False Teachers

[Ray]

If all you were trying to do was sling mud around, I'd be happy to oblige.

I wasn’t trying to sling mud around. I was only trying to make the point that “Mormonism” doesn’t have as big a “mess” to “cover up” as does “Catholicism”. Your original quote was

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.

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!

Again, you’re slandering Joseph Smith and you have no basis for it. You will answer for everything you are saying here, you know, so I think we better stop talking about this kind of thing before you get yourself in really big trouble.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 03:26 PM

If all you were trying to do was sling mud around, I'd be happy to oblige. I can think of two prominent LDS leaders who had sex with young boys.

I find it difficult to believe that these accusations against GBH are true. Even the Tanners find them difficult to accept:

Ed Decker and others who have brought accusations of immorality against President Gordon B. Hinckley claim that they have hard evidence to support the charges. Our examination of that evidence, however, raises many questions with regard to its validity. While we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no truth in the accusations, on the basis of the evidence that we have examined, we find the charges difficult to accept. In fact, we find it hard to believe that they wouId be made public without some confirming evidence from more reliable sources.

Lest the reader should misunderstand our position, we do not wish to be considered apologists for President Hinckley or the Mormon Church. In fact, in the last issue of our newsletter we severely criticized Hinckley and other church authorities for suppressing the McLellin Collection from prosecutors in the Mark Hofmann case. Nevertheless, we feel that it is our duty to present our readers with well-balanced research on this issue. We are deeply concerned about such serious charges being made on evidence that seems questionable. We are very sensitive to this issue because we ourselves have been the target of very malicious stories circulated by members of the Mormon Church.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no84.htm (April 1993)

M.

[Jason]

Maureen,

Looking at the man today, it does seem difficult to believe. But 30, 40 years ago, who knows what kind of man he was. Have you ever seen the video? I have, and to be honest, there is no reason to believe that what all those people said about Hinckley was false. You should see it, not just take Sandra Tanner's word for it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jul 27 2004, 02:23 PM

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.

Practices or beliefs?

[Jason]

Maybe the key word here is "cover up" as Ray put it. Everyone knows what some Catholics did in centuries past and present. But the LDS PR machine has neatly whitewashed their history to make it look like there's never been a problem. I believe that's my argument.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow+Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jul 27 2004, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Jul 27 2004, 02:23 PM

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.

Practices or beliefs?

Both. First there is a belief in the doctrine and it's followed through by practicing what is believed. I'm certain Blood Atonement (especially through the eyes of BY) was taken seriously that it was actually practiced.

M.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 05:26 PM

Maureen,

Looking at the man today, it does seem difficult to believe. But 30, 40 years ago, who knows what kind of man he was. Have you ever seen the video? I have, and to be honest, there is no reason to believe that what all those people said about Hinckley was false. You should see it, not just take Sandra Tanner's word for it.

If I had to choose between Ed Decker's sensationalistic style research or the Tanner's personal style; I choose the Tanners. I find the Tanners credible, while I find Ed Decker questionable. I see Mr. Hinckley as a business man not a pedophile. He may have been duplicitous with how he portrays his dealings and thoughts within Mormon circles verses outside the Mormon family (ie Mark Hofmann, interviews-Larry King, etc.) but I can't imagine him a pervert.

M.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 08:07 PM

Maybe the key word here is "cover up" as Ray put it. Everyone knows what some Catholics did in centuries past and present. But the LDS PR machine has neatly whitewashed their history to make it look like there's never been a problem. I believe that's my argument.

You might call it a “cover up”, but I think of it as simply not dwelling on the past.

If you haven’t noticed, the “LDS PR machine” doesn’t even talk much about the Church, either in the past or present. The “LDS PR machine”, if you can call it that, only seeks to provide opportunities for Church members to talk about “things” that can bring all people together, not “things” that will keep all people apart. It doesn’t air “dirty laundry” about anybody, because all organizations of people have a past and dwelling on negative ideas doesn’t help anybody. The important matter is what we do with our lives now and in the future, and the only person who gives us hope for the future is Christ. Without Him, everybody would be lost.

