what would be your biggest reason for not joining the LDS??

[Katzpur]

True, we don’t love someone based on what they believe, but you accused me of hate because I disagree with Mormon doctrine. I was simply pointing out that it is possible to love another even while disagreeing. I believe true love holds to truth and does not compromise even when it is uncomfortable, yet this does not equate to hate.

No, I didn't. I accused you of being hateful because of your condescending attitude.

No, you don’t have to love me back… unless you call yourself a Christian since Jesus did say Christians are to love their brothers, neighbors, and enemies.

Well, for starters, you'd have to love me in order for me to love you back, and you clearly don't. Secondly, whether I loved you or not, you'd still say I wasn't a Christian; it wouldn't change anything. Lastly, I may not be a perfect Christian -- I'm a long way from it -- but at least I'm honest, and I don't trash other people's beliefs.

The Mormon version of Jesus is that he is a procreated being, the spirit offspring of Elohim (Heavenly Father who was once a man who progressed to godhood and then had spirit children). This Jesus is the eldest brother of Lucifer and all the other spirit children of Heavenly Father . "Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors" JosephSmith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 70

So although this Jesus as you say was divine in the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence, this is not the same as the biblical Jesus who was always the non-pro(created) Eternal Son. And according to the words of previous LDS leaders Jesus did progress to become a God through obedience and effort.

There's absolutely nothing in Joseph Smith's statement that states that Jesus is a procreated being; that's your interpretation of what he said. The Bible clearly refers to all of us as being God's offspring and of Him being the Father of our spirits. The fact that He (Christ) spoke of God the Father as being both His Father and our Father proves that Christ is the spirit Son of the Father, just as we are. Unlike us, though, He is God's Only Begotten Son in the flesh.

"

[FONT=&quot]Jesus became a God[/FONT] and reached His great state of understanding [FONT=&quot]through consistent effort and continuous obedienceto all the Gospel truths and universal laws." The Gospel Through the Ages; Deseret Book Co. 1945, p.51[/FONT]

Bruce McConkie states: "Christ the Word, the Firstborn, had of course attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence" (What Mormons Think of Christ, p.36).

Perhaps this would be a good time to post the following statement issued in 2007 by the LDS Church...

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

If you can find the teachings you're referring to in any of the books of the LDS canon, please be so kind as to point them out to me.

At one time Mormons readily admitted they had a different Jesus than Christians:

[FONT=&quot]"It is true that many of the Christian Churches worship a different Jesus than is worshipped by the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, pg. 26[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If we worship a "different" Jesus than you do, so be it. I guess the one you worship is not the one the first century Christians worshipped. Still, you've evaded my intial question: How many Jesuses are there to choose from. To us, there is only one: the Son of God who was with His Father in the beginning, the one who created our universe, the one born to a virgin in Bethlehem, the one who established His Church here on earth, called twelve Apostles and taught a gospel of mercy and love, the one who took upon Himself the sins of mankind and suffered an agonizing death so that we might be reconciled to the Father, the one who was resurrected on the third day following His death, the one who sits today on His Father's right hand, and the one who will ultimately return to earth to reign and act as our mediator with our Father in Heaven. I'd quite simply shocked to[/FONT] hear that you believe there was more than one such individual.

Maybe you are correct in a sense that Mormons believe Jesus is sufficient for eternal life because the LDS teaching on salvation is twofold: there is salvation and then there is exaltation. In one sense universalism is taught by the LDS church and Jesus is sufficient for this, but in order for one to reach the celestial kingdom and exaltation one must meet and live in obedience to the ordinances of the Mormon Church. There is no such separation in biblical salvation or any requirement for eternal life with God besides faith in Christ as one’s Savior.

Oh yes, there most certainly is.

I was a Mormon for four years. I realize that is not even close to the number of years you have been one. Yet, it was long enough to give me time to be a member in good standing, get a temple recommend, receive endowments and be married in the temple and also give me an understanding of Mormon doctrine.

