Jump to content


Photo

Is The Mormon Church Christian?


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#61 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 09 July 2011 - 03:01 PM

Hello... you replied the very next day, so I wouldn't expect an apology for not replying sooner. :) I am the one who was gone for quite a while. At times I need to take time away from other people and just read the scriptures and pray. I will reply in pink again if that is alright.I will have to take time to look into what you are saying.


ME, It had been a while since I looked into this site, so I assumed that I was remiss in answering. I did not look at the date of your post. I'm also recovering from a knee operation and on drugs. I guess I'm just not thinking straight.

Let's take one subject at a time--OSAS. When we settle that issue, I will show you that JWs teach that Jesus is Michael the Arcangel in human form. Since Michael is a created being, he can't be God and should not be worshipped. I promise I will not avoid this subject. But first, here's a writing I did some years ago on OSAS. You will be able to see clearly that the Jews under the Gospel of Circumcision could lose their salvation. But members of the Body of Christ saved under the Gospel of Uncircumcision can't lose their salvation.

SALVATION

Can a Christian today lose his or her salvation? Or is salvation secured? One can open the Bible and show Scripture to prove both sides of this issue. Let’s examine Scripture that supports both sides of this argument.

Can Lose Salvation

Ezekiel wrote that a man could lose his salvation:

"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die." Ezek. 18:24-28

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said that we must tough it out to the end: “But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Mat. 24:13).
The writer of Hebrews wrote: “For it is impossible for those who . . . have become partakers of the Holy Spirit. . . if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance. . .” (Heb. 6:4, 6).

Peter said that it is better not to be saved than to be saved and lose your salvation: “For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:20-21, 22).

Other Scripture that supports this side of the argument: 1 Chr. 28:7; 2 Chr. 15:2; 24:20; Ps. 51:11; Mat. 6:12, 15; 10:22; 18:23-35; 23:13; 25:1-13; Mark 13:13; John 15:2, 6; 17:3 w/1 John 2:3; Heb. 3:14; 4:1; 6:4-15; 10:26-30, 36-38; James 2:9-13; 5:19-20; 2 Pet. 1:10; 3:17; 1 John 1:9 w/ Lord’s Prayer; 3:15; 5:2-3, 16-18; Jude 4-6; Rev. 2:5, 10-11; 3:1-3, 5 w/20:15, 15-38; 16:15.

Does this settle the argument or are there other Scripture passages which support the opposite view?

Cannot Lose Salvation

There would be no argument if only we could get rid of a troublesome little Jew named Saul of Tarsus (later renamed Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles”):

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress . . .? Yet. . . we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:35, 37-39

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Gal. 2:20

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the Guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. . ." Eph. 1:13-14

"For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day." 2 Tim. 1:12

Then Paul points out that we are members of Jesus’ Body, and Jesus will not deny us because then He would be denying Himself:

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself [i.e., His Body; however, He will deny (v. 12) certain rewards (vv. 5-7) to the shameful (v. 15) believer]." 2 Tim. 1:12

Other Scripture that supports security of your salvation: 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 2:6; 4:30; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:3, 13; 2 Tim. 1:12.

Kingdom Believers Could Lose Salvation

Notice that the first set of Scriptural verses are addressed to Israel Kingdom believers under the Gospel of Circumcision or the Law. Jesus told these believers that they had to take the plow and not look back. They had to visit the sick. They had to visit prisoners in prison. They had to give to widows, orphans and the poor. They had to preach the gospel. They had to go two miles when asked to go one mile. They had to produce fruit (for “any tree not producing fruit will be cast into the fire”). If asked, they had to sell everything they had and follow Jesus. They had to heal the sick. They had to take up their crosses and follow Him. They had to love Jesus more than mother and father. They had to cast out demons. They had to have faith (if only as much as the grain of a mustard seed). Whew! And we are just getting started. And, if they endured to the end, Jesus would say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Such is life under the law. A person saved under the gospel of circumcision was not assured of his salvation until he met Jesus. Jesus could say, “Well done, good and faithful servant” or “I know you not; I will cast you out of My presence.”

Understand though that even after these Kingdom believers gave it their best shot, they would still fall short. But God would add a little grace to their works. One can add grace to works, but one can never add works to a gift of love (Jesus’ sacrifice). At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, when Paul reveals the Gospel of Grace that he is preaching to the Gentiles, Peter defends Paul’s gospel (which was totally different and new): “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we [Circumcision believers] shall be saved in the same manner as they [Paul’s converts under the Gospel of Uncircumcision or grace]” (Acts 15:11). If we paraphrased Peter in today’s jargon: “Let’s face it, guys. Unless Jesus cuts us a little slack for our works, ain’t none of us goin’ make it.”

Why was Peter the apostle who defended Paul's gospel of grace at the Jerusalem Council? Before God passed the mantle to Paul and cut off Israel (the Twelve were Israel), God communicated to Peter that there was a new Dispensation coming. God sent Peter to Cornelius the centurion. When Peter entered the centurion's house, the Holy Spirit fell on all those Gentiles. But, what astonished Peter was that the Holy Spirit fell on them WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED! For Peter, or any other Jew, this was unthinkable. Circumcision was entry-way to Israel's Covenant of circumcision. Paul bragged in one of his letters that he did not have to circumcise Titus to be accepted by the Circumcision leadership. The reason they could not deny that Paul was legit was that God initially gave Paul and his converts tongues and miracles. He did this so that Peter and James could not deny that the mantle had been passed to Paul--"for the Jews require a sign."

Tears and Regret in Heaven

Even though we who are saved under Paul’s gospel of grace and are secure in our salvation, there will still be tears in heaven. Jesus will wipe away and dry these tears, but there will be real tears and regret. In the movie Schindler’s List, there is a scene at the end where Schindler breaks down crying when he realizes that he could have saved more Jews. He points to the gold ring on his finger and weeps with regret that he could have purchased one more Jew with the gold ring.

Imagine how we will feel when we are in heaven, secure in our salvation and with our Lord, but confronted with the horror that we did not witness to our children, our parents, or our friends and they are now in hell never to be seen again. Yes, there will be tears—much tears and sorrow.

The excuses we had here on earth for not witnessing would have gotten us a standing ovation on the Oprah: “I never discuss religion or politics.” I am not judgmental and I would never judge anyone.” “I thought my mother was a good person.” “My motto is, “to each his own.” “I keep my religion personal.” “We must love the homos because God loves everyone.” “I don’t know what kind of god you worship, but my god would never send anyone to hell.” “I forgive everyone, even my unrepentant child molesting priest.” And each of us could add a few to this list.

Let’s Review

A believer saved under the Gospel of Circumcision or the Law could lose his or her salvation. Salvation hinged upon faith plus good works and keeping the law, (“the weightier, without leaving the lesser undone”). “Give it your best shot, and I will add a little grace,” promises God.

God cut off Israel for unbelief and their plan for a promised Kingdom is on hold (but “God will graft them in again”). God then sent Paul, the”apostle to the Gentiles,” to the world, bypassing Israel. When God did this, He gave Paul a different gospel—the gospel of grace. Paul writes that “this was a mystery never before revealed.” He calls it “my gospel.” He said, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” He said that he was the first man saved under the gospel of grace (a “pattern”). In Galatians Paul wrote that God instructed him to go up to Peter and the other circumcision apostles and “explain to them the gospel which I preach.” If he were preaching a circumcision gospel, why would he have to explain it to the circumcision apostles?

Coincidence?

The first man in Israel’s kingdom was King Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin. The first man in the Body of Christ was Saul (or Paul) of the Tribe of Benjamin. The first Saul started out great (under the law) and ended up committing suicide and is now is hell. The second Saul started out badly (killing Christians) and ended up saved and is now with the Lord (saved by grace). What better man was there to show God’s new dispensation of grace?
Make sense?

TeeJay

#62 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:03 AM

Hi TeeJay, thank you but I will have to come back to this topic at a much, much later time. I am finding that at the moment I am going back to the very basics. The JW organization is not Christian. They remove the Holy Spirit from baptism (this is why my profile says no affiliation. I realize that I have not really been baptized!), teach that I am not a child of God (only 144,000 special JWs are) and kept me from Christ's love.

JWs try to be Christians. They really try, but alas, they are not, for they do not truly experience the love of the Christ and they do not have the Holy Spirit guiding them. Once I decided in my heart that Jesus Christ is the only way truth and life and the ONLY mediator the Bible and the love of Christ has opened up to me. Now I know why the Baptists ask "have you been saved". I think it is this fellowship with God's spirit that they are asking about.

JWs have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and have caused their followers to fall from God's grace. (Galations 5:4) I opened up the Living Bible and read 1 John and it is a beautiful picture of love and fellowship with Jesus and the Father and the protection that Christ offers. I tried to read this same passage in the New World Translation and it makes no sense. The meaning is hidden in its use of many words and the removal of the word Christian and Christ. :angry:

I suspect that the Mormon Church does the same thing.

#63 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:17 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1311260635' post='73361']
Hi TeeJay, thank you but I will have to come back to this topic at a much, much later time. I am finding that at the moment I am going back to the very basics. The JW organization is not Christian. They remove the Holy Spirit from baptism (this is why my profile says no affiliation. I realize that I have not really been baptized!), teach that I am not a child of God (only 144,000 special JWs are) and kept me from Christ's love.

JWs try to be Christians. They really try, but alas, they are not, for they do not truly experience the love of the Christ and they do not have the Holy Spirit guiding them. Once I decided in my heart that Jesus Christ is the only way truth and life and the ONLY mediator the Bible and the love of Christ has opened up to me. Now I know why the Baptists ask "have you been saved". I think it is this fellowship with God's spirit that they are asking about.

