The Mormon Advantage

If not, then why not? If so, then please enlighten us on how you went about removing your name? And why did you decide to leave the church?

It was easy, I asked Ralph, my home teacher and ward clerk to see if he could get our names taken off. I am sure the Church still has a record of me, but they certainly don't bother me at all.

The short answer is that I left the church because I became an agnostic/atheist. It wasn't just the Mormon faith, I tried to check out most of the major beliefs out there.

I am neither angry nor upset. In fact, I really enjoy this forum where we can all voice our opinions/arguments in a respectful manner. It’s an opportunity for all of us to learn if we are open to it.

Then why label the church as a cult? Why bring up the atrocities that some of it's members committed in the past? Do you honestly believe that Mormons under the direction of the prophet go around killing innocent men, women and children?

What are your beliefs? Are you part of an organized religion? Do you think it might have some skeletons in its closet? Do you believe in the same God Abraham worshiped?

The short answer is that I left the church because I became an agnostic/atheist. It wasn't just the Mormon faith, I tried to check out most of the major beliefs out there.

You shouldn't despair of God. Many have had the experience of having felt they have lost their faith entirely, of no hope of ever believing in anything again. And then God can, completely unbidden and unexpectedly, extend His grace and give them faith. This aligns with the promise of scripture. What such persons, like me, later discover is they had only lost a religious training or belief inculcated since childhood. But a true and enduring faith can only be granted by God.

My remarks probably won't be helpful to you right now. But later, they might be.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV)

Now, having been blatantly (but charitably) religious but avoiding the poisonous waters of ecumenism, I'd point out once again, these discussions really do belong in the Backroom. FR's political and news threads really aren't anyone's mission field. Not mine, not the Mormon FReepers, not anyone else's.

GW, aren’t you calling the kettle black. In that other thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812519/posts?page=171#171 ) You decry Mormons coming to their own defense, but It’s OK for you to discuss the LDS beliefs, even if you are defending them (to a certain degree), but heaven forbid that a Mormon stands up and defends their own faith, then it’s called proselytizing!

>> Then why label the church as a cult? Why bring up the atrocities that some of it’s members committed in the past? Do you honestly believe that Mormons under the direction of the prophet go around killing innocent men, women and children?

No, they don’t go around killing people. My point in bringing up that event was to stress the potential harm that the cult-mind can bring.

LeGrande, please take a minute to read my post #44. That explains in detail why I believe the Mormon church is a cult. After reading that, I would like to hear your opinion. I’m not just simply labeling them a cult. I was a member (in fact still am technically) and I went through the Temple ceremonies, so I know what I am talking about.

Let me phrase it in another way. If the church was not as I described in #44 (i.e. secretive, symbolic penalties of death, not beholden to a Prophet that God speaks through, etc.), then I would not consider them to be a cult.

By the way, your names are not taken off otherwise you would have received documentation stating such. What ramifications could that have for you and your family in the future? Well, if you have children, it could lead to them being led back into the church against your better judgement at some point when they are older. As long as their names are on the “books” then they will likely be contacted by ward members. Right now you may not care, but if a child of yours is influenced to join, you may feel different. Once they join, their view of you can change (because now they view you as a misguided soul). Ramifications, ramifications.

Also, why the heck would you not be ticked off because you asked them to remove your name and they haven’t. Don’t you think that is disrespectful to you? Shouldn’t you be insulted? They should honor your request without equivocation.

>> What are your beliefs? Are you part of an organized religion? Do you think it might have some skeletons in its closet? Do you believe in the same God Abraham worshiped?

I am a Christian; I follow Jesus Christ in the new testament, and I don’t believe there are skeletons in Jesus Christ’s closet. I believe that anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and makes every attempt to live as a Christian is a Christian, as well (from their fruits we shall know them). Officially, my name is on the “books” as a member of the Mormon church. Yes, I believe in the same God Abraham worshiped; a God of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence; a God that through his will created everything in the universe.

GW, aren’t you calling the kettle black. In that other thread ... you decry Mormons coming to their own defense, but It’s OK for you to discuss the LDS beliefs, even if you are defending them (to a certain degree), but heaven forbid that a Mormon stands up and defends their own faith, then it’s called proselytizing!

