Is Mormonism Pagan?

[deborah1313]

alterserver_07:

Why are you confused by the Trinity when the Book of Mormon has it in it too. There are many spots in the BoM that have this and I have shown it to you, but what you said is what the mormons beleive, then the BoM is going against what you believe. There is only one God, not three like you say, and it says that very clearly in the Bible and BoM.

but mormons go by the pearl of great price when it comes to their understanding and beliefs about who God is. they don’t go by the BoM. they, and a lot of other people insist on a clear understanding and no one can understand the triune God. it’s a mystery, it’s beyond human understanding, it’s certainly beyond words, but sometimes you get a glimpse of it in your soul and you say ahhhh!

 

[majick275]

amgid:

As I have already stated in another post, I don’t know what “eternal progression” is, or what it means. It is not a concept that is found in LDS scripture, and it is not true LDS doctrine.
amgid

yet you said:

amgid:

…Meaning, of course, that by virtue of their divine Parentage, they have the potential to acquire divine status. That is quite correct. Being the “children of God” means that they have the potential to become gods themselves. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what LDS doctrine teaches too.

Which is it?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

As I have already stated in another post, I don’t know what “eternal progression” is, or what it means. It is not a concept that is found in LDS scripture, and it is not true LDS doctrine.

yet you said:

…Meaning, of course, that by virtue of their divine Parentage, they have the potential to acquire divine status. That is quite correct. Being the “children of God” means that they have the potential to become gods themselves. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what LDS doctrine teaches too.

Which is it?

Well, what is your point? What are you getting at? I don’t know!

amgid

 

[majick275]

My point is that on the one hand you state that the doctrine of eternal progression is not a CONCEPT found in scripture nor is it a “true” doctrine of the LDS church.

Yet in a different post you told us that it IS what the Bible teaches AND what LDS doctrine teaches.

Lest we get sidetracked by semantics, You also referred folks here to the official LDS website asa good source for learning what the LDS church teaches. You can go there and use their search engine to find the specific term “eternal progression” so that we can all agree on the definition. (as well as acknowledging that the LDS church knows what that means since you claim not to)

So now I repeat which is it?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

My point is that on the one hand you state that the doctrine of eternal progression is not a CONCEPT found in scripture nor is it a “true” doctrine of the LDS church.

Yet in a different post you told us that it IS what the Bible teaches AND what LDS doctrine teaches.

I don’t recall saying that. Please don’t attribute words to me without giving references.

Lest we get sidetracked by semantics, You also referred folks here to the official LDS website asa good source for learning what the LDS church teaches.

Although I have referred people to that site, and would do so again as a reliable guide, I never claimed that it is an infallible guide. If you are looking for an infallible guide to LDS theology and doctrine, I refer you to the standard works. That is the only infallible guide there is.

You can go there and use their search engine to find the specific term “eternal progression” so that we can all agree on the definition.

I will let you do that, since you are so interested in the subject. You come up with accurate definition, and I will tell you whether is LDS doctrine or not.

(as well as acknowledging that the LDS church knows what that means since you claim not to)

The expression does exist, and has been used by some in the past, and it probably means different things to different people. To me it means nothing at all! I am being perfectly honest with you when I tell you that I don’t know what it means. It is also hardly ever used the latest LDS published materials. I haven’t come across it LDS manuals and handbooks, or in General Conference talks in recent years at all.

So now I repeat which is it?

Which is what?

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

Well, I agree that it has been a widespread belief among the LDS, and probably still is. It was President Gordon B. Hinckley that said we no longer teach or emphasize it. By that I believe he meant that it is no longer widely taught or advocated at the pulpit by the general leadership of the Church, and that is true. If you read the general conference talks of the Church during the past few years or more, you will find that it is hardly ever mentioned. As for the published literature of the Church, that will take a little time to be corrected and updated, and I believe it eventually will be.

amgid

What a shame that the leadership of the LDS Church can’t just come out and say that they DO NOT teach or BELIEVE that God was once a man. How simple would that be? It begs the question, why haven’t they done this? They pretend as if it’s a non-issue.

Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel is to understand the nature of God. I agree with him. If you don’t have an understanding of the nature of God then you might be worshiping one God and the person next to you might be worshiping a different God. Why do the GC’s allow millions of the faithful to believe(and teach) this false doctrine that God was once a man, and that we can become God’s with our own worlds? My sister told me it was taught in her Ward last Sunday! She goes to Cannon Stake, 3rd ward in Salt Lake City if you want to report heretical doctrine being taught.