As I wrote this, I realized that I also should have followed the example of other Church members by simply not saying anything about the “dirty laundry” of the Catholic church, and I am now making a formal apology. The important matter is not the beliefs or practices of the Catholic church in the past, but the beliefs and practices of the Catholic church today, and how we can build on the good beliefs and practices of the Catholic church to attain a more perfect understanding of Christ that will benefit everybody.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Mark@ Jul 25 2004, 09:07 AM

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.)

We teach that Jesus was a created being only in the sense that He went from one “nature” to another, which was from only God to both Man and God, and then back to only God again. We do not teach that Jesus was created from out of nowhere or from out of nothing. Jesus has always existed, just as we have always existed, but Jesus has always been God.

They teach Jesus didn't atone for Mankind’s sin nature at the cross and that all people (minus s.o.p. (sons of perdition]) are saved automatically.

What do you mean by “Mankind’s sin nature”?

And what do you mean by being saved “automatically”?

You don’t believe that Mankind ceased to have a sinful nature since the moment that Jesus atoned for our sins, do you?

We teach that Justice demanded that Mankind be separated from our heavenly Father because Adam and Eve, the Father and Mother of Mankind, were disobedient to Him in the Garden of Eden. This meant that Mankind could not produce a Mediator to atone for the sins of Mankind because all of Mankind inherited a sinful nature, but Jesus was God and could be that Mediator because was both God and Man. Mankind may now appeal to Jesus for Mercy by virtue of the atonement that Jesus offered for our sins, but that Mercy is not available only for the asking. It is now Jesus that expects us to exercise Faith in Him, and Repent for our sins. If we do not meet His demands, we will held accountable to Him, and there will be no other Redeemer.

They do not teach grace is a gift that one must receive, but that it is already given to all.

Grace is an extension of God’s love to Mankind, and it is given every time God does something to help us or help us know that He loves us. The greatest extension of Grace occurred when our heavenly Father sent His only begotten son to redeem us from our sins, but that Grace still continues as Christ continues to help us or help us know that He loves us.

They teach Man can become deity and be by nature the same nature as the God of Abraham.

We teach that Man may become one with God as Christ is one with God, which is what Christ prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemane. Not that all of Mankind may become one with God, however, but that all of Mankind that our heavenly Father has given to Christ, and will give to Christ, from out of this world.

I can go on and on.

I’m sure you could, but you will only show that you don’t have a correct understanding of LDS doctrine and that LDS are in fact Christians. No, we don’t think and believe some of the things that you do, or things that some other Christians believe, but who is right and who is wrong is a matter for Christ to determine. I proclaim that I do follow Christ, and that I try to do that at least as well as you do.

[Jason]

"As I wrote this, I realized that I also should have followed the example of other Church members by simply not saying anything about the “dirty laundry” of the Catholic church, and I am now making a formal apology. The important matter is not the beliefs or practices of the Catholic church in the past, but the beliefs and practices of the Catholic church today, and how we can build on the good beliefs and practices of the Catholic church to attain a more perfect understanding of Christ that will benefit everybody." (Ray)

Ray, I agree. I don't have a problem discussing those issues you've brought up, when done so in a context of discussion, rather than "mud-slinging". We both know that we could throw it around, so why bother?

If you'd like to discuss anything in that post, I'd be happy to. It would help me learn along the way, so you know I've got no problem. Frankly, I could use a brush up on the Spanish Inquisition, or the abuse of Indulgences. Any time you want to talk, just let me know.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 28 2004, 11:33 AM

...or the abuse of Indulgences....

Which was one of Martin Luther's pet peeves. It's probably a good thing that the Roman Catholic church wasn't perfect; else mankind would have missed out on experiencing that wonderful Reformation. By the way, what day is the Reformation celebrate on? (I actually know, I'm just wondering if any body else does)

M.

