore with a man who uses LDS doctrine to prove LDS doctrine & who redefines the accepted meanings of words in order to prove a point. Now lets look at the first thing you said in your post.
“Personally, I find it rather intriguing that you can alter the definition of words and then claim “Well, I am using the Christian definition” and yet you want to scream your head off at us for using the “Mormon definition.”
Kindly show me where I have altered the definition of words? I have simply given you the accepted definition of words, sorry if that conflicts with the LDS definitions but that’s the way it is. By acknowledging that I use a Christian definition for missionary & then conceding that you use the Mormon definitions you are in effect saying you are not a Christian. Also, if you have to use quotation marks then please try to use them properly. i.e. if you want to quote me then use the exact words I used, don’t paraphrase me.
“Personally, I don’t care that this is a “Christian” blog. I am a Christian, and all your complaining and bellowing and altering of the English Language is never going to change that fact.
The simple fact is that you don’t want us to use a word that you thing sounds good, and so you try to redefine it with narrower parameters in a vain attempt to justify your desire to not apply it to us. Then you have the insulting arrogance to try and apply terms that you find derogatory to us, so that you can try to disguise your insults through your new version of English.”
What on earth are you talking about? Give me some examples, show me where I have altered the English language. The simple fact is, neither you nor fightinglee can answer my questions in any coherent fashion so you resort to character assassination. You may try to fool newcomers to this site with your smooth tongues but when they see how you react to someone who corners you they see a very different side
“Oh, and Christ would never tell us tithing is wrong, or that a temple is not needed. In fact, I have no doubt that he has visited every one of His temples, and appreciates all of them. Rather, you will find that when Christ returns it is you that are left saying “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” Yet Christ will declare “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
As the topic here has nothing to do with tithing I won’t be drawn on it, the only reason I mentioned it at all was in connection with Christ not being temple worthy. However, should the topic ever arise I will be more than happy to show you that not only is tithing wrong but it is also a sin under the new covenant. Again the temple isn’t the topic so I’ll leave that until another time as well. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to explain to you why the temple is no longer necessary. As for Christ visiting your temples I think you’re speaking to the wrong person, not so long ago one of you was saying that Christ is no longer present on the earth
Regarding the final part of your post, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” Yet Christ will declare “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Again you’re talking to the wrong person, you should be talking to your leaders. I haven’t prophesied, I haven’t cast out devils & I haven’t done any wonderful works. Unlike your prophets & apostles all I’ve done is declare Christ as my saviour.
It might be advantageous if you made an attempt to understand scripture before you start quoting from it.
grindael wrote..
Ah yes, the ole Sylvia Sessions death bed hearsay.. How low the critic stoop. Not only is the evidence as flimsy as it gets, but it down right imbecilic, as if our critics don’t have any function brain cells.
First of all, it’s hearsay. This is not a testimony from Sylvia Sessions, but her daughter saying she heard her mother say.. There has been no DNA proof that this is even true, in fact ALL DNA tests made for the numerous claims of Joseph Smith siring children have turned up negative. A woman lying about the Father is just about the OLDEST lie on earth. Women have been lying about the who the father ever since recorded history. And she has motivation to do so, it’s to set up a dynastic connection.
Shem, I keep forgetting, My memory is only lacking in the sense that I must spell things out for you. So instead of me saying Hell, I should have said, The lake of Fire. People who end up in the lake of Fire, will never leave. Read Revelation.
Now onto the issue of Changes in the BoM. Again as we have pointed out, IF JS really did stick his face in a hat as Your Church teaches, there should be zero changes. But of course you will blame man doing this. We have copies that exist of the very first Edition ever printed that prove what the BoM Should be and say, yet you guys reject that in favor of what you want to believe, So claim all you want man added things or changes are noted. We know what was written and changes are made by your church.
Shem said
First off, You only call it a carefully worded trap because you cannot answer it, second it is not a trap, it is an honest question in light of the fact it was your prophet that said man will get closer to God by reading the Book, not me.
Then you said,
Not let me refresh Your memory, What you said is false, I know very well what I wrote, and that challenge as I called it was not the same on as with this BoM.
I wrote something that came from Bruce Mc and what he said, That challenge as it were is not the same as this one. So before you accuse me of a faulty memory, maybe you should go back and double check your facts before you speak.
So when you said this about me,
I think you really were speaking of yourself.
Now you said
This shows you need to re-read the Bible. It says in John 3:16, For God so LOVED THE ENTIRE WORLD, that HE gave His Son. That who soever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting Life.
Lets focus on the part that says, GOD LOVED THE ENTIRE WORLD. Wow you feel the Bible says God only loved on little group of people, and that according to the BoM he went only to one little group of people, those in america, but that somehow proves he loved the whole world, man thats not very smart, but typical Mormon speak.
Lastly you said
First off you simply saying this and not providing evidence proves nothing, second, JS had the vision, then told someone, you cannot say, JS had a vision and claimed he saw the Risen Christ, then someone else came along and said, I spoke with JS and he said, he only heard a voice and therefore now we have some guy making up stories.
Then even if JS had only one vision and not 9, and he claimed he saw Jesus and God, we still have a problem, It was JS who said, No man can see God and live, With out the priesthood. Well He supposedly saw God and Jesus with out this Priesthood. And just because JS claimed to see Jesus does not mean he really did, you cannot prove it, so you believing simply does not make it true.
“Let us just note that if they were married then there is nothing immoral in the relationship.”
Yeah, nothing immoral about going on over to your buddy’s house to sleep with different women in his upstairs bedroom while your wife is home with the kids and clueless as to what you are doing! Nothing immoral there. They were not married. They were committing adultery. Polygamy is an abomination as Pres. Hinckley said. Oh and of course every woman he slept with is lying. All 33+ of them. Joseph couldn’t possibly have slept with these women or had a child with them! Everyone is lying about him! He’s just being persecuted!
These are the lengths that Mormons will go to defending Joseph Smith. Why? Because Mormonism stands or falls on Joseph Smith. He is the foundation of Mormonism.
“Mormonism, as it is called, 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.”Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188
There is no middle ground. What a weak foundation. Mormons say Jesus is their foundation but is he? Take away Joseph Smith and there is no Mormonism. Christianity stands and falls on Jesus Christ. Christianity does not stand and fall on the prophets of the OT. Christ fulfilled the OT and he is our foundation.
Rick
“just because Paul claimed to see Jesus does not mean he really did, you cannot prove it, so you believing simply does not make it true.”
“just because the Apostles claimed to see Jesus does not mean he really did, you cannot prove it, so you believing simply does not make it true.”
“just because Mary claimed to see Jesus does not mean he really did, you cannot prove it, so you believing simply does not make it true.”
Fun, isn’t it?
