Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[Telstar]

(Bold red mine)

First, thank you. I don’t know how much time I’ll devote to this site as my regular blogging is time consuming enough but I do like to share my beliefs with others and learn of theirs as well. The irony is that on The Blaze, a website owned by a Mormon, I defended Catholicism from “the bor agains” (as I call them) and in my research I came to this site (recommended to me a a fellow blogger and devout Catholic herself) and decided to defend Mormonism on this site, owned by a Catholic. Oh, irony makes life fun, don’t it?

I jumped into the frey without reading the entire thread but I do plan on rectifying that. I only responded to that which I did read.

So, you’re so “sure” I got “sacrifice” from a “Mormon dictionary” (oh, presumptions, presumptions ). Right HERE is “sacrifices” from the official LDS Bible Dictionary. (They don’t have “scrifice”). How I defined “sacrifice” was by going to the Latin meaning of the word. I enjoy etymology and learn of many words through it, not by modern-day dictionaries. I like to learn of the root meaning of English words. (Knowing Spanish and Portuguese, I apply their words to the Latin meaning of English words as well) “Sacro” in Latin means “holy”. “Fice” is from the Latin verb facere which means “to do” or “to make”. (In Spanish the same verb is “hacer” and Portuguese it’s “fazer” the two respective verbs seem to be a blend of their Latin root). So, to “sacrifice” means literally “to make holy”. “Sacro” can also mean “condemn”. I think of sacrifices not done in accordance to God’s instruction only brining down God’s anger. The first upon Cain. But since we were talking about Christs sacrifice, it was the most pure and holy sacrifice ever and through it we can become cleansed (holy) before God. HERE and HERE may help but I often do not leave fully satisfied with that website.

I loved Star Wars as a child and even though I’m now 40 years old, I still hold a soft spot for Star Wars, so keep the references coming.

I’ve thought a little more about the dialogue (having read anotherp age of it) and i simply have to say that Jesus needed no salvation in the sense of being “saved”. As Steve’s original question directs the reader’s attention to, Jesus was not fallen of anything. He was a perfect being, the only perfect (and infallible as far as the LDS is concerned) being on earth. But he was subject tothe will of the Father and He subjected His own will to that of the Father’s in all things. He thus created the perfect example for all us to follow. i know “subordination” is frowned upon by modern-day Catholics and Christians at large when talking about Christ submitting to the will of the Father but I find it perfectly biblical with ample examples of Jesus submiting to the Father.

UPDATE: I fixed a link.

First of all… The Blaze??? Really??? :bigyikes:

I was an “Insider” from it’s very beginning, so I do know from whence you speak. Irony, indeed.

But, I would never even think about going to ‘The Blaze’, especially after occasionally ‘visiting’ the 9-12 web fiasco. That was a truly ugly free-for-all that scared the batcrap outta me!

As far as the “Mormon dictionary” comment goes, we’ve had several occasions where LDS folks have seemingly redefined certain terms in ways that most Catholics or other Christians wouldn’t even think of, so we’ve come to the conclusion that LDS must have a ‘special dictionary’ of religious terms. One example of that being that ‘salvation’ was stated to be synonymous with ‘exaltation’. Sorry, but that ‘does not compute’ in my strictly English speaking brain.

Anyway, you are correct that Jesus most certainly didn’t need to be ‘saved’, in plain English. But, according to what Bruce McConkie said, He did need to be ‘saved’. Thus, we have this thread to discuss that fact.

BTW… I made the mistake of clicking the link to “Moses 3”, then proceeded to also start reading Moses 4. Needless to say, there are a few things stated there that made my head spin like in “The Exorcist”, that would require a whole new thread (maybe a dozen) to discuss all of the questions/problems that I have about/with it.

 

[Stephen168]

This lead to Arianisn and the Council of Nicea.

and

 

[Darren10]

The complete, authentic doctrine of the significance of Jesus’s baptism is found in the CCC. Revise your view in accordance with the following and you’ll be one step closer to possessing the fullness of the Faith.