[Ray]

Hmm, thanks for making that point, Maureen.

I think it helps to clarify that we are representatives of a Catholic church, a Reformed church, and the Restored church, each of us seemingly convinced that we have made the right choice.

Btw, I celebrate the Restoration, which occured on April 6, 1830.

[Jason]

Gee Maureen, I didn't know there was a "reformation" day. When do you celebrate? (BTW are you Lutheran? If you don't mind me asking.)

[Ray]

I think she is, if she still has the same beliefs she was raised with. She said this earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by Maureen@ Jul 27 2004, 08:53 AM

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.

I can understand what she is saying, but I didn’t find it all that difficult to make the transition, and I didn’t find the doctrines to be all that strange and confusing either. There are scriptures in the Bible that talk about each of these doctrines, just not in as much detail as you will find in the Restored church.

Take a quick look at each of these topics in the Topical Guide and you will see what I mean:

Eternal Progression

Eternal Life, especially Revelation 21:7

Exaltation, especially Revelation 3:21, and 1 Peter 5:4

Family, Eternal, especially the scriptures in Genesis.

Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father, especially Romans 8:17, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:13, and 1 John 3:2.

Pre-existence

Council in Heaven,

Man, Antemortal Existence of

Heavenly Mother – a sacred issue that not much has been written about, but the scriptures do state that Man was created in the image of God, both male and female. Understand that any speculation about this issue is only speculation unless the scriptures are specific.

Temple endowments – this is another sacred issue when pertaining to personal endowments, but the scriptures do state that ceremonies were performed in the temple and that the early Christians continued going to the temple even after accepting Christ. Again, realize that you are speculating unless the scriptures specifically agree with your ideas.

Genealogy and Temple Work

Salvation for the Dead

See also Acts 2:46 and Revelation 7:15

[Maureen]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 28 2004, 02:34 PM

Gee Maureen, I didn't know there was a "reformation" day. When do you celebrate? (BTW are you Lutheran? If you don't mind me asking.)

I don't actually celebrate in a church sense, just an awareness that the day is set aside to remember the Reformation - and yes I am Lutheran. It is celebrated (or observed) the last Sunday in October.

M.

[Jason]

Oh, okay.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ray+Jul 28 2004, 11:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Jul 28 2004, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@ Jul 25 2004, 09:07 AM

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.)

We teach that Jesus was a created being only in the sense that He went from one “nature” to another, which was from only God to both Man and God, and then back to only God again. We do not teach that Jesus was created from out of nowhere or from out of nothing. Jesus has always existed, just as we have always existed, but Jesus has always been God.

They teach Jesus didn't atone for Mankind’s sin nature at the cross and that all people (minus s.o.p. (sons of perdition]) are saved automatically.

What do you mean by “Mankind’s sin nature”?

And what do you mean by being saved “automatically”?

You don’t believe that Mankind ceased to have a sinful nature since the moment that Jesus atoned for our sins, do you?

We teach that Justice demanded that Mankind be separated from our heavenly Father because Adam and Eve, the Father and Mother of Mankind, were disobedient to Him in the Garden of Eden. This meant that Mankind could not produce a Mediator to atone for the sins of Mankind because all of Mankind inherited a sinful nature, but Jesus was God and could be that Mediator because was both God and Man. Mankind may now appeal to Jesus for Mercy by virtue of the atonement that Jesus offered for our sins, but that Mercy is not available only for the asking. It is now Jesus that expects us to exercise Faith in Him, and Repent for our sins. If we do not meet His demands, we will held accountable to Him, and there will be no other Redeemer.

They do not teach grace is a gift that one must receive, but that it is already given to all.

Grace is an extension of God’s love to Mankind, and it is given every time God does something to help us or help us know that He loves us. The greatest extension of Grace occurred when our heavenly Father sent His only begotten son to redeem us from our sins, but that Grace still continues as Christ continues to help us or help us know that He loves us.

