Mormon Beliefs

[Baron_Holbach]

zerinus;1938709:

Your “friendly reminder” is noted. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to inform the members of this forum that I am not here as an “official representative” of the LDS Church. I post here in a private capacity only, and am the only one that is responsible for what is said here by me. I am not speaking officially on behalf of the Church. (And I think that forum members already understand that.) Your comments about “contention” are also noted. It would indeed be inappropriate for a member of the Church to be influenced by a spirit of contention. At the same time, I should remind you that I do not take my orders from apostates or would be apostates. I have read your profile and previous postings, and it is clear to me from what you have said that you have already apostatized from the Church, or are in the process of doing so. Well, if it is your intention to apostatize from the Church, then I suggest that you put yourself out of your own misery and do it quickly, and refrain in the future from telling the priesthood holders of the Church what to do.

She does? How amazing! Care to tell me about it?

zerinus

Why engage in doctrinal disputes with zerinus and other Mormon apologists when Joseph Smith plagiarized a staggering number of verses and chapters taken from the KJV and inserted them in the BoM? The facts clearly show the BoM is a product of the 19th century, whether proved by textual criticism, DNA analysis of American Indians, or complete lack of archaeological evidence. The BoM is rife with problems that undercut any claims the Mormon apologists might offer. Grant Palmer, in his book “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins,” offers sound scholarship that undermines the very foundations of Mormonism.

 

[valient_Lucy]

No one has answered my question.

Catholics would say that the pre-existance of souls is not found in Scripture. Not sure what Mormons would say.

 

[Allweather]

All that this proves is that the Bible appears to contradict itself. Some passages of the Bible say that God can be seen and indeed has been seen, and other passages seem to be saying that He can’t be! Well, I will stick with the ones which says He can be!—not least because they include eyewitness accounts that He indeed has been.

zerinus

I’d tend to agree that the Bible can “appear” to contradict itself. However, when read carefully, and properly, the so-called contradictions evaporate. Back when I was a fundamentalist, I read quite a bit by scholars who made it their careers to promote and defend a seamless, non-self-contradictory Bible, both OT and NT. Sometimes, I thought they went just a hair too far in their arguments. But, still, the Bible is not to be devalued because of the “appearances” of contradictions. Be careful about trusting your own intellect in these matters. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is death.” (my paraphrase of an unreferenced proverb, I am away from my Bible).

 

[dbacks5439]

The primary belief that I think debunks the entire “cult” IMO is the doctrine of polygamy. If Joseph Smith claims to re-establish the Church that apostasized, why is it that he established this doctrine and later that doctrine was erased? Jesus never talked a word about polygamy other than to rebuke it. To me, Joseph Smith created the LDS as a way to satisfy his conscience in order to pursue more than one wife. This changing of doctrine has me to believe that LDS is not the continuation of the true Church because the true doctrines would already be in place, and no change is required.

hmmmm, I do believe Zerinus has entered a plea of no contest in this matter........

 

[zerinus]

I’d tend to agree that the Bible can “appear” to contradict itself. However, when read carefully, and properly, the so-called contradictions evaporate. Back when I was a fundamentalist, I read quite a bit by scholars who made it their careers to promote and defend a seamless, non-self-contradictory Bible, both OT and NT. Sometimes, I thought they went just a hair too far in their arguments. But, still, the Bible is not to be devalued because of the “appearances” of contradictions. Be careful about trusting your own intellect in these matters. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is death.” (my paraphrase of an unreferenced proverb, I am away from my Bible).

I agree that the contradictions are only appearances. The question is, where does the truth lie? I believe that the truth lies with the LDS way of interpreting the Bible, not with the apostate Christianity’s way.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

I agree that the contradictions are only appearances. The question is, where does the truth lie? I believe that the truth lies with the LDS way of interpreting the Bible, not with the apostate Christianity’s way.

zerinus

That was lame.

 

[dbacks5439]

That was lame.

Yes extremely. If the Bible is intepreted correctly, we don’t need the BoM.

 

[hosemonkey]

Yes extremely. If the Bible is intepreted correctly, we don’t need the BoM.

We don’t need the BoM under any circumstances.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I agree that the contradictions are only appearances. The question is, where does the truth lie? I believe that the truth lies with the LDS way of interpreting the Bible, not with the apostate Christianity’s way.

zerinus

Right. So Christianity disappeared almost right after Jesus left us and and it took almost 2K years for it to reestablished. Is that what you believe?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

God appeared to Abraham as a man, he eat and drank with Him, and talk with and even remonstrated with Him as a man:Genesis 18: [1-2]…
Of these three “men,” two of them were the two angels that later separated form the group, and went to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and saved Lot from the destruction. The remaining person was God! Read the rest of the chapter to find out more.

I actually asked this question about a year ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=94289
two orthodox answers are:

1)All three were angels, the fact 2 were later revealed to be angels shows the appearance of humans didnt mean they were (ie God spoke through the 3rd angel).

