Mormon Claims

[Returning_Home]

Well, you may think it is a 'badge of honor." That does not, however, mean that it IS one. It’s not a badge I hand out to everybody, y’know; people who simply disagree with my beliefs and say so don’t get handed one. People who are even vociferously against beliefs I actually HOLD don’t get one. People who politely refuse to listen don’t earn one.

So because I’m an intelligent and literate person who uses the common sense that the good God gave me makes me an ‘anti-?’ That’s silly because even the Bible says not to take its word for it: “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21)

Instead, you’ll just take the church’s word for whatever they claim and ignore the reasons and history behind it. For example, according to Brigham Young, blacks aren’t permitted to attain the priesthood until a great while after the Second Coming. (JOD 2:143) Since I’ve already shown you that the JOD claims to be one of the standard works of the church, it’s odd to note that the LDS apostles were ready to grant them the priesthood as of 1969, but it was Harold B. Lee, I believe, that was the sole dissenter and blacks weren’t permitted to assume the role until after Lee’s death.

Why the vote in 1969 to give blacks the priesthood? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the boycott of BUY teams would it? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the NAACP’s attacks on the church, would it?

Since we already know that the Mormon god’s edicts don’t change, it seems odd that even while John Lewis Lund published “The Church and the Negro,” the church was actively ready to give the priesthood to the ‘filthy, dark, and loathesome (Mormon 5:15)’ Lamanites. Does the right hand not know what the left is doing here?

So that said, you’ll just assume that the church is right and that there’s no problem in spite of the glaring contradiction in terms.

To me, an ‘anti’ is more than a simple critic. An anti is someone who deliberately lies and gives misinformation regarding the target, believing somehow that the ends justify the means. Refusing to accept the word of a believer as to what his or her beliefs actually ARE, and doing so consistently and in spite of constant correction is definitely an anti.

Okay, fair enough. Show me just one place where I lied or deliberately misrepresented the church, its beliefs, or its history.

People who take quotes out of context in order to make them ‘mean’ things that they do NOT mean…and do so deliberately and after correction, are anti’s. I hope you are getting the idea, here.

It is rather important to take the believer’s word for what doctrine actually is, m’friend. Anything else is disengenuous and a total waste of time. OH, and insisting that you know what doctrine is better than the believers is a real indication of anti-hood.

I agree, but when the believer’s faith is based only on taking the church’s word for it, you have a major problem. As we’ve seen with polygamy, the church has no problems lying to protect itself. You need to use your common sense, not someone else’s claims as a basis for fact.

You mean, like Governor Boggs tried to do? However, if that is so, then perhaps you should stop calling ME an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Unless of course you enjoy double standards to much to give them up.

I think you’re replying to a different post here; I never called you ‘anti-Catholic’ or ‘anti-Christian’ and I defy you to show me where I have. No, I said that Mormons aren’t Christians. Smithians, perhaps, but not Christians. Your basis for belief is centered firmly on the claims of Smith, which ultimately results in a polygamous Jesus that is the product of celestial incest; sorry, that’s not the Biblical Jesus and I hope and pray you realize that one day.

I’ve also never advocated the murder of Mormons, not even Joseph Smith, because it’s wrong. I might not like the false gospel of Mormonism. but I would rather see it taught and people making their own decisions about it than seeing Mormons killed and I’ve already clearly expressed that so drop the martyr routine, okay?

It is quite easy to define something you don’t want to be as having only qualities you don’t have. I find it interesting to note that you must go to such lengths to FIND qualities of ‘anti-’ hood that don’t apply to you in order to distance yourself from the notion.

Accusing me of petty jealousy? A weak attempt, I’m sorry. No, I’ve already expressed admiration for the Mormon ability to value friends and family in ways that mainstream Christianity seems to lack. How is that jealousy? If anything, it’s a compliment so please take as such.

Of course. If the BoM falls, Mormonism does. So?

And thus the rewriting of history and reality to make the BOM fit when it can’t and never will.

The problem is that what you CLAIM it says about yourself isn’t in a zip code at all with what it actually does say about itself. It’s in an international mailing code, about three countries and an ocean away.

Are you referring to Zarahemla here?

…the thing is, m’friend, it doesn’t matter who you are, or what the belief system is. The doctrine of any faith is ALWAYS what the believers say it is. Period.

So when you say that you don’t believe in polygamy now, it’s the equivalent of my wife’s family believing in it in the 1860s? An odd double standard.

 

[Returning_Home]

No…the withdrawal of authority wasn’t the apostasy…it was the result of the apostasy. It was the first external evidence of that internal apostasy that was going on. Do you really think that, if people were still LISTENING, that revelation would have ceased?

