False Teachers

[Traveler]

In the first public address where Jesus taught his doctrine he warned his followers for all time to beware false prophets and false teachers. The scriptures give many indications of how to identify a false teacher or prophet but may I make a simple suggestion? A true teacher of the teachings of Jesus Christ teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. A false teacher teaches something else. Is this idea simple enough to grasp a concept here? A false teacher may teach some truth once in a while - perhaps even by accident but if they ever publish and teach false doctrine they are not a true teacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agree or not? Now I would like the readers of this forum to consider something that is and has been going of since Joseph Smith proclaimed he had seen a vision. Various teacher of religion have been publishing and teaching their version of the LDS gospel of Jesus Christ. In almost every case the doctrine is distorted - at least according to my LDS point of view. Beside the fact they distort our doctrine I have another problem with them teaching our doctrine. Here is the problem I have with someone other than LDS teaching our doctrine. If our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is right then they should join with us in our faith in Jesus Christ. If it is not the true doctrine of Jesus Christ why would they teach it unless they are false teachers? Do we not agree that if a teacher teaches something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ they are a false teacher?

Let us now open our scriptures to Galatians 1:6-9

6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This scripture tells us that even if an angel tells you to do so the followers of Jesus Christ are not to teach any other gospel other than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If they teach any thing else - “let him be accursed”

I submit that it is a doctrine of Christ that his teachers only teach his gospel. So here is an sure fire way to identify a false teacher according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If a LDS teaches Catholic doctrine - they are false teachers. If a Baptist publishes a book or pamphlet on LDS doctrine - they are false teachers. If some anti LDS poster comes onto a forum like this one and in any way tries to teach LDS doctrine or represent LDS doctrine in any light - know this, that they are a false teacher. Why? Because a true teacher of Jesus Christ will only teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing else.

If you are a member of any organization that teaches and publishes doctrine of LDS or Jehovah Witnesses or any other faith other that what they say is the real gospel of Jesus Christ - you ought to find a different organization upon which to base your eternal salvation. If you are involved in any publications that teach any doctrine other than the doctrine of Jesus Christ - even if they say it is false - I recommend you turn from such false teachers and seek true teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ that do not “pervert” the truth by teaching any thing else.

The Traveler

[Jason]

traveler,

Do you realize you've just condemned Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and most of the early LDS leaders?

I think you're trying too hard.

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 17 2004, 10:44 PM

traveler,

Do you realize you've just condemned Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and most of the early LDS leaders?

I think you're trying too hard.

You got that right!

Brigham Young taught a butt-ugly doctrine called "Blood Atonement".

(Jesus never taught such a thing!)

(Jesus indicated that his sacrifice--as sacrificial Lamb--would be a "once for all" sacrifice, for sin)

(Brigham wanted "thieves and adulturers"--specifically--to pay for their own sins with their own blood and life: the reason--Christ's Sacrifice didn't "stretch" far enough to include them!)

(And, that's just ONE of the weird things that BY taught).

Joseph Smith--God love him--taught that there were "Men in the Moon"

(I don't rightly know if he was possibly referring to the future Reverend Moon and "the Moonies"; or, if he saw Neil Armstrong, in vision, "bouncing along" on the surface of the moon 130 years later; or, if he saw a bunch of little gnomes, up there, eating cheese off of the Lunar Surface)

(Who knows?)

(I'll give it to him, though, because people make mistakes--even the "...prophet [whom] we revere."

PS: Whover the hell taught the people to revere Joseph Smith, Jr. should be hauled out of his grave and SHOT!

Conversation among the dead: "[Joseph], See that ye do it not!"

Jos. Smith, Jr: "Do what not, John [the Baptist]?"

John (again): "Why, 'fall down and worship me', Joseph."

Jos. Smith, Jr: "Why, John, why: seeing that you are resurrected and all?"

John (again): "Because I am your fellow servant, Joseph."

Joseph: "Oh! I see that now. Okay, I won't do that, then [he says, standing back up, again]."

Average man who likes to argue and thrash and posture: I will "revere" Joseph Smith anyway! (That's what our leaders tell us to do, and I am a good blind sheep who doesn't know what to do without further light and information, etcetera from fearless leaders with double standards).

Do you know of ANY of our fearless leaders who have said, "We don't believe in worshipping Joseph Smith, even though we sing that glorious song, and all, about 'reverencing' him."

Huuuuh?

(Oh, what a tangled web people weave: contorting themselves into pretzels in order to "fit" properly--and if not twisting themselves, surely the twisting of the truth, then.

DEFINITION:

Revere: Worship; adore; and/or "bow down to" (in order to shine their shoes).

Finally, I value the contributions that Jos. Smith made, but--like Smith himself--I will take The Baptist's [John's] advice: I will not fall down to revere, nor sing in such a way!

(I can just about hear Joseph saying, "GET UP, YOU FOOLS: SEE THAT YE DO IT NOT".)

And, that's all I got to say about that, now!

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by JLHyde+Jul 18 2004, 01:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JLHyde @ Jul 18 2004, 01:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Jul 17 2004, 10:44 PM

traveler,

Do you realize you've just condemned Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and most of the early LDS leaders?