2)The 3rd “man” was Jesus appearing as a man, Justin Martyr argues this from 19:24 “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” that the first reference to “Lord” was Jesus and the heaven “Lord” reference is to the Father.

Jacob likewise saw God as a physical man, and even wrestled with him as he would with a normal human being:Genesis 32: [24,28,30]…

Most Bible footnotes point out Hosea 12:3-4 explicitly says this “man” was actually an angel representing God, or more likely another foreshadowing of Jesus.

Moses and the elders of Israel saw God as a man:Exodus 24: [9-11]…

If you keep reading this to the end of the chapter it is clear it was God speaking from a cloud (also Ex 19:9-24. Ex 20:18-21).

(Its also interesting to note the idol the Jews made was a calf not a human figure)

The OT tells us more about the intimate nature of Moses’ encounters with God. After Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses disrespectfully because he had married an Ethiopian woman, the Lord chastened them with these words:Numbers 12: [6-8]…
By the “similitude of the Lord” is meant the very shape, form, and appearance of God.

You left off two important verses at the start and end of your quote, verses 5 and 10 which is clear God was appearing in and spoke from a cloud (as He often did). Your addition of the “*” is unwarranted. All that passage is saying is that God speaks to Moses in a very intimate manner and in a clear manner (eg not in riddles).

Isaiah likewise saw God as a man in physical form:

Isaiah 6:*** [1]…
***“His train” refers to the hem of His garments. In other words, God was dressed in regal attire, as a king would. Thats figurative language to show God’s majesty. It was a vision to Isaiah, note how he says in v5 he saw God though he (Isaiah) was unclean.

Matthew 5:8 …] Acts 7:56 …] 1 John 3:2 …]

The Matt passage means the person will see God in Heaven after they die. The Acts 7 passage is a vision, the “right hand of God” is a figurative term for “right hand man.” The 1Jn3 is another reference to seeing Him in Heaven, not sooner.

There is no better way of determining the physical attributes of God and His “gender” than by actually physically seeing Him.

Well, as it turns out, lots of people have; and His physical attributes have never been anything other than that of a male human being. It has never been female, and it has never been anything other than a man.
First of all the Bible is very clear “nobody has seen God” directly except Jesus, all references to “seeing” Him are visions, figurative, or indirectly (eg speaking from a cloud).
God the Father has no need for male anatomy (to use the bathroom or sex), that was a created aspect of His creation to go to the bathroom and procreate. It is clear God creates by the power of His words, and not through sexual means.

All that this proves is that the Bible appears to contradict itself. Some passages of the Bible say that God can be seen and indeed has

been seen, and other passages seem to be saying that He can’t be! Well, I will stick with the ones which says He can be!—not least because they include eyewitness accounts that He indeed has been. Does it APPEAR to contradict or does it actually contradict? You cant brush those verses off that conflict with what your saying apart from claiming the Bible is corrupted. The Catholic view is the only way that works, it recognizes that God the Father has never been seen and all references to “seeing” are figurative.*

 

[zerinus]

I actually asked this question about a year ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=94289
two orthodox answers are:

1)All three were angels, the fact 2 were later revealed to be angels shows the appearance of humans didnt mean they were (ie God spoke through the 3rd angel).

2)The 3rd “man” was Jesus appearing as a man, Justin Martyr argues this from 19:24 “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” that the first reference to “Lord” was Jesus and the heaven “Lord” reference is to the Father.

Most Bible footnotes point out Hosea 12:3-4 explicitly says this “man” was actually an angel representing God, or more likely another foreshadowing of Jesus.

If you keep reading this to the end of the chapter it is clear it was God speaking from a cloud (also Ex 19:9-24. Ex 20:18-21).

(Its also interesting to note the idol the Jews made was a calf not a human figure)

You left off two important verses at the start and end of your quote, verses 5 and 10 which is clear God was appearing in and spoke from a cloud (as He often did). Your addition of the “*” is unwarranted. All that passage is saying is that God speaks to Moses in a very intimate manner and in a clear manner (eg not in riddles).

Thats figurative language to show God’s majesty. It was a vision to Isaiah, note how he says in v5 he saw God though he (Isaiah) was unclean.

• The Matt passage means the person will see God in Heaven after they die. The Acts 7 passage is a vision, the “right hand of God” is a figurative term for “right hand man.” The 1Jn3 is another reference to seeing Him in Heaven, not sooner.

First of all the Bible is very clear “nobody has seen God” directly except Jesus, all references to “seeing” Him are visions, figurative, or indirectly (eg speaking from a cloud).
God the Father has no need for male anatomy (to use the bathroom or sex), that was a created aspect of His creation to go to the bathroom and procreate. It is clear God creates by the power of His words, and not through sexual means.

Does it APPEAR to contradict or does it actually contradict? You cant brush those verses off that conflict with what your saying apart from claiming the Bible is corrupted. The Catholic view is the only way that works, it recognizes that God the Father has never been seen and all references to “seeing” are figurative.
Your interpretations are all wrong!