Well, you apparently were a member in good standing, got a temple recommend and went through the temple. As far as getting an understanding of Mormon doctrine out of the experience... don't make me laugh.

 

[InChrist]

No, I didn't. I accused you of being hateful because of your condescending attitude.

If my attitude is condescending then I apologize. I have no desire to be condescending or hateful. Sometimes others can see our sinful attitudes better than we can see them in ourselves. So thank you for causing me to pause and check my heart. I do not mean to sound condescending or hateful toward you at all. How could I hate you when I understand that that Jesus created and loves you and He died to save you as He did for me? Do you assume I hate you because you are a Mormon? How could I hate you for being a Mormon? I was a Mormon and I wasn’t a Mormon because I was raised in the LDS Church. I deliberately chose to be baptized and join what I believed at the time to be the true church of Jesus Christ. I don't hate Mormons.

Well, for starters, you'd have to love me in order for me to love you back, and you clearly don't. Secondly, whether I loved you or not, you'd still say I wasn't a Christian; it wouldn't change anything. Lastly, I may not be a perfect Christian -- I'm a long way from it -- but at least I'm honest, and I don't trash other people's beliefs.

I do love you. Although, I don’t personally know you I can honestly say I love you because I know that Christ loves you and He fills me with love for you as a valuable human being, one of His precious creations.

I am disagreeing with the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. I am not trying to trash you or your beliefs.

I don’t have time at present to address further the rest of the points we’ve been discussing, but will try to get back to them, Lord willing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am disagreeing with the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. I am not trying to trash you or your beliefs.

This.......:clap

 

[Dingbat]

Why would I join a faith I was born into and left of my own accord? The biggest schism was the fact there is proof Joseph Smith was never a prophet and that is the so-called Book of Abraham. The Papyrus he claimed to have gotten it from was a simple death scroll of a Priest as has been confirmed by Egyptian Scholars around the globe and there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian. If the man lied about something as stupid as that he likely lied about everything else as well. Then again he was a convicted conman who used seer stones to rip people off even after he supposedly met the Angel Moroni.

 

[Katzpur]

Why would I join a faith I was born into and left of my own accord? The biggest schism was the fact there is proof Joseph Smith was never a prophet and that is the so-called Book of Abraham. The Papyrus he claimed to have gotten it from was a simple death scroll of a Priest as has been confirmed by Egyptian Scholars around the globe and there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian. If the man lied about something as stupid as that he likely lied about everything else as well. Then again he was a convicted conman who used seer stones to rip people off even after he supposedly met the Angel Moroni.

Boy, you've really been into the anti-Mormon material since you left the Church, haven't you? I remember being impressed with your intro, particularly with this one statement:

I tried some exMormon online groups but most of them were not very helpful and were more obsessed with casting stones at their former religion instead of moving on.

I'm less impressed now that I see you've decided to follow suit. It doesn't bother me that you left the Church, but you obviously quit doing your research as soon as you encountered a few issues that made you question. Let me ask you a question... Had Judas not committed suicide after he debrayed Christ, but simply disassociated himself with the other Apostles, how good a source of Christ's teachings do you think he'd have been? Do you think he might have twisted the truth just enough to make people agree that what he did was justified after all? My advice to you is "move on."

 

[Katzpur]

I am disagreeing with the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. I am not trying to trash you or your beliefs.

No. You are not disagreeing with the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. You are misrepresenting the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. There is a BIG difference.

 

[Katzpur]

This.......:clap

You're impressed by intentional misrepresentations of LDS belief and with out-of-context statements that are definitely not doctrinal? It's one thing to disagree with the LDS Church's doctrines. It's another matter entirely to mispresent the Church's doctrines and then say you disagree with them. Why on earth would you be impressed by someone who does that?

 

[waitasec]

You're impressed by intentional misrepresentations of LDS belief and with out-of-context statements that are definitely not doctrinal? It's one thing to disagree with the LDS Church's doctrines. It's another matter entirely to mispresent the Church's doctrines and then say you disagree with them. Why on earth would you be impressed by someone who does that?

in your words...