I think you're trying too hard.

You got that right!

Brigham Young taught a butt-ugly doctrine called "Blood Atonement".

(Jesus never taught such a thing!)

(Jesus indicated that his sacrifice--as sacrificial Lamb--would be a "once for all" sacrifice, for sin)

(Brigham wanted "thieves and adulturers"--specifically--to pay for their own sins with their own blood and life: the reason--Christ's Sacrifice didn't "stretch" far enough to include them!)

(And, that's just ONE of the weird things that BY taught).

Joseph Smith--God love him--taught that there were "Men in the Moon"

(I don't rightly know if he was possibly referring to the future Reverend Moon and "the Moonies"; or, if he saw Neil Armstrong, in vision, "bouncing along" on the surface of the moon 130 years later; or, if he saw a bunch of little gnomes, up there, eating cheese off of the Lunar Surface)

(Who knows?)

(I'll give it to him, though, because people make mistakes--even the "...prophet [whom] we revere."

PS: Whover the hell taught the people to revere Joseph Smith, Jr. should be hauled out of his grave and SHOT!

Conversation among the dead: "[Joseph], See that ye do it not!"

Jos. Smith, Jr: "Do what not, John [the Baptist]?"

John (again): "Why, 'fall down and worship me', Joseph."

Jos. Smith, Jr: "Why, John, why: seeing that you are resurrected and all?"

John (again): "Because I am your fellow servant, Joseph."

Joseph: "Oh! I see that now. Okay, I won't do that, then [he says, standing back up, again]."

Average man who likes to argue and thrash and posture: I will "revere" Joseph Smith anyway! (That's what our leaders tell us to do, and I am a good blind sheep who doesn't know what to do without further light and information, etcetera from fearless leaders with double standards).

Do you know of ANY of our fearless leaders who have said, "We don't believe in worshipping Joseph Smith, even though we sing that glorious song, and all, about 'reverencing' him."

Huuuuh?

(Oh, what a tangled web people weave: contorting themselves into pretzels in order to "fit" properly--and if not twisting themselves, surely the twisting of the truth, then.

DEFINITION:

Revere: Worship; adore; and/or "bow down to" (in order to shine their shoes).

Finally, I value the contributions that Jos. Smith made, but--like Smith himself--I will take The Baptist's [John's] advice: I will not fall down to revere, nor sing in such a way!

(I can just about hear Joseph saying, "GET UP, YOU FOOLS: SEE THAT YE DO IT NOT".)

And, that's all I got to say about that, now!

Caveat: Of course, if you are "blind enough not to see Joseph" when he is standing right there, in front of you, then maybe you are better off, prostrating yourself in the dirt and the mud--right where you belong!

So, go ahead! REVERE! REVERE!

(And, then, because you revere both God AND Joseph Smith, you have become like the weird pagans all around you, all over again!)

O, Happy Day!

[Traveler]

In a court of law in this country no witness is allowed to testify for someone else. Such a witness is considered a false witness. Do not the scriptures indicate that no man is to be judged without hearing him? I only ask that LDS be allowed to teach their doctrine as with all - Teach their doctrine not someone else's.

Two terms in scripture translated into Devil are Advisory and Slandered. I would also point out that Jesus condemned the deeds of others but did not condemn them for doctrine. The concept that we are judged by G-d for our deeds and not doctrine is well documented in scripture.

It is my personal belief that Satan and those that follow him will not teach the gospel love and of truth but will attack like wolfs.

As for religious thought - there is an old saying: “If you cannot find anything good to say about someone it is better you do not say anything.” Jesus had his version in the Sermon on the Mt. When he said in essence treat others as you would have them (or G-d) treat you. It is my recommendation that we all follow the advice of Jesus - especially if we expect his forgiveness and grace. The scripture that says not to judge others can be better translated to say do not condemn others. But you can all do according the spirit that teaches and directs you.

The Traveler

[srm]

Originally posted by JLHyde@Jul 18 2004, 12:48 AM

[

u]Brigham Young taught a butt-ugly doctrine called "Blood Atonement".

(Jesus never taught such a thing!)

Matt. 18: 6

Luke 19: 27

[Lindy]

Good point srm!

I think that cut off, pluck out and slay might involve some blood spilt yes.

And I see what Traveler was saying about teaching others something that you don't have first hand experience with.

There is a difference with those who "used" to be LDS sharing their anti thoughts and feelings about the religion, and those who "are" LDS sharing their insights.

Kind of like a music teacher coaching football. :)

(Unless of course he/she plays the game)

[porterrockwell]

Look, Do you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, do you believe that he translated the Book of Mormon through the power of God? If so then what is the problem. None have led you astray if you still believe in the church. I have found that those who teach false doctrine within the church are taken care of by the Lord. Traveler, maybe you are overthinking this a little bit.

[Jason]

Mark,

Of course Paul was referring to those "christians" were we now call "gnostics" that turned Christ into something He was not. I understand your application to the LDS church, and it does indeed have merit.

