The Doctrine of Temple Work (Mormonism - Open)

Ensign ^ | October 2003 | Elder David E. Sorensen

[Colofornian]

Snip

...Joseph Smith warned of the consequences when we fail to use the temples available to us: “Those Saints who neglect [temple work] in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation.”

Snip

A key function of temples is to perform ordinance work for our deceased ancestors. When we think of temple ordinances and the necessity to do them perfectly, without error...

“… For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation...they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect” (D&C 128:5, 15;...).

Consider the...vision of President Joseph F. Smith...:

“Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins...having rejected the prophets.

Snip

The Lord revealed through... Joseph: “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, … through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power … are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead” (D&C 132:7).

Snip

...One of the great privileges we have is the wearing of the garment...

...The garment, … when properly worn, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil.

“It is expected that members will wear the garment both night and day...Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing...The garment should not be removed for activities which might reasonably be done with the garment worn beneath the clothing...

[Logophile]

Ah yes, the Anthon transcript. Unfortunately, it does not tell us much. As John Gee has written,

Though the so-called Anthon transcript contains a mere seven lines of text, it contains about eighty different characters; however, since the sample size is small, one is not able to determine whether the script is syllabic (like Ethiopic) or logographic (like Egyptian or Mayan). (Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript)

Still, the Anthon Transcript is suggestive. So let me ask you: If non-LDS archeologists were to discover a similar script in the Americas, would you accept that as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon?

[Logophile]

Well stated, Normandy.

[Logophile]

Not yet - are you going to invoke feelings to support your positions?

I do not intend to.

Right now, I intend to go to bed. Good night.

[Colofornian]

Discerning, decided readers,

Some Non Defenders Non Defend by claiming what we say has been covered over & over @ links they provide...
These Non Defenders claim these are Non issues...
...and that all you need to do is click, pop in a word in the search, click again and voila!
...”needles of wisdom” just pour forth from your computer screen...

Some Non Defenders claim one such haystack link worth investigatin' is fairlds.org...
...So when you take up this defective deflective challenge...
...and put in a phrase like “Adam-God” [re: Brigham Young's teaching that the first man, Adam, was God] in the search box of that Web site, the second entry that pops up from that search is Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God [This is FAIR's WIKI format attempt to address some things]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links both "address" and "answer" these claims...
...yet when you check under the hood of this lemon, you get varied Lds apologists' opinion about Brigham's "Adam is God" teaching...
...like: Brigham was wrong [Joseph Smith said the very “first principle” of the Mormon gospel was to know the character of God, (King Follet funeral sermon), yet Brigham couldn't get a kindergarten identity issue down in not being able to distinguish Adam from God?]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links reinforce for us such attractive snapshots of Brigham Young, such as Lds apologist Van Hale's concession that Brigham was ”mistaken” about who Adam was and that Adam, after all, was a ”complex doctrinal subject.”

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links love to cite Lds “apostle” letters from almost 30 years ago, letters which concede THAT BRIGHAM YOUNG, CONTRADICTED BRIGHAM YOUNG, AND THE ISSUE BECOMES ONE OF WHICH BRIGHAM YOUNG WE WILL BELIEVE. [Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, 1981 letter cited on link above]

Therefore, instead of Non Defenders just telling you outright that Lds “apostles” concede that...
Brigham Young taught falsely who God was...
But didn't always identify Adam as God...
Therefore, Brigham Young was theologically schizophrenic...
And that Brigham Young was 100% untrustworthy, because we don't know (still) which Brigham Young to believe?
...he makes you click twice, type in a word, and read an entire Mormon FAIR Wiki entry!!!

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links don't all agree what Mormon apologists should do about Brigham's out-of-tune “glitches” … as if you – the spiritual inquirer – just warm up and tingle all inside whenever you hear admissions from “the faithful” that their flock front man “glitches” on basic Genesis quizzes like, “Who was Adam?” But, not wanting to psychoanalyze Brigham Young as spiritually schizophrenic, what's a Mormon apologist to do?