By the way, I have read revelation. The Lake of Fire is the exact same thing as Hell; it is merely a description, or a metaphor to illustrate the suffering of those there. Again, it is not the time that one spends there that is eternal, but the actually location that is eternal. The Bible is in perfect harmony with this.
“You only call it a carefully worded trap because you cannot answer it”
It is designed to be unanswerable, and thus it is a trap. That is the point. The reason it is unanswerable is not because of us, because of your attitude and approach to the question.
“it is an honest question”
It would be honest, if you actually had any intention of listening to the answer. However, you have no intention of doing so, except in as far as you can claim one of the two things that I stated, as you have done. You are not seeking to know how the Book of Mormon can bring us closer to Christ. You are seeking an argument against it, and you will always find it, and thus your question is a trap, and not an honest question.
Speaking of what I said, most scholars will show you a very convincing story of how Jehovah was merely the tribal God of Henotheistic Jews, and then outline a nice trail of how contact with the Zoastrians during the Babylonian Captivity gave rise to a belief in an all powerful God (though other gods still existed) and that it wasn’t until the rise of Christianity, and especially Paul, that the Jews God began to be preached as the One God over all the earth. Your single verse, in which we have a more modern rendition, only proves what that later Christian thought was, not what the entire Bible shows.
Now, since you don’t seem to grasp what I am saying, let me reiterate. The Book of Mormon proves that the Bible is not just for the small tribe of Jews as the text would seem to suggest. It stands as a witness that God had dealings with all men. I notice you left this part out, which reflects what the Bible alone would lead one to believe. It may teach that he died for everyone, but it does give the very clear impression that he never once visited the rest of the world, which is what most Christians I have talked to believe. The fact that he did visit them, that he left his gospel with them, is profound, and brings us closer to Christ than just believing he appeared to a small group in Canaan.
“First off you simply saying this and not providing evidence proves nothing”
I couldn’t agree more, and I have yet to see you post any evidence regarding any of these accounts. You have rattled on about them, and tried to sound all logical, but you have yet to provide one scrap of evidence to support anything you have said on this matter. So, why should we believe you?
Old Man
“Kindly show me where I have altered the definition of words?”
Are you serious? Let us look at your definition of missionary.
“You may think I’m splitting hairs but I see the work of a missionary as spreading the Gospel of Christ. I prefer to call LDS “missionaries” salesmen as it more accurately reflects what they do.”
So, basically, because we don’t teach exactly what you believe we do not fall into the parameters of the definition of Missionary. You have thus conveniently defined a missionary as those who teach the same religion as you. However, the actual definition, as given in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “A person sent on or engaged in a religious mission abroad.” Thus, for you to claim that LDS missionaries are not missionaries is to alter the definition of missionary, as a missionary is anyone sent abroad for a religious purpose.
“I have simply given you the accepted definition of words”
No. You have given me the definition that you have chosen to apply to the word, and then tried to pass it off as the accepted definition. No one who actually knows the English language would accept your definition.
“By acknowledging that I use a Christian definition for missionary & then conceding that you use the Mormon definitions you are in effect saying you are not a Christian.”
I acknowledged nothing, other than the fact that you claimed a “Christian Definition.” But then, it really doesn’t matter what you claim, as you are attempting to alter the language to fit your own agenda.
I have to find it funny, however, that you are so frequently twisting my words, and yet you complain that we twist yours. (Oh, and I used the quotation marks properly. Sorry if you don’t like the English Language.)
“The simple fact is, neither you nor fightinglee can answer my questions in any coherent fashion so you resort to character assassination.”
The real fact is that we have answered you more than once, but in your arrogance you have ignored our answers and engaged in your own Character assassination in an attempt to cover them up. Actually, most of the time you don’t even argue anything, but rather resort to “Well, since you don’t believe what I do you are wrong.” I don’t think I can really recall a logical argument from you that didn’t resort to this kind of reasoning. And you want to complain that we use LDS doctrine to explain LDS doctrine. It is almost laughable.
Shem said, “The Book of Mormon proves that the Bible is not just for the small tribe of Jews as the text would seem to suggest.”
I am pretty sure the people in the Book of Mormon are an offshoot of the small tribe of Jews. In Mormon thought, they are still Jews, the LDS Christ by going to the BofM people is not showing his “dealings with all men.”
The Book of Mormon does not prove that God has dealings with all men. I believe that can be proven by the words of Christ and by the actions of the apostles. No one needed the Book of Mormon to feel like they were part of God’s people.
Kate said..
YEP You got it…. just like Jesus was persecuted… or are you going to say Jesus wasn’t persecuted either and nobody was telling lies about Jesus?
Shem
I was using the word in the most common & generally accepted way, yes it can be used in reference to other religions but Christianity is the generally accepted meaning. Perhaps you’re not aware that the word was first used to define Christian proselytising in the early 16th century & is therefore historically accepted as referring to Christianity. Anyway, as you seem keen to argue about the meaning of words & more than that, to belittle me in my use of them, lets look at your definition of apostasy,
Apostasy:
Your definition: The loss of priesthood authority.
Oxford English dictionary definition: Renunciation of a belief or faith.
Have you heard the saying ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’?
Now, let’s get back to what I said in that post. LDS missionaries do not preach the Christian Gospel but act as salesmen for the Corporation. Perhaps you find it easier to attack me on a personal level rather than answer that. So, instead of diverting attention away from it by arguing semantics why don’t you address the issue & show me I’m wrong.
oceancoast,
You are ridiculous. Please stop comparing your false prophet to Jesus. You have more than proven here that you worship Joseph Smith. We all see right through you and you don’t have anything of substance to contribute to conversation. As with Jason Rae, who was finally banned from posting here, I have no desire to have dialog with someone like you. You can’t get past your prophet worship long enough to say anything meaningful. Have a nice day.
Jaxi,
Actually the BoM people are offshoots of many peoples.. Only one group, the Lehi family descendants was explicitly Jewish, the others that they encountered there were of different origin.
Furthermore, the BOM text say’s Jesus went to visit others as well besides the BOM people, we just don’t have those records.
But even if it is as you suggest that Jesus is only visiting people of Jewish descent, which is all he visited in the Biblical narrative… there is this little tid bit from Deuteronomy that may explain why.
This tells us that The Most High God divided the nations of the mankind according to the Son’s of God. YHWH’s portion was Israel (Jacob) or the Jews.
Now this text obviously would raise a thousand questions to the true truth seekers.. There is a lot here that run contrary to the Traditional Dogma to say the least.. but for the point of this discussion, if you believe YHWH is Jesus.. then its seems his people are the Jews..so that’s why it seems he visits only them.
BTW.. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and many think he preached to the Gentiles, but if you read your NT closely you’ll find he only went to Jews in Gentile lands and essentially avoided regions where Jews weren’t present. Curiously, it seems from the Biblical text Early Christianity was a Jewish cult, for Jews only… Food for thought.. read your bible.
