Anti-Mormons

[prisonchaplain]

I have asked many LDS this question in the past for clarification of LDS beliefs, it appears the LDS community, doesn't want the general population to know this.

Regarding Eternal progression. Does the LDS church believe, after meeting --Requirements of Exaltation, you can become a God?

So, far it has been denied every time. I even asked a BYU professer, ( representative for fairlds.org) After about 8-10 emails, he finally admitted they do, but, it does depend on how the question is presented, the mood. This was after I brought to his attention Blessing of Exaltation, chap 47, number two, which says "They will become gods."

This is bizarre. I've had many posters here quickly tell me that yes, they believe they shall become gods. They explain that we truly are made in God's image and likeness, and that it is God's supreme love that leaves us the hope of eventually becoming what He is.

I can only guess that any the hesitation comes from those who may not know you, and believe you are looking for theological ammunition with which to criticize their church. Since LDS theology is heavily criticized in Protestant and Catholic circles, there may be very cautious approach give to outsiders who ask questions beyond the common basics.

That's my speculation, anyway.

[bytor2112]

PrisonChaplain,

You have an awesome attitude and I really appreciate your posts. I wish everyone LDS and non had a bit of your insightfulness and humility.

[ktfords]

Concerning my above post, about Blessing of Exaltation chap 47 number two. bytor said "Also, the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine". In the below Gospel Principles where I got the Blessings of Exaltation. It clearly says, you can use this as a personal study or a teaching manual.

So, if you can use this as a teaching manual (lessons taught) for Church meetings. Why is this not a valid manual, when you can use it as a teaching manual?

So, why the denial that this is taught? If this is something not true in the LDS church, why is it on the LDS.ORG website.

Explanation of Gospel Principles validity.

Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual. Therefore, you can use this manual in many ways. It can help you—

• Build your knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

• Answer questions about the gospel.

• Study scriptures by topics.

• Prepare talks.

• Prepare lessons for family home evening.

• Prepare lessons for Church meetings.

Gospel Principles

Published by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah

© 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997

by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America.

You would think, if the Church has copyrights for 9 plus years, it would be pretty important teachings, which it clearly says "for personal study or as a teaching manual".

[OtterPop]

bytor,

Defining what constitutes doctrine is one of the ongoing debates about Mormonism. The statements you present can be interpreted to be circular in nature: that is, Harold B. Lee telling members how to determine whether something is doctrine, but implicitly acknowledging that his own advice is not doctrinal. I know this is a little ridiculous, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But I do want to point out that the idea that Mormon doctrine shifts over time can be argued quite legitimately.

When you have a prophet who preaches consistently over years' time some points that are currently rejected, it does raise the question of what it means to have a prophet. You say that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine, and I agree with you. However, I know that Brigham Young taught at least three things consistently through the years that are key points, but are no longer taught: (1) the Adam-God theory, (2) the necessity of blood atonement for some sins, (3) that plural marriage is an essential part of Celestial glory.

I'm not saying that one can't believe both that Brigham Young was a prophet and that he taught these things. I'm am saying that "anti" arguments concerning this point of what prophets have taught in the past is not quite so simplistic as presented by FAIR in the quote above.

[ktfords]

Comes from the people at fairlds.org. Each one I emailed denied the Gospel Principles, Blessings of Exaltation, chap 47, number 2. They will become gods. Particularly. Louis C. Midgley of BYU and David Farnsworth.

Explanation of Gospel Principles validity.

Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual. Therefore, you can use this manual in many ways. It can help you—

• Build your knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

• Answer questions about the gospel.

• Study scriptures by topics.

• Prepare talks.

• Prepare lessons for family home evening.

• Prepare lessons for Church meetings.

Gospel Principles

Published by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah

© 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997

by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America.

This is bizarre. I've had many posters here quickly tell me that yes, they believe they shall become gods. They explain that we truly are made in God's image and likeness, and that it is God's supreme love that leaves us the hope of eventually becoming what He is.

I can only guess that any the hesitation comes from those who may not know you, and believe you are looking for theological ammunition with which to criticize their church. Since LDS theology is heavily criticized in Protestant and Catholic circles, there may be very cautious approach give to outsiders who ask questions beyond the common basics.

