understand that i am unbiased against momanism. all seem equally improbably and all religions to me are equal in their absurdity. the only difference is when other faiths question mormanism they use the logic that they believe their faith to be exempt from and that is a horrible double standard. p.s. i dont know the proper term for abserving the morman faith. i guessed mormanism
I determined at least two things, at least, from this discussion and some of your other postings on this matter. Hence, no sole determinant. But thanks for helping out.
It's invalid to say the bible is impure when your beliefs and practices are impure. There are multiple practices Mormons don't practice and last time I checked my god doesn't change. But That just shows the doubt you have in what god is capable of. My god wouldn't allow the bible to be changed in any way, nor would he hide truths and allow the priesthood to be deminished until latter day. Your view on god and the word has been warped by the lds church and their doctrines so much.
And btw God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one. The manifestation of god proves jesus' deity which you deny. To say that god cannot be everywhere, cannot manifest himself as multiple deities, and has creators before him is limiting him. The true Christian god is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. My god is infinite and unilimited which is the most distinguished difference between true Christians and LDS"Christians".
The following statements are from Non-Mormon sources:
Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament--"The NT does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."
William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation--"The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three coequal Persons of One Nature."
2- Ernest F. Scott in An Encyclopedia of Religion--"In the NT there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity."
Harper's Bible Dictionary--"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th & 5th centuries is not to be found in the NT."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica--"Neither the word 'Trinity' nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."
3- Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine--"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."
Many say that Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in this NON-biblical creed. Any church teaching a non-biblical doctrine is a cult.
We have records of the following free blacks receiving the priesthood: Black Pete (1831), Elijah Abel (1835), Joseph T. Ball (1837), Isaac van Meter (about 1837), Walker Lewis (1843), and Enoch Lewis (1844).
@GaryKColeman So to confirm the question not answered, when you stated that other religions treated blacks poorly before the Mormons did, (earlier in this thread), are you now saying that Mormons did not treat blacks poorly? That's the issue. Either they treated blacks poorly, or they didn't. If they did, we have useful information that should be used for consideration of the religion. If they didn't, (why) was there any restriction on blacks within the Mormon church?
If the LDS Church was organized by Joseph Smith because Jesus Christ commanded him to do so, then the priesthood Joseph passed on to others also came from the Savior. He could decide who would receive it & who would not. Were those who were denied the priesthood, treated poorly?
However, if Joseph started the Church on his own & did not receive the priesthood from God, then it is man-made. If someone is denied a man-made priesthood, is he being treated "poorly?"
Actually, I guess I will take that as, yes, blacks were treated as less than equal by representatives of the Mormon church. I guess my next question would be, "Is that what your book directs, or were these 'rogue' representatives, and not true Mormons?" You're response suggests to me that the answer is that this non-equal treatment is what is directed by your book. As I said before, that's fine with me, but it certainly is a useful insight for evaluation of the religion.
I don't think you have read the BoM. You could read it and decide if it directs "non-equal treatment." There is nothing like first hand knowledge to evaluate a religion.
Whether I have read the BoM or not is not the issue. I asked you - you said both that Mormons did not treat blacks differently, and that they did, but only after other religions did. I am interested in what YOU have to say. BoM comes after that. Also, you still didn't answer the question last posted -> Is the different treatment that blacks experienced in the LDS church a function of the directives in your studies, or were the perpetrators "rogues?"
Just in case you decide to answer the question still outstanding, please note that I would not use what you say as the sole determinant of the value of the religion. I would certainly include many other sources of information, including BoM. Your responses (unfortunately continuing to avoid the question) just gives some insight into the thinking of those that are members. And that's certainly useful for making a judgement.
Did the LDS Church "treat blacks differently?" The answer is yes. After 1850, Church policy did not allow blacks to be ordained to the Priesthood. Is that "treating blacks poorly?" I don't think so. In ancient Israel only Levites received the priesthood. All other Israelites were banned from holding the priesthood. Were non-Levites treated poorly?
We now agree that blacks were treated differently. The church did not allow them to become priests, and that was the policy of the church until recently. I'm not at all interested in ancient Israel, so your question is irrelevant, but the relevant question: Is being denied access to the priesthood "treated poorly?" I say, "Yes, without question." You say, "I don't think so." That's useful for me to conclude my analysis of what you believe. Thanks for the replies.
I could only make my conclusions based on your information about the church, and I appreciate that. Thanks for shedding a true light on LDS. I'll be sure to share all that you offered.
“[Along] with other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this ‘most correct of any book on earth,’” President Monson
Its blasphemy to think the Bible, the PERFECT WORD OF GOD, is not anymore correct than the book of mormon... clearly mormons dont believe Gods word is perfect.
In the Mar/Apr 2007 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershal Shanks interviewed 4 leading biblical scholars: Bart D. Ehrman, a leading expert on the apocryphal gospels. He was an evangelical until his scholarship led him to find contradictions & discrepancies in the Bible. He shifted to a fairly libral Protestant church. He later lost all faith because of theodicy.
Lawrence H. Schiffman, prominant Dead Sea Scroll scholar & Orthodox Jew.
James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist & Baptist minister. He has kept his faith in spite of his scholarship.
William G. Dever, one of America's best-known & most widely quoted archaeologists. He was an ordained evangelical minister at age 17. He has 2 theological degrees. Because of his Bible studies, he lost his faith & became a Reform Jew, but now considers himself agnostic.
ALL 4 men agree that the Bible is NOT the acurate & inerrant word of God.
@awwshitnigga We use the Bible, but I would point out that the Bible as we know it was not written until 400 years after the death of the Saviour and the Apostles. Plus with so many translations - it harldy keeps it the pure way it should and we hope it would be
I'm so sick of people calling mormons ignorant and uneducated. You obviously have a very biased perspective of religion. It's also really upsetting to see the generalization used when referring to those of the lds faith. I am a Mormon, and I am very proud to be so. I do not believe things because I am told to do so, I believe them because I myself choose to just as atheists, Jews, and Muslims do. I am very educated in both scriptural history and scientific knowledge. I am well-read, I speak for
@JLexine13 People are often afraid of and hate what they don't understand. They also rarely take the time to try and understand what they don't understand.
@JLexine13 so you believe native americans are Israeli jews and descendants of ancient egyptians? You believe you can translate hieroglyphics into english with a stone and a hat?
and you wonder why people call you ignorant and uneducated...
The use of Genesis 9 to associate a biblical curse with the descendants of Ham began in the 3rd & 4th centuries AD. Origen made reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" & the "ignobility of the race he fathered."
Augustine & Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This idea was shared by Jews, Muslims, & Christians, and was used to justify slavery in Spain in the 1400s.
2- In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was used in the late 1600s to justify slavery. The claim that the "mark of Cain" & the "curse of Ham" was a black skin was used by many Protestants to morally & biblically excuse owning slaves. They debated whether or not blacks had souls & could be "saved."
Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans (1856-1902) declared: "Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude...that he shall be the servant of Japheth & the servant of Shem."
The curse of blacks was defined long before Joseph Smith was born and was perpetrated by Christians for decades after his death.
The impression I get from your reply is that since Christians, et. al. cursed blacks first and after, then it's OK for Joseph Smith to do the same. Is that what you intend to say?
I never said he did. I only asked about any curse that the book of mormon claims against blacks. You gave me a long description about how the jews, christians, muslims said that blacks were cursed long before the mormons did. Your comments were the source. If you wish to retract that, and say the book of mormon does not consider blacks to be cursed, that's fine with me. It's not my religion. You can believe whatever you want. Even if it disagrees with what you said earlier.
In your question--"What about blacks being descended from Cain, and as such, cursed with darkness?"--you made no reference to the BoM. Since the BoM says nothing about blacks being cursed, I gave a general statement about the source of the "curse."
What exactly was your original question referring to?
lololol I love this stuff. "We believe everything we are told by our superiors. Why? because its the truth. Prove it? i don't have to, its faith." Any system of thinking in which there is purposeful refusal of factual information is not only a danger to our species, but is also a disgrace to all critical thinking adults.
Knowledge is infectious, and i hope the whole world will come down with it someday.