Well, that narrows down the conclusions left for the average Mormon apologist, if you follow the links provided by some Non Defenders.

Why, if Brigham wasn't schizophrenic, what then?
Final “options?”...
The summations below precede the bracketed {actual quotations found @ one of Non Defender's links -- FAIR's WIKI entry on Adam-God being "repudiated"}

#1 Brigham was PR-challenged {“A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God...but he...didn't live long enough to 'develop' the teaching [read: spin] into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture...”}
#2 Brigham inspired a LOT of Mormon agnostic followers about who God was: {”We don't know...In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant...”}
#3 Brigham's plain English was non-interpretable minus either a decoder ring, or dark hat, or the Joe Smith special urim and thummim {"We simply don't know what Brigham Young meant."...why that could only mean they don't know plain English!!!}
#4 Brigham's “revelation receptor” was “glitch” prone – comparable to the Ford Pinto of a later era {”An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." -- BYU professor Stephen Robinson}
#5 Brigham inspired in the average Mormon apologist this “confessional credo”: “How do we Mormons deal with these questions? We don't. We abandon them...like we abandon you the inquirer...like we abandon the questions on FR.” {”So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE.” – BYU professor Stephen Robinson}

Such “gems of wisdom” await you all...all at the multiple click of a mouse!

[Colofornian]

Discerning, decided readers,

Some Non Defenders Non Defend by claiming what we say has been covered over & over @ links they provide...
These Non Defenders claim these are Non issues...
...and that all you need to do is click, pop in a word in the search, click again and voila!
...”needles of wisdom” just pour forth from your computer screen...

Some Non Defenders claim one such haystack link worth investigatin' is fairlds.org...
...So when you take up this defective deflective challenge...
...and put in a phrase like “Adam-God” [re: Brigham Young's teaching that the first man, Adam, was God] in the search box of that Web site, the second entry that pops up from that search is Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God [This is FAIR's WIKI format attempt to address some things]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links both "address" and "answer" these claims...
...yet when you check under the hood of this lemon, you get varied Lds apologists' opinion about Brigham's "Adam is God" teaching...
...like: Brigham was wrong [Joseph Smith said the very “first principle” of the Mormon gospel was to know the character of God, (King Follet funeral sermon), yet Brigham couldn't get a kindergarten identity issue down in not being able to distinguish Adam from God?]

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links reinforce for us such attractive snapshots of Brigham Young, such as Lds apologist Van Hale's concession that Brigham was ”mistaken” about who Adam was and that Adam, after all, was a ”complex doctrinal subject.”

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links love to cite Lds “apostle” letters from almost 30 years ago, letters which concede THAT BRIGHAM YOUNG, CONTRADICTED BRIGHAM YOUNG, AND THE ISSUE BECOMES ONE OF WHICH BRIGHAM YOUNG WE WILL BELIEVE. [Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, 1981 letter cited on link above]

Therefore, instead of Non Defenders just telling you outright that Lds “apostles” concede that...
Brigham Young taught falsely who God was...
But didn't always identify Adam as God...
Therefore, Brigham Young was theologically schizophrenic...
And that Brigham Young was 100% untrustworthy, because we don't know (still) which Brigham Young to believe?
...he makes you click twice, type in a word, and read an entire Mormon FAIR Wiki entry!!!

Some Non Defenders claim such entries at their links don't all agree what Mormon apologists should do about Brigham's out-of-tune “glitches” … as if you – the spiritual inquirer – just warm up and tingle all inside whenever you hear admissions from “the faithful” that their flock front man “glitches” on basic Genesis quizzes like, “Who was Adam?” But, not wanting to psychoanalyze Brigham Young as spiritually schizophrenic, what's a Mormon apologist to do?

Well, that narrows down the conclusions left for the average Mormon apologist, if you follow the links provided by some Non Defenders.