 

[majick275]

p.186 of the current LDS gospel doctrine teachers manual (D&C and Church History) quotes from JS king follett sermon and even quotes Bruce Mconkie on why this is such an important doctrine.

A quick search of CURRENT LDS teaching materials will verify the Current usage of this term and this doctrine.

Originally Posted by amgid
…Meaning, of course, that by virtue of their divine Parentage, they have the potential to acquire divine status. That is quite correct. Being the “children of God” means that they have the potential to become gods themselves. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what LDS doctrine teaches too.

This is what I was attributing to you. If you meant something else by these words then I am confused.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

p.186 of the current LDS gospel doctrine teachers manual (D&C and Church History) quotes from JS king follett sermon and even quotes Bruce Mconkie on why this is such an important doctrine.

A quick search of CURRENT LDS teaching materials will verify the Current usage of this term and this doctrine.

I have already replied to that in the thread called “When Did the “Mormon Jesus” Become Divine?” I refer you to that post.

Originally Posted by amgid:
…Meaning, of course, that by virtue of their divine Parentage, they have the potential to acquire divine status. That is quite correct. Being the “children of God” means that they have the potential to become gods themselves. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what LDS doctrine teaches too.

This is what I was attributing to you. If you meant something else by these words then I am confused.

I don’t read in what I wrote anything which says that they will have spirit kids and create planets for them and provide saviors and devils for them … Do you? Perhaps I need a change of glasses.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Then what do you mean by “becoming gods themselves”?

I will still continue with the premise that if the worldwide LDS church teaches consistently from the same source materials certain concepts as doctrine then these are in fact the “official” doctrine of the LDS church. Eternal Progression is certainly taught in LDS churches throughout the world form current materials it is not presented to the members as speculation or theory but is claimed to be doctrine.

This doctrine as taught in the LDS church today(reference all of the current sunday school, primary and priesthood/relief society instruction manuals) includes the belief that God was once a man, that he has a father who is his God and that worthy members of the LDS church have the potential to someday have children in the afterlife and literally experience all that our Heavenly Father has.

That you do not personally believe this ( I understood you to mean that you do NOT believe that Heavenly Father had a father and that you do NOT believe that exalted humans from this earth will be able to populate their own planets with their spirit offspring) would indicate to me that your own beliefs differ from the docrine of the LDS church. (which is okay)

 

[paul_barlow]

is a pagan someone who believes in christ.
is apagan someone who believes that through the saviours crucifiction we are saved from original sin.
is a pagan a person who prays to God through his son.
is a pagan a person who serves and if needs be dieds preaching repentance.
is a pagan a person who cares for others and shares with them what they have.
is a pagan a person who excepts that god still cares for his children that he will lead his church via prophets.
is a pagan someone who believes that the bible is true.
if mormons are pagans are you

 

[Jared_Garth]

With mormonism’s view that you can become a god sure does smack of eastern mysticism. Also it is agaisnt the first commandment.

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

is a pagan someone who believes in christ.

Depends on your definitions of “believes” and Christ. (Many Satanists “Believe” in Christ) The LDS teachings on the nature of God, and thus Jesus are very different than most Christians.
paul barlow:

is apagan someone who believes that through the saviours crucifiction we are saved from original sin.

This certainly Does NOT describe LDS doctrine. They state in their articles of faith that no one is punished for “Adam’s transgression” (original sin). They also teach that the “atonement” is what paid for sin. (LDS teach that this began in Gethsemane)
paul barlow:

is a pagan a person who prays to God through his son.

Depends on which God/Son. but us Christian trinitarians pray to the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.
paul barlow:

is a pagan a person who serves and if needs be dieds preaching repentance.

Not necessarily but they could be. There have been Muslims, Buddhists, Sihks, Mithraists and others who “served” and died preaching repentance.
paul barlow:

is a pagan a person who cares for others and shares with them what they have.

Same as above. Many wiccans are very compassionate and generous.
paul barlow:

is a pagan a person who excepts that god still cares for his children that he will lead his church via prophets.

Pretty much. This describes the Bahai’s, Branch Davidians and many others. Christians pretty much accept what the Bible says in Hebrews Ch.1 (the rest of that book is good as well) about no longer needing a “prophet” to lead his church. (I am very skeptical about any Mormon having ever been called by God as a prophet anyway)
paul barlow:

is a pagan someone who believes that the bible is true.