KIND FOOD: Linwood College pupils Alex Lewis, 17, left, Joe Davis, 17, and Daina Plesivkova, 18, enjoy free food compliments of the Mormon church. They have welcomed the free lunches at a time they are commuting to Cashmere while earthquake damage at .
For more information regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its beliefs on family, or to find a local congregation with which to worship, please visit mormon*org
You did it again! Thanks!! I love how the antis have nothing new to say, and can never disprove a thing against the simplicity of the Restored Gospel.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Can anyone tell me how this is a good thing? Why would anyone want to be a "subject"? Why would any religion that promotes freedom of choice state in their doctrine that the people who follow it agree to be subjects? Sounds like Mr. Smith had something in mind for his followers that he was not telling them.
The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, the Holy trinity. I hear that Mormonism rejects that. If that is true, then they are in danger of being called that degrading H word.
The following statements are from Non-Mormon sources:
Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament--"The NT does not actually speak of the triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."
William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation--"The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three coequal Persons of One Nature."
2- Ernest F. Scott in An Encyclopedia of Religion--"In the NT there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity."
Harper's Bible Dictionary--"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th & 5th centuries is not to be found in the NT."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica--"Neither the word 'Trinity' nor the explicit doctrineappears in the New Testament."
Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine--"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."
Many say that Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in this NON-biblical creed. Any church teaching a non-biblical doctrine is a cult.
Does this really take up all your time people? What a life. While you are busy on this little video, Mormon church is growing stronger and stronger. I love my Mormons!!
It is written that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
Religion is interesting but puzzling to me. Why do religious folks think that believing a thing makes it so? It's fine to promote good values & ethics but why believe an elaborate system of theology when there's no objective evidence to support it? The world is full of self-proclaimed prophets-what make J.Smith better than another? I'd suggest that believing the claims of J.Smith demonstrates faith in J.Smith, not in God.
Although these are basic tenets of the Mormon faith, the 'meat' of the doctrine like exaltation (being a God), being required to get married in order to be in the highest heaven, Baptism of the Dead, sacred undergarments, the garden of Eden being in Jackson county Missouri, blacks being cursed and denied the priesthood until 1978, and having your own planet are not discussed in this video. Thus, I find this video to be misleading.
@RubenHoyos82 The true 'meat' of Mormon doctrine is based on the 1st Article of Faith -- that there is a God who created a Plan of Salvation for his children, that the Son of God Jesus Christ made that plan possible by overcoming sin and death, and that we can know these truths by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the articles do not include every single point of doctrine included in LDS theology, but it does summarize some of the main ones.
@RubenHoyos82 (cont) Furthermore, some of the things you listed are not part of Mormon theology (e.g. blacks being cursed) despite being speculated about by members of the church in the past. What is misleading is portraying Mormons as a whole as believing something when it was simply believed by one member of the church or a minority of members. Even if speculation is believed by a large number of Mormons -- but that teaching is not officially taught -- it cannot be considered authoritative.
@DefendingMormonism I mentioned blacks were cursed and denied priesthood until 1978. Never did I say that it is current doctrine. It was however, doctrine 40 years ago.
Plus I don't know what is more official than this statement ""Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." "(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.) Are you saying that this was not officially taught in the 19th century?
@RubenHoyos82 First, the Journal of Discourses is not a source for official Church doctrine. Second, prejudice against Blacks, or anyone else for that matter, is strictly against the teachings of the LDS Church. Third, you are quoting this 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context. For example, in this same discourse, President Young said: "For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)
@DefendingMormonism . Here's more proof why this was official until 1978. In the 1940's the first presidency issued statements regarding blacks. For example, the Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951 stated that ]"Under this principle there is no injustice as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes" I really don't think it was just an opinion piece.
@DefendingMormonism The Journal of Discourses was published by the church, it is the words of Brigham Young, if thats not authoritative, then you're off your rocker - but we already knew that.
@RubenHoyos82 Brigham Young is not even talking about intermarriage between whites and blacks. In 1863, there were few, if any, places where whites were free to marry blacks in the United States. Therefore, President Young is talking about sexual relations outside of marriage. Since Latter-day Saint men could not legally marry black women, then any sexual relationships between them were strictly condemned.
@DefendingMormonism The general authorities discouraged interracial marriage as late as the 1970's. The Ensign Magazines from that time would discuss that matter. Spencer W. Kimball stated that. Please you're trying to change the interpretation of Brigham Young message.
@RubenHoyos82 By taking these three sentences out of historical context, you have twisted their original meaning. President Young taught, and the Church still teaches, that if a priesthood holder breaks the oath and covenant of the priesthood by engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage, then he faces immediate excommunication, or spiritual death.
@DefendingMormonism "Furthermore, some of the things you listed are not part of Mormon theology (e.g. blacks being cursed)"....this is exactly what the Mormon Church has believed and taught...being black is a curse from God the Book of Mormon states this and everythingRH82 stated IS part of mormon theology...why do you lie when the truth is exposed?
@RubenHoyos82 Ruben, 1st Corinthian 3:2 tells you there is Meat and Milk to the Gospel. If all that you have listed is "incorrect doctrine", then tell me, what exactly is the Meat of the Gospel?
@bomac10000 "being required to get married in order to be in the highest heaven, Baptism of the Dead, sacred undergarments, the garden of Eden being in Jackson county Missouri, the details of the Temple Ceremony, how Jesus Christ was begotten, Kolob, etc..." Need I say more?
@bomac10000 BTW I served a mission for two years and we were repeatedly taught not to mention those details because it would alienate prospective converts.
@RubenHoyos82 You didn't answer the question Ruben, neither any other "christian" because they cannot. No one would repeatedly teach you NOT to teach those things because they are NOT doctrine, most members are not even aware of them, certainly not my missionary age son (who I know is also not aware of them). My testimony comes direct from Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost, this is the True Church, Joseph Smith, Christs prophet., In Jesus name, Amen
@bomac10000 The definition of doctrine-a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group. Doesn't the church teach that you can become a God and create your own planet? Also, according to Joseph Smith, the garden of Eden was in Jackson county Missouri (Adam-ondi Ahman). You don't believe that it is?The Requirement of being married in order to be in the Highest kingdom is not doctrine? If you're saying that it is not doctrine, then you can not believe this.
@RubenHoyos82 And again, if there is milk and meat as Paul tells you, then he follows by saying you cannot bear the meat, you are young and not yet ready. What he is saying is there is an ORDER to teaching, just as the missionaries ONLY teach the gospel principles. You don't teach algebra before division because it will just confuse the learner, and so it is with the Gospel.
@bomac10000 My point with my first statement is that the church does have 'weird' doctrines and concepts when it comes to the meat. While your analogy about math sounds plausible, the fact that missionaries baptize people before receiving the meat of the gospel is misleading. If the church wants to retain more members they should baptize those that receive both the milk and the meat. The point is that Mormons have weird doctrines and teachings just like other religions.
@RubenHoyos82 But Ruben, that is the very example from the NT. In talking about meat Paul is speaking to those believers already in the faith but of insufficient status to handle the meat. It takes time, you dont just throw it out there or it will be confusing. God didn't appear to Moses until he had walked through the wilderness, otherwise he might not have been able to handle it. God is a God of order, there is a time and a season to all things in his kingdom.
@RubenHoyos82 Please tell me which other religions use that argument? There is no other Christian religion that HAS any Meat to it. The entirety of their belief is contained in the Bible. Let me ask you this Ruben, read Isaiah 6:2 and tell me whats NOT weird about that description of angels? Do you think Christian missionaries MAKE SURE they tell anyone investigating their church that angels have six wings, and that they cover themselves with those wings? Why not? Because it's not important.
I meant that every religion has interesting doctrines that are hard to understand. For instance if you want to teach a Buddhist Christianity or Buddhism to a Christian you have to 'teach them the milk before the meat'. Also, I don't believe in any religions whatsoever. They all try to manipulate other people into believing their own dogma. I am done talking because there is no point as you are a TBM.
@RubenHoyos82 atheists can be equally as guilty of manipulating, digging pits for their neighbors because of their words, and pushing around their own personal beliefs. But it is wrong to stereotype any side. on all sides there are respectable advocates for them as well as disreputable ones.
