TexanKnight; it seems that you are very angry with the LDS church, your responses on these threads are extremely argumentative and intentionally ignorant of the facts that you should already know, and that are represented to you in case you have forgotten. It would be appreciated if you could adopt a tone of peaceful discussion instead of argument.
TexanKnight:
They also believe that only Mormons will go to the highest level of heaven and be in presence of God. No one will get there without Joseph Smith’s approval
This is not true, and shows either a misunderstanding, or lapse of memory regarding temple ceremonies, their meaning, their intent and the true scope of the priesthood sealing power.
TK already knows this, but for those who do not understand where his misconception originates, allow me to explain;
We teach that marriage is not for this mortal life alone: that a marriage performed by the priesthood of God, applying the sealing power (as given to Peter to bind on earth as in heaven) in a sacred temple ceremony will last for not only time, but for all eternity. Our scriptures teach us that only those who’s marriage has been so sealed can achieve the fullest degree of glory in the presence of our Father in Heaven.
Therefore it may appear, at first reading, that our doctrine excludes all non-LDS from achieving this; however it must be further understood that we believe, as the early Christians did, that essential ordinances such as this may be performed by those who are living, on behalf of those who have died. This is one of the primary focuses of much of our temple work and our genealogy research, so that all may be entitled to receive those same blessings, even when their lives did not allow them to attain all necessary ordinances in mortality. Thus the plan of God continues, and the gates of hell do not prevail against His children.
TexanKnight:
BY was very clear that only those approved by Joseph go to heaven.
This has never been adopted as doctrine at any time. I have never been taught it, it is not published in our canon, it is not included in our teaching courses. While Brigham Young no doubt believed it as he said it, and it was likely a well intentioned statement; it has no doctrinal or scriptural basis that I know of.
TexanKnight:
Not true. I asked my name to be taken from the roles and, instead, was excommunicated. I was ridiculed by members and the Bishop, I was told I had sinned against the Spirit and could NEVER be forgiven. I do not know how often Cultist has been excommunicated, but he is wrong
I would agree with you that the individuals involved here do not seem to have acted appropriately: nobody but those directly involved ought to have been made aware of any church disciplinary action taking place. Obviously I cannot speak for your specific circumstances, but I have had very close experience of the discipline process and excommunication scenario - more than I would be prepared to share with anyone, let alone strangers online. I can tell you that those involved have nothing but the eternal welfare of the individual in mind when considering their decisions - excommunication is actually less of a punishment, than a relief of burden for the person. But it is easy to enter with the wrong perceptions - I did.
I do find it odd how much you seem to still care about the way you were treated, given you tend to be very vocal about how pleased you are to have ‘escaped’. You ‘got out’ why does the manner of your ejection matter?
