Mormonism

[Jerusha]

So you can have the meat that you want, and I will seek “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life”, and we’ll both be receiving that which we have sought.

Parker, we have what we need. You have what you want.

You are serving up milk, and milk adulterated with ground-up chalk at that. We teach our potential converts everything we can, before they make the decision. Nothing is hidden. We do not even ignore the bad aspects of Catholic history. Those episodes were learning experiences.

Your church hides its history, hides its past teachings that are no longer politically correct. You are watering down the deeper LDS doctrines (oh-- that is right, Mormonism only has teachings and scriptures, no doctrines), and end up trying to serve up chalky watered milk which resembles Catholicism. We see the difference.

Wherever Mormon missionaries work, first they organize LDS teachings to bring to the forefront those teachings which the target would accept. Once the convert is convinced, they dunk him, introduce him to the community, and go on their way. Your church wants tithe-paying members, but somehow today it only attracts the uneducated and those who are desperate for community.

Admit that and you are half-way home.

 

[Garland]

Even if “blood atonement” came after the slaughter of the travelers it was used to take their lives and steal their properity and justify them doing it. 6 of one half dozen of the other. Their history, blood atonement, plural wives, etc speak loud and clear, that they invent things to let them do whatever they want and feel “justified” in doing it. Peace. garland

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, we have what we need. You have what you want.

You are serving up milk, and milk adulterated with ground-up chalk at that. We teach our potential converts everything we can, before they make the decision. Nothing is hidden. We do not even ignore the bad aspects of Catholic history. Those episodes were learning experiences.

Your church hides its history, hides its past teachings that are no longer politically correct. You are watering down the deeper LDS doctrines (oh-- that is right, Mormonism only has teachings and scriptures, no doctrines), and end up trying to serve up chalky watered milk which resembles Catholicism. We see the difference.

Wherever Mormon missionaries work, first they organize LDS teachings to bring to the forefront those teachings which the target would accept. Once the convert is convinced, they dunk him, introduce him to the community, and go on their way. Your church wants tithe-paying members, but somehow today it only attracts the uneducated and those who are desperate for community.

Admit that and you are half-way home.

Jerusha,

The political beliefs of someone in the eighteenth century just don’t bother me, at all. They aren’t relevant to my life. I look forward to the future and here and now to the present, not backward trying to explain every political view of past leaders, nor trying to re-explain to people without a hair’s breadth of knowledge about the MMM what caused that tragic event.

You are imprecisely correct in a view that people who are well-educated in the world are most often not interested in religion, particularly in European countries. In Brazil and other areas of South and Central America, and in Africa and other places, those who seek education and seek to build their lives upward are those who become interested in a growing church that is grounded in the wonderful teachings of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Then for them His gospel does indeed become “meat indeed” and a source of great peace and joy in their life. They also then proceed to become better educated, and this also makes a difference in their life and in the lives of succeeding generations.

 

[Jerusha]

Then for them His gospel does indeed become “meat indeed” and a source of great peace and joy in their life. They also then proceed to become better educated, and this also makes a difference in their life and in the lives of succeeding generations.

Particularly when conversion to Mormonism gives them access to benefits otherwise denied them. And that leads to a form of forced and superficial conversion so they can have literal food. Our missionaries do not deny people benefits necessary for life, based on their religion.

Once they become better-educated, they leave, having explored Mormonism and its false teachings, and having come to know Utahan culture for what it is, formed by your prophet, Brigham Young. Ever wonder about the Samoan culture of Utah?

Have a good Sunday.

 

[ParkerD]

Particularly when conversion to Mormonism gives them access to benefits otherwise denied them. And that leads to a form of forced and superficial conversion so they can have literal food. Our missionaries do not deny people benefits necessary for life, based on their religion.

Once they become better-educated, they leave, having explored Mormonism and its false teachings, and having come to know Utahan culture for what it is, formed by your prophet, Brigham Young. Ever wonder about the Samoan culture of Utah?

Have a good Sunday.

Jerusha,

I work with a Samoan every work day, and she is a terrific mother to her children and a strength to her ward.

I have a Samoan neighbor, a great loving father for his children and a good loving husband to his wife who is from a New England heritage. She is also a wonderful mother to their children.

So, yes, I am familiar with Samoans. I also enjoy the editorials of Vai Sikahema and his terrific insights as he writes and lives in the Philadelphia area.