Sounds like tripe to me.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

The whole thing is ridiculous and makes me sad. Why would anyone take the Devil up on the invititation to fashion themselves as gods equal and greater than Jesus Christ? For, that is what is taught here.

St. Louis de Montfort reminds us even pagans and heretics recite the “Our Father” but they never recite the “Angelic Salutation”. I could recommend a simple prayer to my neighbors and co-workers. A simple prayer like “Lord Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” But, for the Mormon it is a damnable offence to ask of Jesus Christ anything. My neighborhood was only warned only last week, that any Mormon praying to Jesus will lose their perfection.

Or as Jesus Christ said, “He that spurns me, spurns the Father, and those that spurn the Father spurn the Son.” And, thinking lowly of the Son is thinking lowly of Mary.

Thanks be to the Most Blessed Trinity, that He created the Immaculate Mother Mary from out of nothing, the only creature to behold His Beatific Vision. Her littleness will bring the sheep who know no master into the fold.

I have already begun to privately rename the Cache Valley to the “Valley of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary”. This valley is like Her, it must be entered through the East Gate, protected; surrounded on three sides by towering mountains, replete with Trappists in the choir loft looking down upon us, praying for us.

I think Fr. Tito for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate touches upon this rather well…youtu.be/_zoDkC3Ky3c

 

[truthsave]

I don’t think mormon doctrine is interesting at all on any christian point of view, and I deeply studied it. Mormon doctrine is just a justification of their association, I cannot call their beliefs.
They affirm the book of mormon as the most accurate book of all but at the end they need another book they call the Pearl of grat price for differencieting them from Christianity. In the book of Mormon that is according to them the most correct book should be everything inside, but is not like that since truth is something that changes through the necessity of time. In Christianity there was only one necessity, the coming of Christ.
For them Joseph Smith is a Christ like figure. And Joseph Smith considered himself very close to that.
They don’t know their fundamentals. They really, but really think that any of their modern prophets is closer to the Lord then any Christian saints. They don’t even know Christian saints at all. If you are a mormon you are already a saint. Any mormon is more holy then St. Francis or St. Seraphim or whoever you want.
Their belief is so different from christian that I don’t understand why they say they are christian. They say they are Christian because they believe in Christ. But in Christ as explained by Joseph Smith. For them the true words of Christ are spoken from the mouth of Joseph Smith alone. So they don’t have to believe in Christ but tha Joseph Smith spoke
the word of Christ and if they believe this of course the things that are contrary to Joseph Smith either comes from the devils or are wrongly correct.

If you copy a full sentence of Isaia and you said you had a revelation they would lough at you but if this would have been done by Joseph Smith it is just a proof that what he was saying was true since was the same that Isaia.

If you go out tomorrow and copy the complete rite of the massonic rose somebody that knows the rite would tell you are kidding it already exists; but if Joseph Smith does it it means it is a true rite or just that he restored it.

They don’t know he was running to became president of the united states before he was killed. And if they knew it they would not found anything to say against it. It is normal for a spiritual person seeking material power if this material power would lend to good. This is what they could say. So Jesus should have done it. Should have done something for the comunity for the material wellness of the comunity as an old testament prophet. But He didn’t.

If Joseph Smith had many wifes is normal (he had 33 or more wifes)
And about Jesus they doubt about His celibate.
St. Paul saying about mariage= forget it must be a wrong translation
Jesus talking about mariage that you are like angels not like man and woman= wrong translation.
the virgins on the apocalips= wrong translation since the best condition is exaltation and exaltation is with mariage in a mormon temple.

If before being killed you defend yourself killing at least two people you wouldn’t be accounted for sure as a martyr.
This was as Joseph Smith died as a martyr (story of their church, but of course they don’t teach it this way, they could check out whenever they want)
Before his death he said he was going as a lamb… (I don’t want even repeat the analogy he made of himself as if was the Christ himself)

I please you to check out the lives of their prophets and find saintity. At the most you will find more or less good behaving person. Study Joseph Smith life and compare it to any of Christian saint.

