Skip to comments.Responding to the “that’s not official doctrine” deflection
Posted on 12/31/2010 9:42:57 AM PST by Colofornian
I spent much of the General Conference weekend downtown doing video interviews for my GodNeverSinned.com project. At one point I shot some video of the missionaries trying to neutralize (hymn-slam?) one of the jeerers outside the Conference Center.
I added annotations to the video as a way of sharing and advertising. One Mormon responded:
Some of the little bubbles displayed randomly during this singing are not true of our beliefs. But, thats how satan teaches by giving half-truths. Hail to the Prophet Joseph Smith!
I asked for specifics, and what follows is the conversation that ensued. She wrote:
Actually, I just watched it again and all of the bubbles contain misinformation. The Book of Mormon outdated? Still contains the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of the church. We also believe in continued revelation. Ruling over planets? No, we dont believe that. We believe we can become LIKE God eternal and perfect. Not gods of our own planets. That especially is not doctrine. Maybe people assume that, but it is not doctrine.
God, angels, demons and humans all being the same species well, in a sense, yes I guess, (except God our Father is on a whole different plane than we are or will ever be.) God our Father created us ALL, and us humans in His image. There are different types of angels spirits who have not come to earth, those who have come here and have been resurrected, those who have come to earth but not resurrected. Demons, I assume, satans followers will never gain a body and were all created as spirit children of God. Just like the rest of us. They chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out along with him and will never live on this earth.
God being a sinner? I would like to see where you come up with that? We have NEVER taught that as doctrine, EVER. God is perfect, all knowing and all loving. We know the true nature of God meaning He is a being. Where His beginning began? We dont know. For us, He has always existed. We do not believe that, that is an absolute flat out lie. See how all these little bubbles contain mixed up truth? And even lies?? Come on. Who do you think the creator of all that IS?
Certainly not the Lord.
Whether the Book of Mormon of 1830 represents contemporary doctrine of Mormonism in 2009 is a matter of opinion. On this issue I recommend this article by a respected Mormon historian.
I live in Utah, and know lots of Mormons. If you would ever like to have lunch with us, Ill pay for your food. My Mormon friends are very up front about the future exaltation and ruling over planets as gods. Notice on this point how I appeal to traditional Mormonism. I chose that language as to not stereotype Mormons.
Your point about God and demons is compatible with my bubble. They are equivalent in species but varied in states and stages of development. My bubble chose careful language on this point.
On the God-as-former-sinner issue, I invite you to see a preview of my video project on that at GodNeverSinned.com. Regardless of it not being an explicit doctrine specifically promoted from the leadership, it is a mainstream (but not uniform) belief according to my research. I chose my language carefully on this, and said many Mormons, not all Mormons or institutional Mormonism explicitly teaches, etc.
Please tell me what you think of the GodNeverSinned.com project. It is entirely made up of video interviews with real Mormons (most of the video work so far was done this past General Conference weekend).
Take care, I look forward to your reply,
I do not wish to go back and forth with you. While your Mormon friends may talk about being gods and ruling over their own planet, it is still an assumption. There is no doctrine stating that, anywhere. Again, many things you point out ARE just assumptions. Not doctrine. No matter. I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs and that is wonderful. I know the gospel is true. This knowledge has come from the Holy Ghost who testifies of truth. Have a lovely day.
I responded anyway (maybe I shouldnt have?):
I didnt say it was formal doctrine. On many of those things I said things like, Many Mormons believe. You failed to distinguish between formal doctrine and actual mainstream beliefs, conflating the two, but when I pointed out that many Mormons actually believe thus stuff, you started distinguishing the two. Does that make sense?
Take care and best wishes,
We are free, of course, to form our own opinions which is where you are getting your information it seems from other Mormons opinions and those are not doctrine. It is just interesting to me that this is how people like you like to discredit or bad-mouth the church not focusing on the REAL doctrine, but from assumptions and opinions of members. Giving half-truths and misconceptions. I know the difference between what Mormons assume and what is doctrine, but others do not. They will read your misconceptions and take that as our doctrine that is where confusion sets in. Oh well. All I can do is share my testimony of the gospel. Satan will continue to try to confuse and mislead people until Christ returns.
