LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[mmksparbud]

It is very rare, but does happen:

"The clinical term is "hematohidrosis.". "Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form.". Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes "the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture.
The causes of hematohidrosis have been divided into nonreligious and religious. The nonreligious causes are as a component of systemic disease, vicarious menstruation (bleeding from a surface other than the mucous membrane of the uterine cavity that occurs at the time when normal menstruation should take place), excessive exertion, psychogenic, and unknown factors. Duan et al. reported hematohidrosis associated with primary thrombocytopenic purpura.[2] Migliorini described a case of hematidrohosis otorrhea with otoerythrosis.[3] Dubeikovskaia reported hematohidrosis in a 8-year-old child.[4]

The religious cause is a stigma, which formerly meant a spot, a sign, a wound, or a mark branded on a slave. From the time of Christ's crucifixion, this term took on the special meaning as the reproduction of the wounds on palms, soles and crown that Christ suffered on the cross and it was believed to be supernaturally imposed by God. Jacobi (1923), quoted by Klauder, reported 300 instances of stigma (stigmata). Most of the stigmata patients were females both Catholics and non Catholics."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810702/
Hematohidrosis also known as Hematidrosis, hemidrosis and hematidrosis, is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress.[1] Manonukul et al. proposed the term “hematofolliculohidrosis” because it appeared along with sweat-like fluid and the blood exuded via the follicular canals.[5]

 

[tickingclocker]

You have three Mormons here telling you that is not true! It's part of the anti propaganda put out there by those who try to frighten people into not listening to Mormon Missionaries.

Nor do we believe God was just a man, Jesus was a man and God at the same time.

Be factual about that "belief"! Go the WHOLE mile, not just the part that you think we "like to hear".

Mormonism believes that "ALL" spirits, including their gods, have always existed in the "pre-mortal" life after they were created at some point in time. That is NOT existing "AS God" throughout all eternity. Christians believe that God has ALWAYS BEEN FULLY GOD with no beginning and no end. There was no creating our God by human parents. They don't know when these "spirit children" were created by another god and his goddess wife or wives, but apparently mormonism teaches that is close enough for them to assume they are "eternal".

Mormonism also teaches that their god was once a human, birth by two human parents in the normal fashion. Mormonism does NOT teach that God is also Jesus Christ. That is a deliberate falsehood. They are separate entities altogether.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Be factual about that "belief"! Go the WHOLE mile, not just the part that you think we "like to hear".

Mormonism believes that "ALL" spirits, including their gods, have always existed in the "pre-mortal" life after they were created at some point in time. That is NOT existing "AS God" throughout all eternity. Christians believe that God has ALWAYS BEEN FULLY GOD with no beginning and no end. There was no creating our God by human parents. They don't know when these "spirit children" were created by another god and his goddess wife or wives, but apparently mormonism teaches that is close enough for them to assume they are "eternal".

Mormonism also teaches that their god was once a human, birth by two human parents in the normal fashion. Mormonism does NOT teach that God is also Jesus Christ. That is a deliberate falsehood. They are separate entities altogether.

Got it wrong again.
Doctrine and Covenants 93
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

The self existing Intelligence has always existed, God takes this intelligence and places it into pure spirit matter thus making him the Father of spirits.

 

[tickingclocker]

It is very rare, but does happen:

"The clinical term is "hematohidrosis.". "Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form.". Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes "the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture.
The causes of hematohidrosis have been divided into nonreligious and religious. The nonreligious causes are as a component of systemic disease, vicarious menstruation (bleeding from a surface other than the mucous membrane of the uterine cavity that occurs at the time when normal menstruation should take place), excessive exertion, psychogenic, and unknown factors. Duan et al. reported hematohidrosis associated with primary thrombocytopenic purpura.[2] Migliorini described a case of hematidrohosis otorrhea with otoerythrosis.[3] Dubeikovskaia reported hematohidrosis in a 8-year-old child.[4]

The religious cause is a stigma, which formerly meant a spot, a sign, a wound, or a mark branded on a slave. From the time of Christ's crucifixion, this term took on the special meaning as the reproduction of the wounds on palms, soles and crown that Christ suffered on the cross and it was believed to be supernaturally imposed by God. Jacobi (1923), quoted by Klauder, reported 300 instances of stigma (stigmata). Most of the stigmata patients were females both Catholics and non Catholics."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810702/
Hematohidrosis also known as Hematidrosis, hemidrosis and hematidrosis, is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress.[1] Manonukul et al. proposed the term “hematofolliculohidrosis” because it appeared along with sweat-like fluid and the blood exuded via the follicular canals.[5]

Believe it if you like. I personally don't accept stigmata. However, either yes or no does not take away from or add to salvation, either way. Does it!

