Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[dianaiad]

It is really false to say that orthodox Christians are polytheists

From your point of view, I see that. This is, after all, what the Trinity is all about. Still from the POV of someone looking at all if us objectively (and that’s not me, by the way) it seems to be quite an accurate way of putting it.

.

This is not precise language. In terms of philosophy and theology, we confess that there exists only a single divine substance. This means there is only one divine being, albeit there are Three Blessed Persons who are fully of this self-same substance.

Evidently true monotheists see that as a bit of a dodge.

Philosophically, theologically speaking, this is monotheism. You might say it amounts to a kind of ‘practical’ polytheism, and for all appearances, seems to be polytheistic, but then we would just be dealing with superficial appearances, and not the content of the Christian belief itself.

Polytheism requires that we would confess multiple divine beings, as the LDS church clearly does, though it only worships one of them.

If LDS Christians want to escape the problem of being called henotheists or polytheists then they would be required to admit, and not neccessarily in the orthodox way, the singularity of the divine substance.

(sigh)

It’s all semantics, anyway.

 

[Marie5890]

We believe that baptism is a sacrament that requires the priesthood to be performed acceptably in the sight of God, otherwise it is not a valid sacrament. .

Unless it has changed, when I was LDS baptism was considered an ordinance, not a sacrament.

I would also say where the Catholic Church is sacramental in nature, the LDS Church would be more covenantal.

That is not so say that covenants are not made in the CC, but there is a much stronger sense of it being sacramental.

The only place I ever really heard the word “sacrament” in the LDS church is in reference to its main meeting, Sacrament Meeting. The sacrament is what most other churches would view as receiving communion.

For Mormons, receiving the sacrament was symbolic in nature, and a time to renew their baptismal (and any other) covenants that they have made (IE temple etc)

 

[Marie5890]

See, here’s the thing from ME. I have this rule that I never, ever break, and it is because of just the sort of thing you are running into; there is no ex-member of ANY faith that will present his old faith in a fair, true or objective manner. If he could do that, he wouldn’t be an 'ex-member." Of ANY faith. This goes for ex-Mormons, ex-Catholics, ex-whatever. If they could be fair and unbiased, they would still be believers. Something went wrong, either with the faith or with the member, and either way the member has NO reason to present his old faith in a truthful, must less positive, way.

As a former Mormon I hope you will point out to me when I ever say anything that is factually incorrect about Mormonism.

I can speak factually without bias simply because facts arent biased. They just are.

IMO you just painted with a very broad brush of stereotyping what happens with people who leave whatever faith.

Are there those who because hostile and angry? Anti and degrading. Most certainly. Ive seen them as much as the next person.

But there are those who really can (again any faith or former faith) just tell you what the facts are. What the dogmas are (or where).

So again. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy I ever make about Mormonism.

I like to defy stereotypes.

 

[PaulDupre]

Stephen or other Catholics,

I live in a house made with bricks on the outside. Bricks are “beings”? Is the outside of my house made with one “being”, or many "beings’?

As I understand the concept of a being, a being is a living entity. So no, a brick is not a being, a brick is a thing.

It is also important to understand the difference between a being and a person. God is a family of persons. Being created in the image and likeness of God is what makes a human being a person.

My dog is a being, but she is not a person.

I am one being and one person.

God is one being and three persons.

 

[PaulDupre]

I would say, the LDS are henotheists. (believe mulptiple deities exist but only worship one). They deny that the Three Persons are of a homoousia- a single substance. I have had extensive conversations with a very kind Mormon over this- she can not admit to there being a unity of substance among the Three Persons, only a complete unity of will. Philosophically speaking, this means there are three divine substances, ergo, three gods.

Bingo! Welcome Jordan.

Paul (a former Mormon, now blissfully Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre]

Stephen,
I suppose you would be referring to the discussion I had with PaulDupre about the words “great city.” The connotation he was using is what I disagreed with, and still do, and have explained that in this forum on another thread that happened later.

The connotation of words is essential to understanding the meaning conveyed by a writer. “Great city” can mean different things to different people, but in my mind I would not consider a city of 5,000 - 10,000 people with homes made of wood, a “great city.” Maybe you would, but not me.

The Book of Mormon does not provide population statistics for their “great cities”, and it claims that ar least some of the great cities were built in cement. Parker is just making stuff up as usual.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is precisely what I am saying. I am also saying that about ex-Baptists, ex-Catholics, and ex- you name it’s. Oh, they can do that if they are addressing members of their former faiths, because of course the members of their former faiths know what their beliefs really are, but with anybody ELSE? No. I do. not. get, my. information. about. any. faith. from. ex. members. of. that. faith.
Period. I do not recommend that anyone else do that, either.