 

[TexanKnight]

Jerusha,

The political beliefs of someone in the eighteenth century just don’t bother me, at all. They aren’t relevant to my life. I look forward to the future and here and now to the present, not backward trying to explain every political view of past leaders, nor trying to re-explain to people without a hair’s breadth of knowledge about the MMM what caused that tragic event.

THIS is what I talk about. The dishonest rendering of LDS History. It is subtle, but very misleading. Notice he calls it “political beliefs”. he acts as if the LDs alleged prophets were making political statements. Blood Oath was a LDS prophetic REVELATION. It was an order from an MORMON “PROPHET”.

And then he tries to minimize MMM by saying people here do not really know why it happened. As if there is an excuse out there for the slaughter of innocent men, women and children and the kidnapping other children.

Then for them His gospel does indeed become “meat indeed” and a source of great peace and joy in their life.

Yes…the same things said by Muslims and James Jones followers. But the meat is not real and the satisfaction from it is false.

 

[TexanKnight]

Jerusha,

I work with a Samoan every work day, and she is a terrific mother to her children and a strength to her ward.

I have a Samoan neighbor, a great loving father for his children and a good loving husband to his wife who is from a New England heritage. She is also a wonderful mother to their children.

So, yes, I am familiar with Samoans. I also enjoy the editorials of Vai Sikahema and his terrific insights as he writes and lives in the Philadelphia area.

Ah…so since I know a muslim and his family I know all about Muslim culture? Again, not a truly honest post.

Please Brother Parker…I truly am exhorting you to leave the false Church

 

[Marie5890]

Please Brother Parker…I truly am exhorting you to leave the false Church

TexasKnight, I understand your zeal and where you are coming from, but it’s not our job to convert anyone; that is the purview of the Holy Spirit and by the Grace of God.

We are to witness to the truth, and let the Holy Spirit do the converting.

 

[Telstar]

But the meat is not real and the satisfaction from it is false.

Expecting to get “meat” from the LDS church is like going to a “steak house” and expecting to get a big juicy hunk of beefsteak when you place your order, but the waiter brings you a big slab of plain tofu on a plate, that he says is a “steak”, instead. It’s just not the “steak” that you, or anyone else, would expect to get. While they might use the same terminology, the meanings that they arbitrarily give to those same terms, are totally different than anyone else would ever understand them to be.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexasKnight, I understand your zeal and where you are coming from, but it’s not our job to convert anyone; that is the purview of the Holy Spirit and by the Grace of God.

We are to witness to the truth, and let the Holy Spirit do the converting.

Not sure exactly what that means. One must exhort. Peter, on Pentecost, did not go out to the crowds and stand motionless and let the Holy Spirit work. he went out and told the truth. He exhorted. And the Holy Spirit went to work. What I do is no different. I exhort, I pray and I wait for the Holy Spirit to do the work.

 

[Marie5890]

Not sure exactly what that means. One must exhort. Peter, on Pentecost, did not go out to the crowds and stand motionless and let the Holy Spirit work. he went out and told the truth. He exhorted. And the Holy Spirit went to work. What I do is no different. I exhort, I pray and I wait for the Holy Spirit to do the work.

Ok. I guess it’s just the way I read your post to Parker. I read it as you trying to convert him.

 

[Jerusha]

I work with a Samoan every work day, and she is a terrific mother to her children and a strength to her ward.

I have a Samoan neighbor, a great loving father for his children and a good loving husband to his wife who is from a New England heritage. She is also a wonderful mother to their children.

So, yes, I am familiar with Samoans. I also enjoy the editorials of Vai Sikahema and his terrific insights as he writes and lives in the Philadelphia area

Has your god lifted the curse of dark skin from them yet? Or are they still waiting?

Sarcasm aside, you apparently do not subscribe to racist theology. However, it does exist, and has a strong foundation in Mormon literature. I am sure they have had some negative experiences from those in LDS culture who hold to traditional beliefs. The very fact that Mormonism relates the fictional story of Hagoth to their cultural memories is a mockery of THOSE traditions.

Wonder if they have ever had much contact with the cultural traditions of the tribes of NE North America?

 

[TexanKnight]

Ok. I guess it’s just the way I read your post to Parker. I read it as you trying to convert him.

Nope. I want him to leave the false church and, if so inclined, hoin RCC so we can have awesome discussions

 

[James_Least]

View from a “that way”: all man/woman made religions are necessarily false.

