I'm sorry, but you're not making a lot of sense here, and still seem to be confusing cannon and non-cannon.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There you go with scriptures again----none of your books are scripture. All the books are Mormon. Church History is Mormon. What you term canon and what we term canon is not the same thing. You are calling certain of your books canon and scripture when they are not---except to you. It is the Church History written by Mormons for Mormons--they are Mormon books. They are what you guys read. Again, state what is wrong instead of being general. You said the quotes were not scripture, then you turn around and do admit there are quotes from the BOM and Doctrines and Covenants which you do regard as scripture and are official. So to say none are official makes you the one that is misleading. Bottom line---These are still your believes no matter if the Pope had written them! For you to quote a Catholic publication and states SDA's believe in keeping the Sabbath would not make that statement false.
If you would like me to explain the difference between LDS scripture and something that is written by a guy who happens to be Mormon, I can do that again.
For example, quote #2 is gravely taken out of context. I'd rather not rehash this again myself, but you can read a good recap of it here:
If a website is going to describe LDS beliefs, and omit vast majority of the beliefs, that is a HUGE problem.
Would you like my to recap SDA beliefs and omit Christ? (Again, I think that's a huge problem).
Your SDA talking to SDA people example doesn't apply to this situation.When I'm on a thread that is talking about SDA believes, and I've been on many of them, I do not expect them to be talking about stuff that we all agree on. I fully expect them to be talking about that they disagree about. That is the problem--the disagreements, not the similarities.
And it is dishonest for CARM to pretend that they are quoting scripture when they are not (yes, LDS have an extended scripture library that includes the Bible and other books).There are literally thousands and thousands of books written by Christians from the perspective on their denomination that are not "official" scripture. Only the bible is scripture.
What would you do if someone came to you and said "Ellen White and Doug Bachelor said this, and you HAVE to believe it because you're SDA!"? (Let's assume that this person does not know whether or not the teachings of EW were considered on par with the Bible).These books are not put out by the official leaders of each denomination, they are put out by pastors and teachers but they do state their believes. accurately. Someone quoted material written by Dough Bachelor---but they did not quote the part that disagreed with their point of view---so I quoted the right part--and though, Doug does not make the rules and regulations for the church---he is SDA writing SDA believes and written for SDA's --though also given out to non SDA's. I'm not about to jump up and down and say his writings are not scripture---I'm sure everyone knows that! If I should disagree with something he has written, I would say what it was.
Your SDA talking to SDA people example doesn't apply to this situation.
The CARM website is CARM people describing LDS beliefs. If CARM wanted to do a fair and honest recap of LDS beliefs they would include all LDS beliefs and not omit things like "Jesus is the Savior".
And it is dishonest for CARM to pretend that they are quoting scripture when they are not (yes, LDS have an extended scripture library that includes the Bible and other books).
What would you do if someone came to you and said "Ellen White and Doug Bachelor said this, and you HAVE to believe it because you're SDA!"? (Let's assume that this person does not know whether or not the teachings of EW were considered on par with the Bible).
I get it frequently----If something they say is not what we believe, I would state what that is. If it is what we believe, then I do not care who says it. Her writings are not scripture, the bible is scripture. You can go to anti-SDA sites and quote--again, if they say something out of line, (which they do frequently) I will say what it is. I do prefer to go to official website for a denomination. The problem with that is that the Mormon official website does not ever state any of the real believes, just the basic, Christian friendly sounding stuff. It is only when delving into your books themselves that we get into the truth. That is the difference. All other denominations just flat out state what those believes are. WE say it. We do not evade the issues, heck we hold televised lectures on those subjects where we are different from others--Vive la difference!!
Quick primer:
1. Critics of the church love to deceive people by presenting official-sounding material instead of official material. This is because the official-sounding material hasn't always gone through the process of ensuring its doctrinal accuracy, and so can contain material that isn't in line with the church's teachings.
2. Critics of the church can and will deceive audiences by wrenching material out of context, with some going so far as to outright doctor citations in the process.
3. Pursuant to the above, it falls on everyone to investigate those sources cited by critics.
I say this as a lot of the sources in the list you gave are official-sounding, not official. For example, critics of the church love to cite the original 1950s edition of "Mormon Doctrine" because it contains McConkie's own personal theology in places instead of the church's theology, giving them a gold mine of unorthodox theology in a work that sounds like it's an actual publication. Most actual members of the church, in contrast, will reference the newest edition they can get their hands on because the later editions were revised to eliminate most of the nonsense.
The facts i mentioned through that link, are you saying that they are 'not' part of Mormonism?
Are you saying that nothing on this list is true:
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461).
Actual quote:
Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
So already, the list is wrong in that it's attempting to paraphrase instead of going for the full statement.
