LDS, Creeds, and the Trinity

[PRmerger]

no. I don’t. I simply do not have to question him…I will not call him a liar as some lds have called me.

See, I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You can choose whatever you want.

One thing you cannot do, is order me to do something. Unless, of course, you are a Colonel in the military, since I am an LTC…or unless you are the Senior Managing Attorney at the firm where I am a managing attorney, or unless you are my wife.

Let me know if you are one of those…

You must follow the mandates of the forum, TK.

Or risk an infraction, suspension or banning.

These are not my rules. They are the rules of our host, the Catholic Answers Forums.

As such, you would be smart not to say that you don’t have to follow them.

You cannot question the sincerity of a forum member.

Although, of course, you may certainly ask a forum member to support his claim, and if he cannot support it, then you are free to call him out on this. I have done that many, many times.

'nuff said.

 

[TexanKnight]

You must follow the mandates of the forum, TK.

Or risk an infraction, suspension or banning.

These are not my rules. They are the rules of our host, the Catholic Answers Forums.

As such, you would be smart not to say that you don’t have to follow them.

You cannot question the sincerity of a forum member.

Although, of course, you may certainly ask a forum member to support his claim, and if he cannot support it, then you are free to call him out on this. I have done that many, many times.

'nuff said.

I will do as I see fit. Since you are not one of the three people mentioned, but are instead the self-proclaimed forum nanny, I simply will do with you as I do with other folks like you: I will read your posts with laughter and ignore your nanny demands

And I will continue to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church while financially supporting this forum.

Thanks for playing. See Vanna for a nice parting gift.

 

[PRmerger]

I will do as I see fit.

Not if it breaks the forum rules, TK.

You absolutely cannot do as you see fit here.

 

[PRmerger]

People of African descent were not allowed to receive the LDS priesthood until 1979. Hmmm about the time of the social justice movement? I think they felt the pressure.

Interesting.

The LDS doctrine seems to be evolving?

 

[TexanKnight]

Not if it breaks the forum rules, TK.

You absolutely cannot do as you see fit here.

Lolol. Thought you said " nuff said"

And yes, I will. If management has an issue, we talk about it. Funny thing, you have never been a part of those conversations. Wonder why?

Lol

 

[PRmerger]

Now let me give you a little History on the Mormon Church. In 1821 a young treasure seeker named Joseph Smith claimed to have had a vision from God. First he said it was from Jesus, then he said from Jesus and many angels, and then he said that it was from Jesus and God the Father. This is what they go by today. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was visited by Jesus and God the father; but the Bible tells us that no man can look upon the face of God and live. He was also visited by a so-called angel named Moroni, who supposedly told him about a secret manuscript, written on golden plates, telling the true Gospel.

And that he was to translate this into the Book of Mormon. Let me truly begin here and tell you what they believe. They believe that long ago from an unknown god ,and goddess, was born a man named Elohim who was later born to human parents, and he lived his life and became a god like his father. He is also claimed to have fathered many children. Two of them in particular are named: one is Jesus, and the other is Lucifer.

They decided to put all of Elohim’s many children on a planet, and that the planet needed a savior the bid, for it came down to Jesus and to Lucifer. But Jesus won out because he had unselfish reasons. But then Lucifer revolted and turned many of Elohim’s children against him, and they were banished to the earth, never to have physical bodies. The people who were on the side of Jesus were very light skinned. And the people who remained neutral in the battle, their skinned turned black and this is the Mormon explanation for the black race. Mormons believe after that battle, the people were sent to Earth, and Elohim came to earth, and had sex with Mary, and that is how Jesus came to Earth.

They also believe that Jesus took three wives while on Earth: Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. They also believe that Jesus fathered many Children during his time on Earth, and that Joseph Smith their founder was a direct descendant of Jesus. They believe that after a life of Mormonism and a Mormon marriage has taken place, that when they die they will become gods too. They also believe that they will have their own planet, and many goddess wives, and their job for eternity will be to populate the planets. I know how far fetched this all sounds, but these people actually believe this mess.

Mormons: can you address the above? It does appear to be overflowing with misinformation. (I deleted the part about the “sex cult”, which is clearly la-la ga-ga nonsensical.)

I’d rather take my info on Mormonism from Mormons, rather than ex-Mormons.

Just as I’d hope you’d take your info on Catholicism from Catholics, rather than ex-Catholics.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons: can you address the above? It does appear to be overflowing with misinformation. (I deleted the part about the “sex cult”, which is clearly la-la ga-ga nonsensical.)