That's my speculation, anyway.

Edited July 18, 2008 by ktfords
Forgot a name from FAIRLDS.org

[ktfords]

from prisonchaplain.

I can only guess that any the hesitation comes from those who may not know you, and believe you are looking for theological ammunition with which to criticize their church. Since LDS theology is heavily criticized in Protestant and Catholic circles, there may be very cautious approach give to outsiders who ask questions beyond the common basics.

That's my speculation, anyway.

So, does that justify being deceptive and lying about it? Shouldn't I know more than the basics if I am curious of the LDS? The truth would be awesome. LDS are required to speak the truth as it says below.

Requirements for Exaltation

The time to fulfill the requirements for exaltation is now (see Alma 34:32–34). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “In order to obtain the exaltation we must accept the gospel and all its covenants; and take upon us the obligations which the Lord has offered; and walk in the light and understanding of the truth; and ‘live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God’ ” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43).

To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

*

1. We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

*

2. We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

*

3. We must receive the temple endowment.

*

4. We must be married for time and eternity.

In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord commands all of us to—

*

1. Love and worship God.

*

2. Love our neighbor.

*

3. Repent of our wrongdoings.

*

4. Live the law of chastity.

*

5. Pay honest tithes and offerings.

*

6. Be honest in our dealings with others and with the Lord.

*

7. Speak the truth always.

*

8. Obey the Word of Wisdom.

*

9. Search out our kindred dead and perform the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.

*

10. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

*

11. Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.

*

12. Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.

*

13. Have family and individual prayers every day.

*

14. Honor our parents.

*

15. Teach the gospel to others by word and example.

*

16. Study the scriptures.

*

17. Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

I completely agree with OtterPop and what is said below:

bytor,

Defining what constitutes doctrine is one of the ongoing debates about Mormonism. The statements you present can be interpreted to be circular in nature: that is, Harold B. Lee telling members how to determine whether something is doctrine, but implicitly acknowledging that his own advice is not doctrinal. I know this is a little ridiculous, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But I do want to point out that the idea that Mormon doctrine shifts over time can be argued quite legitimately.

When you have a prophet who preaches consistently over years' time some points that are currently rejected, it does raise the question of what it means to have a prophet. You say that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine, and I agree with you. However, I know that Brigham Young taught at least three things consistently through the years that are key points, but are no longer taught: (1) the Adam-God theory, (2) the necessity of blood atonement for some sins, (3) that plural marriage is an essential part of Celestial glory.

I'm not saying that one can't believe both that Brigham Young was a prophet and that he taught these things. I'm am saying that "anti" arguments concerning this point of what prophets have taught in the past is not quite so simplistic as presented by FAIR in the quote above.

Thanks for your time.

[bytor2112]

Ktfords.... I never said that there was anything wrong with the Gospel Principals manual. The comment regarding Journal of Discourses, etc. was not directed at your question. It was merely a comment regarding many of the Anti'LDS site tactics.

I think I answered your question very directly...did I not?

This is often a difficult doctrine for members of other Christian denominations to accept or understand and often a source of contention. I don't know why LDS members beat around the bush and not take the time to explain in detail what we believe. I have found very often in conversations with my non member friends, that they prefer to tell me what I believe rather than asking for some clarification. It is usually something like," Mormons believe that God was once a man and over time became God and has many wives and creates spirit children to populate worlds and Mormons believe that they will become Gods just the same way and do the same thing." I would much prefer if some one would just ask..... what do you believe about eternal life or whatever. It is obvious we believe differently than the rest of Christendom. Some answers take "Spiritual" discernment to gain understanding. We believe that in order to believe that ours is the Restored Gospel it must be revealed by the Holy Spirit.

We believe that we are Sons and Daughters, literally, of God, our Heavenly Father. We also believe that as his children if we follow his guidance and live, as best as we are able, the example taught by the Savior, we can progress forever. Think about the life span of each of us. We enter this life as a helpless babe and are nurtured and taught how to live as an adult. As we age, hopefully, we become better people, we learn from our mistakes....some of us progress further that others. I am not sure what it means to be a God or when that may occur in the Eternities.