No, I'm insisting that you need to stop scrapping on political threads and just call the moderators or hit Abuse. The political threads shouldn't be filled with pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon material if there is no mention of Mormonism in the original article.

We have a Smoky Backroom for those kinds of discussions. And we have a moderator whose job it is to moderate those fierce 'debates'.

Everyone knows he's a Mormon. Most everyone who cares about it already knows how they rank that issue. Time to put this stuff off FR's front pages. We didn't just 'discover' last week that he had an extra spouse whose existence he had lied about previously (like Judy G.) or find out yesterday that, contrary to recent previous statements, he supports taxpayer-funded abortion (Rudy).

I hate to break it to you but Mormonism is not Breaking News.

UM, I hate to break it to you, but show me a single post where I’ve posted something about Romney in a Breaking News thread.

I have just as much right to defend my faith as you have a right to defend it, no matter where it’s posted or who it’s from.

>>I am not “the arbiter of your soul,” and never claimed to be.

You claimed to know whether or not Mormons are Christians. My understanding is that if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior in your heart and believe he is the only one through whom salvation can come, that you are a Christian. You cannot know what is in my heart, you cannot know what is in the Millions of Mormon’s hearts. You are judging us without the possibility of your judgment being correct and just.

>>However, the idea that Christians should never use their powers of critical thinking and yes, judgment (or GOOD judgment) otherwise known as common sense, is one of the worst perversions of holy scripture common today.

You are correct about one thing, Judging righteousness has nothing to do with Common sense. I submit to you that membership in no church will guarantee you salivation, and that similarly membership in no church will deny you salvation. Jesus specifically said John 8:7 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/8/7#7 “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Specifically talking about the kind of judgment you are engaged in here.

>>There’s the full passage above, part of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Note, in
>>comparing the the “log” and the “speck” Jesus didn’t say ignore them, rather He said
>>for the judgmental person to remove the log first...then to “see clearly.” What does this
>>mean?

It means that you may have less modesty than the Jews who left when faced with their own “Logs” (My Bible says “Beam” BTW)

>>To never make any judgments or decisions?

You may feel free to decide if you should buy more milk, you may even decide that Sins are bad, but to say that someone who is professing a belief in Christ is not a Christian is over the line, and you know it.

>>That would be the death of any Christian beliefs at all—as all of us must make
>>decisions on what is true and what to believe.

There is a big difference between you deciding what you want to believe and you deciding what I must believe.

>>No. Think of the context. Jesus was preaching to people who, while following a
>>definitely, without-question, God-revealed religion, had gone bad. How? Through a
>>loveless legalistic following after law, that is doing good things, as the basis of their
>>salvation. Read the gospels...what exactly was wrong the the Pharisees of the day?

When Moses re-established the religion of God among the descendents of Abraham, he talked about the hardness of their hearts, and the stiff-neckedness, and their pride. Sadly not much has changed today. We seem always to have modern Pharisees among us, people who will legislate the distance that can be walked, what can be carried on the Sabbath, and continue to focus on the outward appearance, rather than on faith.

>>They knew God’s word (and it was definitely God’s word...no questionable revelations to questionable persons of questionable character)

Do you know how many books of scripture they had? (hint, more than we do, for we have rejected many of them, try looking up the book of Enoch, which was where Jesus kept quoting “the son of Man“ from. “The son of man” is a specific reference to a prophecy about him by Enoch, but we don’t study this scripture which was referenced incessantly by the Savior and the apostles today why?) As to questionable, by what authority do you speak for Jesus in judging me and all my people?

>>they FOLLOWED it, with all their might. But what was wrong?

First, they were not following the law, Jesus’ very trial showed that. Let me list for you the things that were illegal about Jesus’ trial and I am sure that I will miss some a I am doing this off of the top of my head.

1. The Sanhedrin was never to meet at night.
2. The Sanhedrin was not allowed to “Seek” witnesses.
3. Jesus never spoke in his defense, so they could not render a judgment.
4. If the Sanhedrin was unanimous in its verdict, the trial was a supposed to be void because the accused had no friend among the Sanhedrin.
5. They spit in his face, which should have caused a mistrial.
6. They taunted him asking him to tell them who had hit him.
7. They hit him which was illegal and should have caused a mistrial.
8. The “Crime” the Jews told the Roman’s Jesus had committed was different from what they had convicted him for.