Maybe. There are some wiccans that believe in it. Mormons believe that the Bible is missing many plain and precious things and has numerous translation errors, some of which they allege to be intentional. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God.
paul barlow:

if mormons are pagans are you

No I am not. They might be. (admittedly depends on your definition of both “Mormon” and “pagan”)

*from the American Heritage Dictionary:

NOUN:

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.

ADJECTIVE:

1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

Depends on your definitions of “believes” and Christ. (Many Satanists “Believe” in Christ) The LDS teachings on the nature of God, and thus Jesus are very different than most Christians.
the same can be said of your church if your implying that we do not worship the lord god through his son jesus christ then your wrong. if you are saying that we do not teach of the saviour you are wrong. our understanding of the nature of godhead your trinty differs but only as much as your teachings differ from other christian churches. eph 2 19-20; 1 tim 2:3-6

This certainly Does NOT describe LDS doctrine. They state in their articles of faith that no one is punished for “Adam’s transgression” (original sin). They also teach that the “atonement” is what paid for sin. (LDS teach that this began in Gethsemane)
that was the reason that the saviour was sent; or we, even you were lost. the lds church teaches as you said that the atonement cleared the problem of adams fall in that he brought sin into the world. the crucifixion of our saviour saves us from death(which was the sin of adam. whats your view.heb2:9-10

Depends on which God/Son. but us Christian trinitarians pray to the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.
we pray to the father though his son our saviour.

Not necessarily but they could be. There have been Muslims, Buddhists, Sihks, Mithraists and others who “served” and died preaching repentance.
in christ.

Same as above. Many wiccans are very compassionate and generous.
as above

Pretty much. This describes the Bahai’s, Branch Davidians and many others. Christians pretty much accept what the Bible says in Hebrews Ch.1 (the rest of that book is good as well) about no longer needing a “prophet” to lead his church. (I am very skeptical about any Mormon having ever been called by God as a prophet anyway)
if we don’t need a prophet (ephesians 2:20) then you don’t need a pope. you claim authority from peter we claim a restoration. we will not agree on this so there’s no point in arguing the point but unless we have a link with god as a church then we are lost.

Maybe. There are some wiccans that believe in it. Mormons believe that the Bible is missing many plain and precious things and has numerous translation errors, some of which they allege to be intentional. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God.
are you saying there are no missing books from the bible. intresting i think you neeed to check that one

No I am not. They might be. (admittedly depends on your definition of both “Mormon” and “pagan”)
mmmm lets look at your list we are followers of christ. even if you dont belive it.(1peter4 14-19)
can you explain 2 timothy 4 :3-4 and
acts`20 29-30

*from the American Heritage Dictionary:

NOUN:

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.

ADJECTIVE:

1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

as i said it’s simple either your right and we are in trouble or your wrong and your in trouble.

 

[majick275]

I agree with your final conclusion. I will try to give detailed reponses to your excellent scriptural references later when I get some time. I didn’t particularly care for your initial post but this one made up for it.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello;

I’ve been reading through this post and find it interesting that even though it started with a discussion of the Trinitarian nature of God, it ended up with a discussion of “eternal progression” and how such a belief is inconsistent with the rest of christianity. I think it will always come down to this doctrine as the true stumbling block for LDS to enter mainstream christianity.

Majick275 - I really enjoyed your posts. Thanks for all of the references. I have some homework to do.

Amgid - I’m really not following your arguments. I’ve heard the LDS faith presented by others to this forum - with more charity and clarity. I really don’t understand why you are denying the concept of persons becoming gods as being the central and defining concept of mormonism, as that seems to be taken for granted among your LDS colleagues. Is it that you object to the term “eternal progression” or do you deny that the concept arising from the Follet Discourse is a part of LDS doctrine.

I’m really struggling just to understand if this is true because there seems to be such a hesitancy among LDS members to openly declare this doctrine. It seems to me that if you believed it to be true this would be the number one selling point of the religion… i.e. “Become a Mormon and become a god” would be the marketing slogan. Why all the denials of what appears to be an attractive selling point to your faith?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Let me add that I would NOT call the LDS faith a pagan religion. I would instead say that its understanding of the trinity is heretical - from a Catholic perspective. That does not necessarily make LDS members non-christian, but it does call into question the validity of their baptism - as it does not properly comprehend the triune nature of God. I know “heretical” may seem like a derogatory term to some, but I only mean it in the strict theological sense of the word. I have no reason to doubt the sincere love of God and the love of Jesus that believing LDS members have in their hearts.