I know the gospel is true and that Joseph Smith was his prophet in this last dispensation, and that he restored the fullness of the gospel to the earth. I know the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that Joseph translated those ancient plates through the power and gift of Almighty God. I know Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer and through Him, all things are possible.
Have a great day.
Thanks for writing back.
If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.
Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what constitutes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarrassing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they havent put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,
Well, you are free to form your own opinions, thats fine of course.
I have never been embarrased by what others assume even in the LDS church. They are also free to do so. I know the doctrine and THAT, the doctrine, IS what matters. It actually doesnt matter what other members speculate about because it is just that, speculation.
No matter. The gospel is true.
Have a great day.
But this funny thing happens whenever we tend to quote him...
Why, we Mormons doing cartwheels to avoid treating such statements as "truth."
As Godzilla likes to say, Mormon posters simply toss the old "prophet" "under the bus."
One of the better posts -- perhaps the "Post of the year" in this category -- came from Ejonesie22:
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear....(This is not an official answer...)
Source: The Challenges of (Non-existent?) Mormon Theology Post #24
In this line of thinking, where Brigham Young once said he had never preached a sermon that couldn't be sent out as "Scripture" -- coupled with Mormon defenders who utter
"That's not Mormon doctrine"
"That's not official Mormon teaching"
"That's not canon"
"That's was someone speaking specutatively..."
We review the best 2010 FREEPER threads dealing with treating such history in a rather disparaging way.
(I mean, c'mon, yes, we easily toss away calendars, but to dismiss such history...well...tsk, tsk, tsk):
* "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"
* Brother Brigham forces the LDS reader to ponder some uncomfortable thoughts [321 replies]
* Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth
Ping re: mentions of you in post #1
As I wrote when posting that column:
Ah, the bottom line of Mormonism:
#1 Dont confuse me with the historical facts and historical realities about Joseph Smith, character-wise, or anything else. Why? Cause Ive already made up my testimony feeling-mind about that.
* Joseph Smith was a convicted glass-looker who was arrested again for attempting to shut down free speech in his community. (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* By even Lds apologists own admission, Joseph Smith slept with his semi-adopted 17 yo housekeeper as early as 1831 and by a dozen years later was adding on a wife per month a dozen of them who were already (and still) married to other men! (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* Smith translated an Egyptian funeral document as if it was the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses. (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* Uh, could you please explain how Smith said in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18) that God is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity -- yet right before he died, Smith claimed We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see?? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
#2 Tell us why again, Orson, that the bottom-line conclusion of Mormons or Mormon-wannabes is to focus on a mere imperfect man, Joseph Smith? Why is the burning-in-the-bosom testimony focusing on who the true Prophet of God is -- as if there's only one, anyway?
What? Do Jews focus on Isaiah to the steady frontline bottom line exclusion of the Messiah Isaiah proclaimed in Is. 53?
Is the original OT prophet of God consistently testified about to the exclusion of all other OT prophets?
Do Baptist Christians focus on John the Baptist to the frontline bottom line exclusion of Jesus Christ?
From the article linked in post #1 about Brigham Young: Brother Brigham is not a book critical of the LDS faith, but its very plot forces the honest Mormon reader to confront two uncomfortable thoughts. How many of us, if we had lived in the time of Joseph Smith, would have believed a 14-year-old boy had been visted by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? And, a question perhaps even more difficult to answer, is: Had we been members of the early LDS Church, how many of us would have agreed to ditch our matrimonial covenants and pursue wives half our age? Would we have thought that was of God, or a product of lust? These are not questions that todays Mormons ponder often. In fact, most of us have become quite comfortable scorning fundamentalist polygamist Mormons for their sinful lifestyles.
