LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[ArmenianJohn]

See this link -> http://c.web.umkc.edu/cowande/ccp/decker.htm ?

Right in the first list.

That's one person's opinion. He presents his own opinion and the opinions of some others. He says what he thinks is wrong in what Decker says. However, I don't see any proof that Decker is a "liar". I also don't see any proof that he is persecuting Mormons. I see that this writer asserts that Decker is wrong about mormonism in a lot of ways and that he is offensive, but I don't see anything about lying or persecuting.

Also, I hope you understand that this is not the UMKC's website with their views. This is the site of one of their grad students or teachers and contains his writings and views.

Yes.

To this day, members of the church are subject to violence and threats of violence, even here in places like America. The buildings are subject to vandalism and even arson, and LDS materials are frequently destroyed or displayed like war trophies by "Good Christians".

It's actually a common practice for "Good Christians" to physically disrupt LDS meetings and services, with this disruption often consisting of groups of people marching right on into the buildings themselves and making as big a spectacle as possible.

I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the LDS meetinghouse I went to was desecrated by people who painted a pentagram on the front lawn and then stapled a dead deer to it. The building itself, meanwhile, has been broken into so often that the building administrator has the cops on speed dial.

So again, do you have any proof of any of these? If it happens all the time and to this day then you should be able to find some kind of story on one of these vandalisms or arsons or acts of violence against mormons. Any references?

And even if mormons are the target of desecration, what is the point in bringing it up? Are you implying or even outright making the case that since mormons are (allegedly) victims of persecution in the form of desecration of their churches that Christianity as a whole is to be blamed for this and that Christianity as a whole should be distrusted entirely?

I don't know why you're making such a big deal about persecution or the alleged desecration of mormon buildings etc. unless you're trying to discredit all of Christianity by blaming Christianity for it.

But I'll believe any of what you say when I see some evidence for it. So far you haven't shown evidence for your claims.

 

[Ironhold]

That's one person's opinion. He presents his own opinion and the opinions of some others. He says what he thinks is wrong in what Decker says. However, I don't see any proof that Decker is a "liar". I also don't see any proof that he is persecuting Mormons. I see that this writer asserts that Decker is wrong about mormonism in a lot of ways and that he is offensive, but I don't see anything about lying or persecuting.

Also, I hope you understand that this is not the UMKC's website with their views. This is the site of one of their grad students or teachers and contains his writings and views.


So again, do you have any proof of any of these? If it happens all the time and to this day then you should be able to find some kind of story on one of these vandalisms or arsons or acts of violence against mormons. Any references?

And even if mormons are the target of desecration, what is the point in bringing it up? Are you implying or even outright making the case that since mormons are (allegedly) victims of persecution in the form of desecration of their churches that Christianity as a whole is to be blamed for this and that Christianity as a whole should be distrusted entirely?

I don't know why you're making such a big deal about persecution or the alleged desecration of mormon buildings etc. unless you're trying to discredit all of Christianity by blaming Christianity for it.

But I'll believe any of what you say when I see some evidence for it. So far you haven't shown evidence for your claims.

What evidence do you want at this point? A dead body on the live television news?

 

[Ironhold]

Response To Chick 5

• by Ironhold, Oct 19, 2009, 8:46:52 PM
• Literature / Prose / Non-Fiction / Academic Essays

Chick Publications, www.chick.com/bc/1985/mormonis…

There Is Nothing More Pagan
Mormon Teaching

Issue Date: January/February 1985

You will never learn Mormon doctrine from their Articles of Faith. Those are written to hide their teachings from "gentile" readers.

No, they were written in order to show non-Mormons that the church is indeed a Christian faith.

You must look into their secret temple ceremonies and the writings of their prophets. Here are some of the surprising results.

Define "surprising."

Mormon scripture consists of four books. They are: (1) The Book of Mormon (2) Doctrine and Covenants (3) Pearl of Great Price and (4) The Bible (in that order). The first three books seriously contradict the Bible. Mormons often ignore the Bible, claiming it is "mis-translated."

False on multiple counts.

1. The Bible is not ignored. In fact, at present the church does Sunday School instruction on an annual rotating basis: one year is given to the Old Testament, one year is given to the New Testament, another year is given to the Book of Mormon, and another year is given to the Doctrine & Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price is broken up among the four.

2. Chick merely claims that the three texts contradict; he doesn't even hint at the prospect of showing proof.

3. The LDS viewpoint of the Bible is that over the years, precious truths have been lost due to a combination of translation difficulties (translating words and documents isn't an exact science) and human alteration, both accidental and purposeful. While the Bible is still an inspired document, one must read it carefully and use discernment in order to determine what is and isn't truthful.

Joseph Smith was God's prophet. "No man can come to Christ except through Joseph Smith."

LDS belief is that each prophet is over a certain dispensation; the people of that era will have to answer to that prophet. Just like those of Moses' day will have to answer to Moses and those of Elijah will have to answer to Elijah, those in this day and age will have to answer to Joseph Smith.