They teach Man can become deity and be by nature the same nature as the God of Abraham.

We teach that Man may become one with God as Christ is one with God, which is what Christ prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemane. Not that all of Mankind may become one with God, however, but that all of Mankind that our heavenly Father has given to Christ, and will give to Christ, from out of this world.

I can go on and on.

I’m sure you could, but you will only show that you don’t have a correct understanding of LDS doctrine and that LDS are in fact Christians. No, we don’t think and believe some of the things that you do, or things that some other Christians believe, but who is right and who is wrong is a matter for Christ to determine. I proclaim that I do follow Christ, and that I try to do that at least as well as you do.

Hi Ray,

You raise some intersesting questions I would love to discuss, I'll bring up one at a time so we can get into each subject.

You said; "We teach that Jesus was a created being only in the sense that He went from one “nature” to another, which was from only God to both Man and God, and then back to only God again. We do not teach that Jesus was created from out of nowhere or from out of nothing. Jesus has always existed, just as we have always existed, but Jesus has always been God."

Please give sone back up to your statement 'that Jesus was always God'

LDS teachings say that Jesus was the oldest 'brother' born to Elohim out of intelligences

all mankind, including Satan are his brothers and sisters. Are you saying that "we are all Gods already? or will you admit that what you said that Jesus has always been God a false statement?

I was always taught that all mankind were created through pro-creation to Elohim and his wife from intelligence, to spirit form, and from there pro-created to carnal form from earthly parents, thus making us created beings. The POGP says that the gods CREATED man, the Bible says that God CREATED man. I will stand by my statement that the LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being and had to progress to the nature of god by the very same eternal laws that the LDS church and teaching teach.

If I am wrong here, show me through LDS teachings where it says Jesus has always been God, why did he get a free ride from eternal progression that is a standard teaching of the Chruch? Or if we are all Gods, is Lucifer a fallen God? Can Jesus or Elohim fall at any given point in time?

I would like to address each question on there own merits but first lets get to the bottom of the nature of the LDS Christ vs. the Nature of the Biblical Christ? fair?

This is a great discussion topic and look forward for you answers and insight.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Mark]

Hi Ray,

You made a claim that needs to be addressed, maybe you didn't see my last post so I'll put it up top so you can see it. Its very important to back up such a claim that the LDS church teaches Jesus was always God? Where does it say that?

Mark

John 1:12

[Ray]

Mark,

I recommend that you not wait or rely upon me to furnish you with the truth about anything. The Lord has given us scriptures and the Holy Ghost to guide us, and you can avail yourself of these things just as easily as I can.

I can recommend that you particularly study, ponder and pray about Doctrine & Covenants section 93, though. There is a lot of truth in those words.

[Mark]

Hi Ray,

You have made a false statement, the LDS, nowhere do LDS teachers teach that Jesus was always God, you are deceiving those who read your post. I would love to discuss your post when your ready to deal with what your teachers teach, let me know.

Mark

John 1:12

[Ray]

Hi Mark,

You have made a false statement. The Church does teach that Jesus was always God, and I gave you a reference to help you know that. You are deceiving those who read your post by implying that my statement cannot be proven, but that truth can be proven whether you can see it or not. I am not willing to discuss this issue with you, however, because I already know that I cannot show you the truth, even if I refer to scriptures where that doctrine is taught.

[Mark]

Hi Ray,

Where can I find the teaching that the LDS church teach that Jesus was always God? At least have the honesty to give a reference. I looked at the topical guide in the LDS translation (seminary bible) as you suggested, and it says Jesus was the first the firstborn to the Father IN THE SPIRIT. Are you saying this does not imply that there was a time when jesus wasn't God according to LDS theology?

Mark

John 1:12

[Ray]

Originally posted by Mark@ Aug 6 2004, 01:23 PM

Where can I find the teaching that the LDS church teach that Jesus was always God? At least have the honesty to give a reference. I looked at the topical guide in the LDS translation (seminary bible) as you suggested, and it says Jesus was the first the firstborn to the Father IN THE SPIRIT. Are you saying this does not imply that there was a time when jesus wasn't God according to LDS theology?

