• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 'Christian'.

Sonny

Active Member
Thank you.
Now that you have revealed you are merely going to keep trying to be a martyr...
Well, Thanks, I think. Martyrdom is not for me. It is for those with a cause. I have no cause except the truth, when it comes to religion. If that is martyrdom then we should have many more since Jesus' death.

[/quote] Poor poor Sonny.
The whole forum is out to get him...[/QUOTE]
I know, right? I just can't get a break. I feel almost as bad about it as you seem to feel. Then again, I don't believe in or follow my feelings very much so none of that stuff bothers me any. But I do know this, if truth was as important as it ought to be there'd never be any arguments about it. Oh, well....life goes on.
 

McBell

Unbound
I know, right? I just can't get a break. I feel almost as bad about it as you seem to feel. Then again, I don't believe in or follow my feelings very much so none of that stuff bothers me any. But I do know this, if truth was as important as it ought to be there'd never be any arguments about it. Oh, well....life goes on.
You go with whatever you have to tell yourself.
Truth is that most of what you claim is Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon Doctrine.
Your truth complaints seem a bit insincere when you are the biggest contributor of untruths in this thread.
 

Sonny

Active Member
You go with whatever you have to tell yourself.
Thanks! I will do just that.

Truth is that most of what you claim is Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon Doctrine.]/quote]
I don't claim anything. I 'repeat' what the LDS church and its leaders have 'taught', 'printed', and 'published' as their god's 'true, unchanging and forever' truth. You'll have to square all of that with your feelings. I know the truth.

Your truth complaints seem a bit insincere when you are the biggest contributor of untruths in this thread.
Could that be bc many LDS are here? Could it also be, bc the LDS here have failed to mention the things I have, that most here had no idea of the real LDS truth until I showed up? Could be.
 

Sonny

Active Member
And if they aren't part of the standard works...? Go on, I said it was a circular argument. Feel free to complete the other half of the circle any time.
That is a silly comment (And if they aren't part of the standard works...?) bc I produced proof the JoDs are part of the LDS accepted standard works, the JoDs state it (vol.8, Preface page) and the LDS church/leaders signed off on it by allowing the JoDs to be published and sold to LDS members. There are no 'what ifs' about what was written 1854-1886 in the JoDs. AND, bc no one back then said anything against what had been written (what JoDs teach)- not for a few generations- that to bring it up some 100 years later shows, to me and many others, a distinct attempt to 'change' LDS doctrine and deceive everyone.

Because my point was that they were NEVER part of the standard works. To refute that, all you need to do is cite ONE (1) source other than the JoD that says they were part of the standard works.
I'll do better than that. I will post books where the LDS church and its highest leaders, over the last hundred years or so, have quoted the JoDs. That shows that the LDS church/leaders still thot JoDs were, very much, a part of the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of LDS church. It has taken me this long to reply to this bc I have never been faced with the 'JoDs are not doctrines/beliefs' as has been asserted here. But, it also shows, I believe, that those LDS who say that don't know as much about their church as they suggest. Which, to me, is a bigger concern. In my recent study I found that even the Relief Society study guide uses (quotes) the JoDs. I pulled one off the shelf and looked through it (Relief Society Personal Study Guide 1 from 1989).
But, it also, as does most of the books I have examined so far, quotes many of the books written by the highest of LDS church leaders from the 1850s to the time of it being written/printed. It is, I firmly believe, wrong to say the JoDs, or any of those early LDS written/published books, are not full of LDS doctrines or beliefs- especially since the LDS church, in one way or another, published those books. The LDS simply cannot have it both ways. They JoDs can't be quoted often and by the highest LDS church officials but not be doctrinal or beliefs of the LDS church. That would be, in my mind, both the height of irony and hypocrisy.

To say they have rejected founding doctrines, first you have to show that these were doctrines. You have not done so.
There's that word again. You have not demonstrated that the JoD was a source of doctrine.
See above- book titles with JoD quotes coming soon (I'm still looking thru my 3 foot deep pile of early and modern LDS-printed and published books).