I’d rather take my info on Mormonism from Mormons, rather than ex-Mormons.

Just as I’d hope you’d take your info on Catholicism from Catholics, rather than ex-Catholics.

Lol. Why? Are you round about questioning our honesty?

Me, I would rather get the truth from those who know rather than the party-line talks from who belong

But then, I like truth

 

[PRmerger]

1. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

Now this, I have heard before.

Mormons: what say you to this?

 

[TheIrishman]

Now let me give you a little History on the Mormon Church. In 1821 a young treasure seeker named Joseph Smith claimed to have had a vision from God. First he said it was from Jesus, then he said from Jesus and many angels, and then he said that it was from Jesus and God the Father. This is what they go by today. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was visited by Jesus and God the father; but the Bible tells us that no man can look upon the face of God and live. He was also visited by a so-called angel named Moroni, who supposedly told him about a secret manuscript, written on golden plates, telling the true Gospel.

As “glamorous” as you make it sound, this is all true. The way mormons reconcile seeing God is through spiritual eyes not natural eyes.(see Moses 1:11 in the LDS Pearl of Great Price).

And that he was to translate this into the Book of Mormon. Let me truly begin here and tell you what they believe. They believe that long ago from an unknown god ,and goddess, was born a man named Elohim who was later born to human parents, and he lived his life and became a god like his father. He is also claimed to have fathered many children. Two of them in particular are named: one is Jesus, and the other is Lucifer.

You aren’t really starting with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is an ancient record about a jewish family fleeing from Jerusalem and sailing to the America’s. Generations pass, wars are fought, divisions are made and in the end, evil triumphs over good. Also, Christ visits the America’s.

They decided to put all of Elohim’s many children on a planet, and that the planet needed a savior the bid, for it came down to Jesus and to Lucifer. But Jesus won out because he had unselfish reasons. But then Lucifer revolted and turned many of Elohim’s children against him, and they were banished to the earth, never to have physical bodies. The people who were on the side of Jesus were very light skinned. And the people who remained neutral in the battle, their skinned turned black and this is the Mormon explanation for the black race. Mormons believe after that battle, the people were sent to Earth, and Elohim came to earth, and had sex with Mary, and that is how Jesus came to Earth.

Actually, the LDS church taught that African American’s are descendants of Cain and its because Cain killed his brother that he was cursed with a darken skinned. However, those born with the mark were considered less faithful in the pre-existance so in an extent you are correct.

They also believe that Jesus took three wives while on Earth: Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. They also believe that Jesus fathered many Children during his time on Earth, and that Joseph Smith their founder was a direct descendant of Jesus. They believe that after a life of Mormonism and a Mormon marriage has taken place, that when they die they will become gods too. They also believe that they will have their own planet, and many goddess wives, and their job for eternity will be to populate the planets. I know how far fetched this all sounds, but these people actually believe this mess.

I have never heard or been taught that Jesus took 3 wives. Or was even married. Never been taught He had children, just brothers and sisters. And I haven’t been taught that Joseph Smith is a direct descendent of Jesus Christ. But the planet part is true, but it’s not the focus of the LDS church, members are more concerned with eternal families than with own planets. Also, the LDS faith bases all this belief on Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet than all of this “mess” doesn’t sound so farfetched anymore. I personally don’t know if Joseph Smith was a true prophet but if was, then I would believe this story.

Also, it’s a little unfair to a religion to only talk about what “you” think is being taught in it. I go to church every week and we rarely talk about any of this that you bring up. If I wanted to, I could make Catholicism sound farfetched also and probably many protestants would agree with the points I make and say that’s why they aren’t Catholics. But I don’t for 2 reasons, out of respect for every Catholic on this forum and because I truly understand where doctrines and traditions come from and don’t think they are farfetched at all.

Mormonism is a sex cult. And we never would have guessed any of this from those sweet family-oriented Mormon commercials on TV. People please be aware of these dangerous occults. These people are lost and on there way to Hell. They desperately need Jesus.

With all due respect, if you’re the one that is trying to turn me to Jesus, why would I want your help?

 

[TheIrishman]

Now this, I have heard before.

Mormons: what say you to this?

true

 

[PRmerger]

true

So was Joseph Smith an expert in Egyptology? I don’t understand what Egypt has to do wtih God’s revelation in LDS theology.

