# why not ask a Mormon?



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

It seems like in any thread that comes up concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the attacks (typically founded in wild distortions) soon follow.  

But it occurred to me, that perhaps there are some folks hanging around here who actually have sincere questions about things they've heard.  Heaven knows there is an immense body of false material out there seeking to discredit and harm the Mormon church for some reason.  It's an amazing phenomenon. 

So anyway, as a regular, every day Mormon, of almost 30 years now, who formerly was a member of the Methodist church, I'm offering to entertain any sincere question about the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints.

But please be prepared to answer questions in return about your own beliefs.

So, here's your chance.  Ask away!


----------



## ramsey (Dec 12, 2007)

I have never known more than a half dozen Morman families and they were good neighbors and fine hard working people. That said--- good luck with this thread!


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

What scripture does the LDS use to support their belief that God, our Heavenly Father, is an exalted man of flesh and bone?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> What scripture does the LDS use to support their belief that God, our Heavenly Father, is an exalted man of flesh and bone?



First, "exalted man" is a term that is loaded.  It can be misconstrued very easily.  Its a milk and meat kinda thing.

But as for the flesh and bone part, this one was settled when God the Father appeared to Joseph Smith.  

LDS believe in continuing revelation, and that God indeed still guides his people through a prophet today.  So, they are not left to their own individual interpretation of ancient scripture, or to things like the Nicaean compromise, to learn what God means by what he says.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips, did the other thread get deleted?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

It appears so.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> hawglips, did the other thread get deleted?



It shore did.  I hate it too.  Just as some were within grasp of an Epiphany the light was smote and buried deep in the ground.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> It shore did.  I hate it too.  Just as some were within grasp of an Epiphany the light was smote and buried deep in the ground.



I do not necessarily hate it. The thread got a little nasty.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> I do not necessarily hate it. The thread got a little nasty.



But you know what...if more people would "educate" themselves on other religions the world be a lot less nastier place.

People thrive on hearsay, lies and gossip, as it makes for a much more interesting story than the facts.  The hatred or insults generally stem from insecurity either of that individual person's faith or their denominations attempt at establishing its validity. 

It amazes me what some people believe or think they know.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> But you know what...if more people would "educate" themselves on other religions the world be a lot less nastier place.
> 
> People thrive on hearsay, lies and gossip, as it makes for a much more interesting story than the facts.  The hatred or insults generally stem from insecurity either of that individual person's faith or their denominations attempt at establishing its validity.
> 
> It amazes me what some people believe or think they know.



Boy you said a mouthfull there.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Boy you said a mouthfull there.



I chipped a tooth.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> LDS believe in continuing revelation, and that God indeed still guides his people through a prophet today.



How does the LDS square that with the apparent contradiction with Jude:

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> How does the LDS square that with the apparent contradiction with Jude:
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.



"Once" defined as in formerly.

I do not see an apparent contradiction, even if "once" was defined as "one time."


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

Why does the LDS teach that Elohim has ancestors?


----------



## brkbowma (Dec 12, 2007)

What kind of book do LDS live by, the Book of Mormon or the Bible?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

brkbowma said:


> What kind of book do LDS live by, the Book of Mormon or the Bible?



Or better yet, what is the difference between the two?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

In the Bible, we've got the Old Testament, and the New Testament.   They are records of God's dealing with his children through prophets in the vicinity of the mideast, from the creation and Adam up to the end of the Old Testament, and then again from Christ till the last recorded books written by his apostles and disciples.

The Book of Mormon, is a record of God's dealing with his children, starting in the mideast about 600 years BC, and ending somewhere in the western hemisphere about 400 AD.  We are fond of calling it "Another Testament" as it also testifies of Christ, but is a completely different record written by a completely different group of prophets and disciples.

Mormons strive to live by both.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

If Hawglips don't mind - I can answer this one - We live by both - we believe the KJV of the Bible to be the word of God - but we also have another book we live by and study as well - it is the Book of Mormon - We believe this book was written by profets of old as well - just as other prophets  of the Bible wrote of their times spent with Jesus Christ and before his time in the Holy land - the BOM was written by prophets here on the American continent - Jerusalem was becoming evil so the prophet Lehi was commanded by the Lord to take his family and a few others and built a boat and sail over to the "Promise Land"(the Americas) to get away from all the evil in the Holy Land. That is the start of the BOM. As time passed other prophets wrote books of scripture and it was all written on golden plates which were eventually hidden in what is now upstate New York in a stone box. This is the place Joseph Smith was led to by the Angel Moroni to discover the plates.






brkbowma said:


> What kind of book do LDS live by, the Book of Mormon or the Bible?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Why does the LDS teach that Elohim has ancestors?



That's a loaded and somewhat misleading question.

That being said, the notion of our own divine nature is something fairly unique to the LDS beliefs, I think.  

We believe that we are indeed children of our Heavenly Father, and can become heirs, and joint heirs with Christ, so to speak.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Allbeef, please feel free to jump in at any time!  And correct me if I say anything out of line.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

So the Mormons do not believe that God's word in the Bible is enough.  How about some of the other prophets that God spoke to in the America's?  Do you believe in them?  You know like Jim Jones, David Koresh etc?


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 12, 2007)

Back to Joseph Smith and the book of mormons I was told it came about because he found these gold bars which were written in a very old verison of Hebrew. How did he convert these over to english I heard one story that he looked into a special hat. Explain if I wrong about these bars( sorry its just what I was told) explain the history of the book.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So the Mormons do not believe that God's word in the Bible is enough.  How about some of the other prophets that God spoke to in the America's?  Do you believe in them?  You know like Jim Jones, David Koresh etc?



What is "enough?"


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> That's a loaded and somewhat misleading question.
> 
> That being said, the notion of our own divine nature is something fairly unique to the LDS beliefs, I think.
> 
> We believe that we are indeed children of our Heavenly Father, and can become heirs, and joint heirs with Christ, so to speak.



Loaded and misleading? You asked folks to ask questions and then you rip the person that asks the question. Please answer the question...or do I need to rephrase it? Okay, does the LDS believe that Elohim had ancestors?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So the Mormons do not believe that God's word in the Bible is enough.  How about some of the other prophets that God spoke to in the America's?  Do you believe in them?  You know like Jim Jones, David Koresh etc?



What did they tell you?


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> What is "enough?"



enough to be saved and live by.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Back to Joseph Smith and the book of mormons I was told it came about because he found these gold bars which were written in a very old verison of Hebrew. How did he convert these over to english I heard one story that he looked into a special hat. Explain if I wrong about these bars( sorry its just what I was told) explain the history of the book.



Joseph Smith was basically instructed (by the last author of the record) to retrieve a record written on gold plates and that he was to translate them by the gift and power of God, including "interpreters" that were with the plate, which he calle the "urim and thummim" as per those that Aaron placed in the ephod he wore when officiating in the holy place and holy of holies in the tabernacle.

Here's a fairly accurate description.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Urim_and_Thummim


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

Do mormons still believe it is acceptable to have more than one wife?


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 12, 2007)

Does the LDS have these plates today for people to see?


----------



## j_seph (Dec 12, 2007)

What is the LDS's belief on salvation?(accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior)
What is the LDS's belief towards the rapture?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> That's a loaded and somewhat misleading question.
> 
> That being said, the notion of our own divine nature is something fairly unique to the LDS beliefs, I think.
> 
> We believe that we are indeed children of our Heavenly Father, and can become heirs, and joint heirs with Christ, so to speak.




hawglips, your thread is destined to be 17 pages in length.  

Anyway, what is it about the question that was misleading?  He asked "Why does the LDS church teach that Elohim has ancestors?"  If it does not teach such a thing, simply state that the LDS does not believe that he has ancestors and believes that he has eternally existed and is not a created being (or whatever is the correct answer) rather than giving an answer that really does not address his question at all.

(By the way, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, rather, I am inviting you to specifically address his question.  I am not representing what I said is your viewpoint or that you could address it necessarily in so few words, but your answer was a "dodge").


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Back to Joseph Smith and the book of mormons I was told it came about because he found these gold bars which were written in a very old verison of Hebrew. How did he convert these over to english I heard one story that he looked into a special hat. Explain if I wrong about these bars( sorry its just what I was told) explain the history of the book.




Joseph was confused about what church to join - there were several churches in the area he lived and all of them proclaimed they had the truth - in a nut shell - he went into the woods to pray about this matter and God and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him none of the other churches had the FULL truth - so he didn't join any of them - several days later an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where he would find the Gold Plates that the BOM was written on. He found the plates and over several months was able to translate them into english through the power of God - as long as he was worthy the Spirit of the Lord would help him translate. No magic hat tricks


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Does the LDS have these plates today for people to see?



No.  After witnesses signed statements, Joseph Smith returned the plates in the summer of 1829 to the angel ("Moroni").


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> enough to be saved and live by.



Judging by the contradicting opinions of various denominations on such very basic questions as whether baptism is necessary for salvation, and the Nicaean compromise on the nature of God, etc, I'd say, evidently not.

There is not really anything new in the Book of Mormon as far as the gospel of Christ goes, but things get clarified just because there is someone else telling the story.

Take baptism, for example.  It is enough for me to believe that Bible means what it says regarding it.  But evidently, it isn't enough for others, because they don't believe it means what it says.  But when you cross reference the passages about baptism found in the Book of Mormon, things become very clear.  For example,

3 Nephi
  21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. 
  22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you. 
  23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. 
      •  •  •
  25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the bFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 
      •  •  •
   33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
  34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be ******************. 
      •  •  •
  37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things. 
  38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.


----------



## hevishot (Dec 12, 2007)

whats the deal with the guys on the bicycles? thanks


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Do mormons still believe it is acceptable to have more than one wife?



No, not on earth, today.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Do mormons still believe it is acceptable to have more than one wife?



No.

Due to the government's pressure to basically shut down the LDS church by imprisoning its leaders and freezing its assets, and the work of the church coming to a complete halt, they were left no choice but to discontinue it.  It was discontinued and outlawed within the church near the end of the 19th century.  

The president of the church at the time, Wilford Woodruff, had this to say about it:

_OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1 
To Whom It May Concern: 
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy— 
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory. 
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay. 
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. 
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. 
Wilford Woodruff
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 


EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) 

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . . 
I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . . 
The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. 
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? 
The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. 
. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . . 
I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.) 

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.) _


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

hevishot said:


> whats the deal with the guys on the bicycles? thanks



Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel...


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 12, 2007)

does God have a beginning or is eternal (always was, is and will be)?


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Joseph was confused about what church to join - there were several churches in the area he lived and all of them proclaimed they had the truth - in a nut shell - he went into the woods to pray about this matter and God and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him none of the other churches had the FULL truth - so he didn't join any of them - several days later an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where he would find the Gold Plates that the BOM was written on. He found the plates and over several months was able to translate them into english through the power of God - as long as he was worthy the Spirit of the Lord would help him translate. No magic hat tricks




Now you did it, I have another question. I have this question alot to others. You said as long as he was worthy. How can sinful man know or ever be worthy to the creator or the world?

I'll explain where Im coming from, I believe in eternal security where Im saved by what Jesus did not of anything of myself, Its a gift I recieve. The only work I can do is recieve it, like any gift(birthday, Christmas). Go into as much detail as you can about be worthy because thats where Im having the biggest problem.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

hevishot said:


> whats the deal with the guys on the bicycles? thanks



Those guys are missionaries - they take 2 yrs. out of there lives to teach what Mormons believe to anyone that wants to know what we believe. They are usually 19yrs old and they pay for this mission themselves - it is not usually church funded - but if someone wants to go who doesn't have the funds -  the church will fund them enough for them go. There schedule consist of getting up EVERY morning at 6:30am - studying the scriptures until usually 9am then searching for willing souls until 9pm or so - they must be back at home around 9:30pm and in bed by 10:30 or 11 - they live with 1 or more companions in an appartment - they usually have Mondays off to wash clothes, shop, and usually play a little B-ball - then at 6 or 7pm its back to the grined stone. 
Oh yeah - they don't always ride a bike - sometimes they get a car - especially if its a rural area - usually in cities or large towns they have bikes.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Anyway, what is it about the question that was misleading?  He asked "Why does the LDS church teach that Elohim has ancestors?"  If it does not teach such a thing, simply state that the LDS does not believe that he has ancestors and believes that he has eternally existed and is not a created being (or whatever is the correct answer) rather than giving an answer that really does not address his question at all.
> 
> (By the way, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, rather, I am inviting you to specifically address his question.  I am not representing what I said is your viewpoint or that you could address it necessarily in so few words, but your answer was a "dodge").



