Z
zerinus
Guest
There is a new and better (Wiki) version of that available here:
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism
zerinus
- Status
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism
zerinus
S
scipio337
Guest
Yes, methinks FARMs doth protest too much.That was EMBARRASSING! They went on and on about being misquoted, but nothing of any real substance was in fact misquoted. They said they dont “EMPHASIZE”" God’s past, THAT is what they wanted to make clear, they don’t want to think about it.
And I almost FAINTED when I read this part:
Everything Latter-day Saints teach about God is in agreement with the rest of the Christian world, with the exception of His nature.
Besides being created in God’s image, the Bible also informs us that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man. If God calls Himself man, and we are in His image, and we are called man, then is it correct to say that Heavenly Father was once like we are? Apparently so according to scripture. And I would much rather believe what the Bible teaches us than what the historic and traditional creeds teach us.
For anyone paying attention (ex Mormons and people knowledgeable of the LDS faith alike) Hinckley simply punted on that question, much like he did on the priesthood ban in the 60 minutes interview.
Milk before meat, you know. Well done on all of the other posts, by the way!
Wasn’t the Follett discourse given at what was considered a General Conference of the church? One more argument for it being consider “revealation” by Joe and company, especially at that time.
S
scipio337
Guest
Not so much.
Seed of Caine
Priesthood Ban
Two out of three are no go.
Same with Zerinus’:
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Special:Search?search=seed+of+caine
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Special:Search?search=priesthood+ban
S
scipio337
Guest
More on Hinckley downplaying King Follett, his response to criticism on his Time response:
Nov, 1994 Ensign
From another “anti” website, of course…
Nov, 1994 Ensign
S
scipio337
Guest
Oy veh!
You may want to check out your own link.
eom.byu.edu/index.php/King_Follett_Discourse
Emphasis mine…
W
why_me
Guest
Try this hat on:
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/race-relations
I think that it should fit! :tiphat:
From the website:
Corbitt leads one of the more diverse stakes in the Church. While membership is largely white, his twelve congregations each embrace people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Three of his congregations are Spanish speaking, and Corbitt’s own three-member presidency consists of a white counselor and a Tongan counselor.
“Anyone who says the Church is racist isn’t speaking from experience and has no idea of the racial harmony we enjoy as a Church family,” Corbitt said. “Perhaps some members of color have had a negative experience here or there in our 13-million-member church. But in numerous meetings with members and leaders of the Church at every level over the years I have never experienced anything remotely resembling racism.”
Tony Parker, another African-American stake president, oversees nine congregations in the Atlanta area, including one headed by a black bishop. Parker has been a member of the Mormon faith for 25 years.
“I’m a better person now than I was back then,” Parker says. “I feel better about myself. They have been years of personal growth and enrichment.”
Parker says he has a simple answer to critics outside of the Church. “Anyone who thinks the Church is racist just needs to come and see. They can sit in our church on the sidelines and watch, or talk to members.”
Asked if he had ever encountered a prejudicial comment from a fellow Latter-day Saint, Parker said: “My experience has been almost universally positive. Sure, there have been occasional bumps in the road, but nothing to damage my personal convictions.”
S
scipio337
Guest
Not really. But I like the smiley! That’s pretty sanitized, seems to be targeted at members.
What’s missing is the rationale behind the original ban (or is “G*d told us so” the ultimate cop-out?), whether or not the original ban was revealed doctrine, an apology to African Mormons for denying them the highest level of salvation for 130 years +, or even any passing criticism or commentary this prior practice.
One of the most alarming discoveries to me in investigating the LDS faith is the inability of its members to criticize anything within their church, whether it be racist bans, polygyny, questionable character of past presidents, etc, etc, etc, but will defend such things tooth, fang, and claw.
The Catholic Church, especially recently, has been the exact opposite, apologizing for past mistakes or wrongs done to members and non members alike.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I don’t quite get it. Satan will pay them for preaching orthodoxy?
J
Jerusha
Guest
Perhaps this is why. These are the questions one must be able to answer in order to be a member in good standing.
lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml
P
PaulDupre
Guest
What we call orthodoxy, the Mormons call Satanic apostasy. You know, concepts like the Trinity, the immutable divinity of God, that kind of Satanic stuff.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
LOL. So the dialogue is of a “preacher” preaching “orthodoxy” and getting paid for it.
W
why_me
Guest
Well here we go again. You can listen to this podcast from mormonstories. It should give you some answers:
ldsgenesisgroup.org/media.htm
Also, the next link is recent and its from the ldsgenesisgroup which is an organization for lds members of african heritage.
ldsgenesisgroup.org/
I think that you will find it interesting. The homepage now has somethng about the 1978 revelation that gave the priesthood to all male members.
po18guy
Well-known member
Then explain why Moses could not look upon the face of the Lord and survive. This makes Joseph Smith greater than Moses? Good grief, Charlie Brown!
Z
zerinus
Guest
The Joseph Smith Translation renders that verse as follows. Everything typed in red was added by Joseph Smith:
**JST, EXODUS 33:
- And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.
- And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel.**
S
scipio337
Guest
Which is just one more reason not to believe anything JS “revealed”. Coincidence that this “revealations” agreed with his personal theology, or supported his actions (good parallel to Muhammed)?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
One minute it’s the KJV that is supposed to be okay and the next minute a Joseph Smith Translation (with his added personal opinions) is used.
For those wondering what the KJV says (not everyone has one although the translation can be found on the internet):
For those wondering what the KJV says (not everyone has one although the translation can be found on the internet):
This actually agrees with other verses of the Bible (including John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 6:16).
po18guy
Well-known member
Again, to be LDS, you must believe one man. To be a true Christian, you must believe the words of many men and women throughout the ages up to Christ, and immediately after. Big difference.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I know that if you would go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find: His “Plan of Loving Goodness” and the “The one priesthood of Christ”, and who participates in this priesthood (hint: everyone).
vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
M
majick275
Guest
the JST is NOT accepted as one of the “standard works” of the LDS church.
- Status