are Mormons considered Christians?

[briand]

Tom of Assisi:

If we could keep the thoughts here concise and coherent it would be great:

two questions:

1. are Mormans Christian?
2. do they consider themselves Christian?

I understand they do not believe in the Trinity, and therefore Christ’s divinity, so this would put them in the non-Christian camp, right?

God Bless

My opinion, Yes they are Christians, often very faithful Christians

Yes they think they are Christians and they think their church is the One True Church and that they have the fullness of the Gospel. Of course there are many groups that think that about themselves.

 

[Monicathree]

Hey there Tom,

Thanks for your reply though it still does not seem consistent with LDS theology, I guess we’ll just leave it at that and move on to the 2cnd issue.

The 2cnd issue being that you said the quote that God was once a man is not binding LDS doctrine and that no prophet is infallible. This is my problem; Joseph Smith claimed to be restoring the gospel, to be a seer, revelator and prophet of God, the man to change forever the face of Christianity, yet when he adamantly speaks on the nature of God, it is to be chalked up just as human opinion. That does not seem logically consistent, it seems a little pick and choosy on what you believe from the mouth of Joseph Smith. (I am not trying to offend you, just trying to understand better)

Also, it is not just Joseph Smith who said this, but also two other prophets. Now, aren’t I correct that a prophet in your church has the authority to write new scripture. Again, I know that this is not scripture, but these are the men with the true knowledge of Christ’s true church .

1.Joseph Smith declared: “God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346).

1. “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become” (The Gospel Through the Ages, Hunter, p.105-106).
2. Brigham Young preached: “It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being” (Deseret News, Nov. 16, 1859, p. 290).

So, I’ll give you even if one of the living prophets was wrong, but all three

Peace

These are all church approved publications

 

[TOmNossor]

Monicathree:

The 2cnd issue being that you said the quote that God was once a man is not binding LDS doctrine and that no prophet is infallible. This is my problem; Joseph Smith claimed to be restoring the gospel, to be a seer, revelator and prophet of God, the man to change forever the face of Christianity,
Also, it is not just Joseph Smith who said this, but also two other prophets. Now, aren’t I correct that a prophet in your church has the authority to write new scripture. Again, I know that this is not scripture, but these are the men with the true knowledge of Christ’s true church.
1.Joseph Smith declared: “God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346).
3. Brigham Young preached: "It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being" (Deseret News, Nov. 16, 1859, p. 290).
So, I’ll give you even if one of the living prophets was wrong, but all three

Peace

These are all church approved publications

Monicathree,

Have you read through Vatican I. To me the claim of infallibility is pretty grandiose.

1800+ years after the beginning of the Catholic Church the doctrine of infallibility was defined. From the Doctrine and Covenants (mostly written during the first couple of decades) one can develop the doctrine expressed in the following statement.

President Harold B. Lee-
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

TOm:

You point to statements by Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, and Brigham Young (The Hunter that wrote your other quote was not a Prophet of the church). Joseph Fielding Smith received revelation after all these Prophets, but his revelation was accepted by the twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. His revelation become binding doctrine. The words you quote did not, but they occurred earlier in time.

Now I have not said that there is not truth in the words. I have said that God is infinite and eternal the same unchanging God. You and I both believe that Jesus once was as man is, but has always been God. Here are some words from the late second century.

**St. Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref **

…the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.(ANF 1.526)

St. Irenaeus also said that we should not “fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God.”

So when President Hinckley says that we do not know very much about God being once a man, I believe he is telling us that whatever was meant by the early prophets of the CoJCoLDS, we should not “fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God” or if God was once a man.

So our scriptures tell us that God was never not God, but beyond this there are many possibilities.

Infallibility was no small discussion. There are plenty of reasons that one might question how Popes can be declared infallible in light of the things that have been said by them that are heretical today. However, Vatican I was quite clear that Popes are not always infallible. The first prophet and every one after him has known and/or taught that the prophet is only the prophet when acting as such. If we wish to allow the Catholic Church the right to define its doctrine, do you not also think we should allow the CoJCoLDS the same right?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I want to say thanks to wifenmom and braind.

