The Cult has started a new ad campaign in New York [Where the Mormon tithe & temple fits in]

How about being straight up and saying that Mormons put on costumes and chant rituals in secret buildings that only 10% of gross earnings paid as "tithes" allow entrance?

Mormonism wants people to think they are normal that they are just Christians like everyone else. Each year they get rid of more and more of their embarrassing doctrines - or doctrines that aren't politically correct anymore. Apologist attack dogs fight any critics on technicalities.

Mormonism has one thing that works for them - and that is the funneling of cash from members to the Cult coffers. This is done through mandatory tithe. And in order to make this tithe work - and make the member believe in the Cult enough to pay - they have to have the secret temple ceremonies. You have to put a ton of make believe in there.

Stephen R. Donaldson is one of my favorite authors. In one of his series of books he explained how a great and noble group of leaders were slowly corrupted through the centuries by simple infiltration of ideas. The ideas changed the group slowly until they went from helping people to human sacrifices. The new leaders of the group knew what was going on - but they surrounded themselves with those who only had faith - not knowledge. Those who had faith were much stronger because they were driven by the new cult. Those who held faith were much easier to control.

Pondering the story Donaldson had written I saw the same manifested in the Cult of Mormonism. If you have members who are so convinced you are the one and only true Cult, they will not hesitate to open their pocketbooks and hand over everything. Mormonism needs this kind of special, secret, garment wearing, new name, pay lay ale - in order to keep the tithes flowing. If the cat is out of the bag, the tithing will stop.

So the reality is there is a certain point where Mormonism must stop moving towards Christianity - it has to because money is ultimately the top priority of the Cult. Money - Power - Control.

Look at all the recovery boards right now - even the NOM boards. What is the #1 topic right now because of upcoming December? Tithing. Tithing. Tithing. Oh and don't forget tithing. Sign up for tithing settlement. And don't forget to sign up for tithing settlement.

“All of our messaging is focused on helping people understand that Mormons are Christian,”

Naw, Mormonism isn't a Christian church. It's a secretive Cult with very cultish practices and it has to stay that way - or go broke.

Me: “Delf...if Lds missionaries were Christian, they would recognize and honor Christian homes as already Christian, and not proselytize them.”

You: Because protestants do that for each other... NOT!

Delf, yes, we know there are "wheat" and "chaff" in EVERY church body. But we don't do what Mormons do -- write them off as being forever off-limits to Heavenly Father -- if they don't join our particular church!

When it comes to visiting members of other truly Christian denominations, we don't say, "their entire roster are 'apostates'" -- as do Mormons!

Here's what I mean:

Snapshot of Joseph Smith’s Slanderous Invectives vs. Christian Sects

Mormon Source

[Note: Most of these are Mormon ‘scriptures'. In fact, First three rows below are Lds 'scripture' & therefore cannot be rug-swept any more than a Jew might try to take three commandments off of the very tablets of stone Moses brought down from the mountain]

“In 1952…the first official proselyting plan was sent to missionaries throughout the world…It included seven missionary discussions that emphasized…[four topics, one of them being]…THE APOSTASY and Restoration…” [This makes it 60 years that Mormon church missionaries, now numbering 55,000, have formally emphasized in its training & door to door saturation a priority in bashing the worldwide Christian church as “apostates” (100% AWOL)]

Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 116, 1996

#1 The “heart” of mormonism is the atonement of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

If it was, then Joseph Smith would have said: “The greatest responsibility in this world that God has placed upon us is to proclaim Christ's atonement.”

But Joseph Smith didn't say something like that, did he?

No, the "gospel" of Mormonism is not as you claim.

So, let's "hit" the rewind button, and see what Joseph Smith did say what THE most important component of Mormonism was, shall we?

“The greatest responsibility in this world that God has placed upon us is to seek after our dead.” (Joseph Smith, ToPJS, p. 356)

Now, knowing that OTHER Lds apologists have been quite slippery at times...with their first impulse to try to say, "Well, that's not from the 'standard works' of Lds 'scriptures,'"...let's see what one of the Lds general authorities said just over a year ago at its General Conference...shall we?

Per LDS Church News (see 'They are not forgotten' — Family history brings stake together [Mormons obsess with the dead]): In the October 2011 general conference, Elder David A. Bednar reiterated the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith who said: "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead."

Of course, Bednar was quoting those same words as found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 356.