Why, if Brigham wasn't schizophrenic, what then?
Final “options?”...
The summations below precede the bracketed {actual quotations found @ one of Non Defender's links -- FAIR's WIKI entry on Adam-God being "repudiated"}

#1 Brigham was PR-challenged {“A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God...but he...didn't live long enough to 'develop' the teaching [read: spin] into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture...”}
#2 Brigham inspired a LOT of Mormon agnostic followers about who God was: {”We don't know...In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant...”}
#3 Brigham's plain English was non-interpretable minus either a decoder ring, or dark hat, or the Joe Smith special urim and thummim {"We simply don't know what Brigham Young meant."...why that could only mean they don't know plain English!!!}
#4 Brigham's “revelation receptor” was “glitch” prone – comparable to the Ford Pinto of a later era {”An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." -- BYU professor Stephen Robinson}
#5 Brigham inspired in the average Mormon apologist this “confessional credo”: “How do we Mormons deal with these questions? We don't. We abandon them...like we abandon you the inquirer...like we abandon the questions on FR.” {”So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE.” – BYU professor Stephen Robinson}

Such “gems of wisdom” await you all...all at the multiple click of a mouse!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Logo,

The irony of YOU demanding evidence that mormons lie, shade the truth, tell half truths, etc. is amazing. This comes after
YOUR half truth or avoiding the truth was called out by
color country -

... here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2614709/posts?page=222#222

... and here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2614709/posts?page=225#225

... So, YOU are exhibit #1. Would you like a link to a
mirror on Amazon?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

But let’s go on from here:

... First, I observe that your religion was founded by
a liar, Joseph Smith. The following link shows the court
transcript where it was testified under oath that ol’
Joe told his neighbors he could see buried treasure under
ground, but knew he was lying.

... here:

“Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not.

“Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, “to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living.”

“Here, then, we have his own confession, that he was a vile, dishonest impostor.”

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm

The First Mormon, Joseph Smith was a liar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

... Second, the teachings of mormonism are themselves lies:

1. Mormonism lies about God as a created being
2. Mormonism lies about Christ as a created being
3. Mormonism lies about the Holy Spirit as a created being
4. Mormonism lies that there are multiple gods
5. This could go on forever, but this is sufficient
for any objective person to conclude that the teaching and
foundation of mormonism is a lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

... Reaganaut, I’m pinging you, as a former member of mormonism and asking you to testify (they love that word!) as to your personal experience in being trained on how to “lie for the Lord” as a mormon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

... YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c60UrLuZIaU
- a mormon trainer teaching mormons how to deceive and
justifying it using mormon morality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

... I am testifying (mormons love that word) that on this very forum, mormons avoid the truth, lie overtly, tell half truths
to look Christian, etc. I submit the mormon threads as
evidence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

... And I am calling the others I pinged to “testify” to
this mormon, who is asking for evidence that mormons
habitually deceive, tell lies, fail to tell the whole
truth, shade the truth, avoid the truth, etc. He
needs help

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Logo, thank you for the opportunity to expose the very
foundation of mormonism. Stay tuned for incoming facts,
evidence and logical argumentation from those who know
mormonism from the temple on down, who’ve worn the magic
underwear and performed the rituals. They can share with
readers their personal experience. Anyone else that can
help answer Logo’s desire for evidence that mormonism
is built on a foundation of lies or give examples of
mormons lying, please chime in - he asked for it, though
if I had to guess, I think he knows it already, since he
used a half truth earlier. The least we can do is help
him...

...then, he says, we have something to talk about. Imagine,
a mormon being willing to talk. This is worth pursuing.

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You seem to discount the possibility, Ampu, that God can communicate truth and knowledge directly to human beings.”

No I don’t.

It isn’t sufficient to say, “a mormon god whispered this
truth to me.” That is subjective. You have said you can not
even prove it is a demon talking to you.