His question was like Huckabee saying, "Mormons believe Christ and Satan are brothers," i.e., insincere, and an attempt to mislead those reading the question.

As stated in my opening post, I will entertain "sincere" questions.  And admittedly, that's a totally subjective judgment.

But I'm not interested in humoring just any old thing someone writes with the intent to mislead.  

Sorry.

No one knows anything about God that hasn't been revealed by Him.   And how he came to be is one of those things I don't know, nor do I worry about.  

He is what He is.  My job is to do as He commands.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> His question was like Huckabee saying, "Mormons believe Christ and Satan are brothers," i.e., insincere, and an attempt to mislead those reading the question.
> 
> As stated in my opening post, I will entertain "sincere" questions.  And admittedly, that's a totally subjective judgment.
> 
> ...



Insincere? How in the world do you know if the question or I was insincere? I thought you were going to answer questions about your religion-or is it you are just going to answer the easy ones? 

Why don't you save everyone's time and give us a list of questions that we may ask and those that are off limits. 

Did God have ancestors, yes or no?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Now you did it, I have another question. I have this question alot to others. You said as long as he was worthy. How can sinful man know or ever be worthy to the creator or the world?
> 
> I'll explain where Im coming from, I believe in eternal security where Im saved by what Jesus did not of anything of myself, Its a gift I recieve. The only work I can do is recieve it, like any gift(birthday, Christmas). Go into as much detail as you can about be worthy because thats where Im having the biggest problem.




Todd - You and I both know the only perfect man that was or ever will be is Jesus Christ - Not my Bishop, your Preacher or the Pope or anyone else in this world is perfect or ever will be.

Just because we believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet - doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes - and since he was married - I'm sure he made alot according to his wife

As far as a sinful man being worthy to the creator - the Lord appeared to several prophets of old and talked with them just as we would talk to one another. He appeared to give guidance and direction. 

Not sure if this answers your question or not


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> He is what He is.



Well, sure, but you still did not answer his question.  I am sure he was looking for a more open and honest answer, like you gave above for the issue of polygamous marriages.  Instead, you have chosen to hold the cards close to your vest.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Insincere? How in the world do you know if the question or I was insincere? I thought you were going to answer questions about your religion-or is it you are just going to answer the easy ones?
> 
> Why don't you save everyone's time and give us a list of questions that we may ask and those that are off limits.
> 
> Did God have ancestors, yes or no?




I have been a Mormon all my life (27yrs.) & I'm not sure - it is not something we dwell on in Sunday school - and I don't think it has anything to do with me being saved. So really it doesn't matter to me right now anyway - it may later - after we depart from this life.


----------



## hevishot (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Those guys are missionaries - they take 2 yrs. out of there lives to teach what Mormons believe to anyone that wants to know what we believe. They are usually 19yrs old and they pay for this mission themselves - it is not usually church funded - but if someone wants to go who doesn't have the funds -  the church will fund them enough for them go. There schedule consist of getting up EVERY morning at 6:30am - studying the scriptures until usually 9am then searching for willing souls until 9pm or so - they must be back at home around 9:30pm and in bed by 10:30 or 11 - they live with 1 or more companions in an appartment - they usually have Mondays off to wash clothes, shop, and usually play a little B-ball - then at 6 or 7pm its back to the grined stone.
> Oh yeah - they don't always ride a bike - sometimes they get a car - especially if its a rural area - usually in cities or large towns they have bikes.



thanks, a very thorough answer! Appreciate it.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> does God have a beginning or is eternal (always was, is and will be)?



I don't know the answer to that. 

I have questions about how he came to be, but as far as we are concerned, and as far as our salvation is concerned, it doesn't matter, so I don't worry about it.

Mormons believe that we can become heirs of God, and become exalted and one day have some degree of god-like powers of creation.   

Its also believed to some degree that as man is God once was.   This is from a statement a prophet of the church made once.  We can speculate from that point.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 12, 2007)

*Do you have an answer?*

?  





j_seph said:


> What is the LDS's belief on salvation?(accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior)
> What is the LDS's belief towards the rapture?


 ?


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> I have been a Mormon all my life (27yrs.) & I'm not sure - it is not something we dwell on in Sunday school - and I don't think it has anything to do with me being saved. So really it doesn't matter to me right now anyway - it may later - after we depart from this life.



Thank you ALLBEEF. I am glad that you took the "high road" and said "I'm not sure." I thought Hawglips thread was sincere and was an attempt to share his beliefs, but apparently his motivation was to answer easy questions and hide behind "attack the questioner" when he doesn't have an answer. Thanks again.

The question was asked since it is in direct relation to the deity of God and to the accuracy or veracity of the scriptures.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Did God have ancestors, yes or no?



I don't know.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> I don't know.



Thank you.

Are you aware that the LDS teaches that He does?


----------



## brkbowma (Dec 12, 2007)

Why don't LDS celebrate and recognize Christmas as the day Jesus Christ, God's only son, was born?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

j_seph said:


> What is the LDS's belief on salvation?(accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior)
> What is the LDS's belief towards the rapture?



The "rapture" is not a biblical term, and not something LDS use.

The 2nd Coming of Christ is believed as per Revelations and other scriptures concerning it.  I don't think there's any difference in this doctrine.

As for being saved, the LDS concept of salvation is basically that man disqualifies himself by sin, and only through the atonement of Christ can we be saved.  We make the atonement work for us by belieiving on Jesus Christ, repenting of our sins, being baptized, and enduring to the end (meaning keeping the commandments and repenting).

In other words, just because one has repented of his sins once, and has confessed the name of Christ, it doesn't mean that he can't fall away into ****ation. 

We believe everybody will be resurrected, and one day be brought to stand before Jesus to be judged according to their deeds.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

brkbowma said:


> Why don't LDS celebrate and recognize Christmas as the day Jesus Christ, God's only son, was born?



We do celebrate Dec. 25th as Christmas.   We love celebrating Christmas just like anybody else.  I've got an 8 foot Christmas tree up at my house, with lots of lights, and presents, and Christmas music, and egg nog (non-alcoholic) and misletoe, etc.  At my house, we read the Biblical story of Christ's birth, and I get my kids to dress up and play the parts of Mary, Joseph, shephards, wise men, etc.  It's my favorit time of year!

At church, we have nice Christmas programs, re-tell the story of Christ's birth, and dwell on his birth just like everybody else this time of year.

But we don't think He was actually born on that day.  The Christmas holiday, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong since this is not an LDS belief, came out of the pagan winter solstice holiday or something like that, I believe.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Are you aware that the LDS teaches that He does?



I'm aware of the speculation surrounding the "as man is God once was, and as God is man can become" statement.

But its not something that is taught officially in any lessons or anything that I'm aware of.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> I'm aware of the speculation surrounding the "as man is God once was, and as God is man can become" statement.
> 
> But its not something that is taught officially in any lessons or anything that I'm aware of.



To expand on that somewhat, do you believe that a man can progress to a point that he is also a god?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

j_seph said:


> What is the LDS's belief on salvation?(accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior)
> What is the LDS's belief towards the rapture?



Sorry bud - we have been wrapped up!

Mormons believe that you must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and be baptised just as Jesus was baptised. We also believe you must endure till the end - which means strive to keep the Commandments and live by the word of God - and when one falls to the temptations of the Devil - ask for forgivness and try not to do that anymore.

As far as the Rapture - we believe when Jesus died for us - he saved eveyone from Death- not from ************ - We believe everyone will be resurected at the last day - but then there will be a judgement - and those that have done what they must do to return to live with Christ - they will - those that have not - won't.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> I don't know.




Well, that is certainly a fair answer.  I would give the same answer to any number of questions (except on right to keep and bear arms issues!  ).

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie, in  Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), on pages 576-577 writes that " . . . a plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods."

Since most of the curious people (me included) asking these questions believe in one _eternal_ God (_no Gods before me and none after_ sort of thing), but Apostle McConkie teaches that there are, potentially an "infinite" number of them, my question for you is:

Is it not true that you consider yourself a monotheist because your worship concentrates solely on the Godhead of _this_ earth, while also believing there are other gods?

I am not trying to "load" the question, but I am not sure how else to ask about this exact issue.  This at least _appears_ to be a huge difference between Mormonism and most other religions claiming the title of Christianity, assuming I have not seriously mistated anything (and, of course, assuming that the answer to my question is "yes," which you are free to correct my assumption if the answer is instead "no").


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Those guys are missionaries - they take 2 yrs. out of there lives to teach what Mormons believe to anyone that wants to know what we believe. They are usually 19yrs old and they pay for this mission themselves - it is not usually church funded - but if someone wants to go who doesn't have the funds -  the church will fund them enough for them go. There schedule consist of getting up EVERY morning at 6:30am - studying the scriptures until usually 9am then searching for willing souls until 9pm or so - they must be back at home around 9:30pm and in bed by 10:30 or 11 - they live with 1 or more companions in an appartment - they usually have Mondays off to wash clothes, shop, and usually play a little B-ball - then at 6 or 7pm its back to the grined stone.
> Oh yeah - they don't always ride a bike - sometimes they get a car - especially if its a rural area - usually in cities or large towns they have bikes.



I served as a missionary in Hong Kong for two years back in the early '80s.

We mostly walked and took public transportation. 

It definitely changed my life.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> To expand on that somewhat, do you believe that a man can progress to a point that he is also a god?



If a man does all of the necessary things - Accept Christ as his Savior, be baptised, recieve the Priesthood, be married in the Temple for time and all Eternity - and THEN endure till the end - - after all of this - we believe a man can be exalted - never to equal God - but to be as God is - but again not equal - 

When I think of this I compare it to my children - I want them to be the best they can be and eventually I want them to have the things that I have or something similar -i.e. - family, maybe a farm, or a great business - - I think our Lord is the same way - I think he wants us to be able to expierence all that he has expierenced.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Well, that is certainly a fair answer.  I would give the same answer to any number of questions (except on right to keep and bear arms issues!  ).
> 
> Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie, in  Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), on pages 576-577 writes that " . . . a plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods."
> 
> ...



Note that McConkie used a small "g" gods.   And since we can all be heirs of God, I take this to be referring to such heirs.

So yes, definitely monotheistic.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> If a man does all of the necessary things - Accept Christ as his Savior, be baptised, recieve the Priesthood, be married in the Temple for time and all Eternity - and THEN endure till the end - - after all of this - we believe a man can be exalted - never to equal God - but to be as God is - but again not equal -
> 
> When I think of this I compare it to my children - I want them to be the best they can be and eventually I want them to have the things that I have or something similar -i.e. - family, maybe a farm, or a great business - - I think our Lord is the same way - I think he wants us to be able to expierence all that he has expierenced.



Can a woman be exalted?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Can a woman be exalted?




Yes - when she is married to a worthy male in the Temple as stated in my other post.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Yes - when she is married to a worthy male in the Temple as stated in my other post.



Thanks.

Can a Mormon be saved and yet not reach full exhaltation?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Can a Mormon be saved and yet not reach full exhaltation?



Yes.  The degrees of glory concept.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Yes.  The degrees of glory concept.



Where in the Bible is this doctrine taught?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Where in the Bible is this doctrine taught?



I am at work and can't quote it right off ( shame on me I know) maybe Hawglips can - but in the Bible it is where it is talking about the "Glory of the Sun - moon and stars" one is the Celestial Glory, Terrestrial glory, and Telestial glory.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Note that McConkie used a small "g" gods.   And since we can all be heirs of God, I take this to be referring to such heirs.
> 
> So yes, definitely monotheistic.



I did notice that.  So, are these gods with small "g"s each worshipped with adoration by people of their own worlds (i.e., not this world)?  I mean, Apostle McConkie is not talking about people of this world becoming heirs of God the first, since he says "drawn from worlds without number," right?

And did God the first once worship one of these gods (with a small "g")?

And was God the first _created_ at some point in time by one of these gods?

On these last two questions I will confess that I do not have a clue what your answer will be.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Yes - when she is married to a worthy male in the Temple as stated in my other post.


So a woman can only be exalted through a man?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So a woman can only be exalted through a man?



Exalted - No 

But just say she never marrys - she can still be saved and end up in the Celestial Kingdom(glory) - but she will not be exalted - which is the highest degree of glory - like God.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So a woman can only be exalted through a man?



To answer your question - yes


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So a woman can only be exalted through a man?



Neither a woman without the man, nor the man without the woman.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> - which is the highest degree of glory - like God.


So Mormans think they can be like God?

I am soooo confuseeeeeed!  What does exalted mean to a Morman?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Where in the Bible is this doctrine taught?