Prophets are better than Scriptures. The words of a Mormon prophet supercede [sic] those of the written Scriptures.

The belief is that God hasn't closed the door to continuing revelation. As such, humanity gets what it needs to get by at the time, and is given more when it can handle more.

In fact, Chick's own argument runs contrary to the Bible itself; Jesus, and later the Apostles, superseded many an Old Testament prophet as well as the religious teachers of the day.

God was once a man who progressed to Godhood. Mormons believe we can do the same. Their God has a physical body of flesh and bone.

There are many gods in heaven.

Psalms 82:10, KJV –
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:22-42, KJV –

22 ¶ And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
42 And many believed on him there.

Here we have two passages of the Bible (the latter referencing the former) wherein humans of high status, both in the religious and secular sense, were referred to as "gods" in order to denote their status. Note, however, that the term "God" is not actually used; although these persons are still of high status, this does not imply that their own status challenges God in any fashion. Thus, the Bible itself refutes Chick's implied argument that any use of the word "god" is in reference to God himself.

As for the concept that humans can be exalted, Topical Guide: Exaltation - scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/e/119

God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are supposedly separate gods, united only in purpose.

John 17:20-22, KJV –
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Let's use a little bit of logic here.

Jesus is praying that his followers will share the same degree of unity that he has with the Father, right?

If we are to assume that the unity one of spirit and purpose, then we have no issue here.

If we are to assume that the unity is physical, however, we have some problems to consider.

God is having kids. Surrounded by what must be 1,000 or more wives, God is having little spirit babies which will inhabit the people born on the earth. The number of babies this requires Him to produce daily is incredible! No explanation is given why their God of flesh and bone, having babies through physical sexual contact with his wives, has only spirit babies. They teach that Mary married God to have Jesus (or else He would have been illegitimate) and then divorced him to marry Joseph.

Once more, false on multiple counts.

1. The bit about God having over a thousand wives is nothing more than a fabrication on Chick's part. No such doctrine exists.

2. The "spirit children" are, folks, you and I. LDS theology holds that everyone who ever has set foot on Earth, everyone who is on Earth right now, and everyone who will be on Earth knew one another in the Pre-Mortal. Thus, Chick's statement that God is constantly fathering more children is also a fabrication.

3. The remainder of Chick's argument is a gross distortion of a statement once made by Brigham Young, a statement that has been taken wildly out of context almost since the day he made it.

Young stated that the birth of Jesus occurred through "natural" means; it violated no laws of science. In the time since Young made that statement, science itself has granted Young's words a degree of credibility: eggs can begin the process of cell division leading to the creation of offspring without having first been fertilized. However, the process invariably results in female offspring; the miracle, then, is overriding that tendency for the sake of producing a male offspring.

Dark skin results from a "curse" placed upon certain spirits, presumably for some failure during "pre-existence." This anti-Negro doctrine is an embarrassment for Mormon leaders, and they are under great pressure to change it.

The "change" was made in 1978, eight years before this essay was written. For Chick to be that far out of date is inexcusable. At the time Chick wrote the essay, the items in question – which hadn't even been doctrine to begin with – were being roundly denounced.

Women need husbands for resurrection at the end of time. Without a man to "lift the veil" over her face on resurrection day she won't make it. She is desperate to see her husband remain a true Mormon so she may be resurrected. Women's liberation has not made great inroads here.

Utterly false.

1. Wives can, in fact, reject their husbands at the Resurrection. If a woman rejects her husband, someone actually worthy of her as a person will be located instead.

2. Utah was actually the second territory in the Union to grant women the right to vote. As a result, throughout the late 1800s Utah was actually a staging ground for the female suffrage movement. This was reversed in the late 1800s, when one of the myriad of (legally questionable) anti-polygamy laws stripped all Mormons – women included – of the right to vote; Mormon women were a feared voting bloc, one that the politicians back East didn't want to have to tangle with. Sadly, this is something that history books take great pains to hide.

Jesus had many wives. They say Mary and Martha were among his wives. One Mormon authority said Jesus was killed for his polygamy.

Source?

You see, no such teaching actually exists. It's a somewhat common matter of speculation as to whether or not he was married and who he was married to, but that's about it.

The Book of Mormon is infallible. Mormon Articles of Faith say, "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly: we also believe The Book of Mormon to be the Word of God." They claim anything in the Bible which denies Mormon teaching is "incorrectly translated."

How is that different from the many other Christian denominations and organizations who ignore or try to rebut any bit of scripture or history that they don't like?

Polygamy in heaven will be the rule. While early Mormon leaders taught and practiced polygamy, today few practice it due to fear of arrest. However, they teach that men (but not women) will be polygamists in heaven.

No such teachings exist. Additionally, most people who do not practice polygamy do so because they wish to obey the laws of the land, not for fear of arrest.

Marriage for eternity is performed in Mormon temples. Perhaps they consider Jesus' words to the contrary (Matt. 22:30) are "mis-translated."

Matthew 22:22-33, KJV –
23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Chick, in usual form, grossly misinterprets the passage.