I recognize that there are differences between LDS, Catholics, and other Christians; but I think it is a step in the right direction when we can acknowledge strengths. One of the reasons I am here is because of the incredible respect I have for the Catholic Church and faithful Catholics.

I believe that you likely still fear for me that I might be “outside of the Catholic Church,” and would be quite happy were I to understand as you do. But I still appreciated that you can comment as you have.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.313:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

Tom,

I think you are in error when it comes to what you are saying about the teachings of the LDS church.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Snow all expounded on the God the father was once a man issue and they were all in agreement.

The very concept of exaltation as taught in the LDS church and as especially expounded in the LDS Temple ceremonies is not ambiguous in this matter.

The Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is totally off topic. We aren’t talking about Catholic teaching we are talking about Mormon Doctrine.

While there are a great many wonderful LDS people out there and while I have no reason to question the sincerity of the faith of any of them it still remains that the LDS church teachings are not compatible with traditional Christianity and Catholic teachings.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Tom,
I think you are in error when it comes to what you are saying about the teachings of the LDS church.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Snow all expounded on the God the father was once a man issue and they were all in agreement.

The very concept of exaltation as taught in the LDS church and as especially expounded in the LDS Temple ceremonies is not ambiguous in this matter.

The Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is totally off topic. We aren’t talking about Catholic teaching we are talking about Mormon Doctrine.

While there are a great many wonderful LDS people out there and while I have no reason to question the sincerity of the faith of any of them it still remains that the LDS church teachings are not compatible with traditional Christianity and Catholic teachings.

-D

Darcee,

It is certainly possible that I am wrong; I am not infallible . But, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what constitutes the binding doctrine of the CoJCoLDS.

So, that men may become gods, is LDS doctrine. It has solid Biblical roots and has been explained in the Doctrine and Covenants. (It also has solid Catholic parallels as pointed to in this thread: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624 and by AugustineH354 in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380&page=3)

That God was once a man has no solid foundation in any of the standard works. Because of this as the Prophet Harold B. Lee so clearly pointed out, it is opinion not binding doctrine.

The importance of the parallels to Catholic infallibility doctrine is as follows. Vatican I went to great length (amidst great internal opposition) to define infallibility. Any Papal infallibility would have to explain how past Pope had indeed found themselves on the ultimately heretical side of controversies. It would also have to jive with the cessation of revelation associated with the end of the Apostles. The strict definition of infallibility that emerges satisfied many but not all of the internal (read faithful believing Catholics) critics.

I suggest that LDS “common consent” requirements were developed in the Doctrine and Covenants during the first couple of decades of the church. They are not quite as complex as Papal Infallibility, and in truth they are much more similar to the pre-Infallibility teachings of the Catholic Church (for which many Catholic scholars/clergy lobbied). So I suggest that I should be allowed to restrict what is binding LDS doctrine based on the restrictions that are developed effectively in the D&C and stated so clearly by President Lee.

I have no doubt that many LDS do not understand that the prophet can share his opinion and it is such until and unless it is accepted by common consent. Just like I have no doubt that many Catholics have no idea what Papal Infallibility really constitutes. These truths do not change what I believe is clearly taught.

Charity, TOm

 

[Katholikos]

petra:

A first read of CCC 460 is very disturbing to me. I find the language repugnant. While even the word “Christian” means “little Christ”, this does not mean we are divine. The distinction between Creator and creation is retained. It means we have qualities of Christ’s holiness infused into us. So I would not have a problem with language that we are “godlike”.

But the statement in CCC 460, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” is horrifying. The Catechism in general is so carefully written, it is difficult for me to believe that anything other than a plain reading is called for. Brendan’s explaination on the Catholic Deification thread seems a reasonable interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4. But the Catechism’s language excludes such interpretation. This poses a serious problem for me in being able to fully embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church. At best, the language muddies interpretation and facilitates mingling of heresies such as Mormon eternal progression. As JimG pointed out, part of Satan’s lie to Adam and Eve was that they would be like gods. It is an evil temptation.

To Petra and everyone,

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” is a quote from St. Athansius, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in the East. “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, of Italy, in the West. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthothodox Churches, who for the first thousand years of Christianity were united in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, remain united in this doctrine. What do these words mean? How are we to understand them?