I suppose my question to you would be,whether or not you think that Mormons are following God to the best of their knowledge, or if they under the power of the "angel of light" who apparently is Lucifer?

You said: "The LDS Church preaches another Jesus, another gospel, and make themselves apostles and prophets while doing so. Joseph Smith claimed to see a angel of light in one of his many visions."

Im not familiar with this. It's my impression that Joseph Smith usually named all the "angels" he saw. Are you claiming that "moroni/nephi" is Lucifer? Im not arguing against you, but Im trying to clarify what you mean.

"The LDS church does a 180 from the Historic Christain faith in all the Essential doctrines revealed to us in the bible. I understand this is where they say the LDS church has 'more light' or something to that effect, but the bottom line is, as always, they use biblical isogesis to press thier agenda."

Im not sure how you can say that they've done a 180. To me, it's more like a 40 degree alteration. And using the word "agenda" only charges the discussion. If you want to be technical, even Christ has an "agenda". Don't make it sound like only Mormons want to convert the world. Wouldnt you agree that even Christians would like to see Mormons converted to a more orthodox position?

"The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being and has/had(?) the same nature as Lucifer ( either Jesus was angelic by nature or Lucifer was god by nature, you pick. ) "

Good point. I've never really thought of it like that. That might be why Traveler and Ray insist that more than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be of the "god" classification. It would be necessary if one was to accept the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price as scripture. Thanks for the insight.

"If you want and believe mormonism is true, fine, but don't say that LDS teachings are Christain teachings because they are not and it is easly proved."

Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that LDS teachings have Christian teachings, as well as unique mormon teachings?

"LDS teachings are just that, LDS teachings, they have nothing to do with what Bible teaches on the essentials of the historic christian faith."

I disagree. Mormons teach faith, repentance, and baptism for the remision of sins. Though they certainly have expounded on that more than most, what could be more basic than that?

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jul 18 2004, 07:45 AM

In a court of law in this country no witness is allowed to testify for someone else.  Such a witness is considered a false witness.  Do not the scriptures indicate that no man is to be judged without hearing him?  I only ask that LDS be allowed to teach their doctrine as with all - Teach their doctrine not someone else's.

Two terms in scripture translated into Devil are Advisory and Slandered.  I would also point out that Jesus condemned the deeds of others but did not condemn them for doctrine.  The concept that we are judged by G-d for our deeds and not doctrine is well documented in scripture. 

It is my personal belief that Satan and those that follow him will not teach the gospel love and of truth but will attack like wolfs.

As for religious thought - there is an old saying: “If you cannot find anything good to say about someone it is better you do not say anything.”  Jesus had his version in the Sermon on the Mt.  When he said in essence treat others as you would have them (or G-d) treat you.  It is my recommendation that we all follow the advice of Jesus - especially if we expect his forgiveness and grace.  The scripture that says not to judge others can be better translated to say do not condemn others.  But you can all do according the spirit that teaches and directs you.

The Traveler

Judged by "deeds" but not "doctrine"? Boy, are you "a-twisting and a'turning", me boy-o. (To partially quote an old Scottish Saintly Mormon Saint).

Wm. James, a noted psychoanalyst, once said, "As a man thinks, so is he."

(And then up jump all those shrinks of his, James', day and cry, together, "Eureka!")

Well, duh? [Alas, Wm. James was quoting Scripture!]:

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

Concentrate, now. Don't get distracted. The point of the above statements begs a question (actually many questions):

1) What was Dr. James saying? That a single thought determines what we are? That, rather, a "stream of consciousness" determines what we are?

2) If a "shrink" quotes Scripture, does that minimize or maximize the truth or truths contained in those scriptures?

3) Does the quoting of "universal truths" by a non-cleric; a non-religious person; a non-Christian; or, a non-Mormon make "null and void such utterances?

4) If "doctrines" are the thoughts of an adherent [or, "thoughts that a believer of such thoughts/ideas thinketh]; and, if "thoughts are the seeds from which actions follow"....

...then your ideas, expressed above, are just plain incoherent jibberish!

From what the Scriptures THEMSELVES say, your position is....untenable.

CLEARLY, you do as those sectarians are quick to do: you take truth out of context and try to advance an idea based on such a "twisting" of it.

Also--and more importantly, though--your "greater sin" is in what you did NOT say but which is evidently part of your very own personal belief system--your very own personal doctrine:

your doctrine is that "Mormon doctrine stands within the sphere of Mormonism".

Scriptures teach that "Truth stands independently in it which it is to be found."

Or, "if you find a gold nugget [metaphor] in Utee Country, I guess that rules out calling it

1) an Indian nugget

2) a Yutah nugget; or, [especially]

3) a Mormon nugget

TRUTH is "independent" of all yer posturing, son!

(You've been a'watching too many church leaders posturing, and yoov taken a right shine to a'follering them there posturers: know what ah mean, son?)

That's okay [maybe]: you're just ignorint! (But, iff'n yer ignorince turns into ignorant arrogance, then you will--SOMEDAY, like Paul H. Dunn--have that lying arrogance come and catch up with you!

Know what I mean?