At the time Jesus existed, the culture was that if a man died before fathering any children his wife would be given to his next-of-kin, with the next-of-kin fathering children in his name.

Jesus was balking not at the concept of marriage after death, but at this practice; he was noting that the subsequent marriages will not be regarded as valid, and that if there is an issue it will be sorted out before hand.

"Holy underwear" is put on during the Mormon marriage ceremony (performed only in the temple). These "garments" must always touch the body for the rest of life. This is supposed to keep the "anointing oil" of the temple ceremony from escaping. Some irreverently call then "angel pants."

"Holy underwear" is rather irreverent, too.

The temple garments are viewed as a reminder that the person has made certain promises when taking out their endowments, something that is separate from a sealing. Their being worn has nothing at all to do with the anointing oil.

Additionally, the garments can indeed be removed. Not only are they typically removed for bathing and having the garments cleaned, a person may choose to remove them when participating in any activity which they feel may result in the garments being damaged; an example of this is athletes who remove the garments lest they become stained with sweat or torn.

Baptism for the dead is done to provide non-Mormon ancestors a place in "celestial glory." Mormons spend great sums on genealogical research to find relatives who had no Mormon baptism. They say no one can get to heaven without baptism, and heaven has no water, so they baptize the living for their dead.

Faulty conclusion.

Baptism is something that must be done on Earth.

Hence, vicarious baptism.

Nothing has been mentioned as to whether or not there is water in Heaven.

Proxy marriage for the dead is performed in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that loved ones who died outside Mormonism will live alone in the hereafter. Mormons conduct proxy weddings to "seal" these dead ones so they can be husband and wife in heaven.

The belief is that any marriage performed by someone who did not have the proper authority is rendered null once one or both parties is deceased.

This is actually taken for granted in Christendom, as the generic wedding vows involve the phrase "Till death do you part."

Three heavens (degrees of glory) are taught: "Celestial," "Terrestrial," and "Telestial." All except the worst sinners (doomed to perdition) are expected to go to one of these. Only Mormons who marry in the Temple, keep the "Word of Wisdom" and wear their "garments" can get to the Celestial kingdom. God is supposed to be there. Those whose works aren't good enough, are stuck with the lower levels, where they are denied the "joys" of a polygamous eternity.

Chick once again errors in assuming that the LDS regards salvation as being a function of one's own works. In reality, the belief is that a person must live their lives in the most upright fashion possible; as stated in James chapter 2, a person must demonstrate their testimony through their deeds. As such, what puts a person in the lower levels is sin.

There is no hell according to current Mormon teaching. Even though The Book of Mormon teaches about hell, Mormons deny its existence. Much of current Mormon teaching contradicts their "infallible" Book of Mormon.

False.

What non-Mormons would know as "hell" is what church theology refers to as "Outer Darkness." This is a location that is so far removed from God's light that it is metaphorically dark. Here, a person will spend all of eternity by themselves, left to contemplate their actions and misdeeds.

The one true church is the Mormon church. All others are apostate.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Many of their doctrines, taught by Mormon "prophets," are a great embarrassment to present Mormon leaders. They are even attempting to deny that their great prophets ever taught some of theses things.

But the historical record is clear. The writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others include the above doctrines.

So it shouldn't have been too hard for you to actually cite sources, eh?

Obviously Mormonism, which bases its claim to be the true church on the absolute reliability of early Mormon prophets, is proving today that those prophets were not speaking the words of an infallible God. Mormonism is continually changing and self-contradictory.

Imagine being born into this pagan system, believing with all your heart that it is the only truth! May God give us compassion and boldness to lead Mormons to abandon this horrendous mixture and find life-changing faith in Jesus Christ!

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Can we get back on topic. This is getting way off topic for many, many pages.

If God was behind Mormonism, it would have way more members than it does. 5 million people is a drop in the bucket compared to every other religion. It is only comparable to Jehovah Witnesses.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

What evidence do you want at this point? A dead body on the live television news?

A simple news story or article would suffice. I don't know why you say "at this point" - it's not like you've provided any evidence at all. You've provided links to the opinions of others and even those opinions don't say that Decker (or the others) are liars and persecutors, they just say that Decker (and the others) are somehow wrong in what they say.

So, any evidence that is actual evidence would suffice.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Can we get back on topic. This is getting way off topic for many, many pages.

If God was behind Mormonism, it would have way more members than it does. 5 million people is a drop in the bucket compared to every other religion. It is only comparable to Jehovah Witnesses.

How about we discuss the words and deeds of your fellow Christians, do you approve of thier actions? I've seen you cite some of these "sources" before.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

How about we discuss the words and deeds of your fellow Christians, do you approve of thier actions? I've seen you cite some of these "sources" before.

Go ahead, discuss. I've already shown that the accusations you and Ironhold have made are empty. You have no references that prove your accusations.

 

[Ironhold]

Can we get back on topic. This is getting way off topic for many, many pages.