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

the same can be said of your church if your implying that we do not worship the lord god through his son jesus christ then your wrong. if you are saying that we do not teach of the saviour you are wrong. our understanding of the nature of godhead your trinty differs but only as much as your teachings differ from other christian churches. eph 2 19-20; 1 tim 2:3-6

I agree with both of your scriptures here. I must see a different meaning than you. The first states our foundation on apostles and prophets. (think Jesus speaking of “the law and the prophets” when referring to the Torah) We believe in Isaiah and Daniel and Moses, etc. and the entire Mosaic law is a foundation that prepared the world for Christ.

The second tells us that there is one God. Amen!!! One not three not infinite.

What I think is that your definition of WHO God the Father and His son Jesus Christ are is so different as to make the various LDS prophets who have said that you do not worship the same Jesus absolutely correct. I am saying that the nature of the savior and just WHO he is (and what he is) is different. The Catholic church teaches the same trinitarian doctrine as MANY other Christian churches.
paul barlow:

that was the reason that the saviour was sent; or we, even you were lost. the lds church teaches as you said that the atonement cleared the problem of adams fall in that he brought sin into the world. the crucifixion of our saviour saves us from death(which was the sin of adam. whats your view.heb2:9-10

No that is not what I said. The LDS church teaches that there is no original sin in the Catholic sense. They teach that everyone enters the world free and clear of sin (througha “preemptive” atonement) and only when they knowingly disobey God are they in need of repentance and the atonement. The LDS definition of the atonement is primarily centered on the garden of gethsemane. The actual crucifiction is but a small part. I agree with your heb 2:9-10 on this. BUT…
This from the LDS website:

scriptures.lds.org/query?words=atonement&start=100

*As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind. He was able to do so because of his selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed (Ether 3: 14; Moses 4: 1-2; Abr. 3: 27), his divine Sonship, and his sinless life. His atonement included his suffering for the sins of mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane, the shedding of his blood, and his death and subsequent resurrection from the grave (Isa. 53: 3-12; Mosiah 3: 5-11; Alma 7: 10-13). Because of the Atonement, all people will rise from the dead with immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15: 22). The Atonement also provides the way for us to be forgiven of our sins and live forever with God. But a person who has reached the age of accountability and received the law can receive these blessings only if he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of salvation, and obeys the commandments of God. Those who do not reach the age of accountability and those without the law are redeemed through the Atonement (Mosiah 15: 24-25; Moro. 8: 22). The scriptures clearly teach that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence (2 Ne. 2; 9).
*
paul barlow:

we pray to the father though his son our saviour.

What of the Holy spirit? You baptize in his name and then don’t involve him in any other ordinances/prayers. You don’t pray to Jesus the Savior.

I said:

majick275:

Not necessarily but they could be. There have been Muslims, Buddhists, Sihks, Mithraists and others who “served” and died preaching repentance.

to which you replied:
paul barlow:

in christ.

Okay that’s different but it still applies to Jim Jones, David Koresh and others who aren’t pagan but aren’t exactly the best examples of christianity either. My point is that this doesn’t really apply to Mormons and doesn’t really prove anything anyway.

 

[majick275]

(continued)
paul barlow:

if we don’t need a prophet (ephesians 2:20) then you don’t need a pope. you claim authority from peter we claim a restoration. we will not agree on this so there’s no point in arguing the point but unless we have a link with god as a church then we are lost.