Old Man,
Where did shem or any other LDS say the definition of Apostasy was the “loss of priesthood authority”?
I and I believe most LDS have always viewed apostasy in the later form, which would but consequence also result in the first.
To the contrary.. the Missionaries are missionaries preaching the Gospel of Christ.
Your constant inference to the church as ‘Corporation’ is nothing by antagonistic rhetoric. ALL Churches are Corporations. The Largest here in Southern California is the Arch-Diocese .. Southern Baptists, United Methodist etc. Are ALL Corporations. Even the local Christian ministry down the street is a corporation Old man. It’s likely that MRM is also a “Corporation”.. you probably attend a religious corporation yourself..
Shall we start referring to your church as the Corporation of Old Man?
Ocean,
<"Where did shem or any other LDS say the definition of Apostasy was the “loss of priesthood authority”?"
You see LDS have to make it about authority because there has never been a universal "renunciation of belief" in the Christian faith. With LDS it's not about belief or faith, it's about authority. One can't merely believe in Christ and have faith in him in order to be with God, by LDS standards. So apostasy, in LDS thought, has to include authority. I actually feel kind of strange having to point this out to you.
But even by the LDS standards for apostasy, authority included, LDS can't pinpoint the time of the "universal apostasy." It can't be found. You can't even find Mormonism in any other period of time than when Joseph Smith created it. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church at Pentecost to guide and direct the Church. Now LDS say that they have the Church that is immune to apostasy. I keep asking this without getting one answer. Why is this new LDS Church set up immune to apostasy and not the original Church started by Christ?
Ocean,
I’m not sure you’re reading your Bible right. Why would the apostles have that big discussion on whether to circumcise people or not if Christianity was just for the Jews? Many of the early Church Father’s weren’t even Jewish.
Jaxi wrote.
Who said there needed to be a “Universal renunciation”? The apostasy, like most falling away is never sudden, but gradual. But there has indeed been Universal renunciations.. What do you think the Ecumenical councils and creeds did? They not only affirmed one view or belief, but they renounce the competing belief. By the end of the fourth century it became an extreme.. Whereby holding any belief contrary to the council decisions was grounds for treason and execution. Jaxi, what you’re missing is that you believe that YOUR orthodox beliefs were never renounced… but you dismiss the fact that there were many alternative views of Christianity that preceded the Ecumenical councils. Those beliefs were in fact renounced. It’s the LDS position that among those beliefs that were renounced by either gradual apostasy or ecumenical council and creed was the TRUE Doctrine of Christ along with the true authority for succession.
Loss of authority is part of the Apostasy.. it goes hand in hand with a gradual renunciation of beliefs..
Actually you are incorrect. This is the LDS belief.
You not pointing anything out.. It’s what I said originally. A renouncing of the beliefs goes hand in hand in renouncing the authority.
No we can’t .. this is correct. It’s impossible to pinpoint the time for a lot of things.. Even orthodoxy beliefs.. Such as can you pin point the time when the Trinity Doctrine was actually first taught?.. Nope you can’t.. It’s certainly existed in the fourth century, but only speculation about when exactly before that the doctrine was taught.
I disagree.. I think as we have seen from early Christian text that have surfaced (the Non-canoncial ones) that there were elements that seem to reflect LDS beliefs.. They were not EXACTLY as LDS believe now, but Orthodoxy Christianity itself has evolved over the years too.
Really, I think your reading more into the text than what was there. The Holy Spirit has been available since before LDS.. I don’t think LDS teaches that it wasn’t. But as individuals abandon the gospel, they abandon the Holy Spirit too..
I believe I answered this to someone once before.. It’s NOT immune, but it was promised that this restoration would be the last before the return of Christ and the authority wouldn’t be lost again.. But that doesn’t mean the membership isn’t subject to apostasy.. It very well is, just it is promised that the TOTAL apostasy wouldn’t happen again. I guess if it appears it’s going that way, then start preparing for Christ’s return.
Oceancoast
“Where did shem or any other LDS say the definition of Apostasy was the “loss of priesthood authority”?
Here’s what Shem said to me when we were ‘debating’ on the topic of “I love talking to Ex-Mormon atheists”
“As to your supposed contradiction, you simply do not understand what the apostasy is. You are making the false claim that apostasy means a loss of all faith, or basically, anything connected to the truth. This is a false understanding. Apostasy is the loss of the power of the priesthood, and the resulting loss of the ordinances of salvation.”
As I’ve been accused by Mormons of many things in here now including that of lying am I likely to see an apology from you?
“To the contrary.. the Missionaries are missionaries preaching the Gospel of Christ.”
Not so, the missionaries preach LDS doctrine, if they preached the Gospel of Christ it wouldn’t matter to them what Church the converts attended. Why must they choose the LDS Corporation?
Ok, on to your next comment that ALL churches are Corporations, yes that may well be so in the biblical context of a corporation consisting of a body of people, but unlike ALL Christian churches & legal corporations the LDS is not answerable to its members, for example there is NO financial accountability of any kind. So, rather than refer to your organization as a Church I prefer to call it a corporation.
Finally, I really am not interested in the kind of nit picking that you & Shem engage in to divert attention away from the fact that your ready made apologetic answers don’t work in here. As I said before, you would rather do that than give a coherent answer to anything I say.
Ps. I don’t attend any ‘corporation’ I am a member of the body of Christ, His Church.
It was on her deathbed. Deathbed confessions are admissible evidence in a court of law. Look it up. Try again genius. Here is one example.
According to the Deseret News,
But not every case can be solved. A few alleged children of Joseph Smith died as infants and their burial places are not known. Descendants of daughters are particularly difficult to test conclusively because the easy-to-identify Y chromosome signature only works to identify male descendants.
So your statement is jumping the gun a little. And I did provide a SWORN AFFIDAVIT of one of his wives where she admitted it. Nice try, but you’re wrong.
Brigham Young taught that “This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)
If Jo did marry them and didn’t have sex, he was violating the very reason for the commandment. He’s damned if he did, (D&C 58) and damned if he didn’t. (D&C 132)
grindael,
LOL… I never said it wasn’t admissible.. “Hearsay” is admissible, it’s just represents VERY low quality of evidence. In the link you provided the article stated..
“Lail’s allegations were inconsistent and less than trustworthy.”
You see who’s to say that her mother ACTUALLY Said that at her death bed? You can’t it’s hearsay. You can’t cross examine the person who allegedly said such things because they are dead. It all could be simply a invention of the daughters imagination. Like I said before there is motive for the parties to lie, both the Mother or the daughter for dynastic reasons.
Also, sworn affidavits doesn’t mean they are true, just means the person making the statement is swearing it’s true.. But it wouldn’t be the first time someone lied under oath.
This proves NOTHING.
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20 “For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” 21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.