@RubenHoyos82 read your own comment about two posts up, should give you an idea. now think that there are other atheists that endlessly attack Christianity and other religions, trying to discredit them and win away believers, or should i say win away unbelievers.
Atheism is closely tied to materialistic philosophy, and that kind of philosophy is just as culpable of being nothing but the invention of a man's mind than any other religious idea.
@PCEggo Okay before you get all defensive on me first, I want to first seek truth where it is at. When looking at anything regarding religion, or anything for that matter you need to look at both sides of the issues, not only one side because then you're not being a truth seeker. Sincerely, you don't have atheists knocking at your door claiming the truths of atheism. Am I right PCEggo? So, how is atheism materialistic? There are atheists that are spiritual too.
I think you'll understand my point better if I replace the word materialistic with the word naturalistic: its the belief that only a godless explanation based on random chance and natural causes can credibly account for things in the universe. its just an idea and has as much merit or lack of merit as any religious idea.
now naturalists push around their beliefs all the time: believers in intelligent design are frowned upon and shunned in the scientific community, for example.
@PCEggo When are religion or a church discourages its members from looking at material that might be too favorable, it is intentionally trying to deceive them. In contrast, atheists are critical thinkers and are willing to accept the existence of God if given tangible evidence.
Also, why are there so many churches that claim that they're the only true church?
@RubenHoyos82 lol, I know a few atheists that treat the Bible like dirty laundry. They won't even touch it lest they be "contaminated." They refuse to believe that critical thinkers can believe in such nonsense. But by doing so, they have failed to consider ideas and theories for themselves before they reject them, and that is the opposite of critical thinking. naturalism falls short in a few areas, for example the Big Bang, or the Cambrian Explosion if we specifically look at Darwinism
But in all seriousness, there are videos on youtube that mock and satire religious beliefs and present them only in warped and twisted versions so as to achieve the maximum satire. While you are right, that many religions discourage free thinking, my whole point is that atheistically driven propaganda can be dishonest itself.
science and religion don't always have to be at war. you don't have to be an atheist to love seeking for truth and scientific fact.
@RubenHoyos82 my own religious convictions are of the Latter Day Saint movement. I think that their position uniquely answers this question with the most tact and face at the same time.
The LDS position is that there is a deity who reveals himself to us every so often, and in between times there can be apostacies where it can become corrupt and also manmade religions spin off and become their own thing. Reformation can only take you so far. A restoration is needed. God has to talk again.
@PCEggo When are religion or a church discourages its members from looking at material that might not be too favorable, it is intentionally trying to deceive them. In contrast, atheists are critical thinkers and are willing to accept the existence of God if given tangible evidence.
Also, why are there so many churches that claim that they're the only true church?
@RubenHoyos82 There's a difference between facts and theories that are pushed around as facts, but few people in the general masses appreciate this distinction. As far as the LDS church goes, learning is pushed hard. "obtain as much education as possible" the youth cite almost every sunday. But our scriptures also say to choose only the best books and sources, not be selective of facts, but to be careful about people who with fine words and fair speeches decieve the hearts of the simple.
@PCEggo your last question is a religious one. If one accepts the Bible's teachings about God, then one must also accept its teaching about one of his angels who fell from his grace, becoming miserable forever, and became a devilish being bent on seeking the misery of all mankind as well by enticing them to sin against God as well.
I believe God has only ever taught one truth, and whatsoever is more or less than that is of that evil one. There is truth in all religions, but not all is pure.
@PCEggo And you know what this is pointless. You will continue to believe in what you believe in, so please don't reply back to the last two posts. Thank you.
@RubenHoyos82 thank you for throwing mud at my beliefs and demanding i not respond back.
That was just ignorant Anti-mormon garbage you threw out in the last post, but sure... whatever. You feel I'm just a stubborn ignorant fool. I don't think you got my points at all.
the belief that there is no god is just a theory or a statement of faith in itself, and arguing whether it is better or not than theistic theories is just another person's opinion.
@PCEggo I wasn't going to respond but I had to this time. Interestingly, as soon as latter-day Saints get information that is not too favorable about the church, they start crying wolf and say that it is "anti-Mormon garbage". Yes, I agree that atheism is a theory also and that I could be wrong, but are you willing to accept that you might be wrong? You should check a video out entitled "Will the Real Joseph Smith Please Stand Up" and we can have a critical discussion about it?
@RubenHoyos82 I'll tip my hat to some arguments against Mormonism. Some are very well thought out and sound very convincing. I'm not against hearing out all sides of an argument (and by the way the audio to that video sucked, you got any other links?)
But at the same time, Exmormons and Antimormons always fail to discuss not only the evidences we DO have, but the virtues as well, of Mormonism. That to me is very telling.
@PCEggo Yes, arguments are against Mormonism can be extremely alluring, though like you mentioned, they emphasize all the "bad" w/o bringing up any of the good, AND they compare the "bad" in Mormonism to the "good" in their own faith/lifestyle/beliefs which is a faulty premise. Compare bad with bad, and good with good. Or when talking about one -- bring up the bad and the good. Objectivity is very lacking with self-proclaimed objective people!
@PCEggo Name me an good deed made by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
Of course there are many virtues in all religions. I think that is not the point for people questioning the validity of religion, and there you go again with your ad-hominem attack of "anti-mormon". Just because there are many good things in a church or religion doesn't mean that it is true.
@PCEggo Exactly there is a difference between facts and theories. The doctrine that black men are cursed from Cain and becoming a God to create worlds are theories whether or not you like what I say. Of course you will claim that it is fact because of 'revelation' but is there any tangible evidence? In fact, he kept changing the first vision a billion of times. So yes we must accept all facts and "not be selective of facts" which the church does to "deceive the hearts of the simple".
Joseph Smith always tried to help others understand the LDS religion and his enemies have always tried to confuse others about its doctrines and beliefs.
Is this serious or a joke? Wasn't this whole mormon thing created by that sheister Joseph Smith to make some cash because all of his other schemes didn't work out? Wasn't he found to be a liar and a cheat when his "prophesies and translations" were proved to be incorrect? Follow science my friends, the only truth.
I am a true and faithfull (I hope ;-) member of the church of Jesus Christ. I just wanted to give my point of vew concerning the 12th article of faith. As for me, I will obey laws and respect the President SARKOZY (I am french) as far as they do not ask me to do or to believe in something contrary to the Gospel. I think we are not expected to obey like blind people. Our presidents are only "men" and I mistrust them.
@Eowindurohan Agree that presidents are only men (or women). Agree that we should not blindly trust them. I hope you agree that this principle also applies to religious leaders like LDS President Monson, Gordon Hinckley, Pope Benedict, Sun Myung Moon, Harold Camping, Kenneth Copeland, L.Ron Hubbard and many many others who claim to speak for God.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
@szabo56 Really, so, tell me how that happens when they believe in faith, repentance, baptism and the laying of hands by one called of God for the gift of the Holy Ghost, as described in the New Testament? There is in Christ, which is exactly where it should be. No one going to hell here my friend.
I hope you don't mind me asking a clarification to a question regarding one of your articles of faith. It states:
"8) We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
My question is (I am seriously not trying to be rude, just trying to understand) how do you or anyone know if the words in the bible are being "translated correctly" if we are all fallible?
The word "translated" as used here, doesn't mean only copying from one language to another, but also making written copies in the same language. If you can imagine copying the Bible with a quill pen by candle light for several hours a day, you can understand that a person could easily make unintentional errors, which could be repeated by the next person copying from that text........cont
But there were also intentional changes made by devious men. By the early second century, Christianity had fragmented into dozens of splinter groups with each group charging that the others possessed both forged & corrupted texts.
Clement of Alexandria claimed Carpocrates corrupted scripture
Tertullian charged Marcion with deleting whole verses from Luke.
We believe that revelation from God would clear up the disagreements and confusion about the Scriptures.
@blfpg If I could add to your answer, John 16:7, Christ told the disciples that after he was ascended he would send the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, is the way by which Heavenly Father teaches his children truth. If a person seeks truth, God will send the Holy Spirit to give him an internal witness of that truth. Upon baptism he is given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, it is that still, small voice which teaches and allows us to recognize truth.