This was previously posted on “The Many Gods of Mormonism” thread, but it answers your concern.

QUOTING MY POST:
No ECF or any other Catholic has construed these biblical references [about gods] to mean that men would become gods at some future point in time – or at any time. The meaning is related to 2 Peter 1:4 (RSV), “His divine power has granted to you all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE” (emphasis mine).

"We are no longer limited to acknowledging the transcendence and omnipotence of God, but we may also accept the salvation which he grants us and assimilate the divine grace which he gives us. This is what the Fathers meant by ‘deification’; God became man that we might become God (St. Athanasius, The Incarnation of the Word). This deification is realized when we become members of the Body of Christ, but also and especially by the unction of the Spirit when the latter teaches each one of us: the “economy of the Holy Spirit means precisely this, that we are able to enjoy communion with the one and truly deified humanity of Jesus Christ from the time of the Ascension to the final Paraousia” The Orthodox Church, John Meyendorff.

This is the meaning of the Sacraments. Through them, we “partake of the Divine Nature.” Jesus feeds our souls with Sanctifying Grace, which is the very Divine Life of God, in Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, etc. Thus we are
“deified” – becoming more like Jesus Christ – who feeds us his own Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. We are what we eat. We are not gods, and will not be gods, but we are becoming more Christ-like as His Body and Blood are assimilated into our body and blood, slowly transforming us, nourishing our souls.

During the Holy Mass, the priest prays: May we come to share in your divinity, as you humbled yourself to share in our humanity.

As with all words, the question is ‘What do they mean?’

To take them literally [meaning that man actually becomes a god] is totally contrary to the understanding of either the Ancient Catholic or Orthodox Churches. [Athanasius was fourth century.] John Meyendorff, whose book is quoted here, is an Eastern Orthodox scholar.

Peace be with you, Jay
P.S. What is the source of your definition of Christian as
“little Christs?”

 

[darcee]

I spent 8 years in the LDS church, so it isn’t as though I come to this armed only with what I have read online about Mormonism.

The fact is that if you sustain the prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow then you must accede that the LDS Church has in fact at the highest level taught the man-god principle.

The Catholic teaching of infallibility doesn’t bear on what the LDS teach. They don’t abide by it. While you can draw all the parallels you want it isn’t at all the same.

I remember when I was told that whenever a member of the first presidency addressed the church that it was as important as the Bible. Now granted this was one person saying this, but many LDS keep their copies of the Ensign right next to their book of Mormon in more then the physical sense.

After all to be worthy of a temple recommend you have to sustain the leadership of the church and believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet. It is all to convenient for the LDS church to have been teaching one thing at the very highest level for almost 150 years to change it now. It is completely inconsistent. The LDS Chruch has long held that the prophet spoke with the voice of God. take a peek here for more info on this: [LDS arguments: Leaders not speaking for God?

](LDS arguments: Leaders not speaking for God?) Joseph Smith said:

“Here, then, is eternal life ? to know the only wise and true god; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, **the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, **and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power”

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

I spent 8 years in the LDS church, so it isn’t as though I come to this armed only with what I have read online about Mormonism.

The fact is that if you sustain the prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow then you must accede that the LDS Church has in fact at the highest level taught the man-god principle.

Actually, I can sustain the prophet quite well with my belief that they can bring forth new revelations, they can present their opinion, and/or they can teach from the current body of revelation. It is your theory that falls flat. How do you claim that the words of Joseph Smith that were never canonized MUST be part of sustaining the prophet and at the same time sustain the Prophet Harold B. Lee who said that regardless of position in the church if one is not teaching from the scriptures it is their opinion. You cannot do this. It is impossible for one to be both required to do something and required to not do something.

And the “infallibility parallel” is quite appropriate. Vatican I spent a great deal of time defining what infallibility was. Those theologians found themselves needing to simultaneously explain (for the first time clearly) that the Pope has the ability to speak infallibly, but also to explain why sometimes Popes present/believe heretical teachings. Few Catholics probably understand the sorts of things that were discussed at Vatican I. And when ex-Catholic say that the Pope sins and is therefore not infallible they demonstrate that they have adopted a view that is incapable of explaining Catholic theology/history/teachings.