JWs have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and have caused their followers to fall from God's grace. (Galations 5:4) I opened up the Living Bible and read 1 John and it is a beautiful picture of love and fellowship with Jesus and the Father and the protection that Christ offers. I tried to read this same passage in the New World Translation and it makes no sense. The meaning is hidden in its use of many words and the removal of the word Christian and Christ. :angry:

I suspect that the Mormon Church does the same thing.
[/quote]

ME, I'm glad you're on the road to seeking truth. Jesus Christ said that "I am the Truth. No one comes to the Father except through Me." I don't mean to boast, but I'm pretty well versed on the Bible. If you have any questions, please feel free to call upon me. I once did a writing on the divinity of Jesus Christ. It exposes some of the JW's false teaching. It's a letter I wrote to a Mormon.


There is a Greek grammar rule called the Grandville/Sharpe rule. These two were Greek scholars who documented this rule with countless examples. When the definite article “the” is used once, it is referring to one person. Example: The father and husband saw the light and led his family to freedom and safety. If “the” is used twice, it is referring to two persons. The father and the husband went hunting. There are many places in the Bible where it says, “The God and Father of us all.” This is one person. In Paul’s letters there are many references to Jesus and God as one: “Our God and Lord Jesus Christ.” “The God and Savior Jesus Christ.” “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” These occur in 2 Thes. 1:12, 1 Tim. 5:21, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, 2 Pet. 1:11.

Why am I explaining this rule? Because when the JW’s call at a house, they claim that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God” is wrongly translated and it should read …”and the word was a God.” Don’t let the Mormon Church trick you the same way! In Greek, there is no indefinite article “a” or “an”. When indefinite, they simply say, “car stopped” rather than “a car stopped.” The JW’s preach that since there is no definite article “the” in front of God, then it is “a” god. Let’s apply the JW’s rule to some verses to see if their claim be true or false. I’ll let you decide, but it seemed rather absurd to me, silly even.

King James: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
(John 1:6)
JW’s: There was a man sent from a god, whose name was John.

King James: Which was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)
JW’s: Which was born, not of blood…but of a god.

King James: [Nicodemus] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God…. (John 3:2)
JW’s: …we know that thou art a teacher come from a god.

King James: If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. (John 9:33)
JW’s: If this man were not of a god, he could do nothing.

King James: Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God. (John 13:3)
JW’s: …and that he was come from a God and went to a god.

The JW’s do not know Greek. Their founder Charles T. Russell was in court on trial for fraud. He claimed to be fluent in Greek. When he was shown the Greek alphabet, he could not identify the letters. He was a fraud, and their translation is fraudulent.

TeeJay

#64 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:46 PM

Moderator, would you like to make a separate thread on Jehovah's Witnesses?

Thank you, Teejay, that is very helpful. Here is a big discrepency in the New World Translation: At John 17:3, the Greek word “ginoskosin” meaning “to know, intimately” is mistranslated as “taking in knowledge of” to support the Watchtower doctrine that accurate knowledge is necessary for eternal life. Changing this translation from “know You” (as all other Bible translations have it) to “taking in knowledge of You” shifts the focus from a personal relationship with God to a mere intellectual study of God to gain eternal life. This is very important to me as I keep telling my mother that my God does not act the way she says He does. (At some point later I can provide very scary letters that are telling me I am doomed if I don't follow the Jehovah's Witness doctrine. I tried to combat one of these with 1 John 4:18, 19 and I was told that combating JW doctrine with scripture was what Apostates do!

The Greek word “en” meaning “in” is paraphrased as “in union with” to support the Watchtower teaching that Christians support the cause of Christ, but do not have Christ dwelling within them.

There is a Greek grammar rule called the Grandville/Sharpe rule. These two were Greek scholars who documented this rule with countless examples. When the definite article “the” is used once, it is referring to one person. Example: The father and husband saw the light and led his family to freedom and safety. If “the” is used twice, it is referring to two persons. The father and the husband went hunting.

Do you have an example of sentences in the Bible that use the definite article twice to refer to two persons?

The JW’s do not know Greek. Their founder Charles T. Russell was in court on trial for fraud. He claimed to be fluent in Greek. When he was shown the Greek alphabet, he could not identify the letters. He was a fraud, and their translation is fraudulent.

My husband is looking into this and found that one of the translators of the New World Translation was proven to be unable to translate Hebrew. I don't understand if these men were proven to be frauds over 60 years ago why this translation is still in print. What is even more strange, to me, is that I have checked interlinear translations many times and not found discrepancies. I somehow kept checking the verses that happened to be correct.

The English words “exercise,” “exercising,” “exercised,” “exercises” are added with no basis in the Greek text. This term is added to support the Watchtower doctrine of works being added to faith to complete the salvation process. Mark 5:36 ; 2 Corinthians 4:13 (twice)

This is bad... this is really bad. I just read the latest addition of the Watchtower available in PDF and there is a study article that tells us it is better to remain single, married people are taking away from God's service in order to take care of their spouse, and it is better to remain childless... ad nauseum. In the same article they say that no one has the right to pressure someone into remaining single or childless. That is one comment. They say that no one should pressure someone into marrying or having children twic. Then in the first 4 paragraphs there are 9 negative comments about having a family or positive comments about remaining single or childless. They have been recommending this from the beginning (1927 and 1969 for example), because according to them Armageddon is always so close that no school aged person will need to worry about a career and the average JW need not worry about growing old. Not only do they recommend no one have a family and cause other JWs to judge those that do (after all marriage is only beneficial if it keeps one from committing fornication because they just can't control themselves), but it is repeated over and over that your family is a burden that takes away from God's service. :( We had always noticed this negative attitude toward families. Now we see why. The Watchtower publications are nothing but propaganda.

My family is getting out! Revelation 18:1

Please pray that our other family members be released from the tyranny of Jehovah's Witnesses, I beg all of you.


#65 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 July 2011 - 04:51 AM

Rejoice for me my brothers, for I ask and I receive!

Matthew 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the [l]Christ,’ or ‘[m]There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will [n]show great [o]signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the [p]elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

#66 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:01 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1311335480' post='73374']
Rejoice for me my brothers, for I ask and I receive!

Matthew 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the [l]Christ,’ or ‘[m]There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will [n]show great [o]signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the [p]elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
[/quote]

ME,

Presently, I am working a post on transcendental proof for God ("Which Worldview (Atheism or Theism) Is Logicall?") When I'm finished with that, I will open a separate thread on the JWs. We will discuss it in detail. I will probably learn much from you as well since you were former JWs. I look forward to it.

TeeJay

#67 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:17 AM

=Geode,Apr 18 2011, 06:42 AM]
“There is a maliciously inaccurate film that was made about the Mormons many years ago that makes many of the same assertions you have set down here. Some years ago a group at my church (The Evangelical Church of Bangkok) decided to show it, and then have me give comments at the end from the vantage point of an ex-Mormon. I had never seen the film before, and my comments were not what they were expecting. I told the group that there were significant differences in theology between more mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, but it is best to start from a point of what the Mormons actually believe and not the distortions that had been presented in the film. I then outlined some of the untrue portions, a few that you have given here, and volunteered to entertain any question and give as accurate an answer as I could offer. I was disappointed that they lost interest in what I had to say when I didn't just collaborate what had been shown.”

Geode, Please forgive me. I overlooked your post. I'm recovering from a knee replacement and I'm spaced out on pain killers. But that's no excuse and I will endeavor to read more carefully.


Sorry to hear about the knee problems, I hope that the replacement has worked out well. I have been gonne for most of the time since your reply so this is late. I have had trouble with the new format on my server.

Yes, one can argue that there is “significant differences in theology between more mainstream Christianity….” But there is one crucial point in Christianity that separates truth from falsehood. Jesus Christ is God the Son who has existed eternally past and He died for us and rose from the dead. When you denounced Mormonism, did you accept Jesus Christ as God the Son who has existed eternally past, is now existing, and will exist eternally future?


I honestly do not have the capacity to visualize the infinite, and God is infinite in nature. For me the concept of the Trinity and the concept of the Mormon Godhead are attempts to explain the infinite nature of God to humans who cannot understand it. Both fail to some extent. I find differences between Mormons and other Christians interesting in this regard, but that in my opinion since neither concept totally works in explaining the nature of God to mortals, that the finding of fault over what is less important than following Christ’s teachings and accepting the salvation that He provided us is something done far too frequently. The concept of The Trinity came up long after Christ’s earthy mission, in an attempt towards unity of belief. There are several biblical passages that actually support the Mormon view more than that of the Trinity, that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who work together as one rather than being one is substance as well. The Mormons had their own conflicts in working out what they believe as Mormon doctrine. The standard accepted doctrine of The Godhead was explained decades after Joseph Smith’s death in perhaps the closest thing to a Mormon “standard work” that is not set forth as one, jesus the Christ by James Talmage.

I already accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when a Mormon. Upon being interviewed by an elder in a Presbyterian congregation for membership when asked questions about Christ and the nature of God and he found no fault in what I said. Mormons may not use the term “God the Son” for it is Trinitarian, but they hold that He is divine, and that He died for us and rose from the dead which is the most important part of your statement. I believe that the Mormons are Christians, and that probably as significant portion of them are saved as in other denominations.

In my post, I am not presenting “what Mormons believe.” I am presenting what is the doctrine of the Mormon Church. Most Mormons are totally unaware of what the Mormon doctrine is all about.


What Mormons believe is Mormon doctrine. My perception was in fact that you were attempting to explain the doctrine of the Mormon church, but not doing so accurately in places. In my experience most Mormons know Mormon doctrine fairly well so I do not agree with your statement that most do not, and they certainly are not totally unaware. As with other faiths some know it better than others, but active members will have weekly instruction in Mormon theology in multiple meetings.

