LDS Joseph Smith Started a False Religion

Jonathan Leo said:

Is it true that Mormons believe that black skin or negros are a curse given from God?

Click to expand...

No, and in fact that was officially and actively rejected circa 1980.

Anyone who tries to use his as an argument against the modern body of the church is merely showing that they're 40 years behind.

Jonathan Leo said:

Jesus had not revealed to them why, but it does state such in the Book of Mormon does it not?

Click to expand...

Nope.

The Nephites and the Lamanites were spending so much time with infighting that the survival of their colony was at stake. Changing the skin color of the Lamanites was a last-ditch effort to force the two to separate out.

And weather Jesus did reveal it or not, do Mormons now get to choose what or have an input to how their Book of Mormon is prophecied? Aka pick and choose to change what scripture suits them?

Click to expand...

Eh?

However, the priesthood ban on blacks meant that they could not have a temple marriage, thus keeping them from achieving the highest form of eternal life, known as exaltation or godhood. This ban was only enforced on blacks of African ancestry. Such groups as Maori and Fiji Islanders were allowed to hold the LDS priesthood.

Click to expand...

Apologetics website Black LDS.org puts this in more historical context; I'd suggest giving it a read. Black History Timeline - Blacklds.org

Antig said:

Really?

Click to expand...

There's no such official theology; much of what critics of the church claim to "know" comes from other critics.

BigDaddy4 said:

Context matters. The BoM fails by very plain evidence (or lack thereof) that large civilizations, millions of people, and certain crops, animals, and metals did not exist in the time and location that God supposedly said it did. Therefore, we can be assured that it did not come from God and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

Click to expand...

We've been over this before.

Quick links, with there being so much more than this -

Book of Mormon Evidences, Part One: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Response to the Smithsonian Institute Statement on the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Basically, even the Smithsonian had to back down from an assertion about what was or wasn't present after it was proven that they weren't up on the most recent discoveries.

Ironhold said:

The Bible itself used "god" - note the little "g" - as a title for exalted beings, both mortal and immortal. However, these individuals are still lower in status than God himself.

This is a key distinction that many critics of the church miss when talking about our theology.

Click to expand...

ihttp://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9602

""After men have got their exaltations and their crowns -- have become Gods, even the sons of God -- are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. **Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles**. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.""

Notice that is not a small "g". And as for popping out spiritual babies----OK, I should have had better manners than to say "pop"---I should have said--as did Brigham Young----produce. As to how do you pop out spiritual babies that you keep asking---you tell us--how do you produce spiritual babies?

mmksparbud said:

Notice that is not a small "g". And as for popping out spiritual babies----OK, I should have had better manners than to say "pop"---I should have said--as did Brigham Young----produce. As to how do you pop out spiritual babies that you keep asking---you tell us--how do you produce spiritual babies?

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, the actual theology doesn't go even half as far into that as the critics of the church have.

Ironhold said:

Contrary to popular belief, the actual theology doesn't go even half as far into that as the critics of the church have.

Click to expand...

Yet--it you stated:

Ironhold said:

The Bible itself used "god" - note the little "g" - as a title for exalted beings, both mortal and immortal. However, these individuals are still lower in status than God himself.

This is a key distinction that many critics of the church miss when talking about our theology.

Click to expand...

Jonathan Leo said:

If Jesus is the truth,
That means one of us is very wrong,
I’m sticking with the Bible and nothing else,
Although I do believe the book of Enoch explains in very true detail regarding Nephim, planet rotations etc, I will only take the Bible as the figurative word of our Lord and Saviour because
Colossians 1:16
That’s made by Him, through Him, because it’s for. Wait for it. Him!
All glory is for Him, not so we can become like Him and be our own Gods.
Mormon doctrine teaches we get to be like God in return. It’s like it’s a goal and I can see why people are misled by such dangerous doctrine. We have a natural tendency to achieve, obtain, reach, gain etc. and it all tickles people’s ears.

We gain in heaven because it speaks of rewards but the only thing we gain in reality is eternal life as promised, or in other words we escape the judgment of God for being rebellious sinners.
We deserve hell but are saved because of Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

Not speaking for the Mormons, but "Theosis" is a teaching of the Bible, and of the Ancient Orthodox Christian Church of the Apostolic succession. Theosis is the process by which those who believe in God are being transformed "from glory to glory" into God. (2 Corinthians 3:18). This is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit.