One caveat…if ONLY the ex-members of a faith are willing to talk about that faith, it’s not a faith I want anything to do with anyway. (Scientologists come to mind there.)

Do not trust a former member of ANY faith to be honest, truthful or fair in their treatment of that faith. They have no motive to do that, and every motive in the world to attempt to justify their leaving.

I have no problem with what you’ve said, but I just want to clarify that I did not ask you if an ex-anything WON’T be objectively honest…I think I asked if you feel that they simply CANNOT present an honest account of their former beliefs. Thoughts?

Absolutely. That’s the whole point. Since we are so firmly about freedom of choice; free agency…free will…if we thought for one second that there was any element of force in it, we wouldn’t do it. It is ALL about their choice. Our offer, their choice. Always.

So, to be sure I have this straight…you are baptized for these dead people, and then they are somehow presented with the option of accepting the grace of that act or not. But the baptism has ALREADY occurred either way.

Correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, but the sort of ex-member you speak of, as you say, does NOT attempt to educate others about what their former faith ‘really’ believes…and that’s the point. In fact, you see the point quite well. The only sort of ex-member that feels impelled to do this is ALSO impelled to present his or her old faith in the most negative light possible.

I’ve been around the amateur apologetics circuit for quite a long time now…40 odd years, and in all those years I have never once come across a publication, internet article, program or anything else by an ex-Mormon or non-Mormon that claims to teach people ABOUT Mormonism that got our doctrines RIGHT (that is accurately) never mind made any attempt to be objective or unbiased. Not one. In fact, I’ve never seen one that hasn’t made it’s entire point to disprove, warn against, or vilify Mormonism.

Now, I’m not an idiot…most of those people also write about other belief systems and faiths. I don’t think that ‘they’ are out to get Mormons more than they are out to get the other faiths and systems they vilify–so I don’t think they are more likely to be accurate about Catholics or Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses or…whoever…than they are about us.

Given that…and given that proper research protocol rather demands that secondary sources be confirmed by primary ones…why bother with the ex’s and the anti’s at all? Go to the primary source and make your own decision.

Diana

Dianaiad-

I can easily imagine someone saying, “When I was a Baptist, I believed that baptizing infants was wrong based upon X, Y and Z.” And every Baptist listening would say, “Amen!” Then the person would say, “However, I came to realize that the Bible actually says A, B and C, and this led me to become a Catholic.” And every Catholic would say, “Amen!” Both positions were fairly represented, but the person makes a choice. So, it does seem possible for someone to be fair in their presentation. I happen to think that Steve Ray, Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin are pretty fair to their former Protestant traditions.

All that said, it happens every day in this forum that an ex-Catholic makes some wacko statement about what he or she was taught when they were a child, and I ask “Where did you come up with that nonsense?”

My opinion…and you wouldn’t expect anything other than this from me, would you?..is that Mormonism is pretty far “out there”, so when people leave, they have some amazing tales to tell…especially about the research into the earliest days of Smith, Young, Pratt and others. It’s my understanding that some of the more bizarre teachings from these guys no longer appear in the Church’s publications…but the oldest editions contained these things, and some copies still exist. The Watchtower edits its own publications, too.

Consequently, while I agree that checking your official publications is the best, comparing modern editions with the ancient editions of these documents yields some interesting results.

 

[wmscott]

I want to thank all of the LDS for their responses. I really do not have any more questions to ask, but have learned a few things. Thanks for putting up with me.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
I suppose you would be referring to the discussion I had with PaulDupre about the words “great city.”

No it wasn’t between you and Paul but if I remember right is was Paul who gave several references from the Book of Mormon which proved the active Mormon knew very little about the Book of Mormon or lied.

You did not tell me the truth in August when we were discussing why Mormons baptize and an ex-Mormon showed me the fourth Article of faith which showed me the truth. The ex-Mormon continued to explain the reason for Mormon baptism which you were struggling to do. I understand Mormon baptism because of the ex-Mormon not the active Mormon.

I think ex-Mormons are much more reliable when it comes to explaining the beliefs of Mormonism and they back it up with Mormon documents.

 

[PaulDupre]

Dianaiad:

I’ve been around the amateur apologetics circuit for quite a long time now…40 odd years, and in all those years I have never once come across a publication, internet article, program or anything else by an ex-Mormon or non-Mormon that claims to teach people ABOUT Mormonism that got our doctrines RIGHT (that is accurately)…

You mean they don’t accurately represent your personal beliefs. The “anti” sites accurately quote your prophets’ and apostles’ conference talks, magazine articles and the books they’ve written.