If you christian would check all this out you wouldn’t like to debate this thing. There is nothing, nothing at all to debate.

the Lord may have mercy on mormons
even though they don’t need it since if they pay their dime and go to the temple and follow the commandaments they make Him obliged to save them.
Yes you are reding correctly. From their doing and observing the law they bound the Lord of the Universe to a right recompensation. Forget about what Jesus said about us being like useles servants if we do what we are suppose to do
Why Jesus had arsh words for the Phareisians then. They were absolutely following all the rules much better then the average person. Apparently their behavior didn’t bound God.

If you knew all of this do you really would need to know what they think about if Jesus needed to be saved or not?
For sure He needed Joseph Smith, He that said he was the alpha and the omega (the omega is the last letter, no more after that) He that said he was going to be with us till the end of times. Surely wrong translation or interpretation of the kindyes He is with us but since we apostate He left (so He could have said I would stay with you till the end of times if you behave like I said)… and we can go on and on.

The Lord could have mercy on them and on all of us sinners.

 

[Darren10]

As I said, the teachings of Joseph Smith are not necessarily the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Repeating quotes from the Book of Mormon will not change that. I invite you to re-read post #46 for the teaching of Joseph Smith on the plan of salvation.

It is not the Book of Mormon, it’s the Pearl of Great price. The only thing I can see as to your claim that Joseph Smith taught that the Plan of Salvation was not the Father’s is your showing that Smith taught that God presented a plan to a council and it was voted on. So, if God presents a plan to a council then it’s not His plan? And what you cited is the King Follett’s Discourse, which is not only not LDS doctrine but what we have preserved today are a mismatch of synopsis of the discourse and not written, nor reviewed by Smith himself. As I say, “true Christians” made sure he could not review it. But, anyhow, itI said that the KFD in no way refutes nor contradicts the LDS doctrine regarding the Plan of Salvation from the Father. Read the doctrine and please tell me who was the author of the plan.

Describe the Hellenistic philosophy it conforms to and why Christianity was required to conform to it.

A God without parts or passion. You do not read such metaphysical declarations of three beings belonging to one physical essence from the Bible. A great read I once came across contrasted the Nicene Creed and the Sermon on the Mount. The Creed was entirely philosophical and used parts of the Bible to justify the philosophy whereas the Sermon was decrees from doctrines already known and understood.

Science has shown the Book of Mormon not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

So after making a sort of a fuss in getting "backhanded’ by Mormons who say you’re at fault for not listening ot the Spirit, what’s your definitive “proof” against the Book of Mormon? That is science. :clapping: (Note sarcasm).

On another note:

I tracked back your reply to my post which mentioned Ariansm. Here’s one part of a comment you made:

The elder Fathers at the Council were not secular persecutors but Christian survivors of secular persecution

So, what happened to Arius as a result of the Council of Nicea? What of future heretics? All treated by church officials with Christlike love?

 

[Darren10]

Sorry Stephen, that was Soren1, not you who I quoted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The King Follet sermon is quoted in official documents of the LDS church, which can be found at their official website. If, as a Mormon, you don’t accept the King Follet sermon as teaching something that is true, why would you believe that anything taught by the LDS church is true?

 

[Stephen168]

The only thing I can see as to your claim that Joseph Smith taught that the Plan of Salvation was not the Father’s is your showing that Smith taught that God presented a plan to a council and it was voted on.

That’s not what Smith said. You’ll have to re-read post #46.

A God without parts or passion. You do not read such metaphysical declarations of three beings belonging to one physical essence from the Bible. A great read I once came across contrasted the Nicene Creed and the Sermon on the Mount. The Creed was entirely philosophical and used parts of the Bible to justify the philosophy whereas the Sermon was decrees from doctrines already known and understood.

I see no examples of Hellenistic philosophy in your response or an explanation of why Christianity would have to conform to it. I was hoping for a real answer because this accusation seems to be thrown around frequently by Mormons without any real thought or justification.

So after making a sort of a fuss in getting "backhanded’ by Mormons who say you’re at fault for not listening ot the Spirit, what’s your definitive “proof” against the Book of Mormon? That is science. (Note sarcasm).

I’ve never made such a fuss so I have no idea what you are asking and your sarcasm is lost on me. As I said, science has shown the Book of Mormon not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be which explains why the Mormon Church is changing what the Book of Mormon claims to be.