I spent more than 2x as many years as a Catholic than you spent as a LDS. Had I understood Transubstantiation and some other things I would likely have never given other religions enough thought to have left the Catholic Church, but I left ignorant of what the Catholic Church was. I felt compelled to correct this and I hope that I have, but it has not resulted in my reversion.

darcee:
The Catholic teaching of infallibility doesn’t bear on what the LDS teach. They don’t abide by it. While you can draw all the parallels you want it isn’t at all the same.

Perhaps you should read the record of Vatican I and think about the parallels to what I have said. The restrictions on the Pope’s infallibility are demanded by the history and doctrine of the Catholic Church. Without these restrictions, Catholicism falls as a sham. The restrictions on the Prophets prophetic call are demanded by the history and doctrine of the CoJCoLDS. That few Catholic and few LDS know this I agree. But the parallels are very real.

I have no problem sustaining the prophet. I follow his guidance. I look to him to define the scriptures. When he teaches something not contained in scripture, I adopt this into my ideas. When the current Prophet said, “we do not know very much about that,” while referring to the idea that God was once a man; I believed him. You are free to pick and choose what you believe is binding LDS doctrine, but you are most surely wrong just like so many ex-Catholics are most surely wrong when they teach what Catholics believe.

Charity,

TOm

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

Actually, I can sustain the prophet quite well with my belief that they can bring forth new revelations, they can present their opinion, and/or they can teach from the current body of revelation. It is your theory that falls flat. How do you claim that the words of Joseph Smith that were never canonized MUST be part of sustaining the prophet and at the same time sustain the Prophet Harold B. Lee who said that regardless of position in the church if one is not teaching from the scriptures it is their opinion. You cannot do this. It is impossible for one to be both required to do something and required to not do something.

Because I don’t. It is the leaders of the LDS church that claim that the prophets of the LDS church speak new scripture and that what they preach should be considered doctrine. If you follow the link in my above post you will see this.

Ask yourself this "When the Prophet Harold B. Lee said what you quoted was he speaking as prophet or is it just his opinion that the prophets words are only from God if he is teaching from the scriptures? " Why should you believe Lee’s opinion over that of Benson, Smith, Snow and Young all presidents of the LDS Church in agreement that God the Father was once a man like us? Were they speaking a profound error when they claimed the words of the prophets equal or greater then scripture?

When I was in the LDS church Ezra Taft Benson was First Presidnet and he said “the Living Prophet…is more vital to us than the Standard Works . The living Prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet”…“Keep your eye on the President of the Church. If he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets, BYU Devotional, Feb 26, 1980, p.3,6).

Cling to Lee’s words if they bring you comfort, but they are not in conformity with the bulk of the teaching of the prophets of the LDS Church. You are right that no one can both require and not require you to do something. This is defiantly a contradiction in the LDS teaching. But it is certainly not the only one.

There are many wonderful things in the LDS church. Most especially the programs for teaching the youth. Unfortunately there are so many issues with the doctrine especially the Book of Mormon that I really look back with pain and hope that in some way I can atone for the young women I mislead because I would not allow myself the courage to question those aspects I knew in my soul to be wrong.

I just would ignore the problems because I was so deeply knit in with my friends in the ward and I didn’t want to disappoint them. I was sure that my concerns were somehow because of my lack of faith. Yet at the same time I was trying to convert the rest of my family and strong when defending the LDS church. When I would see people I loved up at fast and testimony meeting crying at the pulpit about how much they loved the Book of Mormon and the church I felt so moved by THEM, but at the same time hollow that I didn’t feel the same. I was told that bearing my testimony would help it grow, so I would find myself standing up there crying in the pulpit and have people tell me how wonderful my testimony was… it wasn’t. When I finally started allowing the questions to be voiced and looking for real answers is when I found peace in God. Unfortunately it didn’t happen until I had a complete crisis of faith and it took a minor miracle to get me home.