My advice to you is "move on."

unless you really think you're doing god a favor and he needs you to "represent" him

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're impressed by intentional misrepresentations of LDS belief.......?

I'm not "impressed"...I simply agree with how she presented her argument.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not "impressed"...I simply agree with how she presented her argument.

Really? Are you saying, then, that the end justifies the means? That as long as the end result is to get people to have a negative opinion of LDS doctrine, lying about what that doctrine actually is is justifiable? InChrist presented her argument by quoting statements that are not and never have been LDS doctrine. You could go to an LDS Church every week for the rest of your life and never hear Jesus Christ being referred to as "a created being who worked himself up to being God," because that's not what we believe. Furthermore, you won't find anything of the sort in any of the Church's four "Standard Works" -- i.e. the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I could write a book and probably get somebody to publish it. I could even give it a very official sounding name (like "Mormon Doctrine -- although that one's already been taken). I could say anything I wanted to in my book. It wouldn't have to be in line with the Church's teachings at all. Then somebody could quote me and say, "See... this is what Mormonism teaches." And somebody out there would think that a good argument for rejecting Mormonism.

I am simply saying: Reject Mormon doctrine if you like. Just know what it is you're rejecting. Know what we really believe before you attack it as false. Don't attribute beliefs to us that aren't ours. Fair enough?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am simply saying: Reject Mormon doctrine if you like. Just know what it is you're rejecting. Know what we really believe before you attack it as false. Don't attribute beliefs to us that aren't ours. Fair enough?

Damn! That makes it a whole lot harder. Where's the love in that?

 

[waitasec]

I am simply saying: Reject Mormon doctrine if you like. Just know what it is you're rejecting. Know what we really believe before you attack it as false. Don't attribute beliefs to us that aren't ours. Fair enough?

that is an impossible task.
goal posts on wheels are really hard to work with.

 

[Apex]

that is an impossible task.
goal posts on wheels are really hard to work with.

And how would you know this? What resources have you used in the past to determine LDS Doctrine?

 

[waitasec]

And how would you know this? What resources have you used in the past to determine LDS Doctrine?

because it is based on the unsubstantiated edited version of a judaism (christianity).

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

You're impressed by intentional misrepresentations of LDS belief and with out-of-context statements that are definitely not doctrinal? It's one thing to disagree with the LDS Church's doctrines. It's another matter entirely to mispresent the Church's doctrines and then say you disagree with them. Why on earth would you be impressed by someone who does that?

Hmm... I don't read this guy the same way as you. I think he's being honest. Yeah he is mischaracterizing LDS doctrines but a lot of them are real LDS "beliefs" (i.e. there are LDS people who believe them).

 

[Katzpur]

Hmm... I don't read this guy the same way as you. I think he's being honest. Yeah he is mischaracterizing LDS doctrines but a lot of them are real LDS "beliefs" (i.e. there are LDS people who believe them).

When somebody tells me that Jesus "saved [her] from Mormonism," it tells me everything about her I need to know. When it comes to genuine misunderstandings about LDS doctrine, I am as patient as anybody you'll find on this forum. InChrist has absolutely no interest in getting her facts straight, and I have absolutely no interest in catering to her. (If you'd read some of her posts about the endowment, you'd know what I mean). You're an unbelievably nice guy, DavyCrocket, but (in my opinion) just a little more accomodating of people like her than you should be.

As to whether there are "LDS people who believe [these things]," there probably are. I probably believe a few things that aren't 100% "doctrinal" myself, but when I post on RF, I stick to what is doctrinal. I know what's doctrinal and I know what's hearsay. I try to keep the First Presidency's 2007 statement in mind every time my fingers start typing. That's the only way people are ever going to learn the truth about what Mormonism teaches.