From the same linked article re: Youn: One day, out of the blue, Brigham Young appears to C.H. and tells him that the LDS Church has slipped into apostasy and that he, C.H., has been called of God to restore the Gospel. Brigham informs C.H. that polygamy must also be restored. Brigham leads C.H. to hidden away money in the desert west of Salt Lake City. The angel, using the same type of language as the Prophet Joseph Smith records in Mormon accounts, pushes C.H. to get things rolling. C.H. reluctantly agrees. He manages to convince his skeptical wife, and then follows the angels commandment to marry Satan-dabbler Sheila, who perhaps not surprisingly given her personality, accepts C.H.s offer. Things start to spiral out of control when Brigham commands C.H. to take an underage ward teen, Cyndy, as a second plural wife.
Hmm...sounds like a 19th century story line...
...Brigham replaces an unnamed "personage"...
...$ instead of "gold plates"...
..."angel, using same type of language as the prophet" replaces gold plates using same type of language as KJV Bible (even though supposedly KJV published thousands of years after some of the BoM gold plate writings)... underage ward teen...well, that was a direct import...Smith's first plural wife was an underage ward teen living at their house. Even Lds apologists say Smith was sleeping with her by 1831.
Do you have a life outside of posting attack articles and comments against America’s most politically conservative Christian religion on a forum designed and devoted to political conservatism? You may have a life outside attacking Mormons, but the evidence here shows otherwise.
Right on target.
'Twas a November day 1831 - 170 years ago...when Smith said:
...this is an ensample unto ALL who were ordained unto this priesthood...and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are 'moved upon' by the Holy Ghost... [v. 4:] And WHATSOEVER they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE SCRIPTURE, ,
shall be the will of the Lord,
shall be the mind of the Lord,
shall be the word of the Lord,
shall be the voice of the Lord...
Do Mormons catch the "shall be scripture" part?
Smith wasn't speaking to just the upper-etchelon "priesthood" parties...no, v. 2 clearly say "ALL" ordained unto the Mormon priesthood!
Any plain, non-esoteric reading of D&C 68:2-4 makes it quite clear that Smith was saying all Lds ordained priests have "scripture-factory" producing power and authority.
?Now IF that's the case, why are you able to focus on part of this verse -- what the Holy Ghost does -- but you, a Mormon who supposedly greatly emphasizes works, doesn't mention what Mormon priests are supposed to do when so moved -- and that is capture "whatsoever they shall speak" as new Mormon "scripture"??
Now why hasn't the Mormon church, the Mormon Melchizedek priesthood, obeyed D&C 68:2-4? (I'll attempt to answer that Q at the bottom)
In fact, why haven't we even seen the "First Presidencies" going back to Brigham obey this? Why, we'd expect at least them to be "scripture" factories, right? Where's all the new canonized "stuff"? (Tucked away in some granite vault in the Wasatch Mtns?)
Why do Mormons tend to only partially acknowledge that the Lord can reveal His will? (Verbally, yes; in ink, as new "scripture," no???)
And Mormons have the gall to get on Christians for not recognizing that God is done speaking?
So Mormons say they alone have the lone true "prophet" of the earth...
...and they are among the "remnant" that believes in continuing revelation...
...And, they say that their "priesthood" has this Smith charge to proclaim new "scripture" per D&C 68:2-4...
...but they don't...??? ...they've disobeyed for 165 years?
Now to answer why the Lds church hasn't obeyed D&C 68:2-4: Why? Because it's a false prophesy. The entire male church holder positions were never meant to be "scripture factories." Anybody who thinks that should be so hasn't thought through the bedlam & chaos that would create. The stife, the confusion, the rebellion, the lack of submission to leadership, the... (I could go on & on).
All anybody has to do is read about the Mormon murders by ex-Lds members (Ron & Dan Lafferty, 1984, in book Under the Banner of Heaven)...to realize the pitfalls of Lds "personal revelation" -- Ron Lafferty went from being a city council member in Highland, UT, a first counselor to an Lds bishop, youth activities' leader, to somebody involved in a "school of prophets" and convited of murder of his sister-in-law and her daughter, along with his brother. [Looks to me like they took Smith's D&C 68:2-4 very seriously]
One who loves truth would never object when his own religion's truth-claims are challenged. In fact, truth-lovers relish the opportunity to discuss their own faith with others, especially when problems arise, because it helps them to hone their own faith to make it better.