Moses 1: 39 " For behold this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." It is really that simple. He just wants us to be happy and free of all the filth the world has to force on us. Just follow Him and do the simple things He asks of us. He is waiting to bless and help you.
It's interesting how only 300 views into this video and there is already a pack of wolves trying to belittle it's content. It's funny how fast they can get caught up on little meaningless self-interpretations, and COMPLETELY miss what's important.
i fersure know that we dont beleive the same jesus christ. our jesus christ was a deity, a god, god in human, although given the name well known as "the son", it was interpreted that way for better understanding of how equally eternal they both were, like father like son. you believe gods before our god, but our god is the highest god, consisting of one. and no, we dont believe ourselves can become god. no one is equal, or can be. he is the essence of time love life and creation. he is infinite.
@awwshitnigga We believe in the same Jesus Christ; Jesus -is- God and deity. Having gods before our God is not set doctrine, therefore take it with a grain of salt. And as far as becoming gods, we believe we'll have the blessings of knowledge and power that God the Father has, but we will -never- be equal to him. Hope this answers your questions. :)
@cagray05 Latter-Day Saints do not believe in a tri-unified God. We believe in one Godhead, three distinct personages within that Godhead. Jesus is God and as such, obviously, is deity. But he wasn't -eternally- God. No, I'm not reading John 1 incorrectly. Last part of verse 2: "the same as in the beginning -with- God" (emphasis mine). :)
@cagray05 Because Jesus is the "father" of the earth, meaning it was Christ who created the earth, Ephesians 3:9 and Hebrews 1:2. :) Private message me any more questions you have. Thanks!
@p3rdyp1nkr0ses Very interesting. In Isaiah 44:24, God says he created everything by himself. If God created everything by himself, how did Jesus create the earth?
@Entropian2012 This was just to show the core of our beliefs. There are many little details left out. Now I'm no LDS theologian, so I can't tell you with exactness why we wear what we call Garments but I can inform you they serve as both spiritual and physical protection from the world, as an outward symbol of faith to God and faithfulness to our spouses. I'm only 16, so I do not know it all, but I am LDS, so I do know a bit. I'm sure that you can find a vid on this channel describing it all. :D
@Entropian2012 He also left out that Satan is Jesus' brother. A council of Gods did not create matter out of nothing. The God had a father who was a God in another universe. That God was once a sinful man just like we are "As we are, God once was, and as God is we may become." He also left out the complete lack of archeological evidence that would support the book of mormon, if it were true.
Q. Do you remember who you are when you die? if so, does that mean you take your brain with you since that where your experience in life has been stored? i think not -.- Also why does "god" need to me to recognize him as the all powerful and summit my free will to him?
@pablo19852000 Answer from me: I belive that we have a spirit in us, and that is who we are (like the concence), and we should see him as the best coach of all. he will never take away our free will, but the consequenses of our actions are there.
@pablo19852000 I feel the answer is yes from how I was raised and from what the LDS church has taught me. Everything we have learned, everything we have experianced, and everything we have done will be remembered when we died. The second one on keeping our brain is more complex. When we die, and before the second coming of Jesus Christ, we are just spirit. Yet during this time we know who we are, as such we do not need our brain to keep what we have experianced in this life. But...
@pablo19852000 When we are resurrected we will gain our body back, our spirit and our body will join as one and never be separated again. The reason for this is we need our body to progress, that was one of the main reasons we came to this earth was to gain both a body. God put us on this earth so that we could prove to him that we would follow him yet not see him. Faith and the willingness to serve God is essential to God's Plan. Otherwise we are puppet and not have any choice but to follow
@pablo19852000 Information according to theoretical physics cannot be destroyed like energy. The informational component of your brain will always exist, and time is simply another dimension, like depth and just because time has moved passed. The stories tiraded by Mormons are incredibly simplistic and they target people who think in simple ways, because it's easy to understand the idea that you are here to get a body and faith, but a body, that's it? What a waste of 90 years.
@windigo77 Not in the eyes of God. 90 years is like a blink of an eye to him, as such we are not gone long at all. It just seems a long time to some. Heck, I am glad I have been given this time as their is so much to learn and experiance. For example, I love to read but I know that I could never read as much as I would like in just 90 years.
@JonathonWilder The point was that the LDS idea of eternal progression, and the thought that our only reason to be alive is to get a body and worship and obey the church's authority (you call it God, I call it government) is very unfulfilling. God is supposably all powerful, why is he working so inefficiently? A blink of an eye you say? Well, isn't there OTHER things that I could be doing while he is spending 90 years blinking his eye?
@JonathonWilder I think the purpose for humanity (I don't think in individualistic scopes, I'm less interested in MY life isn't as important as the purpose of existence itself - we call it perspective) is to abandon foolish stories told to children to help them rationalize their existence, throw off the chains of close mindedness and religious though oppression, embrace reality, science and accept what we find there instead of presupposing there is a God, and he hates fags.
understand that i am unbiased against momanism. all seem equally improbably and all religions to me are equal in their absurdity. the only difference is when other faiths question mormanism they use the logic that they believe their faith to be exempt from and that is a horrible double standard. p.s. i dont know the proper term for abserving the morman faith. i guessed mormanism
trancedance65 1 month ago
I determined at least two things, at least, from this discussion and some of your other postings on this matter. Hence, no sole determinant. But thanks for helping out.
octocycle 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garykcoleman
If you don't believe in the trinity, what do you believe? Who is Jesus?
Myhopeisinhim 2 months ago
It's invalid to say the bible is impure when your beliefs and practices are impure. There are multiple practices Mormons don't practice and last time I checked my god doesn't change. But That just shows the doubt you have in what god is capable of. My god wouldn't allow the bible to be changed in any way, nor would he hide truths and allow the priesthood to be deminished until latter day. Your view on god and the word has been warped by the lds church and their doctrines so much.
awwshitnigga 2 months ago
And btw God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one. The manifestation of god proves jesus' deity which you deny. To say that god cannot be everywhere, cannot manifest himself as multiple deities, and has creators before him is limiting him. The true Christian god is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. My god is infinite and unilimited which is the most distinguished difference between true Christians and LDS"Christians".
awwshitnigga 2 months ago
@awwshitnigga
The following statements are from Non-Mormon sources:
Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament--"The NT does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."
William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation--"The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three coequal Persons of One Nature."
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@awwshitnigga
2- Ernest F. Scott in An Encyclopedia of Religion--"In the NT there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity."
Harper's Bible Dictionary--"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th & 5th centuries is not to be found in the NT."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica--"Neither the word 'Trinity' nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."
cont....3,,,
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@awwshitnigga
3- Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine--"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."
Many say that Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in this NON-biblical creed. Any church teaching a non-biblical doctrine is a cult.
end....
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
Could black people be priests in the Mormon church before 1978? Why not?
octocycle 3 months ago
@octocycle
We have records of the following free blacks receiving the priesthood: Black Pete (1831), Elijah Abel (1835), Joseph T. Ball (1837), Isaac van Meter (about 1837), Walker Lewis (1843), and Enoch Lewis (1844).
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman So to confirm the question not answered, when you stated that other religions treated blacks poorly before the Mormons did, (earlier in this thread), are you now saying that Mormons did not treat blacks poorly? That's the issue. Either they treated blacks poorly, or they didn't. If they did, we have useful information that should be used for consideration of the religion. If they didn't, (why) was there any restriction on blacks within the Mormon church?
octocycle 2 months ago
@octocycle
If the LDS Church was organized by Joseph Smith because Jesus Christ commanded him to do so, then the priesthood Joseph passed on to others also came from the Savior. He could decide who would receive it & who would not. Were those who were denied the priesthood, treated poorly?
However, if Joseph started the Church on his own & did not receive the priesthood from God, then it is man-made. If someone is denied a man-made priesthood, is he being treated "poorly?"
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman
Actually, I guess I will take that as, yes, blacks were treated as less than equal by representatives of the Mormon church. I guess my next question would be, "Is that what your book directs, or were these 'rogue' representatives, and not true Mormons?" You're response suggests to me that the answer is that this non-equal treatment is what is directed by your book. As I said before, that's fine with me, but it certainly is a useful insight for evaluation of the religion.
octocycle 2 months ago
@octocycle
I don't think you have read the BoM. You could read it and decide if it directs "non-equal treatment." There is nothing like first hand knowledge to evaluate a religion.