I don’t see how you get this here. We agree with you that God’s church needs to be organized and have a leader who gets their authority from God through Apostolic succession. if we were comparing President of your church to Pope then it’s just a matter of who not what or if. The difference I see is in the title Prophet, seer and revelator. see above for youir scripture reference. We still have Hebrews 1 telling us that God spoke through prophets in the past but now we have the Son. We believe in personal revelation much like you, but believe that God is always with us now and has
given his whole gospel perfectly through Jesus. We see no need for a “restoration” to repair or improve what Christ gave us. I find Joseph Smiths claims on this to be blasphemous.
paul barlow:

are you saying there are no missing books from the bible. intresting i think you neeed to check that one

You might want to look at the history of the Bible. It didn’t start out as a complete book that had sections torn out by evil men. so in that sense No there ar no missing books from the Bible. The Bible is the term for the collection of sacred writings that the Catholic Church chose to consolidate into a single Book of scripture. Now there are MANY old writings that have been revered, and even considered scripture that ARE missing. Mostly though, the writings exist we just don’t have sufficient information about their “correctness” to canonize them. (the Gospel of Thomas, Vision of polycarp,etc.) You might want to consider that the Catholic bible contains more books than the King James version. So who removed many plain and precious things?
paul barlow:

mmmm lets look at your list we are followers of christ. even if you dont belive it.(1peter4 14-19)
can you explain 2 timothy 4 :3-4 and
acts`20 29-30

I believe that you claim to follow Christ. I also believe that your doctrine on the nature of God, and thus Christ makes this questionable. You’re not being “reproached for the name of Christ” but for preaching Satans temptation that “ye shall be as the Gods”. Let’s look at your scriptures:

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

This sure describes Joseph smith and even more so, Brigham Young. Shall we talk about the UNsound doctrines of Adam-God, blood atonement, polygamy, racial restrictions on the priesthood, that Jesus was a polygamist, the moon is inhabited… I could go on and on with the “fables” that lured men like martin Harris and David Whitmer, Hiram Page (you know the kind of men that are considered witnesses to the “truth” of the Book of Mormon) into bank frauds and plural marriages to teenagers.

Acts 20:
29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Once again… A whole nation (deseret) of drawn away disciples speaking VERY perverse things. Read Journal of Discourses, The Seer, Mormon Doctrine, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church… the list goes on.

You see the Bible tells us that Jesus set up the true church once and forever. Nothing can ever prevail against it. It has withstood all evil men, heresies and persecutions and has continued unbroken. Individuals and even large groups will apostatize but not the entire church. The Bible warns us about the very things that Mormonism teaches. Rather than rip sound bites out of context, try reading the entire Letter to the Hebrews. (if not the whole Bible). No Temples or Prophets needed. Christ fixed everything, delivered all and we still have it today.

 

[paul_barlow]

I agree with both of your scriptures here. I must see a different meaning than you. The first states our foundation on apostles and prophets. (think Jesus speaking of “the law and the prophets” when referring to the Torah) We believe in Isaiah and Daniel and Moses, etc. and the entire Mosaic law is a foundation that prepared the world for Christ.

The second tells us that there is one God. Amen!!! One not three not infinite.
show me scripture preferably from the saviour that he is without body parts or passions. then explain to me how if he has no body what were the marks that he got thomas to touch. explain christs baptism. and does not god the father have passions you had better ask the sons of aaron if god has passion. god sent his son not his left arm to save us. and i thought that you accepted that the scriptures were the word of god. god made man in his image.

What I think is that your definition of WHO God the Father and His son Jesus Christ are is so different as to make the various LDS prophets who have said that you do not worship the same Jesus absolutely correct. I am saying that the nature of the savior and just WHO he is (and what he is) is different. The Catholic church teaches the same trinitarian doctrine as MANY other Christian churches.
Rubbish and you know it

No that is not what I said. The LDS church teaches that there is no original sin in the Catholic sense. They teach that everyone enters the world free and clear of sin (througha “preemptive” atonement) and only when they knowingly disobey God are they in need of repentance and the atonement. The LDS definition of the atonement is primarily centered on the garden of gethsemane. The actual crucifiction is but a small part. I agree with your heb 2:9-10 on this. BUT…
Oh please we all know the answer to that .that overcomes death and we do not make a big deal of it because every one is getting it thanks to the saviour. we are more concerned about getting people ready to accept the second part of christs sacrifice

Again are you arguing this from a catholic point or what. as far as i can understand your church teaches that a child is born sinful and damned if they die before baptism which clearly ignores the purpose of the saviour coming to the earth.
This from the LDS website:

scriptures.lds.org/query?words=atonement&start=100

*As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of making a perfect atonement for all mankind. He was able to do so because of his selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed (Ether 3: 14; Moses 4: 1-2; Abr. 3: 27), his divine Sonship, and his sinless life. His atonement included his suffering for the sins of mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane, the shedding of his blood, and his death and subsequent resurrection from the grave (Isa. 53: 3-12; Mosiah 3: 5-11; Alma 7: 10-13). Because of the Atonement, all people will rise from the dead with immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15: 22). The Atonement also provides the way for us to be forgiven of our sins and live forever with God. But a person who has reached the age of accountability and received the law can receive these blessings only if he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of salvation, and obeys the commandments of God. Those who do not reach the age of accountability and those without the law are redeemed through the Atonement (Mosiah 15: 24-25; Moro. 8: 22). The scriptures clearly teach that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence (2 Ne. 2; 9).
*