(Caveat: No. I didn't hate Paul Dunn: like Christ, I hate "feet that run swiftly toward [and into] trouble".)

(And yoov been a'running!)

And, we isn't just whistling Dixie, here, son!

[Guest JLHyde]

Originally posted by JLHyde+Jul 25 2004, 02:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JLHyde @ Jul 25 2004, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jul 18 2004, 07:45 AM

In a court of law in this country no witness is allowed to testify for someone else.  Such a witness is considered a false witness.  Do not the scriptures indicate that no man is to be judged without hearing him?  I only ask that LDS be allowed to teach their doctrine as with all - Teach their doctrine not someone else's.

Two terms in scripture translated into Devil are Advisory and Slandered.  I would also point out that Jesus condemned the deeds of others but did not condemn them for doctrine.  The concept that we are judged by G-d for our deeds and not doctrine is well documented in scripture. 

It is my personal belief that Satan and those that follow him will not teach the gospel love and of truth but will attack like wolfs.

As for religious thought - there is an old saying: “If you cannot find anything good to say about someone it is better you do not say anything.”  Jesus had his version in the Sermon on the Mt.  When he said in essence treat others as you would have them (or G-d) treat you.  It is my recommendation that we all follow the advice of Jesus - especially if we expect his forgiveness and grace.  The scripture that says not to judge others can be better translated to say do not condemn others.  But you can all do according the spirit that teaches and directs you.

The Traveler

Judged by "deeds" but not "doctrine"? Boy, are you "a-twisting and a'turning", me boy-o. (To partially quote an old Scottish Saintly Mormon Saint).

Wm. James, a noted psychoanalyst, once said, "As a man thinks, so is he."

(And then up jump all those shrinks of his, James', day and cry, together, "Eureka!")

Well, duh? [Alas, Wm. James was quoting Scripture!]:

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

Concentrate, now. Don't get distracted. The point of the above statements begs a question (actually many questions):

1) What was Dr. James saying? That a single thought determines what we are? That, rather, a "stream of consciousness" determines what we are?

2) If a "shrink" quotes Scripture, does that minimize or maximize the truth or truths contained in those scriptures?

3) Does the quoting of "universal truths" by a non-cleric; a non-religious person; a non-Christian; or, a non-Mormon make "null and void such utterances?

4) If "doctrines" are the thoughts of an adherent [or, "thoughts that a believer of such thoughts/ideas thinketh]; and, if "thoughts are the seeds from which actions follow"....

...then your ideas, expressed above, are just plain incoherent jibberish!

From what the Scriptures THEMSELVES say, your position is....untenable.

CLEARLY, you do as those sectarians are quick to do: you take truth out of context and try to advance an idea based on such a "twisting" of it.

Also--and more importantly, though--your "greater sin" is in what you did NOT say but which is evidently part of your very own personal belief system--your very own personal doctrine:

your doctrine is that "Mormon doctrine stands within the sphere of Mormonism".

Scriptures teach that "Truth stands independently in it which it is to be found."

Or, "if you find a gold nugget [metaphor] in Utee Country, I guess that rules out calling it

1) an Indian nugget

2) a Yutah nugget; or, [especially]

3) a Mormon nugget

TRUTH is "independent" of all yer posturing, son!

(You've been a'watching too many church leaders posturing, and yoov taken a right shine to a'follering them there posturers: know what ah mean, son?)

That's okay [maybe]: you're just ignorint! (But, iff'n yer ignorince turns into ignorant arrogance, then you will--SOMEDAY, like Paul H. Dunn--have that lying arrogance come and catch up with you!

Know what I mean?

(Caveat: No. I didn't hate Paul Dunn: like Christ, I hate "feet that run swiftly toward [and into] trouble".)

(And yoov been a'running!)

And, we isn't just whistling Dixie, here, son!

Clarification:

"Truth stands independently in the sphere in which it is to be found".

[Guest JLHyde]

You "seemeth to me" to be an intellectual trying to "prove" something!

(Because, quite frankly, you used the word "prove").

The Scriptures, themselves, reprove of sin: therefore, let us all be diligent in studying them--even the more difficult parts (like Joseph Smith's favorite parts, in the Old Testament).

And, the more people read the more they will have cause to reflect and to repent of following hard after vanity and vain-glorying [vainglorious ways] and in wresting the Scriptures, to their own destruction; and, in "putting their trust in the arm of flesh".

Of course, some day--in a day hereafter--the "wicked will be slain". Jesus quoted a time that would come AFTER, when the wicked would be brought to be slain. But, his is not such a "kingdom": not a kingdom of violence (in contrast to Brigham Young's 'Empire').

Brigham "turned away back", and became like the King of England, all over again!

Jesus Christ taught differently, in Mark 10--toward the end of the chapter, for all those who are lazy and want it spoon-fed to them, right here and right now.

What kind of "king" was Jesus?

(His "Kingdom" is not patterned after any earthly "kingdom": that is why Brigham Young stands as a good example of Proverbs 26:11)

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

What folly?