On the other hand, when one objects to such challenges by attacking the person himself rather than addressing the objections, it indicates that one has neither the time nor the inclination to examine his own faith in the light of the challenges. This is not the mark of a truth-lover, but rather, that of one who is deceived, and likes it.
My conclusion: There is little point in giving satisfaction to the small, sophomoric, apparent cult-like band who perseverate with their distorted anti-LDS effluent here by even reading or responding to it. It serves little purpose except to encourage contention and more of the same.
Oh puh-lease. The hatemongering attackers here wouldn’t know truth if it hit them in the head. It’s just attack, attack, attack, mock, mock, mock, hate, hate, hate. Don’t defend them and their disgusting behavior.
You are conflating "refutation" with "hatred."
(Good to hear from you)
...on a forum designed and devoted to political conservatism?
Well, as Elsie has been recently saying:
From the [FR] ping intro page:
Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists!
Conservatism is WAY down on the list!
You are conflating their bigotry and hatred with reasoned "refutation" and discourse. I put refutation in quotes, because in their case they're attempting to use lies, mockery, and hate to "refute" something about which they've proven themselves to be ignorant.
Thank you. By your own admission and behavior (anyone can see by checking your posting history) you prove my point that neither you nor Elsie understand the purpose of this site. You actually undermine it by making it an unwelcome place for those who are members of the most politically conservative religion in America. You abuse it for your own hateful agendas, ignoring the purpose and mission of this site.
Give an example of a "lie" they told. And then refute their "lie." That is a much better strategy than hand-wringing.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).
Since their TEACHING reflects the will of the 'Lord', then too, those same TEACHINGS will reflect church doctrine and not contradict it - since it reflects the 'lords' will. Thus any teaching disregarded by mormons are disregarding the will of the 'lord'. Apostle's teachings are included in this as well (see D&C 1:14-16)
If they TAUGHT 'unofficial' doctrine - then they are FALSE TEACHERS and accordingly FALSE PROPHETS iaw mormon doctrine above - pure and simple.
Spiff, you are very welcome here. This is a Free Republic where comments are encouraged, not like Nauvoo where the mayor there (a certain man named "Smith") sent 200 mobocrats to attack & destroy the place.
You abuse it...
Free speech isn't "abuse," Spiff.
(Perhaps you've been indoctrinated by your leaders to the extent that most critical feedback has been muzzled...A when your leaders speak, the thinking's been done mentality).
To get back to your point about a "welcoming place," just because Mormon missionaries have numerous times knocked on my door through the years, and many of them have recited to me their belief in a "universal apostasy" -- indirectly labeling me as an "apostate" -- I don't see their presence as a neighborhood "threat" in that they treat all non-Mormons as "apostates" and sons & daughters of "apostates."
Spiff I won't recite (you wouldn't likely be interested, anyway) in the long litany of comments made vs. Christians and the Christian church by Mormons for all these years.
Just because I can go to Lds.org and other Mormon Web sites 24/7 and pull up all these comments -- does that make all these Web sites "unwelcoming places?"
I don't see how your comments can face the scrutiny of consistent application.
My nomination for the "Best FREEPER 2010 Lds post on "The Mormon 'prophet' will never lead you astray' thread" is: Kimball on Boy Scouts, Vernon Romney and Ezra Taft Benson
When my own particular faith is assailed (which happens a lot) I respond with a few facts and then close by saying that I’m not asking anyone to join the faith I belong to.
That said, Colofornian’s posts present information that, on a discussion forum, should be answered with information. Instead, Colofornians’ case that Mormons evade challenges is met with what, to my eyes, looks like evasion.
