Mormon Doctrine that has changed

[ParkerD]

And we see a group of Nephites living among Lamanites, who groused exceedingly about their loss of liberties. Yet the restrictions on the Ammonites were considered to be just. Who would willingly give up their right of self-defense? Not many. Don’t you see the double standard?

Many Natives saw conversion to Christianity as a form of slavery. It was one compelling reason to not convert. In fact, that concern still exists today.

Jerusha,

The Ammonites didn’t “give up their right of self-defense” because of something imposed on them by anyone. They chose to bury their weapons as a self-covenant they had made with Jesus Christ because they realized how differently they felt in their heart having lost any desire for “revenge”, for “getting even”, or for killing anyone even in self-defense. They had a true inner willingness to “turn the other cheek”, and it was self-imposed and self-taught because their hearts had been truly changed through accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and through “giving away all their sins” to know Him.

This does not mean that others need to follow that specific example with regard to self-defense. It means they understood covenant-making for themselves in a specific circumstance, and understood that in their case it meant having a profound change of life-expectations for their own interaction with others (including former friends and associates) which they each personally felt.

 

[evanfaust]

…continuation…

That the term “white” in most Book of Mormon passages means “pure,” as Joseph Smith reflected in his 1840 change, is suggested by Alma 32:42, where Alma admonishes,
And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.
We also have evidence that the term “white” can denote purity in the Hebrew scriptures. For example, Lamentations 4:7 reads, “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire.” That white skin color was not intended is made clear by the fact that the Nazirites are also described as being “ruddy in body.” Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord said, “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18), suggesting that whiteness denotes a cleansing from sins.

The Old Testament book of Daniel, who was a contemporary of Nephi, also equates whiteness with purity. He prophesied that “some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed” (Daniel 11:35). He further noted that “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand” (Daniel 12:10). Citing Daniel 12:9-10, Hippolytus, a third-century A.D. Christian theologian, wrote, “And who are they who are chosen, but those who believe the word of truth, so as to be made white thereby, and to cast off the filth of sin, and put on the heavenly, pure, and glorious Holy Spirit, in order that, when the Bridegroom comes, they may go in straightway with Him?”

The early rabbis also realized that “pure” and “white” were synonymous terms. Zohar Exodus 211b, commenting on the purification of the souls of the dead by being “immersed in the ‘river of fire’” mentioned in Daniel 7:10, says that

fire alone has the virtue of consuming every pollution in the soul, and making it emerge pure and white . . . for that soul will have to pass through the fire in order to come out pure and white . . . When the process is completed, the chieftains [angels] take the soul out of Gehinnom and lead it to the gate of Paradise, and say to the angel messengers there: “Hinnom (lit. Here they are), behold, here is the soul that has come out pure and white. The soul is then brought into Paradise.”

Purification comes through following the principles of the gospel, beginning with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance, followed by baptism by water and the Holy Ghost’s baptism of fire. Moroni wrote, “O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day” (Mormon 9:6). Psalm 51:7 has the petitioner asking the Lord, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

A fourth-century Church Father, Ephraim of Syria, wrote that “Among the saints none is naked, for they have put on glory, nor is any clad in those leaves or standing in shame, for they have found, through our Lord, the robe that belongs to Adam and Eve. As the Church purges her ears of the serpent’s poison, those who had lost their garments, having listened to it and become diseased, have now been renewed and whitened” (Hymn on Paradise 6.9). In another of his writings, Ephraim commented as follows on Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch recorded in Acts 8:26-39:

The eunuch of Ethiopia upon his chariot saw Philip: the Lamb of Light met the dark man from out of the water. While he was reading, the Ethiopian was baptized and shone with joy, and journeyed on! He made disciples and taught, and out of black men he made men white. And the dark Ethiopic women became pearls for the Son. (The Pearl: Seven Hymns on the Faith 3:2).

