Posted on 11/17/2010 12:37:04 PM PST by Colofornian
Source? Proof?
Anything besides your burning bosom testimony will do.
Things like archaelogical evidence, etc.
"You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures."
Uh huh, sure. Anti's and any who question mormonism accused of being accessories to murder and arson? Compared to Gadianton robbers? Compared to pigs? Being Atherosclorotic? Sociopaths? Behaving like swine? Being dishonest? Yammering mocking demons? Spewers of hate? Vermin? Twisted thinkers? Slanderers? Liars?
No antagonizing, no disrespect or insulting going on here is there? And each time a mormon poster is called on their comment, silence. No admission of responsibility. Nothing.
"That's a Christlike thing to do right?"
"Yeah I don't think so either."
"It does speak volumes about them though."
Yes, yes it does.
Btw, thanks for giving me another in a long list of opportunities to post these.
Here are some ex-mormon sites for perusing...
For any "lurkers" or "seekers of truth", by all means, "DO read this stuff" (mormonism) and then sit with your pastor, preacher, etc. and discuss what you have read with them and have them show you the "Truth" or at least explain things in their proper context.
Why do I bring up context? Unlike the vast majority of Christian pastors, many mormons, mormon leaders, bishops, stake presidents, etc., have no formal education in theology or the scriptures, especially the Bible, outside of their BoM. As evidenced numerous times here on FR, when a mormon has been presented with Biblical scripture in proper context, the discussion dies or is deflected. Mormons are taught to rely upon the "burning in the bosom" for affirmation.
A few of us on this board have escaped mormonism. But to say we "misrepresent", "twist" or "lie" in regards to our experiences as mormons without providing evidence or proof, well, I would say that just about says all you need to hear about how ex-mormons are treated by some mormons.
If you have any questions, just ask one of us and we'll do our best to answer your questions.
Meanwhile back in reality...
Um, no...
See the real God is much more competent than the LDS made up man-god.
The real God doesn't loose a Church within 2-300 years when he clearly said even the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it...
He doesn't pick out a plagiarizing con artist who made up fairytales about the Indians being Jews or tried to pass off a Egyptian funeral scroll as 'Christian" scripture as one of his Prophets...
The facts are clear, it is not that any one person is saying it, it is that it is true that makes it so. The proof is all around us. Or in the case of the LDS myths and such, the fact that it is not anywhere around us...
One must be simple to even consider it to be a fact!
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
That's nice Norm, and there is a place for that, but the truth is that this thread (and others like it) is not the place for that.
This thread is not for holding hands and finding similarities - it's for holding Mormon doctrine up to the light of Christianity and seeing all the deceptions, falseness, subterfuge and power-grabbing. It is America and so far we all have a right to believe whatever we like and worship as we please. Nobody is taking that away from you.
But if you call yourself Christians when you are so plainly not, be prepared for a fight. Because you are going to get one.
...to your mom!
Hi TM4,
I am very used to my faith being not being considered Christian. Personally I’m not offended by the charge — however I do think it is important for accuracy’s sake to refute it.
I know that I, and my fellow Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, the only means by which we can be cleansed of sin and raised from the dead to dwell eternally in the presence of the Father and the Son.
I’m well aware of the arguments that we believe in “another Christ”. The Christ we worship and rely on is the One whose life and teachings are found in the pages of the New Testament — and who we believe also ministered to other of his sheep in the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon. We believe this same Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him to be the instrument through whom the fullness of the Gospel was restored to the earth in these latter days.
Some people seem to think that if you believe that there are other recordings of the doings and sayings of Jesus outside books of the Bible you can’t be a true Christian. I guess I’ll let people define a Christian as they see fit, but to me a Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ, and by that definition Mormons most certainly qualify.
Best regards,
Normandy
You nailed it on the head. You have false teachings, false prophets, and false "scriptures". Your doings and sayigs of Jesus are lies.
I guess I'll consider such statements as indicative of ignorance about the Christian faith - not that I ever thought otherwise in your case.
(#1): I guess I’ll let people define a Christian as they see fit...
Are you likewise comfortable with, say, a fundamentalist Mormon who advocates polygamy and let's say, also arranged "marriages" for 13 or 14 yo...to be able to define themselves as "Mormon?" [To clarify here: I'm not asking you if you are comfortable with either polygamy, or young teens being forced into sexual relationships...I'm asking if you're comfortable that such people can self-define as "Mormon"]
(#2) ...to me a Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ, and by that definition Mormons most certainly qualify.
Do you label the following gurus and groups as "believers in Jesus Christ?"
* Transcendental Meditation?
* Unification Church?
* Christian Science?
* Jehovah's Witnesses?
* The "Jesus" of the Marharishi of TM is a Jesus who never suffered.
* The "Jesus" of Guru Maharaj Ji supposedly merged with Krishna, Ram and Buddha.
* The only difference between the Moonie "jesus" and the rest of us, says, Sun Myung Moon, is that Jesus had no original sin nature.
* The "Jesus" of Christian Science think of themselves as "Christian," yet they don't believe Jesus is God.
* The "Jesus" of the Jehovah's Witnesses is not Almighty and is "a god," but not "THE" God; nor did He bodily resurrect.
* The "Jesus" of many gnostics would in no way incarnate a human body -- because that to them would be too "corrupt" of a thing to do.
* The "Jesus" of Brigham Young is one redeemer-savior among who knows how many? "He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. On every earth. How many earths are there?...Consequently every earth has its redeemer..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, p. 71, 1870) [IOW...'tis not a whole lot "unique" in this Mormon jesus compared to who knows how many other "saviors" on other planets]
* The "Jesus" of Mormonism is a pre-existent spirit-creature; a son of a God-man whose next-in-line brother is "Lucifer/Satan" -- a "Jesus" who had to work out his own salvation; and whose blood didn't cover all of our personal sins (thereby rendering him as an incomplete, inadequate "savior").