How about trying to "set up" three of his, Brigham's, relatives (two sons and a nephew?) as Apostles at October Gen'l Conference, l877--and then "abdicating" as President, so the "reins of the Church" would then automatically go to "Young Briggie" (with the assurance of a continuance of the Young Dynasty for many years to come: especially in light of the fact that there would then be three people named Young among the Quorum of the Twelve).

Ah, but what happened? What happened? (What happened to "the best laid plans of those mice and men")?

Answer: "They [those plans]....went astray!"

I mean, if ever you believed that God WOULD thump a prophet who became too full of himself and went "a'whoring after his own way", then this is a clear example of God taking a prophet out of the way!

O, the scandal, the scandal! [but, there never WAS a scandal]

Dr. Seymour Young--another relative of B.Y.--was the attending physician who attended Brigham at the latter's home when he, Brigham lay a'dying from arsenic poisoning! And, it was he, Doctor Seymour, who--fifteen years later "doctored up"--or, "fudged"--the official death certificate by erasing out the actual cause of death and inserting the word appendicitis.

How convenient! (This really only had the net effect of covering up the identity of the person who had done him in) !

So, magically, the "scandal" gets swept under the rug before it ever becomes one!

So....fast forward...Elder Packer "judiciously" tries to "sweep the Paul H. Dunn scandal"--where else?--"under the rug, before it could ever become one!"

Of course, the operative word, in the second case is "tries" [or, "tried"].

The saga ends with a sobering poem,

Dunn lied

Packer tried

We cried

Dunn done died

---Burma Shave

And, thus we see the end of those who pervert the Ways of the Lord.

Soooo, soo many Mormons who actually believe that "The Kingdom of God" is an actual "kingdom"--like unto Brigham's or King George I's (who was overthrown in favor of liberty, I might add!).

The Good Book says, "The kingdom of God is within you!"

(So, to all of you schizophrenics and neurotic co-dependents, I just say, "Go ahead and appoint one of your multiple personalities to be king and let the rest of you--in your schizophrenic state--fall down and subject yourselves to that king that you have set up, within that kingdom which is within you!")

Duuuh?

You know nothing, only as you suppose: thrashing out your allegiance to an "earthly, kingly order": just like those king-men of the Book of Mormon, who were put down and slain!

As to the rest of Brigham Young's "personal saga", I still have to fill in some of those blanks. The Quorum of the Twelve--at October [1877] Conference--rejected two of B.Y.'s "nominees". Only "Young Briggie" was "installed" as an Apostle!

And, what of B.Y. "abdicating" (which he really wanted to do, anyway--after naming "Young Briggie" his successor)?

Well.......Brigham was poisoned in Aug/Sept, l877 and died just 6 weeks short of October Conference!

And, now you know "the rest of the story".

---[Paul Harvey]......Goooood Day!

Postscript: The truth is ugly. The truth must "out" [or, must "be told"]. Do not, my young friends, subscribe to sweeping the truth under the rug!

(You, too, could end up like either Paul Dunn (whom God tolerated for over 20 years, in his, Paul's, lies) or like Brigham Young--whose plans were "hatched and squashed" in a relatively much-shorter period of time!)

And, how do I know that it was 15 years before B.Y.'s death certificate was erased and written over? Because--in the medical field--there was no general knowledge of appendicitis until the early 1890s! (And, there is clear evidence of an erasure and of someone else's handwriting: Seymour Young's!)

(And that, my dear Watson, is elementary!)

Ralph Nader signing off.

(There's no glory in a "cover-up", and even less in bringing such a thing to light!)

(To the acerbic reader: try being less vain and vainglorious, for a change!)

[Lindy]

Hey Mark.....good to see you back... :)

The board was getting a bit boring without some of the works vs grace...etc disagreements.....

Now....I have something to read again.....THANK YOU!

[Guest lt]

HYDE......PLEASE CLEAN UP YOUR POSTS.....

Your welcome to not like the church and to not agree with it, but you cannot say anything bad about the church, its prophets or the members of this board. please be kinder when you reply.

Laureltree

[Mark]

Hi Jason,

You Said: " I suppose my question to you would be,whether or not you think that Mormons are following God to the best of their knowledge, or if they under the power of the "angel of light" who apparently is Lucifer?"

My point and belief is that the LDS church teaches ANOTHER JESUS and ANoTHER GOSPEL, as a member of the church for over 30 years I know that the god I believed in as a member is different from the God taught in the Bible...Is the angel of light that Joseph saw in vision Lucifer? I have no idea, but Paul warned us not to give heed to a angel of light, so I'll take the safe road there.

I believe LDS members follow 'God' to the best of thier knowlage, my point (and Pauls warning) is what God are they following? If you test the LDS God with the God of the bible you have two different Gods, its that simple.

You said: "Im not sure how you can say that they've done a 180. To me, it's more like a 40 degree alteration. And using the word "agenda" only charges the discussion. If you want to be technical, even Christ has an "agenda". Don't make it sound like only Mormons want to convert the world. Wouldnt you agree that even Christians would like to see Mormons converted to a more orthodox position?"

I believe and I also believe I can prove that LDS doctrine is the opposite of Biblical doctrine in most essential doctrines.....

