Some questions for Mormons

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I'm left wondering how anything is ever considered official belief by the LDS church? If truth can change with each and every LDS prophet, then this leads me to believe that Mormons are trusting in mere mortal men, truth is truth, is it not?

All these men claim to speak for God and the one true church, but the historical record clearly shows that most have, at one time or another contradicted eachother...

Many of the doctrines of the Church were given at general conferences and are still believed such as the doctrine of a “Heavenly Mother”. This doctrine is not found in any of the recognized doctrines but yet it is believed by all Mormons I have encountered.

LDS leaders of past have felt that what they were putting forth was very important just like the leaders of today: consider Brigham Young's statement: "What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? (9) Journal of Discourses 12:127-128 )

If what they preach can be brought back to the "standard," meaning the Bible and Book of Mormon and so on, then it is in line with revealed truths. Anything that will be revealed to us by the prophet has already been outlined in the scriptures at least somewhere. It is also really the things that they unify in, that we should believe in. However we are men and we can choose what to believe.

[Brother Dorsey]

I'm left wondering how anything is ever considered official belief by the LDS church?

Sigh....Again.....

Our President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator Thomas S. Monson as well as all Prophets before him in this final dispensation teach only canonized doctrine of the church. They do however give a lot of good advice for our time and remind us about the standards of God. This advice is considered revelation from God...but it's not part of official doctrine. The only time something a Prophet of God says that is doctrine is when he quotes official doctrine or if it is given to him by Christ to be canonized as doctrine and added to current canonized doctrine for this dispensation in the D & C..

xan -All these men claim to speak for God and the one true church, but the historical record clearly shows that most have, at one time or another contradicted eachother...

Many of the doctrines of the Church were given at general conferences and are still believed such as the doctrine of a “Heavenly Mother”. This doctrine is not found in any of the recognized doctrines but yet it is believed by all Mormons I have encountered.

Please believe us when we say THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DOCTRINE of a "Heavenly Mother". However, some LDS choose to hold to an idea of a Heavenly Mother....this idea in no way changes the doctrine of the church. It changes nothing of Christ's Atonement or teachings and it does not keep us from salvation.

xan- If truth can change with each and every LDS prophet, then this leads me to believe that Mormons are trusting in mere mortal men, truth is truth, is it not?

LOL....hmmm if you are a true believer in the Bible than I could say the same statement to you as many truths were added by each Prophet in the Bible and they were mere mortal men...you trust in them? I do because they were called of God to keep their record of the truth given them.

Yes, truth is truth. Truth, the Gospel, Bible BOM, POGP, D&C doctrine

of the church, whatever you wish to call it does not change with each LDS Prophet....in fact when revelation is given that the Lord wants canonized it is ADDED to the truth, and does not change the truth.

The Bible is truth, the BOM is truth, the POGP is truth, the D & C is truth. The addition of each does not change the whole plan of salvation it is line upon line precept upon precept, truth is given to us in this way. Do you actually believe that you have been given all the truth from the Lord? I guess it all boils down to the fact that you cannot believe that God would want to give us anymore truth and He has stopped talking to his children.

xan-LDS leaders of past have felt that what they were putting forth was very important just like the leaders of today: consider Brigham Young's statement: "What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? (9) Journal of Discourses 12:127-128

Bigger SIGH...why do you refuse to acknowledge my past answer? I'll repost it for you:

.....I have seen you many times posting excerpts from Journals & Discourses....J & D is NOT official canonized doctrine of the church. The only official canonized doctrine of the church is the KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. All others are not.

and:

Our President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator Thomas S. Monson as well as all Prophets before him in this final dispensation teach only canonized doctrine of the church. They do however give a lot of good advice for our time and remind us about the standards of God. This advice is considered revelation from God...but it's not part of official doctrine.

[a-train]

I think it's probably best to just go ahead and end this conversation. We are going to go round and round and round...