This concept is based primarily on revelation given to Joseph Smith.

But a Biblical reference is:

1 Corinthians 1
  40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 
  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 
  42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> So Mormans think they can be like God?
> 
> I am soooo confuseeeeeed!  What does exalted mean to a Morman?



Exalted to a Mormon means -- to recieve all that the Father has - to be as God is - but never equal too.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

Thanks.  I think I like the Christian faith better.  All we have to believe is that Jesus died for our sins.  It is simple really.  Some try to make it harder.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> I did notice that.  So, are these gods with small "g"s each worshipped with adoration by people of their own worlds (i.e., not this world)?  I mean, Apostle McConkie is not talking about people of this world becoming heirs of God the first, since he says "drawn from worlds without number," right?
> 
> And did God the first once worship one of these gods (with a small "g")?
> 
> ...



We believe God created worlds without number.  We are not necessarily his only world peopled with folks after his own image.

Its all speculation past that point. 

And if we take the "as man is God once was" statement so widely quoted literally, then maybe he did have a similar relationship as we have with Him.

But it doesn't matter at all to me.   We don't know all the mysterious, and doesn't change my relationship with God.  I don't want to lose focus on what I'm here on earth for, and don't think any of us should.

Our finite and time-based minds cannot comprehend infinite and eternal.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Thanks.  I think I like the Christian faith better.  All we have to believe is that Jesus died for our sins.  It is simple really.  Some try to make it harder.



Randy, do you believe Jesus Christ was resurrected?

If so, what is his state of "resurrectedness" today?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Thanks.  I think I like the Christian faith better.  All we have to believe is that Jesus died for our sins.  It is simple really.  Some try to make it harder.



No you don't.  You have to act the part as well.  You are oversimplifying the Book and what is in it.

FYI: Mormon is a Christian faith.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

hevishot said:


> thanks, a very thorough answer! Appreciate it.



Hevishot,

Is that you in your avatar picture?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> No you don't.  You have to act the part as well.  You are oversimplifying the Book and what is in it.



Amen.



dawg2 said:


> FYI: Mormon is a Christian faith.



Yes, and very much so.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and very much so.



Sorry.  That comment just got to me.  Kind of like the little smart aleck in school who says he'll be nice now so you don't thump on him, runs behind his mom and then starts thumbing his nose at you.

Couldn't hold back.


----------



## hevishot (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Hevishot,
> 
> Is that you in your avatar picture?



yep..Im the good lookin' feller in the middle.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

hevishot said:


> yep..Im the good lookin' feller in the middle.




Heck yeah - ain't no shame here on this forum!


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Randy, do you believe Jesus Christ was resurrected?
> 
> If so, what is his state of "resurrectedness" today?


He ascended into heaven to be with his father as I will do one day.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> No you don't.  You have to act the part as well.  You are oversimplifying the Book and what is in it.
> 
> FYI: Mormon is a Christian faith.





Dawg - We appreciate that - even though we don't believe all of the same things - we certainly don't feel the need to bash anyones "Christian" faiths. 

Some of the peoples responses on here are very rude and not very Christian like to me - however - most of the post have been very respective - this is the way it should be.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> He ascended into heaven to be with his father as I will do one day.



So, this means you believe he ascended as a resurrected being?

This is not a trick question or anything.  I'd just like to get an idea about your concept of what God is like.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> No you don't.  You have to act the part as well.  You are oversimplifying the Book and what is in it.
> 
> FYI: Mormon is a Christian faith.



Wrong.  There is not acting.  You accept Jesus you get saved.  That is all there is.  The part some call acting or being good is a result of being saved.  It just happens.  Do some christian sometimes not appear to be saved?  Yep.  We all sin and fall short of His glory.  We are not nor can we be "like" God.

It truely is very simple.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> He ascended into heaven to be with his father as I will do one day.



Randy - do you belive there will be a judgment day?


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> So, this means you believe he ascended as a resurrected being?
> 
> This is not a trick question or anything.  I'd just like to get an idea about your concept of what God is like.



Not sure what you mean here.  Jesus did appear to be human but he would not let them touch him.  Maybe if they had, they would not have "felt" nothing.  As in maybe he was a spirit appearing as human.  I don't know, I was not there and it does not matter to me anyway.

A concept of what God is like?  He made us in is image?  Not really sure what that means either, I certainly do not thing God is human.  But again it does not matter to me.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Not sure what you mean here.  Jesus did appear to be human but he would not let them touch him.  Maybe if they had, they would not have "felt" nothing.  As in maybe he was a spirit appearing as human.  I don't know, I was not there and it does not matter to me anyway.



Mary Magdelene saw his body was gone and thought they took him.  She didn't know he was alive again in that body (resurrected).  Then when she saw him, He told Mary not to touch him at first, because he had not yet ascended to his Father.

But then later (evidently after he had gone to his Father and come back), he appeared to his disciples and had them feel his hands and feet and know that it was him.  And doubting Thomas had to feel him to believe he had actually raised himself from the dead.

And later, they ate fish with him.   

And in addition to the testimony of those that saw Jesus after he was resurrected, and felt the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet, he also appeared to a group in the western hemisphere and let them touch him and handle him there as well.  This is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

So the concept of Jesus having in reality been resurrected, is one that the Mormon faith is very clear about.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

So we both believe He was resurrected.  My book does not speak of that later meeting in the western hemisphere but that would not matter to me anyway.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> FYI: Mormon is a Christian faith.



Are Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodix, and Lutherans each a Christian faith?


I mean from your perspective and hawglips?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Are Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodix, and Lutherans each a Christian faith?
> 
> 
> I mean from your perspective and hawglips?


  From my perspective I do not see why they would not be.

John 10:16 (King James Version)

 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Just for my personal notes: What religion are you and/or what version of Bible do you read from?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> But you know what...if more people would "educate" themselves on other religions the world be a lot less nastier place.
> 
> People thrive on hearsay, lies and gossip, as it makes for a much more interesting story than the facts.  The hatred or insults generally stem from insecurity either of that individual person's faith or their denominations attempt at establishing its validity.
> 
> It amazes me what some people believe or think they know.




Well, then, let's get educated, dawg2.  Here are some things I do not know or understand about your faith.  Joseph Smith claimed that God the father had a father, who had a father, who . . .   well, you get the idea.  Does this address the "ancestor" question somebody else asked?

I do not understand how it cannot.  The following words certainly appear to indicate that God was a created being, with a string of Gods before him.



> I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. _Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them_."





> If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, _can we not believe that He had a Father also_? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.





> I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before?



Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373

This sure _sounds_ like ancestors.  More importantly, it sounds like more Gods, with a _capital_ G.  Rather than speculate, I just thought I would post it, along with a link to the entirety, for context, if needed.  That way, I cannot be accused of gossip, hearsay, or lies, as you might suppose.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Well, then, let's get educated, dawg2.  Here are some things I do not know or understand about your faith.  Joseph Smith claimed that God the father had a father, who had a father, who . . .   well, you get the idea.  Does this address the "ancestor" question somebody else asked?
> 
> I do not understand how it cannot.  The following words certainly appear to indicate that God was a created being, with a string of Gods before him.
> 
> ...




I'll let Hawglips answer those.  I am not Mormon, I'm Catholic.  So in order to keep from Hijacking his thread, you can ask questions about mine here: http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=156353

I'm just here reading about his Faith and his answers.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Its also believed to some degree that as man is God once was.



So from this mormon's believe that God had a beginning and was once mortal?

If He was once mortal how did He become immortal?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> Jesus did appear to be human but he would not let them touch him.




Randy?

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 

 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "_Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe_." 

 26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." 

 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and _put it into My side_; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 

 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> I'll let Hawglips answer those.  I am not Mormon, I'm Catholic.





  Oops!


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> In other words, just because one has repented of his sins once, and has confessed the name of Christ, it doesn't mean that he can't fall away into ****ation.
> 
> We believe everybody will be resurrected, and one day be brought to stand before Jesus to be judged according to their deeds.



****ation is mentioned so mormon's believe in a ****?

By the way thanks for answering these!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Oops!



No Problem.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Just for my personal notes: What religion are you and/or what version of Bible do you read from?



I read from _any_ version, but my favorite is the New American Standard (NASB), as it is the most literal translation I could find.  I like the new ESV, but it is not different enough to change.

As for my religion, I am content to be simply a Christian, with nothing else manmade added to it.  I think denominationalism is sinful (I am not nondenominational, I am anti-denominational).  If you had nothing but the New Testament and no other religion, and started teaching others about the death of Jesus and the New Testament requirements to have forgiveness of sins, and worshiped according to the pattern in the first century recorded in the Bible, then you would not be setting up another manmade denomination, but rather you and the others would be a congregation of the Lord's church.

Like you, I do not wish to hijack hawglip's thread, either, or pull it too far off topic, so I will let it rest there (but I did not want you to think I was rude by not answering your question).   Maybe I will start an "Ask a Christian" thread.    But I imagine that would get too far off track before it even got started.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Are Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodix, and Lutherans each a Christian faith?
> 
> 
> I mean from your perspective and hawglips?



Ok, hawglips, I will have to get _your_ answer, instead of dawg2.  I need to pay more attention.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> I read from _any_ version, but my favorite is the New American Standard (NASB), as it is the most literal translation I could find.  I like the new ESV, but it is not different enough to change.
> 
> As for my religion, I am content to be simply a Christian, with nothing else manmade added to it.  I think denominationalism is sinful (I am not nondenominational, I am anti-denominational).  If you had nothing but the New Testament and no other religion, and started teaching others about the death of Jesus and the New Testament requirements to have forgiveness of sins, and worshiped according to the pattern in the first century recorded in the Bible, then you would not be setting up another manmade denomination, but rather you and the others would be a congregation of the Lord's church.
> 
> Like you, I do not wish to hijack hawglip's thread, either, or pull it too far off topic, so I will let it rest there (but I did not want you to think I was rude by not answering your question).   Maybe I will start an "Ask a Christian" thread.    But I imagine that would get too far off track before it even got started.




Intersting, and fair enough.

QUOTE:  Maybe I will start an "Ask a Christian" thread. 
I bet it gets deleted by page 1, well before that last one did


Must be skeered


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

Does the Mormon church teach that God and Mary physically joined in a sex act and that the result thereof was the conception of Jesus?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

SBG said:


> Does the Mormon church teach that God and Mary physically joined in a sex act and that the result thereof was the conception of Jesus?



NO!


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Are Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodix, and Lutherans each a Christian faith?
> 
> 
> I mean from your perspective and hawglips?





Of course they are - we all believe in the same Jesus Christ - we just all believe different things took place - this is why there are so many different churches.


----------



## Randy (Dec 12, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> As for my religion, I am content to be simply a Christian, with nothing else manmade added to it.  I think denominationalism is sinful (I am not nondenominational, I am anti-denominational).  If you had nothing but the New Testament and no other religion, and started teaching others about the death of Jesus and the New Testament requirements to have forgiveness of sins, and worshiped according to the pattern in the first century recorded in the Bible, then you would not be setting up another manmade denomination, but rather you and the others would be a congregation of the Lord's church..



I do like the way you think.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 12, 2007)

It will prolly be tomorrow before Hawglips will be back on - and I am fixing to wrap it up for tonight - see ya'll around 8 am tomorrow - Keep posting and we will continue to answer questions tomorrow - ya'll have a good night and God Bless!


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> NO!



Is this a relatively new position that the LDS has taken? There is ample evidence that Brigham Young believed that Jesus was the result of a physical sex act between God and Mary.


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Of course they are - we all believe in the same Jesus Christ - we just all believe different things took place - this is why there are so many different churches.



Then why does the Mormon book, The Pearl of Great Price, claim that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19)?


----------



## pfharris1965 (Dec 12, 2007)

*...*



Malum Prohibitum said:


> I read from _any_ version, but my favorite is the New American Standard (NASB), as it is the most literal translation I could find. I like the new ESV, but it is not different enough to change.
> 
> As for my religion, I am content to be simply a Christian, with nothing else manmade added to it. I think denominationalism is sinful (I am not nondenominational, I am anti-denominational). If you had nothing but the New Testament and no other religion, and started teaching others about the death of Jesus and the New Testament requirements to have forgiveness of sins, and worshiped according to the pattern in the first century recorded in the Bible, then you would not be setting up another manmade denomination, but rather you and the others would be a congregation of the Lord's church.
> 
> Like you, I do not wish to hijack hawglip's thread, either, or pull it too far off topic, so I will let it rest there (but I did not want you to think I was rude by not answering your question). Maybe I will start an "Ask a Christian" thread.  But I imagine that would get too far off track before it even got started.


