Book of Mormon

[painted wolf]

So what do you like about what LDS leaders have said/ doctrine?

wa:do

 

[rabanes]

So what do you like about what LDS leaders have said/ doctrine?

POST #119 is a good start.

RA

 

[painted wolf]

Ah, thank you!

wa:do

 

[Watchmen]

This whole thing has never been repudiated or discussed or clarified by today's LDS leadership. It's been relegated to the "let's don't talk about this issue like we used to" pile.

RA

You've failed to address my various posts pointing out that there is no need to officially repudiate something that was never official to begin with.

You've also failed to show how this teaching permeates Mormonism.

 

[rabanes]

You've failed to address my various posts pointing out that there is no need to officially repudiate something that was never official to begin with.

This is the convenient out always raised by Mormons regarding a belief/doctrine that is/was held, but never had some kind of official stamp on it. It allows for the belief to be held far and wide by however many hold it, while all along responsibility for it can be denied. If you were reading closely, you would have seen:

1. some of your highest ranking LDS leaders expressing the view;

2. an apparent adoption of the view with hints of it, at the very least, in official writings (Family Home Evening, for example); and

3. its constant presence throughout Mormonism from its earliest years (that would fall under the definition of "permeating" -- "[SIZE=-1]spread throughout"[/SIZE]).

You've also failed to show how this teaching permeates Mormonism.

See quotes in article I linked, now available for some mysterious reason, only at my website, because it magically disappeared from mormonwiki.org.

RA

 

[Watchmen]

This is the convenient out always raised by Mormons regarding a belief/doctrine that is/was held, but never had some kind of official stamp on it. It allows for the belief to be held far and wide by however many hold it, while all along responsibility for it can be denied. If you were reading closely, you would have seen:

1. some of your highest ranking LDS leaders expressing the view;

2. an apparent adoption of the view with hints of it, at the very least, in official writings (Family Home Evening, for example); and

3. its constant presence throughout Mormonism from its earliest years (that would fall under the definition of "permeating" -- "[SIZE=-1]spread throughout"[/SIZE]).

See quotes in article I linked, now available for some mysterious reason, only at my website, because it magically disappeared from mormonwiki.org.

RA

And if you were reading closely you would have seen:

1. the fact that the highest ranking leaders you mention are from the past and I've already provided an explanation of how doctrine doesn't change but beliefs might. Why don't you cite for me the most current, high-level leader you have that has expressed this teaching? Also - as you know - whether it was said or not does not make it a doctrine.

2. I've already effectively disputed your claim that the FHE manual teaches what you claim. Did you miss that? Aren't you reading closely?

3. Quotes from early years does not mean it permeated Mormonism then and it certainly doesn't mean it does now. Slavery may have permeated the US in the past. Did it permeate all of the US? Does it permeate the country now?

You lose...again. Open your eyes, man!

 

[Watchmen]

This is the convenient out always raised by Mormons regarding a belief/doctrine that is/was held, but never had some kind of official stamp on it.

This is the convenient out always raised by anti-Mormons regarding a Mormon response that they don't like because they can't grasp their head around the fact that there is a difference between doctrine and opinion and belief and philosophy....and so on.

 

[painted wolf]

Kind of like asking if all Catholics believe everything the early Popes said. Heck, even the current Pope.

wa:do

 

[Watchmen]

I suspect RA has problems with Catholics too. And Jehovah Witnesses, and Muslims, etc. etc.

 

[rabanes]

We believe that we are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

You're leaving out a few things here, no?

1. General salvation - Everyone is saved unto resurrection through the atonement and will be resurrected to one of the heavenly Kingdoms. This is by grace alone for everyone.

2. Individual Salvation (Exaltation) - Ultimate progression unto full Godhood. You become a full-blown God, as much as God as Heavenly Father is a God. It occurs in the Celestial Kingdom, and as a God there, you will continue to procreate with your goddess wife, and create your own spirit children, and worlds, just as all gods before you.

Exaltation is by work and hard effort. The works you do, the knowledge you obtain, the faithfulness you show will, hopefully, someday raise you to godhood status. As Bruce McConkie noted: "That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself" (Mormon Doctrine, p. [SIZE=-1]321). Oh, and you have to be married to hit godhood (good reason to find a mate). Without a wife, you get no exaltation/salvation in Mormonism:
[/SIZE]

"Our exaltation depends on marriage.... Our Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become Like him. We must live the law of eternal marriage to become as he is -- able to have spirit children." (Gospel Principles, p. 231.)
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]"Those who enter this holy order of temple marriage . .. can become exalted as gods. Or in other words, they can eternally enjoy the privilege of begetting children." (LDS Study Course Manual, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage," p. 66)

"If the family unit continues, then by virtue of that fact the members of the family have gained eternal life (exaltation) ... for by definition exaltation [Godhood] consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity." (B. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 117)
​

There. That's a bit more complete, I think.

