Views on Mormonism?

[TexanKnight]

Just curious, TK, what was the time frame of your LDS membership? That often makes a difference when discussing what we were taught (as LDS teachings change dramatically decade by decade). I was LDS from 1975 through 1986.

Paul

I served my mission from 84-86. I left the Church in 89 after a trip to Palmyra.

I have been to about 10 temples, Nauvoo twice, Palmyra three times, Liberty jail once. I wrote an LDS Music program that we performed across Texas.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

I never said or implied you are the word you used. I think you use English pretty well.

I don’t know if the translation you use has the word “virtue” in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, and Luke 8:46, but if not then we are at an impasse on the question of the use of the word “virtue” to mean “power” or “strength” and be completely compatible with “Christianity” other than perhaps “Catholic Christianity”.

Sorry, Parker, but that was a joke. In case you didn’t notice, I also used the word “ain’t” as a hint that I wasn’t really being entirely serious. At one point, early in his life, my Dad was a clown in a traveling carnival/circus (early in the 20th century, and long before he and Mom were married). So, I tend to have a hard time being oh-so-serious all the time, and can’t help but want to walk around in his big floppy shoes every now & then, just for giggles or to lighten the mood. (It’s also ok to say the word ‘stupid’. It’s not a swear or anything, I promise. )

I think in those particular passages, the word ‘virtue’ might be defined as: #3: a beneficial quality or power of a thing in reference to the robe that He was wearing at the time. Not that the robe itself had any kind of ‘magical’ power on its own, but it was because His own holiness gave it that quality, just because He wore it. His touch was the touch of God, so anything that was in contact with Him became blessed by virtue of His Holiness. But, I still don’t think that’s the case in Peter’s Epistle, or in most other instances where it’s used in the Bible. As I’ve said before, context is always important in determining the real meaning of any words or phrases in the Bible, because it’s not always the same meaning in all cases.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Abraham 3 explicitly says it is teaching fact. Facts that Abrahm should teach to a pharaoh of Egypt.

Also, all the years I was LDS, no one ever taught Kolob as a metaphor. Not once. It was always taught as a rather amazing astronomy lesson, seeing that Mormons believe it was God giving the astronomy lesson.

But I was taught from CES material, not the FAIRwiki.

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pgp/pgp-3.htm

Looks like the LDS CES manual on TBoA does not teach that Kolob is a metaphor, it teaches that it is a fact.

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Lord made known to him the following facts: That Kolob is the first creation, and is nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. It is the first in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. This measurement is according to celestial time. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which by the Egyptians was called Jah-oh-eh. Oliblish, so called by the Egyptians, stands next to Kolob in the grand governing creation near the celestial, or place where God resides. This great star is also a governing star and is equal to Kolob in its revolutions and in its measuring of time. Other grand governing stars were also revealed to Abraham” (Man: His Origin and Destiny [1954], 461.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Looks like the LDS CES manual on TBoA does not teach that Kolob is a metaphor, it teaches that it is a fact.

Yeah, the metaphor thing comes from Hugh Nibley. He was kind of out there…ok, more than kind of…he may have been a brick shy. Reading his stuff is like reading a Jules Verne novel. The guy had an imagination.

But anyway, his metaphorical idea was published in 1992. Some of the Mormon apologetic crowd have taken it to the level of “church teaching”’ which it never was. But who knows, someone may very well be teaching it in a Mormon Sunday school class, and that is how a Mormon’s opinion becomes Mormon doctrine, until the next opinion gains popularity.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

That sounds reasonable…

And who knows - maybe it will go a long way to building back a healthy family relationship… :re-built on trust thumbsup:

God bless

Tom

I certainly hope your intuition is wrong as it sounds tragically commical, as presented.

I see one course of action

• discuss the white elephant in the room
• tell her you know about the LDS focus on geneology and baptism for the dead
• tell her you don’t want that ceremony, if that’s how you feel

Having a real discussion can build a bridge vs. tearing down trust, which I think you currently feel

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

I really think the problem lies with the changing tactics of the LDS organization… and the fact that so many well-read individuals have found all kinds of conflicts between what LDS teaches and what Christ teaches.