I'm tired, you all are tired, and at the end of it all, the more I look into Mormon teachings to find the answers to my questions, the more contradictions I am finding... he said, he said, he said

As I understand it, one cannot even trust your prophets or your church publications for truth in revelation and writings? Im confused...Anyway, after all's said and done, I have learned the answer to my ultimate question so, Thank you all for this very enlightening conversation!

p.s. I'm not gonna respond on this thread any further because inevitabley someone is going to say some really cruel things, or just get super nasty and I think I've had all I can handle of that, so...

Peace, love, and blessings my friends! And thank you to all the really cool Mormons that have befriended me here, you guys rock

You know, if you had read all the LDS quotes in context without just skimming over the anti-mormon websites and pasting it here, you would have come away realizing just how stupid the antis really are. The LDS doctrine has never changed. Be not deceived.

-a-train

[Dale]

The plural of majesty explanation is employed to explain away the "us" and the "our." This explanation say's it is not a conversation between the Father, and son, or his angelic host. I myself reject that explanation. In Genisis 11:6 the people talk about themselve's as an "us" literally. But only when God is talking to Jesus, his angels as an "us" some tell me i am not allowed to take it literally. (vs.7) That to that some God talks about himself in the plural.

How does my alternative view fit with this?

"But you are my witnesses says the Lord . You are my servant. You have chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God--there never has been, and there never will be. I, yes I am the Lord and there is no other Savior." (Isa. 43:10,11, New Living Translation)

"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses, Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."(Isa.44:8,KJV)

We learn as much as an answer we will ever get in modern revelation.

"Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM,"(D.&C. 29:1) And then later in verse 42 Jesus starts speaking as if he was the Father, "I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only begotten Son."

"Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world," (D.&C. 49:5) In verse 28 it says "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, and I come quickly. Even so. Amen."

Jesus when speaking as the Father in these verses is representing the Fathers exclusiveness as God. In the LDS Pearl of Great Price its Selections from the Book of Moses has a few statements from God that interest me.

It said "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. (Chapter 1:6) This is very close to Isa.44:8.

"And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so." (Chapter 2:26) This clearly reveals them as being distinct personalities. The Father knows Jesus exists. He just does not know of him as a God beside him.

God does not mind Jesus being a God with him. "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." (John 1:1)

"R, Laird Harris notes the Hebrew word at Isa.45:5, 'epes' means that there is no one in the supernatural realm who is his equal (47:8,10. Notice they are not saying this means there are no other gods, but only no others which are equal to Israel's God. The background is against the heathen nation and their gods, which probably were taken to be stronger than Israel's God. The Hebrew does not mean there are no others, only that there are no others who are Yahweh's equal, a very different setup than White is claiming." (Journal of Mormon Apologetics, Volume 1, FAIR(1999) pg.43)

When i first read this answer it helped me with Isaiah passages a little. It helped to see the Book of Abraham idea of Gods need not contradict Isaiah. (Chapters 4,5) But it still did not help Jesus fit in as a 2nd God with God. Isaiah 53:6,9-10 do slightly teach a belief in a Father and Son. It does not however have the distinct personalities reveal themselves.

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord [God the Father] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all....And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord [the Father] to bruise him [Christ]; he hath put him to grief." (Isa.53)

But if as in D.&C. 29, and 49 Jesus speaks as the Father we were not meant to know that. He could speak in the same revelation as the Father totally. Or he could speak as the Father, and be Himself. As long as the Fathers personality is expressed through the Son he is still the exclusive God.

Does it make God any less exclusive God to be in a Godhead with two other persons?

[skalenfehl]

Remember the litmus test in James 1:5-6.

Best wishes and don't be a stranger.

[Dale]

XanYou:I just cannot reconcile what you all have said here, to Mormon Doctrine.

Me:That is ok.

You:Joseph Smith wrote:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . .{10}

Me:The Community of Christ of which i am a member see's the sermon as wrong on that point. Deut.13:1-5 does not prevent a prophet from going wrong about God.

You:Here then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . .{13}

Me:Once again the sermon does not represent my churches teachings. But i don't see what you posted as disproving my answer to you.

You:Bruce McConkie states, "An exalted and glorified man of holiness could not be a Father unless a woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state."{15}

All men and women are thus the offspring of this heavenly union.

