What is the book of Mormon all about

[Finrock]

Here is the part I couldn’t fit on to the last post:

• The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father); This was never taught by the Church. Isn’t doctrine.
• the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church); This is still doctrine. It is a goal we are striving for, ultimately to be fully implemented when Jesus returns. But, there is more to this idea than what is being presented. Perhaps this could make an interested topic to discuss…
• Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven); Plural marriange is not being practiced, but it is still a doctrine of the Church. When God approves plural marriage and it is practiced within the bounds the Lord has set, it is a righteous ordinance. Otherwise, it is sinful. It has never been doctrine that one must have plural wives in order to be exalted.
• the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God’s priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978); More precisely African-Americans were at one point unable to have the priesthood. This tradition was reversed by revelation in 1978 as noted.
• Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner’s blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities); Never taught by the Church. Not doctrine.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh well, here we are again, having to define Mormon doctrine (which cannot be done).

Everything that is in that list has been taught by one of your “prophets” or “apostles”. The people who lived at the time when they were teaching these things, believe them, just as you believe what your current leadership teaches you. The only thing that has changed is that today, you call them “opinions” or “folk doctrine”.

Tell me Finrock, what do you believe today as “doctrine” is going to be opinion tomorrow?

 

[zerinus]

. . . listing a posthumous baptism on a genealogical website or database gives the impression that the person is really lds. Since the International Genealogical Index is operated by the lds, it furthers that impression.

100 years from now, John Doe is going to look at those records and see Uncle Bob, or Aunt Mary on there, and think he has an lds heritage.

That is an absurd suggestion. Publishing the names of those vicariously baptized on the IGI imposes no such status on anyone, either now or a hundred years from now.

 

[GodIsGracious]

That is an absurd suggestion. Publishing the names of those vicariously baptized on the IGI imposes no such status on anyone, either now or a hundred years from now.

True. But it leaves the impression of an LDS heritage. And that is what the rest of us DO NOT want.

 

[zerinus]

[Red emphasis mine.]

EXACTLY! And that’s what I’m getting at and others who don’t want their dead relatives baptised by proxy. Regardless of what zerinus, or anyone else for that matter, says, it shows these people being in a Mormon geneological database with having had a baptism done. Period.

Not true. Everybody knows that the IGI consists of the names of deceased persons submitted by Latter-day Saints; and the record usually give additional sources that provide more information concerning the deceased.

And while I didn’t say it, I did think about the “future” John Doe looking at those records and the conclusions he could possibly draw.

And I didn’t know the Mormon’s posthumously baptized President Obama’s mother. The nerve. Seriously.

That is part of our religion. It has nothing to do with anybody else. If I went to some remote part of Africa, and found a group of people who wanted to do tribal dances for my ancestors to save their souls, why should I be offended or try to stop them? That is their tradition. It doesn’t affect me in any way, especially if I didn’t believe in it. I have no reason, or even the right to try to stop them.

 

[zerinus]

True. But it leaves the impression of an LDS heritage. And that is what the rest of us DO NOT want.

First of all I don’t beleive it does. Secondly, who cares that that is not what you want? What are you going to do about it? It has nothing to do with you. It is our business. it has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First of all I don’t beleive it does. Secondly, who cares that that is not what you want? What are you going to do about it? It has nothing to do with you. It is our business. it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Then why do you do it, if it is not FOR anyone else?

 

[zerinus]

Then why do you do it, if it is not FOR anyone else?

We do it for the benefit of the deceased, and because we are commanded to do it by the Lord. But it is something that does not affect you or anybody else; therefore it has nothing to do with you or anyone else.

 

[GodIsGracious]

First of all I don’t beleive it does. Secondly, who cares that that is not what you want? What are you going to do about it? It has nothing to do with you. It is our business. it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Whether you believe it implies the person is Mormon or not doesn’t matter. It matters to the people whose names you take, YOU TAKE, and perform this ritual and say the ritual was performed. It has EVERYTHING to do with the person to whom you are 1) recording their name down, and 2) IMPLYING that they now have (regardless of whether they are dead) some sort of rite or ritual imposed on them.

It becomes the person’s business when it is THEIR NAME that YOU TAKE. And while the person is dead and cannot do anything about it themselves, it still has everything to do with them and their OTHER FAMILY who may or may not want this ritual to occur.

What you don’t seem to care about is that your cult is TAKING SOMEONE’S NAME and recording information about them that they had NO CHOICE in saying no to. (Which, of course, happens every day.)

If that’s the case, then by all means, your name, when you are dead, is then open up for any sort of rite ,ritual, expression, stories, whatever. Because it has NOTHING to do with you and is the other person’s business. So since you don’t care, it doesn’t matter what happens or what someone says or does about you when you’re dead.

