Maureen

Probably like in the OT the Jews were judged by the Law because they had it, while the Gentiles were not because they did not have the Law. So the same could apply here. A person cannot be judged for being ignorant of a certain type of knowledge. Faith is produced because some have come to that knowledge. You cannot have faith in something you do not know exists. M.

That's because they are NOT the same person.For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. Wrong. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord, You are correct Faerie you are not able to understand the doctrine. I don't fully understand it but what I do understand I do accept. And thanks inactivetx for "The Creed of Saint Athanasius". I've copied it for myself. The best part of the creed is this: … that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; One altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; M.

That's the goofiest statement ever.A person can question historical events without loosing faith (hope) that those events are indeed true. M.

The same day Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to him and asked him, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and father children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children he left his wife to his brother. The second did the same, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” Jesus answered them, “You are deceived, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living!” When the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. (Matthew 22:23-33) In viewing these verses in context the real subject is the resurrection. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection they of course were ignorant of what happens when one is resurrected (like most people are since we really don’t know). They are asking a question (hypothetically taking the side of someone who believes in a resurrection) presuming that what we do here as human beings we will do and have also when resurrected. Since Jesus knew their state of mind he answered by not really acknowledging their specific question. They asked, “Whose wife of the seven will she be?” She had married several times and they just assumed that she would remain married after death. Jesus did not say she would not still be married, he just said that marriage does not take place once we are resurrected giving the impression that marriage and being married was not important once you are resurrected. In describing the resurrected as “like angels in heaven” Jesus is giving the impression that the resurrected are celestial beings. The resurrected will have bodies but they will not have earthly bodies, they will have celestial ones (why would a celestial being need to be married?). And the main point Christ was making is the fact that those who are resurrected are no longer dead, but living. M.

Okay prove it without using any LDS canonized scripture. Any secular source independent of the gospels from the NT would be great.M.

Great minds think alike!M.

The last time I talked with LDS missionaries they gave me the impression they wanted to emphasize that only the LDS church has a prophet. It seemed to me that having a prophet was more important than making Christ the centre of their religion.On the anti-family remark. PD is correct about the temple's involvement with an anti-family attitude. But not only cannot non-members attend a temple wedding but non-endowed members also cannot attend. My husband's youngest sister was not able to attend either of her LDS brothers' sealings. But she was able to attend our wedding and so was the rest of his family. I guess it really comes down to what is expected. A non-mormon family attending a wedding ceremony is customary. I was 7 when I went to my first wedding ceremony and reception. But growing up Mormon - a child grows up expecting not to attend a sealing until they are endowed. So in a way it also depends on what your expectations are. M.

Yes, I agree that could be the case. Judging people is all about perception. My husband may perceive things in people that may not be true. I do disagree with his assessment. His brother (the new Branch president) is a sweetheart and I do not believe he has that "holier-than-thou" attitude. Now I have a SIL that might be one of those types though. I wouldn't say that my husband is one of those lustful people. Although he still has the "hots" for me. M.

Are you using the word you as in referring to me or are you using it in a general way?M.

Quite the contrary:So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22-31 – NET Bible) Paul was pointing out to the men of Athens that the God they are ignorant of is the very God they should get to know, the very God he is preaching about. M.

I think this statement shows signs of a persecution complex.M.

I think that's the perfect description. I couldn't agree more.M.

This statement comes close: Anybody who actively on a regular basis disagees with Mormon doctrine and philosphies is anti-Mormon. Except I think "actively" must be defined. If you are a person who does not tolerate the preaching of Mormon doctrine and therefore "actively" talks against it - I would consider that "anti". My husband is the first to confess he is "anti". I think for him though he kind of dwells on his childhood and how he feels his parents (somewhat exaggerate) "rammed religion down his throat". He finds Mormonism a little anti-family due to the temple and unproductive due to missions (or in other words a waste of 2 good years). He even thinks that generally speaking Mormons think they are better than others because they are Mormons - even some of his family members. I disagree with him on that one regarding his own family. He does enjoy reading about Mormon history though and sees many Mormons as being very ignorant and unappreciative of it. M.

I assume that the Tanners are as digusted at Decker as is the rest of decent society. I would agree with that. M.

You could give these links a try: Eternal Progression Godhood M.

I'm pretty sure Decker and the Tanners work independently from one another. Ed Decker may have used information from the Tanners research but personally I doubt it. I think Ed put his own touch into The Godmakers.M.

Not quite. If you follow the thread Snow starts off as the Dad and eventually morphs into the MOM (his remark about the pretty shoes should have given us the hint that something was up).M.