Just so you know, mormonism also believes that Jesus did 'sweat blood', which directly "saves" them. It teaches while in the Garden Jesus did accomplish paying for sin there because of this verse. Mormonism starts its salvation process at this point. NOT upon the Cross at any point. This has been a bone of contention between Christians and Mormons since... JS and mormonism showed up.

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.”
---Ezra Taft Benson, 13th LDS president, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.51

Can't get any higher than that in the LDS for confirmation. Mormons are not above their president in knowledge, so therefore he would have known LDS doctrine better than any of them. So the above statement presents their actual belief in black and white for all to see. There are further similar quotes re: salvation in the Garden by their presidents, but I won't list them here for expediency's sake.

The word picture of the OT states that the sacrificial lamb did not pay for the people's sins until it was SLAIN, when it DIED. Not when it was being prepared, not when the knife was it its throat, not when it was bleating and trying to escape death. When it died and not before (lambs don't sweat blood). OT symbolism doesn't mean anything in mormonism. They chose the Garden because that's what JS told them to accept. So they do, blissfully dismissing the entire OT's view of the sacrificial Lamb of God.

 

[mmksparbud]

Got it wrong again.
Doctrine and Covenants 93
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

The self existing Intelligence has always existed, God takes this intelligence and places it into pure spirit matter thus making him the Father of spirits.

And where does it say that in the bible??? So JS says that intelligence has always existed----floating out there in space------does it exist in rocks. water, what exactly is thinking, does it exist in a black hole?? An astronaut out there can grab a handful of it??----Maybe somebody can figure out how to grab some 'cause I know several people who are in dire need of some.

 

[tickingclocker]

Got it wrong again.
Doctrine and Covenants 93
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

The self existing Intelligence has always existed, God takes this intelligence and places it into pure spirit matter thus making him the Father of spirits.

No, you are trying to hide the facts, yet again. God is not some force of "self-existing intelligence" to Christians. He is GOD. Always has been. Always will be. God doesn't need to "take" anything and "place" anything into "pure spirit matter".... "making" Him anything, which infers a "BEGINNING" and actions "self-creating" Him as God.

The Christian's God has NO beginnings--or endings. That is what eternal means.

(Come on. Who are you trying to kid here? We can find the whole truth behind all this LDS stuff inside of a 30-second Google search. The gig is up.)

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan 12:4)

 

[dzheremi]

And by "Christianity" you mean the popular vote of sinful men? Don't care.
Christ and His Words? Now that I care.

Who's talking about 'popular vote' of anything? If doctrine were decided by what was popular, then there would be practically no more Christianity because almost the entire world was under the sway of Arianism at a certain point (a notable exception being Alexandria; Athanasius Contra Mundum and all that).

Rather, the councils and the creeds are important in the context of a discussion like this one for exactly the reason I already wrote: they provide a baseline by which we can discuss things from at least a minimally common viewpoint. You don't have that, because Mormonism is anti-Christian, and hence all you can do is repeat that the Fathers were 'sinful men', which completely misses the point.

Actually, I am quite informed on early Christian beliefs, councils, creeds, etc. I have spent much time researching it.

You ought to spent more, then (as we all should), because Mormonism is not just far from early Christianity, it's completely different from any Christianity. Again, if this is false, then tell me what actual churches accept the distinctive Mormon teachings and practices? Where are the Anglicans' special underwear, or the Presbyterians' baptism of the dead? Why doesn't the Coptic Orthodox Church have any time for the LDS fantasy of "Reformed Egyptian", despite being the Church of the actual Egyptians? Why don't the Eastern Orthodox, or the Armenian Apostolic, or the Indian Orthodox Christians recognize Joseph Smith's prophethood?

Again, to be a Mormon you have to believe that Christianity was essentially so ineptly transmitted or established in every place that Christ Himself was a failure in communicating even the basics of His own teachings, as His disciples somehow bungled His message so much that nobody had ever heard of the things that Joseph Smith "restored" to the religion until about eighteen centuries after the apostles.

And apparently you have to do that while criticizing everything that was taught and believed as 'the popular vote of sinful men', even as you in the process rely on the Bible that those very same 'sinful men' canonized (which your false prophet Joseph Smith mangled) in order to attempt to bolster your claims against historic Christianity, thereby providing this supposed need for a delusional wife-stealing con man to come to the rescue to by 'restoring' true Christianity with a bunch of stuff that runs completely counter to literally every shred of extant patristic, historical, geographical, and linguistic evidence that has ever been discovered on the entire planet.