And this is why I find Mormonism to be such a vile cult. It has no respect for people, especially after they are dead and when they cannot do anything about what it happening to their name. It is their business, whether you like it or not. It is their business whether you believe it or not.

 

[zerinus]

Whether you believe it implies the person is Mormon or not doesn’t matter. It matters to the people whose names you take, YOU TAKE, and perform this ritual and say the ritual was performed. It has EVERYTHING to do with the person to whom you are 1) recording their name down, and 2) IMPLYING that they now have (regardless of whether they are dead) some sort of rite or ritual imposed on them.

It becomes the person’s business when it is THEIR NAME that YOU TAKE. And while the person is dead and cannot do anything about it themselves, it still has everything to do with them and their OTHER FAMILY who may or may not want this ritual to occur.

What you don’t seem to care about is that your cult is TAKING SOMEONE’S NAME and recording information about them that they had NO CHOICE in saying no to. (Which, of course, happens every day.)

If that’s the case, then by all means, your name, when you are dead, is then open up for any sort of rite ,ritual, expression, stories, whatever. Because it has NOTHING to do with you and is the other person’s business. So since you don’t care, it doesn’t matter what happens or what someone says or does about you when you’re dead.

And this is why I find Mormonism to be such a vile cult. It has no respect for people, especially after they are dead and when they cannot do anything about what it happening to their name. It is their business, whether you like it or not. It is their business whether you believe it or not.

All I can say is to go back and read my previous posts; because your answers have been given, and need not be given again.

 

[GodIsGracious]

All I can say is to go back and read my previous posts; because your answers have been given, and need not be given again.

I have read them. I just do not agree. You don’t like MY answer, so you probably think I didn’t read yours. Not so. I have.

 

[ricko]

The Book of Mormon is by your own prophets words “The most correct book ever written” Written by a man who is now an angel and translated by God Himself through Joseph Smith. How much more can you ask for? So since God, angels and Joseph Smith were all involved in writing the Book of Mormon then everything in the BOM is doctrine, no?

 

[Christian55]

Post #459 Finrock’s reponse to The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father) was: "This was never taught by the Church. Isn’t doctrine."

Mormonism Research Ministry
“Adam-God” - Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine?
By Bill McKeever

“Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth" (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.) How can a Latter-day Saint maintain this was just Brigham’s opinion when he insisted God gave him the teaching?”

“It may surprise some, but Brigham Young’s Adam-God connection is in harmony with the teachings of Joseph Smith. It was Joseph Smith who declared that Adam was, in fact, the Ancient of Days. Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 116:1; 138:38 all state that Adam is the Ancient of Days.

Joseph Smith even attempted to get the Bible to concur with this thought when he said, “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 157). Smith was referring to Daniel 7:13 which reads, “I saw the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him near before him.””

For full article follow this link:
mrm.org/adam-god

contact@mrm.org
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.

---

 

[twopekinguys]

First of all I don’t beleive it does. Secondly, who cares that that is not what you want? What are you going to do about it? It has nothing to do with you. It is our business. it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Statements like this just reinforce what I said earlier. Mormons demand all this respect and to be allowed to do what they want, but yet, they are unwilling to afford that same respect to anyone else’s faith. How terribly sad for you.

Yes, the IGI does give the impression that someone listed there is mormon, instead of showing the truth. By not showing that this is a posthumous baptism, it is deception by omission. Why can’t the lds just be upfront and make a notation that the baptism is posthumous. That shouldn’t hurt anything right?

Back to the real issue though, the lds agreed to clean up their act on the issue, and did not. 13 years of talks and “working together”, and the lds cannot/will not keep up their end of the agreement, How sad for you.

From what I have read, there is a 95 year rule for proxy baptisms.
A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work. It states on page 14 that “If the person was born within the last 95 years, obtain permission for the ordinances from the person’s closest living relative.” Are these people not good at math, or are they just ignoring what the rules are for these baptisms?
avotaynu.com/mormon.htm
Something that is not being considered is that this “offer” that is being made on behalf of the deceased, can be offensive. Just because you “offer” something doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive. i.e. I am offering to cut off all of your fingers, and super glue them to your forehead.

Your arrogance and lack of compassion for these individuals is just as offensive as the proxy baptisms that are being done to the victims of one of the most (if not the most) offensive event in human history. How sad for you.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Statements like this just reinforce what I said earlier. Mormons demand all this respect and to be allowed to do what they want, but yet, they are unwilling to afford that same respect to anyone else’s faith. How terribly sad for you.

Yes, the IGI does give the impression that someone listed there is mormon, instead of showing the truth. By not showing that this is a posthumous baptism, it is deception by omission. Why can’t the lds just be upfront and make a notation that the baptism is posthumous. That shouldn’t hurt anything right?