1. Biblical God always God, LDS God once a man

2. Biblical Salvation is by God and God alone to ONLY those who believe and receive Grace, LDS salvation is automatic to all.

3. Biblical God is One God, LDS gods are uncountable ( although they teach they worship only two, most the time?)

Biblical Jesus is God who laid His reputation of God aside and took on the nature of man, LDS Jesus was created and is by nature the same essence as Satan (Jesus and Lucifer were brothers)

4. Biblical God atoned for our sins on the cross, LDS God did it in the Graden.

I can go on and on but I consider these teachings 180 degrees from biblical teachings, you can put any number on them as you like, but bottom line is they are in direct contradiction of each other, they can both be wrong, but they can't both be right.

"Agenda" is not a good word, it sounds to political, lets say "mission", I stand corrected.

Although I have no problem with you believing that I have a agenda to share the word of God with you, because in a way I do, but it does sound worldly.

You said:... " Good point. I've never really thought of it like that. That might be why Traveler and Ray insist that more than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be of the "god" classification. It would be necessary if one was to accept the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price as scripture. Thanks for the insight. "

It really doesn't matter what Ray or Traveler insist on, my point is that LDS doctrine and teachings demand that all worthy male members of the LDS church can beome by very nature the same nature as the LDS god Elohim. They might not be as "progressed" as Elohim at this point in time, but at some point if they live according to eternal law as taught in LDS teachings and Preached by the Prophets. I believe it was Hinkley that said to the men at a priesthood conference that everyone sitting there had the potentail to become a god.....This is LDS doctrine to the core, this is what LDS Temples give opportunity for, and this is what will forever seperate the LDS church from what the Bible teaches.

You said: ..... " Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that LDS teachings have Christian teachings, as well as unique mormon teachings? "

That would not be appropriate in the view of the Christain church with so many contridictions between the two when it comes essential doctrine, lets call a spade a spade, be proud you are LDS, but don't say your something your not. ottom line is LDS doctrine is not christain Doctrine.

You said" .... " I disagree. Mormons teach faith, repentance, and baptism for the remision of sins. Though they certainly have expounded on that more than most, what could be more basic than that? "

Faith is only as good as the object in which you put that faith in, so thats not really a talking point here. Baptism according to LDS doctrine is confussing in that they teach that it is necessary for salvation, yet they teach all are saved. When you get to the nitty gritty you tell me what LDS salvation does for a member in and by its self. It is not the Christian baptism its is a LDS baptism. Christain baptism is a heart thing in that God looks at the persons heart, LDS baptism is a AUTHORITY issue which needs man to be involved in the process by AUTHORITY.

LDS repentence is also confussing in that again all are saved automatically, why repent?

The biblical teaching of repentece is not only to stop you sin, but to do a 180 and follow another (Jesus), we as Christian turn from our sin nature and put on a new nature which is being clothed in Jesus's righteousness, it is imputed to us, practacally we still sin, but by position of being in the body (the Church) of Christ we are pure in Gods eyes.

I said alot here if you have a response please respond one question at a time so we can really get into it, to many points make for a long night. IF you need and biblical back up, or LDS back up for anything I said please let me know.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Snow]

You know one of the things I find most attractive about the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ?

It all seems to make sense (well maybe not all) in a gestalten sort of way. Thinking about salvations, eternal progression, pre-existence, intelligences... when you gain an understanding of the gospel, there is a logic to how things all (well maybe not all) fit together.

The teaching of traditional Christianity, by comparison, seem flat and fragmentary.

The Bible, when viewed throught the lens of the restored gospel makes a heck of a lot more sense than when views otherwise.

Know what I mean? (no offense to those of you with bad eyesight)

PS: Hi Mark, I was thinking about you the other day. You still listening to Christian talk radio?

[shanstress70]

I agree that LDS doctrine makes the story more complete, but I don't think that makes it true. Perhaps that's why so many people believe - because it supposedly has more answers. But maybe we aren't supposed to understand it all. If we were supposed to, I think God would make an appearance himself and tell us what he wants us to know. And I personally don't think he would give this message through a mortal. He knows that most of the people of the earth wouldn't believe it. Just MO.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Jul 26 2004, 08:47 PM

You know one of the things I find most attractive about the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ?

It all seems to make sense (well maybe not all) in a gestalten sort of way. Thinking about salvations, eternal progression, pre-existence, intelligences... when you gain an understanding of the gospel, there is a logic to how things all (well maybe not all) fit together.

The teaching of traditional Christianity, by comparison, seem flat and fragmentary.

The Bible, when viewed throught the lens of the restored gospel makes a heck of a lot more sense than when views otherwise.

Know what I mean? (no offense to those of you with bad eyesight)

PS: Hi Mark, I was thinking about you the other day. You still listening to Christian talk radio?

I think it's a matter of perspective, familiarity and comfort. Being brought up Lutheran, the LDS doctrines of eternal progression, pre-existence, Heavenly Mother, Temple endowments, etc. are very strange and confusing. I embrace traditional Christianity because I understand it, I accept it, it is familiar to me because I was raised with those beliefs. Anything contrary with what I was first taught seems odd to me.