Me:Go to Mormon Miscellaneous. Van Hale has a paper on the Origin of Spirit in Early Mormon Thought. Joseph Smith held God was uncreated. He did not teach the spirit birth idea and Van Hale documents this well that this idea was not clearly his. We split from the LDS in 1844, so their leaders are not our leaders. So we never continued the idea of eternal marriage.

Why are you bothered by his idea i am not? My theology differed from Bruce R. Mckonkie but i love most of his ideas. I doubt the literal spirit children idea.

You:James Talmage wrote, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title 'Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race."{16}

Me:LDS believe that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the age of artificial insemination and cloning other means of God having a Son exists. Where do the scriptures teach the literal spirit children idea? D.&C. 132 is the only supposed prophetic early source of the idea i know of.

You:I am confused about this one too because it's from a prophet from your church,

Over a period of 21 years Brigham Young taught that Adam was the God of this world, the creator of it, the Father of Jesus Christ, and our Heavenly Father. As the second Prophet, Seer, Revelator and President of the LDS Church, he taught this as essential church doctrine both in private and public discourse.

Me:He also distinguished Adam from Elo-heim 1852 sermon. if he was wrong does Deut.13:1-5 prevent a true prophet from later going wrong about God?

You:Here are quotes from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam-God.

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later .... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; … Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation" (April 9, 1852, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pages 50-51).

Me:In the 1852 sermon he also clarifies his belief in Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael.

You:"I purpose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare. I expect in my remarks I will allude to things that you search after as being absolutely necessary for your salvation in the kingdom of God .… Father Adam and Mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; … and that body gets an exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowned in the Father’s kingdom. ‘What, into Adam’s kingdom?’ Yes .… I tell you, when you see your father in the heavens, you will see Adam. When you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve." (October 8, 1854, Where Does It Say That?, pages 1-8, 1-9; Brigham Young Papers Mss, Call # Ms d 1234, Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Me:He said in another sermon that he could not get LDS to accept his ideas. So his ideas never changed official Mormon Doctrine. We feel Joseph Smith 3rds Joseph Smiths son was prophet, so rejected the idea to. At most the only doctrine that effects my church are ones attributed to Joseph smith. and i do not feel they effect the truth of the LDS Church or mine one bit.

You:"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true" (October 7, 1857, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 331).

"I will give you a few words of doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God that will be a curse to many Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet upon it the world hold it derision." ("A Few Words of Doctrine" reported by G.D. Watts, given by President Brigham Young in Great Salt Lake City, October 8th, 1861. A.M., photocopy of archive # Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8).

Me:Big deal. I read these same Adam God quotes for many years. I am ex-LDS. I did not read these sermons and think Mormonism was false because of them. They had nothing to do with my becoming RLDS. That is because i came to see that a true prophet can be wrong about such subjects and still be a prophet. In the LDS and my church a President can be in transgression for heresy, ect. But unless charged in accordance with the Doctrine and Covenants he cannot have his office taken from him. Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith were never charged with anything so are innocent under church law.

You:It's my understanding that this is not doctrine anymore, but why did a prophet say all the above things and claim they were revealed to him if they are not true?

Did the Holy Spirit reveal them or not?

Me:It was never LDS doctrine. Why does Mormonism have to be false if a prophet errs about God. Does Deut. 13:1-5 prevent a true prophet from later erring about God? Was not Judas as an Apostle ever inspired in what he said? Galatians 1:8,9 has Paul saying even he could teach a wrong gospel. If it were ever proved he erred in such a manner should i have to throw out the writings of Paul? I do not see the truth of the church dependent on a prophets personal errors. If a prophet can err about the gospel why not about God also?

Joseph Smith taught that even his revelations needed to be tested in the leading quorums of the church before going to the people. He knew he could accept a false manifestation as a true one. His idea was that such a revelation if under discussion ran against a snag in discussion it might be stopped before going to the people. As early as 1829 David whitmer said Joseph Smith taught some revelations were of men, others of god and others of the Devil. It was never his teaching that the prophetic office was any guarantee of infallability.