>>There was no faith in this, and they were trusting not God, and His mercy, but their
>>own goodness for their salvation. The looked at God as a paymaster...someone who,
>>when they died would OWE it to them, due to their good deeds, to let them into
>>heaven.

There were so many problems with the Jewish church of that day that I am surprised you only found these.

>> Such an attitude is not that of biblical faith. God owes us nothing but death—as Jesus’ death proved.
Just curios, how did Jesus’ death prove God owes us death? (Not that I think he “owes” us anything, I just never heard this proof from Jesus’ death before)

>> However, just as God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, chose to raise Jesus from the
>>grave, so too the Trinity chose, before all time, to grant us mercy—through faith Jesus
>>Christ, and His good works. Such a faith allows us to freely live a life of good
>>deeds...NOT seeking to EARN God’s favor, rather, doing good for the sake of love.

A. Find me one scripture form the Bible (King James Version, the “New” translations with Jesus saying “Dude” and the like give me a headache)/
B. Show me where the LDS church teaches that we “Earn” heaven.
C. Show where the LDS church says that God “Owes” us anything.
Do you know the definition of a straw man argument? This is a really good example. You claim we believe something that we don’t that is easily disproved, then disprove it and basically try to dismiss us before we can respond. It is a common, obvious tactic. Show me where we say what you are saying. The churches web site is http://www.lds.org all the cannon of the church and more is published there and available for online searches.

>> The 2nd verse shows that St. Peter knew of some religions based on “cleverly devised myths,” and Christianity was based on solid eyewitnesses.

Eyewitnesses, ok how about some eyewitnesses:
1. The account of the three witnesses http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss
2. The testimony of the eight witnesses http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns
3. Joseph Smith’s testimony about the book of Mormon http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/jstestimony the refusal of Joseph smith to recant this testimony led to his murder by people who would not accept it. It is apparent to even a casual student of his life that Joseph Smith knew that if he would recant his testimony, he would live. Thus he died for his testimony that you now denigrate.

>>It is the carefully considered judgment (based on good judgment, or common sense, not the bad
>>legalistic “judgmentalism” condemned by Jesus) of the thinkers of ALL major Christian groups—we whose distinct
>>beliefs go back for many hundreds of years, all the way back to the eyewitnesses who wrote the scriptures, not to
>>the 1830s—that LDS doctrine is so far from the Bible, with its own new bible-contradicting “revelation,” that it
>>is no longer Christianity.

Do you know what a run-on sentence is? I think you do.

“All major Christian Groups” – LOL so who are you excluding? Can you give us a list? How can I refute this vague and unsubstantiated, un provable assertion you have just made? Well, I guess since we are both presumably pajama clad purveyors of internet new media, my word is as good a yours. So “You are wrong!”

Seriously, this is what you consider a good argument?

http://www.newavent.org is the Catholic encyclopedia online, you should do some research there.

First of all look up the first council of Nicea http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Where Constantine (an un-baptized sun worshipper) called a Council of Bishops by inviting Bishops and killing any who refused to come. Explained to them that he wanted Christianity to become the Roman religion (because it was the largest single religion at the time) and he was planning to unify the empire under the church. Asked (also at the point of the sword) for them to write creeds that could be taught, and accepted by all the peoples of Rome (IE water it down so everyone can accept it). This is where the creed of the Trinity came from.

No, Mormons do not accept this creed that came from men as gospel.

Next, look up Hippolytus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm Hippolytus was reported to have been John the beloved’s great grandson.

“Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate.”

What he wrote was in Greek and was not popular with Constantine, so none of it was translated into Latin. (His writings were not popular because they directly refuted some of the changes he was making to the Church of Christ.)

Next look up a refutation of all heresies by Hippolytus a series of ten books written about the Heresies I suggest you start with “Against one Noetus” which specifically addresses misunderstandings about the nature of God that were creeping in to the church in Hippolytus’ day. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

>>Christians of all kinds share in common beliefs about the Trinity, the nature of Jesus,
>>human nature, heaven and hell, the atonement, marriage etc. etc. all of which in
>>Mormon doctrine are fundamentally different from all other Christian groups.

Early Christians agree with us, it’s only after Constantine that things change on that. I Submit that the nature of God is not up for a vote.