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman
Whether I have read the BoM or not is not the issue. I asked you - you said both that Mormons did not treat blacks differently, and that they did, but only after other religions did. I am interested in what YOU have to say. BoM comes after that. Also, you still didn't answer the question last posted -> Is the different treatment that blacks experienced in the LDS church a function of the directives in your studies, or were the perpetrators "rogues?"
octocycle 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman
Just in case you decide to answer the question still outstanding, please note that I would not use what you say as the sole determinant of the value of the religion. I would certainly include many other sources of information, including BoM. Your responses (unfortunately continuing to avoid the question) just gives some insight into the thinking of those that are members. And that's certainly useful for making a judgement.
octocycle 2 months ago
@octocycle
Did the LDS Church "treat blacks differently?" The answer is yes. After 1850, Church policy did not allow blacks to be ordained to the Priesthood. Is that "treating blacks poorly?" I don't think so. In ancient Israel only Levites received the priesthood. All other Israelites were banned from holding the priesthood. Were non-Levites treated poorly?
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman
We now agree that blacks were treated differently. The church did not allow them to become priests, and that was the policy of the church until recently. I'm not at all interested in ancient Israel, so your question is irrelevant, but the relevant question: Is being denied access to the priesthood "treated poorly?" I say, "Yes, without question." You say, "I don't think so." That's useful for me to conclude my analysis of what you believe. Thanks for the replies.
octocycle 2 months ago
@octocycle
You are certainly free to make any conclusions about the LDS Church that you wish.
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
@GaryKColeman
I could only make my conclusions based on your information about the church, and I appreciate that. Thanks for shedding a true light on LDS. I'll be sure to share all that you offered.
octocycle 2 months ago in playlist More videos from DefendingMormonism
@octocycle
In one posting, you said "that I would not use what you say as the sole determinate of the value of the religion."
Now you are saying "I could only make my conclusions based on your information about the church...."
Either my comments are not the "sole determinate" for your conclusions, or they are the "only" ones you will use. Which is the truth?
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
“[Along] with other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this ‘most correct of any book on earth,’” President Monson
Its blasphemy to think the Bible, the PERFECT WORD OF GOD, is not anymore correct than the book of mormon... clearly mormons dont believe Gods word is perfect.
awwshitnigga 3 months ago
@awwshitnigga
In the Mar/Apr 2007 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershal Shanks interviewed 4 leading biblical scholars: Bart D. Ehrman, a leading expert on the apocryphal gospels. He was an evangelical until his scholarship led him to find contradictions & discrepancies in the Bible. He shifted to a fairly libral Protestant church. He later lost all faith because of theodicy.
Lawrence H. Schiffman, prominant Dead Sea Scroll scholar & Orthodox Jew.
cont....2...
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@awwshitnigga
James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist & Baptist minister. He has kept his faith in spite of his scholarship.
William G. Dever, one of America's best-known & most widely quoted archaeologists. He was an ordained evangelical minister at age 17. He has 2 theological degrees. Because of his Bible studies, he lost his faith & became a Reform Jew, but now considers himself agnostic.
ALL 4 men agree that the Bible is NOT the acurate & inerrant word of God.
end....
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@awwshitnigga We use the Bible, but I would point out that the Bible as we know it was not written until 400 years after the death of the Saviour and the Apostles. Plus with so many translations - it harldy keeps it the pure way it should and we hope it would be
1830LivingLDS 3 months ago
I'm so sick of people calling mormons ignorant and uneducated. You obviously have a very biased perspective of religion. It's also really upsetting to see the generalization used when referring to those of the lds faith. I am a Mormon, and I am very proud to be so. I do not believe things because I am told to do so, I believe them because I myself choose to just as atheists, Jews, and Muslims do. I am very educated in both scriptural history and scientific knowledge. I am well-read, I speak for
JLexine13 3 months ago 3
@JLexine13 People are often afraid of and hate what they don't understand. They also rarely take the time to try and understand what they don't understand.
DefendingMormonism 3 months ago 4
@JLexine13 so you believe native americans are Israeli jews and descendants of ancient egyptians? You believe you can translate hieroglyphics into english with a stone and a hat?
and you wonder why people call you ignorant and uneducated...
AdamPhool 3 months ago
What about blacks being descended from Cain, and as such, cursed with darkness?
octocycle 4 months ago
@octocycle
The use of Genesis 9 to associate a biblical curse with the descendants of Ham began in the 3rd & 4th centuries AD. Origen made reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" & the "ignobility of the race he fathered."
Augustine & Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This idea was shared by Jews, Muslims, & Christians, and was used to justify slavery in Spain in the 1400s.
cont...2..
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@octocycle
2- In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was used in the late 1600s to justify slavery. The claim that the "mark of Cain" & the "curse of Ham" was a black skin was used by many Protestants to morally & biblically excuse owning slaves. They debated whether or not blacks had souls & could be "saved."
cont...3...
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@octocycle
Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans (1856-1902) declared: "Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude...that he shall be the servant of Japheth & the servant of Shem."
The curse of blacks was defined long before Joseph Smith was born and was perpetrated by Christians for decades after his death.
end....
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@GaryKColeman
The impression I get from your reply is that since Christians, et. al. cursed blacks first and after, then it's OK for Joseph Smith to do the same. Is that what you intend to say?
octocycle 3 months ago
@octocycle
Exactly where and how did Joseph "curse" the blacks?
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@GaryKColeman
I never said he did. I only asked about any curse that the book of mormon claims against blacks. You gave me a long description about how the jews, christians, muslims said that blacks were cursed long before the mormons did. Your comments were the source. If you wish to retract that, and say the book of mormon does not consider blacks to be cursed, that's fine with me. It's not my religion. You can believe whatever you want. Even if it disagrees with what you said earlier.
octocycle 3 months ago
@octocycle
In your question--"What about blacks being descended from Cain, and as such, cursed with darkness?"--you made no reference to the BoM. Since the BoM says nothing about blacks being cursed, I gave a general statement about the source of the "curse."
What exactly was your original question referring to?
GaryKColeman 2 months ago
lololol I love this stuff. "We believe everything we are told by our superiors. Why? because its the truth. Prove it? i don't have to, its faith." Any system of thinking in which there is purposeful refusal of factual information is not only a danger to our species, but is also a disgrace to all critical thinking adults.
Knowledge is infectious, and i hope the whole world will come down with it someday.
cannibalmancamel 6 months ago 3
Du hast immer großartige Ideen, es in Szene zu setzen!
deutschfairlds 6 months ago
i wonder why mormons make fun of me... when ever i went to church, they say there all loveing :(
rcatstott 6 months ago
@omiolo
im not religious, but i'm not immoral either. i have morals, just not from God.
sammar895 7 months ago
KIND FOOD: Linwood College pupils Alex Lewis, 17, left, Joe Davis, 17, and Daina Plesivkova, 18, enjoy free food compliments of the Mormon church. They have welcomed the free lunches at a time they are commuting to Cashmere while earthquake damage at .
omiolo 7 months ago
For more information regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its beliefs on family, or to find a local congregation with which to worship, please visit mormon*org
omiolo 7 months ago
All Religions are Fake...
hatke159 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatke159 "All Religions are Fake..."
and ALL immoral people want religion to be fake.
omiolo 7 months ago
@hatke159 I couldn't have put it better myself, even if I'd been quoting brother Sam, Atheist Evangelist.
Argonnosi 5 months ago
Me encanta esta tonada.
I love this tune!
Sparks of joy for all of us because of the good news!
Sparks of joy!
dorisfenella 7 months ago
Comment removed
dorisfenella 7 months ago
You did it again! Thanks!! I love how the antis have nothing new to say, and can never disprove a thing against the simplicity of the Restored Gospel.
scubawrestler 7 months ago
Two good looking mormon girls knocked on my door once, and I thought to myself: "Hey they are Mormon! I can marry both of them!"
AmericanNohbuddy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanNohbuddy "I can marry both of them!"