 

[evanfaust]

Orthodox Judaism still requires circumcision and ritual immersion in water (i.e., baptism) for converts. Anciently, there was a third requirement, the offering of sacrifice. As evidence for the requirement for ritual ablution, the Talmud cites Exodus 19:10, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,” saying that “if where washing of the garments is not required ablution is required, how much more should ablution be required where washing of the garments is required” (TB Yebamoth 46b). Thus, the commandment to wash one’s clothes meant to be baptized. Some early Christians understood the garment to be cleansed to be one’s own skin. Thus Commodianus, wrote, “In baptism the coarse dress of thy birth is washed” (Instructions 46). Novatian, in his treatise Concerning the Trinity 21, wrote:

For this, moreover, He before predicted in blessings: “He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape” [Genesis 49:11]. If the garment in Christ be the flesh, and the clothing itself be the body, let it be asked who is He whose body is clothing, and garment flesh? For to us it is evident that the flesh is the garment, and the body the clothing of the Word; and He washed His bodily substance, and purified the material of the flesh in blood, that is, in wine, by His passion, in the human character that He had undertaken. Whence, if indeed He is washed, He is man, because the garment which is washed is the flesh; but He who washes is the Word of God, who, in order that He might wash the garment, was made the taker-up of the garment. Rightly, from that substance which is taken that it might be washed, He is revealed as a man, even as from the authority of the Word who washed it He is manifested to be God.

Washing garments in wine or blood should make them red, not white. Consequently, it is undoubtedly in the context of baptism and spiritual cleansing that we should read Book of Mormon passages about making one’s garments white in the blood of the Lamb. The first such mention came when the angel showed Nephi in vision the twelve Nephite disciples of Christ and declared, “behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood. And the angel said unto me: Look! And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him” (1 Nephi 12:10-11).

In a discourse delivered in the city of Zarahemla, Alma used similar terminology: “There can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins” (Alma 5:21). “Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?” (Alma 5:24). “Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?” (Alma 5:27). When speaking in the city of Gideon, he said, “And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out” (Alma 7:25).

During a subsequent visit to the city of Ammonihah, he again took up this theme: “Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God” (Alma 13:11-12). Alma’s friend Amulek borrowed the idea and told the Zoramites that God “has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 34:36). The same concept is found in Ether 13:10 and in Revelation 7:14 and is known from the writings of some of the early Church Fathers.

Note that Alma equated purity with whiteness in his description of the garments of the righteous. Garments such as these are described in the Bible in connection with angels. The apostle John wrote of seven angels coming out of the heavenly temple “clothed in pure and white linen” (Revelation 15:6). Matthew said of the angel who appeared at Christ’s tomb, “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (Matthew 28:3). D&C 20:6 describes Moroni as “an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness.” Many passages from the Bible and from pseudepigraphic texts note the whiteness of the garments of the righteous (including the Lord and his angels), denoting their ritual purity.

 

[evanfaust]

…continuation…

In the mid-second century A.D., a devout Christian named Hermas wrote an account of some of his visions, in a book that has come to be known as The Pastor of Hermas because he described an angel who appeared to him in the form of a pastor or shepherd. His visions depicted the Church as a temple into which the righteous, represented by stones, were placed. Shown a beast with four colors on his head, he asked the meaning and was told that “the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be spotless and pure.”

Another early Christian writer who compared white clothing to purity was Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (died A.D. 397). Commenting on the third chapter of Zechariah, in which the prophet describes the high priest Joshua (the Hebrew source of the name Jesus) wearing a filthy garment that the angels replace with a clean white garment, Ambrose wrote, “But Christ, beholding His Church, for whom He Himself, as you find in the book of the prophet Zechariah, had put on filthy garments, now clothed in white raiment, seeing, that is, a soul pure and washed in the laver of regeneration” (Concerning the Mysteries 7 [37]).

In his fourth catechitical lecture (22:8), St. Cyril of Jerusalem cited Ecclesiastes 9:8 (“Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment”) and added, “But now, having put off thy old garments, and put on those which are spiritually white, thou must be continually robed in white: of course we mean not this, that thou art always to wear white raiment; but thou must be clad in the garments that are truly white and shining and spiritual.” From this, it is clear that the concept of white garments is symbolic.