Thanks for the info, Snow. My BIL (husband's brother) has been called as a Branch President. He is working to get his Master's degree (or either it's his PHd I can't remember which) in Psychology and travels a lot to do chartering. He is also diabetic and has had some other health scares recently, so hopefully it won't add too much extra work for him.M.

It must have been fast surgery since yesterday afternoon he was still a Dad. M.

The MOM? Snow, when did this happen? I thought that kind of surgery was against LDS church policy/doctrine. M.

Good for her!! By the way what does a Branch President do? Is it similar to a Bishop but smaller (even if the fella is over 6 feet tall)? M.

Wrong!http://exmormon.8m.com/browns2.html An excerpt from the link above says this: (I also have the book “Can The Browns Save Joseph Smith?” It’s been awhile since I’ve read it but the words do sound familiar) <span style='color:red'>The Tanners shortly responded to these charges in a book they wrote in 1981 titled "Can The Browns Save Joseph Smith?" I'm about to reprint a large portion of this book, because to be be honest with you, the Tanners are very capable of defending themselves and I find it best to just let them speak for themselves. I have received permission from the Tanners to quote from this book, about the charges made against them by the Browns. The reply to the quotes above, the Tanners wrote: While the Browns would have their readers believe that we covered up the situation until they and Moody Press forced us "to come clean," the truth of the matter is that we commenced our own investigation into Nelson's credentials as soon as we became convinced there was a problem. The results of that investigation were published immediately in the Salt Lake Messager. The Browns have reproduced our letter to Mr. Nelson, written March 11-12, 1980, but have cut out a very important part (see pages 256-258 of their book). The portion omitted contains this statement: "If it turns out you do not have a Dr.'s degree, honesty would demand that I make a public statement to that effect. Otherwise, I would find myself in the same position as the Mormon leaders who concealed the true identity of 'Dr. Webb.'" On page 2 of the same letter we indicated that as early as March 3, 1980 we were planning on turning the matter "over to the Associated Press," but changed our mind when we heard that a man from Arizona claimed the "missing university had apparently been located." This report, of course, turned out to be incorrect. On page 6 of this letter the reader will find this statement: "In any case, I feel it is my obligation to make this information available to the public. I will, therefore, probably be printing hundreds or even thousands of copies of this letter to distribute to the general public. I am convinced that our case against the Book of Abraham is absolutely devastating, and I would not want to weaken it in any way by trying to cover up or remain silent concerning such an important matter." By March 20, 1980 we had learned that Pacific Northwestern University was really a diploma mill and wrote to Nelson that his "claim to a doctor's degree in anthropology cannot be substantiated. Even though we have never made this claim, we feel that it would not be right for us to continue selling your booklets." Just about one week after we wrote this letter to Nelson we were contacted by Charles F. Trentelman of the Ogden Standard-Examiner. Mr. Trentelman had heard that Nelson's credentials had been questioned and asked us if we could throw any light on the subject. We informed him of all we had learned about Pacific Northwestern University, and on March 29, 1980 he wrote the following: "In his letter to the Tanners, Nelson describes contacting Pacific Northwestern University in 1977 and inquiring about obtaining a doctorate." "The degree was granted after taking some courses and submitting a thesis, Nelson says in the letter. But the school, Nelson admitted, was not accredited." "Mrs. Tanner told the Standard-Examiner she and her husband tried to find out about Pacific Northwestern University and learned from federal authorities in Seattle that it had been ordered to shut down, although no charges were brought against it." "But, she said, the Tanners are cutting themselves loose from Nelson, stopping sales of his pamphlets and discontinuing all support of him or his lectures." (Standard Examiner, March 29, 1980) Immediately after Mr. Trentelman's article appeared in the Ogden Standard-Examiner, we published the 42nd issue of the Salt Lake Messager. This was printed in April 1980 and fully exposed Nelson's deception with regard to the doctor's degree A copy of this paper was mailed to the Moody Bible Library, and there was no attempt to hide the matter from anyone. As a matter of fact, we printed somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 copies of this issue. You can read more in detail from the above link. M.

From what I can remember and it's been awhile since I've read about Dr. Walter Martin or his work, same with Dee Jay Nelson and the Tanners - but - I believe the late Dr. Martin's credentials are legit. Dee Jay Nelson was a Mormon when he was asked to help with the BofA manuscripts that were found back in the '60's. I would not call The Tanner's book store and such "a for-profit" business but "a for-living" business. It's how they make their living - or it was - I believe either they both have now retired or just Jerald has retired. I've never really been interested in Ed Decker so I don't know much about him.M.