With Brigham Young he had one revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. (D.&C. 136) If that was a true revelation it does not matter even if he erred over 20 years on Adam God. Why don't you get an LDS D.&C. and apply the Barean test to all of it? (Acts 17:11) Why not pray to God about what you are reading? (Moroni 10) Just beware the Thessalonican test. This is the universal anti-Mormon test used on Mormonism all the time.

I really hate to see you leave the conversation. I do not hate you. I feel you have been mislead. I feel you are decieved. I am willing to labor with you if you are sincerely interested and want to know the answers. If what you felt about Mormonism were untrue would you want to know it? If the answer is "No." then not even God can help you.

[Guest Leeanntheonetwo]

All these men claim to speak for God and the one true church, but the historical record clearly shows that most have, at one time or another contradicted eachother...

Warm greetings my brothers and sisters,

hello ah, I think Miss X has left the building.

I believe Miss x has revealed some contradictions to be sure. I for one will miss xanmad33's observations and her knowledge of our church. Can we at least get an agreement on that? She was more Christ like then any Christian I have ever met.

I posted just one message in this whole thread. This message is somewhere on page 34 if I remember correctly. In this message I talk about our Heavenly Father giving me a dream about true humility. This message reveled to me why some will recognize the truth when they see it and why many will not. This word from God has tough me to humble myself so that I may consider if what my brothers or sisters are saying is the truth.

The problem is, in my opinion. We all think that we have a handle on the truth but when we learn to humble ourselves we often see what we thought was the truth is just another lie. Our minds were never created to contain lies, therefore the our minds get messed up when they are full of lies. Have you ever thought that something was true only to learn that you were wrong? I know I have many times.

I am so proud of many of you for standing up for the Mormon Faith. I don't see myself as an expert on the doctrine of our church but I do see what x was trying to tell us. It is my hope that after you read my post you will go back and reread what x was trying to share with us, only this time let your guard down a little and just consider that some of what she said might be true. True humility is willing to let go of what we believe is true for the truth when we see it.

Much Love,

Leeann

[WillowTheWhisp]

Leeann I understand what you are trying to say and I don't think any of us wish to deny xanmad the right to her own beliefs. However, that does not mean that we should agree with them and where she has posed questions then she herself has said that she expects us to answer them. What more can we do than answer them in the light of the teachings of the Church which we believe to be true? We cannot deny what we know to be the truth just because she does not believe it. She is perfectly entitled to continue not to believe it, and I would defend her right not to believe it but I would never change my beliefs nor compromise them.

At one point she asked me to answer all of her previous questions which were followed by scriptural verses purporting to support her viewpoint. I spent several hours last night going through just one of those posts and taking every single one of those scriptures, reading and studying it in context and formulating a response - which was subsequently ignored.

I have put forward my point of view, which I believe is fairly representative of LDS point of view and given scriptural references to support that. In particular the idea of Trinity which is non-Biblical. I asked a question which has got lost somewhere in mountains of quotes from Brigham Young and other non-Canonical sources.

Xanmad asked if we believe that Jesus has always existed. I was under the impression that she did believe that he had always existed but now I'm not so sure what she does believe as she produced Biblical verses claiming they support a doctrine that he did not exist at the point of creation - despite the fact that the New Testament tells us that by him all things were made and there is not anything made that was not made by him.

I would have loved to have continued the discussion on the subject of "The Word" where the Bible tells is that "The Word" was there in the beginning with God and that "The Word" was God and that "The Word" became flesh and dwelt among us. I have not always been LDS and in fact I investigated many churches before I was baptised LDS but in all of them I recall that they taught that "The Word" was a name given to Jesus Christ and that it teaches that Jesus was there with God (Heavenly Father/The Most High) from the very beginning of what we know as "time" and that he was the one who came down to earth in human form. Some of them who even believe the idea of three in one and one in three still believe that the three parts of the one were all there from the start. I thought xanmad was saying we were wrong if we did not believe that and giving the doctrine of Jesus being the first born in the spirit world as an example of our "error" but now she has said that God was alone and singular at the start.

It's a shame that she has decided to leave the thread at this point because I would have loved a clarification of what she actually does believe on this topic.