>>So either, all other Churches are “an abomination” as
>>polygamist J. Smith (30+ wives?) said, and your 175 year
>>old group is right, or, Christianity is right.

Go do some research, learn, I am not even pointing you to Mormon sites, I don’t have to, I have the truth and history on my side of this discussion about God’s nature. (polygamy is a red herring you are tying to throw in here, if you want we can get into the Biblical nature of Polygamy in another post) as for the age of our “Church” what an irrelevant argument at one point Jesus was starting a new church, would you have dismissed him?

>>A burning feeling inside doesn’t matter... It cannot go both ways.

So, you are saying revelation from God does not matter?

>>As to your soul? You are responsible for your own choices.

And here I thought only Christians would be saved and that you were saying we (which includes me) were not Christian, thus damning us (me) to hell.

I believe your intentions are pure, I believe you are doing the best you can with what you know. Honestly, you have been sold a “bill of goods” concerning Mormons.

ampu,

I assume when you say “Do you believe” you mean what is the Mormon doctrine regarding this? If you’re looking for an apologetic debate on doctrine then I’m not the one to jump in the fray, I’d suggest you consider starting a dialog at www.mormonapologetics.org instead. If however you are just honestly trying to understand what Mormon Doctrine is then I can do my best to point you in the right direction.

“1. Do you believe you can be a “god” of your own world someday?”

Many might try to parse it that way but it isn’t expressed in those words in official doctrine. I don’t think it’s possible to visualize what heaven will be like, but phrasing it the way you did makes it sound like Mormons believe they’ll get the access codes to some super powerful “SimEarth” or that it’ll be like the Greek Pantheon. The way I would describe it is that God is literally our Father and he fully intends for us to be able to progress to become like him. Eternity is a long time after all. What that means in concrete details in the hereafter is mainly speculation and is most definitely not the central focus of Mormon theology.

If you’re looking for an answer with more meat then try this page, one of the questions is essentially the same one you just asked:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Four_LDS_Responses_to_Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

“2. Do you believe Jesus Christ was created?”

Technically yes, we believe that Jesus Christ and God the Father are distinct beings and that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. But the question makes me wonder if you are suggesting that this diminishes his importance in some way, it does not.

“3. Do you believe Christ’s atonement for sin on the cross was completely sufficient to pay for your sins and to ensure you will have eternal life - or do you believe you have to perform works or other acts to achieve your salvation?”

Yes the atonement is what allows us to be saved, but I’m probably not viewing this question in the manner that you expect. It is only through the atonement of Christ that we can be saved, yet Christ expects us to follow him in order to take advantage of the atonement. So yes we differ from the typical “Born Again” viewpoint on this, but it’s not our works that save us, it’s Christ’s atonement.

Allow me to offer a ditto to that post. The only remaining questions I have relate to whether Mitt can beat a democrat like the Rodham-rodent by bringing out the sit-at-home conservative majority in America, a majority that is growing more slim with every passing election. I am also still wondering if Mitt will be able to rally the pubbies in the legislative branch in order to get things done. He is charismatic and has proven his leadership abilities, so I don’t doubt he can do the job. He is also a moral man, in my opinion, so we can depend on him to conduct himself with decorum just as our current President has in spite of the hate-filled democrat party and their sycophantic media whoredom.

You asserted: "Moses messed up; you know the water thing in the deseret. Some other Biblical prophets made prophesies that didn’t come to past." When Moses struck the stone for water upon the return visit to the water source, that was not an act of prophecy. Did he mess up? Yes, but not in prophesy, and God's punishment for Moses was not allowing him to enter into the Promised Land with his people.

Since you believe other 'Biblical prophets' made prophesies that didn't come to pass, it is encumbent upon you to site those instances for discussion, don't you think?

No, they don’t go around killing people. My point in bringing up that event was to stress the potential harm that the cult-mind can bring.

So the 'Christians' that persecuted and killed the Mormons in Missouri were they cultists too? Did you know that many of the victims of the Mormon Meadow massacre were the very same persecutors in Missouri?

Let me phrase it in another way. If the church was not as I described in #44 (i.e. secretive, symbolic penalties of death, not beholden to a Prophet that God speaks through, etc.), then I would not consider them to be a cult.