It's not that hard to understand: they wanted to have the sermons overseas. They were sermons, not statements of doctrine.
Really? Sermons are speeches of beliefs and doctrines. What other point are they for, especially since nearly all, if not all, were given in LDS churches or the Tabernacle or in other important LDS events, buildings. Plus, many (most?) of the sermons (whoever heard of a sermon that didn't teach beliefs/doctrines? Ridiculous!) are found in other LDS sources that repeat the same as doctrines/beliefs. Your denial doesn't make it true. It took about a hundred years for the LDS to realize their god's unchangeable doctrines/beliefs needed to be changed. Thus why no one spoke up back then. Also, lest we forget, the LDS god, as I read him, states that any LDS leader that even 'tries' to lead his church astray will be "quickly swept off the earth". Since that never happened he must have agreed with all that was written, taught, printed then published, right? Else there would be many dead LDS leaders from that time. Believe it or not, I believe it, the LDS backed themselves into this corner by the things they taught- they speak face to face with God, he directs/leads the LDS church, he won't allow them to lie or lead the church astray, all of BY's 'sermons' are LDS Scripture and so on. You can't have it both ways. None of us can.
At least, not unless we show by such actions/words that, imo, we have been successfully altered in our mind to believe that God never changes, knows everything and sees everything from the Universe's beginning to the end of time but then we make allowances for him not knowing everything before there was anything (so why would he need to change? Does God really need to edit his words to man?), or admitting that he isn't everywhere in time all right 'NOW', or that he isn't all-powerful and can't stop mere mortals from making him change. To me, God never lies or changes and He really can see the future, that is why so many of the Bible's prophecies have come to pass compared with, I believe, none of the LDS god's- at least I haven't seen one that has yet. I've said enough for now. I'm still studying.

They didn't need the sermons to be statements of doctrine because statements of doctrine already existed on both continents: the standard works.
Before the D&Cs were in print how many of the LDS church's doctrines/beliefs were in the BoM? I can't find hardly any.
It's like asking why we have "My Utmost for His Highest" when we already have the Bible. One is a set of sermons, the other is a statement of doctrine.
My Utmost hi-lites biblical verses/passages and expounds on them. There is nothing new or added scripture to them.
Treating the sermons like they are statements of doctrine will lead to the exact same kind of foolishness as you are trying to foist on us.
Again, I didn't say the JoDs were standard works, the LDS leaders who authorized their publication did. I wasn't there in the 1850s-80s when they were collected from those who taught them (and said then that they were teachings or doctrines) and then published them. Notice the preface page of volume 1 in the photo I've added. What does it say about where they were printed and who signed off on it? The JoDs are "by BY, his 2 counsellors [sic] and the 12 apostles". And, they were printed at the "LDS book depot" as so many other LDS books of the time was, according to Joseph Fielding Smith.

Couldn't upload that file but it is here...

Vol. 01 Journal of Discourses :: Journal of Discourses
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
When I give talks I routinely work in quotes from Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and many other works of various popularity. Simply quoting something does not make that thing part of the Standard Works.

Stop trying to tell us what we believe and what we reference, you've been repeatedly told hat you're wrong. Don't make yourself as laughable as the Trump-Spicer team.
 

Sonny

Active Member
Here are a couple other comments made by LDS leaders and authorities, until I can start posting the books, page #s where LDS leaders quoted JoDs..
1.

upload_2017-2-23_11-15-52.jpg

2.

upload_2017-2-23_11-16-26.jpg
 

Sonny

Active Member
When I give talks I routinely work in quotes from Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and many other works of various popularity. Simply quoting something does not make that thing part of the Standard Works.

