So God reversed Himself because no one was paying attention to what He was saying? He decided to drop the issue because the people disagreed? Where else does He ever do that? That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard anyone say about God. Sorry.This is a mute point again - Mormons do not practice polygamy today so it doesn’t really matter. We follow our prophet. There was nothing to say polygamy was or wasn’t church wide in Jacob or Isaac’s time. Frankly a lot of it wasn’t church wide in Joseph Smith’s time a lot because many did not want to listen to the concept by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith mostly taught it among those willing to follow and obey their prophet in this concept.
No. It was because it was a revelation from God. Mormons practiced polygamy years after it was made illegal in the US. It was not practiced in most of the New Testament that we know either, yet we have evidence of it being practiced in the Old.
I don’t believe the revelation itself was divisive or exclusionary. I believe it was many did not want to hear or follow it. The same goes for the temple - anyone is welcome into the temple that are willing to follow the teachings of God through the Prophet. Not all accept that, and therefore are not privilidged to the teachings within. God keeps His non-followers out of Heaven. Even He is exclusionary in this regards. We all have the opportunity to return to Him, yet not all of us choose to do so.
Yes they do.Mormons just follow.
I don’t follow the church that was on earth in Christ’s days, nor the church that existed previous to Christ. I follow the Church HE created and ordained while on earth. And nowhere in that founding did He ever say to limit, or exclude, or hide, or put qualifications on His word or the teaching of His word. Which is why my Church, and most of Christianity, is open to anyone who would want to come and celebrate there and learn His word. He didn’t say go out, establish a clubhouse and only let those willing to promise to be good to come in and learn my teachings. Yes, God excludes people who get into Heaven. That’s His perogative. But the Church exists to bring people closer to God and His teachings, not exclude or only teach to qualified people. Even people who are not catholic nor decide to become catholic can take part in our church, learn from our catechism, speak to our priests, and celebrate our mass. Why not the mormon church?The Mormon church is not divisive, and teaches us to be truthful about all doctrines within. You can believe that or not, but before going on making accusations I suggest going in and looking at your own beliefs - I think in every religion out there one could find parallels to criticism of the Mormon church. You accuse us of being “secret” and “holding back our teachings” when you have yet to explain the secrecy of the temple in Christ’s days and why it was the case then. There are parallels to this in many religions, especially that of the one while Christ was on earth - we do not contradict that.
I think many LDS, including, me don’t understand your viewpoint of the term clergy. By clergy, we mean local Priesthood leaders to the individual congregations. We do not consider Church Education teachers to be part of that priesthood leadership, and it is definitely not essential to the progression of the church. I don’t recall anyone other than individual members I know ever saying paid clergy in your definition was a bad thing. Mormons DO NOT have a Professional clergy however. See this article (I really like that wiki - it was put together by a bunch of members like myself that have spent more time than I researching and writing this for others’ reference) for more info on our definition:there are stipends for some of these people and the CE folks fulfill duties that most churches would consider a ministry. I don’t criticize paying the clergy. the bible supports it. I merely point out the seemingly hypocritical contention of many LDS that it’s a bad thing and they (LDS) don’t do it. LDS DO have paid clergy. that’s okay…admit it and quit saying that’s one of the reasons everyone else is apostate. (the sectarian minister in the temple was really bad on this)
If you had something to teach me, I’d be learning. Unfortunately you haven’t offered anything to enlighten me or explain your position. You claimed that everything JS did helped bring people to Christ 4 to 5 times as much as anything he did seperated people from Christ. I dispute that claim, you can’t back that up. JS opened an “anti-bank”. He sold shares of the bank. Some claim he never had the capitol to back up the shares he sold. I’ll throw that claim out even if you’d like. People paid money to buy those shares. He then closed the bank and did not honor the shares. Even if he paid everyone back over the years, how did these actions bring people other than himself closer to Christ? You can either answer that or not. If not, you need to retract your statement earlier, as it is baseless. Pointing out that people out there have information detracting from your religion doesn’t answer the question.Again, your motives aren’t to gain true answers about our religion, but rather to try and make me eat my words. Consider your questions answered. There is plenty of information on the web, written by Mormons themselves that you can find. Before starting to believe writings of someone that wants to tear our church down, be sure to research the entire story - these people do not give the entire view of the church, and never show contradictory points of view when they demean and belittle us. After you have that, make up your own opinion.