We do not believe that we can or will become equal to God. We believe that if we inherit Eternal life that we will return back to our Heavenly Father and can become like him. Salvation is in Christ. It is through his atoning sacrifice at Gethsemene and at Golgotha where he drank of the Father's bitter cup and took upon him the sins of all human kind, that all that will come unto him , believe in him and repent of their sins may have eternal life. It is really that simple.

[ktfords]

Bytor,

How can an "anti" use something that is published by the LDS church (Gospel Principles) against the church itself? It is what you believe..There should be no deception of what you believe. If you teach it, claim it.

Just trying to understand.

K

Ktfords.... I never said that there was anything wrong with the Gospel Principals manual. The comment regarding Journal of Discourses, etc. was not directed at your question. It was merely a comment regarding many of the Anti'LDS site tactics.

I think I answered your question very directly...did I not?

[bytor2112]

bytor,

Defining what constitutes doctrine is one of the ongoing debates about Mormonism. The statements you present can be interpreted to be circular in nature: that is, Harold B. Lee telling members how to determine whether something is doctrine, but implicitly acknowledging that his own advice is not doctrinal. I know this is a little ridiculous, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But I do want to point out that the idea that Mormon doctrine shifts over time can be argued quite legitimately.

When you have a prophet who preaches consistently over years' time some points that are currently rejected, it does raise the question of what it means to have a prophet. You say that the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine, and I agree with you. However, I know that Brigham Young taught at least three things consistently through the years that are key points, but are no longer taught: (1) the Adam-God theory, (2) the necessity of blood atonement for some sins, (3) that plural marriage is an essential part of Celestial glory.

I'm not saying that one can't believe both that Brigham Young was a prophet and that he taught these things. I'm am saying that "anti" arguments concerning this point of what prophets have taught in the past is not quite so simplistic as presented by FAIR in the quote above.

Otterpop,

I absolutely agree. There are a great deal of statements and historical events surrounding the Church that make me scratch my head. But these things are not representative of the message the Church teaches. Asking why Brigham Young taught this or that or why this or that happenned is one thing, but to present it as what the Church is all about is completely different. I didn't mean to get sidetracked about what is or isn't official doctrine. I am sure that you are very familiar with Anti tactics as well. Academic debate is one thing, twisting the truth and deception to put the Church in as bad of light as possible is wrong and destroys peoples testimony. It also hurts missionary efforts. Just type in www.LDS or whatever and an investigator can learn either truth from LDS.org or stumble upon the truth as presented by our detractors.

[bytor2112]

Bytor,

How can an "anti" use something that is published by the LDS church (Gospel Principles) against the church itself? It is what you believe..There should be no deception of what you believe. If you teach it, claim it.

Just trying to understand.

K

Huh?? Maybe I am confused. I have no problem with any church publication. I occaisionaly teach Gospel Principles and think that the manual is fine. I answered the question regarding becoming a God..... I do claim it and thought I did in my explanation.

[Snow]

Jesus had never done anything bad to anyone. That is why they had killed him. .

I've never heard that - that Jesus was killed because he never did bad to anyone.

What are your sources on that?

[Snow]

We LDS aren't the only ones who sacrifice time and effort in selfless service.

No - but are you aware of many other denominations with an unpaid clergy?

[Snow]

I have asked many LDS this question in the past for clarification of LDS beliefs, it appears the LDS community, doesn't want the general population to know this.

Regarding Eternal progression. Does the LDS church believe, after meeting --Requirements of Exaltation, you can become a God?

So, far it has been denied every time. I even asked a BYU professer, ( representative for fairlds.org) After about 8-10 emails, he finally admitted they do, but, it does depend on how the question is presented, the mood. This was after I brought to his attention Blessing of Exaltation, chap 47, number two, which says "They will become gods."

Why can't the LDS present what they believe when asked, instead of deception?

Frankly - I don't believe you. You can read our canonized scripture and see our belief, you can ask anyone of us and we'll tell you what we believe. I might not like your use of the capital "G" but as you've presented it, I, and any informed LDS member, would easily answer your question. Not only is it in our LDS scripture, it's in the bible and part of early Christian teaching.

I bet what you are doing is phrasing our doctrine in a way that defies our self-understanding, see that we disagree with your characterization and then calling us dishonest... which is par for the course of many less than forthright critics.