 

[TheIrishman]

So was Joseph Smith an expert in Egyptology? I don’t understand what Egypt has to do wtih God’s revelation in LDS theology.

who knows, i don’t think so. Joseph Smith bought a papyri manuscript from a traveling salesmen and “translated” the text. According to Joseph Smith, it contained a record of Abraham and his doings in Egypt. This is where the Book of Abraham comes from. So that’s why Egypt is involved.

 

[LDSYep]

Mormons: can you address the above? It does appear to be overflowing with misinformation.

TheIrishman did a good job I think. I would add the following though.

There are multiple accounts of the first vision. People explain events similarly, they have differing versions depending on which part they are talking about at the moment. The versions do not conflict with one another.

The Church has recently begun releasing a series of books titled the Joseph Smith Papers. These books do, or will, include the various versions.

The following is taken from - Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan 1985, 8. I believe that it responds to the statements about multiple versions of the First Vision well:

"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. 1 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.

In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.

Indeed, there are long-standing precedents for differing accounts of the same spiritual experience. For example, the four Gospels do not correspond exactly concerning the great events at the garden’s empty tomb. There are variations as to the number of women and angels who were present and whether the angels were sitting or standing. Although the Prophet Joseph Smith in his inspired translation clarified some of these details (and others cited below), minor disparities remain in the four descriptions of this event (compare Matt. 28 with Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20). The differences, however, are not important—they may have resulted from incorrect transmissions or translations, or may be the result of recording the event from different perspectives. The glorious fact remains that the tomb was empty because Jesus had risen as the first fruits of the Resurrection.

Accounts of the Savior’s appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, related to us in Acts by Luke and by Paul in his letters, also vary. To cite one example, in Acts 8:7, we read that others traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. In chapter 22, verse 9, we read that others saw the light but did not hear the voice.

A description of an event found in John 12 is similar in some respects to the New Testament account of Paul’s vision. According to John, while Jesus was in Jerusalem a “voice” was heard from heaven. While some perceived that the noise was like thunder, others thought that an angel had spoken. (See John 12:28–29.)

It is the great reality that is important, not the somewhat differing perceptions of it. Although the description by Matthew of the death of Judas (Matt. 27:5) is different from that described in Acts (Acts 1:18), and although the gospels differ on the message enscribed on the cross and the words that Jesus spoke prior to his death (compare Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:38, 43; and John 19:19–21), we should not become so engrossed with differences that we fail to comprehend the basic message conveyed in the Gospels. Of most importance in the descriptions of the crucifixion is that Jesus, while on the cross, was completing the Atonement.

…continued in next

 

[LDSYep]

Post Continued…

Like Paul, Joseph Smith did not relate all the details of his profound experience of 1820 at any one time. When Paul found that his Gentile ministry was in question, he recalled (years after his vision) how the Lord had outlined his mission to the non-Jewish nations at the time of his first vision. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Similarly, in the most complete account of the First Vision (one prepared in 1838 as part of a major history of the Church), the Prophet concluded that “many other things did [the Savior] say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.” (JS—H 1:20.) As a matter of fact, we do not have a full account today of the First Vision. At no time did the Prophet disclose everything that he learned during his vision near Palmyra. Nevertheless (as with the four Gospels and the three versions of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus), by combining all known accounts of the First Vision written by the Prophet, we may gain a more complete understanding of his theophany of 1820.

We can also better understand why the young Joseph Smith possibly did not write an account of the First Vision until the early 1830s considering the social and literary climate of his times. Many people living in nineteenth-century America did not publish autobiographies or histories until many years after the events that shaped their lives had transpired. The possibility of Joseph Smith keeping a diary in 1820 at age 14 seems remote. 2 Still, as aptly explained by Dean C. Jessee, research historian for the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at Brigham Young University, the apparent time-lag between the First Vision and its recording is more presumed than real. “Considering the youth of the Prophet, the frontier conditions in which he lived, his lack of academic training, the absence of any formal directive to motivate him to write, and the antagonistic reception he received upon first relating the experience, it is not strange that he failed to preserve an account of his First Vision during the decade between 1820 and 1830. However, once directed by an 1830 revelation to keep a history, Joseph acted with all dispatch that time-consuming responsibilities and frustrating difficulties would allow. 3 The first known recording by Paul of his experience on the road to Damascus was written about twenty-four years following his vision. 4

Although no published reports of the First Vision appeared during the 1820s and 1830s, the Prophet included descriptions of his sacred experience in the grove in all four accounts of the rise of the restored Church which he wrote or dictated during the ten year span from 1832 to 1842. And when Joseph published for the first time two different versions of the history of the Church (a brief sketch and then a more detailed history) in 1842, he included in both accounts a description of this vision.