If you are arguing this point your teaching wrong catholic doctrine or dogma

What of the Holy spirit? You baptize in his name and then don’t involve him in any other ordinances/prayers. You don’t pray to Jesus the Savior.
**Of course we pray through jesus christ as our saviour and mediator to the Lord god. you know we do or is your memory very poor. who then witnesses to us in our prayers if its not the holy ghost. **
I said:

to which you replied:

Okay that’s different but it still applies to Jim Jones, David Koresh and others who aren’t pagan but aren’t exactly the best examples of christianity either. My point is that this doesn’t really apply to Mormons and doesn’t really prove anything anyway.

you were a member for 42 years in all that time you never felt the spirit or bore testomony of jesus christ.

 

[paul_barlow]

given his whole gospel perfectly through Jesus. We see no need for a “restoration” to repair or improve what Christ gave us. I find Joseph Smiths claims on this to be blasphemous.

A bible we need no more that then means your church is dead or are you saying that during the middle ages when you had two popes selling church indulgences and selling the truth for earthly power and not fogetting the odd murderer scatted in there. did the authority dwell in a corupt man. no i don’t seem to remember a scripture saying that it would i see scriptures warning of this advent the priesthood of god can not dwell in filth. so there was a break in the line of authority. who restored the true and holy catholic church or has it not been done yet. and i find your claims worse.

You might want to look at the history of the Bible. It didn’t start out as a complete book that had sections torn out by evil men. so in that sense No there ar no missing books from the Bible. The Bible is the term for the collection of sacred writings that the Catholic Church chose to consolidate into a single Book of scripture. Now there are MANY old writings that have been revered, and even considered scripture that ARE missing. Mostly though, the writings exist we just don’t have sufficient information about their “correctness” to canonize them. (the Gospel of Thomas, Vision of polycarp,etc.) You might want to consider that the Catholic bible contains more books than the King James version. So who removed many plain and precious things?

yes your church did and would it not have been nice to have had all of the bible including the missing books in corinthians and the one in ephesians and the epistle to laodicea. maybe there is a need for more scripture. and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, god shall take away his part of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. so you had them what have you done with these words of god. i think you will find your church did.

I believe that you claim to follow Christ. I also believe that your doctrine on the nature of God, and thus Christ makes this questionable. You’re not being “reproached for the name of Christ” but for preaching Satans temptation that “ye shall be as the Gods”. Let’s look at your scriptures:

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

This sure describes Joseph smith and even more so, Brigham Young. Shall we talk about the UNsound doctrines of Adam-God, blood atonement, polygamy, racial restrictions on the priesthood, that Jesus was a polygamist, the moon is inhabited… I could go on and on with the “fables” that lured men like martin Harris and David Whitmer, Hiram Page (you know the kind of men that are considered witnesses to the “truth” of the Book of Mormon) into bank frauds and plural marriages to teenagers.

Acts 20:
29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Once again… A whole nation (deseret) of drawn away disciples speaking VERY perverse things. Read Journal of Discourses, The Seer, Mormon Doctrine, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church… the list goes on.

You see the Bible tells us that Jesus set up the true church once and forever. Nothing can ever prevail against it. It has withstood all evil men, heresies and persecutions and has continued unbroken. Individuals and even large groups will apostatize but not the entire church. The Bible warns us about the very things that Mormonism teaches. Rather than rip sound bites out of context, try reading the entire Letter to the Hebrews. (if not the whole Bible). No Temples or Prophets needed. Christ fixed everything, delivered all and we still have it today.

this is addressing your church not ours the great apostacy was your church false teachings at least we are allowed to read the bible. who was it untill the reformation who stopped the common man from reading holy scripture burning people as heritics for printing the bible. and if your priesthood authority survived those evil men who bought the see of rome then you have just admitted that your church is fallen so well argued. you must have been a good sunday school teacher.