The verity of Joseph Smith Junior’s religion, Salt Lake City, Utah and/or Independence Missouri, rests upon his testimony. If Jesus restored the totally apostasized “Church”, then only the LDS has divine authority. If that be false, Joseph Smith Jr. is a false prophet and his progeny is necessarily false. This would not be the first time millions followed a false prophet. What about Sung Yung Moon? (sic) Similiar analogy can be made for any man/woman made religion.

Most of the religion in this world is false. The Truth is The Truth whether we believe it or not. “You shall know The Truth, it shall make you free.” We are all without excuse.

Now what?

Peace,

James Least

 

[Jerusha]

Given that this is probably a record low for number of Mormon-related threads on the first page, I think they have either given up on us, or come to realize that you are right. They often claim to be atheists or agnostics for a while. That is reasonable, given what they have been taught about God.

 

[TexanKnight]

Given that this is probably a record low for number of Mormon-related threads on the first page, I think they have either given up on us, or come to realize that you are right. They often claim to be atheists or agnostics for a while. That is reasonable, given what they have been taught about God.

It must be frustrating for the LDS here to have so many ex-LDS who know the real truth of Mormonism. They know we will NEVER let anyone here be fooled by the partial truths.

 

[christosdavid]

The word “incarnation” does not mean “condescend”. It means to take on flesh, and in Jesus’s case to take on a human body. He had to become “incarnate” because he is God and was pure Spirit before becoming man. Your notion of God the Father having a body of flesh and bones confusues you. He does not. He is pure Spirit, just as his Son was pure Spirit before becoming man.

But what do you mean when you say that Christ is the “only begotten”. Do you not believe that you are literal children of the Father, rather than adopted sons and daughters?

The Nicene Christians co-opted the word “homoousios” and changed the definition? You see, Greek words are very specific in their meaning. “Homoousios” means quite literally “one substance”. How does one change the definition of “one substance”?

Didnt see any response to the developing definition of homoousios so I thought for the general reader I might help out…

when the Arians used the term pre-nicea, they meant that Jesus as god (son of God) was of the same substance but a seperate, individual being.

The Nicean party used the same expression to say that the person of the Son was the same substance of the Father within the one and only Godhead.

The Arians then changed their buzzword to homoiousios which means similar substance to differenciate the beings but both as divine.

After Nicea (325) the “similar” party split into homoeans and ahomoeans which was a differenciation again into exactly how unlike the Son was from the Father.

The Cappadocian Fathers then combatted these heretics as well as pneumatomachians (haters/war against the Holy Spirit) who could accept the homoousios of the Father and Son but not the H.S.

Thus, in the creed where it belabours the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is “merely” likewise to be adored and glorified!

 

[ParkerD]

…The Truth is The Truth whether we believe it or not. “You shall know The Truth, it shall make you free.” We are all without excuse.

Now what?

Peace,

James Least

James Least,

The person asking that question does well to read all of John 8, and to think about what Jesus was teaching the Pharisees about His having been sent by the Father and that the Father and the Son meet the law of “two witnesses” (not one witness in two forms, but truly two witnesses).

Here is more of John 8 than the one verse you quoted:

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Reading those verses reminds the Bible reader of the Intercessory prayer of the Savior when He prayed to Father in Heaven interceding for all humankind who would seek to follow Him.

He prayed and also taught us through His prayer for us:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

A wish of peace to you and all readers, “James Least”.

 

[Stephen168]

Didnt see any response to the developing definition of homoousios so I thought for the general reader I might help out…

when the Arians used the term pre-nicea, they meant that Jesus as god (son of God) was of the same substance but a seperate, individual being.

Do you have a link or reference to where I can read more about Arians using the term homoousios?

 

[Miriam1947]

James Least,

The person asking that question does well to read all of John 8, and to think about what Jesus was teaching the Pharisees about His having been sent by the Father and that the Father and the Son meet the law of “two witnesses” (not one witness in two forms, but truly two witnesses).

Here is more of John 8 than the one verse you quoted:

Reading those verses reminds the Bible reader of the Intercessory prayer of the Savior when He prayed to Father in Heaven interceding for all humankind who would seek to follow Him.

He prayed and also taught us through His prayer for us:

A wish of peace to you and all readers, “James Least”.

But ParkerD, you are seeing Jesus as separate from the Father not as part of the Father.

You know, the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not three separate persons.

John Chapter 1:

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This is Jesus. Jesus is God. The Triune God.

I realize this is a hard concept but just go with it.