The original statement is Joseph Smith advocating the Book of Mormon to the members of the church, a statement that survives in as much a historical concept as a theological one. It's not that the church is directly pitting one work against the other; rather, it's recording what Joseph Smith himself said once upon a time.
Devil, theThe Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).
GodGod used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321, Joseph Smith,Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614, Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
This is a common bloody shirt that critics of the church use, and it's usually presented in the most sensational fashion possible.
Source
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith[1998], 335).
source
Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give His life for us, and take upon Himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation. Under his proposal, our purpose in coming to earth would have been frustrated (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay[2003], 207).
Everyone who is, was, and ever will be exists as the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father himself. This includes Jesus, who is our Elder Brother, and Satan, who is another child.
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans . . . ," (D&C 130:22).
full verse:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
This teaching shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, as the Bible itself contains a list of scripture that reference Heavenly Father and Jesus as having bodies of a physical nature.
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).
Gospel Principles manual lesson #47: exaltation
I'd suggest you take a few to read this chapter, and then we'll get back to this topic.
God, mother goddessThere is a mother god (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
While the theology does posit a Heavenly Mother behind the scenes, the two works you cite are not official; Talmage's works are supplemental, and I've already explained the issues with "Mormon Doctrine".
The truth of the matter is, most critics of the church make a bigger deal of it than we do.
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).
This is recorded right in the First Vision, with Heavenly Father and Jesus appearing both at the same time in front of Joseph Smith. It's not "hidden" or anything else like that, but out in the open.
We've actually gone several rounds on various threads here on this board about the matter, and I myself have been debating the point for over a decade.
If anything, one of the strongest supports for this is John 17 and the Intercessory Prayer: Jesus is praying that his followers will literally know the same sort of unity that he and Heavenly Father know, something that by definition rules out the three-in-one concept of the Trinity.
Heaven
There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348).
It's the wee hours where I am, and so for this one I'll leave you with the relevant Gospel Principles chapter explaining matters.
The Holy Ghost is a male personage (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118, Journal of Discources, vol. 5, p. 179).
Neither work has official weight.
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
Did not Jesus eat a meal in front of the disciples and invite them to touch his wounds?
The Bible is quite clear on that.
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
This is another bloody shirt.
If you read the full context, you'll see that Young is basically snapping off an answer to a debate that was going on among some of the members as a means of getting them to set aside what he thought of as a piddling matter not worthy of the time and effort being put into debating it.
It's among the many items in the JoD that were not given the official weight of doctrine, and so has no actual bearing.
"Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh . . . " (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).
See above.
If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).
Remember what I said about the first edition of the work containing McConkie's own personal beliefs in lieu of actual theology?
Yeah.
We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth (Journal of Discourse, vol. 4, p. 218).
Also referenced above.
The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129).
Jesus is, indeed, the Firstborn Son of Heavenly Father.
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).
It's a common misconception both within and outside of the church that Satan was #2, but this has no support.
"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation," (Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).
While the work is unofficial, the simple truth of the matter is that one doesn't have to look far to see people who have given in to what pivotal Lutheran theologian Deitrich Bonhoeffer refers to as "cheap grace", the notion that one is under no obligation of discipleship once they are "saved". Basically, a person who puts forth "cheap grace" holds that once they make the needed confession of faith, they've got a one-way ticket to Heaven and so that's all they need. This all too often results in everything from backsliding to sloth to outright wickedness in God's name, as they feel that whatever they do is fine with God and so they don't stop to consider their actions.
I've actually seen pamphlets and tracts which literally declare that reciting a prayer at the end of the work is all one needs to be saved. Just utter a few words and you've got a reserved seat in Heaven for when you die. Nothing whatsoever about how, oh by the way, someone who does believe needs to live in such a fashion that their actions back their faith up like we read about in the Epistle of James.
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).
See above.
Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).
Most critics follow this up by arguing that we teach "blood atonement", the theology which supposedly states that people who are guilty of certain sins must be executed so that they can be saved.
In reality, for all intents and purposes this all goes back to a single sermon in which Brigham Young stated, to paraphrase, "If people understood the eternal consequences of such sins as murder and adultery, they'd volunteer to be executed as part of the penance process rather than die of old age and face God in their sins." It was his way of making a point, not an actual advocacy of religiously-enforced capital punishment.
Good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, p. 92).
The church holds rather devoutly to the Epistle of James, with its warning that faith is dead if a person's actions don't back it up.
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).
Eh?
"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79).
And the offensive part of this sentiment is...?
"As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements--'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'" (Articles of Faith, p. 79).
"This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts," (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
"We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do," (2 Nephi 25:23).