M.

[Jason]

Growing up "in the covenant" if you will, I found LDS doctrine overall pretty fine. It really wasn't until I began my research into the history of the Church, that I realized that mormon doctrine wasn't as neat as currently presented. Even the "line upon line" thinking couldn't cover up the mess that was early mormonism.

[Lindy]

Maureen~ I was brought up Methodist and I too embraced traditional Christianity because it was something I could understand as a child...as I grew up it was something that was safe, and familiar. As I got older, I started wondering about some things I couldn't understand.... and here I am :)

I like how Snow put it

It all seems to make sense (well maybe not all) in a gestalten sort of way. Thinking about salvations, eternal progression, pre-existence, intelligences... when you gain an understanding of the gospel, there is a logic to how things all (well maybe not all) fit together.

Because that is exactly how I felt when I started the discussions/debate session with the missionaries.

Shantress~ You are a smart cookie... I think that is a big reason why so many people believe. And I don't think that we are supposed to understand it all either, that is where we trust in faith. You said "And I personally don't think he would give this message through a mortal. He knows that most of the people of the earth wouldn't believe it." I have a question for you.....wasn't Noah, Moses and John the Baptist mortal? Funny how I remember His message given thru each of them.

Jason~ I think you have your heart in the right place, you make some very good counter points.

Mark, Mark, Mark.......

Faith is only as good as the object in which you put that faith in

good point....another point you make is

Christain baptism is a heart thing in that God looks at the persons heart

and yes, I believe you are right....God will look at your heart, soul and mind. That's my opinion, and also you said

The biblical teaching of repentece is not only to stop you sin, but to do a 180 and follow another (Jesus), we as Christian turn from our sin nature and put on a new nature which is being clothed in Jesus's righteousness,

funny how I felt the exact same way while I was being baptized. Sad thing is too many I know turn back to their 'sin nature' after they give their life to Christ and figure it's ok.....cause "they've been saved".

As for "the angel of light" I know that it is a reality....it is written both in the Bible and BOM/D&C (just a couple to share....)

2 Ne. 9: 9

9 .......... to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

D&C 129: 8

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

I really don't think that those who read and have faith in the BOM or the LDS church would be warned about the "angel of light" if God didn't warrant their awareness.

Last thing said.... is that I follow the only Jesus there is (Biblical/Book of Mormon same one) Sorry for those who can't accept that. That is your problem...I'll be judged on following my heart.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 09:17 AM

Growing up "in the covenant" if you will, I found LDS doctrine overall pretty fine. It really wasn't until I began my research into the history of the Church, that I realized that mormon doctrine wasn't as neat as currently presented. Even the "line upon line" thinking couldn't cover up the mess that was early mormonism.

Compared to the “mess” that was early Catholicism, and Catholicism today, I think LDS doctrine is a lot more “neat”.

[Jason]

Ray,

There is no question that early Christianity was unorganized. But you still assert that the Church is still unorganized today? Why do you think that?

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 12:31 PM

Ray,

There is no question that early Christianity was unorganized. But you still assert that the Church is still unorganized today? Why do you think that?

Jason,

I wasn’t referring to how the Catholic Church was “organized”, I was referring to the “mess” in the organization known as “Catholicism”. Surely even you will concede that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the organization known as “Mormonism”, has always been well “organized.

The “mess” I was referring to in the Catholic Church of the past involved the Spanish Inquisition, the torture and burning of “heretics”, the selling of “indulgences” and “holy relics”, teachings against marriage, and various other teachings or practices which simply were never true or righteous.

The “mess” I am referring to in the Catholic Church of today is the issue concerning child molestation by “priests”, which is much more than a few isolated incidents, and other practices showing that the Catholic Church has become more a product of the world rather than a beacon of light in it.

In Portland Oregon, for example, where I live, the organization recently declared bankruptcy because that was the best way they could think of to settle all of the claims against the Church here. Can you believe that? The Catholic Church declaring bankruptcy?

Anyway, my point was not to bring up all of these points against the Church that you believe to be true, but to make the point that if you can believe the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ on the face of this Earth, then accepting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the one true Church should be a piece of cake.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray@Jul 27 2004, 01:22 PM

...Surely even you will concede that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the organization known as “Mormonism”, has always been well “organized.

I recommend reading:

The Mormon Hierachy: Origins of Power and

The Mormon Hierachy: Extensions of Power

by D. Michael Quinn

to answer that statement.

The “mess” I was referring to in the Catholic Church of the past involved the Spanish Inquisition, the torture and burning of “heretics”, the selling of “indulgences” and “holy relics”, teachings against marriage, and various other teachings or practices which simply were never true or righteous.

The LDS church has had it's own mess too. Maybe not to scale with the Catholics but the LDS church has lived through: Polygamy, MMM, Blood Atonement practices, etc.

The “mess” I am referring to in the Catholic Church of today is the issue concerning child molestation by “priests”, which is much more than a few isolated incidents, and other practices showing that the Catholic Church has become more a product of the world rather than a beacon of light in it.