I hope TOm that you will find a path back. I hope it will be less difficult then mine. Know that you have a place in my prayers.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

Darcee:

Ask yourself this "When the Prophet Harold B. Leewas he speaking as prophet or is it just his opinion that the prophet was are only from God if he is not teaching from the scriptures? " Why should you believe Lee’s opinion over that of Benson, Smith, Snow and Young all presidents of the LDS Church in agreement that God the Father was once a man like us? Were they speaking a profound error when they claimed the words of the prophets equal or greater then scripture?

TOm:

Two reasons.

• Harold B. Lee’s statement is fully supported by scripture and therefore if it is true than it is binding doctrine. The other statements are not supported by scripture.
• Your view produces a hopeless contradiction. For you to suggest that because the prophet taught it, it must be doctrine negates the HBL statement which was taught by a prophet. This is an internally inconsistent position.

Darcee:

When I was in the LDS church Ezra Taft Benson was First Presidnet and he said “the Living Prophet…is more vital to us than the Standard Works . The living Prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet”…“Keep your eye on the President of the Church. If he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets, BYU Devotional, Feb 26, 1980, p.3,6).

TOm:

I completely embrace what ETB said. The LIVING Prophet is more important to us in that he can give us customized GUIDANCE and when necessary revelation. But when the revelation is to become binding then the procedure outlined in the D&C will be followed.

So had I lived during Lorenzo Snow’s time I would have found place for his teachings. In fact, as I have said above, I do not reject his teaching as untrue. I just demand that they must be righted with the binding LDS doctrine contained in the D&C.

More…
Charity, TOm

 

[Monicathree]

Hey there,

Darcee, you pretty much made all the points that came to mind while reading Tom’s responses. Well done.

Tom, if it is not too personal, why did you leave? It would be great to have somebody as passionate as you are on this side. I have enjoyed our exchange

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

Darcee:

Cling to Lee’s words if they bring you comfort, but they are not in conformity with the bulk of the teaching of the prophets of the LDS Church. You are right that no one can both require and not require you to do something. This is defiantly a contradiction in the LDS teaching. But it is certainly not the only one.

TOm:

From the first restoration prophet to today no prophet has claimed to be infallible. The contradiction is perhaps less real for the CoJCoLDS (with this issue) than is it for the Catholic Church with infallibility doctrine. Both contradictions have been solved. It is not a matter of clinging to one prophets words, it is a matter of developing a consistent read of the entire situation. It truly is no different than what Catholics must do.

Darcee:

There are many wonderful things in the LDS church. Most especially the programs for teaching the youth. Unfortunately there are so many issues with the doctrine especially the Book of Mormon that I really look back with pain and hope that in some way I can atone for the young women I mislead because I would not allow myself the courage to question those aspects I knew in my soul to be wrong.

I just would ignore the problems because I was so deeply knit in with my friends in the ward and I didn’t want to disappoint them. I was sure that my concerns were somehow because of my lack of faith. Yet at the same time I was trying to convert the rest of my family and strong when defending the LDS church. When I would see people I loved up at fast and testimony meeting crying at the pulpit about how much they loved the Book of Mormon and the church I felt so moved by THEM, but at the same time hollow that I didn’t feel the same. I was told that bearing my testimony would help it grow, so I would find myself standing up there crying in the pulpit and have people tell me how wonderful my testimony was… it wasn’t. When I finally started allowing the questions to be voiced and looking for real answers is when I found peace in God. Unfortunately it didn’t happen until I had a complete crisis of faith and it took a minor miracle to get me home.

TOm:

I am perhaps an unusual LDS. I read the above and some other escape from the church stories, and much of me is thankful that you found peace (especially as a Catholic). Some of me is more normal in that I truly do believe that there is more in the CoJCoLDS than elsewhere, but this does not in any way mean that there is no salvation outside the CoJCoLDS (in this life). I wish you peace, joy, and growth; and commend you on the wonderful choose of the Catholic Church.

Darcee:

I hope TOm that you will find a path back. I hope it will be less difficult then mine. Know that you have a place in my prayers.