He preached in the Synagogue because he was also preaching to Jews, and of course he would want to stay with his own people. Duh. But he preached TO the Jews and TO the Gentiles. It says so right there. And Paul went to Rome and was planning a trip to Spain.
I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. Romans 15:24
Paul says right there why he went to Jewish communities, to have them assist him on his journey. This is a straw man. BIG straw man.
The fact that it is admissible in court PROVES that it is HIGH QUALITY evidence. Otherwise it would be just regular hearsay. There is far more weight to deathbed confessions for just that reason. And your speculation about a “dynasty” is laughable. The Qof12 shut down that notion LONG BEFORE she gave that deathbed confession. You are on shaky ground, as usual. And the comments that they were untrustworthy (the article) came from the DEFENSE. OF COURSE they would argue that. It is the JUDGE’s Ruling that counts, not what the defense says. He obviously DIDN’T think so now, did he?
And regular hearsay is NOT admissible. Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless it qualifies under stringent exceptions. This is one of them. It is deemed HIGH QUALITY evidence for just that reason. If we were in court I would win and you would lose. Simple as that.
What is her motive to LIE, OC? She was a TBM for 30 years after she left Barton and died in Parowan Utah, extremely loyal to Jo. Again, there was NO REASON to LIE, and there is corroborating testimony from her own BROTHER. You can’t win here OC, because you are wrong and silly for denying the obvious.
There is NOTHING here that runs “contrary” to what Christians believe. If you are referring to your speculation about polytheism, I’ve already shown that you can’t back up what you say. In fact, for any that want to see this argument taken apart, please read this, so you have some ammunition against heresy and speculation.
This is a BLATANT falsehood. Tertullian died in 225 AD and wrote Against Praxeas years before that, and taught the Trinity. He NAMES IT, in that quote. In fact, I’ve documented on this blog that teaching back to the 2nd century (100 AD to 200 AD). Ignatius, (30-107 AD) declared very definitely that Jesus Christ ‘from eternity was with the Father and at last appeared to us’ (Magn. 6.1) and that He ‘came forth from one Father in whom He is and to whom He has returned’ (Magn. 7.2). He states that ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). This IS the Trinity. Only ONE God.
OceanCoast,
If there was a great apostasy, do you really think that the LDS church restored Christ’s church? Is the LDS church bare any resemblance to the Jewish church? To the Biblical church? Other than of course similar words, I would argue no. The LDS put the vail back up in the temple. They build temples outside of Jerusalem. They build temples for receiving funny hand gestures, eternal marriages, and baptisms of the dead. In the OG temple of Jerusalem the Jews preformed animal sacrifices. Those who entered where MEN of a certain blood line and tribe. This “priesthood” was a blood right, not something you get by handshake. When Jesus died, the vail was torn. In fact Jesus talks about being the temple and the inadequacy of a temple being a building. What exactly did the church restore? By all historical, biblical, archeological, and reasonable evidence, the LDS has not restored anything and created something entirely new. They glorify the fall as if bringing seperation, sin, sorrow, and suffering into this world was a good thing. They rip on the bible for the sake of making their arguments seem coherent. The LDS church creates a pharisaical “better than others” attitude. The LDS church makes God into a man. The LDS church has a dark and disgusting history of racism, child abuse, polygamy, control, and violence that is rarely discussed and often swept under the rug. What does the church really offer? A feeling of superiority? A righteousness checklist? The chance of becoming a god?
OC,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZAPFKXMy_Y
Ocean,
I am not talking about apostasy of membership. I am talking about apostasy within LDS leadership. The original Christian Church started by Christ had organization. It had leadership. Beliefs and traditions were being passed down to bishops. Yes, there were heresies. Just like there are beliefs being taught by LDS membership that aren’t “orthodox” Mormon beliefs. There has even been doctrinal disputes among the LDS apostles. The Mormon leadership gets together and makes a statement. The statement condemns the heresy and and establishes the belief of the LDS Church. Now this is also how the set up of the original Church started by Christ works. If there was a problem or heresy in the Chruch, the Church leaders would get together, be directed by to Holy Spirit, and make a statement, a creed. The Creeds were used so people would be able to spot lies and falsities. I believe that the Holy Spirit guided these men to make the right doctrinal and traditional statements.
Now my question is, if I can’t trust that the Holy Spirit couldn’t guide the men that have inherited their beliefs and traditions straight from the apostles, why should I trust this LDS leadership. Why are the LDS leaders immune to teaching false doctrine, but not the early Church leaders. How do you know that the minority beliefs of the LDS apostles that didn’t win, werent the right one? You state it’s because it was promised that this was the last dispensation? And this statement is only made in your scriptures which we dont accept and have no reason to. If you ask a Christian if Christ promised the Church was not going to leave the earth they would say yes. mainly only Mormons are claiming that we misunderstand what He meant.
Also, you are kidding yourself if you think it is an LDS belief that people can have faith and believe in Christ and that they can be with God. Your Church specifically teaches that I can’t. I have faith and believe in Christ and by LDS standards I can never be with God. In Mormonism I have to believe what Joseph Smith says to be with God. Christ only gets you into the bottom kingdom in LDS theology. You get yourself to God through believing and following what Joseph Smith said.
And another thing. I have said this before and I will use it again. Finding Mormonism in history is like finding the missing link to prove macroevolution. You might find a belief by some Gnostics that seems to relate or an Egyptian practice that’s seems similar. But you can’t find the complete picture of Mormonism anywhere. It’s a new invention fom Joseph Smith.
Old Man
“Now, let’s get back to what I said in that post. LDS missionaries do not preach the Christian Gospel but act as salesmen for the Corporation. Perhaps you find it easier to attack me on a personal level rather than answer that. So, instead of diverting attention away from it by arguing semantics why don’t you address the issue & show me I’m wrong.”
What issue? The issue that we teach different doctrine than you? That is not an issue. We do teach different doctrine than you, since we teach the true gospel, while you teach a false gospel. There is nothing to discuss in this.
However, the real issue is your attempt to alter the meaning of words. You are wrong in your characterization of us and what we do. You are wrong in this, primarily, through your altering of word meanings to create a characterization that you want portrayed, despite it being inaccurate.
And no, you are not using the commonly accepted definitions. You are trying to palm off your altered definition as the accepted one, and that is what I am talking about. Look of the definition in the Oxford English dictionary (oed.com), the Marian Webster Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/), or dictionary.com and you will find no such restriction on the definition that you have tried to place on it.
Now, let us clear one thing up. I never defined the term Apostasy as a loss of the priesthood. I explain the doctrine of the Great Apostasy as being a time in which the priesthood had been lost and that the authority to lead the church was no longer on the earth. This resulted from the Apostasy of individuals among the leadership and was a gradual process. I was not attempting to define a word, but explain a doctrine. It is you who has chosen to label my explanation as a definition of the term, not me.