I assume that you are referring to “The God Makers.” I have not seen the film, but I have read the book. Everything in the book was absolutely true in its description of Mormon "doctrine." The purpose of the "God Makers" was not to define what individual Mormons believe. Rather it was written to expost the true doctrine to the rank and file Mormon. This it did.


No, the book is also riddled with errors about Mormon doctrine as are most of Ed Decker’s bitter ramblings about the LDS church. He has an agenda and he follows it. Many non-Mormons have perceived this and view it as hate-mongering that taken to its logical conclusion is really an attack of religion as a whole. One went so far as to call it “religious pronography.” From your previous post I fear that you base your opinion of its accuracy from the book itself or similarly distorted sources.

I can’t count the number of Mormons I’ve encountered that are totally unaware of the true doctrine of the Mormon Church.


Then I don’t think you have met a representative sampling, and if you base your opinion of their lack of knowledge about Mormon doctrine holding it to the false standard of a book like “The God Makers” I guess it is no surprise that you have this opinion. If they denied knowledge of the distortions Decker uses, they were possibly were sincerely telling the truth. Yes, some Mormons are pretty clueless about Mormon doctrine, as are many Christians in other denominations, but the rank and file know their religion fairly well.

”I am replying as an ex-Mormon but I think in some ways my point of view might be taken to be more objective than that of a Mormon, for although I spent my life up to the my late 30's following that faith and know it from an insider's point of view I ultimately parted with them. I do not feel the need to defend portions of Mormon theology that I do not find to be correct in my opinion, but on the other hand will defend them when I feel a criticism made towards them is not valid.”

Fair enough. False accusations should be exposed. But my post is accurate and I am able to defend it with the truth. And now that you have left Joseph Smith’s army and enlisted in the true God’s army, you should be willing to expose Mormonism for what it is.


In my opinion your post was not accurate in places, and I doubt you can defend the points I challenged to much extent past holding to the same misconceptions. I was never part of “Joseph Smith’s army” but I am willing to take exception to Mormon doctrine where I feel it is in error, but I am unwilling to join the anti-Mormon crowd that perpetuate untruths about Mormonism.

Question: Why did you abandon Mormonism?


I had increasing theological differences and I thought they were sometimes losing sight of practicing what they preach as in focusing more routinely on Christ instead of other functions of the Mormon faith. I found there often implied “exclusivity” on Christ and having the only full and true gospel to be irritating. But I also find it irritating when other Christians make similar claims, as if they are empowered to determine who is a Christian. I came to believe that some Mormon ideas were unnecessary such as their temple work. The original temple endowment included oaths that clearly were against Bible teachings (and the Book of Mormon as well). When I departed these were still intact, but have since been removed. The LDS church attempts to keep the script of this ceremony secret from the non-initiated. I also came to doubt the claims about additional scripture, such as the Book of Abraham.

”This is not really correct. Mormons believe that the Bible is correct ‘as far as it is translated correctly.’ In practice they accept every verse within it, and have not made the case that what is currently present is corrupted as you are arguing. You can quote any verse to a Mormon and they should respond with acceptance that it is scripture, at least to the extent that it is accepted by Christian in general. What the Mormons actually think about the Bible is that parts are missing that included ‘plain and precious truths’ not that what is left is corrupted. Mormons are taught that they should seek their own answer as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and that they will receive an answer by spiritual witness.”

Again I must stress that my post is not what Mormons believe. Rather, I am positing what is the doctrine of the Mormon Church. And you are correct that the Mormon Church argues that the Bible has not been translated correctly. But Mormon doctrine also believes that the Bible has been corrupted.


What Mormons believe is based upon their accepted doctrine. No, you did not properly state what the doctrine of the Mormon church is on the subject. They use the full King James version of the Bible. The doctrine does not exclude a single verse. Their doctrine is that parts originally intended for inclusion are no longer present, “plain and precious truths” are they say of these. Despite Joseph Smith’s “article of faith” stating “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” I never heard them teach that a single verse was not translated correctly. What they do believe, and yes it is Mormon doctrine, is that God intended other sources to supplement the Bible such as the Book of Mormon and continuing revelation. I came to believe that the Bible was sufficient on its own.

Orson Pratt wrote, “Can we rely upon [the Bible] in its present known CORRUPTED state, as being the faithful record of God’s word… “The Bible Alone An Insufficient Guide,” pp. 44-47


Orson Pratt did not set down Mormon doctrine. His comment stands as his opinion. But what he most likely was speaking about is what I just wrote, that parts that were intended to be included were left out. Ergo the title of the work.

Another example of Mormons’ claim that Scripture is corrupted: “[The quotations from Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon are] no doubt the only truly accurate quotations in existence today…. A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1. How many similar deletions were made, no one knows, because we have only fragments from the brass plates. But the Bible as we know it is a different volume from what it was – and would have been—had it not been changed so much by those with selfish interests.” Apostle Mark Petersen, As Translated Correctly, pp. 54, 67


Once again, Mark E. Peterson (who by the way officiated at my parents wedding in the Salt Lake City Temple) was not authorized to set forth Mormon doctrine on his own. This is doing what most critics of the Mormon church do, citing anything any Mormon leader ever wrote as Mormon doctrine. But what you have quoted only supports what I have posted already.

Too many split sentences as quotes...so this is all for this reply.

#68 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:26 AM

One of Joseph Smith’s undertakings was to retranslate the King James version. The whole of the Old Testament was translated into Greek a few hundred years before Jesus Christ’s first coming. It was called the Septuagint. Jesus Christ and the apostles (Paul included) quoted from it as an accurately translated document from the Hebrew. King James translators used it to write the King James version. But Joseph Smith deemed it unworthy to be accepted as is and needed his translation.


The LDS church has never accepted the JST, what they usually term the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, as their official Bible over the King James version. Perhaps they might have done so but they did not hold the copyright after the death of Joseph Smith and also it was incomplete at his death. But in a Mormon meeting if the Bible is cited, the verse will be from the King James.

You wrote that Mormons are taught to seek their own answer as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon disagrees with the Bible, it can’t be true. No amount of seeking will reveal the truth of something that is false. A lie can’t ever be defended with truth. It can only be defended with another lie.



The Mormons do not think there are disagreements between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, so they do not engage in seeking to reconcile the two but to gain a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

”But now to the argument you used with a Mormon:
This sounds like it is straight out of the ‘God Makers’ (the book and video that I talked about at the start of my post) and has many things in it that are not Mormon theology and not taught by the LDS church.”

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7

"Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost...He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18

"Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. ...If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders by the people bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:51


I have encountered this exact same set of quotes recently on another board, probably taken from the same anti-Mormon site. The one from President Hinckley is quoted-mined out of context. The full quote on the subject is as follows:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

"Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life."


President Hinckley

So in context the distinction President Hinckley is making between his belief in Christ and that of people outside the church was that he believed Christ had appeared to Joseph Smith, not that the nature of Christ was necessarily different or that he felt Christ had a different role in saving mankind. Yes, there are differences, but doing this quote-mine makes it appear that President Hinckley is claiming belief in a totally different Jesus.

The second one is the opinion of a past Mormon leader who is basically stating a version of The Virgin Birth. I used to hear considerable discussion about this topic in Mormon classes. Have you attended any of these? I have attended hundreds upon hundreds. The “God Makers” cites Brigham Young on the subject, but many Mormons do not hold to his viewpoint and it is taught less and less by fewer and fewer Mormons.

Now I can give you pages and pages of quotes from Mormon founders, apostles, teachers, leaders, et.al. teaching that Mary was literally impregnated by a physical union between the Mormon father god and Mary. To save space, I will let you google this subject. But please do not deny that it is Mormon doctrine. I had a debate with a Mormon science professor some years ago. He denied that Mormonism teaches that the Mormon father god fathered Jesus by a literal physical S@xual union. I mailed him 36 typewritten pages of affirming quotes of Mormon founders, leaders, apostles, theologians, teachers, et.al. He got angry at me and quit the debate. So for you to argue that this is not Mormon doctrine does not surprise me. Do you really think that the Mormon Church would be up front with this doctrine?


I don’t have to ”google” this subject as I have been versed in it for decades. There are indeed quotes about a literal impregnation of Mary by several Mormon leaders, mainly from the 19th Century. It was not, nor has ever been fully accepted Mormon doctrine. I and many other Mormons thought Brigham Young to be wrong about this and as I have said I heard differences of opinion in Mormon classes. That science professor was for the most part correct, Mormonism really no longer teaches this idea although so individual Mormons hold it to be correct. I can see why he became angry as I would probably have done if talked to you while still a Mormon. He knew better than you about the subject and it appears that you many have rather arrogantly supplied a long diatribe that proved something he already knew, that Mormon leaders once did openly teach this. As an ex-Mormon I undoubtedly am arguing the same position that he did? That is probably because as insiders we had a better knowledge of the subject. Are you counting him as one of the Mormons who you have met that did not know Mormon doctrine?

”The part about the birth of Christ comes from the thoughts of Brigham Young and yes, I have met an occasional Mormon in the past that thought this was correct. However, in decades of Mormon classes I was always taught the biblical account of Christ's birth involving the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church teaches a virgin birth. When the Mormon church teaches about Jesus being the only begotten most of them do not hold this to be literal in the sense Brigham Young taught.”

Every Mormon I've debated has wanted to distance himself from crazy Uncle Bringham. But Brigham Young was second in command to Joseph Smith. I will not allow a Mormon to simply divorce himself from the teachings of one of the founders of this false religion. If you were not taught this in any of your Mormon classes, then the truth of Mormonism was purposely withheld from you. Jesus being the “only begotten of the father” was taught by the vast majority of the early Mormon Church. I can provide quotes—too many for you to read. Again, I am not arguing for what Mormons believe but rather the true doctrine of the Mormon Church.