Before anoyone goes off thinking I’m anti-Mormon I’d like to say that I have a blog (which I will not ‘pimp’ on FR) and I’d say about 1/3 of my readers are LDS, RLDS, and FLDS. While they may not all get on so well, I like all of them just fine.
That said, if Colofornian challenges your beliefs then meet those challenges with the facts as you see them. Or not. But to simply reply with name calling and etc. is to pour gasoline on a fire.
For people like me, who don’t really care one way or the other on LDS/RLDS/FLDS doctrine and history, what I see so far is Colofornian making an insistent case against the LDS and not much in the way of good argument is being presented in return. Ironically, the responses to his posts from people who are allegedly LDS seem to illustrate his points.
Again, I’m not throwing down on the LDS posters but I am imploring you to make a better case for your faith when you post a response to Colofornian!
Or don’t reply at all.
Whatever you do, at least acknowledge that you can’t logically refute accusations of being evasive and repressive with evasion and repression. I especially cringe for you people when you do these things on behalf of your church and you don’t see what you’re doing.
When I speak on behalf of my faith I think about it carefully because I know that I am a missionary for my faith when I speak for it. I am only imploring the LDS people on here to do the same.
Happy New Year to you all.
You are truly a breath of fresh air 'round here.
(And the kind of objectivity -- that by your mere post -- realized how lacking it's been of late)
Before anoyone goes off thinking Im anti-Mormon Id like to say that I have a blog (which I will not pimp on FR) and Id say about 1/3 of my readers are LDS, RLDS, and FLDS. While they may not all get on so well, I like all of them just fine.
Allow me also to restate...I like Mormons...otherwise, I wouldn't like to converse w/them so much...My Lds relatives -- I love.
Have any of my Mormon relatives or contacts left a "bitter taste" in my mouth at some point in my past? -- as some non-Mormon allies of Mormons oft' accuse me of these threads? (No)
Would I be here if some Mormon immigrant had not come to this country? (No)
Do I respect my Lds ancestors' search for truth? (Yes)
ALL: We are not mere "contenders" of this or that faith. We are neighbors. The apostle Paul said in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood,"
Mormons are not our enemies. Some ex-Mormons will join us in heaven. And I believe some Mormons are heaven-bound well before they officially exit the Church. And if a Mormon adheres to Eph. 6:12, they realize we Christians are not their enemies...though the vicious name-calling Lds leaders have engaged in thru the generations doesn't depict that.
The bottom line is the line given in the George C. Scott film version of A Christmas Carol: Scrooge is closing out his visit with the Ghost of Christmas Past. The scene: They have returned to his room.
The Ghost of Christmas Past says something Scrooge doesn't like. He is offended, and immediately tries to smother this ghost.
What are the parting words from the Ghost of Christmas Past?
God's wrath exists vs. those who "suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18).
It's time to stop suppressing, smothering, squelching & censoring truth.
It's time to face square on what the Ghost of Christmas Past is saying to each of us about our personal pasts -- including our family ID -- as well as our corporate past -- our religious ID.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, I beg you: First face truth head-on -- including historical truth. And whatever that discovery process results in, know that the Living Truth, Jesus Christ (John 14:6), will be with those who acknowledge Him:
Whoever believes in him is NOT condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods ONE and ONLY Son. (John 3:18)
Any other "sons of God" are adopted.
No Other Son of God exists.
The apostle John says our very condemnation -- or lack of it -- hinges on whether we believe in the "one and ONLY Son of God"...
No pre-existent brothers fit. Embrace John 3:18 as you would John 3:16.
To ALL: Have a blessed New Year.
That the mormon god is or is not a sinner thingy...
The mormons believe that their mormon holy ghost did something so naughty that he/she will never get a body...
What the body would be for I dont know...I’m not a mormon...
As a Christian I know that the only time God had a body was when He as the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Word, left Heaven where He had always been and came in the flesh as the LORD Jesus Christ..
However Jesus Himself told us that God is Spirit John 4:24
Well said, Guy!
When reason and history and previous prophets' quote can't be denied, deny it anyway by giving a testimony that they KNOW this and such is true because...well..."it's written on this napkin"!