[Snow]

bytor,

Are you suggesting that the president of the LDS church cannot receive additional doctrine for the members? I was raised LDS, and was taught many times, and have seen it written in official LDS Church lesson manuals, that the conference issue of the Ensign stands beside the standard works in importance.

Who taught you that? Specifically? Can you cite the sources please?

[Snow]

Concerning my above post, about Blessing of Exaltation chap 47 number two. bytor said "Also, the Journal of Discourses is not doctrine". In the below Gospel Principles where I got the Blessings of Exaltation. It clearly says, you can use this as a personal study or a teaching manual.

So, if you can use this as a teaching manual (lessons taught) for Church meetings. Why is this not a valid manual, when you can use it as a teaching manual?

So, why the denial that this is taught? If this is something not true in the LDS church, why is it on the LDS.ORG website.

Explanation of Gospel Principles validity.

Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual. Therefore, you can use this manual in many ways. It can help you—

• Build your knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

• Answer questions about the gospel.

• Study scriptures by topics.

• Prepare talks.

• Prepare lessons for family home evening.

• Prepare lessons for Church meetings.

Gospel Principles

Published by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah

© 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997

by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America.

You would think, if the Church has copyrights for 9 plus years, it would be pretty important teachings, which it clearly says "for personal study or as a teaching manual".

Ah - an excellent example of your deception.

Bytor asserted, correctly, that the JoD was not doctrine. You then claimed that he/she denied that it was taught. Busted. You are pretty transparent.

The JoD is not the source of LDS doctrine. The canon of scripture is the source. Anything else is only true, correct and binding to the extent that it agrees with binding and correct LDS doctrine. For example, the Bible is the source of Protestant truth and Luther's exposition on the bible are not the source, how ever excellent they may be. Rather his writings are considered explanation or exposition. Perhaps true and correct but not the source.

A little less deception from you would be appreciated.

[prisonchaplain]

No - but are you aware of many other denominations with an unpaid clergy?

I'm vaguely familiar with the LDS belief that "priestcraft" is unseemly. So, having an all-volunteer lay-clergy protects the church from the corrupting influence that money has on church leaders of most other Christian denominations. This teaching is understandable to me. I don't agree, but I can see the reasoning.

On the other hand, merely having unpaid leadership would not necessarily mean that the church membership as a whole gives far and beyond more volunteer hours and heart per capita than other movements do. Was that not the gist of the discussion?

[Snow]

No offense, but in my opinion the ideas presented in this discussion cause seriously harm to the credibility of the church.

Er, uh, yeah - I doubt God has formed his Church so fragile that it's going to be harmed by a little whining.

[Snow]

I'm vaguely familiar with the LDS belief that "priestcraft" is unseemly. So, having an all-volunteer lay-clergy protects the church from the corrupting influence that money has on church leaders of most other Christian denominations. This teaching is understandable to me. I don't agree, but I can see the reasoning.

On the other hand, merely having unpaid leadership would not necessarily mean that the church membership as a whole gives far and beyond more volunteer hours and heart per capita than other movements do. Was that not the gist of the discussion?

I doubt there are any such other Christian churches (or many such) where they can get the kind of commitment from it adherents as the LDS Church gets from it's 19 year old youth (missionaries who spend 24 hours a day for 2 years preaching the gospel) or bishops (full time work in addition to their regular job) or stake presidents (12 years of full time committment, or thousands and thousands of retired couples who become full time missionaries, for the 2nd of third time in their lives.

A couple years ago the principle struck me as I read a newspaper article about a new mission president. The CEO of a major US corporation - Sutter Health in Northern California resigned abruptly at the pinnacle of his career and became a mission president doing grunt work thousands of miles away from his home. How does that sort of thing happen? The CEO gets a call from and LDS authority who says 'we'd like you to quit your job, move thousands of miles away from home and do grunt work for 4 years' and the CEO says, "okay."

... and that happens over and over and over.

Sure people volunteer for all sorts of good endeavors in all sorts of Church. I'd suggest that there is a much different scope and intensity in the LDS Church.