I would guess Mormons, and even some ex-Mormons for that matter might get put-off by what would be perceieved as your rather arrogant claims about what they believe and what their church holds as doctrine. I doubt any of them would really care whether or not you will or will not allow a Mormon to have a different opinion about Brigham Young and his thoughts than you and other anti-Mormons think is correct. Quite frankly as a Mormon I thought Brigham’s theological ramblings to often be very strange. We never called him “Uncle Brigham” but if we wished to term him as family we would say, “Brother Brigham.” Mormons distanced themselves from some of Brigham’s ideas even in his lifetime. He couldn’t get enough Mormon leaders to accept his “Adam / God Theory” (that is falsely included in “The God Makers” as Mormon doctrine) to make it doctrine while he was living, and his successor, John Taylor, publically repudiated after his death.

No, the truth of Mormonism was not purposely withheld from me on this topic, and what in fact was purposely withheld on other topics I found out through my own study. Once again you make a claim that belief and doctrine are different for Mormons. Is belief and doctrine different in other Christian sects?

Brigham Young was not considered second in command to Joseph Smith, at least not by large numbers of Mormons and that is why there was a succession crisis when Smith was killed. If there was a second in command who was most likely the closest to being “second in command” it would have been Hyrum Smith, but he was murdered at the same time as his brother Joseph.

”The part about the birth of Christ comes from the thoughts of Brigham Young and yes, I have met an occasional Mormon in the past that thought this was correct. However, in decades of Mormon classes I was always taught the biblical account of Christ's birth involving the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church teaches a virgin birth. When the Mormon church teaches about Jesus being the only begotten most of them do not hold this to be literal in the sense Brigham Young taught.”

It does not surprise me that this truth was withheld from you.
“The part about God the Father having parents is not taught by the current Mormon church and was speculation by some Mormons in the 19th Century. Again, this seems to come straight out of “The God Makers” which is a very poor source in terms of what Mormons really believe.”

No it was not speculation. As I recall, the “God Makers” revealed the doctrine of the Mormon Church and not what Mormons believe. If the Mormon Church revealed what they’re really about at the outset, most would run for their lives. Will you agree that what Mormons believe is in opposition to true Mormon doctrine?


It is not Mormon doctrine but it was openly discussed and not hidden from any of us. Your distinction about belief and doctrine seems an attempt to prop up a bad concept or work (such as “The God Makers.” No, I do not agree that what Mormons believe is in general in opposition to true Mormon doctrine. I will agree that Mormon leaders have started to shade at times what has been held as doctrine in an apparent attempt to change the doctrine. through time. Smith certainly saw evolution in his theology. The Book of Mormon has more of a Trinitarian tone than the Bible, but he went in a different direction in the years since its publication.

”Mormons do have an explanation for how Christ came to be deity. They believe that Christ was unique in the same way other Christians do, to bring salvation to mankind. Yes, Mormons think matter is eternal and do not hold to the concept of ex nihilo but they teach about The Father as if He always existed.”

No Mormon god existed eternally past. All came to be. Any god that has not always existed eternally past can’t guarantee your existence let alone your salvation.



Mormons have always had a bit of a problem with the eternal past. In the 19th Century they basically taught that God the Father had parents, and I guess it was implied that He had grandparents and great grandparents. This is eternity of a sort into the past. But for all practical purposes they addressed God the Father as being at the origin of creation. Modern Mormon leaders don’t teach an ancestry for The Father. Mormons do believe that all matter is eternal. I don’t see where whether or not God always existed has relevance about His power to bring about our existence or salvation. How does that follow?

FACT. Mormonism continues to teach that God the Father is a glorified, resurrected Man, and men and women may become Gods and Goddesses. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie makes this claim: "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted, immortal, resurrected Man!" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 643) Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism taught: "...you have to learn how to be Gods ourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you,..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 346) The Lord Himself answers this teaching by pronouncing: "...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)



Oh Dear, finally we come to Bruce R. McConkie, one of the most arrogant Mormon leaders of all-time. By the way, this book quoted (I call it “McConkie Doctrine”) is finally out of print and I think many Mormons will be glad when it is all but forgotten as it contained quite a bit of questionable material. And no, despite its title it was not an official Mormon book and it did not set forth a compendium of Mormon doctrine.

But no, some of this is no longer taught so much, or at least it is de-emphasized. You are behind the times in terms of Mormon currents by at least 20 years. This is a place I was talking about where it appears a Mormon leader, Gordon B. Hinckley was attempting to distance himself from what had been basically accepted doctrine.

”First of all you must present something that seems more logical to a Mormon than his or her existing beliefs.”

I did!


You made inaccurate arguments that many Mormons have encountered multiple times and do not find are better than what they believe. You have not offered anything about the worship of Christ that they would assume to be more logical. The Trinity is not more logical, it is just different. When I was amongst them and encountered somebody like yourself making these sort of arguments it had the effect of making me feel closer to the Mormon core. It is an approach that would make anybody defensive.

#69 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:32 AM

”The Mormons are not more loyal to Smith than to God and were not even as such during Smith's lifetime. Many took exception with some of his teachings, in that they did not seem biblical. The quote from Smith is authentic and seems prideful. But in some ways his statement was correct in terms of numbers of members of a church. Smith was clearly a man with weaknesses, as is shown in this statement. However, on balance I think he did worship The Lord. He certainly gave a good impression of it the vast majority of the time, staying in character to his death.”

It is not I arguing that those who worship false gods are more loyal to their false gods than Israel and Christians are to the true God. It is God himself lamenting this in Jeremiah. I wish that Christians were as dedicated and as loyal to the true God of Abraham as the Mormons to their false god. I get at least one (sometimes two) Mormon missionary groups ringing my door bell yearly. Since I’ve been a Christian, I’ve only had one Christian missionary visit my house.

Please reread Smith’s boast. In this boast, Smith elevates himself above Jesus Christ. He’s fortunate that Jesus Christ did not strike him dead. If Smith had made that statement back in the Old Testament, there would be a burnt grease spot on the ground where he had been standing.

“Smith was clearly a man with weaknesses” is an understatement. Smith was a false prophet of the first order and is now in hell awaiting judgment. He should be exposed for what he was so that millions of Mormons will not follow him to his eternal resting place.


I don't think Smith intended to set himself above Jesus. If quoted correctly, he used clumsy wording to boast, some say styling his comments after Paul in 2 Corinthians 11. But he may have been more similar to what John Lennon did over a century later. Lennon might have been correct that with many people of the time that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus, but I do not think he meant they were more important. Moses also had a problem with pride many centuries earlier. You are getting a bit overly dramatic ...what with the grease spot idea in my opinion.

I don't think Mormons are following a false God, but then again I think Jews and Muslims properly following their faith also have belief in the same God of Abraham. However, unlike these others Mormons are sincere followers of Christ. I think Christ accepts all who truly seek and follow Him. If the result of the admonitions of Mormons leaders is to seek and find Christ and this leads to good and not evil intent are they so wrong? Christ’s teachings in the Book of Mormon mirror those in the Bible. If the Mormons add that in doing “good works” when they are worshipping Christ, and such works do in fact do good and no harm to others, does this detract from their salvation that they believe come through Christ’s grace?

I also do not feel competent to judge anybody about whether or not they are in hell. Joseph Smith paid the price of his worst errors when murdered at a young age. It was pretty much the direct result of his starting the practice of plural marriage. What the eternal price of his sins might be is not something I know. I will not be the one in render this judgement.

”I find this argument in the realm of philosophy and not science. That is a creationist reading of thermodynamics and not my understanding of the way it is held and applied by mainstream physics. The Mormon viewpoint is actually closer to the scientific concepts as held by those who are purely secular in my opinion.”

C.S. Lewis and the Apostle Paul used philosophy and logic. I take pride in being in such a group. The laws of thermodynamics are not philosophy. No scientist has observed a violation of these laws. Mormons argue against all known and proven science that matter is eternal. They must do this because their gods are not eternal. All Mormon Gods come from within and this side of creation. I will be glad to debate you solely on this issue if you like. If you deem my argument above to be false, can you be specific.

The laws of thermodynamics are not philosophy. Can matter be created or destroyed? This is not held true in science, but it is held true by non-Mormon Christians. Mormons hold that matter always existed and therefore was not created.
”This is a creationist argument not held by many Christians who are not Mormons.”

Nor is it held by many atheists. But the truth or falsehood of my argument does not rest on what one believes. Believing something does not make it true. Rather we should believe it because it is true. If you can refute it, present your argument.


I don’t remember your original statement. Something about thermodynamics?

”Until the last sentence this sounds similar to what Mormons teach. On the other hand they do not teach this last sentence. They now teach as if The Father existed before pre-existent matter was organized by Him. They do not teach that he was the product of a god and his wife as you have stated. This is drawn from speculation from some of the more imaginative Mormon leaders in the 19th Century. But many sources critical of Mormonism basically create a patchwork from the uttering of any Mormon and give them full weight as Mormon Doctrine when this is not the case.”

One can’t have it both ways. Either matter existed before the Mormon god or the Mormon god existed before matter. Mormons argue that matter is eternal. The Mormon science professor I debated argued for eternal matter even though his own field of science proved the opposite.


Mormons don’t argue both ways. You did not read very carefully what I wrote. They feel matter always existed, they once taught that God as a physical resurrected being did not always exist, but they don’t really seem to want to go there anymore and imply that He sort of did exist essentially as far in the “past” as there is a past.