LOL u can´t
dorisfenella 7 months ago
12.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Can anyone tell me how this is a good thing? Why would anyone want to be a "subject"? Why would any religion that promotes freedom of choice state in their doctrine that the people who follow it agree to be subjects? Sounds like Mr. Smith had something in mind for his followers that he was not telling them.
SHNUCAU 7 months ago
The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, the Holy trinity. I hear that Mormonism rejects that. If that is true, then they are in danger of being called that degrading H word.
redneckmarine87 8 months ago
@redneckmarine87
The following statements are from Non-Mormon sources:
Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament--"The NT does not actually speak of the triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."
William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation--"The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three coequal Persons of One Nature."
cont....2
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@redneckmarine87
2- Ernest F. Scott in An Encyclopedia of Religion--"In the NT there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity."
Harper's Bible Dictionary--"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th & 5th centuries is not to be found in the NT."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica--"Neither the word 'Trinity' nor the explicit doctrineappears in the New Testament."
cont....3
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
@redneckmarine87
Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine--"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."
Many say that Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in this NON-biblical creed. Any church teaching a non-biblical doctrine is a cult.
end....
GaryKColeman 3 months ago
Does this really take up all your time people? What a life. While you are busy on this little video, Mormon church is growing stronger and stronger. I love my Mormons!!
bigfatalbert111 8 months ago
@bigfatalbert111 no. it takes up 3 minutes and 13 seconds of our time.
tamasandy 7 months ago
I encourage you to go to MormonThink website where there are pro and con as well as neutral.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
It is written that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
Religion is interesting but puzzling to me. Why do religious folks think that believing a thing makes it so? It's fine to promote good values & ethics but why believe an elaborate system of theology when there's no objective evidence to support it? The world is full of self-proclaimed prophets-what make J.Smith better than another? I'd suggest that believing the claims of J.Smith demonstrates faith in J.Smith, not in God.
MightyCarnac 8 months ago
Although these are basic tenets of the Mormon faith, the 'meat' of the doctrine like exaltation (being a God), being required to get married in order to be in the highest heaven, Baptism of the Dead, sacred undergarments, the garden of Eden being in Jackson county Missouri, blacks being cursed and denied the priesthood until 1978, and having your own planet are not discussed in this video. Thus, I find this video to be misleading.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 The true 'meat' of Mormon doctrine is based on the 1st Article of Faith -- that there is a God who created a Plan of Salvation for his children, that the Son of God Jesus Christ made that plan possible by overcoming sin and death, and that we can know these truths by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the articles do not include every single point of doctrine included in LDS theology, but it does summarize some of the main ones.
DefendingMormonism 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism Typical religious Mormon PR answer.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 (cont) Furthermore, some of the things you listed are not part of Mormon theology (e.g. blacks being cursed) despite being speculated about by members of the church in the past. What is misleading is portraying Mormons as a whole as believing something when it was simply believed by one member of the church or a minority of members. Even if speculation is believed by a large number of Mormons -- but that teaching is not officially taught -- it cannot be considered authoritative.
DefendingMormonism 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism I mentioned blacks were cursed and denied priesthood until 1978. Never did I say that it is current doctrine. It was however, doctrine 40 years ago.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
Comment removed
JustMeNotU100 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RubenHoyos82 so God changed His mind...oh, wait, I forgot...the mormon god often changed his mind.
JustMeNotU100 8 months ago
Plus I don't know what is more official than this statement ""Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." "(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.) Are you saying that this was not officially taught in the 19th century?
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 First, the Journal of Discourses is not a source for official Church doctrine. Second, prejudice against Blacks, or anyone else for that matter, is strictly against the teachings of the LDS Church. Third, you are quoting this 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context. For example, in this same discourse, President Young said: "For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)
DefendingMormonism 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism discourse=teaching and Brigham Young was the successor to Joseph Smith, Jr...your argument is weak at best/
JustMeNotU100 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism . Here's more proof why this was official until 1978. In the 1940's the first presidency issued statements regarding blacks. For example, the Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951 stated that ]"Under this principle there is no injustice as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes" I really don't think it was just an opinion piece.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism The Journal of Discourses was published by the church, it is the words of Brigham Young, if thats not authoritative, then you're off your rocker - but we already knew that.
windigo77 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 Brigham Young is not even talking about intermarriage between whites and blacks. In 1863, there were few, if any, places where whites were free to marry blacks in the United States. Therefore, President Young is talking about sexual relations outside of marriage. Since Latter-day Saint men could not legally marry black women, then any sexual relationships between them were strictly condemned.
DefendingMormonism 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism The general authorities discouraged interracial marriage as late as the 1970's. The Ensign Magazines from that time would discuss that matter. Spencer W. Kimball stated that. Please you're trying to change the interpretation of Brigham Young message.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 By taking these three sentences out of historical context, you have twisted their original meaning. President Young taught, and the Church still teaches, that if a priesthood holder breaks the oath and covenant of the priesthood by engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage, then he faces immediate excommunication, or spiritual death.
DefendingMormonism 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism "Furthermore, some of the things you listed are not part of Mormon theology (e.g. blacks being cursed)"....this is exactly what the Mormon Church has believed and taught...being black is a curse from God the Book of Mormon states this and everythingRH82 stated IS part of mormon theology...why do you lie when the truth is exposed?
JustMeNotU100 8 months ago
@DefendingMormonism The curse of cain was officially taught in my official priesthood lessons, so you are being deceitful.
windigo77 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 Ruben, 1st Corinthian 3:2 tells you there is Meat and Milk to the Gospel. If all that you have listed is "incorrect doctrine", then tell me, what exactly is the Meat of the Gospel?
bomac10000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bomac10000 "being required to get married in order to be in the highest heaven, Baptism of the Dead, sacred undergarments, the garden of Eden being in Jackson county Missouri, the details of the Temple Ceremony, how Jesus Christ was begotten, Kolob, etc..." Need I say more?
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@bomac10000 BTW I served a mission for two years and we were repeatedly taught not to mention those details because it would alienate prospective converts.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 You didn't answer the question Ruben, neither any other "christian" because they cannot. No one would repeatedly teach you NOT to teach those things because they are NOT doctrine, most members are not even aware of them, certainly not my missionary age son (who I know is also not aware of them). My testimony comes direct from Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost, this is the True Church, Joseph Smith, Christs prophet., In Jesus name, Amen
bomac10000 8 months ago
@bomac10000 The definition of doctrine-a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group. Doesn't the church teach that you can become a God and create your own planet? Also, according to Joseph Smith, the garden of Eden was in Jackson county Missouri (Adam-ondi Ahman). You don't believe that it is?The Requirement of being married in order to be in the Highest kingdom is not doctrine? If you're saying that it is not doctrine, then you can not believe this.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 And again, if there is milk and meat as Paul tells you, then he follows by saying you cannot bear the meat, you are young and not yet ready. What he is saying is there is an ORDER to teaching, just as the missionaries ONLY teach the gospel principles. You don't teach algebra before division because it will just confuse the learner, and so it is with the Gospel.
bomac10000 8 months ago
@bomac10000 My point with my first statement is that the church does have 'weird' doctrines and concepts when it comes to the meat. While your analogy about math sounds plausible, the fact that missionaries baptize people before receiving the meat of the gospel is misleading. If the church wants to retain more members they should baptize those that receive both the milk and the meat. The point is that Mormons have weird doctrines and teachings just like other religions.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 But Ruben, that is the very example from the NT. In talking about meat Paul is speaking to those believers already in the faith but of insufficient status to handle the meat. It takes time, you dont just throw it out there or it will be confusing. God didn't appear to Moses until he had walked through the wilderness, otherwise he might not have been able to handle it. God is a God of order, there is a time and a season to all things in his kingdom.
bomac10000 8 months ago
@bomac10000 Well good for you every religion uses that argument. It doesn't mean that the church is true. good luck.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 Please tell me which other religions use that argument? There is no other Christian religion that HAS any Meat to it. The entirety of their belief is contained in the Bible. Let me ask you this Ruben, read Isaiah 6:2 and tell me whats NOT weird about that description of angels? Do you think Christian missionaries MAKE SURE they tell anyone investigating their church that angels have six wings, and that they cover themselves with those wings? Why not? Because it's not important.
bomac10000 8 months ago
I meant that every religion has interesting doctrines that are hard to understand. For instance if you want to teach a Buddhist Christianity or Buddhism to a Christian you have to 'teach them the milk before the meat'. Also, I don't believe in any religions whatsoever. They all try to manipulate other people into believing their own dogma. I am done talking because there is no point as you are a TBM.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 atheists can be equally as guilty of manipulating, digging pits for their neighbors because of their words, and pushing around their own personal beliefs. But it is wrong to stereotype any side. on all sides there are respectable advocates for them as well as disreputable ones.