Contrasted with the clean, white garments of the righteous are those of the wicked. Isaiah wrote, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). The Hebrew word rendered “rags” in this passage is beged, which means “garment, piece of clothing.” Zechariah wrote of his vision of the high priest Joshua, “Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment” (Zechariah 3:3-4).

With these facts in mind, it makes perfect sense that the term “white” was rightly changed to “pure” in 2 Nephi 30:6. Moreover, knowing that the words can be used interchangeably clarifies Jacob’s declaration to the Nephites:

O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love . . . But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction . . . Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you . . . O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. (Jacob 3:2-3, 5, 8-9)

Here we read that some of the Nephites were “pure” and others were “filthy,” while the Lamanites, even with their darker skin, were “not filthy” and were “more righteous” than those of the Nephites who were filthy. Jacob’s brother, Nephi, wrote of the Lamanites becoming “a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations” (1 Nephi 12:23). Similarly, Mormon wrote of the Nephites (whose skin color was not changed), “this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry” (Mormon 5:15). Both passages refer to the sinful state of the people, not their skin color. This is also supported by Moroni’s description of the Nephites: “And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people.” Passages like these verify Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/specific-criticisms/criticisms-2-nephi/white-or-pure

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormon Pres. Kimball taught the “Lamanites” living with white Mormon families were turning paler in skin color because of their being influenced by Mormonism. Also, it was clearly taught to me several times growing up that “white and delightsome” was a physical and spiritual change.

You just said the same thing in the post above about the Lamanites in the BoM. Which supports what Jerusha wrote: In the BoM, and Mormons minds, white skin is a positive aspect, dark skin is not.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think I differ from ParkerD. If you carefully read what I posed, we are in agreement.

When we get close to God and keep His commandments we irradiate a certain light and we look “pure and delightsome” when people look at our countenance.

God is associated with “purity”, “whiteness”. When angels appear they irradiate light and their countenance irradiate “purity” and “whiteness”.

No. YOU associated it when you were forced to change the verse from white to pure when Joseph’s prophesy failed. If what you are saying is accurate, then why make the change? After all, the Book of Mormon “is the most correct book”

 

[TruthLiving]

I would ask, after reviewing the posts, how can we conclude definitely what another believes, particularly if we have never been a believer??

I would never dare to know what another believes when I have never been a member of their denomination.

I recognize that people can believe whatever they choose, nonetheless from my thinking, I would never believe it is correct and accurate.

 

[TexanKnight]

I would ask, after reviewing the posts, how can we conclude definitely what another believes, particularly if we have never been a believer??

I would never dare to know what another believes when I have never been a member of their denomination.

I recognize that people can believe whatever they choose, nonetheless from my thinking, I would never believe it is correct and accurate.

The thing is, several of us here DID once believe the teaching of the LDS Church. Some, like me, served as missionaries and in positions of authority after their missions. So, we know.

 

[Marie5890]

I would ask, after reviewing the posts, how can we conclude definitely what another believes, particularly if we have never been a believer??

I would never dare to know what another believes when I have never been a member of their denomination.

I recognize that people can believe whatever they choose, nonetheless from my thinking, I would never believe it is correct and accurate.

Hello TruthLiving, and welcome!

Like TexasKnight said, many of us here are former Mormons. And not just Mormon in name only, but were deeply devout, entrenched in the culture, temple attending, Mormons.

So we do know what we are talking about since we lived, breathed, every day of our lives, Mormonism.

 

[Jerusha]

White garments symbolize purity. The color of a person’s skin gives no indication of the condition of the person’s soul. The passages in the Book of Mormon which link the condition of the person’s soul to the color of their skin, or justify oppression of people of color because some presumed sin on the part of their ancestors are too numerous to be ignored. And that is what you are doing.

Those arguments are rife in past LDS teachings, and are still present today in LDS culture. You are sinking in de Nile.