In fact, maybe you should go back and read my later posts on that thread.
Brewed
“The LDS put the vail back up in the temple.”
I know Christians like to take this event as a sign that Temples are no longer needed, but no where in the text does it say this. It is just as easily seen simply as God rejecting the Jews and their Temple, especially when we consider that it happened at the moment they killed Christ. Temples were not done away with. It was that specific temple that we rejected because those who claimed it as their had rejected Christ.
“Those who entered where MEN of a certain blood line and tribe. This “priesthood” was a blood right, not something you get by handshake.”
This is perfectly true, and we still do not get the Priesthood be handshake. However, in Hebrews chapter seven it states directly that this restriction to the tribe of Levi was changed, or done away with in Christ, thus opening up the priesthood to all men. Actually, the Bible itself shows clearly that this restriction to the tribe of Levi could not have been in place at all times, or in all places. After all, Melchizedek was a High Priest, and he lived long before the tribes of Israel ever existed. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, is called a Priest, thus showing that he held the priesthood, and he wasn’t even an Israelite. So, while there was a time in which the priesthood was restricted to only one tribe in Israel, this restriction was not always in place, and was ended in Christ. All very biblical doctrine.
Shem,
I know you think you know the Bible, but you dont. You need to read the Bible as a whole and all the verses that speak on this subject.
Here are some verses to read
I know Matthew 13:30 is not much, but in that case you can go and re-read the entire chapter, You cannot say this is my opinion or how I view it, The disciples stated they did not understand and asked Jesus to explain it to them.
He said the tares are the wicked, and they will be thrown in the furnace and burned forever.
No place does it state this torment will end after a certain amount of time.
Read about the Rich man in torment and Abraham talking with Him. The Rich man in torment makes no mention of his suffering and torment ever ending, so as a result he asked if Abraham would send someone to warn his brothers. Abraham never said, dont worry, you will be out soon.
Then read Jude,
Notice the words, Vengeance of ETERNAL FIRE, and Blackness and Darkness forever.
Then also you can read Certain groups of People are listed as never being allowed to enter heaven, If you dont enter heaven, then you enter the lake of fire. You can also read more in Revelation, the Beast and false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire, a thousand years later, satan is tossed in where the beast and false prophet are still being tormented. No mention of them ever getting out. Deny all you want, but you will find yourself here along with everyone else who follows the false prophet of JS and his false god that he created.
Shem
Why is it when you have no answer to your critics your only response is to distort what they say & to play with words? Do you think that by so doing you will appear to have an answer? You have accused me of many things Shem but now you have added liar to the list simply because I respond to your distortions & then, to cap it all, you claim to be a Christian
Oceancoast asked me this
Where did shem or any other LDS say the definition of Apostasy was the “loss of priesthood authority”?
I answered him by quoting what you had said to me.
Now you come back at me with this
“Now, let us clear one thing up. I never defined the term Apostasy as a loss of the priesthood. I explain the doctrine of the Great Apostasy as being a time in which the priesthood had been lost and that the authority to lead the church was no longer on the earth.”
So, in order that we may be clear on this once & for all I’ll quote you again, then perhaps you will stop accusing me of lying & will instead accept that you have distorted what was said.
“you simply do not understand what the apostasy is. You are making the false claim that apostasy means a loss of all faith, or basically, anything connected to the truth. This is a false understanding. Apostasy is the loss of the power of the priesthood, and the resulting loss of the ordinances of salvation.”
Anyone who cares to check if this is true may find it under the topic ‘I love talking to Ex-Mormon Atheists’ it was posted on 21 March at 9:02
By the way, I’m still waiting for an apology from Ocean who also implied that I was lying.
Shem,
It seems like you are missing the point entirely.
The point of the temple was to sacrifice and have access to God. Once Christ died, he replaced the temple. He is how we, an unclean people, can come into the presence of a Holy God. The temple no longer serves a purpose because the ultimate sacrifice has already been made. We can come into the presence of God anywhere now. Jesus says he is the temple. He prophesied that he would be destroyed (bodily) and rebuilt in 3 days(the resurection). ALSO the distraction of the temple coincides with the Messiah (Jesus Christ) because it would no longer be necessary. Why would we need a temple? This is why the priesthood can be given to anyone. The entire premise of the Mormon temple is unbiblical and makes degrades what Jesus did. It puts the vail back up between God and man, where God tore it down. This is not a misinterpretation because the context expresses exactly what it meant. Also, Jerusalem is where the one and only temple is to be. FAIR LDS tries to claim that there were multiple temples, this is a flat out lie. The temples they talk about were all pegan temples. For example, the temple at tel arad had a statue dedicated to “the queen of heaven” and was used to worship Baal, this temple is rebuked twice by Jeremiah for it’s idolatry. Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-25. There were synagogs enacted as places for worship during the babylonian captivity but there was still to be one, and only one temple. The Jewish people still sit at the western wall and cry, the understand the significance of the temple. That is why Jesus is so vital, if we could better understand the temple we would better understand what he did for us. The LDS temple is not the temple of God. The whole temple secrecy is designed to make people feel important and better then others. “We’ve been through the temple” or “I am temple president” or “We are temple workers” are words that within the LDS culture cultivate deep respect and admiration, in some cases envy. You know, as long as you tithe faithfully your going to get a temple recommend because you can lie your way into getting one. We’ve had many friends who have done that to get their temple wedding. That just proves how much the temple is for show more than anything else.
As quoted earlier in regards to the Trinity, Mormons just can’t let this penetrate their bubble enough to explain it:
I’m still waiting for an explanation. Before attacking the Christian Trinity, Mormons should explain why Jo and his followers believed in it, even after Jo claimed that God told him not to in 1820….
Kate said to Ocean : ” …you have one great big imagination.” I think that is a pretty good
assessment on most of what he has said in the last week . His antagonism is out on the table
and he bolsters that with innuendo’s and faulty reasonings about the beliefs of others here.
His calling others here ” so called Christians ” is’nt surprising . Some of his leaders have said
Mormons are THE true christians . Now this discriminatory doctrine of his joins others
from his leaders ,an example being the Mormon trinity dogma . Mormons like Ocean must
rant against ministries like MRM because to many people have a chance to see the rest of
the story about Mormonism and therefore can make an informed decision on whether to join
or whether to stay in .
Now this week is special , this coming Sunday we get to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus !
The reason we look to the Bible is that it is the scriptural foundation of Christianity.
We are committed to the New Testament record of the life, death , and resurrection of Jesus
Christ . It’s been said that the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps the greatest miracle and
glorious fact of history attested to by evidence more conclusive than that which rests our
acceptance of historical events in general . Many people saw Jesus alive after His crucifixtion.