But to find Truth I look to God, not men.

Keep looking. It's not in Mormonism.

 

[mmksparbud]

Believe it if you like. I personally don't accept stigmata. However, either yes or no does not take away from or add to salvation, either way. Does it!

Just so you know, mormonism also believes that Jesus did 'sweat blood', which directly "saves" them. It teaches while in the Garden Jesus did accomplish paying for sin there because of this verse. Mormonism starts its salvation process at this point. NOT upon the Cross at any point. This has been a bone of contention between Christians and Mormons since... JS and mormonism showed up.

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.”
---Ezra Taft Benson, 13th LDS president, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.51

Can't get any higher than that in the LDS for confirmation. Mormons are not above their president in knowledge, so therefore he would have known LDS doctrine better than any of them. So the above statement presents their actual belief in black and white for all to see. There are further similar quotes re: salvation in the Garden by their presidents, but I won't list them here for expediency's sake.

The word picture of the OT states that the sacrificial lamb did not pay for the people's sins until it was SLAIN, when it DIED. Not when it was being prepared, not when the knife was it its throat, not when it was bleating and trying to escape death. When it died and not before (lambs don't sweat blood). OT symbolism doesn't mean anything in mormonism. They chose the Garden because that's what JS told them to accept. So they do, blissfully dismissing the entire OT's view of the sacrificial Lamb of God.

It is a medical fact and has been documented---and it only goes to show that the bible is right. What Christ went through was agonizing--but the cross is where He actually paid the price. It was not till the cross where Jesus took the sins of the world on Himself, that is why God withdrew, why that agonizing cry was wrenched from Jesus as He felt God withdraw. It is not at Gethsemane. Just one more thing I did not know about them. Over a year later I find this out!! It is not until the death of the lamb that sins were washed away in the Sanctuary, on the Day of Atonement, and I not until the death of THE LAMB that our sins were washed away----any REAL priest would know that!!! MY God, My God---how can they twist even this around??!!! The OT is what Jesus studied and read and preached and what every single first Christian knew---they could see finally, the reality of their Sanctuary service portrayed right before their eyes when they saw the actual LAMB of God die on the cross----Everything about the sanctuary service pointed to Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb. What agony Jesus suffered, which was very real, was in private between Him and God and the disciples but was not in any way a part of the process of salvation! Dang!! That man was twisted (JS)!!!

 

[tickingclocker]

Mormons do believe in only One God----on this world. And that He always existed---just as a human before He became God. He worked His way to becoming God, so therefore we can do the same thing. On other worlds, there are other gods. God did not create everything everywhere, just almost everything on this world, but it all was matter before He created it, He never created anything from nothing. And yes, Jesus is the Son of God---just not His only Son, it was His only sinless one, the others, that God had with the Heavenly Mother, were not sinless. And we existed before being born as we are those children that God had with His wife, the Heavenly Mother. And Gabriel was Noah. They believe in he bible as long as it is correctly interpreted, and the writings of Joseph Smith are also scripture and they interpret the bible correctly. They can correct me if I got something wrong.

Yes. One god. One Jesus. One holy ghost. Separate beings, all. They are merely united in "mind" aka "unity". However, they can independently move and think for themselves. JS could not join them physically, because of the necessity of their being "married" in order to become gods (doesn't explain how their holy ghost became a god, because he doesn't have a body). The Mormon gods are not Siamese twins with a spirit hovering above them. They are entirely separate, independent beings who happen to agree with each other.

Polytheism.

 

[tickingclocker]

From the page that the Mormon poster above called 'poignant':



If by her death and resurrection she conquered the power of death over us all and offered life to those in the tombs and to those that believed in her, you would. Because that's what Christ did. And that's why we bow before the holy cross, and kiss it, and do all of these other things. It is not mere remembrance of a one-time action, nor the oft-expressed but wrong idea of "glorifying an instrument of torture", but because through His death and resurrection, what most definitely had been a symbol of death became in fact a symbol of not just life, but of eternal life. Perhaps for some Christians who are overly focused on the gory details of the passion (people who love Mel Gibson's film in an unhealthy way), this is not the case, but within the context of its invocation in Orthodox worship, it is entirely because of Christ's resurrection that we hold the cross up, proudly and with reverence. I suppose if we saw it as something shameful or an instrument of defeat, we might feel differently, but in the Orthodox celebration of the cross, it is instead common to hear it referred as having "victorious power" (as in the video below, from an Indian Orthodox Church), precisely due to Christ's victory over death upon it.