White garments do not equal white skin. White garments symbolize purity of soul (as in baptism and wedding dress). White skin does not symbolize clean soul.

I have no need to revert to early Gnostic arguments to support my claim. You, belonging to a Gnostic religion, of course need that recourse.

White garments symbolize purity. :banghead: White skin does not.

White garments symbolize purity. :banghead: White skin does not.

White garments symbolize purity. :banghead: White skin does not.

White garments symbolize purity. :banghead: White skin does not…

 

[ParkerD]

Jerusha,

I might as well go out on a limb with regard to the idea as to whether God could or would “mark” a group of people’s skin color and their descendants’ skin color because of their personal choice to disregard the Holy Ghost and because of that choice of disregarding they are cut off from the presence of the Lord unless they repent. (For the descendants, the mark is really a sign that they are of the house of Israel and are thus part of a covenant group of people with promised blessings in the latter days as prophesied by Isaiah and reiterated throughout the Book of Mormon.)

If a person insists that God would never mark someone, then I would say to them, “OK–then does your religious heritage “mark” a person in some other way if in your mind they have disregarded what you perceive to be the guidance of the Holy Ghost?”

What I’m talking about is the fact that many people writing about Latter-day Saints on this forum, describe them as not being “Christian”. (Please note that I appreciate your kind comments and that you haven’t been among that set of people.) But for those who do this, that is a way of “marking” that group of people, and they evidently attribute what they are saying in that expression, to something they think God has said or done.

It is a point of differentiation (a “word mark”) and an expression that clearly comes across as “scornful” of beliefs and “scornful” of a heritage that is different than one’s own.

 

[Jerusha]

It is all tied up with judgmental attitudes. LDS, as a whole, are not a bad people. There are true Christians among the LDS. However, the LDS religion, as a whole, diverges too far into Gnosticism to be called a Christian religion. Its origins are, to be honest, frightening. However, LDS deny those origins.

God be with you, and I truly hope you find the way. You are too nice a guy to be caught up in a church which is constantly dodging and weaving to avoid facing itself.

Maybe some of our friends here will eventually see you in RCIA. You would be a welcome addition to any Catholic parish, once you have let go of those strange teachings of Mormonism.

Given some of the social pressures of some LDS communities, I would not be surprised if some of your more subtle posts on this board are evidence of a more open mind than some of us think.

I know that some LDS have marked me because of my cultural heritage. This is why I am so dedicated to coaxing others out. Sort of like St. Patrick, and so many others, who have suffered under a people, and returned to them to teach them about the true Jesus. It is a sign of forgiveness.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jerusha,

I might as well go out on a limb with regard to the idea as to whether God could or would “mark” a group of people’s skin color and their descendants’ skin color because of their personal choice to disregard the Holy Ghost and because of that choice of disregarding they are cut off from the presence of the Lord unless they repent. (For the descendants, the mark is really a sign that they are of the house of Israel and are thus part of a covenant group of people with promised blessings in the latter days as prophesied by Isaiah and reiterated throughout the Book of Mormon.)

If a person insists that God would never mark someone, then I would say to them, “OK–then does your religious heritage “mark” a person in some other way if in your mind they have disregarded what you perceive to be the guidance of the Holy Ghost?”

What I’m talking about is the fact that many people writing about Latter-day Saints on this forum, describe them as not being “Christian”. (Please note that I appreciate your kind comments and that you haven’t been among that set of people.) But for those who do this, that is a way of “marking” that group of people, and they evidently attribute what they are saying in that expression, to something they think God has said or done.

It is a point of differentiation (a “word mark”) and an expression that clearly comes across as “scornful” of beliefs and “scornful” of a heritage that is different than one’s own.

This only reflects your cultural/religious views, which explains Mormons feeling persecuted when they are not being persecuted.

The Catholic position is, all are called to Jesus Christ. I know more than a few Mormons who hear this call and desire to follow Him. Mormonism keeps you enthralled, chained, which isn’t a mark but a state. One that can be overcome.