I don’t get it, when did Mormons become such a big problem in this country, or is this a preemptive strike against Romney?
It does you credit to ping Freepers mentioned in your posts. I think some others might want to follow your example, seems like politeness would do more to persuade. It used to be SOP to ping Freepers if one mentions them.
Since the founding of the Mormon church, it has sent out literally over a million missionaries (52,000 out currently)...most of whom have been sent to Christian-concentrated USA communities.
I would say that in the overwhelming # of those American communities, the % of self-Id'd Christians has ranged from 75 - to even 95% going back to Depression Days, etc.
Now. How much has it cost the Mormon church to do that in terms of training, materials, etc.? ($Millions & $MIllions)
And since Lds families themselves absorb the costs of sending those missionaries out, $millions & $millions more from their bank accounts.
So they spend $millions & $millions & $millions & $millions -- and millions more in man-hours -- all to convince mostly Christians that they are "apostates?"
[That doesn't even cover the hundreds of $millions the Mormon church & its members have spent in genealogical research, storage, travel, loss of man-hours, & temple expenses to "save" the dead -- many of whom are Christians and Jews.,.Obviously, Mormons think pretty piss-poorly of the spiritual state of them to be spending that much $ making them Mormons, dead or alive!]
Now compare a handful of FR posters.
So Mormons spend hundreds of $Millions...and what? No comment from you or others?
And due to some posts at one Web site...you respond in this manner?
Where to begin, where to begin.
In doing a little research, I found that the general conference schedule WAS changed for the SLC Olympics though. Oh, really? So, what kind of research told you that General Conference, which is held in October and April was rescheduled for a Feburary Olympics?
And the lengthy hymns thread. Note the claims that "mentions of the Cross are deleted from mormon versions" followed up with examples from the LDS hymnbook where the cross is mentioned. Or implying that we change or don't sing Christmas hymns. Note my replies in 19, 20, and 21. And the many side discussions (Mormons aren't Christian because they use water instead of wine in the sacrament in posts 28 and 31, or Mormons can't read the Bible very well in 25, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39).
Or this fake letter posted and commented on as if it were real. 127's statement "Further - you cannot claim to have full knowledge that this isnt a valid letter" is funny considering we have the confession of the author that it is a fake.
Christians sing Christmas Carols...about the birth of Jesus..mormons sing Praise the man about Joey Smith... while not an actual lie, certainly is trying to imply that Mormons do not sing Christmas hymns.
There are many folks that post "lies for Jesus" much as they accuse Mormons of the same.
Pinging the ones quoted as a courtesy.
SOMEone has to standup and fight against the HERESY that is MORMONism!
(Do you STILL want to considered CHRISTIAN?)
The arming device seems to have failed.
...this is an ensample unto ALL who were ordained unto this priesthood...and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are 'moved upon' by the Holy Ghost... [v. 4:] And WHATSOEVER they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE SCRIPTURE
Well; Brother Smith (pbuh) may have SAID this; but since IT is not 'scripture' itself, it must not be TRUE!
--MormonDude(Makes sense to ME!)
One day as he was standing admiring this house, he was approached by a very nice-looking gentleman who said to him: "I have noticed you frequently admiring this fine old house. I happen to be the agent for the owner, and I am authorized to sell it, if I can find a buyer." This was, of course, good news to the man, since the more he had looked at the house, the more he wanted it for himself and his family.
The agent took the man into the house and showed him through it, and everything the man saw made him want the house even more. The house was beautifully designed and built, with skill and imagination, in a style which was no longer very popular among most people, but which he and his family had always found attractive. He could picture in his mind how happy and comfortable his family would be there. It seemed that his fondest dream was about to come true. The man bought the house.
Before the man moved his family into the house, he asked the agent about the usual inspections, for termites, dry rot and other possible structural problems. The agent told him that everything had been inspected thoroughly by his staff. "You can take my word for it: this house is sound and solid. It is the finest house in the city!" The man thought for a moment that he should ask to see the inspection reports, but the agent was the kind of person that inspired trust and confidence, and the man had a strong feeling deep in his heart that the agent would not try to deceive him about something so important.