If God was behind Mormonism, it would have way more members than it does. 5 million people is a drop in the bucket compared to every other religion. It is only comparable to Jehovah Witnesses.

Gee... how long did it take mainline Christianity to become a dominant force?

A few centuries?

 

[Ironhold]

Go ahead, discuss. I've already shown that the accusations you and Ironhold have made are empty. You have no references that prove your accusations.

Dude, I've posted pages at this point.

For you to keep saying that rings hollow.

 

[Ironhold]

Reply: 'What About Mormonism?'

• by Ironhold, Jun 22, 2011, 10:12:06 AM
• Literature / Prose / Non-Fiction / Academic Essays

Response to "What About Mormonism?"
By Darren Blair

[Original work:
"What About Mormonism?"
A. L. Barry
President, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod]

As a Mormon living in a Bible Belt town, I try not to make waves. Although I make a defense of the church if the need arises, I generally try to coexist with those of different faiths. I even make it a point to try and support the different fund-raisers that they might have in place, thereby hoping that we can all help one another out.

Sadly, there are times where I have found myself disappointed by the results.

Twice a year, one of the local Lutheran churches holds a garage sale in its activity building to help sponsor its activities; items are donated by the members of the congregation. They aren't the only church in town which does so, and I generally succeed in visiting them all. Although I usually find some reasonable bargains, I also tend to find a quantity of religiously hostile literature, much of it less-than-charitable. My most recent visit was no exception, as upon leaving the building I spotted a rack of pamphlets… including one that purports to teach the "truth" about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

As disappointed as I was to find it, I was even more disappointed once I read it. Doubly so as it represents an official publication of the Missouri Synod.

To begin with, the document accuses Mormonism of somehow being "anti-Christian." As someone who is Mormon, I take absolute offense at the allegation. Not only do Mormons have legitimate claim to being Christian, ever since the 1800s Mormons have been fighting alongside those of other faiths for the right of *all* religions to be able to practice freely. Furthermore, we consider those of other Christian faiths to be brothers and sisters in Christ, and restrict our disagreements to matters of theology and practice; we are told to, in no wise, cast aspersions upon others for their beliefs (or lack thereof). The allegation is thus uncharitable and uncalled for.

The author then makes brief mention of the church's canon, in so doing failing to adequately explain them. Although the Book of Mormon is, indeed, the keystone of the faith, the Bible is, in fact, in use as well. Ask anyone who is Mormon, and those who have an English-language copy of the Bible will gladly show you that we use the King James Version; in fact, the only difference between the KJV we use and the KJV used by other Christian faiths is the fact that ours is a "study" edition containing footnotes, cross-references, a Bible dictionary, and other aids. What's more, following this here link - lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng – will take a person to the section of the church's website in which the scriptures can be viewed online.

When it comes to discussing the history of the church, the author fares no better. For example, the author claims that it was John the Baptist who led Joseph Smith to the plates. This is incorrect, as John did not reappear until *during the translation process*, when Joseph and his scribe found themselves asking God concerning the nature and form of baptism. Rather, as virtually any Mormon child should be able to explain, the angel was that of Moroni, the last Book of Mormon prophet to have custody of the plates. That the author could err on so basic a tenet of church history is alarming. Furthermore, the composition of the plates themselves is not set as being gold; they are sometimes described as brass, leading to speculation that the plates might have actually been an alloy (an alloy of gold known as Tumbaga is known to have been in use in Central America at one point).

Likewise, the description of the Doctrine & Covenants is also incorrect. To begin with, Joseph was not the only author whose works were included. Section 135 is a eulogy for Joseph written by John Taylor (later head of the church), who was present at Joseph's murder. 136 was penned by Brigham Young, and 138 was penned by Joseph F. Smith. Both Official Declarations also date after Joseph's death. Additionally, the portions of the Doctrine & Covenants that Joseph did pen is not comprised merely "various documents" as the pamphlet alleges. Rather, the D&C contains a mix of revelations given to Joseph and prayers on Joseph's part concerning either theological questions or persecutions that the church was enduring.

As to the purported lack of archeological evidence, I question how current the author is on the matter. For example, at one point in time critics of the church argued that "swords" were an unknown concept among Central American peoples before the Europeans arrived; since then, researchers have rediscovered a weapon known as the "macuahuitl", a crude weapon made by adhering sharpened obsidian to wooden paddles via tree sap and wielded in the same fashion as a large European sword (furthermore, those peoples who used it reportedly used the same combat tactics as those Europeans who used large swords). Or, as mentioned above, there is the presence of the alloy Tumbaga, which was occasionally used to preserve important records. Even a cursory examination of current apologetical works, such as those by Jeff Lindsay and the people at SHIELDS, would have sufficed to note these and other finds.

And as of the "Reformed Egyptian", the only reference to it in the record is in the Book of Mormon itself, where it was noted as a language that the scribes keeping the record used. Given that the plates were made of metal, individual plates would have been available in limited quantity (they would have had to be fabricated like farm equipment rather than merely prepared like papyrus) and would have been difficult to write on as the scribes would have had to etch with tools instead of using pencils. The end result is that the scribes developed a system which was, in essence, a sort of shorthand for that one single purpose. So no, the church does not purport it to be a spoken language, any more than one could purport that modern-day equivalents like Visual Basic or HTML are meant to be spoken.