“They do not teach this last sentence.” But they did originally. When it could not be defended, they conveniently changed beliefs.


Like, most faiths there has been an evolution of belief with time in Mormonism, although they don’t like to admit it. They used to defend it, they seem to be changing their minds. I’m not sure if it is out of convenience.

So, you admit that all of the Mormon leaders of the 19th century are false prophets? If so, then Mormonism is a false religion. No? Simply arguing that the 19th Century Mormon founders and leaders were simply “imaginative” does not magically redeem Mormonism simply because we have moved into the 20th and 21st Centuries. If the first five books of the Bible were found to be false, could a Christian simply say, "Oh well! Moses was simply being 'imaginative." Could we continue to believe that the rest of the Bible was true? I think not.



I think they were non-prophets. When they taught correct principles they were not teaching false religion. For the most part Mormon leaders teach Christianity, but they add ideas that I do not think necessary. They are not really harmful unless they get in the way of a true worship of Christ. If a problem arose with the first five books in the Bible I could still hold the gospels to be true. They were written separately and compiled in single volume.

”The Mormons believe God existed before “creation” as they hold the concept. He organized matter into worlds. Science as I understand current thinking is closer to Mormon concepts than evangelical Christian creationism. They believe in an Eternal Father. They believe Christ came to be as the firstborn of the spirit children of The Father. Mormons believe that all of these existed as “intelligences” before their creation as spirits. This is a different belief that they do in fact hold.”

There are many Christians who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that He is God. But the doctrine of the Christian Church and the Bible say just the opposite. Notice that you say that God organized matter. The Bible says that He created matter. The Law of Non-contradiction does not allow for both to be true. Both can be false, but both can’t be true. Which do you believe is true, the Mormon version or Genesis?

For Mormons to argue that people existed as eternal spirit children is absurd on the face of it. Only God is eternal past. He is the First Cause. There can only be one First.



Mormons do believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he is divine. They believe that he is Jehovah and The Lord as referenced in the Old Testament.

I said that the Mormons believe that God organized matter. The Mormons would say that the act of creation was like when a person says that they have created a sculpture or anything else. They took material and created something from it. As you might have gathered my interpretation of Genesis is not the one held by the majority in this forum in a number of ways. I do not think a literal six-day creation is being described. There was no world-wide flood. There are atheists that would claim that the more standard viewpoint of most Christians is equally absurd or even more absurd than the Mormon concept. I personally don’t think it matters much in a spiritual sense whether or not the matter that came to be the earth and sun and other heavenly bodies was “created” as in out of nothing, or “organized” as in putting order and purpose to what was not in such order before the action took place.

The Mormons have more than one version of Genesis. They have the standard biblical account, which many Mormons interpret to support a YEC viewpoint. They also have the Book of Moses which came from Smith’s wish to do his own translation of the Bible.

”Much of what you have written is not true or correct as viewed by this ex-Mormon and I am sure most Mormons would find fallacies here as well. If you wish to successfully witness to Mormons, I would take a more humble and factual approach to their beliefs or they will most likely just reject your thoughts from the onset. They feel they follow the biblical Christ and such approaches seem arrogant to them. They think they have the form of church that was instituted by Christ and the Apostles that was later modified in the 2nd century and beyond.”

I will be glad to argue for the true DOCTRINE of the Mormon Church on any subject or doctrine you care to choose. I will not argue or discuss what individual Mormons believe. I had a Mormon friend who was closer to me than a blood brother. When I presented the Mormon doctrine to him as taught by Smith and the early founders, he was astonished. He replied: “TeeJay, where in the world did you get this. I don’t believe that." Most Mormons are kept totally in the dark as to the true doctrine.


It really seems pointless to argue anything about Mormonism as you have raised only the usual tried and true anti-Mormon straw men such as the misconceptions as set forth in “The God Makers” and similar publications and show no real depth to knowledge of the Mormons. Your tone and approach is not likely to “win “anyone from Mormonism. To be frank, if I had encountered you and a couple of others like you when I left the Mormons, Improbably would have re-considered sticking it out with them. You don’t know the true doctrine of the Mormon church as has been obvious in this post, no matter how many times you tell yourself otherwise. I don’t know the history of your friend, but precious few Mormons of age or long standing would be astonished to hear of the Mormon doctrine taught by Smith and others in the early church, for this is part of Church History and Gospel Doctrine classes. It is true that historically the Mormon church has pulled punches when teaching about polygamy in the early church or the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but not about basic doctrine.

No, most Mormons are not kept in the dark about their doctrine. Quite frankly your repeated stating of this does not strenghten your argument.

#70 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:53 PM

[quote] name='Geode' timestamp='1315755164' post='74897']
I don't think Smith intended to set himself above Jesus. If quoted correctly, he used clumsy wording to boast, some say styling his comments after Paul in 2 Corinthians 11. But he may have been more similar to what John Lennon did over a century later. Lennon might have been correct that with many people of the time that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus, but I do not think he meant they were more important. Moses also had a problem with pride many centuries earlier. You are getting a bit overly dramatic ...what with the grease spot idea in my opinion.

I don't think Mormons are following a false God, but then again I think Jews and Muslims properly following their faith also have belief in the same God of Abraham. However, unlike these others Mormons are sincere followers of Christ. I think Christ accepts all who truly seek and follow Him. If the result of the admonitions of Mormons leaders is to seek and find Christ and this leads to good and not evil intent are they so wrong? Christ’s teachings in the Book of Mormon mirror those in the Bible. If the Mormons add that in doing “good works” when they are worshipping Christ, and such works do in fact do good and no harm to others, does this detract from their salvation that they believe come through Christ’s grace?

I also do not feel competent to judge anybody about whether or not they are in hell. Joseph Smith paid the price of his worst errors when murdered at a young age. It was pretty much the direct result of his starting the practice of plural marriage. What the eternal price of his sins might be is not something I know. I will not be the one in render this judgement.



I don’t remember your original statement. Something about thermodynamics?



Mormons don’t argue both ways. You did not read very carefully what I wrote. They feel matter always existed, they once taught that God as a physical resurrected being did not always exist, but they don’t really seem to want to go there anymore and imply that He sort of did exist essentially as far in the “past” as there is a past.



Like, most faiths there has been an evolution of belief with time in Mormonism, although they don’t like to admit it. They used to defend it, they seem to be changing their minds. I’m not sure if it is out of convenience.



I think they were non-prophets. When they taught correct principles they were not teaching false religion. For the most part Mormon leaders teach Christianity, but they add ideas that I do not think necessary. They are not really harmful unless they get in the way of a true worship of Christ. If a problem arose with the first five books in the Bible I could still hold the gospels to be true. They were written separately and compiled in single volume.



Mormons do believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he is divine. They believe that he is Jehovah and The Lord as referenced in the Old Testament.

I said that the Mormons believe that God organized matter. The Mormons would say that the act of creation was like when a person says that they have created a sculpture or anything else. They took material and created something from it. As you might have gathered my interpretation of Genesis is not the one held by the majority in this forum in a number of ways. I do not think a literal six-day creation is being described. There was no world-wide flood. There are atheists that would claim that the more standard viewpoint of most Christians is equally absurd or even more absurd than the Mormon concept. I personally don’t think it matters much in a spiritual sense whether or not the matter that came to be the earth and sun and other heavenly bodies was “created” as in out of nothing, or “organized” as in putting order and purpose to what was not in such order before the action took place.

The Mormons have more than one version of Genesis. They have the standard biblical account, which many Mormons interpret to support a YEC viewpoint. They also have the Book of Moses which came from Smith’s wish to do his own translation of the Bible.



It really seems pointless to argue anything about Mormonism as you have raised only the usual tried and true anti-Mormon straw men such as the misconceptions as set forth in “The God Makers” and similar publications and show no real depth to knowledge of the Mormons. Your tone and approach is not likely to “win “anyone from Mormonism. To be frank, if I had encountered you and a couple of others like you when I left the Mormons, Improbably would have re-considered sticking it out with them. You don’t know the true doctrine of the Mormon church as has been obvious in this post, no matter how many times you tell yourself otherwise. I don’t know the history of your friend, but precious few Mormons of age or long standing would be astonished to hear of the Mormon doctrine taught by Smith and others in the early church, for this is part of Church History and Gospel Doctrine classes. It is true that historically the Mormon church has pulled punches when teaching about polygamy in the early church or the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but not about basic doctrine.

No, most Mormons are not kept in the dark about their doctrine. Quite frankly your repeated stating of this does not strenghten your argument.
[/quote]

Geode,

I will answer all three of your posts with this short post. I'm presently tied up on another thread.

I don't care what Mormons believe NOW, nor do I care what the Mormon Church is peddling TODAY. The Mormon Church is a false cult out of the pit of Hell and came from the fertile mind of Joseph Smith. Jesus said that "if I bare witness of myself, don't believe me." But Joseph Smith bore witness of himself and claims that we must believe him. I refuse to let the Mormon Church dismiss the original teachings of Joseph Smith and the founders of this false religion. And I will expose them every chance I get. And you should too, if you have denounced Mormonism, Joseph Smith, and the Mormon false jesus.

The Mormon jesus can't possibly be divine. All Mormon gods became gods within creation and this side of creation. So no Mormon god can be eternal. This is why the Mormon Church teaches that matter is eternal because their gods are not eternal. But matter can't be eternal (Second Law of Thermodynamics). And the universe could not have created itself from nothing. So If it could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here, then matter can't be eternal.

If God did not always exist eternally past, then nothing could possible exist now. Of necessity, a noncontingent Being must exist that does not owe existence to anything or anyone else. Since Mormon gods come from matter which is finite, then by definition, all Mormon gods must be finite.