 
...welcome to another non-fanatical poster...

At the end of the day...*NOBODY* (despite what the voices may have told them  ) posting here knows the REAL answer anyhow...but some of the postings here do make for some seriously welcome comedic relief...


----------



## SBG (Dec 12, 2007)

Who were the Lamanites?


----------



## Todd E (Dec 12, 2007)

Who do you believe Jesus is? Do you believe He is God?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Are Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Catholics, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodix, and Lutherans each a Christian faith?
> 
> 
> I mean from your perspective and hawglips?



I don't know too much about some of those, but I would consider all the above to be Christian religions.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Then why does the Mormon book, The Pearl of Great Price, claim that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19)?



Who said that?  And when?  And what was the context?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Todd E said:


> Who do you believe Jesus is? Do you believe He is God?



Yes.   

"Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  Under the direction of your Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth (John 1:10; Hebrews 1:1–2).  Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ overcame death for you.  Everyone, the righteous and wicked alike, will receive the gift of resurrection. When life on this earth is over, Jesus Christ will serve as the final Judge ( Acts 17:31; John 5:21–22; Acts 10:42). 

Heavenly Father loves you and wants you to return to live with Him when you die.  This is only possible through the Savior Jesus Christ ( John 14:6). 

Through the Atonement—performed by Jesus Christ with His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by His suffering and the voluntary surrender of His life on the cross–He saves you from your sins as you sincerely repent and follow Him. ( 1 Peter 2:21) . 

Jesus Christ lived a perfect life while on the earth, approximately 2,000 years ago.  Leading by example, He taught how to pray and how to humbly serve others, and He demonstrated the manner in which all should be baptized. 

If you follow His example as closely as possible, you will not only find joy in your life, but you will someday return to live with Him and your Father in Heaven.  Specifically, you are to: 

Have faith in Him ( Mark 11:22–24). 
Repent of your sins ( Acts 2:38). 
Receive baptism ( John 3:3–6), the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the other ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
Keep His commandments ( John 14:15). 
Today, as in the days of Jesus Christ, there are certain principles of the gospel that people are to learn to obey. 

The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: 

First, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Second, repentance. 
Third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. 
Fourth, laying on of hands? for the gift of the Holy Ghost."  

-from LDS website


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Who were the Lamanites?



I think you should share that with us.  You're doing a good job of helping Allbeef and I out on these questions.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> I think you should share that with us.  You're doing a good job of helping Allbeef and I out on these questions.



Its your thread and you asked for questions. Don't you think it is disingenuous to ask for questions and then be offensive in your remarks? 

Since the Lamanites are such a large portion of The book of Mormon, can you please simply answer the question? Who are/were the Lamanites?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Is this a relatively new position that the LDS has taken? There is ample evidence that Brigham Young believed that Jesus was the result of a physical sex act between God and Mary.



Brigham Young also believed Abraham Lincoln was a "cursed scoundrel" and "no friend to Christ."

Here is what the Book of Mormon says about the conception:

Alma 7:10 we read: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, ... she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

(SBG, maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of all those anti-Mormon websites.)

Here is what the Bible says about it:

Matthew 1:18 and 20: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." 

But we also know that the Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Its your thread and you asked for questions.



Correction.  I asked for SINCERE questions.

And I also insisted that any who ask question be prepared to answer some in return.

I will gladly answer any sincere questions.  You obviously are not interested in learning who the Lamanites were.  

Now, here's my question to you.

Why do you ask me who the Lamanites were?


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Who said that?  And when?  And what was the context?



Who said that? Joseph Smith, the founder of your religion and its first prophet.

And when? When Smith was 15 and was praying in the woods for guidance.

And what was the context? Smith asked God and Jesus which "sect" he should follow. This was their response as recorded in the Mormon book Pearl of Great Price.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any beingjust at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two ersonages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the ersonages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the ersonage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Doesn't sound like the founder of your religion has a high regard for other denominations. 

Has the LDS changed their stance?


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Why do you ask me who the Lamanites were?



Because in all of my years of Sunday School and Church, I have never heard of the Lamanites. They appear to be a very intregal part of the teachings of the LDS in regards to the North American continent habitation and I am curious what the LDS teach in their Sunday Schools who are the Lamanites?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

So, Joseph Smith doesn't claim to have said, it but he claims the Lord said it to him.

Do you think maybe the various Christian denominations of the time (1820) might have been drawing near to God with their lips, but their hearts remained far from Him?

And it reminds me of a lot of folks today.   How often have we heard of so-called men of God ripping people off in the name of God?  Lots of them seem to be more interested in fame and fortune than they are interested in following the Lord and helping others find Him.  And lots of folks I know today give the Lord a lot of lip service. 

As the Savior warned us,

 Matthew 7
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Do you think maybe the various Christian denominations of the time (1820) might have been drawing near to God with their lips, but their hearts remained far from Him?



Absolutely. But do you understand or perceive the actual implications of those comments? Especially when placed in context of the principle of abomination and corruption in the Bible. 

Do you realize that God is unchanging according to the scriptures. You seem to make light or try and gloss over the fact that the founder of your religion claims that God said to him that all other Christian "sects" were an abomination to Him.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Doesn't sound like the founder of your religion has a high regard for other denominations.
> 
> Has the LDS changed their stance?



Correction.  Joseph Smith didn't say that.  

The Lord said that.  Joseph Smith just repeated what he was told by the Lord.

And then he was hated, persecuted, and eventually killed for it -- by "Christians."  But he never backed down any from what he says the Lord told him.

His followers were killed, pillaged, their homes burned, and chased from state to state -- until they finally left the US and went out to what was then part of Mexico -- by "Christians."  Interestingly enough, the Mormons have the distinction of being the only religion chased from place to place like that in this country.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Correction.  Joseph Smith didn't say that.
> 
> The Lord said that.  Joseph Smith just repeated what he was told by the Lord.
> 
> ...




Native Americans Indians had a "fairly" common religion, so I guess you could throw them in the mix.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Absolutely. But do you understand or perceive the actual implications of those comments? Especially when placed in context of the principle of abomination and corruption in the Bible.
> 
> Do you realize that God is unchanging according to the scriptures. You seem to make light or try and gloss over the fact that the founder of your religion claims that God said to him that all other Christian "sects" were an abomination to Him.



I don't make light or gloss over that at all.  In fact, that was the question Joseph Smith was wanting answered -- which church to join -- the day he went into the woods to follow through on the promptings he got when he read James 1 -- to ask of God.

So, one either believes God spoke to Him, or one does not.  That is the question that the entire religion hinges on.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Does this mean that Mormons think all other Christians are going to ****?

Not necessarily.  There will be some though.  And  Mormons think there will be plenty of Mormons that go to ************ too.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Correction.  Joseph Smith didn't say that.
> 
> The Lord said that.  Joseph Smith just repeated what he was told by the Lord.



If God said it, it has to be true, right? 

By necessary implication, the LDS must believe that all other Christian groups are wrong and they are the only group that is right. Is that what you believe?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Mormons also believe that there will lots of other Christians who will be caught up to be with Christ at his 2nd coming, and will dwell with Him when he reigns during the millineum.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> If God said it, it has to be true, right?
> 
> By necessary implication, the LDS must believe that all other Christian groups are wrong and they are the only group that is right. Is that what you believe?



The only group that has the authority from God -- yes.

It doesn't mean that Mormons are necessarily more righteous than any one else.  Just that they have been given the keys.  That the full gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored, complete with the authority, through Joseph Smith.

It all comes down to that question.   Was Joseph Smith really a prophet of God?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Native Americans Indians had a "fairly" common religion, so I guess you could throw them in the mix.



LOL!!!  You've got a valid point!!


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> It all comes down to that question.   Was Joseph Smith really a prophet of God?



Does the LDS teach that the Book of Mormon is complete and final in its authority, and is not subject to revision by continuing revelation?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Does the LDS teach that the Book of Mormon is complete and final in its authority, and is not subject to revision by continuing revelation?



The Book of Mormon is complete.  But there were other parts of the record that never got translated by Joseph Smith, or that aren't included in what we know as the Book of Mormon. 

That also doesn't mean there aren't other ancient scriptures other than the Bible and the Book of Mormon that we don't know about.   (We know there are lots of "books" of scripture mentioned in the Bible that we have no record of, for example.)  We don't limit God that way.

And a prophet of God is subject to passing on whatever the Lord tells him.  That's what prophets do.  If they didn't, then we wouldn't have most of the Bible or the Book of Mormon. 

Amos 3
7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Randy said:


> So we both believe He was resurrected.  My book does not speak of that later meeting in the western hemisphere but that would not matter to me anyway.



So, Randy, do you believe God has a resurrected body?  If not, why not?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Does the LDS teach that the Book of Mormon is complete and final in its authority, and is not subject to revision by continuing revelation?



Hey guys - I been reading along but just got caught up enought to respond.

As far as the BOM being complete - what is written is correct - because it has only been translated once - and it was translated by the power of God.

As far as continuing revelations - yes - our Prophet Gordon B. Hinkley recieves revelations from God on a daily basis - now mind you most of the time it is not some type of mind blowing prophecy - most of the time it is just council to us to continue and try harder to live as we should - ie. do our home teaching, family home evening, fulfill our callings and live as a good example to others and of course service to others.
Keep in mind that we do believe President Hinkley can recieve (I guess you could say) "big revelations" but most of the time it is just reminding us to stay pure.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Hey guys - I been reading along but just got caught up enought to respond.
> 
> As far as the BOM being complete - what is written is correct - because it has only been translated once - and it was translated by the power of God.
> 
> ...



Would you say then that the BOM is perfect and without error?


----------



## funandgun (Dec 13, 2007)

You say that one must be baptized but yet the thief on the cross that Jesus said would be with him in paradise that very day was not baptized.  Please explain.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> Would you say then that the BOM is perfect and without error?



It is said that the Book of Mormon is probably the most accurate of any book, since it was translated not by man's wisdom, but purely by God's power.  Joseph Smith dictated, while a scribe wrote.  Man was involved to that extent, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it is perfect.

And I know there were puncutation and such changes made later on to improve the reading.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

funandgun said:


> You say that one must be baptized but yet the thief on the cross that Jesus said would be with him in paradise that very day was not baptized.  Please explain.



We don't know if the thief had been baptized or not.  We can assume he had not been, and in the Mormon view, it doesn't really matter, as far as the answer to your question is concerned.

"Paradise" is not heaven, in our view, but a term used to describe the place righteous souls wait between death and the final judgment and resurrection.

Its counterpart -- "prison" -- is the place Peter was referring to in 1 Peter, where he says Christ went to preach to "the spirits in prison" who had been disobedient in the days of Noah,

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 
  20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 13, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Joseph was confused about what church to join - there were several churches in the area he lived and all of them proclaimed they had the truth - in a nut shell - he went into the woods to pray about this matter and God and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him none of the other churches had the FULL truth - so he didn't join any of them - several days later an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where he would find the Gold Plates that the BOM was written on. He found the plates and over several months was able to translate them into english through the power of God - as long as he was worthy the Spirit of the Lord would help him translate. No magic hat tricks



I aint touching this.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> The only group that has the authority from God -- yes.
> 
> It doesn't mean that Mormons are necessarily more righteous than any one else.  Just that they have been given the keys.  That the full gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored, complete with the authority, through Joseph Smith.
> 
> It all comes down to that question.   Was Joseph Smith really a prophet of God?



Im sorry hawglips, the keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter, not Joseph Smith, and our access is through Jesus, not Joseph. Sorry, not trying to be mean, but its a false gospel and teaches different than what the apostles taught and you can see what that means in Galations 1 vs 8 and 9.

Yall have fun with this, I see enough in the quote to know its a fairy tale.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> ****ation is mentioned so mormon's believe in a ****?



Yes.

Mormons believe that once a person dies, their spirit goes to a "spirit world" which is divided into two parts -- "prison" and "paradise."

There the gospel of Christ is preached to those that didn't have a chance to hear it on earth, and so everybody will get a chance to accept or reject it.

Then comes resurrection and judgment, and from there, the wicked will be assigned to ************.  We don't believe that ************ is a permanent situation, but all who did not benefit by Christ's atonement due to a lack of repentence, etc, will have to suffer for their sins there.

We believe that after judgment (where we are judged according to our deeds on earth), we will go to one of three different kingdoms ("in my Father's house there are many mansions); referred to as the telestial, terrestrial and celestial.   All are considered to be kingdoms of "glory"  -- compared to the glory of the stars, the moon and the sun -- with the highest being the celestial, where we can dwell with God.  And within the celestial, there will be divisions also, with only those who are exalted being in the highest.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Im sorry hawglips, the keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter, not Joseph Smith, and our access is through Jesus, not Joseph. Sorry, not trying to be mean, but its a false gospel and teaches different than what the apostles taught and you can see what that means in Galations 1 vs 8 and 9.