And interesting but simple illustration of that (and the Church's extraordinary organizational structure - all run by volunteers). There could be a of sort sort catastrophe - a fire, earthquake, etc. An authority to start the ball rolling by making one phone call and 90 minutes later you could easily have 20,000 able bodies LDS elders on the scene with picks and shovels ready to help. I've been part of such an incident with a flood. Granted, that doesn't require extreme commitment but it does require extreme organization.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Snow

[rameumptom]

We do believe in deification. However, having said that I would also nuance that statement by saying it means different things to different people, including LDS.

First, one must consider our different belief in the Godhead vs the Trinity. We consider deification as a natural process in our state to become more like our Father in Heaven.

Second, when the scriptures state that Christ shall make us "kings and priests unto God and his Father" (Rev 1:5-6), we believe that is what it means to be deified (or become gods). We also believe it means we can have eternal families and progression.

So, in many ways it isn't as far off from other religions' beliefs, except as far as we believe we are made of the same substance as God, and not of an inferior material.

Which leads me to the question, if God (as in Trinity) is all powerful and DID create us ex nihilo, why couldn't he have created us of the same substance as He is made of, or change us later into that same substance - hence allowing us to become as He is? After all, almost all the early Christian writers wrote about deification, and many Christian churches still believe in it (including, I believe, the Eastern Orthodox and RCC)

[Shaliach]

Lets clarify here; while the vast majority of leaders are unpaid, the highest levels of church leadership do receive a stipend. And before I get attacked by naysayers, look into it and you'll find I am correct.

[pam]

You are correct

[california_ave]

Lets clarify here; while the vast majority of leaders are unpaid, the highest levels of church leadership do receive a stipend. And before I get attacked by naysayers, look into it and you'll find I am correct.

Pres. Hinckeley stated in Oct 1985 General Conference explaining why the Church is involved in commercial business:

"I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people."

Before last last decade or two, it was common for GAs to be on the Board of Directors of Church-owned companies. As such, they received salaries for their part-time work on the Board--just as any company does. These salaries were disclosed publicly as with any Board and with a little research could be found.

[Athanasias]

OK, I've got a question for you all. This has really puzzled me. Why are there Anti-Mormons and why do many of them fight against the LDS church? I google "Mormons" or "LDS" and it seems like half the sites are people, many who used to be Mormons, who make it their life's work to knock down the church. Why don't they give it a rest? I don't hear about anti-Lutherans or anti-Baptists or anti-Catholics. I went to Utah a while back and went to the temple square thingy and there were people handing out leaflets against the church and had rude signs. I asked one of them why they were wasting their time tearing down another religion and he just said that they loved Mormons but were afraid they were all lost and were trying to save them for Jesus. That is crap. I just told him to get a life and worry about himself.

Maybe I'm an anti-Baptist or anti-Jehovah Witness. I've had run-ins with them where they get real irate and almost violent when I tell them I'm agnostic. When I tell Mormons that they have always been nice and said that they respect my opinion, but don't share it. Cool

Beleive me there are a ton of anti-Catholic organizations and websites out their trying to snatch Catholics from their church too. Most southern baptist tend to be anti-Catholic( I used to date one).

Edited July 19, 2008 by Athanasias

[pam]

OK, I've got a question for you all. This has really puzzled me. Why are there Anti-Mormons and why do many of them fight against the LDS church? I google "Mormons" or "LDS" and it seems like half the sites are people, many who used to be Mormons, who make it their life's work to knock down the church. Why don't they give it a rest? I don't hear about anti-Lutherans or anti-Baptists or anti-Catholics. I went to Utah a while back and went to the temple square thingy and there were people handing out leaflets against the church and had rude signs. I asked one of them why they were wasting their time tearing down another religion and he just said that they loved Mormons but were afraid they were all lost and were trying to save them for Jesus. That is crap. I just told him to get a life and worry about himself.

Maybe I'm an anti-Baptist or anti-Jehovah Witness. I've had run-ins with them where they get real irate and almost violent when I tell them I'm agnostic. When I tell Mormons that they have always been nice and said that they respect my opinion, but don't share it. Cool

It's the age old question and goes along with the saying. They can leave it but can't leave it alone.

[Palerider]

Lets clarify here; while the vast majority of leaders are unpaid, the highest levels of church leadership do receive a stipend. And before I get attacked by naysayers, look into it and you'll find I am correct.

did you think you were the only one who knew about this??? kinda curious why you decided to share this with us....