Those who are wagering their eternal soul on all of these cult-like practices have put Christ second (just like Joseph Smith did) to carve out their own niche. When it comes to the financial and social advantages of Statehood - it is easy to see that this revealed doctrine would not be held for long. The problem is (and this is not intended to be cynical) look what happens when those splinter groups that embrace some of Joseph Smith’s teachings - the world sees the Branch Dividians and David Koresh (yes, splinter group of Adventists) and the YFZ ranch with Fundamentalist LDS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch

God bless

truthsave,
I urge you to** stop posting on LDS topics** until you have actually studied our doctrine and theology. What you may have seen in a youtube cartoon created by an ‘anti-mormon’ is not a valid source of true doctrine. Your request to the bishop comes across as very bigoted and spiteful. Kolob is the name of a star that metaphorically represents the center of everything (All the universes created by God)

Net, your approach is as clever and truthful as a Jack Chick tract attacking Catholoicism

 

[SteveVH]

LDS believe we are all Gods children, not his pets

Cute, Tony. I think you need to re-read Genesis. God said “let there be…” and there was. And as far as being God’s children, we are God’s children through adoption, not through procreation. No adopted person is the literal child of the one adopting him. That is why Christ is called the “only” begotten Son of God. He was “begotten”, not created. We are not begotten of God. We are created. We become sons and daughters through adoption.

“In love, he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will.” (Eph 1:5)

"“For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:15)

 

[Naf623]

Yes, I am quite aware of all you have stated. My point is that there we are under no moral obligation to obey laws that directly contradict the laws of God. If polygamy was, indeed, a law given by God to Joseph Smith, then we must assume that if he did away with it for the purpose of compliance with human laws then He has made Himself subject to human laws. To believe that God gave a “new revelation” for this reason is ludicrous.

As pointed out previously; polygamy was never a necessary practice to attain salvation, nor was it ever compulsory. Therefore it’s practise or non-practise are entirely down to God’s purposes. If its practise would cause other difficulties for His church’s progression and development (which it clearly would have at the time), then why can He not suspend its practise? A new revelation does not always mean a change of doctrine, it just means that God has something to say, to clarify or that He wants us to do.

Agreed. If God had truly mandated polygamy as necessary for salvation,.

But nobody ever claimed He did.

They have no understanding of the difference between a divine being (God) and a human being (man) as far as the substance of our nature.

Really?
So far as I am aware I do not have a perfect body, or the power to move mountains, part oceans, create light with just a word (although, maybe I’ll get my house wired up for it ).

For example, Jesus talked lots about Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it was not at all immediately clear to believers what that meant. It took quite a bit of time before people comphrended that though there IS only one God, he is three persons.

Or before people got too confused and drew incorrect conclusions based on reason alone.

Is it not true that you believe that we naturally possess the same nature as God; that you do not distinguish between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human)?

As above, not true.

If God was once as we are now, then He could not have been perfect.

Unless He was the Saviour of that creation, then you would be correct. He would have been imperfect, made mistakes, repented and lived His life in a manner that allowed Him to attain the highest level of salvation.

And if he became God, then that infers change. And if change occurred, then God was not perfect because, if perfect, there would be no need to change.

Yes, it definitely more than infers change: it clearly states that He did change. So?
God is perfect - this does not mean to say He has always been.
God is unchanging - this does not mean that He has never changed.
We describe both the time prior to our earthly existence and the time following it as ‘eternity’. It is understood that ‘eternal life’ does not imply only it’s literal derivation, ‘everlasting life’, but also ‘life with The Eternal One’. This understanding means we can see that God has indeed existed from eternity to eternity: from our life with Him (The Eternal One) prior to our mortal existence; and will continue to exist after our mortal existence into our life with Him that will follow. Thus He has been God from eternity to eternity, and has not changed from eternity to eternity.

Once I asked a LDS bishop to pray with me and instead of saying our Celestial Father as they most of the time start a prayer, to start with our father that lives in Kolob.
He refused.

A few others have mad this point also, but I thought I would include the quote from Abraham that you refer to:
Abraham 3:

2And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Whatever it is reported that Joseph Smith may have said, what he wrote clearly states that Kolob is a star near to God (near does not have to imply physical proximity, we use the same word when we say ‘near to my heart’ for example: but it may mean that).

It seems that some of the posts I added to my multi-quote are missing
I must apologise for my apparent misinformation, and I assure you it was in no way intentional. I have not studied much of the Gospel Principles Manual for many years, and cannot recall ever having studied or taught this lesson from it. As far as I understood it my statements were correct and had nothing whatever to do with lying for the Lord or any other concept of deceitfulness.

 

[hosemonkey]

As pointed out previously; polygamy was never a necessary practice to attain salvation, nor was it ever compulsory. Therefore it’s practise or non-practise are entirely down to God’s purposes. If its practise would cause other difficulties for His church’s progression and development (which it clearly would have at the time), then why can He not suspend its practise? A new revelation does not always mean a change of doctrine, it just means that God has something to say, to clarify or that He wants us to do.