How have other Lds "prophets" reinforced this (highly ritualistic-occultic) centrality of Mormonism?

Smith's great-nephew, Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, further stated: “But greater than all this, so far as our individual responsibilities are concerned, the greatest is to become SAVIORS, in our lesser degree which is assigned us, for the dead who have died without a knowledge of the Gospel. Joseph Smith said, ‘The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us, is to seek after our dead’…It will suffice here to say that the Lord has placed upon us this responsibility of seeing that our dead receive the blessings of the Gospel. Said Joseph Smith: ‘Those saints who neglect it, in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation.’” (The Way to Perfection, pp. 153-154)

Now...how do we know that Joseph Smith had in mind for Mormons to BAPTIZE every deceased person?

“No man can enter into the Kingdom of God but by the door and through the means that Jesus Christ has offered to the children of men. …NOT A SOUL that has ever lived and died from off the face of this earth shall escape a chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they receive it and obey it, the ordinances of the gospel will be performed for and in their behalf, by their kindred, or their posterity in some generation of time after them, so that every law and every requirement of the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be carried out, and the promises and requirements fulfilled for the salvation of the living and also for the salvation of the dead.” (Teachings of Presidents: Joseph F. Smith, p. 307, 1998; original source “Latter-day Saints Follow Teachings of the Savior,” Scrap Book of Mormon Literature, 2 vols. 2:561-562).

So...Mormons are simply doing what they're DIRECTED to do by their leadership!

And that is to obsess with the dead: “There is hardly any principle the Lord has revealed that I have rejoiced more in than in the redemption of our dead…” (Teachings of Presidents: Wilford Woodruff, pp. 192-193)

For more on this, see: Are Mormon people LITERAL saviors of dead Jews, others? (The OTHER World Series: Vanity)

**********

You see, DU! I suppose your time in Taiwan would have been better spent dredging up deceased names for proxy baptisms back home. (At least then you would have been "fulfilling" your "greatest responsibility" as a Mormon)...

So DU...a question for you: Why are you seeking the dead here on FRee Republic among us living in Christ?

B "If the Bible contains the Gospel, then what need have we of the Book of Mormon? If it's the same gospel, then it might be supplementary, but surely not necessary. If, as it clearly says on the cover of my copy, it's another gospel, then we should reject it, as God has commanded us to reject any other gospel."

Well, first of all, some here will get mad at me for stating the obvious, but the Bible is not all the inspired writings the Apostles had at there disposal, it references books of scripture which the bible does not contain.

Second, the apostles and Jesus quote from the book of Enoch (it's still in use by the copts and part of the dead sea scrolls) and that's not in there.

Third, In the Book of Ezekiel 37:15-19 it speaks of a book from the Jews (the Bible) and a book from the tribe of Joseph (the Book of Mormon):

15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us awhat thou meanest by these?

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Last, throughout the Bible we are told that God will establish truth in the mouths of two or three witnesses. The Book of Mormon is the second Witness of Jesus Christ.

B "The Gospel as preached, or the Gospel as written? It's not simply preached, it is clearly written that we are commanded to reject any other gospel. So, if we are to reject that command, so that we can accept the BoM, then we must believe that the Bible, as written and delivered to us, is not the Word of God."

Ah, so let's think about this for just a second, the Bible was not written all at once. Biblia (a collection of Books) is how the bible was originally seen. Galatians was one of many books and was written about 50-60 AD. Stopping all other books from being written after it would have precluded the Book of Revelations, and the Book of the Gospel of John. I think anyone who insists that God cannot add more to his works after Galatians was written is... well eliminating a lot of Gospel from the Bible.

Next, let's look at my contention that the Nicean Creed which was established at the first council at Nicea in 325 AD. here, I have a Section on it in my page at FR.

For those who are "click challenged", I can simply say they changed the very definition of God, the word "Trinity" does not exist in the KJV of the Bible. This Dogma is, I believe is exactly what Galatians 1 was all about.

You see Galatians as an indictment of our religion, I honestly see it as an indictment of the Orthodoxy of Christianity as you know it.

B "As soon as you accept that proposition, then you have no more standing to claim Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God than the Muslims have to claim Mohammed as a true prophet of God, or the SDA's have to claim Ellen White as a true prophet. We've arrived at simply taking a man's word for it that he knows better than the preserved scriptures, so one man has no more legitimate claim than any other."