So you consider the Jews, and Catholics cults (substitute Pope for Prophet)? I too was Married in the Temple so I know what I am talking about.

By the way, your names are not taken off otherwise you would have received documentation stating such. What ramifications could that have for you and your family in the future? Well, if you have children, it could lead to them being led back into the church against your better judgement at some point when they are older. As long as their names are on the “books” then they will likely be contacted by ward members. Right now you may not care, but if a child of yours is influenced to join, you may feel different. Once they join, their view of you can change (because now they view you as a misguided soul). Ramifications, ramifications.

What is your problem? If my children or wife decide to rejoin the Mormon church I will support their decision. The values that the Church teaches are good and noble goals. The standards that the Church set are high. I can think of a lot worse things to happen to my kids than becoming good faithful LDS. LOL

Also, why the heck would you not be ticked off because you asked them to remove your name and they haven’t. Don’t you think that is disrespectful to you? Shouldn’t you be insulted? They should honor your request without equivocation.

They did, but I don't expect them to go through all their records and delete any reference to me and my family, what is the point? We leave a trail wherever we go, it is who we are.

I am a Christian; I follow Jesus Christ in the new testament, and I don’t believe there are skeletons in Jesus Christ’s closet. I believe that anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and makes every attempt to live as a Christian is a Christian, as well (from their fruits we shall know them). Officially, my name is on the “books” as a member of the Mormon church. Yes, I believe in the same God Abraham worshiped; a God of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence; a God that through his will created everything in the universe.

Would you say that Mormons are Christians? By the same definition that you gave of yourself?

Sigh...O.K. here’s an excerpt from http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html

The Conditional Nature of Prophecy
It was the Lord himself, through the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who explained the conditional nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)1

Jeremiah himself exemplified the principle of conditional prophecy when he told king Zedekiah, in the name of the Lord, that he would not go captive into Babylon if he followed the prophet’s instructions; otherwise, he would be taken captive and Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jeremiah 38:17-23). The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord’s threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3:4) was mitigated by the repentance of the city’s population (Jonah 3:4-9). “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10). Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant repentance of “sixscore thousand persons” was more important than fulfilling the word (Jonah 4:1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. Here are other examples from the Bible:

The Lord told David that the men of Keilah “will deliver thee up [to Saul]” (1 Samuel 23:12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14).
Isaiah told king Hezekiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).
The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20).
The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would “smite every fenced city” of Moab and that he would “deliver the Moabites also into your hand.” But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord’s wishes.
Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city. The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29:17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30:10-12; 32:11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.
Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would “be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation” (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.
It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy that we must consider some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. For example, the missionary calling promised Thomas B. Marsh in D&C 112 was never fulfilled because he was excommunicated and forfeited his blessings. Critics have stated that if God really knew Marsh’s heart (verse 11), he would have known that he would apostatize and not be worthy of the promised blessings. The same argument has been used in regard to George Miller’s calling to the bishopric (D&C 124:20-21), eight years before he was disfellowshipped.

By this same reasoning, God should not have promised a throne to David (1 Samuel 16:12-13; 2 Samuel 3:9-10; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5), since David, in future, would commit adultery and order the death of an innocent man (1 Samuel 11). This also brings up the question of Jesus’ promise to his twelve apostles: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 19:28). This promise was made before Judas betrayed the Master and he was obviously included among those who would sit on the “twelve thrones.” How could Jesus have made such a promise to the one who would betray him, whom he termed “a devil” (John 6:70-71)? The answer seems obvious: at the time of the promises, Judas, Thomas B. Marsh and George Miller were faithful to the Lord. By their subsequent actions, they lost all claim to those promises.

Now you take that back about baseball!