You can find that teaching wherever it is taught, and one of those places is in Doctrine & Covenants section 93, which I have already given you as a reference. If you’ll look there and carefully study those words, perhaps someday you’ll see that truth, but considering how you don’t even realize that I already gave you that reference, it may be quite some time before you will see this other truth that has been placed in front of your face.

And btw, just to make this simple for you, the fact that Jesus was the firstborn to the Father does not imply that there was a time when Jesus was not God. As I said before, Jesus was not created from out of nowhere or from out of nothing. Jesus has always existed, just as we have always existed, but Jesus has always been God.

Btw, when you say things like "At least have the honesty to give a reference", you're 1) affronting my integrity, 2) making it difficult for me to want to have a discussion with you, and 3) showing that you're oblivous to the fact that I have already given you a reference. I suggest you take a few more minutes to look at everything else I have given you before you affront my character or ask anything more from me, and ideally you should apologize and refrain from doing that again.

[Mark]

Hi Ray,

I was kind of hoping that a LDS member would correct you on Sec 93, but I guess thats is not going to happen. Sec 93 is a proof text that LDS docrine teaches that Jesus was not always God, verse 14 says.." he was called the Son of God, because he received not the fulness at the first." then John goes on to tell about his baptism, and then in verse 17 says "he received all power both in heaven and earth, and the glory of the Father was with him,..." This is 'present tense' and demands the fact that the author is saying that at this point of time Jesus received power and was glorified. Taken in context with the following verses that JS ( and man) can be glorified (see verse 28 in that when man is glorified he will know all things).

Ray, sec. 93 is a proof text to my original post in that Jesus was inteligence, born to Elohim in spirit ( the firstborn) and at some point in time had to be exalted to deity.

The priesthood teaching manual standard, "Gospel through the Ages", which was endorsed by the church as a offical teaching manual says..." God the eternal Father was once a MORTAL Man who passed through a school of earth life similar tothat throuh which you are passing.." (p.104)

Speaking of God it continues..." thus he grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He BECAME God..." (p.114)

If you like I can give you MANY more quotes for LDS apostles and prophets that teach that God was once a man and had to be exalted to the position of God.

So I hope you see that the reason I keep asking for a reference is that you didn't give me one that says that Jesus has always been God, you gave me one that said he wasn't yet glorified. So I'll stand by my statement.

Ray, topical guides are great in helping you find a subject, but if you don't study and do your home work you are going to be deceived, do a study on the nature of God taught by the LDS church before you say things like you did, it's just not true that the LDS church teaches that Jesus was always God, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that it is a mis-truth to say that, and I realize it is because you have not studied what you're church teaches on this subject, I can give you verse after verse of LDS teachers saying that all beings come from intelligence and have to be exalted to deity the the process of eternal law, I' kinda let down that other members didn't correct you on this and left you hanging.

So back to my original post that the LDS Jesus is a different Jesus of the bible, don't worry about whos right or wrong at this point, just acknowlage that we believe in to different Jesus's. LDS Jesus is a created being (out of intelligence) and the Biblical Jesus has always been God ( John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-10)

Do me a favor, don't bail on this, if I am wrong give me a clear current LDS teaching that says Jesus has always been God?

Mark

John 1:12

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 27 2004, 08:07 PM

Maybe the key word here is "cover up" as Ray put it. Everyone knows what some Catholics did in centuries past and present. But the LDS PR machine has neatly whitewashed their history to make it look like there's never been a problem. I believe that's my argument.

I think that's a bogus argument.

More is known about the LDS Church, it's foundation and early history, than any single other religion on earth, bar none and the overwhelming majority of what's know has come from the Church and Church members themselves. What religion could withstand the scutiny placed upon the Church?