The only “mark” taught by the Catholic church is the one placed on our souls at baptism. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit at confirmation, which is not a mark, but sacramental grace. All the baptized, no matter their skin color, ethnicity, language, culture or background. This is the message of Christianity. ALL belong to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We only need to respond to God’s love, which is not a mark, but an action.

Leprosy marked a person as unclean in the OT. Any Jew who touched a leper also became unclean. Jesus healed the leper by His touch. All are healed in and through Jesus Christ, all you have to do is approach Him. Pray to the One Who is your Salvation.

The Catholic Church is not a resort for the perfected. It is hospital for the sinner. It is Christ who heals us.

 

[ParkerD]

This only reflects your cultural/religious views, which explains Mormons feeling persecuted when they are not being persecuted.

The Catholic position is, all are called to Jesus Christ. I know more than a few Mormons who hear this call and desire to follow Him. Mormonism keeps you enthralled, chained, which isn’t a mark but a state. One that can be overcome.

The only “mark” taught by the Catholic church is the one placed on our souls at baptism. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit at confirmation, which is not a mark, but sacramental grace. All the baptized, no matter their skin color, ethnicity, language, culture or background. This is the message of Christianity. ALL belong to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We only need to respond to God’s love, which is not a mark, but an action.

Leprosy marked a person as unclean in the OT. Any Jew who touched a leper also became unclean. Jesus healed the leper by His touch. All are healed in and through Jesus Christ, all you have to do is approach Him. Pray to the One Who is your Salvation.

The Catholic Church is not a resort for the perfected. It is hospital for the sinner. It is Christ who heals us.

RebeccaJ,

Please note that I don’t feel “persecuted” by anyone who has stated their belief that a Latter-day Saint is not a Christian. Why would I feel persecuted when I am very familiar that the Bible prophesies of such goings on by people who in that way don’t apply the New Testament teachings about following Christ, yet who say that they do? So what if they want to fulfill prophecy in that way–it’s their choice which they can make.

The words “enthralled, chained” are just as much a “mark” word as the word “Christian”. They are descriptive adjectives that do indeed describe a “state of being” or a “state of mind” but they are given out as a “mark”–a point of differentiation between the person doing the differentiating by using the word to describe someone else, and the person they are describing. They are also words of scorn and belittling–but again, I feel not the slightest sense of being “persecuted” by seeing those words. (I think of Paul, who spoke with no hesitation before King Agrippa about his conversion and testimony of Christ and concluded with the words “were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.”) If I am “in bonds”, then it is because I am bound up and sealed up in the knowledge that Christ lives today and supports every one of His followers, whether they are scorned, belittled, or whatever the world does to them.

 

[TexanKnight]

RebeccaJ,

Please note that I don’t feel “persecuted” by anyone who has stated their belief that a Latter-day Saint is not a Christian. Why would I feel persecuted when I am very familiar that the Bible prophesies of such goings on by people who in that way don’t apply the New Testament teachings about following Christ, yet who say that they do? So what if they want to fulfill prophecy in that way–it’s their choice which they can make.

The words “enthralled, chained” are just as much a “mark” word as the word “Christian”. They are descriptive adjectives that do indeed describe a “state of being” or a “state of mind” but they are given out as a “mark”–a point of differentiation between the person doing the differentiating by using the word to describe someone else, and the person they are describing. They are also words of scorn and belittling–but again, I feel not the slightest sense of being “persecuted” by seeing those words. (I think of Paul, who spoke with no hesitation before King Agrippa about his conversion and testimony of Christ and concluded with the words “were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.”) If I am “in bonds”, then it is because I am bound up and sealed up in the knowledge that Christ lives today and supports every one of His followers, whether they are scorned, belittled, or whatever the world does to them.

it saddens me that you would use Jesus’ prophesies as proof you are Christian. By that standard, Catholics are far more “persecuted”, especially by Mormons. And let us not forget the really out there cults who are “persecuted”…that that make them true Christians?