So you consider the Jews, and Catholics cults (substitute Pope for Prophet)? I too was Married in the Temple so I know what I am talking about. I've never heard of Jewish or Catholics symbolically moving a hand over their throat and abdomen in a sign of death penalty for revealing temple work. I don't think anyone considers Jewish or Catholic people to be particularly secretive in their temple work. Did you make that death penalty gesture when you were in the temple? Do you think that such penalty gestures are not cult-like? So the 'Christians' that persecuted and killed the Mormons in Missouri were they cultists too? Did you know that many of the victims of the Mormon Meadow massacre were the very same persecutors in Missouri? I don't think the dozens of women and children that were BUTCHERED by the Mormons in the Mountain Meadow Massacre were part of the persecution of Mormons. And the people in that wagon train were from Texas, not Missouri, and had nothing to do with persecuting anyone. Do you have a source for your assertion? I find it very telling that you have not said that what the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows was wrong; it's almost as if you are defending the massacre. Are you? The Mormons in Missouri brutalized the local population via the Mormon Dannites under Joseph Smith. The Mormons formed their own enclaves which were isolated and separated from the general population, during a time in our history where there was a large separatist movement about (approaching the Civil War). It's disingenuous and deceitful to simply say that the Mormons were persecuted. There was enough blame to go around for everyone at the time, both Mormons and some Missourians (not just people claiming to be Christians). What happened was that when push came to shove and the Mormons attacked a village and burned down buildings and homes, they ended up getting their butts kicked by the local population and the state militia. What is your problem? If my children or wife decide to rejoin the Mormon church I will support their decision. The values that the Church teaches are good and noble goals. The standards that the Church set are high. I can think of a lot worse things to happen to my kids than becoming good faithful LDS. LOL Personally, I would have a problem with my kids gesturing a cut across their own throats and abdomen as what is practiced in the Temple. They did, but I don't expect them to go through all their records and delete any reference to me and my family, what is the point? We leave a trail wherever we go, it is who we are. No they didn't. If they did remove your names then they would have sent you an official letter, and you have not said that you've received one. That's the LDS Church policy. Would you say that Mormons are Christians? By the same definition that you gave of yourself? Personally, I would not say that Mormons are Christians because they believe that Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan and that they will become Gods themselves. Also, remember that the Mormons do not believe that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent. Thus they believe in a different God. And many other Gods, etc.

I agree with you. I have little truck with religions, but politics is about naked force.

>> “1. Do you believe you can be a “god” of your own world someday?”

Yes, Mormons believe that they can become Gods and have their own worlds and give birth to spirit children. Brigham Young and other Prophets spoke a lot about this. But only if they practice Polygamy.

>> Technically yes, we believe that Jesus Christ and God the Father are distinct beings and that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. But the question makes me wonder if you are suggesting that this diminishes his importance in some way, it does not.

Joseph Smith says in the King Follett discourse that God did not have the power to create spirits. If so, then how could God create Jesus?

>> Yes the atonement is what allows us to be saved, but I’m probably not viewing this question in the manner that you expect. It is only through the atonement of Christ that we can be saved, yet Christ expects us to follow him in order to take advantage of the atonement. So yes we differ from the typical “Born Again” viewpoint on this, but it’s not our works that save us, it’s Christ’s atonement.

The Mormon doctrine teaches there are two forms of atonement. General Atonement and Individual Atonement. General atonement teaches that Christ died for the sins of our fathers and Adam and Eve, so we are saved from the past sin. Individual atonement teaches that we have to obey the old law and the ordinances (i.e. Temple work, tithing, baptism, wear special undergarments, etc.). This is counter to what Christ spoke of. He abolished the ordinances and he gave us the gift of Grace so that we will not be subject to the old law. AND he said that if we try to live by the old law, then we are denying grace and that we will be judged by the old law, which means damnation.

Despite your smarmy condescension with your childish 'sigh' at having to defend your assertions, I shall address your response then be done with you.

The assertion you made which I invited you to prove was: "Moses messed up; you know the water thing in the deseret. Some other Biblical prophets made prophesies that didn’t come to past." Your first falsehood was addressed in my initial response, re. Moses failing the Prophecy test because of his failure to speak to the stone for water to pour forth and instead striking the stone ... significant because of the foreshadowing of the Redeemer to come who will not be crucified twice.

Now for your further dissembling. And note at the outset that a conditional nature of SOME Prophecy in no way cancels the measure of a true Prophet, as the Jews living in the day of their Prophets' admonishments testifies so clearly and you choose to dissemble as if it is of no significance since it doesn't support the cut and paste indoctrination you have posted. Since God instructed the Jews to set the standard He instructed for measuring the truth of a Prophet, you have at the outset tried to infer that God is fickle. But I'm not surprised at such chicanery since the entire of Mormonism is based on just such satanic inference with J Smith's claim of God in a body and Christ in His body appearing to Smith, the treasure diviner/scam artist so pure that Christ AND God Almighty would appear to good Joe --THE Christ, who had ascended nearly two thousand years prior and promised to return in a specific way not found in Smith's big lie. For your and Joe Smith's assertions to be truth Christ must be a liar. May it never be ... and may God have mercy upon you specifically for trying this deception so openly.