On another note:

I tracked back your reply to my post which mentioned Ariansm. Here’s one part of a comment you made:

I think your misunderstanding starts at the fourth word of his comment and your truncating his comment: “The elder Fathers at the Council were not secular persecutors but Christian survivors of secular persecution, which had only ceased a decade earlier.” A can appreciate your attempt at an anti-catholic tangent because we know the historical facts of the Council of Nicea are not what the Restoration movement/Mormon/Seventh Day Adventists would like them to be. His comment is basically factual; Fourteen years before the Council, the Edict of Milan stopped the persecution of Christians; therefore “The elder Fathers at the Council were not secular persecutors but Christian survivors of secular persecution…”

 

[Stephen168]

The King Follet sermon is quoted in official documents of the LDS church, which can be found at their official website. If, as a Mormon, you don’t accept the King Follet sermon as teaching something that is true, why would you believe that anything taught by the LDS church is true?

I thought the King Follet sermon was the source of Mormon rejection of the God of Christianity. Is that true or was it a slower process?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I thought the King Follet sermon was the source of Mormon rejection of the God of Christianity. Is that true or was it a slower process?

Smith’s doctrine of deity changed through his life, so it was a process, over the life of Joseph Smith. These changes are reflected in his writings, speeches, “scripture” that he produced and the changes he made over time to his “first vision”. By the time of his death, he had reached the point where absolutely, he taught that there is no difference between man and God, other than degrees of progression.

The King Follet sermon came from Joseph Smith at the end of his life, being given a few months before his murder. Lorenzo Snow was there when he preached it, and continued to teach the exact same doctrines regarding God that are found in the sermon. Mormon leaders continued to teach this same doctrine, as doctrine, until around 1970-1980, when they began to de-emphasize stranger Mormon beliefs, to the point now, that many Mormons reject the King Follet sermon as either an “opinion”, transcribed incorrectly, or “too deep” to understand so why worry about it.

It has been a slow process for Mormonism to detach itself from beliefs that Christians recognize immediately as non-Christian. Individual Mormons believe what is taught in the King Follet sermon, or they don’t, but denying it wasn’t ever a Mormon doctrine is either coming from someone who is uninformed, or just plain lying.

 

[Darren10]

You are not the first Mormon to make this claim but none have been able to prove it. They cannot prove it because it is not so.

Did you think about what the Council of Nicea was all about before you issued this challenge? On the blog I frequent the most, owned by a devout Catholic and has two devout Catholic administrators for the site I was replied to by a member of the Greek Orthodox faith after challeneging the notion of the Holy Trinity and the Nicene Creed. In his words, the Nicene Creed (governed by Constitine who wasn’t even a baptized Christian at the time but could offer an entire empire to the Christians) was necessary because Arianism was going to split the Christian Church apart and that it was the Council of Nicea who saved this from happening. Arius taught that Christ was separate and subordinate to the Father. I agree. My understanding is that Arius did not view Christ as divine. If this is true, I categorically reject that idea. But Arius was not alone in certain aspects of his teachings.

Secondly, **That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” **— He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

Origen (bold mine): newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm

Justin: Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.

And after they said they would listen cheerfully, patiently, and eagerly, I went on:

These words are in the book which bears the title of Exodus: ‘And after many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned by reason of the works;’ Exodus 2:23 and so on until, ‘Go and gather the elders of Israel, and you shall say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, I am surely beholding you, and the things which have befallen you in Egypt.’ Exodus 3:16

In addition to these words, I went on:

Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Typho; Chapters 59-60 (Also see chapters 56;58): newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

And here’s a quick sampling on deification: “See in the same Psalm those to whom he saith, “I have said, Ye are gods, and children of the Highest all; but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”16801680 Ps. lxxxii. 6, 7. It is evident then, that He hath called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He doth justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He doth deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifieth doth Himself deify, in that by justifying He doth make sons of God. “For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.”16811681 John i. 12. If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ.”