As an aside, I find myself wondering why it is that accounts of the church's history produced by non-members almost always end with either Young leading the membership to Utah in the 1840s (as in this document) or the cessation of polygamy in 1890. That's a considerable amount of history which consistently goes ignored. Perhaps it is because so few outside the church are aware of it. Perhaps it is because those outside the church who are aware of it are often too uncomfortable to write it.

From here, the author tries to discuss the church's theology. He begins by making a statement concerning the church's stance on the Godhead. However, when pressed for a source, he merely states "(LDS internet site)". At the time I write this, I am a graduate student. Not one of my professors would allow me to get by with such a vague source citation. The author fails to state *which* site he pulled the data from, let alone the article or work. As such, I question exactly how the author arrived at this information.

The author next tries to argue that Matthew 28:19 stands in support of the Triune notion of the Godhead. However, when I reference the KJV, this is the verse I get:

19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

There is no dispute as to *who* comprises the Godhead. Yet all the verse in question does is restate the membership. I see nothing in the verse that explicitly supports the Triune concept. A typo, perhaps? The author citing the wrong verse by accident? It does happen from time to time. However, Matthew 19:28 speaks not of the Godhead at all, and Mark (another gospel that begins with "M") ends at the 16th chapter.

The author then tries to get into the "Adam-God Theory", but to those of us who are Mormon the matter is nowheres near as troublesome as the author alleges. To begin with, the notion of exalted humans being referred to as "gods" is not new to Christianity. In John 10, Jesus, citing Psalms 82, makes the following statement to a hostile congregation:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In that sense, one could argue that Adam, who is the father of humanity in the flesh and regarded as a prophet in his own right due to this, would likely deserve the title.

Furthermore, another problem in making this argument is the fact that the Journal of Discourses is *not* considered a part of the church canon. In fact, the whole "Adam-God" bit has, for all intents and purposes, not been spoken from the pulpit in over 100 years (late 1800s, if that); as such, it is not fair to allege that it is considered to be part of the modern-day theology, and doing so would be akin to holding Catholicism accountable for the selling of indulgences in Luther's day. Likewise, making the allegation that "God the Father had sex with the Mother Goddess" is also uncharitable, as while the church recognizes that logic alone would dictate a Heavenly Mother, the topic of how we as spirits were created is also not part of the modern-day theology; that so many critics of the church like to presume a "sex" angle to any and every doctrine they come across is seen as appalling by members of the church.

Additionally, the author is grievously incorrect when he asserts that the church rejects the Atonement. The church actively accepts the Atonement as an action and regards it as a key part of the theology and included in all relevant instructional materials (such as the books for investigators and the works covering the New Testament). Rather, the church holds that if a person wishes salvation then, as per the second chapter of the Epistle of James, one's actions must be in keeping with one's faith. Thus, salvation is seen as a "work-in-progress" situation wherein people grow in faith and understanding as they go along.

Critical to one's salvation, as per LDS theology, is the need to repent of one's sins and feel legitimate sorrow for them. While it may be true that salvation is a gift, a gift is no good if the would-be recipient refuses to accept it, correct? In this case, if a person errors then they are to set things right with God and anyone who they may have done injury to through their words and actions. For someone who is LDS, to say otherwise concerning the need for repentance, as one would infer from "Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Cheap Grace" (wherein a mere confession is enough for salvation) would be to presume that a person could hypothetically be saved in their sins if they merely put forth a good enough show of piety. This is, in fact, where Young was coming from when he made his statement concerning whether or not Jesus' blood would automatically save people. And contrary to popular belief, we do *not* as a whole actively worry about our own salvation every waking moment; rather, our focus is to be on being the best person that we can be and letting God handle the rest.

Furthermore, if one understands LDS history, they will come to understand Talmage's words concerning "faith alone." Ever since the church has been in existence, many people who claim to be Christian have behaved in decidedly unChristlike ways towards the membership… and then justified their actions on the basis of "doing God's work" by opposing the church. I do not mean merely debating or witnessing; rather, I mean actions most inexcusable, such as willingly spreading falsehoods about the church, overt defamation of character, vandalism, obscenities, and even physical violence. In fact, the building where I worship was desecrated a few summers ago; someone went out in the middle of the night, spray-painted a pentagram on the front lawn, and stapled a dead deer to it. Then there was the day that I discovered a second-hand Book of Mormon that had obscenities written throughout; someone thought it funny to deface the work and put it back in circulation, and in so doing it made its way into the hands of a young boy who, fortunately, could not recognize the words that he was reading. If you, dear reader, were in a similar situation and had experienced similar actions, would you not also come to question the merit of a theology that permits evil in the name of a good deity?