You see we end up in completely different points from the same scripture. I did the research, I reference the Catholic encyclopedia online in my page linked above. Constantine changed the definition of God, making Joseph Smith necessary as a restorer of the truth, not a corrupter of it. As soon as you do the research, come back and we'll discuss it. I don't expect to change your mind, i don't want to change your mind, only you and God can do that.

B "If Joseph Smith VIII showed up tomorrow and said that an angel visited him and gave him a new restored gospel, because the BoM had been corrupted, how could you argue against it? For that matter, how can you argue against a very real example, such as Muslims? I can appeal to the Bible (and the Koran's endorsement of the Bible) to demonstrate to a Muslim that Muhammad was a false prophet, but what recourse do you have?"

What recourse does any man have?

My testimony is not "Gee I'm Gullible, tell me a story and I'll believe it" but a reasoned, well thought out course of action that is confirmed daily by the holy spirit.

I was no easy conversion, I was a member, but had to get "proof" from God.

My answer from God came to a prayer to God about the Book of Mormon, I received an answer that the Book of Mormon was his word and that It truly testified of Jesus Christ who was the savior of the world.

My testimony still burns sharply in my mind decades later and will for my whole life, I am blessed among men to have received such an answer, and I doubt it not.

I wish for all men to have an experience such as mine and if wanting all men to know God lives and loves them is a sin, may I be condemned for it and never be pardoned!

Boogieman, I promised answers such as I have, now you have them.

Delph

Anyway. . .can only see a pathetic ignorance at work here; or a willful ignorance (either of which invites fear/hate) that would blind one to the truth of one man; versus the lie of another...If there was fear of Mitt; there should be fear and horror of what lies ahead .

Ya wanna explain the apparent contradiction how you ended your commentary advocating "fear and horror" as to what lies ahead, all as you castigate me and others for comments which would only "invite fear...?"

Why is your fear-mongering licensed as "a-ok"...but you perceive others warning about Mormonism as prompting "fear" that's somehow out of bounds?

Wanna explain the seeming inconsistency?

Beyond that, Cricket, only a fool thinks the "brush fire" here on earth is the three-alarm, city-wide meltdown that hell represents.

I mean, don't we take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus? Or Freepers?

Here's Jesus:

"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)

So does Jesus say, "fear the jihadists?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the Sharia-law imposers?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the Marxists/Communists?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.

Why is that difficult to understand?

Well, first of all, some here will get mad at me for stating the obvious, but the Bible is not all the inspired writings the Apostles had at there disposal, it references books of scripture which the bible does not contain.

Well, the Harris' lost the first umpteen pages of what was to be the Book of Mormon, which Smith suspiciously didn't "retranslate" from the gold plates....Why not?

So the Book of Mormon is incomplete.

(That doesn't prompt Mormons to speak negatively of the BoM, now does it? That doesn't prompt Mormons to slight the BoM, now does it? That didn't prompt Smith to add a caveat in the Articles of Faith -- like Smith did the Bible about being "translated correctly", now did it? Why didn't Smith add a word about the BoM, saying, "insofar as the full 'translation' was published???"

Likewise, the Mormon Doctrines & Covenants is not a "complete" book, either. That doesn't prompt Mormons to speak negatively of the D&C, now does it? That doesn't prompt Mormons to slight the D&C, now does it?

You see, for Mormons, ONLY the Bible has these suspicions cast upon it with these statements.

They don't cast these same aspersions on their OTHER "standard works" for similar reasons.

Why, how "strange."

C “(a) That they counterfeit themselves as “Christians” (if they want to sell the Mormon brand, tis another matter)”
D “A) Assuming the consequent again...”
C “Delf...I do desire to be civil with you here and have a brief exchange...so let’s — just for the moment at least on this point — put aside which version of Christianity is “genuine” and which is a “counterfeit” — if any of them even are.”
Agreed.

C “Can we not at least agree that we ARE talking about mutually exclusive positioning here?”
As long as you insist the the trinity is true, and I insist that the Godhead is the correct definition, we are at an impass.

C “Your teaching is that the LDS church is “the only true and living church on the face of the earth.” (D&C 1:30). However personally civil you might be, DU, that pronouncement alone shoves me, all Protestants, all Catholics, and all Orthodox out the door of true Christianity.”
As does the pronouncement by the Catholics that all non Catholics are heretics or pagans. They declared that for years, I’m sure you know. I’m also sure that you know that many Protestant churches damned each other to hell for may years.