No further comment is required.

zerinus

 

[Tonks40]

Your interpretations are all wrong!

No further comment is required.

zerinus

Why?? Have you done the biblical scholarship that is involved? Or just submit to your idea that what Joseph Smith said is true (who, btw, did not have an iota of biblical scholarship in his background before coming up with your sect)…

 

[dbacks5439]

Your interpretations are all wrong!

No further comment is required.

zerinus

If you want people to really see what Mormons actually believe and if you truly want more people to join the LDS, I suggest you don’t make comments like this. It is extremely (I can’t stress this enough) transparent and is a hit and hide strategy, one that never works. Jesus never said this, nor do we. This comment is just another example of the mormons being the slaves of the devil. Good day Zerinus

 

[Ella]

Zerinus,
False prophet, false religion, false BoM, false theology,faulty history. You have been duped. Face it.

Amen, Amen, Amen.

 

[adrift]

Your interpretations are all wrong!

No further comment is required.

zerinus

Well said by someone who can’t defend their beliefs.

 

[wademann]

Okay, wademann, you opened your mouth, now remove your foot and give some SPECIFIC examples that the Catholic Church HAS NOT believed “the exact same thing” in matters of scripture and doctrine?

[deafening silence]

Q: How many times have Mormon doctrines changed in the last 170+ years?

A: As fast as we can before our members discover what we ‘officially’ believe!

Don’t have time. Take wassup’s advice.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Q: How many times have Mormon doctrines changed in the last 170+ years?

A: As fast as we can before our members discover what we ‘officially’ believe!

Like a good Mormon apologist: wademann passes to wassup.

Stay tuned for tomorrow, folks, when wassup returns the favor to wademann.

 

[Tonks40]

JonathanKinsman:
Like a good Mormon apologist: wademann passes to wassup.

Stay tuned for tomorrow, folks, when wassup returns the favor to wademann.

Gee, it’s fun watching them passing the buck - it’s like table-tennis!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Do Mormons believe God was once a man like us? The answer is some do, some don’t.

Our salvation is solely a product of our faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Do ‘I’ believe he was like us? No, not like us. I do believe he experienced the world in such a manner that he can associate with our travails in a very real manner.

This is a mystery to me.

Does God have a Wife? Yes, he has significant other. Wait, let me rephrase that, yes, he has an eternal companion whom we would identify as female.

Where Jesus and Satan Brothers? Sorry Zerenus, she used the past tense. Yes. Jesus was the first born of the Father.

Satan was also a son of God. God the Father’s plan was to send his children to the Earth so they might have joy. He knew we would sin, so he asked the First Born to make this sacrifice. Satan, wanted to take Jesus’ place, AND retain the glory. God the Father said, Nah, I like my first plan better, and Satan rebelled.

Regarding the preexistence, the only Judgement involved those who chose to side with Satan and were cast out. There was an active theory in the church for many years involving fence sitters. The Prophets of the Church have very adamantly stated this is false doctrine. Bruce R. McKonkie, an Apostle even taught this in Mormon Doctrine. The President of the Church told him it was false doctrine and Bruce had it removed from future editions.

Hey wademann ! Do you mean these goofy, contradictory beliefs?

What a Mormon Believes:

1.God was a man like us and he wasn’t a man like us :banghead:

**2.While on Earth Jesus wasn’t like us humans but “he experienced the world in such a manner that he can associate with our travails in a very real manner.” **
:banghead:
I don’t make 'em up folks, I just copy them as they are !

**3. God has a wife, “an eternal companion.” **** :banghead: **

**4.Satan and Jesus were brothers. :banghead: **

5. “Satan was a son of God.” :banghead:

6. Mormon Doctrine can change even after being approved by a “Prophet” of the church. :banghead:

 

[Allweather]

I agree that the contradictions are only appearances. The question is, where does the truth lie? I believe that the truth lies with the LDS way of interpreting the Bible, not with the apostate Christianity’s way.

zerinus

Then, you are among the many hundreds of sects, each with a different “way of interpreting the Bible.” What makes the LDS “way of interpreting the Bible” any better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses way? Or the Baptist way? The Moonie way? The Christian Scientist way? The Warren Jeffs way? I could go on listing the sects, but would run out of space here.

The proliferation of varying biblical interpretations argues against any of them, outside Catholicism, being correct. The Protestants decided on sola scriptura as a way of cutting the Catholic Church out. They decided that every man was his own interpretor of Scripture. The fruit of this has been the sects and cults. Immediately, the Protestants began fragmenting and arguing, mostly about interpretations of Scripture.

This works to prove the Catholic position with regard to Scripture. Because, Jesus made a big point about unity. And for many centuries after the passing of the Apostles, unity was an impressive feature of the Catholic Church, given the problems of communication and travel distances between cities. Jesus demanded unity, and yet, the “various ways of interpreting the Bible” led away from unity, and in some cases led to heterodox cults, some of which have died out, a few of which managed to survive, and all of which lead away from unity.