R.A.

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[Katzpur]

Agreed. But I don't quack, have feathers, or waddle. Sorry.

No, but you talk, write, and act like an "anti-Mormon," so that's what I'm calling you.

Well, I am not here to bash Mormons. I was actually, if you notice, responding to someone wels who had posted material by me here. And then I only got into it because of some inaccurate responses I saw from Mormons. I have no interest in bashing, mudslinging, or anything else you might be thrilled over.

You are clearly here to accuse us of trying to misrepresent our beliefs. What on earth would we have to gain by doing so?

Oh, well, the issue is not me telling you what you believe, the issue you you telling others what you believe accurately and not hiding the truth. That seems to be the problem among Mormons. I have no doubt you know what you believe, you know what the BOM and D&C say, and you know what is taught at your church. Although, TBH, you might not know a few things about your own Church's history since your LDS leaders insist on its historians writing only "faith promoting" histories that conceal information which might damage your faith. You could probably benefit from my books there.

I see. We don't know about my Church's history because the truth has been hidden from its members. You, on the other hand, are privy to all of the skeletons in our closet. What the hell do you take us for?

I'm sorry???? You're making no sense here. You implied that the only people who anyone could go to for correct information on a certain topic (e.g., a religion like Mormonism) was to go to someone INSIDE/PART OF that group, organization, or religion.

There are some non-Mormon scholars whose work I respect. Jan Shipps would be one such individual. Basically, what I'm saying is that your information on Mormonism is pretty representative of the pseudo-scholarship that is so rampant on the internet and in "Christian" (I use the word loosely) bookstores. You obviously have an agenda, and it's not to present a balanced, objective picture of the LDS faith.

I pointed out the serious logical flaw in your thinking by asserting that one does not have be part of that religion, embrace that political view, or hold a certain perspective to understand or know a religion, political view, or perspective.

I don't believe it's a flaw at all. You're proof of that.

Friend, you are showing another trait I have seen among Mormons -- i.e., kind of a persecution complex paranoia. Whatever parallel you are drawing here with these groups is all in your own head.

Dont' call me "friend." I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, your "friend." And don't tell me I have a persecution complex. I just don't like having people tell me what Mormons believe. I find such arrogance to be positively disgusting.

Oh, and BTW, I find it HIGHLY coincidental that SUDDENLY the mormonwiki article I linked here and referred to called, The Conception of Jesus -- has sudden;y disappeared and it now only gives 404 - NOT FOUND. Now, goodness, what could have happened? It was just there less than 24 hours ago, but then this thread happens and bang!!!

And you're calling me paranoid? :biglaugh:

 

[Katzpur]

Virtually every religion has a means of distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception. In attempting to understand LDS beliefs, it is important to keep this in mind.

The LDS canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. If you can find a teaching in one of these four books, it's a safe bet you're talking doctrine. We refer to these four volumes of scripture as "the Standard Works" for the simple reason that they are the "standard" by which all other teachings must be measured.

There is one exception to this rule of thumb. We believe that Christ's Church is led today by living prophets, through whom God speaks to His children. Prophets receive revelation directly from God. Whenever a revelation is doctrinal in nature, it is always presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. It is given either through the First Presidency of the Church (the President and his two counselors) or through the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a single, united entity. Once the doctrine has been accepted by the members of the Church it becomes doctrine. At some point in time it will more than likely be added to The Doctrine and Covenants. This was the case, for instance, with the 1978 revelation granting the Priesthood to all male members of the Church.

In other words, any LDS General Authority (i.e. the governing body of the Church or the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy) speaking on his own and not on behalf of the entire body, may be thought of as presenting his own opinion or interpretation of doctrine. While we believe them to be inspired, they are human beings with opinions of their own. The Prophet Joseph Smith probably said it best when he stated, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." Nevertheless, we believe that these men have been called by God and are directed by the Spirit to teach what is good and true. Their advice to us, if followed, is most likely to benefit our lives.

The sooner you understand what does and what does not constitute LDS doctrine, the better off you'll be. Otherwise, you can expect to continue to hear us give our "classic," as you put it, answers. As long as you continue to say, "Mormons believe..." followed by something that Mormons do not believe and which none of us have ever heard preached from the pulpit, we'll be right there behind you, reminding everyone who reads your words: "That's not what we believe. That's not what we teach."

 

[DallasApple]

I really dont understand what the point is in the first place of pointing out what LDS believes or doesnt believe????