The man and his family moved into their home, and it was even more lovely and comfortable than he had imagined. They invited their friends and relatives to visit them, and they were able to entertain them graciously and hear their guests' praises of their beautiful home.
One evening his brother was visiting. The brother was a meddlesome and sometimes unpleasant person, but the man tried to be gracious to him because he was his brother.
"This is a very lovely old house you have," said the brother.
"Thank you for the compliment," replied the man.
"How is the foundation? Sometimes these old houses have structural problems."
"Don't worry about that," responded the man. "Everything has been inspected and is in good order."
"Who inspected it?"
The man began to get irritated with his brother. "It's really none of your business, but I'll be happy to tell you. The seller's agent had it inspected."
"Did you examine the report yourself?"
This was really going too far, the man felt. But he answered anyway, "I didn't have to. The agent read the reports and told me that they were in order."
"How can you trust the agent that much?" the brother asked, shaking his head.
"I pity you if you have to go through life without trust, without belief, without relying on the goodness of others! Sometimes you just know in your heart that you can trust someone."
The brother said nothing, but got up to leave. "I'll maybe poke around a little outside and look over your foundation. I'm not an expert, but I do have some experience with these things."
"I do not give you permission to go nosing about my house or grounds. You are just looking for something that will give you an excuse to find fault with my home and to spoil my enjoyment of it!"
"I assure you that I am only motivated by my concern for you as my brother. I will not cause any damage." And with that, he left the house.
As he looked around the grounds and examined the house, he had to admit that it was beautiful. But he also knew that paint could hide many problems. Near a corner, in the back, he found a small, almost invisible door that appeared to lead into the basement. It had been sealed shut with a half-dozen screws. He went back inside and asked the man: "Are you aware of the door into the basement which has been sealed shut?"
"Of course I am aware of it!"
"Why is it sealed shut?"
"Because there is absolutely no need for anyone to go into the basement. There is nothing there."
"Have you ever been there?"
"No, of course not! Why would I want to go down there? I'm sure that it's just dank and musty, and there's nothing there."
"I think it would pay to take a look, to check the foundation."
"Absolutely not!" shouted the man. "This is MY house! It is MY basement! I have no interest in going there, and I forbid you to do so! I told you that the foundation has already been inspected. Now please leave me in peace!"
Rather than argue with the man, the brother left. But the sealed door continue to bother him, and the basement which it concealed. A few weeks later, when the brother knew that the man and his family were going to be away for a day or two, the brother took a screwdriver and a flashlight to the man's house and carefully opened the sealed door.
He had to stoop to enter the dark basement. The man had been right: there was nothing down there, except the posts and beams and braces that held up the house. As he crept among them, lighting his way with the flashlight, he noticed that the beams and posts had thick coats of paint. Everything was covered with paint. He took his pocket knife and scraped away the paint in a few spots, and where he had removed the paint, instead of solid wood he found a lacy, delicate framework of worm holes. He scraped away paint from some of the other structural members, in all parts of the basement, and found that the wood fiber was missing in all of them, either having been eaten by worms or termites, or having crumbled with dry rot. He was horrified. Not a single beam or post or brace could be relied on. He wondered what could be holding up the great weight of the house. It seemed to be only the paint which was covering up the rot. He almost imagined he could feel the house settling, having removed the little bit of paint, and he urgently wanted to escape. He found his way to the door, and closed it carefully after he was again in the sunshine. But his mind was troubled.
As soon as the man and his family returned, the brother came to see him. "I have some terrible news for you," he said. He confessed that he had entered the basement, contrary to the man's order. "But I know you will forgive me when I tell you what I found." He then told the man that his entire house was in danger of falling down because of the worms, termites and rot in the structural members in the basement.