The problem is that very few Mormons (including the ones on this forum) agree with their church’s historic teachings. Each has her own private version of Mormonism (usually greatly sanitized and rarely agreeing with the others) that makes her comfortable and able to believe that her founders and leaders are not a bunch of wack-jobs. That way she can live in her little pseudo-Mormon bubble and keep her circle of family, friends and livelihood intact. But it is a house of cards, bound to fall.

 

[Stephen168]

From your point of view, I see that. This is, after all, what the Trinity is all about. Still from the POV of someone looking at all if us objectively (and that’s not me, by the way) it seems to be quite an accurate way of putting it.

.

Evidently true monotheists see that as a bit of a dodge.

(sigh)

It’s all semantics, anyway.

You clearly do not understand who the Christian God of all creation is, so you have to settle for your small, one of many, Mormon God(s). But it does seem to make you feel better that your pagan friends don’t know who the Christian God of all creation is either. Interesting.

 

[ParkerD]

The Book of Mormon does not provide population statistics for their “great cities”, and it claims that ar least some of the great cities were built in cement. Parker is just making stuff up as usual.

Paul,
It would be helpful if you were to back up your assertion with some kind of statistical population count from the Book of Mormon. I’ve already done that when this came up the last time it was talked about. The term “great city” was a derogatory term, meaning that the people in a “great city” were proud and thought their city could never be destroyed. But the populations described are only in the thousands.

As for cement, that word is used in one chapter of the Book of Mormon in describing the land where a group of people migrated north of the main body of Nephites and Lamanites, and is not associated with the term “great city” at all. Here is the chapter and the uses of the word “cement”:

THE BOOK OF HELAMAN
CHAPTER 3
Many Nephites migrate to the land northward—They build houses of cement and keep many records—Tens of thousands are converted and baptized—The word of God leads men to salvation—Nephi the son of Helaman fills the judgment seat. Between 49 and 39 B.C.
1 And now it came to pass in the *forty and third year of the reign of the judges, there was no contention among the people of Nephi save it were a little pride which was in the church, which did cause some little dissensions among the people, which affairs were settled in the ending of the forty and third year.
2 And there was no contention among the people in the forty and fourth year; neither was there much contention in the forty and fifth year.
3 And it came to pass in the *forty and sixth, yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.
4 And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers.
5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.
6 And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate.
7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.
8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.
9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.
10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.
11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

 

[ParkerD]

The Book of Mormon does not provide population statistics for their “great cities”, and it claims that ar least some of the great cities were built in cement. Parker is just making stuff up as usual.

To the general reader:

You each may read the following verses which are easily pulled from the Book of Mormon using a word search from lds.org, rather than take either person’s “word for it” without finding out by personal first-hand reading of the relevant texts. (I already did that for the word “cement”.)

Here is the search for the words “great city”:

Hel. 13: 12-14, 21
12 Yea, wo unto this great city of Zarahemla; for behold, it is because of those who are righteous that it is saved; yea, wo unto this great city, for I perceive, saith the Lord, that there are many, yea, even the more part of this great city, that will harden their hearts against me, saith the Lord.
13 But blessed are they who will repent, for them will I spare. But behold, if it were not for the righteous who are in this great city, behold, I would cause that fire should come down out of heaven and destroy it.
14 But behold, it is for the righteous’ sake that it is spared. But behold, the time cometh, saith the Lord, that when ye shall cast out the righteous from among you, then shall ye be ripe for destruction; yea, wo be unto this great city, because of the wickedness and abominations which are in her.
• • •
21 Behold ye, the people of this great city, and hearken unto my words; yea, hearken unto the words which the Lord saith; for behold, he saith that ye are cursed because of your riches, and also are your riches cursed because ye have set your hearts upon them, and have not hearkened unto the words of him who gave them unto you.

3 Ne. 8: 10, 14-15, 24-25
10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.
• • •
14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.
15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.
• • •
24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla.
25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

3 Ne. 9: 3-5, 9
3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.
4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.
5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.
• • •
9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

Hel. 1: 18-19, 27
18 And it came to pass that because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government, that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of their lands to attack that great city Zarahemla.
19 But it came to pass that Coriantumr did march forth at the head of his numerous host, and came upon the inhabitants of the city, and their march was with such exceedingly great speed that there was no time for the Nephites to gather together their armies.
• • •
27 But behold, the Lamanites were not frightened according to his desire, but they had come into the center of the land, and had taken the capital city which was the city of Zarahemla, and were marching through the most capital parts of the land, slaying the people with a great slaughter, both men, women, and children, taking possession of many cities and of many strongholds.