This N.T. record account of Jesus has been protected down through the centuries so that we
may have it today and so we should thank God every day for the documentation of fact
provided in the N.T.
But for this truth to be of benefit to a person it has to be embraced , and to know of it’s truth
is something the Holy Spirit can confirm in the hearts of those reading the N.T. record .
Rom 10:9-13 .
So for those reading this who may be wondering if Mormonism is the path to receive God’s
fullest blessings and eternal life , just remember that Mormon leaders have come to late on
the scene . The preaching of the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection by His apostles
long ago resulted in multitudes surrendering to Him and receiving forgiveness and eternal
life , and their message still does today — Matt 11:28 ; Heb 7:25.
He has risen !!!
Hey guys, back in town again, thought i would check in. I haven’t read the stuff after i left, but I wanted to touch on a few things from before I left.
About Doctrine. Some of you claim that our standard works do not contain all the doctrine of our church, but they do in fact. I think what some people are confused over, like Jaxi, is the difference between a practice and a doctrine. For example, baptism. The actual act of baptism is a practice, based on the doctrine of obedience to God’s commandments. So, do we find a detailed set of instructions on how to perform a baptism in the Bible? No. So do we say that baptism as a doctrine is not in the bible? No, of course not. We believe that baptism brings remission of sins and one is taking the name of Christ upon them. That is part of the doctrine. Yet the act of baptism is a practice. Likewise, what about circumcision? Is circumcision a doctrine? No, it is a practice, like baptism, based on a doctrine of obedience with symbolic gesture. Practices can change if the Lord wills them, like in the case of circumcision and the Law of Moses.
Temple Worship. Doctrine or practice? Same as baptism. The command to be baptized is in the scriptures. The command to go and worship in the temple is in the scriptures. Now like baptism, the detailed act of how that worship is performed is practice. So Jaxi, the doctrine of temple worship not in LDS standard works? Really? It is, as are actually the covenants made in the temple. A doctrine of the temple would be eternal marriage and sealing is found in D&C. The exact words and the act of doing it? Practice. The covenants made in the temple? Found in D&C, not like you want them i guess, but the laws and covenants are all in D&C. The actual act of accepting them, practice.
Not sure how many of you are x-members. I believe Kate and Jaxi have both said they were. I would have expected you to know the difference between practice and doctrine. A practice can change, but doctrine, once received and canonized by the prophet in lds scripture, that is eternal. Someone was touching on polygmany. Again, the standard works hold our doctrine. The doctrine? Eternal marriage. A practice of eternal marriage? Polygamy. As stated very clearly in our scripture, polygamy was a commandment that could be instituted by God, and could stopped by God. Even in D&C it says that more was to be revealed pertaining to that law. More was revealed. It was stopped.
My purpose here on this site, is not to convince you that Mormonism is true. My purpose is to simply explain to you our beliefs, because some x-mormons here do not know the beliefs they claim to have been a part of. It is easy to be a member of any church and just lazily go through the motions. It is not unique to Mormonism, and i would say is less the case than it is in “Christianity” as a whole where most of my friends go to church at easter and christmas. And it is not a knock on the people that practice that way. Likewise, certainly it would be funny to assume anyone would change religions as a matter of discussion over a forum. I am sure your beliefs are deeply rooted, as are mine. I am sorry if sometimes i get attack-like here. I can get frustrated as much as any of you, especially when I get 6 or 7 people all with a different point to make. This site though, it is wholly an attack on mormonism, and it is funny to claim anything different.
What i find most ridiculous is the claim that people that are not members, trying to tell other members what they believe in their own church. I am curious about who else might have been a member on here, but some people here are pretty adamant in not wanting to state their religions affiliation. It seems to me that most of the discussion here is based more on mormon culture, commonly held mormon myth, than on any real substance.
fightinglee,
I do understand the difference between practice and doctrine. My point was that you trust the leaders of the LDS Church to tell you how to practice. How do you know they are teaching you right? When they give their “opinions” on scriptures, sometimes it is considered doctrine and sometimes it is just their opinion. LDS say some leaders are giving their opinion even when the leader meant it as doctrine. Brigham Young was clearly not giving his opinion, he believed he was giving doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith sure didn’t sound like he was giving his opinion on blacks never being able to have the priesthood before Christ came. These men weren’t saying things like, I believe and this is my opinion… They were teaching it as if it were truth. And the members believed it as being truth. So if you can’t trust the LDS leaders to give you accurate interpretations on scripture and doctrine, how can you trust that they give accurate interpretation on practices? Maybe the “saving ordinances” in the temple are just opinion after all.
This is just bunk. Lee, you really are in a bubble. You have your OWN ideas about what Mormon “beliefs” are. You believe the parts of it you want to believe and discard the rest. You have little grasp of the historical context of Mormonism, or how it applies to modern Mormonism. You don’t know what doctrine is, nor do you understand the statements of authorities explaining it. You come here and criticize us Ex-Mormons, but we know a LOT more about the church and its doctrines than you do. That is a fact. Your little foray into “practice” and doctrine is hilarious. Baptism for the Remission of sins is a DOCTRINE of the church. I quote,
Young also called polygamy a DOCTRINE, REVEALED FROM HEAVEN, and that like BAPTISM it would NEVER be revoked:
In 1866 polygamy was nowhere to be found in the scriptures. It was not put into the D&C until the 1870’s. How then, was it a DOCTRINE, Lee? By your expert assessment of what Mormon DOCTRINE is, Young then is a liar. So is Jo Smith and everyone that practiced it until it was canonized in the 1870’s. (or at the very least 1852 when they publicly acknowledged it). How do you explain that, and of course the priesthood ban which is also called DOCTRINE in 1949:
Where is the MODERN scripture that gives the approval for this DOCTRINE? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. And your insinuation that all ex-Mormons just “lazily went through the motions” is just a straw man that ignorant people like you delight in repeating to assuage your ego over not understanding, comprehending or being able to coherently explain Mormon DOCTRINE. This site is a REVELATION about Mormonism, the Mormonism you don’t understand and never will. It is the true Mormonism, the one you reject for the watered down platitudes of modern Mormon “prophets” and your own skewed and distorted interpretation of it.
Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… Doctrine -> -> -> Practice… get it yet? Things have to be a DOCTRINE FIRST. Did I get through the bubble? Probably not since you think all quotes from your “prophets” (which we constantly repeat here in REVELATION LAND) are only “myth” to you.
So, to you, what I’ve quoted is Mormon “myth”. Thank you for affirming that the words of your “prophets” are nothing more than that. Stay in the bubble Lee, you obviously couldn’t make it in the real world.
Jaxi,
Mormons like Lee don’t – and never will – understand the term “oracles of God”. This term and its uniquely Mormon definition are beyond the comprehension of some modern members of the church.