.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Because his "revelations" contradict the Scriptures, that is Special Revelation given long before Smith's claims of visions. The Bible is the standard the final authority over all claims to truth. Smith's writings do not measure up to The Rule of faith, especially considering his claims concerning them. Neither the Early Church Fathers (that I am aware of), nor the Protestant Reformers, nor the Puritians, and so on make any such claims concerning their writings, and Smith rejected them all. So the only inspiration I see guiding Joseph Smith is demonic in origin, a Spirit of confusion.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I have studied scriptures, history, and the beliefs of many many Christian groups over the years. And of course, listening to the Spirit and following Christ. Through my studies/prayers/following, I have found no group who's beliefs were more in line with the Bible than than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Phoebe Ann said:

And Mormon scripture states:
Doctrine and Covenants 88
107 And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.

Click to expand...

You missed the meaning of the verse. Read it again and don’t focus on what you want it to mean.

Phoebe Ann said:

No, you can't prove whatever you think it means, and haven't even tried to explain it to anyone.

Click to expand...

Unless you can open your mind to what it is saying then no matter what I say will me nothing to you.

Phoebe Ann said:

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.

This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) - "Deification in God’s Essence", which is imparticipable.
Theosis - OrthodoxWiki

2 Peter 1:4
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (NIV)

The phrase “participate in the divine nature” (NIV) or “partakers of the divine nature” (KJV, OSB) is a translation of: “γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως.” [Greek NT] The Greek for “participate” or “share” is κοινωνος (koinonos) which has a range of meanings. It has been used with reference to sharing in glory (1 Peter 5:1), sharing in Christ’s suffering (Philippians 3:10), and fellowship in the Holy Spirit (Philippians 2:1). It can have a spiritual/sacramental sense. Participation in a religious service, Christian or otherwise, has definite spiritual consequences. Participation in a pagan sacrifice results in participation with demonic forces (1 Corinthians 10:20) and likewise participation in the Eucharist results in participation in Christ’s body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). The emphasis here is on participation, transformation, and experiential change, rather than a judicial declaration of legal status. This distinction is central to the different attitude Orthodox and the Reformed have toward the fullness of salvation in Christ.
Theosis and Our Salvation in Christ - Orthodox Reformed Bridge


This is totally different from what Mormons teach; that's for sure!

Click to expand...

I haven't made it a point to study Mormon teachings. Given your personal experience from within Mormonism you likely know more than me about what they mean by "becoming gods". It doesn't matter to the Orthodox Christians who belong to the Holy Apostolic Tradition That's over 2000 years old. A two hundred year old start up sect/cult isn't taken seriously as a contender for Truth. 500-600 year old reformist groups whose foundation is strongly a "protest against Roman Catholicism" don't fare well from where we sit either, any more than the Roman Church's definitions of papal "supremacy" (which supplanted papal "primacy"), that originally helped to create the divide between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church over 1000 years ago.

All that aside, we should be thankful that you're no longer a member of what started out as a cult, even if it has become somewhat more socially acceptable to belong to LDS these days. This has more to do with our living in a society that mostly doesn't care about God based religions. Rather, the religion of "mammon" is predominant. This is where our greater "tolerance" is coming from.

I appreciate this (your) renunciation and denouncement of the cult.

BigDaddy4 said:

You really don't get it. It's not necessarily about the metals themselves, it's the fact that these, and other, details are false. The technology simply did not exist at the time. This calls into question the trustworthiness of the source, one who is supposedly from God. Did God lie?

What if Matthew 28:5-7 said "text" instead of "tell":
5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and text his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

The above does not change the spritual message that Jesus is risen. However, a detail within the narrative is obviously impossible since the technology to text did not exist back then. Same if it were to mention motorized vehicles or electricity or any other technology that did not exist when the event was supposed to have taken place. That would call into question the narrative, the narrator, and the validity of the message, especially if it was claimed to be an authoritative writing from God.

Context matters. The BoM fails by very plain evidence (or lack thereof) that large civilizations, millions of people, and certain crops, animals, and metals did not exist in the time and location that God supposedly said it did. Therefore, we can be assured that it did not come from God and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

Click to expand...

You know about .0000011% of what the technology was like in 580BC in the Americas. So to make a silly statement like "they did not have that technology yet and so the BOM is a false book" is a short-sighted statement, especially when you know so very very little about the technology of that time period.