Mormons believe the same - all are welcome, in fact invited to enter our temples. You just have to be baptized a member of our church to do so. Right or wrong, this is our belief - I’ve stated my reasons. Just out of curiosity, aren’t there similar secret ceremonies and places of worship for members of the Catholic Priesthood?I don’t follow the church that was on earth in Christ’s days, nor the church that existed previous to Christ. I follow the Church HE created and ordained while on earth. And nowhere in that founding did He ever say to limit, or exclude, or hide, or put qualifications on His word or the teaching of His word. Which is why my Church, and most of Christianity, is open to anyone who would want to come and celebrate there and learn His word. He didn’t say go out, establish a clubhouse and only let those willing to promise to be good to come in and learn my teachings. Yes, God excludes people who get into Heaven. That’s His perogative. But the Church exists to bring people closer to God and His teachings, not exclude or only teach to qualified people. Even people who are not catholic nor decide to become catholic can take part in our church, learn from our catechism, speak to our priests, and celebrate our mass. Why not the mormon church?
Catholic Priesthood cannot be compared to limiting access to people to a mormon temple. That is an incorrect comparison.Mormons believe the same - all are welcome, in fact invited to enter our temples. You just have to be baptized a member of our church to do so. Right or wrong, this is our belief - I’ve stated my reasons. Just out of curiosity, aren’t there similar secret ceremonies and places of worship for members of the Catholic Priesthood?
I’m not here to teach - I’m here to answer the simple question that this thread is focused on. Somehow it has divulged into a Mormon bashing thread.If you had something to teach me, I’d be learning. Unfortunately you haven’t offered anything to enlighten me or explain your position.
This is the first I’m aware of you divulging details of your question . I had to look it up to even learn what you meant. You say I can’t back it up, yet I have yet to see you provide citations, and where you’re getting your sources from.You claimed that everything JS did helped bring people to Christ 4 to 5 times as much as anything he did seperated people from Christ. I dispute that claim, you can’t back that up.
I’m telling you the story you have isn’t the full story. Again, provide me with good citations from the source. I provided an entire page with lots of citations - have you looked each of those citations up (see the EndNotes)? I’d like to see your evidence that it even was an “anti-bank”. What citations do you have stating he never had the capitol to back it up? I don’t get what something that isn’t true and didn’t happen has anything to do with bringing people closer to Christ.JS opened an “anti-bank”. He sold shares of the bank. Some claim he never had the capitol to back up the shares he sold. I’ll throw that claim out even if you’d like. People paid money to buy those shares. He then closed the bank and did not honor the shares. Even if he paid everyone back over the years, how did these actions bring people other than himself closer to Christ?
But it can be compared. With the exception of the woman (don’t ask me why on this one - I am not qualified to answer correctly), one must have the Priesthood to attend a Mormon temple. I apologize - I had forgot to add that in as one of the steps needed.Catholic Priesthood cannot be compared to limiting access to people to a mormon temple. That is an incorrect comparison.
I still have to challenge your assertion. What evidence do you have of a “very large part” of the early church falling into arianism? what are the numbers?The Catholic viewpoint is that Arius was a heretic, as that is what was decided by the Council of Nice. In fact, after Arius was banished from the faith, most to all records surrounding that theology were destroyed. The little we do know about his viewpoints comes from opposing literature. We do know however that a very large part of the early Christian church believed in the Arian viewpoint of the Godhead, and those contentions even continued after the Nicene Crede. These were actual beliefs by people that lived closer than we do to the life of the Savior showing that the Mormon standpoint on Godhead is a valid possibility. While one cannot prove the Mormon concept of Godhead in the Bible one also cannot prove the Trinitarian concept of Godhead through the Bible. That is why there was so much contention in the early days of the Church. They had no Prophets or Apostles to lead or guide them any more, just written records and various conflicting viewpoints on the interpretation of those records.
Another qualification for learning about God in your temple. The catholic laity needs not to be priests to know God or attend mass. One more division or exclusion.But it can be compared. With the exception of the woman (don’t ask me why on this one - I am not qualified to answer correctly), one must have the Priesthood to attend a Mormon temple. I apologize - I had forgot to add that in as one of the steps needed.
That’s obvious.I’m not here to teach -
I agree, that’s my problem with the whole mormon church.I’m telling you the story you have isn’t the full story. Again, provide me with good citations from the source. I provided an entire page with lots of citations - have you looked each of those citations up (see the EndNotes)? I’d like to see your evidence that it even was an “anti-bank”. What citations do you have stating he never had the capitol to back it up? I don’t get what something that isn’t true and didn’t happen has anything to do with bringing people closer to Christ.