I agree with you 100% about the need for humility but also we need to consider this alongside the need to stand "strong and immovable" as we have been instructed by our leaders that we will not be swayed into believing something which is not true. We need to have our feet planted firmly in the Gospel to be able to discern truth from error. Xanmad came here asking us questions and to the best of our ability we have answered them. What more can we do?

It's quite interesting to me that my non-member husband who was brought up in the Church of England (which preaches the Trinity) has never actually believed in the three in one and one in three idea and every time anyone mentions that, he is the one who says "Twaddle. That's not what it says in the Bible!"

One day we will all know the truth and I hope that when I meet my Saviour face to face that I recognise him and that he recognises me and doesn't say "I never knew you"

[Elgama]

I don't know if Xan will come back which is a shame but I wanted to show a simple example of why it is OK for doctrine to change/alter over time: women and dress - the ideas of what constitutes true modesty is have changed over the millenia

In the Bible during the Old Testament women had a very strong presence, and in the Early new Testament, Paul felt it was wrong for women to speak in church, they should cover their hair. He also advised the slave to return home

When Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were speaking the idea of a skirt just above the knee would have been indecent, but were revolutionary when they talked about how to be a true priesthood holder it was not beneath you to help with the housework (I know men in the 1950s that wouldn't push a pram). They also did not tell slaves to go back

Later prophets skirt length to the calf was OK you could show an ankle or two

Then skirt to just below the knee

now it can be just above the knee

All these doctrines were correct for their times - our doctrine today is correct for our time. It is arrogance beyond anything I can comprehend for someone to assume as human we will understand all there is to know about God in this life time - its because it is openly contradictory that I believe this is the True Church - it allows for growth and knowledge of God to increase without contradictions knowledge doesn't grow. The Bible is full of contradictions - an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek, worship one God but there are 3 parts etc And are there others. And that is OK because we are not at the stage of knowing the Truth and nothing but the Truth and until then things contradict, they do however contradict less with the standard works and the modern prophets

That is why the Holy Ghost will always be needed. It is OK to believe what the current prophet teaches us as doctrine - it is not automatically OK to believe what a previous prophet has said is true because our knowledge has grown and evolved. That was always the case in Bible Moses was taken over Abraham, John over Peter....

The Gospel of Mary (I know its not canon) shows the disagreements that apostles can have.

-Charley

[Elgama]

Aagreement on that? She was more Christ like then any Christian I have ever met.

I posted just one message in this whole thread. This message is somewhere on page 34 if I remember correctly. In this message I talk about our Heavenly Father giving me a dream about true humility. This message reveled to me why some will recognize the truth when they see it and why many will not. This word from God has tough me to humble myself so that I may consider if what my brothers or sisters are saying is the truth.

The problem is, in my opinion. We all think that we have a handle on the truth but when we learn to humble ourselves we often see what we thought was the truth is just another lie. Our minds were never created to contain lies, therefore the our minds get messed up when they are full of lies. Have you ever thought that something was true only to learn that you were wrong? I know I have many times.

I am so proud of many of you for standing up for the Mormon Faith. I don't see myself as an expert on the doctrine of our church but I do see what x was trying to tell us. It is my hope that after you read my post you will go back and reread what x was trying to share with us, only this time let your guard down a little and just consider that some of what she said might be true. True humility is willing to let go of what we believe is true for the truth when we see it.

Hang on I have yet to see a single person treat Xan badly - she came on the board and asked for answers, which she got, she doesn't understand them that is fine but the answers were honest, it felt personal to her because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is about religion being personal each one of us has that relationship with our God which we guard jealously, that is how it should be but a normal Christian also has their own relationship, which is depending on the Christian very restricted. when I see someone suggest that God is Lucifer of course I feel pain - I would feel same way if someone referred to my husband as evil. I ran every post past a couple of Christian friends before replying neither found them offensive.

Humility isn't my strong suit, I'm arrogant, honest and intelligent not good qualities when searching for humility and patience - its definitely a work in progress but I see a lot of humility in this thread I see Latter Day Saint, after Latter Day Saint stating they are doing their best to do God's will because he commands them to do so and that is humility.