You wrote that you are saved because you accepted Jesus when you were a Mormom. The Mormon jesus you accepted does not exist, except in the fertile mind of Joseph Smith. Therefore, you can't possibly be a Christian unless you have denounced this false god jesus and accepted the true God Jesus, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and most importantly, the God Jesus who died on the Cross for you. The Mormon jesus did not die on the cross for he does not exist.

I don't hear any testamony from you condemning the Mormon Church. And you should be screaming from the house tops that it's false, that the Mormon jesus is false and warning Mormons to get out of it and warning Christians of what it truly is. This I do not hear.

You are not saved. I will not mince words on this, because your eternal soul is at stake, and I do not want to send you to hell with aloving embrace.

TeeJay
  • Remnant of The Abyss likes this

#71 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 15 September 2011 - 09:08 AM

Geode,

There is something more important than the issue of an earthly versus heavenly kingdom--your salvation. Your posts, in this thread and in the thread titled "Is the Mormon Church Christian" lead me to judge that you are not a Christian. For one, you argued in this other thread that "The God Makers" had many falsehoods in it. I challenge this. And If you want to have a debate on this, I will gladly accept. Post specifically what you think are false arguments made in this book, and I will show you, from Mormon writings, that nothing in this book is false. And, of course, we will have to move to the Mormon thread.


Your conclusion about me is dead wrong, and quite frankly I have posted nothing that is inconsistent with a profound faith in Christ and His saving grace.

My opinion of "The God Makers" most certainly has no bearing on my being a Christian. It has several distortions and out and out lies in it, and I feel that my decades of membership as a full-fledged Mormon puts me in a better position to judge this than yourself. You have not shown much of a depth of knowledge of LDS theology in any posts I have seen from you. I am in a period of working 70 hour weeks and so not able to debate much of anything in depth just now. I posted some objections to it already, and have done so in depth in the past, but there are dozens of detailed rebuttals to it online that are fairly accurate.

In Post 67 of the thread titled, "Is the Mormon Thread Christian?" you wrote:


"I already accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when a Mormon. Upon being interviewed by an elder in a Presbyterian congregation for membership when asked questions about Christ and the nature of God and he found no fault in what I said. Mormons may not use the term “God the Son” for it is Trinitarian, but they hold that He is divine, and that He died for us and rose from the dead which is the most important part of your statement. I believe that the Mormons are Christians, and that probably as significant portion of them are saved as in other denominations."

I wish I could have a face-to-face discussion with that Presbyterian elder. I would rebuke him harshly. He did you a great dis-service.


No, the elder and I both had an understanding of Christ and his role as our Lord and Savior. It is you that seems to have a problem with accepting the light that Christ brings to all who welcome Him into their lives after sincerely seeking Him as I did.

The Mormon jesus can't possibly be "divine." By definition, "divine" means God who is eternal--past, present, and future. "I am He who is, who was, and who is to come." First of all, the Mormon jesus does not exist. He is ficticious and only existed in the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith and the early founders who were stupid enough to swallow his teachings.


That is not a definition that I have ever seen, you have crafted a new one that simply suits your particular form of faith and your argument here. You have made it far too specific to one point of view.

Mormon do not use the term "God the Son" because the Mormon jesus is not God. Jesus Christ is God the Son who has existed eternity past, exists now, and will exist eternity future. The Mormon jesus came to be as the result of a S@xual union between a father god (who is flesh and bone) with a spiritual goddess in heaven. He was birthed into the spiritual realm as a result of this. The Mormon jesus had a brother who was birthed the same way in the spiritual realm. His name is Satan. The Mormon jesus was birthed in the flesh as the result of a literal S@xual union between this Mormon father god and his daughter Mary. So when Mormons call Jesus the "only begotten of the father," this is a term they mean quite literally. There is no difference between the Mormon jesus and any other Morman human except that this Mormon jesus was the result of this sinful union. When Mormons are confronted with the fact that the Mormon father god committed adultery on his goddess wife in heaven and incest with his daughter Mary who was engaged to his son Joseph, most Mormons have no idea that this is the doctrine of the Mormon Church. So, Geode, I must ask: Is this the jesus to whom you are entrusting your etrnal soul? I pray not. Note to anyone reading this pragraph. It hurts me in my spirit to have to type this, but the truth of this cult has to be exposed.


They do not use the term "God the Son" because this is a Trinitarian formulation. The Mormon Jesus is a God, and that fits the definition of His being "divine"...

It is too bad that you appear not to be listening to a far more un-biased source that what you are getting your information from. Mormons have held to that literal "S@xual union" concept but it was never formally accepted doctrine. His is pure Brigham Young and is not taught by the modern LDS church. You are buying into the distortions that "The God Makers" promulgates. This is pure anti-Mormon 101 and not what is true. Most Mormons, at least those of a certain age, know exactly where you are coming from on this false claim of current Mormon thought. Since it has not been taught in a long time I would guess that some younger Mormons may not know about it, because it is not taught as Mormon theology or thought anymore. Once again, It is not doctrine of the Mormon church, and your repeating it does not add weight to your empty argument. That is not the Jesus that most Mormons follow and quite frankly as an ex-Mormon leader it appears my knowledge is much greater than your own on this subject.

The Mormon jesus did not die and shed his blood for you. The Mormon jesus did not rise from the dead. The Mormon jesus does not exist. Over 2,000 years ago a real person named Jesus, who is God the Son, came in the flesh, lived a sinless life, and died on the Cross and shed real blood. The Mormon jesus does not exist and has no blood to shed. The real God Jesus rose from the dead never to die again. Through Him we can have eternal life because He is eternally alive.



The one and only Jesus Christ does and shed His blood for you, for me, and for Mormons who believe upon Him as well. Christ is inclusive. Your use of a lowe case "J" shows a pettiness that is not becoming.

The Mormon jesus did not exist eternally past. He came to be at a moment in time after creation and this side of creation. Therefore he can't be eternal and he can't be "divine." Unless Jesus existed eternity past, nothing (you and I) could exist now. For anything to exist, there has to be a Being who has always existed eternity past. This Being could not cease to exist, for if it did, then it could not bring itself back into existence. And even a God can't create Himself from nothing if He does not first exist. So the Mormon jesus can't guarantee your existence let alone your eternal salvation.



And just where is a limitation on Christ's power and authority to be found in scripture following your definition? Where is the logic that the concept you give here is necessary for anything to exist? You are simply stating that your belief is correct, or nothing is correct. That is very self-serving.

ME was a former JW. And in her posts I can reasonably judge her to be saved. I do not see her defending the JW's or its founder. On the other hand, I do not see you condemning the Mormon Church and its false doctrine and founders. Instead, I hear, from you, a defense of this false prophet and the foolish cult he founded that is leading millions to an eternity apart from the true Jesus Christ WHO IS GOD!


It is not your place to pass judgment upon my spiritual state or salvation. That is between me and Christ. It is irrelevant what Mama Elephant thinks or says about the JWs. I state what I feel is true. I'm sorry that you lack the open-mindedness to even investigate where you have accepted ideas that are not true.

Geode, will you join me in denouncing Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church? Will you join me in an act of contrition for accepting and defending this false jesus? And will you join me in accepting the real Jesus Christ in accordance with Romans 10:9-10?

When you do this, I and every Christian on this site, and all the angels in heaven will rejoice.

TeeJay



I already have posted that I feel the Mormon church accepts as prophets figures who were merely regular men without prophetic vision. I have stated that they have ideas and theology that I no longer accept so I parted from them. But on the other hand they routinely gather in His name and are able to invoke His spirit when they do so sincerely. I have worshiped with them and know this to be the case. There is no need for contrition on my part for I have not committed a sin or any kind in simply stating my opinion, which is founded upon facts that you are apparently not in possession of, for you seem to prefer to hold to the distortions that your have based your opinions upon.

But once again, I would not advise this sort of preaching to a Mormon. This judgmental attitude has me feeling much more kinship with Mormons than the with those who seem to not want to discover the actual truth about a sect that they have not encountered as somebody seeing what they stand for first-hand.

#72 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 September 2011 - 01:09 PM

I have stated that they have ideas and theology that I no longer accept so I parted from them [Mormonism].


Geode, I don't think you realize this, but you have long been elusive in what you believe regarding essentials of Christianity, the statement above is just another example. Maybe you are a Christian, but you make it awfully hard to tell with the many questionable views you have posted. I know Christians who think as you do on some of your ideas, such as evolution, belief that Muslims and Mormons worship the same God, etc, but I know from other statements of theirs that they are saved, despite holding such dangerous beliefs borne mostly out of ignorance of most of the Bible. Most of those I have experienced with these demonstrably un-Biblical beliefs changed their view after being shown scripture (I hope you can someday be added to that list Posted Image). You can call this judgmental, or you can accept the standard we established in this forum to not allow members to put "Christian" in their profile if we can't ascertain what they believe. I have a page on essential doctrines here. You'll notice I have also listed many non-essential doctrines. If you accept the essentials, great. If you cannot agree with the essentials, I would kindly ask you change your profile, perhaps to the option 'private' (or suggest an option for me to add).


Fred

#73 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 15 September 2011 - 07:53 PM

Your conclusion about me is dead wrong, and quite frankly I have posted nothing that is inconsistent with a profound faith in Christ and His saving grace.


Geode,

There is no getting around or behind the fact that you posted that you accepted Jesus when you were a Mormon. That’s not possible. The Mormon jesus does not exist, has never existed, and is false god invented by a false prophet and con man named Joseph Smith.

This Mormon jesus did not exist eternity past but was a man who became a god. Jesus, God the Son, did not come to be. He always was. Mormonism believes that man can become a god. Christianity teaches that God became a man. He lowered Himself and came into His own creation to save us from our sins.