I am not sure what you mean by "access is through Jesus, not Joseph."  

Access isn't through Moses, or Noah, or Joshua, or Isaiah or Jeremiah, or Peter, or Joseph Smith, or the pope, or anyone else -- but Jesus Christ. 

So, you evidently have a false notion of the Mormon religion.  

Let me know if you have a question you want to ask in order to clear up your misconceptions.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

I'd like to know who the Lamanites are according to the Mormons.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

SBG said:


> I'd like to know who the Lamanites are according to the Mormons.



The descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two of the sons of Lehi, who was a descendent of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his brothers.


----------



## SBG (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> The descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two of the sons of Lehi, who was a descendent of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his brothers.



And what were their relevance to the North American habitation?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

They came to the western hemisphere.  Most Book of Mormon scholars think the location was in southern Mexico or central America.


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 13, 2007)

can you answer these links,
www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm

Do you agree with the question and answers on this link.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> can you answer these links,
> www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
> 
> Do you agree with the question and answers on this link.



No.  

I quickly scanned a little ways down the page and saw several distortions put up there in an attempt to mislead others.  I wonder if the guys who did that page consider themselves "Christian"...

Todd, if you've got a specific sincere question, ask away.


----------



## Wild Turkey (Dec 13, 2007)

Whats the basis of a Morman man having sons gives him a step forward toward "heaven" and having daughters has no worth at all. It has been described to me as a point system to heaven based on deeds, sons and other accomplishments.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 13, 2007)

Wild Turkey said:


> Whats the basis of a Morman man having sons gives him a step forward toward "heaven" and having daughters has no worth at all. It has been described to me as a point system to heaven based on deeds, sons and other accomplishments.



I have never heard of either sons being preferred over daughters, or any sort of point system in getting to heaven.  Or anything like that.

The Mormon faith has no sort of beliefs like you describe.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips, I got to give you credit for one thing, you got patience and handle your responses well.


----------



## manley (Dec 13, 2007)

Q:  What do Mormons believe about baptism of/for the dead?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 13, 2007)

WPH44 said:


> ...welcome to another non-fanatical poster...



Non-fanatical?  One of my (Baptist) relatives said I was in a "cult" for my same statement that you quoted.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 13, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Most Book of Mormon scholars think the location was in southern Mexico or central America.



That theory is pretty recent, isn't it?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 13, 2007)

manley said:


> Q:  What do Mormons believe about baptism of/for the dead?




This is an ordinance that takes place in the Temple. We believe that ALL people must be baptised BY PROPER AUTHORITY from God. 

So just say my grandad was never baptised by one that holds the priesthood. After he dies - I can take his name to the Temple and be baptised by proxy for him. Then we believe that everyone still has their free agency to choose whether they want to accept the baptism or continue on like they were.

Hope this helps you understand better.
Thanks


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 13, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> That theory is pretty recent, isn't it?




Not sure how recent it is.
Hawglips may know?


----------



## manley (Dec 13, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> We believe that ALL people must be baptised BY PROPER AUTHORITY from God.


Thanks for the answer, AB.
So, what about the thief on the cross?
Thanks, 
sm


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 13, 2007)

manley said:


> Thanks for the answer, AB.
> So, what about the thief on the cross?
> Thanks,
> sm



The Lord told him he would join him in Paradise - Mormons don't believe this is Heaven - We believe this is the place all good spirits go when they die - all wicked spirits go to spirit prison until judgment day. After the judgment is when either you will go to Heaven or outer darkness (************). So while in Paradise everyone there will be able to hear the word of God taught by teachers there. 

This in a nut shell is what we believe.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> That theory is pretty recent, isn't it?



I know that, for as long as I can remember, that's the way its been.  Back in the early 80s when I was a missionary, we used to have a filmstrip we'd show that indicated that.   

There are even travel agencies today that offer "Book of Mormon Tours."   They think they know where most of 1000 year history took place.  I take it with a grain of salt though.

In the early years they assumed all the Indians were descendants of the Lamanites, but that gradually fizzled out over time as more scholarship etc was done on it.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

manley said:


> Q:  What do Mormons believe about baptism of/for the dead?



As has been indicated, we believe that baptism is necesary.  We also believe that everybody will have the chance to accept or reject the gospel of Christ.  So, all those that did not have the chance to accept it in their time on earth, will get the chance after death, prior to the resurrection.  

We believe that the "prison" Peter indicates that Jesus preached in, is the place where they have the chance to hear and accept or reject the gospel.

As Paul hints at in 1 Cor. 15: 29 (Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?), baptism for the dead is therefore necessary in order for those that accept the gospel in the spirit world to be heirs of salvation.

This is done in our temples only.  

So, the opportunity to both accept the gospel of Christ, and receive the necessary ordinances, are made available to all God's children this way.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 14, 2007)

hawglips said:


> In the early years they assumed all the Indians were descendants of the Lamanites, but that gradually fizzled out over time as more scholarship etc was done on it.



This may be a little , but there was REALLY GOOD show on last night on Discovery or Learning Channel (sorry can't remember which) that talked about the "Early Americans."  They took a skeleton found out West (After a long legal battle with Modern day Indians who wanted the remains returned for proper burial), the oldest in the US, and rebuilt it with clay and it did not look like European or Siberian.  They did DNA on it and found it to match to some people that lived in the islands around Japan, and predates American Indians by tens of thousands of years.  They made a deduction saying they probably did not walk, but followed the kelp beds from Japan all the way to California. They thought these were the absolute first people, but then they found that the man had a projectile point in his pelvis, that was of a design used 40,000 years ago.  Sorry, it was a good show on the topic.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

I had seen an ad for the show, and meant to watch it.  But I forgot about it, and missed it.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 14, 2007)

hawglips said:


> I had seen an ad for the show, and meant to watch it.  But I forgot about it, and missed it.



You missed a good one.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

Here's another example of what Mormons put up with day in and day out from ignorant and hateful people.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695235563,00.html


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 14, 2007)

My mother was getting her oil changed at the Nissan place in Macon yesterday when something came on T.V. in the waiting room about Mitt - there were two other ladies in there and one said " did ya'll know that Mormons believe that God came down and had sex with Mary to conceive baby Jesus?" 
Mama told me she couldn't have made here any madder if she had come over and slapped her face. Mama said she had her arm up at the time holding a book and she said she SLAMMED her arm and book down and said "NO MAM they don't" - boy that lady looked at my mother like - oh no I have said something that I can't back up! Mama told her she had been a member for 35 yrs and had never heard that! Boy that lady got her stuff and go outta there! 
Mama said she was so mad she was trembling all over - but I prolly would have been the same way - prolly would have lost the spirit myself

The other lady in there said that same lady also told her that Arnold S. (CA governor) just signed a bill into affect saying kids in CA couldn't call there parents "mom" or "dad" anymore

Folks this is how rumors get started!


----------



## SBG (Dec 14, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Folks this is how rumors get started!



That lady was wrong speaking out like that in public without regard to who might be offended by her remarks; however, and not to defend the lady's rudeness, the LDS have no one to blame but themselves for this widely held belief.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

SBG said:


> That lady was wrong speaking out like that in public without regard to who might be offended by her remarks; however, and not to defend the lady's rudeness, the LDS have no one to blame but themselves for this widely held belief.



Its amazing how many "Christians," including preachers over the pulpit, who actually intentionally set out to pass along harmful distortions about the church without any effort to find out what is true and what is not.   

That leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that those who do that are not blameless.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 14, 2007)

ALLBEEF said:


> Mama said she had her arm up at the time holding a book and she said she SLAMMED her arm and book down and said "NO MAM they don't" - boy that lady looked at my mother like - oh no I have said something that I can't back up! Mama told her she had been a member for 35 yrs and had never heard that! Boy that lady got her stuff and go outta there!



LOL!!!!  Good for your Mother!

A little calling of the bluff from time to time keeps folks a little more honest.   I bet that lady won't be so quick to trash talk Mormons next time!


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 14, 2007)

SBG said:


> , the LDS have no one to blame but themselves for this widely held belief.




HOW so?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 14, 2007)

Brigham Young started that vicious rumor.  Journal of Discourses, 8:115.

All of us took "it was the result of natural action" and all that talk of physical flesh and blood to mean, well, what the lady at the oil change place said.

Then Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle McConkie) further confused the issue when he wrote in Mormon Doctrine that God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, and that Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.—page 742 

Maybe us non-Mormons would be less confused about Mormon positions if these people would be more careful about what they write.

I do not even want to get into Jesus being our "elder brother" on the planet kolob.  I am sure I am confusing that, too, but, again, these people just were not careful about what they wrote, so it is easy for us to get confused.


I got _really_ confused about Lucifer being Jesus's brother, too.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 14, 2007)

Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. Bruce R. McConkie (again), Mormon Doctrine, p. 546-547


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 14, 2007)

The flesh body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158


----------



## hawglips (Dec 16, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> I got _really_ confused about Lucifer being Jesus's brother, too.



Since this particular attack by Huckabee has made headlines everywhere, this would be interesting to discuss.

Malum, what is your belief about Lucifer's origins?  

And what is your belief about your own origins?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 16, 2007)

The scriptural reference to Jesus as "the only begotten Son" of God is an interesting term.  

We commonly refer to God as "Heavenly Father," but yet only Jesus was actually begotten of Him.  

The scriptures inform us that Mary conceived "of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1: 20 and Alma 7:10)  How the Holy Ghost accomplished this is not indicated, and doesn't matter to me personally.  Anyone can speculate I guess.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 16, 2007)

I do have a question or two. Heard about it this morning

1. Is it true that Mormons believe that the devil and Jesus
     are brothers?

2. If true, what are the Mormons using to back this               teaching up?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 17, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> I do have a question or two. Heard about it this morning
> 
> 1. Is it true that Mormons believe that the devil and Jesus
> are brothers?
> ...



No.  Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father.   There are no others.

Mormons also believe that we all, including Jesus, lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father prior to coming to earth, and he is the father of our spirits.  And that Lucifer and those that followed him were among those spirit children.  Lucifer and his followers was cast down never to experience mortality due to their rebellion(Isaiah 14: 12-15 and Doctrine & Covenants 76:  26-27).


----------



## hevishot (Dec 17, 2007)

could you shed some light on the whole notion of the "holy underwear"? thanks


----------



## hawglips (Dec 17, 2007)

hevishot said:


> could you shed some light on the whole notion of the "holy underwear"? thanks



When a devout Mormon enters into the holy temple for the first time, he will from then on wear undergarments that remind him of the covenants that he's made with God.  

Like the ancient temple in Israel, and Moses' tabernacle, there is lots of symbolism that directs a worshipper's mind towards Christ and the need to be true to Him at all times.

Not all Mormons ever worship in the temple (there are hundreds of them, including one in Atlanta GA, Orlando FL, Columbia NC, Raleigh NC, etc) and one must get a "recommend" that allows him to enter the temple.  The recommend is only given out by eccliasiastical leaders after a short series of worthiness interviews to make sure one is vibrant in their testimony of Jesus and His gospel, and doing one's best to obey God's commandments.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 18, 2007)

This is in the news today:

21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith
Tuesday , December 18, 2007

Mitt Romney’s run for president has put his Mormon faith in the spotlight, but the religion remains a mystery to most.

FOXNews.com compiled a list of 21 questions representing some widely held beliefs and misconceptions about Mormonism and posed them to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Church objected to answering some of the questions on the grounds that they misrepresent the basic tenets of the Mormon religion.

"Many of these questions are typically found on anti-Mormon blogs or Web sites which aim to misrepresent or distort Mormon doctrines," the Church said in a statement. "Several of these questions do not represent ... any serious attempt to depict the core values and beliefs of its members."

Here are the questions and how the Church responded:

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like 'cult.' Famed scholar of religion Martin Marty has said a cult means a church you don't personally happen to like. We don't believe any organization should be subjected to a label that has come to be as pejorative as that one.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

Q: Does the Church believe in the divinity of Jesus?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

Q: Does the Church believe that God is a physical being?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

Q: If so, does the Church believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob?

A: 'Kolob' is a term found in ancient records translated by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of Kolob nor did he assign the idea particular significance in relation to the Church’s core doctrines.

Q: Where is the planet Kolob? What significance does the planet have to Mormons?