TOm:

And, I wish to further commend you. I have said in the past that I could be a wonderful Catholic, but I could never be an ex-Mormon. When saying this I was commenting on what I saw ex-Mormons behave like on the internet. You are perhaps the first and certainly among the few that I could be similar too and still be right with God as I see it. I assure you and any others who may be watching, while I am not close to leaving the CoJCoLDS, words and witness such as yours have much more impact upon me than do the words and witness I often see. Thank you for your prayers. (some of the Catholic posters present a like witness, but this is truly rare in one who was once a LDS and choose to leave).

Charity, TOm

 

[Monicathree]

Tom

Me and you posted at exactly the same time, look at the box above by our names

 

[darcee]

I remember once making a sort of flippant comment, “Water and wonder bread can compare to the body and blood of our Lord.” So I am certainly not all goodness and light.

I think a lot of the anger you see expressed by ex-mormons is because of the deep wounds they incur in the process of leaving, being shunned and isolated from friends and often family. The leaving is worth it, but it is something that takes a bit of courage and persistence. Often that courage has to have a driving force, mine was grief, many others make it anger. And I have been angry at times, for instance being told that only my daughters’ father could remove them from the roles of the church even though he himself was disfellowshiped and had abandoned us.

I too used to face internal contradiction by just ignoring it. Your comment “Your view produces a hopeless contradiction. For you to suggest that because the prophet taught it, it must be doctrine negates the HBL statement which was taught by a prophet. This is an internally inconsistent position.” sounds like something I would have said ten years ago.

-D

 

[dutch]

You have to be extremely naïve to have believed what Joseph Smith claimed. 1) The book of Abraham was proven to be a deception 2) Until 1978, they wouldn’t let dark-skinned people be ‘priests’. 3) Joseph Simth married over 27 wives and 11 of them were married. 4) they don’t drink caffeine or alchohol but abortion is permitted. 5) Claim the Jews sailed from Isreal across the Pacific to the New World like 4000 years ago although no evidence has been found (i.e. iron age civilization, horses, before the Spaniards). 6) Joseph Smith instead of dying in a dignified way, was killed by a lynch mob and shot two or three people before he died and used the secret mason’s distress call attempting to get help. 7) They change there beliefs because they believe in continuous revelation.

These are just some facts about this cult. Why those white people were so naïve to have followed this guy, I have no idea. They are a joke.

 

[darcee]

Wow… what a incredible statement coming from someone who believes that a virgin gave birth to God and other things that one would have be very naïve to believe in.

Attacking the beliefs is one thing but to toss in name calling is rather rude.

-D

 

[dutch]

Darcee,

If a religion started in upstate New York by a salesman less than 200 years ago, I think you should be very suspicious of it. I don’t think it qualifies as a religion but a cult. I’m not judging the people who are born into it, it’s not their fault. But I will criticize the people who followed him and converted.

 

[Monicathree]

That’s fine dutch, I understand what you are saying. However, we should remember to do so with kindness and charity. We must watch ourselves as to not put others who do not share our beliefs on the total defensive, but rather engage in discourse where we can witness, of course, and invite interaction. That is the only way to touch people.

BTW, Darcee, thank you for sharing your story. My confirmation sponsor is an formor mormon temple worker, he is now, byzantine Catholic, and was a great help to me during my conversion. I am not sure if I shared this or not on this thread, but they almost got me. I was really confused for about 10 yrs. between LDS and Catholicism until I researched, researched, and prayed, and took adult sacraments classes. People like you and my sponsor who are brave enough to have lost everything in order to gain the truth of Christ are blessings. Thank you sister.

Peace to you all.

 

[darcee]

dutch:

Darcee,

If a religion started in upstate New York by a salesman less than 200 years ago, I think you should be very suspicious of it. I don’t think it qualifies as a religion but a cult. I’m not judging the people who are born into it, it’s not their fault. But I will criticize the people who followed him and converted.

Maybe reading this thread would be helpful to you. I am very well aware of the teachings of the LDS church, I am one of those “jokes” who at one point converted. I was lucky enough to find the truth and get out. But I can guarantee that people like yourself are NOT the ones who helped me see the truth. People who shared the truth with me with love and kindness and without the name calling were.

-D