If you believe that the LDS Church does not and has never taught these doctrines, then you are woefully ignorant of your church’s history and what it teaches.
okay. I don’t like mormonism at all (sucked my brother in) but this video is grossly inaccurate on many points. Basically they hit on basic beliefs but blow them way out of proportion. The only thing that looks even similar to this is the fundamentalist mormons. You know, the really crazy ones.
Would you mind being more specific?
No problem (sorry I didn’t before, I wrote that in a hurry)
I agree with that.
I agree with that
I strongly disagree with this. The LDS church has always taught the principle of etrnal progression. many LDS prophets have been very specific on this point. They have all taught that Elohim (our heavenly father) worked out his own salvation in fear and trembling. The mormon temple ceremony certainly reinforces this teaching. just go to www.lds.org and search for eternal progression. you can easily find a lot of LDS material on this.
ahhh but LDS teach LITERAL offspring of God rahter than sons and daughters by adoption as the Bible points out.
here you appear ot contradict yourself. do you mean that with Gods help you can “attain” godhood?" that is LDS doctrine. if you mean that we can never grow and develop in to literal Gods just like elohim then you are definitely contradicting even current LDS teachings. If you want to claim that we will never be equal to elohim then please clarify if that is only because he is also progressing and has “headstart” on us.
but it was taught by multiple LDS prophets. this and many other controversial doctrines have been “not talked about” for many years now (since the early 70’s 0 but they have never been denounced or “clarified” by subsequent LDS leaders. (imagine what that does to the credibility of “prophets” who alleged to have spoken face to face with God)
please provide reference to the correction because Brigham Young certainly taught it. (it was also taught that Jesus was married to multiple wives and had children)
now this is very true of the Ed Decker approach and one of many reasons why I don’t agree with him and dislike Godmakers. but just to clarify. we DO believe that the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ and that do in fact consume it. The Bible mentions that this was a hard teaching for many of the disciples and that many left as a result of not being able to accept this.
I will condemn Godmakers as a sensationalist film intended only to enrich Ed Decker. However, I Definitely attest to the LDS doctrine consistently being that are infinite Gods, only one of whom we worship because he is our literal parent who became a God by going through the same process that we are engaged in and thus that we may become Gods ourselves with the potential for our own worlds in the future. I testify that doctrine is FALSE and ungodly but it is official LDS doctrine and has been since Joseph Smith jr first taught it.
Because LDS history is so well recorded, we can really take a good look at your statement here. First of all, I’ve heard a lot of Mormons deny controversial criticisms about their religion with this response, “No LDS I have ever met believes that (fill in the blank).” This may be true, but it is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because we all know that LDS history is well-recorded and one only needs to read the church’s own history to find these teachings. Current members may not be aware of such history, and therefore have little inkling as to what controversial things early Mormon leaders taught. But what is most relevant is whether past LDS prophets have taught such things with authority to their flock. This is important because we all agree that true prophets never lead their followers astray on matters of faith. We can then compare past teachings with current ones and see whether a church has been consistent or not. So for any LDS to deny something based on a claim that they’ve either (1) never heard of that, or (2) have never known another Mormon to believe such a thing, causes me to pause and wonder whether that person is at all aware of the plentiful historical documentation available to really analyze such matters.
It is essentially correct. Many Mormons will downplay some of these doctrines, but it’s what I was taught when I was a Mormon. I keep hoping the LDS Church will just officially renounce these beliefs. They could simply go back to the teachings of the Book of Mormon and find a way to accept the Trinity if they wanted to, but it would be admitting that Joseph Smith’s later teachings were completely bogus. What started out as a fairly normal church eventually evolved into a major heresy – that should tell us a lot about where Joseph Smith was receiving his inspiration. His downfall in my opinion was his decision to bed as many young ladies as he could, starting with Fanny Alger. By the end of his career he was a full-fledged megalomaniac. It is no wonder the people around him felt a need to shoot him.
this is not correct. the beginning of the seer has the page where the first presidency specifically commissions orson pratt to write it and publish it as a series of articles on a subscription basis that all LDS were encouraged to obtain.
this doesn’t specify which doctrines they later disagreed with but by cross referencing with the JoD you can see that BY and others still taught a literal physical marriage between elohim and mary as well as Jesus marriage and children, eternal progression, etc.
how so? it is taught in multiple places currently. the concept of being literal offspring of God is what the LDS have always taught as binding doctrine and I certainly disagree with that.
then we need to define “official” publication as hymnals, lesson manuals, JoD, ensign and others have mentioned this.
this has been expounded on though by numerous LDS apostles and prophets even in general conference.
yet that IS the teaching of literal offspring and eternal progression. it requires this to be a truism. loaded language maybe but it is accurately depicting the result of LDS doctrine.
there are two issues here and I don’t want them to obscure each other. the combination of faith and works regarding salvation is catholic as well as mormon and I don’t dispute that. The doctrine of being able to become a God and that our God is one of many who became a God is what I object to.
no offense taken. we’re good on this
this is problematic in two ways. first there is no equivalent to the catechism in the LDS church to show the meaning of scriptures. secondly LDS standard works have changed dramatically multiple times so what is scripture today may con tradict what was previously scripture. LDS prophets claim to speak gods words as if from his own mouth too. anyone who has been to an LDS temple knows that everything required for exaltation is NOT contained in the “standard works”.