There very few amazing Christians who can dialogue with Latter Day Saints without feeling it gets too personal DrT and PrisonChaplain more than make my point that we worship the same God I feel the power in their words frequently. Brigham Young said that (paraphrasing) if someone takes offense when non was intended they are a fool, and someone who takes offense when it was intended is usually a fool. I was not offended by Xan's words none of them are new I dealt with the hurt a long time ago, and I see no offence aimed at Xan either. Her inner spirit is conflicted and struggling thats fine its where she is at - I appreciate she got a lot fired at her but its an open LDS forum that was going to happen we are all at our own stages of understanding, and have our own ideas and ways of phrasing things - its where we are at

-Charley

[WillowTheWhisp]

As Xan isn't coming back I won't bother answering the second batch of her questions but it is rather a shame that she has decided to abandon this thread in mid flow. It took me quite a long time to deal with the first batch and I don't think I would have time to tackle the second lot this weekend anyway. It's not so much the posting as the reading and studying the quoted scriptures in the context of their setting which takes up all the time.

[Brother Dorsey]

In xan's original post she said she wanted to know what we believe and she had a few questions. But it is evident that this was not really the case. She had already made up her mind about what we believe and was not here to have questions answered but to tell us what we believe and to try and prove our beliefs wrong. She wanted us to prove our faith and we all know that's impossible.

Time after time, post after post the LDS faithful here answered her questions and clarified what we believe....she could not accept or acknowledge the answers, she just tried to prove our faith wrong and then ask the same question again as if our honest answers didn't matter. Yes, she was cordial, yes she was somewhat Christlike in the sense she didn't attack the poster. Again, from the beginning as she really had no intention of learning anything about us "Mormons". She made up her mind long before coming here. This was easily discernible after only a few pages of the thread.

I wish her the best and pray the Father will soften her heart to earnestly search for the truth.

[Dale]

With Xan i suspect she took a lot witnessing to Mormon training. She just had to much knowledge of quotes she got from Anti-Mormon sources not for me to suspect that. Her questions were to practiced not to be deliberate. So she comes her thinking she will save a bunch of Book of Mormon believers from the deception she thinks we are under. She fought every answer she was given to the point my patience was wearing quite thin.

If she had a bad experience here that is because she invited it upon herself. The last time i replied to her she gave me a quick angry rebuttal with a stack of quotations demonstrating her fight mentality. It is kind of hard to respond to every isssue she raised as she was attempting to overwhelm you with issues. If she had stuck around i could have spent the next five weeks answering her issues and she still would choose to remain confused.

I have a copy of Jerald and Sandra Tanners Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?. As a rule unless i do not allow Evangelicals to cite the whole contents to me. I do not like debate with people who are trying to witness to me. I ask myself a question before dialoguing with Evangelicals. "If what this person felt about my religion were untrue would they want to know it?" And if my little voice tells tells me "No." my rule is to tell them to "Stop." But i was having fun so i tolerated it longer than i should have as far as my own participation went.

[Guest Leeanntheonetwo]

when I see someone suggest that God is Lucifer of course I feel pain - I would feel same way if someone referred to my husband as evil.

Sorry Charley but did I miss something? Are you saying that X suggested that God is Lucifer? Could you please show me the quote.

Thank you

Leeann

[a-train]

The long lists of scriptures and quotes looked like copy and paste from anti sites. The inability to talk about context, her jumping from topic to topic without admitting she was wrong about the last, her ignoring of the most basic biblical questions, it was all typical of someone who really knows little about the subject but simply throws out everything they can pull from an anti-mormon book or website in an effort to make apparent endless contradictions and mistakes which they hope are so difficult and numerous to check out the real context and meaning that no one will bother to do so, and she certainly didn't.

My whole life the anti-mormon/mormon 'dialogue' has been the same:

ANTI: 'What about Adam-God and Brigham Young?'

MORMON: 'Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, but not Eloheim. Did you look into that? Do you know the difference?'

ANTI: 'Blacks weren't allowed to hold the priesthood in your Church until a supposed 'revelation' came in 1978, don't you see how racist this cult is?'

MORMON: 'Did you look into the scriptural issue surrounding that and did you know that Joseph Smith ordained black men to the Priesthood?'

ANTI: 'But you think you can become a god and have your own planet!'