Where are any facts, evidence or logical argument to support
your claims of truth? What do you have besides your personal
beliefs that it is true?

[Elsie]

Still, the Anthon Transcript is suggestive.

So is the BoA papyrus!

[Elsie]

 

Still, the Anthon Transcript is suggestive.

 

These "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

 

 No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

---

 

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

---

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

---

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

     .
 

     .
 

      .

 

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

 

[Elsie]

 

It isn’t sufficient to say, “a mormon god whispered this truth to me.”

 

Oh?

 

---

---

Polygamy: How it all got Started

---

---

 

 

 

Joe: Hey Emma!   Guess what!?

 

Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?

 

Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.

 

Emma: WHAT!?   You ding bat!  Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says?   After all; YOU are the one that translated it!

 

Joe: Books; schmooks.   All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!

 

 

Emma:      "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"

 

 

Joe: Silly Woman!  You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

...and the rest is HISTORY...

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

 

  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

---

Or even HERE:

---

 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

 

 

1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

 

 

 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

---

---

 

 

Emma: That's IT!   I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!!

 

Joe:  DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!!   Wait!!!   I hear a voice again!!!

 

 

---

---

 

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 132

 

  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

 

 

  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been ^afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ^ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of ^beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid ^aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to ^brejoice.

[Elsie]

caraters

Fourth line down, fourth glyph in:

The Reformed Egyptians invented the wireless mouse!

[Logophile]

1. Mormonism lies about God as a created being
2. Mormonism lies about Christ as a created being
3. Mormonism lies about the Holy Spirit as a created being
4. Mormonism lies that there are multiple gods
5. This could go on forever, but this is sufficient for any objective person to conclude that the teaching and foundation of mormonism is a lie.

So, you believe doctrinal differences are lies? Really, you should learn the definitions of words before you use them, especially inflammatory words like lie and lying.

BTW, Mormonism does not teach that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are "created beings." Because we do not believe in creation ex nihilo, terms such as created being, necessary being, contingent being, etc. are foreign to our doctrine. So, according to your criterion, are you lying about us?

[greyfoxx39]

The invitation to be like Cain and demand acceptance on his own terms rather than God's Grace in Christ to transform the man is demonic, absolutely demonic. The depth of blindness we witness in the apologists at FR is strong indication of just how powerful is the demonic inveigling in Mormonism.

"The invitation to be like Cain and demand acceptance on his own terms rather than God's Grace in Christ"....a very good description of the demand by mormons to be called Christian..."on their own terms".

Mormonism not only demands a "seat at the Christian banquet table", it demands to set the menu, control the guest list, collect the funds from the ticket sales, and choose its own non-Biblical unedited and false message from its chosen speaker, all the while whining about being persecuted.

[Colofornian]

... And I am calling the others I pinged to “testify” to this mormon, who is asking for evidence that mormons habitually deceive, tell lies, fail to tell the whole truth, shade the truth, avoid the truth, etc. He needs help

This post is really for the sake of all. I sent what I wrote below to Logo July 6 earlier this year...and it didn't seem to do any good then. But what I want "ALL" to know is that Mormons got into a terrible habit of "prevaricating" during their polygamy years, especially the 1880s...and then to cover up their ongoing polygamy they continued that habit from the top down into the 1890s and 1900s.

When you can justify lying, it tends to get into your blood...and Mormons have learned well from their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and great-great grandparents...those who were prevaricating in that period of 1880s through about 1907...and defending such prevarications.

I'll show what I mean in two posts...the second is what a personal secretary (a Mormon) to Reed Smoot had to go through between 1903 and 1907 to try to defend truth and honor among Mormon leaders who were openly practicing falsehood, deceit, and dishonor.

But first, here's some historical late 19th century backdrop to what was happening in those early 1900s:

*******

The Lds apologetics org, FAIR, posted this lengthy article by Gregory L. Smith, MD: Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication

You can read it for yourself. I'll give you a quick paraphrased upshot as it pertained at least to concessions Gregory Smith made about prevarication & deception within Mormon history.