Again the LDS church has had it share of problems in this field also; certainly not to the same scale (as far as I know) but they have existed and still do exist.

In Portland Oregon, for example, where I live, the organization recently declared bankruptcy because that was the best way they could think of to settle all of the claims against the Church here.  Can you believe that?   The Catholic Church declaring bankruptcy?

The LDS church also has had a history of financial problems; but thanks to N. Eldon Tanner in the early '60's the LDS church recovered, see:

Deficit Spending and Modern Financing from The Mormon Hierachy: Extensions of Power

by D. Michael Quinn

At the end of 1962 the church was deficit-spending $32 million annually. New York financiers had to advise against the First Presidency's proposal "to finance such spending by selling Church securities for the next fifty years."132 The new year looked no better. By the end of February there was already a $5 million shortfall, and 1963 threatened to equal or exceed the spending deficit of 1962.133

Then in 1963 N. Eldon Tanner entered the First Presidency as the church was struggling to avoid the worst financial crisis of its history. By then, his biographer notes, the building program "had so drained Church reserves that at one point financial officers wondered if they would be able to meet the payroll" for church employees.134

Known as the church's modern financial wizard, President Tanner's legacy is an extraordinary success story which deserves separate discussion not possible here. In brief, he responded to Mormonism's financial crisis of 1963 by declaring "a moratorium" on the LDS building program and by halting investments "until a buffer reserve could be built up." Five years of deficit spending had wiped out the church's reserve fund, yet under Tanner's careful stewardship, "step by step the Church was introduced to corporate financing."135The task of rebuilding church finances was so daunting that not until 1966 did church administrators conclude that "the finances of the Church are now in a little better shape."136 Once church finances were comfortably in the black again, there was no incentive to resume the detailed annual reports to general conference.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hie...er2.htm#deficit

No organization run by man is squeaky clean.

M.

[Jason]

"I wasn’t referring to how the Catholic Church was “organized”"

I misunderstood.

", I was referring to the “mess” in the organization known as “Catholicism”."

Okay. I can only assume you're specifically referring to Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Catholicism.

"Surely even you will concede that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the organization known as “Mormonism”, has always been well “organized."

I guess we would have to define "well organized". As it stands today, the LDS church hardly resembles the church of 1830. That said, the LDS church has created many offices (Area Authorities), and continues to do so, while at the same time eliminating offices it feels are no longer necessary (Patriarch of the Church, Seventies, Assistants to the Twelve).

"The “mess” I was referring to in the Catholic Church of the past involved the Spanish Inquisition, the torture and burning of "heretics""

I recently purchased a book on this, that claims that the Inquisition was blown out of proportion. I'll let you know what I find out. As for what the Church says on this, it is now viewed as a mistake that shouldn't have happened. One of those strange things in life. Of course, there was a time when it was felt that to end their lives, was better than to let them live in sin. The Holy Spirit has helped the Church realize that this is not the best answer. Much like when Jehovah commanded that all men, women and children be slain by ancient Israel, what was the purpose of that?

" the selling of “indulgences” "

Indulgences was abused, no doubt. That's why they are not sold anymore. You can still receive an indulgence, but not for cash. Selling salvation really isn't the best way. That's why I disagree with mormonism's required 10% tithing to keep from "burning".

"...and “holy relics”"

What's your gripe with this? I don't understand your complaint. Are you saying that it's wrong to have reverence for holy relics?

"teachings against marriage..."

I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church taught against marriage? Unless you're referring to Priestly celibacy? Of course you know that celibacy is voluntary, right? I don't suppose the Apostle Paul could convince you of the correctness of this?

"and various other teachings or practices which simply were never true or righteous."

You shouldn't say something unless you're specific. Am I supposed to read your mind?

"The “mess” I am referring to in the Catholic Church of today is the issue concerning child molestation by “priests”, which is much more than a few isolated incidents..."

" and other practices showing that the Catholic Church has become more a product of the world rather than a beacon of light in it."

I disagree. Take, for example, the topic of fetal murder. The Catholic Church is the only church that still prohibits abortion for any reason. Your church, on the other hand, has taken the "worldly" approach.

"In Portland Oregon, for example, where I live, the organization recently declared bankruptcy because that was the best way they could think of to settle all of the claims against the Church here. Can you believe that? The Catholic Church declaring bankruptcy?"

Your ignorance here is apalling. The Catholic Church is not bankrupt. The Portland diocese has declared bankruptcy. Each Diocese is independent, though in matters of faith and morals answers to The Holy Father.

"Anyway, my point was not to bring up all of these points against the Church that you believe to be true..."

I doubt that...

"but to make the point that if you can believe the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ on the face of this Earth, then accepting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the one true Church should be a piece of cake."

Apples and Oranges. Accepting the fact that men, both good and bad, have governed the Church is one thing. Tracing it's apostolic authority through 2000 years is convincing. On the other hand, you telling me that Joseph Smith and his six unique versions of the First Vision proves something is an entirely different matter. I dare say that the worst Pope wasn't any worse than your Joseph Smith. Even the worst Pope was never guilty of sending men off on missions so he could bed their wives!