Brigham Young on Polygamy:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

This by a “prophet” who was allegedly receiving “revelations” from Almighty God.

 

[Naf623]

Brigham Young on Polygamy:

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Yes, I am quite aware of all you have stated. My point is that there we are under no moral obligation to obey laws that directly contradict the laws of God. If polygamy was, indeed, a law given by God to Joseph Smith, then we must assume that if he did away with it for the purpose of compliance with human laws then He has made Himself subject to human laws. To believe that God gave a “new revelation” for this reason is ludicrous.

As pointed out previously; polygamy was never a necessary practice to attain salvation, nor was it ever compulsory. Therefore it’s practise or non-practise are entirely down to God’s purposes. If its practise would cause other difficulties for His church’s progression and development (which it clearly would have at the time), then why can He not suspend its practise? A new revelation does not always mean a change of doctrine, it just means that God has something to say, to clarify or that He wants us to do.

So God would allow it for, say, 50 years or so and then backtrack because it might make things inconvenient. Do you not think that he probably knew this ahead of time?

Originally Posted by SteveVH
They have no understanding of the difference between a divine being (God) and a human being (man) as far as the substance of our nature.

Really?
So far as I am aware I do not have a perfect body, or the power to move mountains, part oceans, create light with just a word (although, maybe I’ll get my house wired up for it ).

I am talking about the “substance of our nature”, not about our power or perfection. Do you believe we have a divine nature or a human nature, or do you believe there is any difference?

 

[truthsave]

hosemonkey;8564852:

Now find our doctrinal teaching that says this?
Remember, we do not believe in prophetic infallibility, and nothing gets added to our doctrines and teachings on anybody’s whim.

The role of a mormon prophets is also to reveal. If he reveals lies and thruths that have to be then put to vote a prophet can be anybody. every one of us is more or less capable of saying a mixture of lies and truths.
In your way of saying a prophet is just a leader. But I can assure you no one leader as said so many things that were then considered stupidity by the group he was leading. If not what kind of leader is he?

We could cite you undreads of lines from Joseph Smith and Bringham Young from history of the mormon churches written in your archives that you will refute as not being doctrine that we are all wondering how come they were helding their place and people listening to them. We are not talking some soft things, we are talking about very deep stupidity things or blaspemy that you will just say: it is not in our doctrine.
They were listening to them. They gave credit to them and it is not in your doctrine is just a pale excuse.
With the years mormon prophets became smarter and start saying nothing at all except banal speaches in conferences that will never be recorded in any spiritual importance for the mankind. And you don’t need to be a prophet to say that. Nor a Christian. Just need a little good sense.
If you don’t understand what I want to say this is an example: I am Orthodox and I have red also many other spiritual text or different religious author that don’t belong to my faith.
Nobody with a certain sensitivness could ever compare the inspiration of somebody like Master Eckard to any of the mormon prophets. Or the teaching of Buddha to the teaching of Joseph Smith. To have a confusion between the evident wiseness of the Hindu Vedanta to the “revelation” of the Book of Abrahm.
It is history of humanity, the desire of spituality compared to egophatic delirium, exaltation of materialism. One thing mormonism are perfectly rapresentative of: the decline of human searching for truth.

Mormon strongly remind me of a story of Mula Nasrudrim.
It was night when Nasrudim lost the keys of his house. He started searching for it for hours.
Then a friend came and said to him: what are you doing? He answered he lost the keys of his house. So his friend offered to help him to find the keys. After a long while his friend said: Nasrudrim are you sure you have lost your keys here?
Nasrudrim answered: No, I didn’t loose them here, but over there.
His friend was furious and said: You are crazy! why then you search and make me search the keys here?
Nasrudrim answered: it is simple! Since here there is light while over there where I lost the keys it is completely dark.

Sorry that I won’t write in this topic any more Views of Mormonism. The reason are in Nasrudrim story.

Lord bless you all

 

[hosemonkey]

Prophets that do not deliver true predictions are NOT prophets. They are called “liars.” How do you distinguish between a true prophet and one who lies? Obviously, you have not figured that part out. This is what makes your so-called “prophet” a joke.

and nothing gets added to our doctrines and teachings on anybody’s whim.