In the article, Smith concedes:
* Polygamy was lied about during Nauvoo years (Smith puts lying in quotations);
* Lying for the Lord has been taught & implied by some Mormons;
* Just because some Mormon leaders lied, he still contended any takeaways somebody might glean from that -- that it might somehow be construed as a condition tolerated w/in the Lds community when he felt it wasn't;
* Some Lds leaders, like George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency around the turn of the century, favored denying any specific charges about the practice of polygamy in Utah [Smith cited Michael Quinn "Authority and New Plural Marriages" as a source];
* He said the Manifesto sanctioned active misdirection;
* He said with the Church's destruction at stake, the manifesto "extended the degree of deception which was permissible" in order to keep that from happening. Therefore, 'twas Woodruff's duty to provide a formal doc which he knew to be false in some of its particulars. * Woodruff sought to maintain "plausible deniability." How did he do that? Well, while he'd refuse to personally approve a post-Manifesto polygamous marriage, he'd turn around & refer these potential polygamists to counselor George Q. Cannon for a recommend! *****

I told Logo this in July, adding: Logo 'twas this kind of open deception that Mormon apologist Gregory L. Smith conceded to occur that has long stayed with the Lds reputation-wise.
If you click on any of the MANY sub-titles of that paper where the word "Lying" appears...you'll find all these comments Smith made.

[MHGinTN]

Well now that is just the ultimate in parsing from a supposed honest Mormon! Did your peepstone prophet teach that the god of Mormonism who Mormonism teaches sired Jesus that this Mormon god was once a man like you or me except he behaved himself so well that he was exalted and gained the attributes of godhood? Well yes he did! And I will quote him directly.

If something began then it had a beginning, so it was either created by someone or something already created, or came to be ex nihilo. By speciously juxtaposing the term 'ex nihilo' with the ... no wait! we should quote you directly:

"... Mormonism does not teach that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are "created beings." Because we do not believe in creation ex nihilo, terms such as created being, necessary being, contingent being, etc. are foreign to our doctrine." _logophile(Because Mormon doctrine is not Christianity! As we shall see immediately.)

You have offered a false syllogism, fractured in such a way as to appear truthful, but in reality obfuscating to the max what your religion/religion's founders taught regarding the Mormon god, the Mormon jesus, and the Mormon holy spirit. I will enumerate further ...

You tell us that Mormonism does not teach that god, jesus, and the holy spirit are created beings. In the next breath you eliminate the possibility of creation 'ex nihilo', leaving only--when compared with the teachings from your founders--an endless progression of created beings from which the supposed god council draws the next generations of gods ... which contradicts what God has spoken of regarding His I AM status. You have implied that the universe of spiritual and nonspiritual beings is eternal but the god of Mormonism had a beginning in some distant past realm, yet you want us to be confused into believing you do not believe the god of Mormonism was a created being!

My first observation of such antics is to wonder if you actually are capable of seeing the deceit at the heart of your parsing! So here follows direct quotes from your religion's first great liar, JOseph Smith, then the sleazy parsing of subsequent LDS leaders ... pay close attention to the parsing your peepstone liar uses with the term 'in the beginning':

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5, 1844)

I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3, 1844)

"I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the Gods of heaven. '...Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.' If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly. Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373)

"Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D. & C. 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience -- a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future -- is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression." (For the math challenged, there is no such thing as a different or past eternity separate from the eternity we are traveling now. This flimflam approach to fibbing is prevalent in Mormonism. If something began then it had a beginning, so it was either created or came to be ex nihilo.)
"Those who gain exaltation, having thus enjoyed the fullness of eternal progression, become like God." It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains. (Elder Bruce McConkie, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 5-10.) (So far the teaching from Mormon leadership has left choices: either everything has always existed without ever being created, or the god of Mormonism was on equal standing with each of us in some nebulous past eternity of pre-existence, or everything is created but distributed into separate eternities.)