PCEggo 8 months ago
@PCEggo How do atheists push around their personal beliefs?
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 read your own comment about two posts up, should give you an idea. now think that there are other atheists that endlessly attack Christianity and other religions, trying to discredit them and win away believers, or should i say win away unbelievers.
Atheism is closely tied to materialistic philosophy, and that kind of philosophy is just as culpable of being nothing but the invention of a man's mind than any other religious idea.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo Okay before you get all defensive on me first, I want to first seek truth where it is at. When looking at anything regarding religion, or anything for that matter you need to look at both sides of the issues, not only one side because then you're not being a truth seeker. Sincerely, you don't have atheists knocking at your door claiming the truths of atheism. Am I right PCEggo? So, how is atheism materialistic? There are atheists that are spiritual too.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82
I think you'll understand my point better if I replace the word materialistic with the word naturalistic: its the belief that only a godless explanation based on random chance and natural causes can credibly account for things in the universe. its just an idea and has as much merit or lack of merit as any religious idea.
now naturalists push around their beliefs all the time: believers in intelligent design are frowned upon and shunned in the scientific community, for example.
PCEggo 7 months ago
Comment removed
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@PCEggo When are religion or a church discourages its members from looking at material that might be too favorable, it is intentionally trying to deceive them. In contrast, atheists are critical thinkers and are willing to accept the existence of God if given tangible evidence.
Also, why are there so many churches that claim that they're the only true church?
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 lol, I know a few atheists that treat the Bible like dirty laundry. They won't even touch it lest they be "contaminated." They refuse to believe that critical thinkers can believe in such nonsense. But by doing so, they have failed to consider ideas and theories for themselves before they reject them, and that is the opposite of critical thinking. naturalism falls short in a few areas, for example the Big Bang, or the Cambrian Explosion if we specifically look at Darwinism
PCEggo 7 months ago
But in all seriousness, there are videos on youtube that mock and satire religious beliefs and present them only in warped and twisted versions so as to achieve the maximum satire. While you are right, that many religions discourage free thinking, my whole point is that atheistically driven propaganda can be dishonest itself.
science and religion don't always have to be at war. you don't have to be an atheist to love seeking for truth and scientific fact.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo And yet, they contradict each other. Right?
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 my own religious convictions are of the Latter Day Saint movement. I think that their position uniquely answers this question with the most tact and face at the same time.
The LDS position is that there is a deity who reveals himself to us every so often, and in between times there can be apostacies where it can become corrupt and also manmade religions spin off and become their own thing. Reformation can only take you so far. A restoration is needed. God has to talk again.
PCEggo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PCEggo When are religion or a church discourages its members from looking at material that might not be too favorable, it is intentionally trying to deceive them. In contrast, atheists are critical thinkers and are willing to accept the existence of God if given tangible evidence.
Also, why are there so many churches that claim that they're the only true church?
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 There's a difference between facts and theories that are pushed around as facts, but few people in the general masses appreciate this distinction. As far as the LDS church goes, learning is pushed hard. "obtain as much education as possible" the youth cite almost every sunday. But our scriptures also say to choose only the best books and sources, not be selective of facts, but to be careful about people who with fine words and fair speeches decieve the hearts of the simple.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo your last question is a religious one. If one accepts the Bible's teachings about God, then one must also accept its teaching about one of his angels who fell from his grace, becoming miserable forever, and became a devilish being bent on seeking the misery of all mankind as well by enticing them to sin against God as well.
I believe God has only ever taught one truth, and whatsoever is more or less than that is of that evil one. There is truth in all religions, but not all is pure.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo And you know what this is pointless. You will continue to believe in what you believe in, so please don't reply back to the last two posts. Thank you.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 thank you for throwing mud at my beliefs and demanding i not respond back.
That was just ignorant Anti-mormon garbage you threw out in the last post, but sure... whatever. You feel I'm just a stubborn ignorant fool. I don't think you got my points at all.
the belief that there is no god is just a theory or a statement of faith in itself, and arguing whether it is better or not than theistic theories is just another person's opinion.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo I wasn't going to respond but I had to this time. Interestingly, as soon as latter-day Saints get information that is not too favorable about the church, they start crying wolf and say that it is "anti-Mormon garbage". Yes, I agree that atheism is a theory also and that I could be wrong, but are you willing to accept that you might be wrong? You should check a video out entitled "Will the Real Joseph Smith Please Stand Up" and we can have a critical discussion about it?
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 I'll tip my hat to some arguments against Mormonism. Some are very well thought out and sound very convincing. I'm not against hearing out all sides of an argument (and by the way the audio to that video sucked, you got any other links?)
But at the same time, Exmormons and Antimormons always fail to discuss not only the evidences we DO have, but the virtues as well, of Mormonism. That to me is very telling.
you should look up, "The Case for a Creator."
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo Yes, arguments are against Mormonism can be extremely alluring, though like you mentioned, they emphasize all the "bad" w/o bringing up any of the good, AND they compare the "bad" in Mormonism to the "good" in their own faith/lifestyle/beliefs which is a faulty premise. Compare bad with bad, and good with good. Or when talking about one -- bring up the bad and the good. Objectivity is very lacking with self-proclaimed objective people!
DefendingMormonism 7 months ago
@PCEggo Name me an good deed made by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
Of course there are many virtues in all religions. I think that is not the point for people questioning the validity of religion, and there you go again with your ad-hominem attack of "anti-mormon". Just because there are many good things in a church or religion doesn't mean that it is true.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@PCEggo Exactly there is a difference between facts and theories. The doctrine that black men are cursed from Cain and becoming a God to create worlds are theories whether or not you like what I say. Of course you will claim that it is fact because of 'revelation' but is there any tangible evidence? In fact, he kept changing the first vision a billion of times. So yes we must accept all facts and "not be selective of facts" which the church does to "deceive the hearts of the simple".
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 What is a TBM?
windigo77 7 months ago
TBM meaning true believing Mormon.
RubenHoyos82 8 months ago
@RubenHoyos82 It is a sumarized. It says there.
dorisfenella 7 months ago
@dorisfenella Ha I remember I used to memorize the 13 articles of faith when I was a little kid in primary but that isn't all of the doctrine.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
Joseph Smith always tried to help others understand the LDS religion and his enemies have always tried to confuse others about its doctrines and beliefs.
JosephSmithOneWife 8 months ago
Is this serious or a joke? Wasn't this whole mormon thing created by that sheister Joseph Smith to make some cash because all of his other schemes didn't work out? Wasn't he found to be a liar and a cheat when his "prophesies and translations" were proved to be incorrect? Follow science my friends, the only truth.
logtenbm 8 months ago
I am a true and faithfull (I hope ;-) member of the church of Jesus Christ. I just wanted to give my point of vew concerning the 12th article of faith. As for me, I will obey laws and respect the President SARKOZY (I am french) as far as they do not ask me to do or to believe in something contrary to the Gospel. I think we are not expected to obey like blind people. Our presidents are only "men" and I mistrust them.
Eowindurohan 8 months ago
@Eowindurohan Agree that presidents are only men (or women). Agree that we should not blindly trust them. I hope you agree that this principle also applies to religious leaders like LDS President Monson, Gordon Hinckley, Pope Benedict, Sun Myung Moon, Harold Camping, Kenneth Copeland, L.Ron Hubbard and many many others who claim to speak for God.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
MightyCarnac 8 months ago
Attention stupid autocorrect
TheAkmur 8 months ago
Mormonisme isnt really a religeon it was just 1guy who looked for Argentijn
TheAkmur 8 months ago
Mormonism is fucked up dude! It leads millions of people astray to eternal hell
szabo56 8 months ago
@szabo56 Really, so, tell me how that happens when they believe in faith, repentance, baptism and the laying of hands by one called of God for the gift of the Holy Ghost, as described in the New Testament? There is in Christ, which is exactly where it should be. No one going to hell here my friend.
bomac10000 8 months ago
Comment removed
ikanonmedia 8 months ago
I absolutely love this video, Praise to the Man!