St. Augustine ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.L.html

“but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

Irenaeus; newadvent.org/fathers/0103500.htm

Not very conventional nowadays but I agree. I do not agree with all of these men’s theology but on these aspects I do.

 

[Darren10]

Smith’s doctrine of deity changed through his life, so it was a process, over the life of Joseph Smith. These changes are reflected in his writings, speeches, “scripture” that he produced and the changes he made over time to his “first vision”. By the time of his death, he had reached the point where absolutely, he taught that there is no difference between man and God, other than degrees of progression.

The King Follet sermon came from Joseph Smith at the end of his life, being given a few months before his murder. Lorenzo Snow was there when he preached it, and continued to teach the exact same doctrines regarding God that are found in the sermon. Mormon leaders continued to teach this same doctrine, as doctrine, until around 1970-1980, when they began to de-emphasize stranger Mormon beliefs, to the point now, that many Mormons reject the King Follet sermon as either an “opinion”, transcribed incorrectly, or “too deep” to understand so why worry about it.

It has been a slow process for Mormonism to detach itself from beliefs that Christians recognize immediately as non-Christian. Individual Mormons believe what is taught in the King Follet sermon, or they don’t, but denying it wasn’t ever a Mormon doctrine is either coming from someone who is uninformed, or just plain lying.

KFD was NEVER doctrine and NEVER taught as such. EVER.

I outlined how Mormon doctrine becomes Mormon doctrine. Could you please show me when the King Follett’s Discourse ever went through that process? I’m neither misinformed; nor lying. Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow were privy to their own insights just as you and I are. Just because they bore the mantle of prophet does not mean that all they wrote or personally believed was to be set forth as God’s absolute word and truth. like you and I they were subject to human limitations, and that includes understanding. Do you think the letters from Paul as found in the Bible are the only ones he ever wrote? Do you hink that’s all he ever opined on doctrine? Was not Peter “corrected” by Paul regarding the preaching ofthe Gospel?

The content of the Bible is from literally centuries of study and I’m sure prayer. Those in charge of putting together the Bible as we have today in its various forms and editions have to sifen through much writings to decide which should be included and which should not be included.

 

[Darren10]

The King Follet sermon is quoted in official documents of the LDS church, which can be found at their official website.

Not all official Church documents are doctrine. Not even close.

 

[RebeccaJ]

KFD was NEVER doctrine and NEVER taught as such. EVER.

I outlined how Mormon doctrine becomes Mormon doctrine. Could you please show me when the King Follett’s Discourse ever went through that process? I’m neither misinformed; nor lying. Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow were privy to their own insights just as you and I are. Just because they bore the mantle of prophet does not mean that all they wrote or personally believed was to be set forth as God’s absolute word and truth. like you and I they were subject to human limitations, and that includes understanding. Do you think the letters from Paul as found in the Bible are the only ones he ever wrote? Do you hink that’s all he ever opined on doctrine? Was not Peter “corrected” by Paul regarding the preaching ofthe Gospel?

The content of the Bible is from literally centuries of study and I’m sure prayer. Those in charge of putting together the Bible as we have today in its various forms and editions have to sifen through much writings to decide which should be included and which should not be included.

Darren10, the problem with this view is, your church leaders taught what they taught, and the saints follow the prophet. You’re telling me now, all the Mormons prior to c.1970 followed a false teaching? Tell me Darren10, this weekend, how are you going to know what is being taught as doctrine and what isn’t? Why waste your time listening at all?

The rest of your post is the usual red herring employed often by Mormons who try to put a view to the Bible as false as their own beliefs. We aren’t talking about the Bible, we’re talking about the King Follet sermon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not all official Church documents are doctrine. Not even close.

You didn’t answer the question that I asked in the same post. Why do you believe anything the LDS church teaches, at all?

 

[Darren10]

stephen;

It doesn’t seem to be the father’s plan

also:

Originally Posted by Joseph Smith
The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he would save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him.

also:

Originally Posted by Telstar
But, Parker, as I understand it, according to the BoM (or the PoGP… or wherever it is in LDS writings that the story is told), doesn’t it clearly say that Jesus offered the father his plan, then Lucifer offered his own plan, and the father had to pick between the two, which one he thought was best? How would it be called ‘the father’s plan’ if that were the case?

