I have met a lot of nice mormons too. They are one of the nicest groups of people I have ever met. My girlfriend used to be mormon and her family still is. I do believe there is more than one way to know jesus, but I also believe joseph smith was a false prophet. I believe he taught things that go against jesus’ teachings, and because I care about mormons and like them, I want to show them the truth.
e46m3,
I tend to doubt that you understand the teachings of Joseph Smith on any level other than a surface level by what you have read or heard.
So, then, when Jesus said “I AM that I AM,” you evidently don’t believe He was saying He was the God of Moses Whom Moses was to say “I AM sent me.” Since you evidently don’t believe that, then yes the Old Testament God of Abraham and Moses does not match Jesus in every particular way by what is recorded in the New Testament. Since I know that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then I understand differently about plural marriage being part of what God commanded to certain people (such as Abraham) at certain times in the history of the world.
Only perhaps ten times, but in a little bit veiled way. (The apostle John made it more clear in Revelation.) The idea is that we are to become like Him, really and truly. He is God the Son. To inherit what He rightfully inherits, by His grace, is to become like Him–a son of God or a daughter of God in the sense of an inheritance.
Nor did Joseph Smith.
Nor did Joseph Smith. He did teach that Satan existed before this world was created, and rebelled against God and sought to replace Christ in Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation.
For me, it’s about living by the teachings of Jesus, including kindness and a forgiving heart such as MFlorence showed here recently and Campeador showed in a response earlier. Those were the kinds of behaviors that Christ’s message was all about.
So it’s just a matter of perception? Oh, silly me. I must’ve misinterpreted the fact that LDS church doesn’t even own the land that the Independence temple was supposed to be built upon for it having actually been built and put into service 178 years ago.
That’s fine and good as long as you follow Christian values and not those Smithian in origin. I really like the part in the BOM where ‘Jesus’ says he’s going to quote Moses and actually ends up quoting Peter’s paraphrase of Moses, word-for-word as it happens. That was hilarious.
In other words, if I can’t pull the wool over your eyes and get you to see it my way, I’ll simply tell you that you don’t understand, a tactic that requires no proof to support.
Since the ‘God’ in the Book of Abraham is supposed to be Jesus while using the alias of Jehovah, you then have to revise your entire theology because it then becomes a celestial version of “Who’s On First?”
Nice try but deceitful in spirit because we both know that D&C 132 was very clear in its message that all faithful Mormon men, as long as they were married in the temple and were polygamists, could become gods.
This also appears to be untrue because since we already know that the Book of Abraham is a farce Smith created and that it first saw print in the 1842 Times and Seasons, during which time I believe Smith was the editor, he seems to have done exactly that.
I agree here but it’s the logical result of the LDS teaching that God is the literal father of all of our spirits. This is the first step in what makes the Mormon jesus a product of incest.
When did the real, true, and living Jesus tell you to follow a prophet who lied, couldn’t tell the same story twice, and ‘restored’ something that wasn’t lost in the first place? When did he tell you that all other churches were an abomination before him? And when did he tell you that it was imperative to be baptised for dead people?
Whatever keeps your cog dis humming.I was never LDS. And yes, I already know the answers to the questions I’m asking but I want you to answer them because we both know they have no answers that make sense. I’m hoping that you’ll eventually see that the church has been lying to you. At any rate, what you do with the information is up to you but you can’t fool God as easily as you fool yourself.
The difference is that Smith’s prophecies had definite times and conditions attached to them. For instance, several were prophecies that certain persons would perform certain tasks, yet those people died with those tasks undone. There were prophecies of certain things that Joseph himself would do which he never accomplished, and now he’s dead so he can never do those things.
And as we know, telling lies makes one a liar, committing murder makes one a murderer, so just one false prophecy makes one a _____ _______.
ive never heard this saying. where did you get it? it is humorus. Peace By doing this, aren’t you reinforcing what they are saying? After all, you are admitting they have the background to answer the questions.
This is Parkers way of saying the Ex Mormons KNOW the truth…and that is why they left. Mormons cannot fool ex-mormons…they cannot twist the Scriptures, they cannot whitewash their history…because we know better. So, they find it easier to ignore us. I take that as a badge of honor.
Actually if you’ve participated on forums like CARM as a Catholic, you know what ParkerD is talking about. We have no problem answering questions from non-LDS or ex-LDS. The problem is when certain posts by certain people are loaded with uncharitable statements, polemics, telling us what we “really” believe, etc. Granted, we don’t expect you to agree with our beliefs, but it is possible to discuss them without saying things like “Joe Smith was a charlatan”, whether you believe that or not. If you’ve posted at CARM before, you’d see that some Catholics/Mormons end up ignoring certain ex-Catholics/ex-Mormons, who are very inflammatory, uncharitable, divisive, etc. It’s just not worth it to attempt a discussion with them, and that’s what ParkerD is talking about. What SirThomas said above is exactly what ex-Catholics say on CARM and elsewhere, which comes as no surprise.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but I’m really more interested in parker’s take on it.
Personally, i think it goes back to one common element, and that is many of the posters that are ex-lds “studied their way out”.
Thanks - that explains why my good friend has this strange almost complete lack of curiousity about my faith. It never comes up as a question with her, and when I have the occasion to begin to talk about some area of my faith, she glazes over so fast that I soon I drop the subject, and she never brings it up again. She seems to have a curious mind for just about any other thing, which is why its puzzling.
Actually, those of us who tell you what you believe are only using your own books and documents. The problem is, you dislike greatly your past used. You hate the BY taught Adam-God. You hate the fact that it was a teaching that God was once a sinful man. You hate the (or should) the fact your leaders were horribly racist, you hate that your god has to change constantly with the public pressure. And when we remind you of all this, you know the apologetics are weak. So, you ignore us…Caprica;6904188 [QUOTE said:
First, I find it odd that you would tell me I should say what I believe, when you say what you believe all the time. And it is not a belief that Joe was a con man…it is fact. We have showed many examples to support it. These include the treasure seeking using seer stones…the very stones he amazingly translated the gold plates with, without ever using the gold plates…the bank scandals, etc.
Yes. I spoke the truth. I am glad that the truth comes as no surprise.
The moderator has also chastized and banned Mormons. So?
The issue, as the moderators have pointed out, is that there are charitable and uncharitable ways to say things. The reason why so many of these LDS-related threads have been shut down is because of a lack of charity, whether by Catholics or Latter-day Saints. I am commenting specifically on why some LDS choose not to respond to specific Catholic posters, and it is for the same reasons that the moderator mentioned in this post, among others. Other Catholic posters, while disagreeing fervently with our beliefs, can discuss them in a charitable, adult manner, such as Soren1 and SteveVH, among others.
Well, you’re right - Joseph Smith’s prophesies were simpler and more easily defined, whereas the Apocalypse of St John is nebulous, can be read to mean anything you might like to ascribe to it, and we’re not even sure who wrote it, or if it’s even a prophesy. As for Joseph Smith, perhaps if there were some Mormons participating in this dialog we could ask them. I’m just speculating, but perhaps they too consider the prophesies to be flawed, but they continue on because they feel that aside from a few missteps from leadership, they have a good workable faith and an established group identity that works well for them. I think it’s fair to say that most religions have had some embarrassing episodes in regard to their leadership. I can think of a good many. Some church leaders have been wrong in their beliefs, or in how their beliefs were applied, or just profoundly wrong in their actions. On the other hand, I am greatly pleased to see that the people press on with their faith anyway. Maybe the same is the case with the Mormons? I’d be interested to hear what they say.