A: 'Kolob' is a term found in ancient records translated by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of Kolob nor did he assign the idea particular significance in relation to the Church’s core doctrines.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe Jesus appeared in North America after his crucifixion and resurrection?

A: The appearance of Jesus in the Western Hemisphere shortly after his resurrection is described in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that when Christ told his disciples in the Bible He had other 'sheep' who should receive his message he was referring to those people in the Western Hemisphere.

Q: If so, when did this happen? And under what circumstances?

A: The appearance of Jesus in the Western Hemisphere shortly after his resurrection is described in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that when Christ told his disciples in the Bible He had other 'sheep' who should receive his message he was referring to those people in the Western Hemisphere.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become "gods and goddesses" after death?

A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women can only gain access to heaven with a special pass or codewords?

A: No.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?

A: Absolutely not. Mormons believe that women and men are complete equals before God and in relation to the blessings available in the Church.

Q: Is there such a thing as Mormon "underwear"? if so, are all Mormons required to wear it? What does it symbolize?

A: Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.

Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?

A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

Q: What are or were the "Golden Plates"?

A: The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from records made on plates of gold, similar to metal plates that have been found in other ancient cultures. It contained a history of peoples in the Western Hemisphere including an appearance by the Savior to them. As such, the Book of Mormon is considered a second testimony of Jesus Christ.

Q: Are consumption of alcohol and tobacco prohibited or simply discouraged?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

Q: Does the Church also ban the consumption of "hot drinks"? And does that apply specifically to caffeinated drinks?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

Q: Why do Mormons go from door to door?

A: Christ admonished his disciples to take the gospel to the world. The Church follows that admonition and sends missionaries throughout the world.

Q: What do the Mormons believe about the family?

A: Mormons believe that the family is the foundation for this life and the life to come.

Q: Can someone who may never marry in life have eternal marriage?

A: God will not withhold blessings from any of his children who may not have the opportunity to marry in this life.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 19, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> The flesh body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158



By the way, I meant to mention this earlier, but "The Seer" was disavowed by the Church's leadership soon after it was published way back in the day.  It's never been doctrine or even acceptable speculation.

That anti-Mormons conveniently forget to mention this little fact is just par for the course.

One other thing that may help sincere people wade through the endless barrage of anti-Mormon quotes etc, is to understand that Mormons are not scriptural or prophetic inerrantists.  We are not troubled if the opinion of a church leader turns out to be incorrect, eg. Peter, etc.  The Lord always corrects things via revelation in his own due time as the need arises.


----------



## 98RIDE (Dec 19, 2007)

*Christmas*



hawglips said:


> We do celebrate Dec. 25th as Christmas.   We love celebrating Christmas just like anybody else.  I've got an 8 foot Christmas tree up at my house, with lots of lights, and presents, and Christmas music, and egg nog (non-alcoholic) and misletoe, etc.  At my house, we read the Biblical story of Christ's birth, and I get my kids to dress up and play the parts of Mary, Joseph, shephards, wise men, etc.  It's my favorit time of year!
> 
> At church, we have nice Christmas programs, re-tell the story of Christ's birth, and dwell on his birth just like everybody else this time of year.
> 
> But we don't think He was actually born on that day.  The Christmas holiday, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong since this is not an LDS belief, came out of the pagan winter solstice holiday or something like that, I believe.




Someone may have already chimed in on this, and if so, I apologize. 
I am a born again christian who happens to attend the Baptist church. You are correct in that we ( christians ) do not know the exact day of Jesus' birth. Because of the mention of the animals present at the manger,  some Theologians believe that his birth was most likely in a warmer month of the year. Regardless, we needed a day to celebrate, and December 25 was chosen, because it was/is a Pagan holiday, and it was intended to cover or off set that holiday. Some unbelievers or skeptics have argued the case with me saying that the Christmas season is not the celebration of Jesus' birth, because of the fact that the Bible does not reveal his birth date. 
I enjoy the season, but Praise his birth and am thankful for his birth on a daily bases.
Hope I made sense.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 19, 2007)

98RIDE said:


> Someone may have already chimed in on this, and if so, I apologize.
> I am a born again christian who happens to attend the Baptist church. You are correct in that we ( christians ) do not know the exact day of Jesus' birth. Because of the mention of the animals present at the manger,  some Theologians believe that his birth was most likely in a warmer month of the year. Regardless, we needed a day to celebrate, and December 25 was chosen, because it was/is a Pagan holiday, and it was intended to cover or off set that holiday. Some unbelievers or skeptics have argued the case with me saying that the Christmas season is not the celebration of Jesus' birth, because of the fact that the Bible does not reveal his birth date.
> I enjoy the season, but Praise his birth and am thankful for his birth on a daily bases.
> Hope I made sense.



Yes, and well said.


----------



## SBG (Dec 19, 2007)

98RIDE said:


> Someone may have already chimed in on this, and if so, I apologize.
> I am a born again christian who happens to attend the Baptist church. You are correct in that we ( christians ) do not know the exact day of Jesus' birth. Because of the mention of the animals present at the manger,  some Theologians believe that his birth was most likely in a warmer month of the year. Regardless, we needed a day to celebrate, and December 25 was chosen, because it was/is a Pagan holiday, and it was intended to cover or off set that holiday. Some unbelievers or skeptics have argued the case with me saying that the Christmas season is not the celebration of Jesus' birth, because of the fact that the Bible does not reveal his birth date.
> I enjoy the season, but Praise his birth and am thankful for his birth on a daily bases.
> Hope I made sense.



Amen!


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 19, 2007)

Okay I got a question.  I have heard that there is a ritual or something of that nature that consists of an individual getting butt naked and then having a bunch of people lay hands all over that individual.  Is there any truth to this at all?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Dec 19, 2007)

Nope - you are always fully clothed.










FishFanatic said:


> Okay I got a question.  I have heard that there is a ritual or something of that nature that consists of an individual getting butt naked and then having a bunch of people lay hands all over that individual.  Is there any truth to this at all?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 19, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Okay I got a question.  I have heard that there is a ritual or something of that nature that consists of an individual getting butt naked and then having a bunch of people lay hands all over that individual.  Is there any truth to this at all?



None at all.

Neither someone being butt naked, nor a bunch of people laying hands all over someone.


----------



## carl fountain (Dec 19, 2007)

hawglips,please excuse the intrusion,but i need some help and have been unable to open or start my own thread.1st, i'm due to have some surgery 2days after christmas outpatient stuff.supposedly minor,but still bothersome considering my past record.I've had "msra"staph infection 2x's in past 5yr's.having a large mass removed from my right pec.I believe i understand what a woman feels.2ndly and most important,my wife's daughter(my step daughter)is 23yrs old and is suffering anorexia.she was told to gain weight,not lose.if  she lose's 1lb. she's bound for hospital.we can't get her to eat,the grandparents are hindering,but don't mean too.and to top it off my wife is bi-polar II.please everyone pray for both,i'm at a loss!!wife is depressed,crys at a look,despodent..help!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 20, 2007)

carl fountain said:


> hawglips,please excuse the intrusion,but i need some help and have been unable to open or start my own thread.1st, i'm due to have some surgery 2days after christmas outpatient stuff.supposedly minor,but still bothersome considering my past record.I've had "msra"staph infection 2x's in past 5yr's.having a large mass removed from my right pec.I believe i understand what a woman feels.2ndly and most important,my wife's daughter(my step daughter)is 23yrs old and is suffering anorexia.she was told to gain weight,not lose.if  she lose's 1lb. she's bound for hospital.we can't get her to eat,the grandparents are hindering,but don't mean too.and to top it off my wife is bi-polar II.please everyone pray for both,i'm at a loss!!wife is depressed,crys at a look,despodent..help!




Is this a joke or are you serious?


----------



## hawglips (Dec 20, 2007)

Carl, prayers on the way...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 26, 2007)

Here's a look at Mormons' belief regarding sexual sin:



Live the Law of Chastity

The power of procreation is a beautiful and sacred part of God’s plan for His children.  They are an expression of love within marriage and allow husband and wife to participate in the creation of life.  God has commanded that the sacred power and privilege of sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married.  This commandment is referred to as the law of chastity, and keeping it brings peace, self-respect, and strength from self-control.  

God delights in chastity and hates sexual sin.  Chastity includes strict abstinence from sexual relations before marriage and complete fidelity and loyalty to one’s spouse after marriage. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows.  As you obey the law of chastity, you will enjoy more fully the influence of the Holy Ghost in your life.  Those who break this law are subject to a lasting sense of shame and guilt that burdens their lives, however, through sincere repentance and application of the Atonement, they can find forgiveness which brings a peace of conscience and a fulness of Joy (Mosiah 4:3). 

Chastity requires faithfulness in thought and action.  You are to keep your thoughts clean and be modest in your dress, speech, and actions ( Matthew 5:27–28) .  You must avoid pornography in any form and treat the God-given procreative power and your body as sacred gifts.  

You are not to participate in abortions or homosexual or lesbian relations.  Men and women who are living together but are not married may not be baptized without first getting married or separated.  Those who are married to more than one person at a time may not be baptized. 

God wants you to follow His plan of reserving intimacy for marriage to help you and your family find happiness, deepen marital love, and protect your family (“ The Family: A Proclamation to the World”) .


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

hawglips said:


> None at all.
> 
> Neither someone being butt naked, nor a bunch of people laying hands all over someone.




Now hawglips, that is not exactly true.  I'm sure the poster is referring to the initiatory work and the washing and anointing, prior to its recent changing.  And if you have been in the church for as long as you said you have been, you know exactly what is being referred to, and you know that there is some truth to it.

To answer the question, prior to the change in initiatories, the person having the work done would strip naked, and put on a "shield" (picture a sheet-like cloth with a hole in the middle, worn like a poncho).  So, cloth front and back, open on the sides.  The temple worker (one, not a bunch)  performing the Washings and Anointings touches the partron's various naked body parts as they are mentioned in a special blessing s/he recites.


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

> How did he convert these over to english I heard one story that he looked into a special hat.





hawglips said:


> Joseph Smith was basically instructed (by the last author of the record) to retrieve a record written on gold plates and that he was to translate them by the gift and power of God, including "interpreters" that were with the plate, which he calle the "urim and thummim" as per those that Aaron placed in the ephod he wore when officiating in the holy place and holy of holies in the tabernacle.
> 
> Here's a fairly accurate description.
> 
> http://www.mormonwiki.com/Urim_and_Thummim




There is more to it than that, hawglips, and the Peep Stone in the hat is true.



> Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)



There are quite a few accounts of the stone in the hat.  This is probably the most well known.


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

ALLBEEF said:


> No magic hat tricks



See the prior post.


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Randy View Post
> Do mormons still believe it is acceptable to have more than one wife?






hawglips said:


> No.



This is misleading and not entirely correct.

To understand, the readers will need some more info. on mormon marriages.  In mormonism, there are are, for all practical purposes, two "marriages."  The temple sealing and the civil marriage.  In the United States, the temple sealing suffices for the civil marriage, but in many (most?) countries around the world, a mormon temple marriage is not recognized as a civil marriage, and the mormon couple must be married in a seperate civil ceremony.

In mormonism, the temple sealing is key.  It is what allows for exaltation.

Now to the question.  Is it acceptable to have more than one wife?  I will present some facts, and let the readers come to their own conclusions.

1) mormon men can be sealed (remember, that is the primary mormon marriage) to more than one woman.  While the most common scenario is to be sealed to another woman after the current wife dies, this is not required.

2) mormon men can CURRENTLY be sealed to more than one LIVING woman.  The only caveat is that he may only engage in sex with the woman that he is currently civilly married to.  This doesn't happen all the time, but it is not terribly uncommon.





_OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1_  snip. . .

While Official declaration #1 officially ended polygamy, it was practiced, and sanctioned by church leadership, well into the 20th century.  This is acknowledged by the church, though it isn't commonly discussed.  The Reed Smoot case can provide background if anyone is interested.


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

> Originally Posted by SBG
> 
> Does the Mormon church teach that God and Mary physically joined in a sex act and that the result thereof was the conception of Jesus?





ALLBEEF said:


> NO!



There are lots of references to this.  Here is one.



> The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
> was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
> of his father, as we were of our fathers. (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).


----------



## TaxPhd (Jan 10, 2008)

hawglips said:


> It is said that the Book of Mormon is probably the most accurate of any book, since it was translated not by man's wisdom, but purely by God's power.  Joseph Smith dictated, while a scribe wrote.  Man was involved to that extent, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it is perfect.
> 
> And I know there were puncutation and such changes made later on to improve the reading.



Have there been any non-punctuation changes?  Anything of substance?  Doctrinal?