Stop trying to tell us what we believe and what we reference, you've been repeatedly told hat you're wrong. Don't make yourself as laughable as the Trump-Spicer team.
I haven't told YOU what YOU believe. Stop lying! All I have said is WHAT the LDS church taught was its doctrines, beliefs and standard works. I don't know or care what YOU believe. All you need to do is show everyone here that the JoD, vol. 8, Preface page doesn't say the JoDs are part of the standard works and I will stop saying it. So, will you- can you- show the JoDs did not say they are standard works? Or, are you just going to keep accusing me of lies and trashing me for stating/repeating what LDS leaders taught? I have accused no one here of anything and I have only repeated (a messenger) what the LDS church's leaders did say. If that is wrong then please show how or stop making false accusations and name-calling me. I will report the next one who does that w/o any reference or evidence. That should stop the mouths of some here. I'm sorry I have to threaten to report some but I am tired of being lied about and trashed when all I have done is simply state the same things the LDS church stated. Grow up.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Those who take this view seem to know neither Christianity's or Mormonism's doctrines and beliefs. I see the differences too great to be considered the same religion. Rather, they are, by each others own definition, two separate ideologies. We cannot have two ideologies teaching, at times, vastly different things yet being considered the same entity. That is preposterous and blindly ignoring the obvious differences.
No, no. Your personal Christianity is radically different from Mormonism. You do not and cannot speak for all other Christians, so stop pretending like you do. Mormons believe in the Nazarene, that makes them Christians. The rest is window-dressing.

And I say that as a pagan, someone who has nothing to gain or to lose from how the followers of the Hvítakristr are grouped.
 

Sonny

Active Member
To the LDS here...
Does the LDS church teach that Jesus was married? If so, who was he married to, why and where is the evidence for such teaching/beliefs? Also, please explain why God would want or need to have sexual relations with his daughters? Was the teaching, if it existed, stopped? If the teaching was stopped, why?
 

Sonny

Active Member
No, no. Your personal Christianity is radically different from Mormonism. You do not and cannot speak for all other Christians, so stop pretending like you do.
You are right that Christianity differs, radically, from what Mormon doctrine teaches. But I can speak for all Christians bc the major tenets of Christianity are never argued or disagreed with by any true Christian church.

Mormons believe in the Nazarene, that makes them Christians. The rest is window-dressing.

And I say that as a pagan, someone who has nothing to gain or to lose from how the followers of the Hvítakristr are grouped.
Mormons believe Jesus lied (how can they believe He is God, then?) when He said that when He returns ALL eyes will see Him, not just some young boy with a vivid imagination in the woods of NY. They can't have it both ways. IMO, either JS did see God and Jesus AND Jesus lied or Jesus didn't lie AND JS did. I believe this is where the disagreement between the two separate religious belief systems hinges.

And, since you don't know much about either belief system I don't see how you rationally tell me anything about either of them or me. A bit presumptuous and arrogant, don't you think?
 

Sonny

Active Member
A group of settlers were killed by the Utah Territorial Militia along with some Paiute native people.
By Utah Militia you mean Mormons, right? And it wasn't a 'group' but between 120-140 men, women and little children- and at least one baby. Funny how I get trashed and attacked for simply repeating LDS truth but the LDS here won't even admit their church's true history. Or is that, ironic?
Denial only works when there are no facts (evidence) or witnesses. But it doesn't work at MMM
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
You are right that Christianity differs, radically, from what Mormon doctrine teaches. But I can speak for all Christians bc the major tenets of Christianity are never argued or disagreed with by any true Christian church.
Your Christianity(whatever that is, given how tight-lipped you've been despite repeatedly being asked) is radically different from Mormonism. Nigh all other Christians though? There really isn't that much different between them. You're the exception, not the rule, and to be honest from what I've gathered the only reason for that is because you have some sort of irrational hatred for the Mormon faith and its adherents.


Mormons believe Jesus lied (how can they believe He is God, then?) when He said that when He returns ALL eyes will see Him, not just some young boy with a vivid imagination in the woods of NY. They can't have it both ways. IMO, either JS did see God and Jesus AND Jesus lied or Jesus didn't lie AND JS did. I believe this is where the disagreement between the two separate religious belief systems hinges.
Is this honestly your only argument? Because you're assuming Jesus was being literal when he said "all eyes"?