Fightinglee
If by ‘attack’ you mean presenting the truth then I happen to agree with you that this site is attacking the LDS Corporation; I hope you can understand that when a Christian believes something to be totally false & defamatory to Christ then it is incumbent upon that person to attempt to prove it to be false. That isn’t to say that the attacks are personal they are not although sometimes it may appear to be that way. Week after week I have been attacked by Mormons, my intelligence has been called into question, I’m told I have no understanding & that I ‘don’t have the spirit’ I have been insulted in many different ways so please don’t talk about Mormons being attacked on a Christian site without first looking at the attitude of the LDS members.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here
“What i find most ridiculous is the claim that people that are not members, trying to tell other members what they believe in their own church. I am curious about who else might have been a member on here,
If I understand you correctly you are saying that only Ex Mormons are in a position to criticise the LDS although for the life of me I don’t know why you would think that.
“but some people here are pretty adamant in not wanting to state their religions affiliation”
Why don’t you say who those people are & more to the point explain what you mean by ‘affiliation’? Perhaps you could also explain why it’s necessary to be affiliated to an organization.
Anyway, in case I’m one of the people you’re pointing a finger at I’ll give you a little info on myself; I have never been a member of the Corporation, I have seen the misery caused by the LDS to people very dear to me & those things convinced me more than anything else that the Mormon faith is a false religion led by a false prophet. As for my affiliation, I’ve already explained a couple of times that I am a member of the Body of Christ & that’s all the affiliation anyone could ever need.
Grindael,
Thanks for your thoughts. You quoted this:
” we must believe in the doctrine of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”
The doctrine of baptism, as is stated, is not contrary to what I am saying. Is there a doctrine in Baptism? Yes, i said there was. The doctrine is the remission of sins, as that statement says. The ACT of baptism. The actual act, is not doctrine, it is practice. You seem to have totally misunderstood what I wrote. Baptism can certainly be called a doctrine if you are generalizing Baptism as a concept, but I was speaking about the ACT, the actual going into the water. English buddy. An act would be the actual peformance, an action, of the doctrine. So the actual baptizing is a practice, an act, yes, based on the doctrine of what baptism symbolizes.
about BY and polygamy. i have already made that point here. Not everything BY said is doctrine. It is not accepted as Doctrine and BY did not cannonize it or add it to the standard works that we we accept as doctrine. You dont like that answer. Oh well. That is my answer, and that is the church’s stance. They have laid out the church’s doctrine, and it does not include every word that exits a prophets mouth. That is not considered Church doctrine.
D&C 132 was recorded in 1843. You are right that it was not included in the original D&C. However, it was recorded as a revelation, and Joseph Smith did command it be practiced. It was a practice. Again, my answer to your point about negroes, is leaders error. It was not doctrine as we understand doctrine. It was practice. Other prophets like McKay corrected his word usage as practice and not doctrine.
You may not like the answers, but they are not difficult questions. Prophets error and make mistakes. Doctrine is in the standard works. Polygamy is a practice of the Doctrine of Eternal Marraige. The book of mormon states clearly the view on Polygamy. It was instituted and it was revoked. Simple.
Lee, you said:
Then why did you even state the first analogy? Your conclusion is non sequitur. Mormon bubble logic. Right there, you said that Baptism is not really a doctrine. I proved you wrong. It is. There is a teaching/doctrine ABOUT Baptism itself, not “keeping the commandments” as you state. I understand English perfectly, and you said there is a DIFFERENCE between a PRACTICE and a DOCTRINE then used BAPTISM as an example. Baptism IS a PRACTICE, but it was a DOCTRINE before it was a PRACTICE. (Baptism is for the remission of sins). You don’t seem to get this.
You then erroneously apply this to polygamy, which is a DOCTRINE, then a PRACTICE. That is why there is a saying that goes, “You PRACTICE what you PREACH.” You are trying to be slick here, but it won’t work. You try to “clarify” but all you are doing is trying to mitigate your own illogic and bad analogies.
As for your total lack of understanding about doctrine, it again rears its head with your statement that McKay “corrected” G.A. Smith. McKay was one of the First Presidency that signed that 1949 First Presidency Statement, along with J. Reuben Clark. I bet you didn’t even know that. So did McKay correct himself? That makes it even worse. That is why you can’t trust Mormon “prophets”. They are as bad as Mitt Romney was during the election, another Mormon who lied constantly. (He must have been taking lessons). And then we have YOUR OWN STATEMENT which you just contradicted:
There was no polygamy “revelation” in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1843. Nor was there a Doctrine to ban the priesthood from blacks. There was a DOCTRINE that said that marriage was between ONE man and ONE woman. According to your own faulty logic, Jo contradicted this DOCTRINE with his new “revelation” that said he could break it without getting it approved as DOCTRINE. In your world, this doesn’t work, but then you live in a bubble where you make arbitrary changes to your own “rules”. You can’t have it both ways.
Brigham Young taught that Adam-god was a ‘revelation” in the same exact way that Jo taught polygamy was a “revelation”. Just like Jo, he didn’t need to have it approved by the church for it to be a doctrine. But not according to you, or modern Mormon “prophets” who now lie about what doctrine is so they can reject whatever they want to and class it as “folklore”. If we use the same criteria, we must also reject polygamy and the priesthood ban, to name two.
You may not like the truth, and these are not difficult concepts to understand unless you live in a bubble and make up whatever you want. Then we have the Book of Mormon doctrine. What was it? The Book of Mormon states
And THEN it states,
But we have Mormons like OC denying that Jo had sex with his wives! So that excuse is out the window, even though that is the STATED INTENT OF POLYGAMY. But according to you and modern Mormon “prophets” it can’t be re-instituted as a DOCTRINE without a church vote and put back into scripture as BINDING. When did that happen, Lee? Not until 1876. But they left in the One man, One woman DOCTRINE until 1921! Talk about a MASS OF CONFUSION! Then they ban polygamy and leave that in the scriptures and remove what they are practicing now, the One Man One Woman Doctrine! How crazy is that?
It was NEVER accepted as doctrine by the church because they HID IT FROM THE CHURCH. So everything BEFORE THEN was breaking the BINDING COMMANDMENT to have only ONE husband and ONE wife. Your argument is silly and you are being foolish. Your doctrinal “rules” make no sense and only apply to what you want them to apply to. Everything else you just ignore or try to explain away with your own opinion which literally means NOTHING.
And we can use the same argument for a recorded “revelation” by John Taylor in 1882 which stated that polygamy would NEVER be revoked, and another one in 1889 by Woodruff that said the same thing. They ONLY reason that the Mormon God changed his mind is that the U.S. had more power than he did, and took away all the Church’s property. This is how fickle and powerless the Mormon God is. He is only the invention of Jo Smith.