C “My label of Mormonism then as “counterfeit” is really not any different than your label of non-Mormon Christianity as “apostate”...false and dead...corrupt and abominable.”
Logical.

C “There is no middle ground then that the Mormon church allows here. Even tho we oft see comments from Lds leaders re: “the rest of Christianity” (like I saw on a recent BYU Maxwell Institute piece on Christian apostasy)...or a tone of “we’re Christians, too”...the Lds version of “Christianity” is quite intolerant of any legit “competitors” to that brand name...and in the long run, doesn’t wish to share “Christian” as fellow brand managers.”
Ah, here is the rub, Christian is imbued with Special meaning by Orthodox Christianity.

IMHO, The term Christian should apply to any one who follows Christ’s teachings no matter how he/she interprets the Bible or other books on Christ to get to those teachings.

Buddhists follow Buddha, Lutherans follow Luther, but we who follow Jesus are denied that association by you and yours.

Just for the record, if you were to say I am not an Orthodox Christian, I would immediately agree and without complaint!

C “So...Lds assume the consequent that we are corrupt, false, dead, abominable apostates; and we assume the consequent that Lds are counterfeit, heretical, and cultic.”
Not even remotely, we assume that since we think we are Christian, and You think you are Christian (even though we disagree on what that means) so we should both be called Christians and then denominations should be used to differtiate our differing beliefs.

This is how it is done in Buddhist, Muslim, and even pagan religions.

C “So even if you and I don’t wish to interactively wrestle with “who is right” on those questions, we can at least recognize that ecumenical “brand sharing” is really out of the question. Right?”
Nope, I think it can be done, there was even an ecumenical conference held in the tabernacle in Salt Lake (all they had to do was ask they even let some of us sit in!).

I have some Relatives whom I love dearly who never joined the LDS, they are Calvinists, we get along well, they tried to convert us, so we tried back, they tried again, it was fun as long as no one got bent out of shape.

C “Otherwise, evangelicals would need to halt its witnessing to Mormons; and Mormon missionaries would need to “move on” upon discovering that the doorbell they just rung are committed Christians.”
Just for the record, I have never been bothered by someone witnessing to me, and I let in anyone preaching Jesus, even if they are not of my faith... I am even friendly wiht the Jehovah’s Winesses here (yep, in Utah, whoda thunk?) I figure, God just may want me to think about him more today, Message received!

C “And none of that will ever happen. Right?”
I dunno, I’m game.

C “There, frankly, is NO respect on either side for the “other side” having a “legit” claim to the brand name of Christ. So, let’s at least don’t fall into clap-trap of pretending otherwise.”
I am truly sorry you feel that way, I don’t. Let me put it in a partisan, friendly sparring context, OK?

I don’t want you to stop praying in Jesus’ name just because you got the definition wrong.
I certainly don’t want you to try to call yourself something else and drive you further from Christ.
I want to encourage you to study, pray with me and come to a higher understanding, and I just might learn something too!
If you die without joining and having ordinances performed by the authority of Jesus Christ, I’ll see to it that they are done by proxy later so that you’ll have that technicality out of the way and can be judged for the really good person that you are.

OK, enough of the snarkyness, it’s fun but sometimes counter productive.

The point is, that is the way a lot of “ecumenical Christians” are with each other, we can play ball on that, just don’t expect us to drop our beliefs that are different for you, and you can keep yours that are different from us (until you learn better - Sorry!)

C “Are there any pts of agreement here?”
Yup, I see em! As Christains, I believe we should both be caring and loving the other person into Christs arms, not trying to push the other out of his grasp.

Delph

C “Re: Lds missionary bait & switch tactics... What I meant here is several things: 1. Lds missionaries will ask contacts to read & pray about (more pray than read) the Book of Mormon... Yet, most of the key distinctive doctrines that makes Mormonism distinctive from Christianity are not to be found there!”
When I taught as a missionary, the first discussion was about Joseph Smith, the first vision, and how the Godhead was different from the trinity. (Not much hiding going on if’n you ask me)
I did have a “pre-lesson” that I'd teach that i came up with myself. Most of the people we taught didn't know who Jesus was, even if they thought they did. I'd give them a quick update on Christianity, Catholics who are they, protestants, who are they, Mormons why are we not protestants. How Crhistain beliefs relate to Confucianism.