----------



## stravis (Jan 16, 2008)

I listened to a lady on the radio last night. Sandy or Sandra something or other I believe was her name. Brigham Young  is her great great grandfather the interviewer said. She told this same story below in answer to a caller's question. She added that originally Joseph's recount of this occurance told that it was two angels that visited him. Later it was Jesus. Then God. Now the story is God AND Jesus. The story changed over time. 

She also mentioned that there is zero evidence to back up the book of mormon. 

I have not studied the mormon faith myself, so I can only go by what I've been told. I do know that science has NEVER disproved the christian faith. They have thought they had, but were later proved wrong. Additionally, science has set out with the sol purpose of DISPROVING the stories of the bible and have never been successful. That is not the case with the book of mormon. 
The bible has never changed it's story either. In fact several early manuscripts of the various books of the bible from shortly after the books were written have been found and each time, they prove that todays various translations of the bible are incredibly accurate. The book of mormon cannot make the same claims from what I understand.



ALLBEEF said:


> Joseph was confused about what church to join - there were several churches in the area he lived and all of them proclaimed they had the truth - in a nut shell - he went into the woods to pray about this matter and God and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him none of the other churches had the FULL truth - so he didn't join any of them - several days later an angel appeared to Joseph and told him where he would find the Gold Plates that the BOM was written on. He found the plates and over several months was able to translate them into english through the power of God - as long as he was worthy the Spirit of the Lord would help him translate. No magic hat tricks


----------



## hawglips (Jan 16, 2008)

stravis said:


> I listened to a lady on the radio last night. Sandy or Sandra something or other I believe was her name. Brigham Young  is her great great grandfather the interviewer said. She told this same story below in answer to a caller's question. She added that originally Joseph's recount of this occurance told that it was two angels that visited him. Later it was Jesus. Then God. Now the story is God AND Jesus. The story changed over time.



Sandra Tanner makes a good living distorting Mormonism in an effort to mislead others.  I would suggest a different source if you want accurate information. 

If you want to read the nitty gritty historical details, I'd suggest the book "Rough Stone Rolling."  It's the best non-religious historical account that I've seen.



> She also mentioned that there is zero evidence to back up the book of mormon. I have not studied the mormon faith myself, so I can only go by what I've been told. I do know that science has NEVER disproved the christian faith. They have thought they had, but were later proved wrong. Additionally, science has set out with the sol purpose of DISPROVING the stories of the bible and have never been successful. That is not the case with the book of mormon.



You are incorrect.

Science has neither proved or disproved the Bible or the Book of Mormon.




> The bible has never changed it's story either. In fact several early manuscripts of the various books of the bible from shortly after the books were written have been found and each time, they prove that todays various translations of the bible are incredibly accurate. The book of mormon cannot make the same claims from what I understand.



You understand incorrectly, and for someone who has never studied the Mormon faith it sounds like you're eager to make certain claims about it.

If there is a specific question you have, I'd be glad to answer it as best I can.


----------



## gadeerwoman (Jan 16, 2008)

We can all talk about folks distorting the 'bible' but the fact is that the bible has evolved over time. Sections have been removed, words have been changed. If you go back and research older versions of the bible you will see that different religions have seemed to change it to fit their own leanings. The current versions of the bible retain the true meaning and teachings but it definitely has been 'edited' over time from the very early writings.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 16, 2008)

gadeerwoman said:


> We can all talk about folks distorting the 'bible' but the fact is that the bible has evolved over time. Sections have been removed, words have been changed. If you go back and research older versions of the bible you will see that different religions have seemed to change it to fit their own leanings. The current versions of the bible retain the true meaning and teachings but it definitely has been 'edited' over time from the very early writings.


Very good point.
The King James Bible has three versions.  If you throw in Tyndale's version (Which is nearly identical to KJV) some could say 4 versions.


----------



## stravis (Jan 16, 2008)

Hawglips: Regarding science proving or disproving the bible, see the following links. There are many many more, however I only have a few minutes:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

http://www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm

gadeerwoman: According to this link http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/quest_bible_true.html and many other sources, the bible has NOT changed. 

That link also has some information on the mormon faith.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 16, 2008)

stravis said:


> gadeerwoman: According to this link http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/quest_bible_true.html and many other sources, the bible has NOT changed.



So there is no difference in any version of the Bible?  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## stravis (Jan 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So there is no difference in any version of the Bible?  Is that what you are saying?



Here is an excerpt from the link provided. This is what I believe.

"Another key fact is the manuscript evidence itself. Recognizing that there are no known original manuscripts in existence for the Bible or for any other ancient writing, let's examine the Bible. For the New Testament, there are over 24,000 handwritten copies or portions thereof from antiquity now extant. This is far more than other ancient books. For example, the second most available ancient manuscripts are from Homer's Iliad, for which there are 643 manuscript copies, while most ancient documents have fewer than 25 existing copies.......
*Even more impressive is the degree of textual variance in existing copies. Considering the enormous number of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there are only nominal differences in the various copies. The data for the New Testament is impressive. Only 40 lines, or one fifth of one per cent are in question. This compares to large textual variances in other ancient writings. For example, the New Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than the Iliad, which was also "sacred" and is considered one of the best copied works of antiquity.*
Further support for the Bible comes from the fact that events of the New Testament are supported by writings outside the Bible. Corroboration is available from several secular and Jewish historians of antiquity. (Examples: Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, Lucian, Aristides, Josephus, etc.)....
In addition to its being externally verified, significant further evidence of its reliability is the internally consistent nature of the Bible. It is truly an amazingly consistent document. The messages of approximately 40 different writers of the 66 books of the Bible, written over 1,500 years, in three different languages, all fit together like the pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle. There is one continual theme throughout-God's plan of salvation from sin won for the whole world by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This consistency itself attests to the miracle of this book."

I suggest you read the link if you have the time. It's very informative.


----------



## gadeerwoman (Jan 17, 2008)

As one example, in early versions of the bible there are several references to the family of Jesus...to his having blood brothers and sisters. In the modern bibles any reference to family outside Mary and Joseph are SELDOM (word capitilized since the 'verse' mentioned above is all the same 1 verse..the word seldom was in my original post just not capitilized. I did not say NEVER) found. There are many other such examples..books and verses that are no longer found. Lots of excellent reading out there in the libraries and bookstores by some very respected scholars if you ever truly want to look. Makes the bible no less what it was intended to be but our modern day versions are certainly not word for word as the earliest written accounts.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 17, 2008)

stravis said:


> Here is an excerpt from the link provided. This is what I believe.
> 
> "Another key fact is the manuscript evidence itself. Recognizing that there are no known original manuscripts in existence for the Bible or for any other ancient writing, let's examine the Bible. For the New Testament, there are over 24,000 handwritten copies or portions thereof from antiquity now extant. This is far more than other ancient books. For example, the second most available ancient manuscripts are from Homer's Iliad, for which there are 643 manuscript copies, while most ancient documents have fewer than 25 existing copies.......
> *Even more impressive is the degree of textual variance in existing copies. Considering the enormous number of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there are only nominal differences in the various copies. The data for the New Testament is impressive. Only 40 lines, or one fifth of one per cent are in question. This compares to large textual variances in other ancient writings. For example, the New Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than the Iliad, which was also "sacred" and is considered one of the best copied works of antiquity.*
> ...



I read it.  It is interesting.  I just hear a lot of folks tout the KJV being the "only" correct version, and most of the people saying that don't even know there are 3 (4 really) versions of KJV Bibles


----------



## SBG (Jan 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I read it.  It is interesting.  I just hear a lot of folks tout the KJV being the "only" correct version, and most of the people saying that don't even know there are 3 (4 really) versions of KJV Bibles



There are not 4 versions of the Authorized Version. There has been three revisions. The first revision was to correct typographical and print-set errors. Revision two was to futher correct spelling errors and some phrasing issues. The third was to change the type-set from Gothic to Roman. There has been no significant changes in the KJB, and none that would affect doctrinal positions.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 17, 2008)

SBG said:


> There are not 4 versions of the Authorized Version. There has been three revisions. The first revision was to correct typographical and print-set errors. Revision two was to futher correct spelling errors and some phrasing issues. The third was to change the type-set from Gothic to Roman. There has been no significant changes in the KJB, and none that would affect doctrinal positions.


Glad someone admitted that.  Others have said there have been no changes since 1611, which is false.  They did make revisions, mostly phrasing and spelling.  Where does the NKJV stand with you that was released in the 80's?


----------



## SBG (Jan 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Where does the NKJV stand with you that was released in the 80's?




Two totally different Bibles. 

The NKJV uses two different text sources, where the KJV uses one.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 17, 2008)

SBG said:


> Two totally different Bibles.
> 
> The NKJV uses two different text sources, where the KJV uses one.



Was curious about that.  Thanks for the info.


----------



## stravis (Jan 17, 2008)

gadeerwoman said:


> As one example, in early versions of the bible there are several references to the family of Jesus...to his having blood brothers and sisters. In the modern bibles any reference to family outside Mary and Joseph are seldom found. There are many other such examples..books and verses that are no longer found. Lots of excellent reading out there in the libraries and bookstores by some very respected scholars if you ever truly want to look. Makes the bible no less what it was intended to be but our modern day versions are certainly not word for word as the earliest written accounts.



Not true. In fact I was reading in Mark this morning. (perhaps God led me to it because he knew I'd come across this post today?)

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" So they took offense at him.

King James Bible
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

American Standard Version
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

Bible in Basic English
Is not this the woodworker, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were bitter against him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

Darby Bible Translation
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

English Revised Version
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

Tyndale New Testament
Is not this that carpenter Mary's son, the brother of Iames, and Ioses and Iuda and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were hurt by the reason of him.

Weymouth New Testament
Is not this the carpenter, Mary's son, the brother of James and Joses, Jude and Simon? And do not his sisters live here among us?" So they turned angrily away.

Webster's Bible Translation
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

World English Bible
Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judah, and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" They were offended at him.

Young's Literal Translation
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?' -- and they were being stumbled at him.

All are modern translations. All reference Jesus' family members outside Mary and Joseph. Additionally, I nor the link I provided claimed the bibles are word for word the same. There is no possible way they could be or there wouldn't be different translations. My and the link provided point is that the message has NOT changed and todays versions are incredibly accurate and similar to very early versions of the same books.


----------



## jcarter (Jan 17, 2008)

are the indians of north and central america the lost decendants of the tribe from israel whom were the original caretakers of the gold tablets ?

if a protestant were to marry a mormon would they be allowed to reside together in eternity ?

what are the teachings regarding marrying outside of the mormon religion ?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jan 17, 2008)

> Mormons believe that we can become heirs of God, and become exalted and one day have some degree of god-like powers of creation.
> 
> Its also believed to some degree that as man is God once was. This is from a statement a prophet of the church made once.



Please provide Biblical Scripture that support these statements.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jan 17, 2008)

1.  Does the LDS church believe that only the LDS church is correct in their teachings?

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270.)

(2) Does the LDS teach that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife?  If so, how does the LDS reconcile this with Biblical Scripture?

"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed," (Mal. 3:6). 
"Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God," (Psalm 90:2).


----------



## hawglips (Jan 18, 2008)

jcarter said:


> are the indians of north and central america the lost decendants of the tribe from israel whom were the original caretakers of the gold tablets ?



Early in the church many believed that all the native inhabitants in the western hemisphere were descendants of the remnants of that civilization.  However, that is no longer the case, as Book of Mormon scholarship has progressed.

The DNA studies that have been accomplished in recent years have shown certain chromosome markers indicate an Asian heritage showing up in virtually all of today's natives.   A genetic marker has been found among a few groups that show Mediterranean-European and Near East heritage, particularly among some groups near the region where the gold plates were given to Joseph Smith.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)  But they don't prove or disprove anything, IMO.



jcarter said:


> if a protestant were to marry a mormon would they be allowed to reside together in eternity ?



The only way to reside together as husband and wife in eternity would be to be sealed in the temple, and by the Holy Spirit.  

So, by definition, those that are not sealed in the temple, and those that were sealed but did not walk the straight and narrow after that, will miss out on that.



jcarter said:


> what are the teachings regarding marrying outside of the mormon religion ?



My daughter is marrying a Catholic this coming April.  They will be married in a regular church, till death do they part. 

She was raised knowing the ramifications of not marrying in the temple, but has not found a Mormon that suits her tastes.   I'm hoping that one day her and her husband will get sealed in the temple.  But its not an easy thing to qualify for.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 18, 2008)

David Mills said:


> Please provide Biblical Scripture that support these statements.