While the wording in Joseph’s accounts of the First Vision is different, a number of basic truths are disclosed in each of his recitals involving a rich harmony in many details. One can better understand and appreciate the different emphases in these testimonies by examining their individual historical setting, by considering Joseph’s efforts to write history, and by noting his attempts to improve the form in which the basic message of the restoration was conveyed to others."

 

[PaulDupre1]

I have never heard or been taught that Jesus took 3 wives. Or was even married. Never been taught He had children, just brothers and sisters. And I haven’t been taught that Joseph Smith is a direct descendent of Jesus Christ.

The Mormon Jesus was a polygamist.

This is but a tiny sample of the documentation, in roughly chronological order.

1. Jesus was a polygamist, married to Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus, and perhaps others. Also, Jesus had children.

“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.”
(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v2, p210)

“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha [the sisters of Lazarus] and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved [Mary Magdelene], must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259)

One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus - such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of first showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them - namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159)

“We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before He was crucified. “Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?” No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Saviour’s in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 2:82)

1. Jesus and the apostles were persecuted and killed for being polygamists.
   “The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons."
   (Prophet Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.346, August 7, 1853)
2. Early Mormon leaders were direct descendants of Jesus.

Joseph Smith was the first to reveal this teaching, when he informed the plural wife of Apostle Judge Adams, that the Apostle “was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ.” (Oliver B. Huntington Journal, p. 259)

Prophet Lorenzo Snow, and his counselor George Q. Cannon, later declared this doctrine publicly:

President George Q. Cannon also spoke … he said, "There are those in this audience who are descendants of the old Twelve Apostles - and shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Saviour Himself. His seed is represented in this body of men.
Following Pres. Cannon, President Snow arose and said that what Bro. Cannon had stated respecting the literal descendants among this company of the old apostles and the Saviour himself is true - the Saviour’s seed is represented in this body of men. (Journal of Pres. Rudger Clawson, pp. 374-375)

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

Interesting.

The LDS doctrine seems to be evolving?

We have been saying that for months

 

[PaulDupre1]

When I was LDS, I was dismayed to discover that the LDS “prophets” taught that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding. I knew from my reading of the NT that the gospel of John says:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

• John 2:1-2

Who needs to be “invited” to his own wedding?? Just the first of many demonstrations to me that Mormonism has nothing to do with the bible.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[PRmerger]

When I was LDS, I was dismayed to discover that the LDS “prophets” taught that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding.

Say wha–?

 

[PaulDupre1]

Say wha–?

See post # 172

 

[TexanKnight]

TheIrishman did a good job I think. I would add the following though.

There are multiple accounts of the first vision. People explain events similarly, they have differing versions depending on which part they are talking about at the moment. The versions do not conflict with one another.

**Answer. That is not true. A person may, on occasion, be fuzzy on details, but we are not talking about a simple event here. We are talking about a visit from God. The fact there are so many versions that differ so wildly show that js was lying
**

The Church has recently begun releasing a series of books titled the Joseph Smith Papers. These books do, or will, include the various versions.

The following is taken from - Milton V. Backman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,” Ensign, Jan 1985, 8. I believe that it responds to the statements about multiple versions of the First Vision well:

"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. 1 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.

Answer- bad apologetics. The number of people present or how old he was should not change depending on who you talk to. He was lying

In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.

Wrong. If a story is too memorized, perhaps. But when a person has 9 stories that vary so wildly, they are easily destroyed in court and accused of perjury

Indeed, there are long-standing precedents for differing accounts of the same spiritual experience. For example, the four Gospels do not correspond exactly concerning the great events at the garden’s empty tomb. There are variations as to the number of women and angels who were present and whether the angels were sitting or standing. Although the Prophet Joseph Smith in his inspired translation clarified some of these details (and others cited below), minor disparities remain in the four descriptions of this event (compare Matt. 28 with Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20). The differences, however, are not important—they may have resulted from incorrect transmissions or translations, or may be the result of recording the event from different perspectives. The glorious fact remains that the tomb was empty because Jesus had risen as the first fruits of the Resurrection.

Accounts of the Savior’s appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, related to us in Acts by Luke and by Paul in his letters, also vary. To cite one example, in Acts 8:7, we read that others traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. In chapter 22, verse 9, we read that others saw the light but did not hear the voice.

****bad example. Acts was not written by Paul. So right there, you have a big difference. Second, please do not try the tired lds argument of comparing the book written thousands of years ago in different languages to things written by js in English less than 200 years ago

---