But instead of thanking his brother, the man flew into a rage. "You are telling me this only to rob me of the pleasure I have in living in this beautiful house! How can you attack me like this? How can you say such terrible things about a house that is so beautiful? You obviously are my enemy. You are jealous of me because of my house. You have made up these lies with the sole purpose of trying to destroy my happiness and to cast aspersions upon my house, the agent who sold it to me and the people who inspected it and pronounced it sound. Get out! And because you have become my enemy, I never wish to see you again!"
The brother tried to calm the man. "I assure you that I am not your enemy. I am acting only with your good at heart. Why would I want otherwise?"
The man would not be calmed. "You are trying to destroy my love for this house. Therefore you must have an evil motive."
"Please," said the brother. "Come down with me to your basement, and I will let you see with your own eyes what I have found."
"I am not interested in seeing anything that you have to show me. You are obviously such an evil person that you would stoop to any level to deceive me into believing your lies. You have probably planted phony evidence in my basement. You would twist and misinterpret anything I found so that it would appear to support your filthy lies about my house. No! I will not go into the basement with you! I don't care about your delusions, and I don't have the time to humor you."
The brother was puzzled by the man's obstinacy. He couldn't understand why he wouldn't at least look in the basement himself. Perhaps, by replacing the beams, or by taking other measures in time, the house could be saved. But if nothing was done, the house would surely collapse, sooner or later, perhaps injuring someone.
Seeing that he could not help, the brother left, sad that he had been unjustly labeled an "enemy."
In spite of the man's confidence in the soundness of his house, his brother's words did trouble him for a few days. Finally, he could no longer resist the temptation, and he took a flashlight and crept through the small door into the basement. He looked around and saw where his brother had scraped the paint away to expose the fragile, rotten timbers.
He was furious! Why had his brother done this? He went upstairs to a cabinet and got a bucket of paint and a brush, and carefully repainted all the places that his brother had scraped away. "There!" he said, as he screwed the door back into place.
He decided that he would not tell his wife and family what had happened, because it would only disturb them and spoil the love and pleasure they enjoyed, living in such a beautiful house.
--Richard Packham, 1995
This is just not true. It is not something we teach or believe. I would be surprised if you can find more than 1% of Mormons that believe this.
Based on that, I am requesting references on that claim.
And yet; here you are; a little man that cannot defend his beliefs.
I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is wellI am well enough off. I then said to my mother,
Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses, 18:172).President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (Journal of Discourses, 10:127).James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.182).President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316).President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196).
Spiff, a religion claiming to be restored christianity but which has a ‘melchisedec priesthood’ which it will bestow upon any Tom, Dick, or Harry Reid is blasphemous to the Christian Priest Forever position of Jesus Christ. If you ever figutre that out, perhaps, PER HAPS, you too will come out of that blasphemous cult. Until then, try not to grow your millstone too quickly.
And this is supposed to make it ok for MORMONism to advance it's heretical cause?
Suck it up and take it; because WE are going NOWHERE!
There is one known as the ACCUSER of the BRETHREN...
Happy New Year Tadpole, honey...
That's MY job!
You tell em big brother...
MormonDudee (MormonDudes lil sis When would be a good time this evening for 2 cold and hungry errr nice and well trained young mormon missionaries to come over to your Christian neighbor’s house to tell them about the twoo gospel so they can start the New Year off right ?)
PS they had to sell their bicycles for food err for more material. They tried to throw in the ties but they got to keep them...I wonder why...
Oh; You might have a point.
It's the BLACK folks who did something naughty in the PRE-EXISTANCE to be cursed with a BLACK skin!
This is just not true.
Which part dear ???
The fact that the mormon holy ghost has no body
or the fact that the holy ghost did something extra naughty ???
Lets examine this shall we...
Yes we shall...
Did the mormon holy ghost get nice gifts from Santa ???
or just a lump of coal ???
Is he riding a new bike ???
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."
Brigham Young - President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 5: 21 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said: "The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after." "He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage." "That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...." (Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.) 1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said, "The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder." We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood. According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:
"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."
(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)
1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,
"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."
We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.
According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.
Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:
"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).
When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:
"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)