 Romans 8: 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 
  17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

But keep in mind that these beliefs are based primarily on modern revelation from God, not on ancient scriptures, as neither the Bible nor Book of Mormon talks about it in any detail.

It really comes down to the question of whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, or not.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 18, 2008)

David Mills said:


> 1.  Does the LDS church believe that only the LDS church is correct in their teachings?



The LDS church believes that the authority to act in God's name on the earth, i.e., the priesthood with its apostles, etc were lost from the earth not long after the death of the apostles Jesus set up while on earth.

Thus, there was a need for a restoration of that priesthood and authority at some point.  We believe that that restoration was accomplished through an unlearned farm boy from upstate New York back in the first half of the 19th century.

With that restoration there has been an opening of the heavens once again to revelation from God through a prophet.   So, many things have been clarified and established, particularly those things that are needful in our day and time.   Therefore, unlike a church that only has their interpretation of the Bible as their guide and authority, the LDS church has been blessed with continuing revelation, as was enjoyed by any people of any time who had that priesthood and revelation in their midst.

I think a case in point is the discussions we've had here on salvation.  Even such a fundamental question, as what is necessary for salvation, is tossed around and argued about among believers because of the problem of only having someone's interpretation of the Bible to go on.  

That problem is settled if God gives you the answer directly.



David Mills said:


> (2) Does the LDS teach that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife?  If so, how does the LDS reconcile this with Biblical Scripture?



Not exactly.

Other than that God the Father underwent a mortal experience like Christ did, and that Jesus was God before He underwent His mortal experience (and the Father may have been too), we simply don't know.

But given the doctrine of exaltation, one can speculate, as long as we understand that its really just speculation.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jan 18, 2008)

hawglips, with all due respect, you answers raise more questions.  I certainly appreciate your candor though I do not believe in what the LDS teaches.

Let me take this approach and don't take this the wrong way.  Much of what you stated is based on a belief that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that's a huge "leap of faith" considering that what is taught (by LDS) is radically different than traditional Christianity.  So, my question is this; why should one believe that Joseph Smith is right and everyone else is wrong?


----------



## Doyle (Jan 18, 2008)

> Early in the church many believed that all the native inhabitants in the western hemisphere were descendants of the remnants of that civilization. However, that is no longer the case, as Book of Mormon scholarship has progressed.



Don't water it down.   It wasn't just believed by many - it was actively taught.    Prior to the DNA tests there wasn't a single general conference that didn't refer to native americans as "lamanites".   The writings of many church presidents and other general authorities specifically state that they are one in the same.   Funny how you don't hear any of that now.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 18, 2008)

Doyle said:


> Don't water it down.   It wasn't just believed by many - it was actively taught.    Prior to the DNA tests there wasn't a single general conference that didn't refer to native americans as "lamanites".   The writings of many church presidents and other general authorities specifically state that they are one in the same.   Funny how you don't hear any of that now.



I don't know anything about what constitutes "prior to the DNA tests," as I can only speak from my own experience as a member since 1978.

But I do know that way before I ever heard of DNA tests, that some folks became dissatisfied with the church because the church wasn't stressing Lamanites=native Americans like in the old days.  So, I can only surmise that DNA tests are irrelevant to that, while scholarship was.


----------



## Doyle (Jan 18, 2008)

> So, I can only surmise that DNA tests are irrelevant to that, while scholarship was


You've just admitted that scholarship (i.e. human learning) can change official doctrine.   Not a good way to win converts.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 25, 2008)

Doyle said:


> You've just admitted that scholarship (i.e. human learning) can change official doctrine.   Not a good way to win converts.



Doctrine?  Who said it was ever official doctrine?


----------



## PWalls (Jan 25, 2008)

hawglips said:


> The only way to reside together as husband and wife in eternity would be to be sealed in the temple, and by the Holy Spirit.



Mark 12:25

Pharisees asked Jesus about the widow with seven husbands trying to figure out who she would be married to in Heaven. Jesus told them there is no marriage in Heaven. We will all be like Angels. No marriage. All we will do and want to do is worship God.


----------



## Doyle (Jan 25, 2008)

hawglips said:


> Doctrine?  Who said it was ever official doctrine?



If it is delivered in an address in General Conference, written in the Priesthood Manual, or written in the Sunday School Manual, then it is considered official doctrine.    That is direct from the first presidency (published in an Ensign article several years back).


----------



## hawglips (Jan 28, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Mark 12:25
> 
> Pharisees asked Jesus about the widow with seven husbands trying to figure out who she would be married to in Heaven. Jesus told them there is no marriage in Heaven. We will all be like Angels. No marriage. All we will do and want to do is worship God.



Christ said they will neither marry, nor be given in marraige, in heaven.  He did not say, no one will live as husband and wife in heaven.

The doctrine of eternal marraige is uniquely Mormon, based on modern revelation.  This doctrine is not found in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon -- but through a modern prophet.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 28, 2008)

Doyle said:


> If it is delivered in an address in General Conference, written in the Priesthood Manual, or written in the Sunday School Manual, then it is considered official doctrine.    That is direct from the first presidency (published in an Ensign article several years back).



This is just not so.  Lots of things have been spoken in General Conference, etc that are nothing more than opinions and speculation.


----------



## PWalls (Jan 28, 2008)

hawglips said:


> Christ said they will neither marry, nor be given in marraige, in heaven.  He did not say, no one will live as husband and wife in heaven.
> 
> The doctrine of eternal marraige is uniquely Mormon, based on modern revelation.  This doctrine is not found in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon -- but through a modern prophet.



Thanks for the answer.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 28, 2008)

duckxtrmn8tr said:


> What are the Mormon beliefs dealing with the Rapture and the Great Tribulation? Also what are their beliefs relating to the Antichrist? It seems to me that alot of the Book of Mormon contradicts alot of info in Revelations. Not trying to stir the pot. I have a co-worker that is a Mormon and I am just curious.



I don't believe the Book of Mormon even mentions what is presented in Revelations, except to indicate that John was the one to make that record.  

The "Great Tribulation" and the "Rapture" and the "AntiChrist" (as described in Revelations) are never mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon, and I am unaware of anything in Mormon beliefs that contradict anything regarding the rapture or great tribulation.  There are specific characters encountered in the Book of Mormon who were described as "anti-Christ," but these are not the Antichrist referred to in Revelations.

Perhaps you could bring up something specific, and I'll do my best to try to address it.

Terminology is part of the problem I think.


----------



## Doyle (Jan 28, 2008)

hawglips said:


> This is just not so.  Lots of things have been spoken in General Conference, etc that are nothing more than opinions and speculation.



That's part of the church's doublespeak.  If it is something they want you to believe it's "The prophet will never lead you astray".   However, if his statements suddenly become out of favor decades later it's "oh, he was speaking as a man and not a prophet".   

I taught this stuff the entire first part of my life.   3 years of seminary, 2 year mission (I was mission champion basher), 4 years of religion classes at BYU, temple marriage, half a dozen years teaching Gospel Doctrine class, etc.    Then I started studying on my own and found what the church deliberately keeps from its members.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 28, 2008)

Doyle said:


> That's part of the church's doublespeak.  If it is something they want you to believe it's "The prophet will never lead you astray".   However, if his statements suddenly become out of favor decades later it's "oh, he was speaking as a man and not a prophet".
> 
> I taught this stuff the entire first part of my life.   3 years of seminary, 2 year mission (I was mission champion basher), 4 years of religion classes at BYU, temple marriage, half a dozen years teaching Gospel Doctrine class, etc.    Then I started studying on my own and found what the church deliberately keeps from its members.


So you were LDS?


----------



## ALLBEEF (Jan 29, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So you were LDS?




I think he was ex- communicated or something - or someone made him mad - he prolly wanted to be Bishop instead of Primary teacher. -- You don't get this bitter over disbelief of Doctrine. IMO


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 29, 2008)

ALLBEEF said:


> I think he was ex- communicated or something - or someone made him mad - he prolly wanted to be Bishop instead of Primary teacher. -- You don't get this bitter over disbelief of Doctrine. IMO



Interesting...


----------



## Doyle (Jan 29, 2008)

ALLBEEF said:


> I think he was ex- communicated or something - or someone made him mad - he prolly wanted to be Bishop instead of Primary teacher. -- You don't get this bitter over disbelief of Doctrine. IMO



Not even close and I'm not bitter.   The best analagy I can use is that if take a rifle and shoot it into a ship at the waterline, it will leak but it is no more than an anoyance.  It isn't going to make the ship sink.   All the little things about church doctrine that just didn't add up when I was a member were just like those little leaks in the ship - nothing but annoyances that didn't affect my belief.  However, if you keep shooting holes in the ship, eventually there will be enough water comming in that the pumps can't keep up and the ship will sink.   That's what happened when I started doing more serious research.    The ship sank.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Jan 29, 2008)

Doyle said:


> Not even close and I'm not bitter.   The best analagy I can use is that if take a rifle and shoot it into a ship at the waterline, it will leak but it is no more than an anoyance.  It isn't going to make the ship sink.   All the little things about church doctrine that just didn't add up when I was a member were just like those little leaks in the ship - nothing but annoyances that didn't affect my belief.  However, if you keep shooting holes in the ship, eventually there will be enough water comming in that the pumps can't keep up and the ship will sink.   That's what happened when I started doing more serious research.    The ship sank.




I'm just pickin' - Not any of my business why you quit going - or lost your testimony.

The way I look at it is - most Christians believe that if you just believe that Jesus Christ is your personal Savior you are going to Heaven - I most certainly believe that - plus -we do a little more - like trying to be like Christ - the example as he was - living his commandments, constantly repenting for my daily sins, and trying to teach my family to love and serve Christ - I believe if we do these things along a few more ordinances, my family and I will once again live with Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.


----------



## kry226 (Jan 30, 2008)

*...but the Bible says...*

I am a little late on this, but from what I have read of this thread so far, my concern with Mormonism is that our Holy Bible teaches that there is no changing or adding to it.  There are no other Prophets or prophesies to be added to God's Word.  Thus, the Book of Mormon is false (I'm not attacking here), according to the Holy Bible.  If Mormons also believe, as they state, in the Testaments, then how do they explain the acceptance of the Book of Mormon and the prophesies of Joseph Smith?

I cite a few verses below from the Bible:

Revelation 22:18-19:  18  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.  19  And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 

Proverbs 30:6  Do not add to His words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!


----------



## Doyle (Jan 30, 2008)

KRY226 - using that arguement against a Mormon won't get you far.   The reason is that most of the New Testament was written after the book of Revelation.   Revelation just happened to be the last one they stuck in the binder.


----------



## kry226 (Jan 31, 2008)

Doyle said:


> KRY226 - using that arguement against a Mormon won't get you far.   The reason is that most of the New Testament was written after the book of Revelation.   Revelation just happened to be the last one they stuck in the binder.


If this website is true:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

but more specifically this page:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/history1.html

that information is not accurate.  By this Chronology, only 2 John and 3 John were probably written within five years following Revelation, and by the same apostle that wrote Revelation.

So my question still stands.  The Bible still teaches no adding to the Word of God, especially not 300 years later (Golden Plates) or 1,800 years later (Book of Mormon).

Again, I am not attacking, I just want to know the LDS perspective and how they explain this contradiction.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 31, 2008)

Doyle said:


> That's part of the church's doublespeak.  If it is something they want you to believe it's "The prophet will never lead you astray".   However, if his statements suddenly become out of favor decades later it's "oh, he was speaking as a man and not a prophet".
> 
> I taught this stuff the entire first part of my life.   3 years of seminary, 2 year mission (I was mission champion basher), 4 years of religion classes at BYU, temple marriage, half a dozen years teaching Gospel Doctrine class, etc.    Then I started studying on my own and found what the church deliberately keeps from its members.



I'm sorry to hear all this.

I can understand how a guy could consider the "lead you astray" concept to include things that make no difference to our salvation or well-being, but I have never had that perspective.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 31, 2008)

Doyle said:


> KRY226 - using that arguement against a Mormon won't get you far.   The reason is that most of the New Testament was written after the book of Revelation.   Revelation just happened to be the last one they stuck in the binder.



Even John wrote more that ended up going into what became called "The Bible," after he wrote Revelation, most scholars say.


----------



## hawglips (Jan 31, 2008)

kry226 said:


> So my question still stands.  The Bible still teaches no adding to the Word of God, especially not 300 years later (Golden Plates) or 1,800 years later (Book of Mormon).



No, the "Book of Revelation" states that there would be no adding to that book.  

"The Bible" did not exist when those words were written.  And parts of "The Bible" were written AFTER "The Book of Revelation."


----------