As to the lack of crucifixes in LDS buildings, the answer is even more straightforward than the author supposes: LDS theology holds that *the lives of the individual members* should be more than enough to display their Christian faith. Furthermore, in the author's fixation on the crucifix, he misses some other symbols used by the church. To begin with, one of the most famous images within the church is that of a replica of Thorvaldsen's "Christus" statue that is present in the visitor's center of the Salt Lake City temple. Likewise, many LDS meetinghouses are designed in such a fashion that there is a lighted opening behind the pulpit; this opening is a symbol of the empty tomb and thus the Resurrection.

Additionally, I find the citation from the late Rex E. Lee puzzling in that his words, as cited, have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Lee's words are a run-of-the-mill statement expressing faith in the restoration, but are placed in the middle of a discussion about the Atonement and Salvation. Like the citation in Matthew referenced above, I question its inclusion and ask what the author was seeking for by using it.

I also find it puzzling that the author argues that discussions with Mormons must be based on an understanding of the church gleaned from "reliable" sources, and yet references a book published by a *Lutheran* printing house; this is akin to asking a vegan about the beef industry in that one is virtually guaranteed to encounter misconceptions and erroneous information.

As I noted earlier, after reading through this pamphlet, I am sorely disappointed. Given that this is an official publication of the Missouri Synod, I anticipated a work of a far higher caliber. Instead, I am left questioning just where the author got his material from due to how significantly he misrepresents what the church teaches.

Come on. You can do better than that.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Go ahead, discuss. I've already shown that the accusations you and Ironhold have made are empty. You have no references that prove your accusations.

And did you read Ironhold's post? You addressed 1 point of 100

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have been very articulate and clear, but I have never heard a person say that I am going to confess to the pastor in the RC church. Pastor usually has reference to a protestant minister.

This is really just a difference of semantics. In the Roman Catholic Church and others both bishops and priests (presbyters) are pastors. In simplistic terms a bishop is a pastor of an entire diocese while a priest (presbyter) is a pastor over a particular parish within the diocese. That's how things have been done historically in Christianity since as early as we have anyone talking about Church polity (e.g. St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch); and that's how it is in Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and some Lutheran churches (notably in Scandinavia).

What one refers to their clergyperson is, somewhat, a distinction without a difference: reverend, pastor, father, priest, etc. Those terms all refer to a Christian minister, a person entrusted with the duty of being a pastor.

It seems you are getting a little frustrated that I would have the gaul to question you about the usage of the word "priest".

Not necessarily frustrated so much as confused, as it seems like I was starting to repeat myself and I was unsure where the lack of clarity would have been in what I had said.

I agree that today, "priests" are not similar to the temple "priests" of the ancient Jewish religion, and I also understand that "presbyter" = "priest", but it is by far more common to use "priest". Also, anciently, I believe the word "presbyters" referred to the word "elders" . But to say we use "pastor" and not "priest" today, even in the RC, to me, it did not seem to be true.

I was focusing on the substance behind the words rather than merely the semantics involved.

So I read the following and it helped me out:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/01/what’s-the-difference-between-a-pastor-and-a-priest/

That doesn't seem like a particularly helpful source here, it's more of an off-the-cuff list intended more for humor than a substantial distinction.

The exact duties or functions ascribed to a member of the clergy differs considerably depending on what denomination one is speaking about. But in broad terms the difference between your average modern Protestant "pastor" and a Roman Catholic priest is negligible: their duties involve pastoring the congregation, preaching, administering the Lord's Supper, counseling individuals, etc.

You can also google the following:
Google "Catholic priests"
Google "Orthodox priests"
Google "Lutheran priests"

And Anglican priests, Methodist priests, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Dude, I've posted pages at this point.

For you to keep saying that rings hollow.

You have posted pages but they don't prove anything. I think you're just trying to take up space as a distraction. If you have something of value to say and can back it up you don't need pages - you need a couple to a few sentences.

You're trying to deflect from answering my questions about why you are playing a victim. Mormons are not victims of anything more than any other person. Everyone is offended and disagreed with at some point by someone else. That's all you are experiencing.

Mormons do not experience persecution. Mormons are not being lied about (and even if they were, it wouldn't be persecution). The whole victim mentality is just a way for the mormon religion to foster an "us against them" mentality in its members, and that is a cult tactic.

You are so convinced that you and your religion are victims but you have not provided any evidence. You provided links to what you say is evidence but when those links are investigated it becomes clear that they are nothing more than saying someone or some group of Christians is wrong. Nothing about lies or persecution.

Anyway, it's clear you want to dodge and deflect and will not answer any questions. I'll just state that there is no persecution of mormons and anyone reading these posts can investigate and see that I'm right.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

And did you read Ironhold's post? You addressed 1 point of 100

Yes, I read it. There are no points to address. None of his points proves or provides evidence that mormons are persecuted or that their alleged persecutors are spreading lies about them.

There is no persecution of mormons. If there were, it would be easy to provide proof. Neither you nor ironhold have provided any proof. You put links but you don't put any quotes from the links because you know the links have nothing in them that support your claims of persecution.