"We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, ... we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.132).

"Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith.... The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries.... The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.10, 12).

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed ONE God for us... (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)

There is so much collected from the writings of the LDS leadership that is available on the Net we could go on and on quoting this rot. But let's pause to consider the deceit at the heart of this stuff. We'll make an assumption that logophile and all the teachers we've quoted really believe this rot. Whom does that leave as responsible for these heretical teachings? The father of lies, a murderer from the start. And it is he, the father of lies, who is murdering the souls of those who swallow this rot and are drawn away from the simple plan of Salvation through faithing in the Grace of God in Christ. 'Salvation cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.' The above quoted rot from Mormon leaders is not 'The Word of I AM'. It is the lies from the father of lies, writ large as some Christianity lookalike posed speciously as restoration of God's Plan of Salvation.

Mormonism was founded by a liar. You can chose which liar to blame, but the following re-quoted is heresy writ large by Mormonism as gospel from someone, but not the God of the Bible:

“I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3, 1844) [This is a great lie, too great a lie for even the liar Joseph Smith to have fabricated on his own! So whom is then the founder of Mormonism? HINT: it is not I AM.]

[Colofornian]

Mormon shame, dishonor due to its prevarications, cover-ups, deceit, falsehoods...before our very Congress in the early 1900s: If you want to comment on this thread, go to: Secretary To l’he Senator: Carl A. Badger And The Smoot Hearings

We need to understand that this is the true "heritage" of the Utah "saints"

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“So, you believe doctrinal differences are lies?”

No... but then I do not have “doctrinal differences” with
mormonism. I believe what God says in the Bible that is the
opposite of what mormonism teaches.

“Really, you should learn the definitions of words before you use them, especially inflammatory words like lie and lying.”

When something is true, it is not inflammatory to say what it is: a lie. Telling the truth about what mormonism teaches is only inflammatory to those in the grip of the cult.

“BTW, Mormonism does not teach that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are “created beings.” Because we do not believe in creation ex nihilo, terms such as created being, necessary being, contingent being, etc. are foreign to our doctrine. So, according to your criterion, are you lying about us?”

Mormonism teaches all four mormon earth gods started their existence as spirit beings - ie. had a point of creation where they went from non-existence to existence.

This is a lie and makes God into a created being, instead
of eternal God.

The fact that you parse words to [apparently] avoid the truth, is not the problem of others. It is your problem. I believe you probably knew exactly what I meant, when I wrote “created”, yet [apparently] the mormon reflex to shade the truth or offer half truths to cover up the full truth prevailed.

And YOU are asking for instances that demonstrate mormons play fast and loose with the truth?

Your posts are exhibit A.

ampu

[Saundra Duffy]

” . . . she HAD to agree with her leadership in her old church.”

Which is exactly why I got disillusioned and left - because I did NOT agree with the leadership. For one, their inconsistent and strange teachings about healing.

I actually am in agreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I am happy so why would I want to leave? I don’t get you.

[MHGinTN]

Dear one, do you agree with the teachings of Smith, et al, like the following one? ...

“I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3, 1844)

[The above assertion is absolutely contradictory to what God syas in the Bible. It is a great lie, too great a lie for even the liar Joseph Smith to have fabricated on his own! So whom is then the founder of Mormonism? HINT: it is not I AM. If you are comfortable with such lies, you might want to examine your spiritual state, to see whom it is that you really feel comfortable with. Even the demons know Jesus is the ONLY means to salvation from a fallen state. Knowing Whom He is and trusting Him to be your redeemer are two very different things, Sandy. If He is not right now your redeemer, then you need His salvation right now, not in some future exchange for all that you can do to earn His Grace, Right Now.]

[Logophile]

No... but then I do not have “doctrinal differences” with mormonism.

You don't?