MORMON: 'The whole planet thing is really nowhere in LDS teaching, but I do find it odd that you would be so freaked out about it when the first thing our Bible tells us is that God made a planet, gave it to a man, and gave him dominion over all of it. I think you have received some bad information, did you know Mormons don't really believe they will be greater than God or equal to Him? Did you know our scriptures say plainly that we will serve God forever?'

ANTI: 'But there is only one God and the Bible says there are no other gods beside Him.'

MORMON: 'Yes, and it also says that God is a God of gods and that we are gods, the children of the Most High. Have you read that?'

ANTI: 'You believe in a different god, my God is the true God, the only God. You believe in a god that had a beginning, a god who started as a man and worked his way to godhood.'

MORMON: 'Mormons do not believe that God had any beginning, nor that He worked his way up from non-God to God. The only addition Mormonism offers is but a tiny glimpse at what God was doing before He created this earth. Did you look into that?'

ANTI: 'You can't offer more. The Bible is the word of God and it says in Revelations that you can't add to or take away from God's word. But you have your Book of Mormon, your Pearl of Great Price, your D&C, and all your journals of discourses. You can't add to God's word.'

MORMON: 'Were you aware that Moses wrote a similar verse about adding to the pentateuch in Deuteronomy 4? Were you aware that Revalation may have been written before the Gospel of John? Were you aware that the Bible was not compiled until centuries after that? Isn't it more plausible that the 'book' John was talking about was the Book of Revelation itself?'

ANTI: 'God had the foreknowledge to put that verse there and He miraculously brought about the compilation of the Bible, and today we have thousands of manuscripts that all confirm it came down to us with miraculous precision. But your Book of Mormon which you claim to have been translated by the power of God has had over 3000 changes since 1830.'

MORMON: 'What indication does the Bible give us that God miraculously compiled the Bible generations after the individual books were written? And, that He cannot or will not give further revelation?'

ANTI: 'What indication do we have that God would give us a faulty book full of errors from Joseph Smith?'

It goes on and on. The anti tries to never answer questions or do anything more than just barely skim the surface of their accusations. And when we try to take them deeper into the issue, they jump to the next subject. Why? Because they are not interested in learning, they only are attempting to prove something.

It is the tactic as old as the hills and they all do it the same.

-a-train

[skalenfehl]

I agree with a-train. I certainly admire xanmad but I also noticed the vast lists of quotes and scriptures. Her personal knowledge may be limited by what she has learned where she studies and by what she has found and likely bookmarked online and perhaps saved on neatly organized Word documents. I was about to address each issue and scripture, but it really wouldn't have accomplished anything. I did, however, feel moved by the Spirit to pull at least one quote, which was incomplete (by Pres. Hinckley) and to correct it.

I don't believe she is here to purposefully or blatantly mislead us, but by using such incomplete and out of context quotes only proved that she was misled to use that kind of "anti" tactic on us, else she would have included complete quotes in their correct context (either that or I have to believe that she is using subtle craftiness to deceive our less studied members of the church, but I choose to have more faith in her). This further illustrates that her personal understanding of the scriptures is also limited and that she has yet to ponder and pray about them.

Moroni 10:3-5

James 1: 5-6

Respectfully

[WillowTheWhisp]

Well she asked me to answer all her questions which covered 3 posts - I managed to deal with the first post but that took me hours and yet she never came back to me on any of the points I raised in response to her scriptures and questions. Before I got around to the second post she had announced that she was leaving the thread, from which I can only conclude that she had no intention of reading and studying my answers. Which makes me wonder why she insisted that I answer those points.

Still, it was an interesting and faith building challenge for me as I delved deeper into the scriptural misunderstandings which she presented. I may look at the rest of them purely for my own interest next week.

I don't think anyone was ever downright insulting to Xanmad considering our intelligence was frequently questioned and doubts cast upon our ability to read and understand the Bible.

[skalenfehl]

That is because you are searching and reading and pondering. She's grabbing scriptures and quotes en masse and posting them here without really reviewing each item. That's why I didn't bother to address each incomplete quote and out of context scripture. I'll grant that she did take some time to address some points, but she will never be able to dispute personal revelation. Ever.