 

[Ironhold]

This goes back to what I said about whether or not you want to see dead bodies...

 

[mmksparbud]

This is what is meant by proof of persecution ---this is research over last 25 years for black churches



July 16, 1993 — A group of eight skinheads is arrested after the FBI uncovers a plot to bomb Los Angeles’s First AME Church, kill its congregation with machine guns, and assassinate Rodney King in an attempt to ignite a race war.

August 13, 1993 — Three men use a burning cross to set on fire a Fort Dodge, Iowa, church with a mixed-race congregation.

February, 1995 — Three men in Sumter County, Alabama, get drunk and take sledgehammers to the pews, windows, and kitchens of three black churches.


January 8, 1996 — The Inner City Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, is hit with 18 Molotov cocktails in the middle of the night. Painted on the church’s back door were the words "Die N----- Die!" and "White Is Right."

January 11, 1996 — Little Zion Baptist Church and Mount Zoar Baptist Church, two black churches within six miles of each other in rural Alabama, are turned to ashes on the same night.

February 8, 1996 — The Justice Department begins investigating a rash of fires at black churches in rural Alabama and Tennessee.

June 7, 1996 — The Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Caroline, is set on fire. It’s part of an 18-month long string of intentional fires set at southern black churches.

March 22, 1997 — Two men in Ferris, Texas, burn down the Macedonia Baptist Church "''cause it was a ni**er church."

March 26, 1997 — A 23-year-old man is the nation's first arsonist prosecuted under the federal Church Arson Prevention Act after he burnt down a black church in Henderson, Nevada.

June 30, 1997 — Five white men and women between the ages of 18 and 21 burn down a 21-member church in Little River, Alabama.

January 12, 2004 — Two white men break into a black church in Roanoke, Virginia, and cause $77,000 in damage.

July 11, 2006 — A cross is burnt outside a black church in Richmond, Virginia.

November 4, 2008 — Hours after President Obama’s first inauguration, three white men in Springfield, Massachusetts, doused the partially constructed Macedonia Church of God in Christ in gas and set it ablaze.



December 28, 2010 — A white man attempting to “gain status” with a white-supremacist gang firebombs a black church in Crane, Texas.

June 17, 2015 — Dylann Roof kills nine people at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.



This I what I could find about LDS churches---maybe somebody can find more

Deputies responded to a burglary call at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, located in the 18000 block of Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore, around 7 a.m. Sunday, sheriff’s officials said.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015
GLASSELL PARK, LOS ANGELES (KABC) --
Vandals covered a Glassell Park church in graffiti a week after the building was destroyed in a fire.

One was a minor act of vandalism to a Mormon church that could be investigated as a hate crime. In the other, a suicidal man was found in front of an LDS temple.
The vandilism case seems clearly related to Prop 8. The words, “Nobody’s born a bigot” followed by a heart and smiley face were found spray-painted on a cement wall outside chapel. The vandalism was reported on Wednesday, and police are investigating it as a possible hate crime

Last Friday in Orangevale, Calif., a Latter-day Saints chapel sign and several walkways were tagged with the phrases “No on 8” and “hypocrites.”
Saturday morning, two churches in San Luis Obispo, Calif. were also hit. Someone had poured adhesive on a doormat, key pad, and window at a Mormon church, while eggs and toilet paper were thrown at a nearby Assembly of God church.
Mormons, Evangelical Christian churches, and other religious groups were strong supporters of Proposition 8 and provided much of the funding for the measure.
Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.

 

[fatboys]

Can we get back on topic. This is getting way off topic for many, many pages.

If God was behind Mormonism, it would have way more members than it does. 5 million people is a drop in the bucket compared to every other religion. It is only comparable to Jehovah Witnesses.

There are 16 million and has only been around for almost 200 hundred years it is the fastest growing church

 

[fatboys]

This is what is meant by proof of persecution ---this is research over last 25 years for black churches



July 16, 1993 — A group of eight skinheads is arrested after the FBI uncovers a plot to bomb Los Angeles’s First AME Church, kill its congregation with machine guns, and assassinate Rodney King in an attempt to ignite a race war.

August 13, 1993 — Three men use a burning cross to set on fire a Fort Dodge, Iowa, church with a mixed-race congregation.

February, 1995 — Three men in Sumter County, Alabama, get drunk and take sledgehammers to the pews, windows, and kitchens of three black churches.


January 8, 1996 — The Inner City Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, is hit with 18 Molotov cocktails in the middle of the night. Painted on the church’s back door were the words "Die N----- Die!" and "White Is Right."

January 11, 1996 — Little Zion Baptist Church and Mount Zoar Baptist Church, two black churches within six miles of each other in rural Alabama, are turned to ashes on the same night.

February 8, 1996 — The Justice Department begins investigating a rash of fires at black churches in rural Alabama and Tennessee.

June 7, 1996 — The Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Caroline, is set on fire. It’s part of an 18-month long string of intentional fires set at southern black churches.