So it would appear that the Mormons are objecting on false grounds, and furthermore damaging their own claim (made on that page) to be of the same mind as the early Christians in this matter. Again, St. Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) calls the cross the symbol of the Lord. Heck, India -- where the church in the video was founded -- was evangelized by St. Thomas the Apostle in the 50's, and they have certainly never shied away from veneration of and identification with the cross in any way (see, notably, events like the Coonan Cross Oath). And why should they, or any of us? The cross is the victory, power, and protection of the Christians. Others would see us shamed by it because they do not understand it, or maybe (as in the case of some other religions) they do not believe in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ. But for people who claim to be Christians and therefore believe in that to not venerate the cross...well, that's the real source of shame in all this, as it is opposing Christianity by re-making the cross into something bad after Christ sanctified it by His holy sacrifice, as though He is not risen so it is still what it was before!

The Cross is recognized the world over, in every age, culture and nation as the symbol of Christianity. Even atheists recognize the Cross as the symbol of Christianity. It's not like they can hold up a statue of JS or Moroni as a symbol of mormonism. Wouldn't go over well. Nobody would know who they were. EVERYONE knows who Jesus Christ is when they see that Cross. They may not accept Him, but they know Him--by His death. Show them a garden and watch them all shrug in bafflement. Perhaps mormonism wishes to strip us of that identity, too?

I don't own a Cross, but now? Hmm... I just might go out and buy one for my wall. I have pictures of my loved ones there to remember them. Why not put up something in remembrance of the Greatest Sacrifice ever to meditate upon?

 

[Paul1963]

I have read many of the Mormon writings and the Jesus they believe in is not the same Jesus that died on the cross. They are a cult and not at all Christian regardless if they follow the cross or not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[mmksparbud]

I remember a teacher in High school once said that if Jesus had been accepted by the Jewish community, including the Priests, that they would then have had to go through the actual Day of Atonement with Jesus Himself as the Lamb--the High Priest would have had to slit the throat of Christ Himself for that is what He came to do---die for our sins. I haven't really thought about it since, and know that is something that was not prophesied, it was just an "if" this had happened. Point being----it was death that was required. And death that Jesus did of His own choosing.
Joh_10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
If salvation had been accomplished in Gethsemane, Christ would not have had to go on the cross, He would not have had to actually die------how crazy. If it was only blood that was required, He could have just slit His wrists and sprinkled blood on the veil!!! It was the blood of Jesus poured out in death that saved. The punishment for sin is death---that is what He came to save us from. That is the punishment He had to endure when He became sin for us. That is what was so agonizing for Him and what He had to take on faith that He would be raised on the 3rd day. Every time I learn some new thing about Mormonism, it leaves me aghast!!
Eze_18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Who's talking about 'popular vote' of anything? If doctrine were decided by what was popular, then there would be practically no more Christianity because almost the entire world was under the sway of Arianism at a certain point (a notable exception being Alexandria; Athanasius Contra Mundum and all that).

Rather, the councils and the creeds are important in the context of a discussion like this one for exactly the reason I already wrote: they provide a baseline by which we can discuss things from at least a minimally common viewpoint. You don't have that, because Mormonism is anti-Christian, and hence all you can do is repeat that the Fathers were 'sinful men', which completely misses the point.



You ought to spent more, then (as we all should), because Mormonism is not just far from early Christianity, it's completely different from any Christianity. Again, if this is false, then tell me what actual churches accept the distinctive Mormon teachings and practices? Where are the Anglicans' special underwear, or the Presbyterians' baptism of the dead? Why doesn't the Coptic Orthodox Church have any time for the LDS fantasy of "Reformed Egyptian", despite being the Church of the actual Egyptians? Why don't the Eastern Orthodox, or the Armenian Apostolic, or the Indian Orthodox Christians recognize Joseph Smith's prophethood?

Again, to be a Mormon you have to believe that Christianity was essentially so ineptly transmitted or established in every place that Christ Himself was a failure in communicating even the basics of His own teachings, as His disciples somehow bungled His message so much that nobody had ever heard of the things that Joseph Smith "restored" to the religion until about eighteen centuries after the apostles.

And apparently you have to do that while criticizing everything that was taught and believed as 'the popular vote of sinful men', even as you in the process rely on the Bible that those very same 'sinful men' canonized (which your false prophet Joseph Smith mangled) in order to attempt to bolster your claims against historic Christianity, thereby providing this supposed need for a delusional wife-stealing con man to come to the rescue to by 'restoring' true Christianity with a bunch of stuff that runs completely counter to literally every shred of extant patristic, historical, geographical, and linguistic evidence that has ever been discovered on the entire planet.