To believe that is to truly think that it really was God doing the abandoning, as so many of you claim WE believe. However, that’s not what we believe, and I think that ParkerD and all the other Mormons on this post would agree.

But since there never was an apostacy, your entire point is moot. I believe it was Timothy who said that some would fall away; some is not all and therefore there’s no Biblical basis for this assumption either.

 

[catholic-rcia]

dianaiad, Why me, evanfaust
**Take a break, spend a few moments **
youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyEZR4gUk&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=quS6lhyhz7M&feature=related

 

[SirThomasMore]

If there was ever proof that the LDS Prophets are false, it is the two main prophesies in this century. The first was to stop polygamy. It was supposed to be an eternal concept. Yet, when faced with loss of all their holdings and faced with financial ruin, their god suddently had a change of heart. The U.S Government stared their god in the face, and their god blinked.

Next it was black holding the priesthood. Early prophets made it clear that blacks were bad…never to hold the priesthood. Then, the American people stood up. Universities were going to boycott BYU. The LDS Church was getting bashed from all sides. Faced with ridicule, loos of income, and ostracism, the lds god bowed to pressure. The American People stared the LDS god in the face, and their god blinked.

Of course, the very fact prophets taught blacks were bad should be enough to convince most people that the prophets were false…but, just in case, we have their god bowing to public pressure.

I am proud and my heart is full to worship the true God. I am thankful for God leading me out of the LDS “church”.

 

[Stephen168]

No…the withdrawal of authority wasn’t the apostasy…it was the result of the apostasy.

Could you explain step by step how that would happen? For example, what events would have to take place for a stake president to be in office but without authority?

 

[Returning_Home]

the change from ‘white’ to “pure” was made by Joseph Smith himself for the second edition of the Book of Mormon. However, when the third and further editions were printed in England, they were taken from the first edition, not the corrected second one. The final correction, made recently, was simply one of many that reconciled the text of the printed BoM with the manuscripts and Josephs personal corrections and comments. As the translator, he certainly had the absolute right to do that, don’t you think?

That has no bearing on the matter at all. The change had to do with skin color and the text bears that out.

Sure, as the author, Smith could do whatever he liked with his work of fiction, like going from monotheism to polytheism as in 1 Nephi 14:30.

Your edition will say that the Lamb of God is the Son of the eternal Father and the Savior (1 Nephi 14:30) whereas the original edition stated that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior. (BOM p 32)

Isn’t it odd that God, in restoring his gospel to earth, would allow that monotheistic mistake to be made?

 

[T_Hope]

It doesn’t matter, sir. As long as YOU believe that Jesus Christ shares the same substance with God the Father, so that they are the same God, then God was once a man. Therefore the horror filled gasps of outrage are very much out of place.

They are the same God but they are not the same Person. Therefore, the horror filled gasps of outrage are not out of place, since we don’t believe that the Father was ever once a man. Only the Son was.

For me, coming from a Mormon background, grasping the concept of the Holy Trinity was not easy. I could read the words explaining One God - Three Persons, but they were just words that made no sense until I took the matter up with the only God I knew, in prayer. He answered. Now I understand that:

God is Spirit, and in my mind so incredibly righteous and brilliant, LIGHT, and a whole lot of other things I cannot possibly imagine, that no human being has ever seen Him because we cannot look at him right now with our mortal eyes and continue to live. It would be impossible.

The Incarnation of Jesus allows us to see God as man so we can look upon Him and we know God because we know the Son.

The Holy Spirit was bestowed at Pentecost and has always been with the Father and the Son.

Three individuals. One God.

Joseph Smith could not have seen God the Father.

 

[why_me]

The “Great Apostasy” is just another LDS invention. And, as with all LDS inventions, it has no basis in fact.

Why is it that Mormons can never pick something they can show us?

They have the Book of Mormon…yet cannot tell us where it took place, or anything from it

They have the Great Apostasy…yet cannot tell us exactly when it took place and how it could have done so worldwide

You can ask Martin Luther. He also thought that the catholic church strayed from the truth and sought to reform it. But instead, he broke from the catholic faith and began the protestant reformation. And luther had many reasons for leaving the catholic faith. For many mormons and protestants the apostacy occured over time until the christian church was not recognizable. And yet, for mormons, they took it one step further. The protestants were also in apostacy and so we have a restoration. I would call it steps in a process.

I have asked this question before: was god pleased with the catholic and protestant churches up to 1820? How to reconcile christians in europe killing each other over power and corruption? I think that god was very displeased over all the persecution.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)