March 22, 1997 — Two men in Ferris, Texas, burn down the Macedonia Baptist Church "''cause it was a ni**er church."

March 26, 1997 — A 23-year-old man is the nation's first arsonist prosecuted under the federal Church Arson Prevention Act after he burnt down a black church in Henderson, Nevada.

June 30, 1997 — Five white men and women between the ages of 18 and 21 burn down a 21-member church in Little River, Alabama.

January 12, 2004 — Two white men break into a black church in Roanoke, Virginia, and cause $77,000 in damage.

July 11, 2006 — A cross is burnt outside a black church in Richmond, Virginia.

November 4, 2008 — Hours after President Obama’s first inauguration, three white men in Springfield, Massachusetts, doused the partially constructed Macedonia Church of God in Christ in gas and set it ablaze.



December 28, 2010 — A white man attempting to “gain status” with a white-supremacist gang firebombs a black church in Crane, Texas.

June 17, 2015 — Dylann Roof kills nine people at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.



This I what I could find about LDS churches---maybe somebody can find more

Deputies responded to a burglary call at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, located in the 18000 block of Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore, around 7 a.m. Sunday, sheriff’s officials said.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015
GLASSELL PARK, LOS ANGELES (KABC) --
Vandals covered a Glassell Park church in graffiti a week after the building was destroyed in a fire.

One was a minor act of vandalism to a Mormon church that could be investigated as a hate crime. In the other, a suicidal man was found in front of an LDS temple.
The vandilism case seems clearly related to Prop 8. The words, “Nobody’s born a bigot” followed by a heart and smiley face were found spray-painted on a cement wall outside chapel. The vandalism was reported on Wednesday, and police are investigating it as a possible hate crime

Last Friday in Orangevale, Calif., a Latter-day Saints chapel sign and several walkways were tagged with the phrases “No on 8” and “hypocrites.”
Saturday morning, two churches in San Luis Obispo, Calif. were also hit. Someone had poured adhesive on a doormat, key pad, and window at a Mormon church, while eggs and toilet paper were thrown at a nearby Assembly of God church.
Mormons, Evangelical Christian churches, and other religious groups were strong supporters of Proposition 8 and provided much of the funding for the measure.
Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.

So why do you think they are just targeting non Mormon church's.

 

[tickingclocker]

Can we get back on topic. This is getting way off topic for many, many pages.

If God was behind Mormonism, it would have way more members than it does. 5 million people is a drop in the bucket compared to every other religion. It is only comparable to Jehovah Witnesses.

Hear, hear. Why get pulled into their side roads when the topic is----------Why don't mormons address the falseness of JS's pronouncements of apostasy and abomination within Christianity? It sounds as if they don't dare to by all appearances. They would rather express and discuss anything else BUT the issue at hand?

Why is that, exactly?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

This goes back to what I said about whether or not you want to see dead bodies...

You went from providing links that don't back up what you say (and not being able to show that they back up what you say) to accusing me of wanting an extreme of "dead bodies".

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Mormon missionaries allegedly damage Colorado Catholic shrine
http://truthandgrace.com/mormondesecration.htm

You'll notice that the news articles printed there are legitimate (AP, Salt Lake Tribune, etc.). You'll notice also that they definitively assert the actions of the Mormon Missionaries as "desecrating" the shrine. You'll notice also that there are follow-up stories about the criminal investigation, etc. that corroborate the original story.

So, YOUR SIDE is persecuting MY SIDE!!!

Honestly, I don't believe that. But that's how ridiculous it sounds to take isolated incidents and use them to paint a group with a broad brushstroke. But if that's the standard you wish to apply towards "mainline Christianity" then you need to apply it to your own "side" and accept that your "side" is persecuting the other "side".

Every church experiences some form of targeting and "persecution". I think that other than Black Churches and sometimes Jewish Synagogues most Christian Churches enjoy a great amount of protection and freedom from actual persecution.

I find it ridiculous to consider most or all of what we (or the mormons) experience in the US as "persecution". My Church in other nations is experiencing REAL persecution. My people have experienced actual persecution - we lost 1.5+ million to being killed because we're Christian, with millions more tortured physically. Today we have people being targeted with real physical violence and being killed by ISIS in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc. It's laughable to compare Ed Decker and a handful of people "lying about" mormons as "persecution" when you have people who are ACTUALLY being persecuted in this world.

I don't think you understand what "persecution" means and you're overreaching by using that word to describe the minor offenses that the mormons are subject to on occasion.

So an evangelist with a loudspeaker is at a mormon pageant and saying Mormonism is of the devil - that's persecution? Do you have anyone go and talk with him? Do your church members feel love for him and want to help with presenting your gospel? If he just goes on ranting, does that really injure you so bad that it is "persecution"? Compare that to being tortured and/or killed (or watching your family being tortured/killed) because you won't convert to another religion - which is the real persecution?

I will acknowledge that mormons are lied about and that offensive things are said about them - but that is true for any group. I don't consider that "persecution" because I know what real persecution actually is, and it's not what you've been describing.