Your “profound faith in christ” avails you nothing if your faith is in a false christ that does not exist. You posted that the jesus you accepted was a Mormon jesus. Instead of denouncing this false jesus, you have accepted him and are now defending this false jesus.

All Mormon gods come from this side of and within creation. This is why the Mormon Church teaches that matter is eternal. But now with the advent of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, this is increasingly difficult to defend. But believe it or not, I debated a Mormon science professor some years ago who argued that matter was eternal. He could not justify his position with science; he argued it was true because he believed it was true.

And if you are going to defend this goofey Mormon doctrine, let us not forget the teachings of the co-founder Brigham Young:

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which revealed to them and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God. He was the first man on the earth, and the framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh…’” Deseret News, June 18, 1873

Brigham Young also taught that Adam and Eve did not die. (See John Nuttall Journal, p. 97; also October 8, 1854, sermon, p. 87).

“Who did beget [Jesus Christ]? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael [Arch-angel]; the Ancient of Days. Has he a Father? He has. Has he a mother? He has. Now to say that the Son of God was begotten by the Holy Ghost, is to say that the Holy Ghost is God the father, which is inconsistent, and contrary to all revelations of God, both modern and ancient. I silenced this all erroneous doctrine a year ago last fall conference. It was I think when a dispute arose among some of our best Elders, as to who was the Father of the Son of Man pertaining to the flesh. Some contended it was the Holy Ghost, and some that it was Elohim.” Brigham Young Papers – Msf, 219, #81, p. 7, Church Archives


My opinion of "The God Makers" most certainly has no bearing on my being a Christian. It has several distortions and out and out lies in it, and I feel that my decades of membership as a full-fledged Mormon puts me in a better position to judge this than yourself. You have not shown much of a depth of knowledge of LDS theology in any posts I have seen from you. I am in a period of working 70 hour weeks and so not able to debate much of anything in depth just now. I posted some objections to it already, and have done so in depth in the past, but there are dozens of detailed rebuttals to it online that are fairly accurate.


And what I will endeavor to do is to get those “decades of membership as a full-fledged Mormon” out of your system. I challenge your assertion that the “God Makers” has lies and distortions. Present what you think are lies and distortions, and I promise that I can refute your assertions with quotes from Mormon writings, apostles, teachings, prophets, presidents, founders, et.al. of the Mormon Church.

And your opinion of the “God Makers” has everything to do with your being a Christian. Your opinion of it and your defense of the Mormon Church is very revealing.

No, the elder and I both had an understanding of Christ and his role as our Lord and Savior. It is you that seems to have a problem with accepting the light that Christ brings to all who welcome Him into their lives after sincerely seeking Him as I did.


Will you at least admit that the Mormon jesus is not eternal in that he did not always exist but came to be in the spirit world? Will you admit that the Mormon Jesus was born as the result of an incestuous, adulterous relationship between the Mormon father god (who is flesh and bone) and Mary? Will you admit that the Mormon jesus is the brother of Satan? Can you explain why the Mormon jesus bypassed the struggle to become a god “as all other gods before him”? Can you explain how a Mormon jesus who can’t give you existence can be your salvation? How many gods are there? Is Jesus God, the “God who is, who was, and who is to come? Is matter eternal? Are you going to become a god? Wll you admit that for anything or anyone to exist, there has to be a non-contingent Being who has always existed.

That is not a definition that I have ever seen, you have crafted a new one that simply suits your particular form of faith and your argument here. You have made it far too specific to one point of view.


Can you explain how anything or anyone can exist if there was not a non-contingent Being who always existed. If you can, you’ll win a Nobel Prize. Unless a non-contingent Being (God) always existed then you are left with two options: The Creator created Himself from nothing before He existed. Or the universe created itself from nothing before it existed, and then the Mormon gods came from this self-created matter.

They do not use the term "God the Son" because this is a Trinitarian formulation. The Mormon Jesus is a God, and that fits the definition of His being "divine"...


How and when did the Mormon jesus become god?

It is too bad that you appear not to be listening to a far more un-biased source that what you are getting your information from. Mormons have held to that literal "S@xual union" concept but it was never formally accepted doctrine. His is pure Brigham Young and is not taught by the modern LDS church. You are buying into the distortions that "The God Makers" promulgates. This is pure anti-Mormon 101 and not what is true. Most Mormons, at least those of a certain age, know exactly where you are coming from on this false claim of current Mormon thought. Since it has not been taught in a long time I would guess that some younger Mormons may not know about it, because it is not taught as Mormon theology or thought anymore. Once again, It is not doctrine of the Mormon church, and your repeating it does not add weight to your empty argument. That is not the Jesus that most Mormons follow and quite frankly as an ex-Mormon leader it appears my knowledge is much greater than your own on this subject.


As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again.” I will not allow you to sweep goofey Uncle Brigham under the rug. He was the co-founder of this cult. See my quote above. I hate to embarrass you, but I can give you more quotes than you can read from Mormon founders, presidents, apostles, teachers, scholars, professors, et.al. If you challenge me, I can do it. I can dump more Mormon quotes to make Fred angry for using up space on this site.

I’ve said this before. I care not what is made public today by the Mormon Church. With modern media, the Mormon Church has hid their true identity from the average Mormon. I will expose them for what they are. And because my criticism of the Mormon Church makes you angry, tells me that you are still a Mormon at heart.

The one and only Jesus Christ does and shed His blood for you, for me, and for Mormons who believe upon Him as well. Christ is inclusive. Your use of a lowe case "J" shows a pettiness that is not becoming.


No! Can you agree with me that the Mormon jesus does not exist? If he does not exist, how is it possible for him to die and shed blood? This is not possible. And if you are entrusting your eternal soul to this false Mormon jesus, then you are not saved.

And just where is a limitation on Christ's power and authority to be found in scripture following your definition? Where is the logic that the concept you give here is necessary for anything to exist? You are simply stating that your belief is correct, or nothing is correct. That is very self-serving.


The Bible says that Jesus is Creator God. How could you have a creation if the Creator did not first exist? Or do you believe that matter is eternal, as the Mormon Church teaches?

It is not your place to pass judgment upon my spiritual state or salvation. That is between me and Christ. It is irrelevant what Mama Elephant thinks or says about the JWs. I state what I feel is true. I'm sorry that you lack the open-mindedness to even investigate where you have accepted ideas that are not true.


Actually, it is very much my place. Paul writes, “But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one” (1 Cor. 2:15). If a Christian does not judge, he can’t witness, rebuke or forgive. Jesus did not teach not to judge; He taught how to judge—“with righteous judgment.” And “feeling” something is true does not make it true. When it comes to truth, I close my mind around it and I am very “closed minded.”

Do you realize that you judged me for judging? You posited that it was not my place to pass judgment upon your spiritual state or salvation. If this were true, then no Christian could ever get the “speck or log out of his brother’s eye,” as commanded by Jesus.

I already have posted that I feel the Mormon Church accepts as prophets figures who were merely regular men without prophetic vision. I have stated that they have ideas and theology that I no longer accept so I parted from them. But on the other hand they routinely gather in His name and are able to invoke His spirit when they do so sincerely. I have worshiped with them and know this to be the case. There is no need for contrition on my part for I have not committed a sin or any kind in simply stating my opinion, which is founded upon facts that you are apparently not in possession of, for you seem to prefer to hold to the distortions that your have based your opinions upon.

But once again, I would not advise this sort of preaching to a Mormon. This judgmental attitude has me feeling much more kinship with Mormons than the with those who seem to not want to discover the actual truth about a sect that they have not encountered as somebody seeing what they stand for first-hand.


Did Jesus always exist eternity past?

TeeJay

#74 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 September 2011 - 05:03 AM

Geode,

Which Jesus do Mormons worship?

Let's see what Mormon leaders say about that...

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a DIFFERENTJesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." LDS Quorum of the Seventy member Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p. 26
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7

"Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost...He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18

"Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. ...If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders by the people bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:51

"The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy, ...a belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were 'Mormons.'" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:345-346

"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this sprit-filled brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15


There are three major differences between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Mormon Church. Here's what Mormons believe:
1. Instead of the eternal Jesus co-equal with the Father, the Mormon Jesus was once a man who achieved godhood by his own virtuousness during a pre-incarnate existence. His spirit was then impregnated into the Virgin Mary by the "Eternal Father" who came from the planet Kolob for the physical union with her.

2. Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers who competed for the opportunity to become the savior of planet earth. Jesus' plan won approval and Lucifer rebelled and became the tempter and deceiver of planet Earth.

3. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is only one of many saviors who are each responsible for the salvation of the population of other planets like Earth. Mormon men are working with the promise that they, too, will eventually become gods and be given a planet of their own to populate. This will be accomplished by their intercourse with many wives who will bear millions of spirit children to inhabit the bodies of the people on their planet.

The Jesus of the Bible taught that salvation is a free gift anyone can receive by accepting Him as their personal Savior, not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 4:6 & 11:6; Philippians 3:9). The LDS Jesus taught that your level of exaltation was based on faith plus works determined by men. Thus, the Jesus of the Bible and the LDS Jesus can't be the same Jesus, as they taught mutually exclusive doctrine.

Question for Mormons: If the LDS God progressed from a man to God by works, as stated by many church leaders, then where did the first man come from? Or, conversely, if the LDS God created the first man, where did the first LDS God come from? (This is a classic circle argument.)

Are Mormons Christian?

Let's see what Mormon leaders say...

• Brigham Young said that the "Christian God is the Mormon's Devil..." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 5, page 331).