I am also saddened that you believe that not being considered a Christian is true persecution. Perhaps we should do a study, you and me, on the Catholic saints who were beheaded, boiled, crushed, blinded, etc. Methinks your idea of persecution pales in comparison.

If you are not called "Christian, perhaps it is because you follow a Christ who is mostly like the True Christ in name only. And perhaps when you take RCIA, you will discover as such.

 

[theidler]

it saddens me that you would use Jesus’ prophesies as proof you are Christian. By that standard, Catholics are far more “persecuted”, especially by Mormons. And let us not forget the really out there cults who are “persecuted”…that that make them true Christians?

I am also saddened that you believe that not being considered a Christian is true persecution. Perhaps we should do a study, you and me, on the Catholic saints who were beheaded, boiled, crushed, blinded, etc. Methinks your idea of persecution pales in comparison.

If you are not called "Christian, perhaps it is because you follow a Christ who is mostly like the True Christ in name only. And perhaps when you take RCIA, you will discover as such.

I concur with this 100%. Remember, Joseph Smith was not a lamb led to the slaughter - he died in a gunfight with a mob. He fired shots back. A far cry from the tortures suffered by the Christian martyrs - have you read the sufferings of St. Maximus the Confessor, of St. Justin Martyr, of St. Lawrence, of St. Blandina? They did not have weapons smuggled in to protect themselves, but offered their lives in service of the ONE God.

 

[Jerusha]

Joseph Smith was not a lamb led to the slaughter - he died in a gunfight with a mob. He fired shots back.

And there are real questions as to the original intent of that group of people. Thomas Gregg made that clear. Some of them, at least, may have had the intent of taking him to Missouri for trial for crimes he committed there. That is the reason why Gov. Ford backed off.

 

[Abba]

Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, and I might add neither does the Bible…

Actually, there is mention in the Bible of baptism of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:29

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

Here is some info:

The Bible Doesn’t Teach It
catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead

The modern term itself is derived from a phrase “baptised for the dead” occuring twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:29), though the meaning of that phrase is an open question among scholars. Early heresiologists Tertullian (Against Marcion 10) and Chrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice to the Marcionites, whom they identified as a heretical “gnostic” group.[1] Consequently the practice was forbidden by the Catholic Church, and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

Peace,

Abba

 

[ParkerD]

Note to the general reader,

Two posts said I felt persecuted right after a post where I specifically explained that I don’t feel persecuted at all. If anyone has a question in their mind about that, please re-read my post, which was as follows:

RebeccaJ,

Please note that I don’t feel “persecuted” by anyone who has stated their belief that a Latter-day Saint is not a Christian. Why would I feel persecuted when I am very familiar that the Bible prophesies of such goings on by people who in that way don’t apply the New Testament teachings about following Christ, yet who say that they do? So what if they want to fulfill prophecy in that way–it’s their choice which they can make.

The words “enthralled, chained” are just as much a “mark” word as the word “Christian”. They are descriptive adjectives that do indeed describe a “state of being” or a “state of mind” but they are given out as a “mark”–a point of differentiation between the person doing the differentiating by using the word to describe someone else, and the person they are describing. They are also words of scorn and belittling–but again, I feel not the slightest sense of being “persecuted” by seeing those words. (I think of Paul, who spoke with no hesitation before King Agrippa about his conversion and testimony of Christ and concluded with the words “were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.”) If I am “in bonds”, then it is because I am bound up and sealed up in the knowledge that Christ lives today and supports every one of His followers, whether they are scorned, belittled, or whatever the world does to them.

 

[theidler]

Note to the general reader,

Two posts said I felt persecuted right after a post where I specifically explained that I don’t feel persecuted at all. If anyone has a question in their mind about that, please re-read my post, which was as follows:

Parker - fine, you’re not persecuted. Can you deal with the issues being brought up instead? And speaking of persecuted, if your Mormon positions are correct, then you should glory in the cross being given to you by all the objections being leveled at you, should you not?