Your cited examples of conditional admonishments to the Israelites and to Nineveh support only the conditional nature which God instructed with the specific messages and in no way turns all of Prophecy into conditional prophecy. You, if you believe Jesus is the Only Salvation under Heaven, ought to understand this else the numerous prophesies regarding the coming of the Lamb of God could be altered to suit one or another deceiver choosing to do what Smith tried to do, create an alternate Gospel. You have spent bandwidth posting only that which illustrates conditional admonishments, in so far as you can construe them to do so to support your agenda:

The Lord told David that the men of Keilah “will deliver thee up [to Saul]” (1 Samuel 23:12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14). Isaiah told king Hezekiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6). Nice try to misuse the verb will as non-conditional when it is precisely used to be conditional with David and Hezekiah. You do not veer from your dissembling agenda.

The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20). If you look at the Hebrew verb translated as 'changed His mind' you will find that the verb is a conditional assertion, again you try to take a conditional admonishment and misstate it as a fixed prophecy you can refute. How utterly telling of a deceiver.

It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy that we must consider some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. Uh, no, 'we' don't need to lend credence to a liar and conman, but you might need to. You do not warrant further discussion because you are not dividing the scriptures rightly. You are citing passages as prophesies from the Lord God when they are admonishments from a man serving God. J. Smith served J Smith, not God. You have a deceptive way of trying to herd God's scripture into the boxes which will support your cult's lies and elaborate deceptions:

By this same reasoning, God should not have promised a throne to David (1 Samuel 16:12-13; 2 Samuel 3:9-10; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5), since David, in future, would commit adultery and order the death of an innocent man (1 Samuel 11). God made His promises to David with full afore-knowledge of David's life to come. ...

This also brings up the question of Jesus’ promise to his twelve apostles: “Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 19:28). This promise was made before Judas betrayed the Master and he was obviously included among those who would sit on the “twelve thrones.” How could Jesus have made such a promise to the one who would betray him, whom he termed “a devil” (John 6:70-71)? You conveniently deceive the reader by ignoring the 'Ye which have followed me' ... Judas showed he was not following Jesus when he betrayed him. ...

The answer seems obvious: at the time of the promises, Judas, Thomas B. Marsh and George Miller were faithful to the Lord. By their subsequent actions, they lost all claim to those promises. The answer 'seems' obvious to one seeking to deceive in such a way as to support false doctrine, but it was never so that Jesus made a promise to Judas that Judas later destroyed the veracity thereof ... unless you actually believe that Judas or you or any Mormon is powerful enough to keep the Promises of God by your merit or negate God's unconditional promise by your already determined inability to defeat Satan and his minions. Actually, Mormonism teaches this exact false doctrine, that a Mormon can be so faithful as to make the Promises of God accrue or be unfaithful enough to have God cancel His unconditional Promise of Grace in Christ Jesus. And that is part of why your religion is a cult, a non-Christian look-alike that draws people away from Christ and toward self-salvation as was hinted in the Garden following the deceptive invitation to doubt the Promises of God to Adam and Eve... 'though shalt surely die' and they did, but not in body rather in soul when God's Holy Spirit did not take up residence in their human spirits.

“>>a one year Mission”

“Its a two year mission...”

Uhhh, ok, thanks I think... I admire Mormons even more now that I have learned it’s a two year mission. How’s that? Btw, are you a Mormon making a sincere correction or just one of the many pot shot’ers that lurk on this blog?

Pot shot’ers? I see a lot throwing up shields to the incoming volleys, but not much going the other way. I’m not sure what you are referring to.

Mormons invariably disdain the views of others by attacking their credibility. They imply or assert the points of a mormon critic are based upon bigotrys, ignorance, what have you. They refuse to face head on the criticisms. They are masters at dodging and evading... can’t wait til the ‘persecuation’ flag is waved in this thread.