• John Taylor said that Christianity was "hatched in hell" (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 176) and "a perfect pack of nonsense...the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work..." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 167).

• Bruce R. McConkie said, "What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power?.... It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel.... It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini." (The Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55.)

Seventeen Little Known Facts about the Mormon Religion:

The following facts represent teachings that are either openly taught in the Mormon Church today, or that have been taught by the highest authorities of the Mormon Church. All quotes given are from official LDS publications or the Bible.
FACT #1. The Mormon Church teaches ALL other Churches are WRONG; ALL their creeds are an ABOMINATION in the sight of God; and ALL their teachers are CORRUPT. One of the Mormon Books of Scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, says this about non-LDS churches: "...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; …" (Joseph Smith, 2:19)

FACT #2. Mormonism teaches there is no salvation outside the Mormon Church and no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie makes this statement: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Mormon Doctrine, p.670) The Bible, on the other hand, teaches salvation is in Jesus alone; "Neither is there salvation in any other [Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

FACT #3. Mormons are taught to doubt the reliability of the Bible and their leaders have consistently attacked its accuracy. Joseph Smith claimed: "... it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.10) The Bible answers this attack: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)


FACT #4. A basic tenant in Mormonism today is that Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan. Milton R. Hunter explains it like this: "The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, … this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." (The Gospel Through The Ages, p.15) Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that Lucifer attempted to become the Savior: In fact, Jesus created Satan, so they can't be brothers. Colossians 1:16 indicates that Jesus created "all things," whether "in heaven," or "in earth, visible or invisible."

FACT #5. Mormonism continues to teach that God the Father is a glorified, resurrected Man, and men and women may become Gods and Goddesses. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie makes this claim: "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted, immortal, resurrected Man!" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 643) Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism taught: "...you have to learn how to be Gods ourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you,..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 346) The Lord Himself answers this teaching by pronouncing: "...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6

FACT #6. Mormons consider Polygamy a righteous principle which will be practiced in heaven. Although there is nothing in the Bible that will support this thinking, current Mormon Scripture has this to say: "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no adultery … And if he have TEN VIRGINS given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery …" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:61,62)

FACT #7. Mormons today believe God the Father is married and past leaders have taught both God the Father and Jesus Christ are polygamists. Apostle Orson Pratt makes these unbelievable statements: "… the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a Polygamist … the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approbated the plurality of Wives under the Christian dispensation … God the Father had a plurality of wives … the Son followed the example of his Father … both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; …" (The Seer, p. 172) Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that God the Father and Jesus Christ are married or polygamists.

FACT #8. The majority of the activity in the Mormon Temples is work done in behalf of the DEAD. Joseph Smith offers this explanation: "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our DEAD." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 356). Although many Mormons are attempting to save their dead relatives, the Bible indicates: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." (Psalms 49:7)

FACT #9. To the Mormon, the ultimate test that Mormonism is true is an "inner feeling." Mormons often refer to this feeling as a "burning in the bosom." They believe their scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8) gives the best test for determining truth. This test reads: "… study it out in your mind; then you must ask me [the Lord] if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall FEEL that it is right." The Bible, on the other hand, tells us: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Timothy 2:15)

FACT #10. Mormon leaders demand total obedience regardless whether they are right or wrong. The ward teacher's message for June, 1945, stated: "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God." (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354) Herber C. Kimball, First Councilor to Brigham Young, clarifies further: "But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.32) The Bible warns us in I John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

FACT #11. Mormon leaders have consistently attacked the Biblical doctrine of Salvation by God's Grace through Faith alone. In Apostle James Talmage's book, The Articles of Faith, twice he refers to justification by Faith alone as a "pernicious doctrine," and further declares: "The Sectarian Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone has exercised an influence for evil." (pp. 107,480) The Bible responds: "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

FACT #12. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie has warned his people against a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. McConkie made these shocking statements at a speech given at BYU. "… gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous … Now, I know that some may be offended and the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ … But you been warned, and you have heard the true doctrine taught." (Church News, week ending March 20, 1982, p.5) In opposition to this, Jesus gives us a personal invitation: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

FACT #13. Joseph Smith founder of the Mormon Church, boasted of doing a greater "work" than the Lord Jesus. Joseph Smith made this incredible boast: "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Volume 6, Chapter 19, Page 408) No true Prophet of God ever spoke such words as these.

FACT #14. In 1835 Joseph Smith prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord. At a meeting called by Joseph Smith he instructed the Latter day Saints that it was "the will of God" to go forth and "prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh even fifty six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 182) Eight years later he reinforced this by stating: "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written; the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty five years old." (History of the Church, vol.5, p. 336)

FACT #15. Mormons are taught to "shake hands" with a messenger to determine if he is from God or if he is the devil. The following information is found in Mormon scripture: "When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you. If he be an angle he will do so, and you will feel his hand … If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him." (Doctrine and Covenants 129:4,5,8) Rather that trusting in "feelings" the Bible commands us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
FACT #16. Brigham Young claimed that these who leave the Mormon Church would turn "wrinkled" and "black." The following curse was pronounced by Brigham Young: "… but let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332) There have been tens of thousands of people leave the Mormon Church -- Where are the "black and wrinkled" ones?

FACT #17. Joseph Smith taught the moon was inhabited by people who dressed like Quakers and lived to be about 1000 years old. In the Mormon publication, The Young Woman's Journal, pp. 263 & 264, O.B. Huntington gives this interesting information: "As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He [Smith] described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style." Now that man has walked on the Moon, there can be no doubt that there aren't any 6 foot tall Quakers roaming its surface.

TeeJay

#75 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 September 2011 - 05:11 AM

Geode,

Mormons believe that God had s@x with Mary:

Mormons believe that God had s@x with Mary. Most Mormons have no idea about this obscure teaching. They change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an immortal being who had s@x with Mary. (He was not a mere mortal man.) This is exactly what Bruce R. McConkie, (a leading LDS theologian who died in 1985) said: "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, p. 466). In other words, if Joseph had s@x with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had s@x with Mary, she remains a virgin.

Lest you argue that this is not a modern day teaching. Note the date McConkie wrote this.

TeeJay

#76 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 September 2011 - 05:19 AM

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1316117358' post='74981']
Geode, I don't think you realize this, but you have long been elusive in what you believe regarding essentials of Christianity, the statement above is just another example. Maybe you are a Christian, but you make it awfully hard to tell with the many questionable views you have posted. I know Christians who think as you do on some of your ideas, such as evolution, belief that Muslims and Mormons worship the same God, etc, but I know from other statements of theirs that they are saved, despite holding such dangerous beliefs borne mostly out of ignorance of most of the Bible. Most of those I have experienced with these demonstrably un-Biblical beliefs changed their view after being shown scripture (I hope you can someday be added to that list Posted Image). You can call this judgmental, or you can accept the standard we established in this forum to not allow members to put "Christian" in their profile if we can't ascertain what they believe. I have a page on essential doctrines here. You'll notice I have also listed many non-essential doctrines. If you accept the essentials, great. If you cannot agree with the essentials, I would kindly ask you change your profile, perhaps to the option 'private' (or suggest an option for me to add).


Fred
[/quote]

Fred,

I want to suggest a new handle for Geode. How about Mormon Apologist? Geode, what do you think? Geode, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I think it is a very accurate description.

TeeJay

#77 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 16 September 2011 - 01:26 PM

Fred,

I want to suggest a new handle for Geode. How about Mormon Apologist? Geode, what do you think? Geode, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I think it is a very accurate description.

TeeJay


Well, from a moderator perspective, if Geode, who has consistently abided by the rules of this forum, agrees with the essentials, a very short list, I'll have to take him at his word and he won't be required to change his profile selection. I'm anxious to see his reply. Whatever the case, this doesn't mean we'll turn down the heat in our attempt to get him to see the errors in his position. :)
Posted Image

Fred

#78 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 September 2011 - 03:01 PM

LOL! Your use of smileys has been cracking me up.

First of all, Thomas was a disciple being chosen by and led by Jesus Christ for years before he knew who He was, so I think it is very difficult for us to say whether someone is a Christian or is saved.

That said, it all happened in very quick succession for me. I realized that Christ was my only mediator, accepted him, read 1 John and came to understand the Godhead... this was all a matter of a few days. I don't see how one who is led by the Spirit would not understand the Godhead enough to accept it.

I think that anyone having trouble with this should look at John chapter 8, especially the verses leading up to and including John 8:24 and John 8:58, John 14:9 and context and Psalm 83:18, Hebrews 1 with cross references. Hebrews 1:10

One can establish that YHWH is repeatedly called the only true God and that Jesus is YHWH.

John 8:24, John 8:58, John 14:9, Hebrews 1:10

I am trying to get the links to the scriptures to work. hmmph.

#79 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 September 2011 - 03:23 PM

Did Jesus always exist eternity past?

In working with my cult ministry, I have found that there has to be a progression. First one accepts Jesus as Lord, Savior and Mediator, then they realize that when Jesus is called Lord, it is the same as God, the last step is realizing that Jesus had no beginning. You see, if you try to argue theology with people before they have accepted Jesus as their Lord, Savior and Mediator it will do little good. It will end up with them staunchly defending their current beliefs and providing scriptures that support their viewpoint. Just look at some of my past posts and you will see what I mean. :blink:

But, we can answer this answer in a couple of ways. First off, John 1:3 says that not one thing came into existence without the Word. Not ONE thing. This would of course include the word. Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 establish that in the beginning, nothing but God was in existence. If you want to say that something existed in the beginning, then prove it with scripture instead of conjecture. You can't.

#80 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 September 2011 - 03:25 PM

Phillipians2: 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Isaiah 45:21“Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together.
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.

22“Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.

23“I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Romans 14:11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users