As for McKay, in a 1969 First Presidency Statement they affirmed that the priesthood ban was a “revelation” and therefore doctrine:
But according to your faulty logic, the fictional statement you ascribe to David O. McKay wouldn’t matter anyway because if it’s not in the Standard Works it’s not doctrine and therefore only his opinion. Mormon bubble logic at its best. You are once more, wrong about what YOU perceive as Doctrine. It was never considered a “policy” until the reinvention of Mormon doctrine in the 1970’s and 1980’s, another proof that your “prophets” are not prophets at all.
You can’t back up your generalized statements with the facts. This is of course bubble logic. What Mormonism is to LEE, is not what it is at all. It’s a mass of confusion that makes no sense at all. Your own flip flopping and weird interpretation proves this beyond all doubt.
Old Man
I never said you were a liar. I said you had misunderstood my words. Now, I know you are quoting me, but that is taking the quote out of context. The discussion was about the time of the Great Apostasy, as you claimed that our belief in that doctrine some how negated Christ’s work. I was talking in this context, and my words need to be understood in this context.
In the part of my words that you quote I state this when I say “you simply do not understand what the apostasy is.” Notice that I put the article ‘the’ before apostasy, indicating that I am not talking about the general word, but a specific event that is characterized by the word. Late I do say simply apostasy, but I do so with the understanding that I am still talking about the same subject.
So, I apologize if the wording I used was confusing, leading you to draw the wrong conclusion of my intention. I merely wanted to clarify this, not call you a liar.
Brewed
I didn’t miss your point at all. I got it very clear. My point is that yours is not the only reasonable interpretation of scripture. No the context does not express exactly what you claim. The context just as easily supports what I stated. As to the priesthood, that only makes sense if that restriction was in place from the beginning, and it wasn’t. That restriction is unique to the time of Moses and the nation of Israel. Before the time of Moses there was no such restriction, which is why it was done away with in Christ, just like all the other things that were added at the time of Moses were done away with.
Nothing you give is any more reasonable than what I say, and has no more support in the Bible.
Rick
I am very familiar with all the scriptures you site, and none of them change anything.
You are right that Matthew 13 does not say they will come out after a certain time. However, you may also notice that it does say they won’t either. All it says is that at the end of the world they will be cast into the fire. Thus this scripture neither confirms nor denies what I have said.
Yet we must also note that this is speaking the end of the world, which Matthew 24: 3 puts at the Second Coming, before the thousand year millennial reign. In Revelation 20: 13, where we read of the spirits coming out of hell, it is talking about after this millennial reign, and thus is talking about a different time. So, at the end of the world when Christ returns and destroys the wicked, the wicked, as tares, will be cast into the fire, which is hell. After the Millennium those spirits that have been cast into Hell will be brought out of hell to be judged according to the books.
Speaking of Jude, in verse 7 it refers to eternal fire, thus showing that it is the fire that is eternal, not the vengeance, or the punishment, and is thus in perfect agreement with what I said. Now, verse 13 speaks of the blackness of darkness being reserved forever. This does not say that the wicked will always be in this darkness, but that this darkness will always be a place for the wicked. Again, in perfect agreement with what I said.
Lastly, let us consider the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. This tory was told by Christ to illustrate the current condition of those in the Spirit World; some being at rest in the paradise of Abraham’s Bosom, other in torment in prison. However, after Christ’s death, and before his resurrection, he went and “preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3: 19) fulfilling the prophecy that he would open “the prison to them that are bound.” (Isaiah 61: 1) Nowhere in the Parable does it teach that the conditions depicted would never change; only that at that time they couldn’t.
Now, you make some other claims, but since you give nothing to actually support them I will not address them at this time. I have answered your questioned, whether you are satisfied with the answer or not is really not my problem.
Rick
Here is the challenge you gave. I saved it for just such an occasion.
“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.”
Here is Acts 17: 11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
And here is 1 Peter 3: 15 “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”
Now let us look at your question on this blog.
“So can you tell me everything that is found in the BoM that if I follow and believe will get me nearer to God than the Bible?”
Now, both these ask us to pit the Book of Mormon against the Bible. Both ask us to show what the Book of Mormon offers that the Bible doesn’t. You are right that the older one is based off Bruce R. McConkie, and this latest one off Joseph Smith, but they are asking essentially the same thing. They are say “Show us truth in the Book of Mormon that is not found in the Bible.” They are both word traps for this very reason, based off the same approach to the discussion, and both demanding the same answer. They may be worded different, but they are essentially the same question.
Shem,
I know this bothers you and it really annoys you that you know I am right, but thats just life.
You keep claiming I am laying a word trap that cannot be answered, here is the problem, It was YOUR prophet JS and your teacher Bruce Mc that said these things, not me that said them.
Now if what your Prophet said and Bruce said is true, then I am only saying what they said and it is not a word trap. If what they said is false, then you tell me here and now it was false of what they said, either way we have a problem.
The problem is, If it is true, you cannot answer me and have to claim it’s a trap. If it is false, then your prophet and teacher taught false things and thats an issue. Either way this is your problem not mine since it was not me that taught this stuff or said it.
Shem,
The purpose for the priesthood in your mind is what?
Purpose for the temple?
Purpose for Christ’s death?
Significance of his resurrection?
What is hell? What is Heaven? Who goes there?
Hebrews 7:25; 9:12, 25–28; 10:10–12.
Acts 7:48
John 2:19
Revelation 21:22–23
None of this makes sense however unless you truly understand the purpose of the temple. I gather that you do not.
Where is it ever indicated that the purposed of the temple was to seal a marriage? Baptize for the dead? Lift your hands and do handshakes? Reenact the fall? Mormons are the only ones to ever do this.
On top of that the purpose of the veil was to separate man from God. I think it is fitting that Mormons put the veil back up. Seems they want to separate from God and negate what Jesus has done for them by creating their own way to heaven. This is where it gets confusing. What is heaven to Mormons anyway? Because according to the bible, Heaven is the eternal presence of God. You fall asleep and wake up in heaven. There is no intermediate, holding space. There are not multiple levels through which we gradually become closer to God through works, no gradual becoming of gods. What are Angles too?
God’s words says they are separate created beings yet mormons seem to think they are humans become angels. I see no evidence of that in God’s word..
The entire LDS premise makes it impossible to fully grasp the temple, the atonement, and the doctrine of the afterlife. Even when you read the Bible, you view it through a distorted lens because you are only trying to see what proves your religion right whilst disregarding any contradictions as mistranslations. BTW a totally unfounded declaration. If it the Bible is as grossly mistranslated as it would have to be for the LDS doctrine to be true. That would make God a liar and I do not believe in a God who lies. He says his word will not pass away. Not even a jot or tidal.
When I say you are missing the point, I mean you are not able to see the truth even though it is plain as day, right in front of you.
We cannot both be correct. Just as the Bible and BOM (and all LDS doctrine for that matter) cannot both be the correct word of God.