Hel. 7: 22
22 And for this cause wo shall come unto you except ye shall repent. For if ye will not repent, behold, this great city, and also all those great cities which are round about, which are in the land of our possession, shall be taken away that ye shall have no place in them; for behold, the Lord will not grant unto you strength, as he has hitherto done, to withstand against your enemies.

Hel. 8: 5-6
5 Therefore they did cry unto the people, saying: Why do you suffer this man to revile against us? For behold he doth condemn all this people, even unto destruction; yea, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them.
6 And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader:

If you have followed and been interested at all in the words “great city” in the Book of Mormon and want to get an idea of a population count related to those “cities”, then here is the word search for “tens of thousands” from the books of Alma, Helaman, or 3 Nephi:

Alma 56: 28
28 And also there were sent two thousand men unto us from the land of Zarahemla. And thus we were prepared with ten thousand men, and provisions for them, and also for their wives and their children.
Alma 60: 22
22 Yea, will ye sit in idleness while ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness, while there are thousands round about in the borders of the land who are falling by the sword, yea, wounded and bleeding?

3 Ne. 3: 22
22 And it came to pass in the *seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

Please note also that Alma 60:22 contains a letter written by an army leader, Captain Moroni, to the government leader at Zarahemla where their government is centered, and that city has other cities that are within a proximity that is generally called the “land of Zarahemla”. Moroni writes about “tens of thousands” in the general “land of Zarahemla” which is comprised of several cities.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader,

To bring this discussion back to the subject of the thread, an issue that seems to be way different for Catholics than for LDS is the idea that a loving, omnipotent God Who lives in perfect joy because of His work and the truths He knows and the love He feels for all of Nature and all the spirits in eternity, would have the desire and the power to bring those who qualify through gaining the full promised blessings of the Savior’s grace, to a position of being like the Savior in perfect love and in omniscience and omnipotence so they can share in that same joy. That omnipotence and love that God the Father has seems self-evident to me.

Heavenly Father is not jealous or worried about “losing power or authority” by granting His power and authority and omnipotence to other spirits who prove themselves by virtue of their choices and their actions and desires, and through the infinite grace of His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. The idea that He would not want others to share in the kind of joy He feels, seems counter to what a perfectly loving and infinitely powerful Being would do when He knows He has the very power to do that, using the laws He both established and lives by in the Universe.

 

[maryjk]

To the general reader,

To bring this discussion back to the subject of the thread, an issue that seems to be way different for Catholics than for LDS is the idea that a loving, omnipotent God Who lives in perfect joy because of His work and the truths He knows and the love He feels for all of Nature and all the spirits in eternity, would have the desire and the power to bring those who qualify through gaining the full promised blessings of the Savior’s grace, to a position of being like the Savior in perfect love and in omniscience and omnipotence so they can share in that same joy. That omnipotence and love that God the Father has seems self-evident to me.

Heavenly Father is not jealous or worried about “losing power or authority” by granting His power and authority and omnipotence to other spirits who prove themselves by virtue of their choices and their actions and desires, and through the infinite grace of His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. The idea that He would not want others to share in the kind of joy He feels, seems counter to what a perfectly loving and infinitely powerful Being would do when He knows He has the very power to do that, using the laws He both established and lives by in the Universe.

After reading this and all the other posts, yes the thread is very long, I have come to a conclusion.

The answer to the question, “Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?” is NO.

 

[wmscott]

To the general reader,

To bring this discussion back to the subject of the thread, an issue that seems to be way different for Catholics than for LDS is the idea that a loving, omnipotent God Who lives in perfect joy because of His work and the truths He knows and the love He feels for all of Nature and all the spirits in eternity, would have the desire and the power to bring those who qualify through gaining the full promised blessings of the Savior’s grace, to a position of being like the Savior in perfect love and in omniscience and omnipotence so they can share in that same joy. That omnipotence and love that God the Father has seems self-evident to me.

Heavenly Father is not jealous or worried about “losing power or authority” by granting His power and authority and omnipotence to other spirits who prove themselves by virtue of their choices and their actions and desires, and through the infinite grace of His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. The idea that He would not want others to share in the kind of joy He feels, seems counter to what a perfectly loving and infinitely powerful Being would do when He knows He has the very power to do that, using the laws He both established and lives by in the Universe.