This is extremely important to note. Mormons can’t even say the same thing about what their very own ‘prophet’ said.I still have to challenge your assertion. What evidence do you have of a “very large part” of the early church falling into arianism? what are the numbers?
yet without apostles or prophets we somehow managed around 2000 years of teaching the same binding doctrine. we have been guided by the succession of bishops whom the apostles put in place, sacred scripture, sacred tradition to put it into proper context, the Holy Spirit (which then means the one true trinitarian God) and we seem to be doing allright.
My point here is you are speculating that something with little or no evidence of truth is leading people away from Christ. None of what has been accused here is fully proven, and is full of opinions of those making the accusation, hiding critical truths and other lies. The article I provided shows the accusations being made, and gives our answers - we’re not afraid to hide answers to those accusations. I don’t believe the article I provided is missing anything. I am very interested to see if any of your sources have cited information that article did not provide.No matter what citation I put here, you’ll claim it to be anti-mormon. Which puzzles me, because if it’s anti-mormon, how can you read it to know it’s anti-mormon? See how the cycle of lies goes round and round.
Oops, false doctrine! Joseph Smith, in his General Conference Talk of April 7, 1844 usually called the King Follet Discourse, taughtWe are God the Father’s Spirit children. He created our Spirits,
The Mormons teach that our spirits were not created, but rather were born as a result of sexual unions between “heavenly father” and his many goddess wives.God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.
You seem to keep foisting it on me. Thank you for linking to the source though. The source of that talk most likely comes from the book, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, compiled by another prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith. In the footnote in the Book itself it says “It appears to be very clear that the Prophet had in mind the intelligence, when he said, “the soul – the mind of man – the immortal spirit,” was not created or made, and he did not have reference to the spirit as a begotten child of God. It was the doctrine of the Prophet, and is of the Church, that the spirits of men are begotten sons and daughters of God. See the official statement of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve as published in the Improvement Era, August, 1916, under the caption, The Father and The Son. The passage in the Doctrine and Covenants on which this doctrine is based is found in Sec. 93:29-30, and is as follows: “Man was in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” See also the statements in following paragraphs.”Oops, false doctrine! Joseph Smith, in his General Conference Talk of April 7, 1844 usually called the King Follet Discourse, taught
“God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.”
The Mormons teach that our spirits were not created, but rather were born as a result of sexual unions between “heavenly father” and his many goddess wives.
Don’t try to foist the sanitized version of Mormonism on us. Many of us are former Mormons and we know better.
How about you tell me a little about Catholicism. You guys, former Mormons or not, seem to think you need to teach me about my religion. I can vouch for my religion myself. I would, however, love to know more about Catholicism. I am fascinated in the origins of Trinity, origins of the Arian view, and if only a few people supported the Arian view, why was there such a controversy to need Constantine to step in and call the Council of Nice? Not just that, but there evidently was still controversy over the subject, as there needed to be another creed later on to further establish the definition of the subject. The term “trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible - where did it originate? I am genuinely curious - no, you won’t change my own beliefs, but I personally think I can bring a lot to my own beliefs by studying the Catholic history and beliefs. I really wish you would tell me about that, than tell me what my own religion does or doesn’t teach.not to get too “semantical” but mormon doctrine appears clear that God didn’t and oesn’t create anything. matter is “organized” into worlds and such and spirit children are “born” to move already existing “intelligences” into the next developmental stage of their immortal existence.
The trinitarian “idea” originated in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the NT. The term doesn’t show up there, but it is obviously set forth by Jesus. Jesus makes many references to himself as both separate from and united with God the Father, and he makes references to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, subsequent to his ascension. Without getting into a long discourse on development of the doctrine, which I am unqualified to do in any case, all I can say is that Trinity comes from Jesus, and the doctrine was developed out of a need to reconcile all that he said and did, as to the nature of God, of which he himself stands as the most clearly revealed person.How about you tell me a little about Catholicism. You guys, former Mormons or not, seem to think you need to teach me about my religion. I can vouch for my religion myself. I would, however, love to know more about Catholicism. I am fascinated in the origins of Trinity, origins of the Arian view, and if only a few people supported the Arian view, why was there such a controversy to need Constantine to step in and call the Council of Nice? Not just that, but there evidently was still controversy over the subject, as there needed to be another creed later on to further establish the definition of the subject. The term “trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible - where did it originate? I am genuinely curious - no, you won’t change my own beliefs, but I personally think I can bring a lot to my own beliefs by studying the Catholic history and beliefs. I really wish you would tell me about that, than tell me what my own religion does or doesn’t teach.
Again, I’m not here to bash Catholicism, but to learn from it. I promise I won’t argue this topic - I just can’t seem to find cited answers to the above and truly want to know. Citations are good too if you could provide them - I like proof of things.