Keep looking. It's not in Mormonism.

As soon as you want to respectfully talk about scripture, let me know, and then we'll chat

 

[Goatee]

Mormons are trying to defend their faith on here but looking at their doctrines online and what they believe i find it hard how they can justify what is written against what they say on here? What the mormons believe, having looked at good sources, is quite shocking to me.

https://carm.org/mormon-beliefs

 

[mmksparbud]

Mormons are trying to defend their faith on here but looking at their doctrines online and what they believe i find it hard how they can justify what is written against what they say on here? What the mormons believe, having looked at good sources, is quite shocking to me.

https://carm.org/mormon-beliefs

Yes, it upset me every time I found something new, which can be like pulling teeth because they dance around it with Cristian sounding words and do not answer questions and will ignore statements, they'll change the subject and so on. I get upset because my stepdaughter is one and I don't think she knows all this even though she's been in it around 8 years. She pulled away from all her family as she got into it. Her husband, his mother and their children are being raised in it. When I first cme on here I didnlt know anything and thought they were Chrisian---I've had to get away from the Mormon threads at times as I didn't want to know any more---I thought I finally got everything and tonight there was this new Gethsemane theory that left me slapping my forhead again!!

 

[Goatee]

Yes, it upset me every time I found something new, which can be like pulling teeth because they dance around it with Cristian sounding words and do not answer questions and will ignore statements, they'll change the subject and so on. I get upset because my stepdaughter is one and I don't think she knows all this even though she's been in it around 8 years. She pulled away from all her family as she got into it. Her husband, his mother and their children are being raised in it. When I first cme on here I didnlt know anything and thought they were Chrisian---I've had to get away from the Mormon threads at times as I didn't want to know any more---I thought I finally got everything and tonight there was this new Gethsemane theory that left me slapping my forhead again!!

Have you tried to show her what the church 'actually' believes or is she not interested?

 

[mmksparbud]

Have you tried to show her what the church 'actually' believes or is she not interested?

I didn't get the chance---her mother stepped in. I had sent her mother an e-mail asking her how she felt about this and what some of those believes were as her mom had changed (I thought) and was talking a lot about God and being Christian. Out of spite, her mother showed her the e-mail and got her very upset with me. Her mother made me out to be very intolerant and that what I was saying was all lies and her daughter has made no attempt to contact me. I am only her stepmother and her dad and I divorced years ago and then he died. We had bee close, and I always eased things between the mother and daughter as they were frequently getting into battles and I always reminded her that she's her mother and she needs to respect that. I would bot have shown the daughter the e-mail had the situation been reversed--she should have just yelled at me and we could have talked, but she wanted to cause a rift between us---mission accomplished. I just pray that God works things out.
One thing--0if you go to the official Mormon website, you won't get to find out all this stuff that easily. They don't discuss things very deeply, they sound like most Christian sites, it takes digging into their Book of Mormon, their Doctrines and Covenants and other books where you find out this stuff. Carm. has done the book work and they have listed their sources and you can read the articles yourself if you can find their books. But You can read the Book of Mormon on line ---it is about as long as the bible I think!!!! You can get the other books also. But I found I really do not like to read their literature, it makes me cringe. I did it to verify that what I was reading and being told by ex-Mormons was true---Sadly, it is.

 

[Ironhold]

But if they stay, they will have to answer for their beliefs.

...Which we've done.

Mormonism teaches its members to avoid answering straight questions with straight answers, and to resort to ad hominem.

And I'm sure that you can prove this by citing chapter and verse, correct?

For instance, not a single Mormon ever answered my question in another thread about why JS claimed God told him all Christianity is an "abomination", if the LDS believes a doctrine that was ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY (faith plus works).

And I'm sure that you have a link you can show us?

 

[Ironhold]

Wearing a cross does not make you Christian

...yet the OP declares that our lack of crosses is in and of itself enough to make us enemies of mainline Christianity.

I think you can see the disconnect here.

 

[Ironhold]

Mormons are trying to defend their faith on here but looking at their doctrines online and what they believe i find it hard how they can justify what is written against what they say on here? What the mormons believe, having looked at good sources, is quite shocking to me.

https://carm.org/mormon-beliefs

How about reading through LDS.org or Mormon.org and learning what the church really teaches?

If all you're doing is going through hostile websites of dubious reputation, you're only going to get one side of the argument.