JarrodTS 8 months ago
I hope you don't mind me asking a clarification to a question regarding one of your articles of faith. It states:
"8) We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
My question is (I am seriously not trying to be rude, just trying to understand) how do you or anyone know if the words in the bible are being "translated correctly" if we are all fallible?
Thanks!
blfpg 8 months ago
@blfpg You have an honest & thoughtful question.
The word "translated" as used here, doesn't mean only copying from one language to another, but also making written copies in the same language. If you can imagine copying the Bible with a quill pen by candle light for several hours a day, you can understand that a person could easily make unintentional errors, which could be repeated by the next person copying from that text........cont
GaryKColeman 8 months ago
@blfpg
But there were also intentional changes made by devious men. By the early second century, Christianity had fragmented into dozens of splinter groups with each group charging that the others possessed both forged & corrupted texts.
Clement of Alexandria claimed Carpocrates corrupted scripture
Tertullian charged Marcion with deleting whole verses from Luke.
We believe that revelation from God would clear up the disagreements and confusion about the Scriptures.
GaryKColeman 8 months ago 2
@blfpg If I could add to your answer, John 16:7, Christ told the disciples that after he was ascended he would send the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, is the way by which Heavenly Father teaches his children truth. If a person seeks truth, God will send the Holy Spirit to give him an internal witness of that truth. Upon baptism he is given the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, it is that still, small voice which teaches and allows us to recognize truth.
bomac10000 8 months ago
Moses 1: 39 " For behold this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." It is really that simple. He just wants us to be happy and free of all the filth the world has to force on us. Just follow Him and do the simple things He asks of us. He is waiting to bless and help you.
StephDianeC 8 months ago
It's interesting how only 300 views into this video and there is already a pack of wolves trying to belittle it's content. It's funny how fast they can get caught up on little meaningless self-interpretations, and COMPLETELY miss what's important.
Great video. Straight to the point and true.
paddymanchris 8 months ago
simple straightforward beliefs, but the willfully ignored for the sensational and obscure.
omiolo 8 months ago
i fersure know that we dont beleive the same jesus christ. our jesus christ was a deity, a god, god in human, although given the name well known as "the son", it was interpreted that way for better understanding of how equally eternal they both were, like father like son. you believe gods before our god, but our god is the highest god, consisting of one. and no, we dont believe ourselves can become god. no one is equal, or can be. he is the essence of time love life and creation. he is infinite.
awwshitnigga 8 months ago
@awwshitnigga We believe in the same Jesus Christ; Jesus -is- God and deity. Having gods before our God is not set doctrine, therefore take it with a grain of salt. And as far as becoming gods, we believe we'll have the blessings of knowledge and power that God the Father has, but we will -never- be equal to him. Hope this answers your questions. :)
p3rdyp1nkr0ses 8 months ago
@p3rdyp1nkr0ses So you believe in the Trinity? "Jesus -is- God and deity."
cagray05 8 months ago
@cagray05 Latter-Day Saints do not believe in a tri-unified God. We believe in one Godhead, three distinct personages within that Godhead. Jesus is God and as such, obviously, is deity. But he wasn't -eternally- God. No, I'm not reading John 1 incorrectly. Last part of verse 2: "the same as in the beginning -with- God" (emphasis mine). :)
p3rdyp1nkr0ses 8 months ago
@p3rdyp1nkr0ses Abraham 3:18
BornAgainstMormons 8 months ago
@BornAgainstMormons What about that verse? Please private message me your answer.
p3rdyp1nkr0ses 8 months ago
@p3rdyp1nkr0ses How can Jesus be called Everlasting Father then?
cagray05 8 months ago
@cagray05 Because Jesus is the "father" of the earth, meaning it was Christ who created the earth, Ephesians 3:9 and Hebrews 1:2. :) Private message me any more questions you have. Thanks!
p3rdyp1nkr0ses 8 months ago
@p3rdyp1nkr0ses Very interesting. In Isaiah 44:24, God says he created everything by himself. If God created everything by himself, how did Jesus create the earth?
cagray05 8 months ago
Funny how he left out the Holy Underwear
And No i'm not kidding you
Entropian2012 8 months ago
@Entropian2012 This was just to show the core of our beliefs. There are many little details left out. Now I'm no LDS theologian, so I can't tell you with exactness why we wear what we call Garments but I can inform you they serve as both spiritual and physical protection from the world, as an outward symbol of faith to God and faithfulness to our spouses. I'm only 16, so I do not know it all, but I am LDS, so I do know a bit. I'm sure that you can find a vid on this channel describing it all. :D
aplethoraodirigibles 8 months ago
@Entropian2012 He also left out that Satan is Jesus' brother. A council of Gods did not create matter out of nothing. The God had a father who was a God in another universe. That God was once a sinful man just like we are "As we are, God once was, and as God is we may become." He also left out the complete lack of archeological evidence that would support the book of mormon, if it were true.
cagray05 8 months ago
One man's crazy is another mans theory of relativity.
MormonsLoveFamilies 8 months ago
Comment removed
windigo77 8 months ago
Q. Do you remember who you are when you die? if so, does that mean you take your brain with you since that where your experience in life has been stored? i think not -.- Also why does "god" need to me to recognize him as the all powerful and summit my free will to him?
pablo19852000 8 months ago
@pablo19852000 Answer from me: I belive that we have a spirit in us, and that is who we are (like the concence), and we should see him as the best coach of all. he will never take away our free will, but the consequenses of our actions are there.
goosejocke 8 months ago
@pablo19852000 I feel the answer is yes from how I was raised and from what the LDS church has taught me. Everything we have learned, everything we have experianced, and everything we have done will be remembered when we died. The second one on keeping our brain is more complex. When we die, and before the second coming of Jesus Christ, we are just spirit. Yet during this time we know who we are, as such we do not need our brain to keep what we have experianced in this life. But...
JonathonWilder 8 months ago
@pablo19852000 When we are resurrected we will gain our body back, our spirit and our body will join as one and never be separated again. The reason for this is we need our body to progress, that was one of the main reasons we came to this earth was to gain both a body. God put us on this earth so that we could prove to him that we would follow him yet not see him. Faith and the willingness to serve God is essential to God's Plan. Otherwise we are puppet and not have any choice but to follow
JonathonWilder 8 months ago
@pablo19852000 Information according to theoretical physics cannot be destroyed like energy. The informational component of your brain will always exist, and time is simply another dimension, like depth and just because time has moved passed. The stories tiraded by Mormons are incredibly simplistic and they target people who think in simple ways, because it's easy to understand the idea that you are here to get a body and faith, but a body, that's it? What a waste of 90 years.
windigo77 8 months ago
@windigo77 Not in the eyes of God. 90 years is like a blink of an eye to him, as such we are not gone long at all. It just seems a long time to some. Heck, I am glad I have been given this time as their is so much to learn and experiance. For example, I love to read but I know that I could never read as much as I would like in just 90 years.
Also, most don't live that long.
JonathonWilder 8 months ago
@JonathonWilder The point was that the LDS idea of eternal progression, and the thought that our only reason to be alive is to get a body and worship and obey the church's authority (you call it God, I call it government) is very unfulfilling. God is supposably all powerful, why is he working so inefficiently? A blink of an eye you say? Well, isn't there OTHER things that I could be doing while he is spending 90 years blinking his eye?
windigo77 8 months ago
@JonathonWilder I think the purpose for humanity (I don't think in individualistic scopes, I'm less interested in MY life isn't as important as the purpose of existence itself - we call it perspective) is to abandon foolish stories told to children to help them rationalize their existence, throw off the chains of close mindedness and religious though oppression, embrace reality, science and accept what we find there instead of presupposing there is a God, and he hates fags.
windigo77 8 months ago
i love it man good job!!!
deanman007 8 months ago
that's some crazy whacked out stuff, man. Wait, that's what I believe!
cureloms 8 months ago
Well done!
canadianbacon007 8 months ago 2