I don't think that could be construed as a compliment. Especially if you've ever seen a picture of him...... Comparing this picture with one from the book I'm reading I would say that Porter is probably in his late 30's. There is a reason why Porter kept his hair long. It appears that JS told Port that <span style='color:blue'>"if he wore his hair long his enemies should not have the power over him neither should he be overcome by evil". When he was in California he went to visit Don Carlos Smith's widow, Agnes. She had remarried and emigrated to California. When Porter first saw Agnes she was just recovering from typhoid fever and had lost all her hair. A letter by Elizabeth Roundy tells the story (which it seems Porter had told Mrs. Roundy about this visit) about Porter and Agnes' visit: "...When he met Sister Smith he had no gold dust or money to give her, so he had his hair cut to make her a wig and from that time he said he could not control the desire for strong drink, nor the habit of swearing." I've just started reading this book "Man of God, Son of Thunder". The man led a very eventful life. M.

I'm adding my 2cents to this thread:OPR murdered Lieutenant Frank Worrell of the Carthage Greys. One of the men acquitted of the murder of JS and Hyrum Smith. After the acquittals mayhem ensued between the Mormons and Gentiles (anti-Mormons). Several Mormon settlements were reduced to cinders. The county sheriff, Jacob Backenstos, was having problems raising a posse to capture marauders. He was accused of siding with the Mormons. Friends warned him about a plot against his life. The morning of Sept. 16, 1845, Backenstos drove his carriage to Carthage. From the book Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God / Son of Thunder (pp 138-139) it reads: <span style='color:blue'>Lieutenant Frank Worrell of the Carthage Greys was flanked by two companions as he nudged his horse along the Warsaw road on the morning of September 16. Behind the three riders came five other men in a light rig and a two-horse wagon containing rifles. As they approached the Nauvoo road, Worrell pointed to a carriage nearing the crossroads in front of them. "It's that damn Backenstos," he shouted, spurring forward. Backenstos had been eyeing the riders closely as they drew nearer, and when the lead horseman suddenly slapped his mount to a gallop, the sheriff laid on the whip and urged his own animal to top speed. Having the advantage of a two-hundred-yard lead, Backenstos disappeared over the brow of a hill before the rider could overtake him. As it happened Rockwell and another Mormon, Return Jackson Redden, were watering their horses near a railroad siding when they spotted Backenstos charging straight at them. His pursuers were still out of sight beyond the rise. Rockwell and Redden, who had been assisting burned-out Mormon families in moving their possessions, sensed trouble and reached for their guns. The sheriff pulled hard on the reins and jerked to a stop in a cloud of dust. Backenstos sputtered in his haste to get the words out; he ordered the two Mormons to protect him "in the name of the state of Illinois, County of Hancock," from the "mob" at his heels. "Don't worry," Rockwell said, "We've got our pistols and two rifles." No sooner had he spoken than two horsemen appeared on the crest of the hill and raced down on them. Worrell was well ahead of the closest man; the other had been thrown when his horse stumbled. Once the two were within hailing distance the sheriff shouted an order to stop. In answer, Worrell reached for his pistol. Before he could bring the gun to bear, a ball from Rockwell's rifle tore into his abdomen and catapulted Worrell from the saddle. At the sound of the shot the second rider frantically wheeled his horse and galloped to the wagon and buggy now arriving on the scene. The men gazed in disbelief at Worrell's crumpled form on the ground. Under Rockwell's cold gaze they gathered up their wounded leader and carried him to the wagon; he died before they reached Warsaw. Footnotes show Peter Wilson Conover, "Autobiography," MS, p. 20; Gregg, History of Hancock County, pp. 340-341. At the watering hole there were witnesses who gave testimonoy at the sheriff's trial for murder. Eventually around May 1846, OPR was arrested for the murrder of Frank Worrell. OPR: Man of God / Son of Thunder (pp 146-149) reads: But his capture was in fact a carefully hatched plan to temporarily divert the attention of the anti-Mormon party and gain precious time for the Saints. Because Backenstos was prepared to testify that he had ordered Rockwell to shoot Worrell, church authorities were of the opinion that an impartail jury would not return a guilty verdict. Rockwell had agreed to face trial on first-degree murder charges, but the plan involved obtaining a change of venue to a court more favorable to the Saints.....Ultimately, the request for a change of venue to Galena, one hundred and fifty miles to the north in Daviess County , was granted - and not a moment too soon. A grand jury handed down an indictment against Rockwell by the first of June and ordered him to appear for trial the following month. Babbitt, after relieving his client of a gold watch as a fee for his services, subpoenaed his star witness, Sheriff Backenstos, and Rockwell was promptly freed. M.