C “Becoming a god? (not there), That multiple gods exist? (not there), That god was once a man & has a physical body? (not there), Baptizing the dead? (not there), Temples used for ritualistic purposes...temple recommends...etc. (not there...oh, sure a few temples are mentioned...but never for purposes Lds claim they are for), 3 degrees of glory? (not there), Eternal progression? (not there)”
That stuff is all in the Bible, you just aren't focused on the scriptures they are from. Are you seriously complaining that we teach these things that can be found in the Bible?

C “2. Lds take perfectly good words...Christian vocab...and assign entirely different meanings to them without clueing their hearers that they are doing that.”
Like redefining God? (council of Nicea did that... Remember? There are two sides to every story)

C “For example, “Eternal damnation” becomes temporary damned up...or “becoming like God” — which hearers think is simply godliness...actually in Mormonese = being already a god-in-embryo, becoming perfect via Lds covenants, good works, ritualistic undertakings, being a full grown-up god, and getting your own planet to run.”
Eternal Damnation, nope, that's what it means Damned Eternally, now Eternal Is one of God's names, so I think you meant Eternal Punishment which is God's punishment, but not that it goes on forever (I'll have to get you a cheat sheet :-)
Becoming like God, just what it says, What that means differs in what you and I think God is like (see the council of Nicea thing again...)
Then you just start getting silly...

C “There's just no way that Lds missionaries would dare to unpack that for the contacts they meet...It'd scare ‘em all away!”
I unpacked as much as I could, and I had good success, you'd be surprised how fast people can learn by the spirit.

C “”Forgiveness” and “grace” are other misused Lds words...as they predicate receiving that based from God based upon merit/earnings...etc.”
Again, it's all in the Bible and how we and or you (mis)interpet it.

God bless you

Delph

B “Your four points are sensible, after all, they’re basically (except for the first) the same things that Protestants and Catholics continue to dispute over. However, the Protestants and Catholics do not really believe that any of their points of disputation alter the requirements for salvation, even if they aren’t really vocal about that fact, and many of their members are under the impression that they do. The Catholics, at least at this point in history, admit that the Protestants can be saved without agreeing with the Catholics on any of your other 3 points, and likewise, the Protestants admit that Catholics can be saved simply by faith in Jesus, even if they think that they are mistaken about these other points.”
Go back a few centuries, they weren’t so kind to each other.

B “So, I guess the crux of your argument really boils down to the belief in the Trinity. If I believe in a Jesus that is part of a Trinity, and you do not believe in a Jesus that is part of a Trinity, then do we really believe in the same Jesus? I mean, there are New Agers who believe that Jesus is a god in a pantheon of many gods. I don’t think that their Jesus is the same Jesus Christ that I believe in. Their Jesus is a product of their own imaginations.”
Well if I was to get Clintonian, I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
What ever Jesus *is* he *is* our belief, disbelief, understanding or misunderstanding does not change him.
We both believe that he is the only begotten of the Father, born of a virgin Mary, Bethlehem, star, wise men, etc.
Yep, were talking about the same guy, metaphorically speaking: you think God breaks the laws of physics and I think they share the mind of God to achieve oneness... So?

B “Likewise, the Muslims believe in a Jesus who was just a prophet, and they believe he prophesied the coming of Muhammad. I don’t believe that they believe in the Jesus that I know. So, why should I not also believe that your Jesus, who is not part of a Trinity, is also a different Jesus than the one I believe in? He doesn’t seem to meet the description that I am familiar with.”
Muslims Say Jesus was a prophet (Great Moral Teacher), but they don’t believe he told the truth when he said he was the Savior of the world.
You can’t have great moral teacher who is a liar, it shows that someone is trying to drive a square hole into a round peg. /humor

B “If I accept that Mormons and Christians do believe in the same Jesus, then why wouldn’t I also have to accept that the New Age Jesus and the Muslim Jesus are the same too?”
Because they don’t just understand differently, they don’t accept his testimony of who he is, hence they don’t believe him.

Let me put it this way. Most Christians in America teach there little ones to believe in Santa and the Easter bunny (which is funny to me right there, I know the history, but I digress) they do not teach there children to believe what Santa, or the Easter bunny says.

Thus the children are not Santaites, or Eaterbunnyists, they are not following teachings or even claiming to.

Muslims are not Christians because they don’t believe what he said.

New Defining new agers are like nailing jello to a tree, I’m hard pressed to say something they all believe.

Clear as mud? I hope I helped!

Delph

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.