And, since you don't know much about either belief system I don't see how you rationally tell me anything about either of them or me. A bit presumptuous and arrogant, don't you think?
I don't know much? I've read several different English translations of the Bible, the New Testament in the original Koine Greek and the OT(as well as the Jewish Canon outside the OT) in Hebrew. Am I an expert? Hell no. Nowhere near. But to say I don't understand? No. You don't need to be a Christian to understand Christianity.
 

Sonny

Active Member
I thank God that he continually improves His work, expanding upon it as far as we are able to sustain with our limited understanding. And as our understanding extends through His grace, he will continue to expand our knowledge of Him to greater and greater lengths. And that means removing flaws, correcting misunderstandings, clarifying, refining, expounding upon a LIVING Gospel, written in the hearts of His followers. My testimony is in a living God who speaks to me right now, this instant, and whose words change like the words of a radio station "change" as we tune in to it.

It's not God's shortcomings we're talking about here.
If a god needs or 'have to change' then he was never God, imo. The Bible, to my reading of it, teaches that God is all-knowing and everywhere at once (beginning of time, end of time 'NOW', according to the Bible and JS) and all-powerful. If he can't do what he said he would, or can't see the future or doesn't know what he wants to say to all men, in all cultures, at all times, or can't say it right then he is a man, not God- at least not the Christian God.
But, I believe, the Bible also speaks of those who would rise who say but can't do. They want praise but their fruits show they shouldn't get anything, imo. And, Yes, I believe there have been many of that low sort that have come on the world's scene, just as Jesus said they would. But the Elect will never follow them.
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
Does the LDS church teach that Jesus was married? If so, who was he married to, why and where is the evidence for such teaching/beliefs? Also, please explain why God would want or need to have sexual relations with his daughters? Was the teaching, if it existed, stopped? If the teaching was stopped, why?

Oh boy, this chestnut again! Let's see, how to answer, how to answer....I could say no, but then you'd call me a liar and pull out some obscure quote from Brigham Young out of the Jounal of Discourses (again, not part of the LDS scriptural canon) where he declares that Christ was married. I could say the cChurch has no official position, but that'd just result in the same as answering no. And then, if I say we do teach that He was married and produce a name for a wife, then expouse how we Mormons are so obsessed with sex that we spend serious time thinking about what Christ did at night you'll just take that as further "proof" that we are somehow not Christian.

So let's see, damned if I do, damned if I don't....maybe I'll go with the 4th answer: I've got better things to do than to waste my time dealing with things that have absolutely nothing to do with my life. I have good reasons to believe that He was, but nothing I say will be acceptable to you, so I'm not going to bother.

If you want a good book to read, I highly recommend Star Trek: Losing the Peace by William Leisner. It's all about our duty to those displaced by war (i.e., refugees), and is one of the most powerful Trek books I've read.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Oh boy, this chestnut again! Let's see, how to answer, how to answer....I could say no, but then you'd call me a liar and pull out some obscure quote from Brigham Young out of the Jounal of Discourses (again, not part of the LDS scriptural canon) where he declares that Christ was married. I could say the cChurch has no official position, but that'd just result in the same as answering no. And then, if I say we do teach that He was married and produce a name for a wife, then expouse how we Mormons are so obsessed with sex that we spend serious time thinking about what Christ did at night you'll just take that as further "proof" that we are somehow not Christian.

So let's see, damned if I do, damned if I don't....maybe I'll go with the 4th answer: I've got better things to do than to waste my time dealing with things that have absolutely nothing to do with my life. I have good reasons to believe that He was, but nothing I say will be acceptable to you, so I'm not going to bother.

If you want a good book to read, I highly recommend Star Trek: Losing the Peace by William Leisner. It's all about our duty to those displaced by war (i.e., refugees), and is one of the most powerful Trek books I've read.

You don't have any reason to believe Jesus was married.

If you want a good book, I highly recommend the Bible.
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
Wow that's presumptuous, telling me what I know and believe. But then I guess that's par for the course when I deal with the so-called "mainstream" Christians(TM). It's remarkable to me how it seems that they know my mind better than I do.
 
Top