[a-train]

That is the whole plan Willow. The antis do not intend to ever allow their so-called 'points' which are nothing but signs of tremendous ignorance or deceit to be fully conversed on and all valid dynamics discussed. Thats the whole tactic, it is commonly known as 'hit and run'.

Even when they are still standing there, they are running.

-a-train

[Misshalfway]

There were a few posts that in my opinion did get personal. I am always sad when I see that happen. Had I been in her shoes, I would have felt defensive. But on the balance, I think everyone was honest and civil. I think she was honest and civil. I wished to see more respectful discussion and peaceful disagreement than artful manipulation of words and meanings. Trying to catch each other in their words......

It was clear that she was extremely knowledgeable. I must respect her ability to recall such information and present it in such an organized way... and to do so so quickly! She must be exhausted. And there is no doubt in my mind of her sincere love for the Lord. But, I didn't see any listening happening in this conversation. Only arguing. Only trying to be right. It was a classic courtroom battle. No winners or losers. No coming together. Not a conversation of mutual respect. I am not sure what she thought would happen. She wanted answers. She got them -- to the best of our ability in this limited medium. Was she looking for us to agree? That would have been a tall order. I am not sure she heard what was really being said to her. And maybe we didn't hear her either. These conversations go round and round and never get anywhere. It was intellectually stimulating. It did help me confirm my faith. But.......Any hearts softened? Anybody feel the spirit?

I will say it again. Bible bashing never works.

[Andrew777]

There was nothing Christ like about the conversation. My mother & her husband also believe like xanmadd that when I pray to God I'm not praying to the Christian God but to Lucifer and that when I open myself to guidance by the Holy Ghost I'm actually being guided by Satan's demons. Calling God the devil and the Holy Ghost a demon is not Christian and isn't respectful whether you state it outright or pretend the Bible says it is so.

[Andrew777]

That is the whole plan Willow. The antis do not intend to ever allow their so-called 'points' which are nothing but signs of tremendous ignorance or deceit to be fully conversed on and all valid dynamics discussed. Thats the whole tactic, it is commonly known as 'hit and run'.

Even when they are still standing there, they are running.

-a-train

It was just copy and pastes from anti-Mormon websites.

[DapperDan]

"I seem to be the only one who's unaffiliated."

[xanmad33]

I cannot understand why this thread is still open?

Is it so that everyone can come as they have to render these harsh judgements against me?

Is it to call me names? Accuse me of hate? Judge my intentions?

What about living up to your name? What about being Christ-like?

What about "they will know you by your love"

If anyone disagrees with my posts, thats perfectly fine, post your disagreement.

Please stop posting your personal judgements of me and my true intentions. You know nothing of me.

I may not have been the most patient person here, or even the most loving in my delivery, but I did try to leave emotion out of it. If you read back through, you will see exactly why things jumped from one subject to another--becasue I was being asked one subject after another. I understand, it's the nature of conversation, I'm not upset, but please don't act like I am the only one responsible for that.

Please forgive me if every question was not answered to your satisfaction, I tried very hard to do so, but alas I am only one person.

I never say I was leaving the board, I said I was leaving this thread. I have every intention of joining other threads that are more focused, I just thought this one had run it's course, especially after Brother Dorsey said the things he did, basically insinuating I am of the devil. I love my Lord with my whole heart, and to have someone insinuate such a vile thing really made me step back and feel it was time to end this thread...

And willow wisp--I could have come back with many other verses and we could go around all day, but at the end of the day it wouldn't matter and I would have wasted my time becasue you had already judged me and my intentions in previous posts, it was obvious to me based on what you had already accused me of that you werent receptive to anything I had to say.

I see no Christ like behavior here today, nothing but judgement, accusation and just plain disrespect, so if you all are done now, perhaps the Mods can do the right thing.

Peace, love and blessing, X

[skalenfehl]

Many have been judgmental, myself included. Misshalfway said it best. Bible bashing never works. May we all find common ground in the future and build on it. Xanmad I'll go ahead and lock this thread for you.

Best wishes. Please don't be a stranger.