Just as Bonhoeffer spoke of "cheap grace", he also spoke of "costly grace", the kind of grace that requires a person to submit to God's will and carrying the burden of being a Christian. In essence, one can't be a good Christian if they just sit on the couch all day and expect to be saved because they said a prayer some years ago. Instead, their daily walk with Christ must reflect their faith through concrete lifestyle choices and actions that back up their professed beliefs.
Not much known about, and not important to daily worship. https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=engI couldn't get anything about Heavenly Mother,
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/premortal-life?lang=eng That one is basic.preexistence
Not official doctrine and not important to daily worship. You can find some speculations on it on LDS.org.Noah being Gabriel
Where they lied to you in pretending it was important, scripture, or a Mormon had to be believe.I had to go to anti- sites to find out that those believes existed
Which because you went to an anti site you completely misunderstood (the anti lies didn't help the matter). You could have gotten explanations on LDS.org or by respectfully asking an LDS person.That is the only place I could find the info on what is done in your temples, the "secret" ceremonies.
"Totally" secret... "hidden" right on the official website.A lot of secrecy
mmksparbud's stated that LDS beliefs are not on LDS.org. She gives the following examples
Not much known about, and not important to daily worship. https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/premortal-life?lang=eng That one is basic.
Not official doctrine and not important to daily worship. You can find some speculations on it on LDS.org.
Where they lied to you in pretending it was important, scripture, or a Mormon had to be believe.
Which because you went to an anti site you completely misunderstood (the anti lies didn't help the matter). You could have gotten explanations on LDS.org or by respectfully asking an LDS person.
"Totally" secret... "hidden" right on the official website.
As I've noted earlier, critics of the LDS faith have a history of using official-sounding sources instead of actual, official material.
Many of these sources have no bearing on the church's actual theology, and some are even unorthodox, if not heretical.
But, because they sound official, it's enough to deceive people into thinking that they're legit.
Q'urans. There's no such thing as Korans.By your same logic, I should presume that people like the Florida minister who burns Korans speaks for you, correct?
After all, he's a "Good Christian" minister, right?
Or perhaps it's time to admit that there's a line to be drawn somewhere, eh?
I wasn't looking for what is important or a matter I daily worship, or what is official, just wanted to know what you guys really believe.
Sorry, but you would say that even when the evidence is right in front of you!!! Now, that is blind faith buddy!
You say which parts are not fact then?
1. That is interesting. Publications, written by Mormons, for Mormons, are not about Mormonism----None of your writings are scripture so we do understand they are not scripture.
2. It would be much more helpful if you would state exactly what is taken out of context and what it is supposed to mean according to you instead of such a generalization, which you guys are constantly doing.
3. It is not deceptive to omit stuff we already know you supposedly do believe and have no problem with! We are, after all, talking about things we do not hold as Christian concepts, not what is a Christian concept.
I wish I had the time to read your whole post. However, I didn't. What sticks in my mind is your claim that there are three separate Gods. I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion. However, you have to admit that such a tritheistic position will put you under severe fire from many Christian quarters.
Again----you deny that you believe and then turn around and say exactly the same thing in different words.
No you have shown how slick and manipulative "Mormon speak" is. For it is a fact that BY did in fact state (again, it's been quoted here many times) that Jesus was conceived in the same natural manner as we all are-
One of the central tenets in Christianity is Christ's atonement on the Cross. In this, Christ redeemed us even though none of us deserve it, plus He claimed victory over sin and death. The Cross is the symbol of the power that lies behind Christianity.
That's why Paul talked about it the way he did:
Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And perhaps the most powerful statement:
I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Paul also warns of that there are enemies of the Cross:
Phillipians 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
In the Mormon religion, they are gravely set against the Cross. You will not see a cross in ANY Mormon buildings or publications. When you ask them, they say something like, "Well if someone you loved was shot to death, would you have a symbol of a gun on your necklace or in a picture?" That explanation makes it clear that they have no comprehension of the power of Christ through the Cross. It makes it clear that they are diametrically opposed to what Paul thought and taught about the Cross. It makes it clear that they are clearly against what all the rest of Christianity accepts about the Cross.
Furthermore, while they are careful to shun the Cross of Christ, they do enjoy embellishing their temples and their magical garments with all sorts of occultic and masonic symbols such as the compass and square, beehives, fig leafs, pentagrams and inverted pentagrams, hexagrams, and many other such occultic symbols.
This issue of the Mormons' rejection of the Cross of Christ is one of the clear signs that Mormonism is absolutely not Christian at all. Clearly, the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them.
LOL---Not official----written by Mormons for Mormons, published by Mormons---but not official---Doctrines and Covenants and the Book of Mormon are not official??? History of the Mormon church not official?? I guess the word "official" needs clarifying---as defined by Mormonism that is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?