Is it a long winded or disguised way to try and accuse them of not being Christians because of the differences in some of their beleifs?

Love

Dallas

 

[rabanes]

No, but you talk, write, and act like an "anti-Mormon," so that's what I'm calling you.

You call the statements in #119 "anti-Mormon"? Interesting.

You are clearly here to accuse us of trying to misrepresent our beliefs. What on earth would we have to gain by doing so?

I'm here to speak the truth. And hearing the truth spoken is reward. Start telling people precisely what you believe and people like me would not be needed.

I see. We don't know about my Church's history because the truth has been hidden from its members. You, on the other hand, are privy to all of the skeletons in our closet. What the hell do you take us for?

Now, you're catching on. I suggest you read "On Being a Mormon Historian" by D. Michael Quinn, who served as Associate Professor of History, Brigham Young University. He was excommunicated for seeking to tell true history while at BYU. I also suggest you read his three most influential works:

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View,

The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, and

The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
​

Amazon carries them all, I believe.

There are some non-Mormon scholars whose work I respect. Jan Shipps would be one such individual.

There are many more than that.

Basically, what I'm saying is that your information on Mormonism is pretty representative of the pseudo-scholarship that is so rampant on the internet and in "Christian" (I use the word loosely) bookstores. You obviously have an agenda, and it's not to present a balanced, objective picture of the LDS faith.

Well, I'd expect no other opinion. It's shared by Mormons, which is predictable. But, of course, that doesn't make it true.

Dont' call me "friend." I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, your "friend."

Clearly. Very well.

And don't tell me I have a persecution complex. I just don't like having people tell me what Mormons believe. I find such arrogance to be positively disgusting.

It's been noted before. Look it up yourself. I imagine you are capable.

RA

 

[FFH]

But wouldn't you first have to be able to grasp a doctrine before you can have faith in it? The idea that you have to put faith into something before you can understand it just doesn't make sense.

There are certain things one can do to test God, things that will build faith in Him and in his teachings.

 

[FFH]

I really dont understand what the point is in the first place of pointing out what LDS believes or doesnt believe????

Is it a long winded or disguised way to try and accuse them of not being Christians because of the differences in some of their beleifs?

Love

Dallas

It is starting to get old.

 

[Katzpur]

You call the statements in #119 "anti-Mormon"? Interesting.

So you stepped out of character in one post. What do you want? Some kind of commendation?

I'm here to speak the truth. And hearing the truth spoken is reward. Start telling people precisely what you believe and people like me would not be needed.

You? Needed? Don't flatter yourself. You do liven things up, though. As I said before, it's been awhile since we had a new toy.

Now, you're catching on.

Well that's more than I can say for you.

 

[Watchmen]

You're leaving out a few things here, no?

1. General salvation - Everyone is saved unto resurrection through the atonement and will be resurrected to one of the heavenly Kingdoms. This is by grace alone for everyone.

2. Individual Salvation (Exaltation) - Ultimate progression unto full Godhood. You become a full-blown God, as much as God as Heavenly Father is a God. It occurs in the Celestial Kingdom, and as a God there, you will continue to procreate with your goddess wife, and create your own spirit children, and worlds, just as all gods before you.

Exaltation is by work and hard effort. The works you do, the knowledge you obtain, the faithfulness you show will, hopefully, someday raise you to godhood status. As Bruce McConkie noted: "That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself" (Mormon Doctrine, p. [SIZE=-1]321). Oh, and you have to be married to hit godhood (good reason to find a mate). Without a wife, you get no exaltation/salvation in Mormonism:[/SIZE]

"Our exaltation depends on marriage.... Our Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so that we can become Like him. We must live the law of eternal marriage to become as he is -- able to have spirit children." (Gospel Principles, p. 231.)

"Those who enter this holy order of temple marriage . .. can become exalted as gods. Or in other words, they can eternally enjoy the privilege of begetting children." (LDS Study Course Manual, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage," p. 66)

"If the family unit continues, then by virtue of that fact the members of the family have gained eternal life (exaltation) ... for by definition exaltation [Godhood] consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity." (B. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 117)
​

There. That's a bit more complete, I think.

R.A.

You really don't understand our doctrine. You come close, but things get twisted a bit.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

RA - is my post being deliberately ignored or have you just missed it.....I am still waiting on those quotes....cant find them!???

 

[rabanes]

it's been awhile since we had a new toy. .... Well that's more than I can say for you.

Just out of curiosity -- Are these examples of the kind of comments you're making in obedience to the words of your leaders that I posted in #119? As I said just curious. Because this kind of back-n-forth hate rhetoric and snide remarks that have epitomized evangelical-LDS interaction in the past is not really going to help anyone. So, peace at you, my not-friend.

RA