Back to the real issue though, the lds agreed to clean up their act on the issue, and did not. 13 years of talks and “working together”, and the lds cannot/will not keep up their end of the agreement, How sad for you.

From what I have read, there is a 95 year rule for proxy baptisms.
A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work. It states on page 14 that “If the person was born within the last 95 years, obtain permission for the ordinances from the person’s closest living relative.” Are these people not good at math, or are they just ignoring what the rules are for these baptisms?
avotaynu.com/mormon.htm
Something that is not being considered is that this “offer” that is being made on behalf of the deceased, can be offensive. Just because you “offer” something doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive. i.e. I am offering to cut off all of your fingers, and super glue them to your forehead.

Your arrogance and lack of compassion for these individuals is just as offensive as the proxy baptisms that are being done to the victims of one of the most (if not the most) offensive event in human history. How sad for you.

EXCELLENT post!

 

[Christian55]

**Finrock started a new thread entitled, Understanding Mormon Doctrine. However, he never really answered the serious issues on this Thread:
**
Quote:

Originally Posted by Finrock
Greetings everyone!
Fortunately, the LDS church believes that all things pertaining to the Church must be done “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27, 1 Cor. 14:40). In the Church, the canonized book of scripture that provides the fundamental instructions on how the Church is to be organized and governed, is the Doctrine and Covenants. In it, is defined the governing bodies of the Church. . . . .

Finrock used two posts to open his defense of Mormon Doctrine on his new Thread. So, I refer all who read this post to refer to Finrok’s full commentary, on Thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine.”

**First, the very founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, made prophecies that did not come true. There are seven prophecies that are very specific and cannot be explained away using allegory.
**
Link to article entitled, Failed Prophecies of Joseph Smith: (Copyright © 1997 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved)irr.org/mit/js-failed-prophecies.html

The article cites the seven prophecies from “Latter-day Saint scriptures or the History of the Church (HC), a seven volume history published under the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon.)”

The Holy Scriptures of the Bible are very clear about the test of a true prophet—the prophecies must come true, as proclaimed in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (ESV): 21And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— 22when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Then, there is the Adam/god doctrine discussed on the following link:
mrm.org/adam-god

**Mormonism Research Ministry
“Adam-God” - Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine?
By Bill McKeever
**
“Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.) How can a Latter-day Saint maintain this was just Brigham’s opinion when he insisted God gave him the teaching?”

“It may surprise some, but Brigham Young’s Adam-God connection is in harmony with the teachings of Joseph Smith. It was Joseph Smith who declared that Adam was, in fact, the Ancient of Days. Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 116:1; 138:38 all state that Adam is the Ancient of Days."

contact@mrm.org
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.

---

**Brigham Young is quoted in the article as saying, “God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth.”

So, Brigham Young not only claimed that God is Adam, he also claimed, “Adam holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation.”

The article goes on to say that Joseph Smith’s claim that Adam was the Ancient of Days comes from “Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 116:1; 138:38.”

So, how can you claim (as you did on another Thread) there is no Adam/god doctrine, if it is stated in the Doctrine and Covenants?
**
I would urge you to follow the links to these websites, and then read the sources that are cited; before you continue defending the LDS Church. LDS members do leave the church, once they discover the truth of Mormon origins.

 

[ricko]

The Book of Mormon is by your own prophets words “The most correct book ever written” Written by a man who is now an angel and translated by God Himself through Joseph Smith. How much more can you ask for? So since God, angels and Joseph Smith were all involved in writing the Book of Mormon then everything in the BOM is doctrine, no?

Looks like my post may have gotten overlooked. So I ask again, since it is the most correct book ever written and is translated by God, then everything in the Book of Mormon is doctrine. Correct?

 

[Christian55]

Looks like my post may have gotten overlooked. So I ask again, since it is the most correct book ever written and is translated by God, then everything in the Book of Mormon is doctrine. Correct?

Ricko,

Finrock started a new Thread, “Understanding Mormon Doctrine.”

I’ve been searching his Posts. I’m starting to see a pattern here: when tough questions arise, he seems to just move on to a different Thread.

So, I’m not surprised you didn’t receive a response to your post.

You might want to ask it again on Finrock’s new Thread.

 

[zerinus]

Looks like my post may have gotten overlooked. So I ask again, since it is the most correct book ever written and is translated by God, then everything in the Book of Mormon is doctrine. Correct?

It is. What is your point?

 

[ricko]

It is. What is your point?

You don’t have to be so touchy Zerinus.
Thank you for your answer.

My point is that there are many things the Mormons believe that conflict with the BOM. These things have been brought up many times before. Remember? If you can’t I’ll be happy to post them again. If you do remember, then doctrine was changed from what the BOM teaches. Explain this please.