That’s your entire #46 post. First, Satan did not “present his plan” in the manner which you connotate. If your source is not the king Follett’s Discourse then I’ve no idea what your source would be. in the KFD, it declares that the “head God” presented His plan before the council of gods. Even if this is true, where does this leave room to conclude that the Plan of Salvation was not the Father’s? I find no room for any such conclusion.

Again, I will provide you the official doctrine regarding the Creation and what Jesus and Satan did. But since I’ve grown tired of asking you to tell me who the plan came from only to be left with crickets chirrping and no digital respons popping up on my screen from your posts (unless, of course, I missed it) I’ll just dictate to you the answer.

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down;

Moses 4

Satan said if he was sent from the Father that all would obey and be saved. From this we read that forcing others to do what is right is evil in and of itself. I do not think there is any disagreement between mormonism and Catholicism regarding God’s respect to free will. In Mormonism, free will is seen as essential for individuals to truly come unto Christ. I’m sure Catholicism teaches the same or at least very similar (but from the Catholics I blog with I’d say Catholicism definitely teaches free will is essential).

When Jesus said to send Him, what did He say, “thine will be done”. that would be the will of the Father in verse 2. What will? To carry out the Plan of Salvation. And with Christ all glory would be given to the Father.

Even from this premortal state of existence, we can learn that free will is a divine gift and absolutely respected by God and that the glory be to the Father in carrying out His will. Al things belong to the Father and forever shall this be. All things came from the Father and this truth is eternally self-evident.

 

[hosemonkey]

You didn’t answer the question that I asked in the same post. Why do you believe anything the LDS church teaches, at all?

Because they are trapped in a “religion” that provides them with a support structure that they would rather not live without. How many mormons, here in these fora, have confessed that they do not believe in the falsehoods of mormonism, but cannot bear the loss of family or livelihood that rejecting the lies might entail. They are trapped in a huge con game, whose rules and “doctrines” change like the summer wind.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Because they are trapped in a “religion” that provides them with a support structure that they would rather not live without. How many mormons, here in these fora, have confessed that they do not believe in the falsehoods of mormonism, but cannot bear the loss of family or livelihood that rejecting the lies might entail. They are trapped in a huge con game, whose rules and “doctrines” change like the summer wind.

hello hosemonkey, long time no see.

If this is the case for Darren10, I’d like to know why go to the trouble of defending a religion that has teachings you don’t believe.

 

[Darren10]

Darren10, the problem with this view is, your church leaders taught what they taught, and the saints follow the prophet. You’re telling me now, all the Mormons prior to c.1970 followed a false teaching? Tell me Darren10, this weekend, how are you going to know what is being taught as doctrine and what isn’t? Why waste your time listening at all?

The rest of your post is the usual red herring employed often by Mormons who try to put a view to the Bible as false as their own beliefs. We aren’t talking about the Bible, we’re talking about the King Follet sermon.

Rebecca;

It’s good that you’d inquire an ignoramous or liar such as myself.

The saints follow the prophet is true but only in the context of following the Spirit of God. I know Joseph Smith wa a true prophet of God, not because he said so or my parents said so; but because God told me so. I knew president Benson, the prophet in my teenage years, was a true prophet of God. Not because he said so, nor my parents; but because God told me so. In know President Thoms S. Monson is the lord’s true prophet not because he says so; but, like before, God tells me so through His Holy Spirit. Following the prophet is not about following man; but following God. As I explained in the process of a revelation or declaration becoming official LDS doctrine, it is set up so that each and every individual member of The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will open up his or her heart to the Hoyl Spirit and learn from His pure truth that these men are the Lord’s chosen servants on earth today. I listen “at all” because God is eternal and has blessed His children with living prophets who speak to us today. I listen because it opens up the heavens and I can commune with God Almighty Himself. That to me is a powerful miracle in and of itself.

I stand by what I said about the Bible. Now, feel free to answer my own question to you: “Do you think the letters from Paul as found in the Bible are the only ones he ever wrote?”