 

[Dingbat]

Boy, you've really been into the anti-Mormon material since you left the Church, haven't you? I remember being impressed with your intro, particularly with this one statement:

I'm less impressed now that I see you've decided to follow suit. It doesn't bother me that you left the Church, but you obviously quit doing your research as soon as you encountered a few issues that made you question. Let me ask you a question... Had Judas not committed suicide after he debrayed Christ, but simply disassociated himself with the other Apostles, how good a source of Christ's teachings do you think he'd have been? Do you think he might have twisted the truth just enough to make people agree that what he did was justified after all? My advice to you is "move on."

No studied actual history that had a neither here nor there bent. It is amusing that you rail against me because I stated such and refuse to study yourself. Peace be with you though as the agitation in your heart shows a soul lost and scared. I have been there and it does get better. Truly I will pray for you and hope you can let the anger go.

Also it would do you well to remember that questioning the church is not the same as attacking the church regardless of what the First Presidency will tell you. Study the life of Joseph Smith and especially the well documented fraud that is the Book of Abraham. This doesn't even come from Anti-Mormon Sources but Academics who have studied the Papyrus in question.

 

[s2a]

*yawn*
you back peddle most impressively.

And your vapid quips lack substantive rebuttal, nor lend any insight of continued discussion or interest...

*offers a free cup of coffee*

Perhaps we may yet have the opportunity to determine whom of us is quicker and more opportune to more effectively bore greater masses at once with searing tedium, on you part further abetted and predictably diminished by seriously empty banalities of lacking argumentative debate, and your extended inconsequential interactions of pointless and vacuous claims of grandiosely overreaching testimonial bunk ...

Science is not a "conspirator to "deny God", it's just a methodology of inquiry that roots out the blatantly stupid from the forces of powerful and group-think focused wishful rationalizations and lamp-rubbing to evoke or manifest a personal smoke-shrouded genie...

I'll always wager that nuance, intellectual reflection, and honest evaluations of scientifically derived discoveries, theory confirmations (especially tricky to avoid), and non=partisan data will always place me within the most favorable odds...

I'm gonna be bold and place my wagers on me first...

Then again, with my conspirator "brain-washed" techniques of self-deception fully in effect, perhaps you may yet convince me that fairies swap money for lost teeth as prime example and evidence of pre-school "mind control, and then debate why Santa brings gifts, and Jesus is just a cheapskate......

"I can bore Mystenia in four consonants or less...

... what's your bid?

 

[silvermoon383]

This doesn't even come from Anti-Mormon Sources but Academics who have studied the Papyrus in question.

That's pretty impressive considering that the papyrus doesn't exist anymore aside from some minuscule fragments. Joseph and those around him talked about scrolls plural.

I feel bad for Katzpur, sometimes it seems that she ends up with the bulk of the work here since she tends to be the one to respond before I can, and has managed to do so well for so long without snapping. She's one of the most remarkable people I know.

 

[Katzpur]

No studied actual history that had a neither here nor there bent.

This may come as a huge surprise to you, but there is no such thing. Every history ever written has a bias, regardless of how well it may be disguised.

It is amusing that you rail against me because I stated such and refuse to study yourself.

Wait just a minute. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but if you're accusing me of being willing to study both sides of the issue, lets just say you don't know me at all.

Peace be with you though as the agitation in your heart shows a soul lost and scared. I have been there and it does get better. Truly I will pray for you and hope you can let the anger go.

Well if that isn't the most condescending comment I've heard from a kid your age in a very long time. Agitation in my heart? A soul lost and scared? Son, you've got a lot to learn.

Study the life of Joseph Smith and especially the well documented fraud that is the Book of Abraham. This doesn't even come from Anti-Mormon Sources but Academics who have studied the Papyrus in question.

Which papyrus? We don't even know that the papyrus we do have (what's left of it anyway) is the one Joseph claimed to have translated from. Most of the papyri were destroyed in the Chicago fire. We have a very small portion today, salvaged from that fire, and it's a funerary document. So what? You've come to a conclusion based on incomplete evidence. Good job.