As I originally stated, I know nothing of the LDS beliefs. Now these are just my opinions and I do not intend any disrespect. In the spirit of gaining knowledge of another religion, I hope I was respectful in my questioning.

I came with a question that listed what a LDS would consider as offensive and anti-LDS. Of all the sites that are maintained by ex-LDS the list was fairly consistent in their specific claims as to what LDS believes. Even though I found them to be alarming and farfetched, I still wanted to know if they were true or not. There was an initial knee jerk reaction to the list I provided, and I can understand. I went to the official LDS and Mormon sites and found something very different with a few points confirming the ex-LDS claims, such as baptism of the dead by proxy. A few of the answers were obviously dismissive and explained as “I can’t talk about that” or the like. I was satisfied with what was explained to me and was done with it.

Then this post hit me between the eyes, “bring those who qualify through gaining the full promised blessings of the Savior’s grace, to a position of being like the Savior in perfect love and in omniscience and omnipotence so they can share in that same joy“ and “Heavenly Father is not jealous or worried about “losing power or authority” by granting His power and authority and omnipotence to other spirits who prove themselves by virtue of their choices and their actions and desires” WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON HERE, Are you saying that a person can attain the same omnipotence as God?

Omnipotence –noun

1. the quality or state of being omnipotent.
2. (initial capital letter ) GOD.

omnipotent - adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

Who are these people that can qualify? LDS? Are you saying that someone can come to be a God? Are you saying that God the Father can grant godship to others who prove themselves worthy?

I am floored by this post. These are your words and beliefs as a LDS. I am starting to wonder now if the ex-LDS have really have put out there what LDS really believe.

I am at a loss here, just blown away. Everything that I had came to understand, though limited about the LDS faith, has now been undone. May God have mercy on you. WOW

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Dianiaid,

Well, no. It is not “just semantics”, unless one happens to think that philosophy and theology are just semantics.

The question of homoousia is a very important one. Not only does it render orthodox Christians monotheists in the* technical sense*, but it has further consequences for how we see God.

Seeing as the Three Persons are of one single divine substance, this means that they are co-eternal, equally divine and equally worthy of worship. Whereas the LDS church, denying *homoousia *, leaves space open for the Son to be seen as a “created thing”, made not begotten, and likewise with the Holy Spirit. This also permits the Son to be less than equal in divinity, not having been so from the beginning.

**The createdness of the Son in LDS theology is probably what opens the door for the peculiar LDS doctrine of human deification. The Son is not essentially anything different than creation, although he is “God”. There is nothing stopping human beings from becoming other “Sons” in the very same sense. **

Thus the singularity of Christ appears to be [ultimately] abolished.

It can not be legitimately called “one God”, when that God has different “parts”, ontologically distinct, some of whom existed at a time when others did not.

This has consequences for who and how we worship, the meaning of the Incarnation of the Son, ect.

 

[dianaiad]

As a former Mormon I hope you will point out to me when I ever say anything that is factually incorrect about Mormonism.

I can speak factually without bias simply because facts arent biased. They just are.

Facts are not biased…but facts are always presented with words, which intrinsically ARE.

IMO you just painted with a very broad brush of stereotyping what happens with people who leave whatever faith.

Yes…but as you have just stated, facts just are–and stereotypes are there for a reason. Some of them are actually true. I made a statement earlier; that before I came to CAF, in over 40 years of dealing with ex-members of the LDS church, and with anti-Mormons, I had NEVER, ONCE, seen a publication by one that presented our beliefs accurately, never mind with any sense of objectivity, balance or understanding. I don’t mind the latter–after all, if the antis and ex’s still LIKED us, they’d BE one of us. I do resent the inaccuracy, though–and I don’t understand the purpose behind that, either. Nevertheless, it is a true statement.

In CAF I have seen two (perhaps three) posters who will actually present our beliefs ACCURATELY. Not all the time, but most of the time. You have NO idea how refreshing that is!

…but I’ll bet none of the three write anti-Mormon books and pamphlets. I still haven’t seen one of THOSE that got our beliefs right.

IMO Are there those who because hostile and angry? Anti and degrading. Most certainly. Ive seen them as much as the next person.

But there are those who really can (again any faith or former faith) just tell you what the facts are. What the dogmas are (or where).

Where? As I said, I have NEVER seen a website or publication that actually DOES that.
Ever…and I’ve seen a LOT of them.

IMO So again. Feel free to point out any inaccuracy I ever make about Mormonism.

I like to defy stereotypes.