How can all these "Jesuses" be the same One all of the above groups confess and profess? Are you telling us that you profess/confess to a Jesus who...
...suffers as well as a TM "Jesus" who doesn't?
...resurrects bodily & a JW "Jesus" who doesn't?
...transcends us in every way & a Moonie "Jesus" who only transcends us sin-wise?
...is united with the Father & the Spirit vs. a Hindu offshoot/New Age "Jesus" who merges as part of a divine flame or divine ocean?
...is THE fully-God, fully-man incarnate son of God vs. a less-than-human embodied gnostic "Jesus"?
...is THE Savior vs. a Mormon "Jesus" who competes with ALL kinds of "saviors" on other planets (per Brigham) & ALL kinds of "saviors" on THIS planet (per Lds "prophet" John Taylor's description of Baptism of the dead "saviors")??
...is THE Creator vs. a Mormon "Jesus," a mere spirit-creature?
...is THE Savior vs. a Mormon "Jesus" who is touted by Lds leaders as a "saved being?"
...created Lucifer (Col. 1:16-17) vs. a Mormon "Jesus" who "lucked out" on being ahead of Lucifer spirit-birth assembly line, only because of spirit-birth order???
...died BOTH for our sin nature AND ALL of our personal sins vs. a Mormon "Jesus" who didn't?
By your definitions, we'd have to define JWs, Christian Science, Moonies, New Age adherents, & all the rest as "Christians," too!
And to add some irony, here the Mormons actually have such a sense of boundary identity, they don't like it when fundamentalist LDS are identified as "Mormons!" But with so many Christians saying all these groups embrace the same "Christ," why by obvious extension...they regard all these groups as "Christians," too (even if we all know not all are Christians in them).
This is the 'Gumby' Jesus you profess faith in? (I guess we see how "broad" your confession & profession really is, Norm)
(Oh, & 'good luck' with helping others sort out who is the real Jesus is then by embracing such a dualistic Jesus as highlighted by the one-world religionists!)
Hi Colofornian,
If someone believes that eternal salvation is only available through Jesus Christ I would consider them a Christian.
That doesn’t mean that there is doctrinal agreement between every Christian , but I think as a general description it is accurate.
Regarding the term Mormon. Usually when people use the term “Mormon”, they refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — a specific denomination.
There are, as you know, a number of groups that have broken off from from the main branch of the LDS Church over the years and I think for clarity’s sake it is important to distinguish between the specific groups when discussing them.
Regards,
Normandy
Normandy, that's why I brought this up...consistency considerations...
I can say the same thing applied to Christians...here's your words in italics below...I've changed a few them simply to 'Christian' to see if you allow for us to maintain the same boundaries you want to exercise for 'Mormon':
"Regarding the term Christian. Usually when people use the term 'Christian,' they refer to members of the worldwide historic Christian church as emerging in history through the Catholic and Orthodox churches and the "daughter" of Catholicism, Protestantism -- three-in-one specific branches (like our 3-in-1 God) as opposed to heretical sects.
There are, as you know, a number of groups that have broken off from from the main branches of the Christian church over the years and I think for clarity’s sake it is important to distinguish between the specific groups when discussing them.
Therefore...
...Why are Mormons afforded "clarity's sake" distinctions...
...But the three historic branches of the Christian church are not?
Apparently, you vie for this...
...Extreme fuzziness when it comes to "Christian"...
...But extreme "clarity" when it comes to "Mormon."
Normandy, I consider you as someone who strives for integrity...and in constrast to that, I see here a departure in favor of "two-faced" standards.
If you were talking to who?
The only people who are talking to you here aren't so naive.
The terms "Mormon" and "Mormonite" were first used in the 1830s as pejoratives to describe those who followed Joseph Smith and believed in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.
The term was soon adopted by Mormons themselves, however, and has lost its generally pejorative status. The term "Mormon" is most often used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). However, the term is also adopted by other adherents of Mormonism, including adherents of Mormon fundamentalism. The term "Mormon" is generally disfavored by other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, such as the Community of Christ, which have distinct histories from that of the LDS Church since Smith's death in 1844.
The term is particularly embraced by adherents of Mormon fundamentalism, who continue to believe in and practice plural marriage, a practice that the LDS Church officially abandoned in 1890. Seeking to distance itself from polygamy and Mormon fundamentalism, the LDS Church has taken the position that the term Mormon should only apply to the LDS Church and its members, and not other adherents who have adopted the term. The church cites the AP Stylebook, which states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death." Despite the LDS Church's position, the term Mormon is widely used by journalists and non-journalists to refer to adherents of Mormon fundamentalism.<link>
The official name of the Salt Lake City, Utah-based church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the term "Mormon Church" has long been attached to the church as a nickname, it is an unauthorized title, and its use is not encouraged by the church, although the use of "Mormon" in other contexts is not generally considered offensive and is commonly used by the church's members. LDS Church leaders have encouraged members to use the church's full name to emphasize the church's focus on Jesus Christ. <link>
In the United States, the LDS Church has applied for a trademark on "Mormon" as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term "Mormon" was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to "Presbyterian" or "Methodist", rather than a service mark. <link>
LDS may want all kinds of self-serving redefinitions of words like Mormon or Christian, but the rest of the world (99.999%) can easily see (if they even care) the truth (something deliberately twisted and avoided by Mormon apologists everywhere).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.