That is hay that has already been through the horse. Your 'scriptures" are full of items that are pure whim. The doctrine of polygamy is a classic example of Joseph Smith using a purported “message” from God in order to satisfy his voluminous sexual appetite.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Naf623,

I really do not know how you can say that having multiple wives was something of little or no consequence - when the lack of them was seen as a cause for damnation. Having them was cause for perseuting Joseph Smith and all that believed in his teacings - causing the exodus west to Utah and beyond. Early Mormons dug in their heels over this - and that tells me that they firmly believed in this particular teaching.

Now, I may be mistaken about this - my knowledge of LDS beliefs is shaky at best - and after reading the various posts, I think you have been corrected in this area yourself. But, to the best of my knowledge, the punishment of damnation for not doing something and then having that reversed - only applies to polygamy. This reversal has a curious chronology with Utah’s admission to the Union. Of course there is no cause and effect - except the Congress was not going to give a favorable vote if polygamy remained. It only took about 50 years of wheeling and dealing with political parties to make it all happen. Here is an interesting link: media.utah.edu/UHE/s/STATEHOOD.html

Your request for us to find your doctrinal teaching on any subject is truly a tongue-in-cheek type request. Actually, I suspect it is just a bit ingenuious, too! But, since only you have the Book of Mormon and all of the changes to LDS doctrines - this request would certainly have me at a disadvantage. How about a more even-handed approach. Why not support your positions from the Bible itself (KJV would be fine if you have a copy… Just use those elements you say support Christ’s teachings - this would give us a basis for mutual understanding and agreement.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

hosemonkey;8564852:

Now find our doctrinal teaching that says this?
Remember, we do not believe in prophetic infallibility, and nothing gets added to our doctrines and teachings on anybody’s whim.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Hosemonkey,

False prophet = liar, eh? Well, this is a very documented item in Scripture. Here is an interesting link: biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Now, in reviewing this link, I did find an omission … it seems that the writer only thought that people did such mischief for money. Apparently, insatiable sex via polygamy was not thought of…at least in terms of prophesy!

God bless

Prophets that do not deliver true predictions are NOT prophets. They are called “liars.” How do you distinguish between a true prophet and one who lies? Obviously, you have not figured that part out. This is what makes your so-called “prophet” a joke.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Hosemonkey,

False prophet = liar, eh? Well, this is a very documented item in Scripture. Here is an interesting link: biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

 

[TexanKnight]

As pointed out previously; polygamy was never a necessary practice to attain salvation, nor was it ever compulsory. Therefore it’s practise or non-practise are entirely down to God’s purposes. If its practise would cause other difficulties for His church’s progression and development (which it clearly would have at the time), then why can He not suspend its practise? A new revelation does not always mean a change of doctrine, it just means that God has something to say, to clarify or that He wants us to do.

So, for you, when God said in the Bible that it was one man and one woman only, God was just lying.

Unless He was the Saviour of that creation, then you would be correct. He would have been imperfect, made mistakes, repented and lived His life in a manner that allowed Him to attain the highest level of salvation.

Then he would not be God. God never changes (if you believe the Bible) and God was always God (if you believe the Bible). You have just proven that you, as a Mormon, do not beleive in the same God that is THE God of the Bible and the world.

Yes, it definitely more than infers change: it clearly states that He did change. So?
God is perfect - this does not mean to say He has always been.

Sure it does. God NEVER CHANGES

God is unchanging - this does not mean that He has never changed.

That makes no sense at all. If God never changes, he could not have changed.

Whatever it is reported that Joseph Smith may have said, what he wrote clearly states that Kolob is a star near to God (near does not have to imply physical proximity, we use the same word when we say ‘near to my heart’ for example: but it may mean that).

You are fishing now. “near to my heart” is nothing like “near to NYC”. However, “Near to Kolob” would be. You are using improper examples. Again, it was NEVER metaphor until it was clear there was no Kolob

Peace

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi, PaulDupre,

Deception is a real problem here - and considering the length of time this has been going on, it looks like it is not only part of the system - it is the system

God bless

Bingo!

 

[KathleenGee]

Second it. Or is mine the third on this thread…
…and for a couple of years…I see the same issues come up…always excusing…explaining, qualifying…but all these older beliefs don’t sit with anybody but the Mormons…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Brigham Young on Polygamy:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses

Whether or not it’s currently considered doctrine is not the point. The point is in BY’s time LDS looked to him for guidance, his guidance was wrong, wrong according to you and the current teaching of your church. This left the faithful LDS of his time following false teachings, left them following the opinions of a man opinions later refuted by new “prophets”. I don’t see how these kinds of teachings can reassure you that you are sure and not "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"