Even archaeologists know .000011% of the technology of 580BC, especially in the Americas. That is because only about 3% of the entire Meso American theater has been explored. So that is why every day knew things come to light as to the mystery surrounding Meso America.

Have you read in the BOM that Nephi had the knowledge to smelt (or refine) metals in order to make steel? Is it hard to believe that in 580BC that that art existed in Jerusalem.
And it was an art, not common place knowledge. Those who knew the art would pass it on to their sons, and so forth. But there could come a time when a son did not pass the art on, and the family would lose the art. This is what happened to Nephi. He had the art and when they split from their wicked brother he took the art with him. He passed the art along to his sons and they to theirs until there come a time when the art was lost because a son did not pass it on.

Now you can fully believe that or not, but what you must agree with is that is a possibility.
Remember the BOM starts in Jerusalem with 2 large families. Only 1 person in those 2 families knows the art of smelting.

So when it says that there were metals of smelted gold and silver and iron and steel, it is completely in the realm of believable. Especially since in 1580AD the Aztec and Incas had the technology of working with gold and silver in exquisite manners, even to the using gold and silver to cover their buildings. But they no longer had the knowledge to refine other metals into hardened steel, like the Spaniards had.

So you have no knowledge base to analyze 2 Nephi and what metals they used. So anything you say negative or positive is taken very lightly, unless of course you back it up with current archaeological data that pertains to that time period and not to the time period of the Spanish invasion.

Phoebe Ann said:

You do not know that they would have rebelled. You're being judgmental.

Click to expand...

Well, you tell me what Paul meant when he said, they would not have received it??????????? Would they have:
1) rebelled against Paul? (remember Paul has to keep yelling at them to just keep the 'milk' of the gospel)
2) left the church?
3) stayed in the church but just kept going with the level of 'milk' knowledge they had?

Why are you insinuating that I'm rebellious? Is that what you've been taught about people who leave because the teachings are false?

Click to expand...

You rebelled against the temple service and this service centers around the knowledge and teachings of Jesus Christ. But they are higher knowledge and teachings that are what Paul meant when he wanted to give the 'meat ' of the gospel to the Corinthians. They wanted to the 'milk' only gospel, not the 'meat' or higher level of the gospel. The temple teaches a higher level of commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. A commitment that you see as useless if not burdensome on LDS.

And so instead of learning and keeping the 'meat' of the gospel, you rebel, and walk away and imagine in your mind that you are doing the right thing because the doctrines are false. It happens that they are not false, only that they are exactly the same 'meat' Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians, but could not because they would not receive it.

I have not said that. Stop looking for fault with me. The fault is that many people follow false teachers and think themselves worthy of more blessings than others.

Click to expand...

Yes you did, but I am not going to take the time to show you.

The idea that people are trying to be more committed to Jesus Christ is not following false prophets. If so you would have called Paul a false prophet for teaching a different gospel to the people of Corinth. In fact he would have been trying to pull them upwards to him, who had been willing to commit to living a higher standard of living in Christ, and in doing so received countless blessing of knowledge and power and authority and the ability to keep the commandments of Jesus, and to work as Paul has shown us for Jesus. Corinth rejected the higher level 'meat'. So have you.

truefiction1 said:

I haven't made it a point to study Mormon teachings. Given your personal experience from within Mormonism you likely know more than me about what they mean by "becoming gods". It doesn't matter to the Orthodox Christians who belong to the Holy Apostolic Tradition That's over 2000 years old. A two hundred year old start up sect/cult isn't taken seriously as a contender for Truth. 500-600 year old reformist groups whose foundation is strongly a "protest against Roman Catholicism" don't fare well from where we sit either, any more than the Roman Church's definitions of papal "supremacy" (which supplanted papal "primacy"), that originally helped to create the divide between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church over 1000 years ago.

All that aside, we should be thankful that you're no longer a member of what started out as a cult, even if it has become somewhat more socially acceptable to belong to LDS these days. This has more to do with our living in a society that mostly doesn't care about God based religions. Rather, the religion of "mammon" is predominant. This is where our greater "tolerance" is coming from.

I appreciate this (your) renunciation and denouncement of the cult.

Click to expand...

You realize that your religion was considered a cult at one time?????????

Time has mostly erased those beginnings, but not obliterated them, so it would not be appropriate for you to call any religion a cult.

Oh, the Jewish religion has been around for 3400 years, So if time is the center-piece for truth, are you considering converting to the Jewish religion? Remember, at one time they were a Christian religion.